EPA#815-Z-08-002
Wednesday,
July 30,2008
Part m


Environmental

Protection Agency

40 CFR Part 141
Drinking Water: Regulatory Determinations
Regarding Contaminants on the Second
Drinking Water Contaminant Candidate
List; Notice

-------
                     Federal Register/Vol. 73, No. 147/Wednesday,  July 30, 2008/Notices
                                                                       44251
List of Subjects

  Environmental protection, Pesticides
and pests.

  Dated: July 15, 2008.
Lois Rossi,
Director, Registration Division, Office of
Pesticide Programs.
[FR Doc. E8-17236 Filed 7-29-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-S
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OW-2007-0068;FRL-8699-1]

RIN 2040-AE60

Drinking Water: Regulatory
Determinations Regarding
Contaminants on the Second Drinking
Water Contaminant Candidate List

AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: The Safe Drinking Water Act
(SDWA), as amended in 1996, requires
the United States Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) to periodically
publish a list of unregulated
contaminants (known as the
Contaminant Candidate List or CCL) and
determine whether to regulate at least
five contaminants on each list. Today's
action announces the Agency's final
determinations on whether to issue
national primary drinking water
regulations (NPDWRs) for 11
contaminants listed on the second
Contaminant Candidate List (CCL 2).
  On May 1,  2007, EPA published
preliminary regulatory determinations
for 11 of the 51 contaminants listed on
CCL 2 and requested public comment
on the determinations, process,
rationale, and supporting technical
information for each contaminant. The
11 regulatory determination
contaminants are boron; the dacthal
mono- and di-acid degradates; 1,1-
dichloro-2,2-bis(p-
chlorophenyl)ethylene (DDE); 1,3-
dichloropropene; 2,4-dinitrotoluene;
2,6-dinitrotoluene; s-ethyl
dipropylthiocarbamate (EPTC); fonofos;
terbacil; and 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane.
In the May 2007 notice, the Agency
made a preliminary determination that
no regulatory action was appropriate for
any of these 11 contaminants.
  EPA received comments from nine
individuals or organizations on the
preliminary regulatory determinations
for the 11 contaminants and additional
comments for other contaminants on
CCL 2: perchlorate, methyl tertiary butyl
ether (MTBE), metolachlor, and
cyanotoxins. After careful review and
consideration of these comments, the
Agency is making a final determination
that no regulatory action is appropriate
at this time for any of the 11 CCL 2
contaminants for which the Agency
made preliminary regulatory
determinations in the May 2007 notice.
DATES: For purposes of judicial review?,
the regulatory determinations in this
notice are issued as of July 30, 2008, as
provided in 40 CFR 23.7.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a
docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OW-2007-0068. All
documents in the docket are listed on
the http://www.regulations.gov Web
site. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available,
e.g., Confidential Business Information
or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material,
is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy
form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either
electronically through http://
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at
the Water Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West,
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave.,
NW., Washington, DC. The Public
Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to
4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. The telephone
number for the Public Reading Room is
(202) 566-1744, and the telephone
number for the EPA Docket Center is
(202) 566-2426.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Yvette Selby-Mohamadu, Standards and
Risk Management Division, Office of
Ground Water and Drinking Water,
460 7M, Environmental Protection
Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460; telephone
number: (202) 564-5245; e-mail
address: selby-mohamadu.yvette©
epa.gov. For general information contact
the EPA Safe Drinking Water Hotline at
(800) 426-4791, or (703) 412-3330, from
10 a.m. to 4 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday
through Friday, excluding legal
holidays.

Abbreviations and Acronyms
u.g/L—micrograms per liter
ATSDR—Agency for Toxic Substances and
  Disease Registry
AwwaRF—American Water Works
  Association Research Foundation
CCL—Contaminant Candidate List
CCL 1—EPA's First Contaminant Candidate
  List
CCL 2—EPA's Second Contaminant
  Candidate List
1,3-DCP—1,3-dichloropropene
DCPA—dimethyl tetrachloroterephthalate
  (dacthal)
DDE—l,l-dichloro-2,2-bis(p-
  chlorophenyl) ethylene
DDT—l,l,l-trichloro-2,2-bis(p-
  chlorophenyl) ethane
DNT—dinitrotoluene
EPA—United States Environmental
  Protection Agency
EPTC—s-ethyl dipropylthiocarbamate
ESA—ethane sulfonic acid
FR—Federal Register
HRL—health reference level
IRIS—Integrated Risk Information System
kg—kilogram
L—liter
MAC—Mycobacterium avium
MCL—maximum contaminant level
MCLG—maximum contaminant level goal
MRL—minimum or method reporting limit
  (depending on the study or survey cited)
MTBE—methyl tertiary butyl ether
MTP—monomethyl-2,3,5,6-
  tetrachloroterephthalate
NDWAC—National Drinking Water Advisory
  Council
MRS—National Inorganic and Radionuclide
  Survey
NRC—National Research Council
NPDWR—national primary drinking water
  regulation
OA—oxanilic acid
OPP—Office of Pesticide Programs
PWS—public water system
RSC—relative source contribution
SDWA—Safe Drinking Water Act
SOT—Society of Toxicology
TPA—2,3,5,6-tetrachchloroterephthalicacid
TRI—Toxics Release Inventory
TT—treatment technique
UCM—Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring
UCMR 1—First Unregulated Contaminant
  Monitoring Regulation issued after the
  1996 SDWA Amendments
US—United States of America
USGS—United States Geological Survey
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. General Information
  A. Does This Action Impose  Any
    Requirements on My  Public Water
    System?
II. Purpose, Background, and Summary of
    This Action
  A. What Is the Purpose  of This Action?
  B. What Is the Statutory Requirement for
    the Contaminant Candidate List  (CCL)
    and Regulatory Determinations?
  C. What Contaminants Did EPA Consider
    for Regulation?
III. What Approach and Analyses Did EPA
    Use To Make the Regulatory
    Determinations?
  A. Approach
  B. Analyses
IV. Summary of Public Comments and the
    Agency's Responses on the CCL
    Regulatory Determination  Process
  A. Regulatory Determinations for the 11
    Contaminants
  B. Regulatory Determinations Approach
  C. Occurrence and Exposure Evaluation
  D. Comments on Boron, Perchlorate,
    MTBE, Metolachlor, and Cyanobacteria
    and Its Toxins
V. Summary of the Agency's Findings on the
    11 CCL 2 Contaminants
  A. Boron
  B. Dacthal mono- and di-acid degradates

-------
44252
Federal Register/Vol. 73, No. 147/Wednesday, July  30, 2008/Notices
  C. l,l-Dichloro-2,2-bis(p-chlorophenyl)
    ethylene
  D. 1,3-Dichloropropene
  E. 2,4- and 2,6-Dinitrotoluenes
  F. s-Ethyl dipropylthiocarbamate
  G. Fonofos
  H. Terbacil
  I. 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
VI. How Will EPA Address the Data Needs
    of the Remaining CCL 2 Contaminants?
VII. References

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does This Action Impose Any
Requirements on My Public Water
System?

  None of these regulatory
determinations will impose any
requirements on anyone. Instead,  this
action notifies interested parties of
EPA's determinations for 11 CCL 2
contaminants and provides a summary
of the major comments received on the
May 1, 2007, preliminary
determinations (72 FR 24016 (USEPA,
2007a)).

II. Purpose, Background and Summary
of This Action

A. What Is the Purpose of This Action?
  Today's action briefly describes the
statutory requirements for targeting
potential drinking water contaminants
for regulatory development and the
approach EPA used to make regulatory
determinations for 11 CCL 2
contaminants. In addition, today's
action (1) summarizes the public
comments received on EPA's
preliminary determinations and the
Agency's responses to those comments,
(2) presents the Agency's findings and
final regulatory determination for 11
CCL 2 contaminants, and (3) provides
information regarding the other CCL 2
contaminants.

B. What Is the Statutory Requirement for
the Contaminant Candidate List (CCL)
and Regulatory Determinations?
  The specific statutory requirements
for the CCL and regulatory
determinations can be found in SDWA
section  1412(b)(l). The 1996 SDWA
Amendments require EPA to publish the
CCL every five years.  The CCL is a list
of contaminants that are not subject to
any proposed or promulgated national
primary drinking water regulations
(NPDWRs), are known or anticipated to
occur in public water systems (PWSs),
and may require regulation under
SDWA. The 1996 SDWA Amendments
also direct EPA to determine whether to
regulate at least five contaminants from
the CCL every five years. SDWA
requires EPA to publish a Maximum
                   Contaminant Level Goala (MCLG) and
                   promulgate an NPDWR 2 for a
                   contaminant if the Administrator
                   determines that:
                     (a) The contaminant may have an
                   adverse effect on the health of persons;
                     (b) The contaminant is known to
                   occur or there is a substantial likelihood
                   that the contaminant will occur in
                   public water systems with a frequency
                   and at levels of public health concern;
                   and
                     (c) In the sole judgment of the
                   Administrator, regulation of such
                   contaminant presents a meaningful
                   opportunity for health risk reduction for
                   persons served by public water systems.
                     If EPA determines that all three of
                   these statutory criteria are met, it makes
                   a determination that a national primary
                   drinking water regulation is needed. In
                   that case, the Agency has 24 months to
                   publish a proposed MCLG and NPDWR.
                   After the proposal, the Agency has 18
                   months to publish a final MCLG and
                   promulgate a final NPDWR (SDWA
                   section 1412(b)(l)(E)).3

                   C. What Contaminants Did EPA
                   Consider for Regulation?
                     On May 1, 2007 (72 FR 24016
                   (USEPA, 2007a)), EPA published
                   preliminary regulatory determinations
                   for 11 CCL 2 contaminants that have
                   sufficient information to support a
                   regulatory determination. The 11
                   contaminants are boron; the dacthal
                   mono- and di-acid degradates; 1,1-
                   dichloro-2,2-bis(p-
                   chlorophenyl)ethylene (DDE); 1,3-
                   dichloropropene;  2,4-dinitrotoluene
                   (DNT);  2,6-dinitrotoluene;  s-ethyl
                   dipropylthiocarbamate (EPTC); fonofos;
                   terbacil; and 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane.
                     Information for the 11 contaminants is
                   available in the regulatory
                   determination support document
                   (USEPA, 2008a), the occurrence
                   technical support documents (USEPA,
                   2008b-c),  and the Health Effects
                   Support Documents or Drinking Water
                   Advisories for each of the contaminants
                   (USEPA, 2008d-l). This information is
                   available at the Water Docket (Docket ID
                   No. EPA-HQ-OW-2007-0068) and is
                    1 The MCLG is the "maximum level of a
                   contaminant in drinking water at which no known
                   or anticipated adverse effect on the health of
                   persons would occur, and which allows an
                   adequate margin of safety. Maximum contaminant
                   level goals are nonenforceable health goals" (40
                   CFR141.2).
                    2 An NPDWR is a legally enforceable standard
                   that applies to public water systems. An NPDWR
                   sets a legal limit (called a maximum contaminant
                   level or MCL) or specifies a certain treatment
                   technique (TT) for public water systems for a
                   specific contaminant or group of contaminants.
                    3 The statute authorizes a nine month extension
                   of this promulgation date.
also available on EPA's Safe Drinking
Water Regulatory Determination Web
site at http://www.epa.gov/safewater/
ccl/reg_determine2.html. Brief
descriptions of each of the 11
contaminants considered for regulatory
determinations are included in section
V of this notice.

III. What Approach and Analyses Did
EPA Use To Make the Regulatory
Determinations?
A. Approach
  In identifying which CCL 2
contaminants are candidates for
regulatory determinations, the Agency
considered whether sufficient
information and/or  data were available
to  characterize the potential health
effects and the known/likely occurrence
in and exposure from drinking water.
For health effects, the Agency
considered whether an Agency-
approved health risk assessment4 was
available to identify any potential
adverse health effect(s) and derive an
estimated level at which no adverse
health effect(s) are likely to occur. For
occurrence, the Agency considered
whether available information/data
provided a representative picture of
known and/or likely occurrence  in
public water systems. If sufficient
information/data were available to
characterize adverse human health
effects and known/likely occurrence  in
public water systems, the Agency
identified the contaminant as a potential
candidate for regulatory determinations.
In addition to information/data for
health and  occurrence, EPA also
considered the availability and
adequacy of analytical methods (for
monitoring) and treatment.
  In cases where EPA chose a
contaminant as a candidate for
regulatory determination, the Agency
considered the following in evaluating
each of the three statutory criteria.
  (a) First statutory criterion—Is the
contaminant likely to cause an adverse
effect on the health  of persons? The
Agency evaluated the best available,
peer-reviewed assessments and studies
to  characterize the human health effects
that may result from exposure to the
contaminant when found in drinking
water.  Based on this characterization,
the Agency estimated a health reference
level (HRL) for each contaminant.
  4 Health information used for the regulatory
determinations process includes but is not limited
to health assessments available from the Agency's
Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS), the
Agency's Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) in a
Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED), the
National Academy of Sciences (NAS), and/or the
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
(ATSDR).

-------
                     Federal Register/Vol. 73, No.  147/Wednesday, July 30, 2008/Notices
                                                                     44253
  (b) Second statutory criterion—Is the
contaminant known or likely to occur in
public water systems at a frequency and
level of public health concern? To
evaluate known occurrence in PWSs,
the Agency compiled, screened, and
analyzed data from several occurrence
data sets to develop representative
occurrence estimates for public drinking
water systems. EPA used the HRL
estimate for each contaminant as  a
benchmark against which to conduct an
initial evaluation or screening of the
occurrence data. For each contaminant,
EPA estimated the number of PWSs
(and the population served by these
PWSs) with detections greater than one-
half the HRL (> Vz HRL) and greater
than the HRL (> HRL). To further
evaluate the likelihood of a contaminant
occurring in drinking water, the Agency
considered information on the use and
release of the contaminant into the
environment and supplemental
information on occurrence in water
(e.g., ambient water quality data,  State
ambient or finished water data, and/or
special studies performed by other
agencies, organizations and/or entities).
  (c) Third statutory criterion—In the
sole judgment of the Administrator,
does regulation of the contaminant
present a meaningful opportunity for
health risk reduction for persons  served
by public water systems? EPA evaluated
the potential health effects and the
results of the occurrence estimates, as
well as exposure estimates (i.e., the
population exposed and the sources of
exposure) at the health level of concern
to determine if regulation presents a
meaningful opportunity for health risk
reduction.
  If the answers to all three statutory
criteria are affirmative for a particular
contaminant, then the Agency makes a
determination that regulation is
necessary and proceeds to develop an
MCLG and a national primary drinking
water regulation for that contaminant. It
should be noted that this regulatory
determination process is distinct from
the more detailed analyses needed to
develop a national primary drinking
water regulation. Thus, a decision to
regulate is the beginning of the Agency's
regulatory development process, not the
end.
  If the answer to any of the three
statutory criteria is negative based on
the available data, then the Agency
makes a determination that a national
primary drinking water regulation is not
necessary for that contaminant at that
time.

B. Analyses
  EPA has prepared Health Effects
Support Documents or Drinking Water
Advisories (USEPA, 2008d-l) for each of
the 11 contaminants.  In these
documents, EPA characterized the
human health effects  that may result
from exposure to a contaminant found
in drinking water. The support
documents address exposure from
drinking water and other media,
toxicokinetics, hazard identification,
dose-response assessment, and an
overall characterization of risk from
drinking water.  Based on this
characterization, EPA estimated a health
reference level (HRL) or benchmark
value for each contaminant.
  To analyze occurrence and exposure,
the Agency used data from the first
Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring
Regulation (UCMR 1) for 9 of the
contaminants: The dacthal mono- and
di-acid degradates, l,l-dichloro-2,2-
bis(p-chlorophenyl)ethylene (DDE), 1,3-
dichloropropene,  2,4-dinitrotoluene,
2,6-dinitrotoluene, s-ethyl
dipropylthiocarbamate (EPTC), fonofos,
and terbacil.5 In addition, the
Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring
(UCM 6) program provided additional
data for 1,3-dichloropropene and
1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane and the
National Inorganic and Radionuclide
Survey (NIRS 7) provided data for boron.
The Agency used the UCMR 1, UCM,
and NIRS data to estimate the number
and percentage of PWSs and the
population served by these PWSs at
concentrations above the HRL
benchmark values, and Vz the HRL
values. The Agency also used these data
to evaluate the geographic distribution
of occurrence for these 11 CCL 2
contaminants.
  EPA also employed State drinking
water data, use and environmental
release information (e.g., EPA's Toxic
Release  Inventory (TRI), academic and
private sector publications), as well as
ambient water quality data (e.g., data
from the U.S. Geological Survey's
National Water Quality Assessment
program) as secondary sources of
information to evaluate the likelihood of
contaminant occurrence.
  A detailed discussion  of the data
collected and analyses for each
contaminant can be found in the
regulatory determination support
document (USEPA, 2008a) and the
occurrence technical support
documents (USEPA, 2008b-c). In
addition, a summary of the occurrence
and exposure findings are included in
Table 1. Table 1 in this notice is similar
to Table 3 in the May 2007 notice (72
FR 24016 (USEPA, 2007a)); however,
note that EPA updated the occurrence
data for the UCMR 1 results to include
final results for 17 additional drinking
water systems that were  not available
when the Agency was in the process of
making  its preliminary regulatory
determinations. Updating these
numbers did not change the outcome of
today's decisions.
   TABLE  1—SUMMARY OF THE HEALTH AND OCCURRENCE INFORMATION AND THE FINAL DETERMINATIONS FOR THE 11
                      CONTAMINANTS CONSIDERED UNDER CCL REGULATORY DETERMINATIONS 2
#
1
2 	

Contaminant and its
chemical abstract
registry number
(CASRN)
Boron (7440-42-8)
Dacthal di acid
degradate2
(2136-79-0).
Deter-
mination
Do not
regu-
late1.
Do not
regulate.
Health
reference
level
(HRL)
1 ,400 |ig/
L.
70ng/L*
Occurrence findings from primary data sources (UCMR 1, UCM round 1 and 2 cross sections, NIRS)
Database
NIRS 	
UCMR 1 5
PWSs with at least
1 detection
> 1/2 HRL
4.3% (43 of 989) 	
0.05% (2 of 3,876) ..
Population served
by PWSs with at
least 1 detection
> 1/2 HRL
2.9% (42.7K of
1.48M).
0.33% (739K of
225M).
PWSs with at least
1 detection
> HRL
1.7% or (17 of
989) 1.
0.03% (1 of 3,876) ..
Population served
by PWSs with at
least 1 detection
> HRL
0.4% (6.4K of
1 .48M)
<0.01% (500 of
225M)
  5 The UCMR 1 monitoring survey began in 2001.
As discussed in the May 2007 notice, fonofos was
sampled as part of UCMR 1 Screening Monitoring
and the remaining 8 contaminants were sampled as
part of UCMR 1 Assessment Monitoring.
  6 EPA implemented the UCM program in two
phases or rounds. The first round of UCM
monitoring generally extended from 1988 to 1992
and is referred to as UCM Round 1 monitoring. The
second round of UCM monitoring generally
extended from 1993 to 1997 and is referred to as
UCM Round 2 monitoring.
  7 The monitoring for NIRS spanned from 1984 to
1986.

-------
44254
Federal Register/Vol. 73, No.  147/Wednesday, July 30,  2008/Notices
   TABLE  1—SUMMARY OF THE HEALTH AND OCCURRENCE INFORMATION AND THE FINAL DETERMINATIONS FOR THE 11
                CONTAMINANTS CONSIDERED UNDER CCL REGULATORY DETERMINATIONS 2—Continued
#
3
4
5 	
6 	
7
8 	
9 	
10
11 	

Contaminant and its
chemical abstract
registry number
(CASRN)
Dacthal mono acid
degradate3 (887-
54-7).
DDE 6 (72-55-9) 	
1,3-Dichloropropene
(Telone) (542-75-
6).
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
(121-14-2).
2,6-Dinitrotoluene
(606-20-2).
EPIC1 0(759-94-4)
Fonofos (944-22-9)
Terbacil (5902-51-
2).
1,1,2,2-
Tetrachloroethane
(79-34-5).
Deter-
mination
Do not
regulate.
Do not
regulate.
Do not
regulate.
Do not
regulate.
Do not
regulate.
Do not
regulate.
Do not
regulate.
Do not
regulate.
Health
reference
level
(HRL)
0.2 ng/L ..
0.4 ng/L ..
0.05 ng/L
0.05 ng/L
175 ng/L
10 ng/L ...
90 ng/L ...
0.4 ng/L ..
Occurrence findings from primary data sources (UCMR 1, UCM round 1 and 2 cross sections, NIRS)
Database
UCMR 1
UCM Rd1
UCM Rd2
UCMR 1
UCMR 1
UCMR 1
UCMR 1
UCMR 1
UCMR 1
UCM Rd1
UCM Rd2
PWSs with at least
1 detection
> 1/2 HRL
7
0.16% (15 of
9,164) 9.
0.30% (50 of
16,787) 9.
i
7
7
0.00% (0 of 3,873) ..
0.00% (0 of 295) 	
0.00% (0 of 3,873) ..
0.22% (44 of
20,407) 9.
0.07% (18 of
24,800) 9.
Population served
by PWSs with at
least 1 detection
> 1/2 HRL
7
0.86% (436K of
51 M)9.
0.42%(193Kof
46M)9.
7
7
7
0.00% (0 of 226M) ..
0.00% (Oof 41M) ....
0.00% (0 of 226M) ..
1 .69% (1 .6M of
95M)9.
0.51% (362 K of
71 M)9.
PWSs with at least
1 detection
> HRL
0.03% 7 (1 of
3,874) 8.
0.16% (15 of
9,164) 9.
0.23% (38 of
1 6,787) 9.
0.00% (Oof 796) 8 ...
0.03% (1 of 3,873) 8
0.00% (0 of 3,873) 8
0.00% (0 of 3,873) ..
0.00% (0 of 295) 	
0.00% (0 of 3,873) ..
0.20% (41 of
20,407) 9.
0.07% (1 7 of
24,800) 9.
Population served
by PWSs with at
least 1 detection
> HRL
0.01% (18Kof
226M)8
0.86% (436K of
51 M)9
0.33% (152Kof
46M)9
0.00% (Oof 2.8M)8
0.02% (38K of
226M)8
0.00% (0 of 226M) 8
0.00% (0 of 226M)
0.00% (Oof 41 M)
0.00% (0 of 226M)
1 .63% (1 .5M of
95M)9
0.08% (56K of
71 M)9
  i EPA also considered the results of an AwwaRF study of PWSs indicating that surface water sources are unlikely to contain boron at levels > the HRL of 1,400 |ig/
L (Frey et al., 2004).
  22,3,5,6-tetrachloroterephthalic acid (TPA).
  3mqnomethyl-2,3,5,6-tetrachloroterephthalate (MTP).
  "Using the dacthal parent HRL since it includes the toxicity for the degradates.
  6 Degradates monitored in aggregate and converted to the parent equivalent.
  61,1 -dichloro-2,2-bis(p-chlorophenyl)ethylene.
  7 Not reported since MRL > 1/2 the HRL.
  8Shows results > MRL, rather than > HRL, since MRL is greater than the HRL. In all cases the MRL is within the 10~4 to 10~6 risk range.
  9The MRLs used in UCM varied from below the 1/2 HRL to above the HRL. However, even the highest MRLs used are within the 10-" to ~\Q-6 risk range.
  i°s-ethyl dipropylthiocarbamate.
IV. Summary of Public Comments and
the Agency's Responses on the CCL
Regulatory Determination Process

  EPA received comments from nine
organizations or individuals on the May
1,  2007, Federal Register notice. These
nine organizations/individuals include
five water-related associations, one
industry group, one State agency, one
State-related association, and one
anonymous person. A majority of the
comments focused on the following four
over-arching topic areas:
  • The regulatory determinations  for
the 11 contaminants;
  • The regulatory determinations
approach;
  • The occurrence and exposure
evaluation; and
  • Comments on specific CCL 2
contaminants: boron, perchlorate,
MTBE, metolachlor, and cyanobacteria
and its toxins.
  A complete copy of the public
comments and the Agency's responses
are included in the Docket for today's
action (USEPA, 2008m). The remainder
of this section discusses the  four key
topic areas identified by commenters in
response to the May 2007 preliminary
                  regulatory determination notice (72 FR
                  24016, (USEPA, 2007a)).

                  A. Regulatory Determinations for the 11
                  Contaminants
                    Comment Summary: Most of the
                  commenters agreed with EPA's
                  decisions not to regulate the 11
                  contaminants. However, one State
                  agency recommended that EPA
                  reconsider its position of not regulating
                  2,4- and 2,6-DNT because they found
                  these two contaminants in ground water
                  in numerous locations in and around
                  ammunition and military sites in their
                  State.
                    Agency Response: EPA agrees with
                  the commenters who believe that no
                  regulation is warranted at this time for
                  the 11 contaminants. In response to
                  reconsidering the Agency's decision for
                  2,4- and 2,6-DNT, EPA respectfully
                  disagrees. Monitoring data collected on
                  2,4- and 2,6-DNT from UCMR 1 do not
                  indicate that either of these chemicals
                  occurs nationally in public drinking
                  water systems at health levels of
                  concern. EPA found only one detection
                  of 2,4-DNT from among the 3,873 public
                  water systems evaluated and no
                  detections of 2,6-DNT. The information
submitted by the commenter does not
lead the Agency to change its decision
because the occurrence appears to be
highly localized and therefore, does not
meet statutory criterion 2 (likely to
occur in PWSs with a frequency and at
a level of concern). To assist State and
local communities that may have
localized occurrence of 2,4- and/or 2,6-
DNT,  the Agency has updated the
Health Advisory for both of these
compounds as part of the regulatory
determination process. If a State finds
that it has highly localized levels of 2,4-
and/or 2,6-DNT above the HRL of 0.05
|ig/L,  the Agency encourages States to
consider whether State-level guidance
(or some other type of action) may be
appropriate.

B. Regulatory Determinations Approach
  Comment Summary: One commenter
recommended that EPA expand its
discussion of the logic underlying the
determinations for these 11
contaminants. The commenter stated
that EPA needs to raise the level of
transparency in its decision logic so that
stakeholders  can understand how data
and information translate to
determinations and to ensure

-------
                     Federal  Register/Vol. 73, No. 147/Wednesday, July 30, 2008/Notices
                                                                     44255
consistency across the two parallel
regulatory efforts (regulatory
determinations and six-year reviews).
The commenter asked for a discussion
about the status of the remaining CCL 2
contaminants. In addition, the
commenter recommended that EPA's
drinking water research agenda be
integrated with the regulatory
development process.
  Another commenter agreed with the
determinations not to regulate the  11
contaminants but recommended that
EPA include affordability criteria when
evaluating whether regulation will
result in a meaningful health benefit in
future determinations. The commenter
submitted a paper in support of their
comment.8
  Agency Response: In response to the
first comment, EPA developed a
consistent regulatory determination
approach for evaluating CCL 2
contaminants that followed the National
Drinking Water Advisory Council's
(NDWAC, 2000) recommended protocol
for both health effects and occurrence
analyses. In this notice (section VI), EPA
added a narrative and tables that
summarize the data gaps for the other 40
CCL 2 contaminants, which kept the
Agency from making a regulatory
determination at this time. EPA does not
believe that it is appropriate to consider
a research agenda specifically for those
contaminants at this time because  the
Agency is in the process of developing
a new CCL (CCL  3). The new process
considers the knowledge and experience
gained from evaluating unregulated
contaminants on CCL 1 and CCL 2 and
the recommendations and advice from
the National Academies of Sciences'
National Research Council (NRC, 2001)
and NDWAC  (2004). The Agency
anticipates that future CCL research
needs will be directed at filling data
gaps for contaminants on the new  list
(i.e., CCL 3), not CCL 2. All CCL 2
contaminants will be examined for
inclusion on CCL 3 and those that
remain a high priority will be examined
for research needs.
  In response to the second comment,
the SDWA requires that EPA consider
the costs and benefits, as well as
affordability,  as NPDWRs are developed.
Specifically, SDWA requires that EPA
perform a health risk reduction and cost
analysis and an affordability analysis for
proposed NPDWRs. EPA respectfully
disagrees that an affordability analysis is
necessary or required for regulatory
determinations. For regulatory
determination, SDWA requires that EPA
use the three criteria discussed in
section III.A. As a result, EPA will
evaluate costs and affordability in more
detail, including whether small system
variances are appropriate, as part of the
regulatory process after the Agency
makes a positive regulatory
determination.

C. Occurrence and Exposure Evaluation
  Comment Summary: One commenter
stated that "based on the first round of
regulatory determinations, a range of
0.02%-3.2% for national  occurrence
could be considered as the minimum
threshold for development of a new
regulation" and "national occurrence
estimates for these eleven contaminants
are well below this threshold, with
boron having the highest prevalence of
occurrence, at 1.7% of systems sampled
in the National Inorganics and
Radionuclides Survey (NIRS)."
  Another commenter provided a report
by Phillips and Chambless 9 that
evaluated compliance data for seven
contaminants from five States obtained
from a cross section of State regulatory
agencies. Based on a preliminary
analysis, the authors found that the
variability in the means of quarterly
samples taken for compliance purposes
was consistently large. The commenter
expressed the opinion that the
variability (standard error of the mean
divided by the mean) is significant
enough (100 percent or more in many
cases) to question the validity of
decisions made based on the UCMR
data (for unregulated contaminants).
Based on that study, the commenter
stated that there is no reason to assume
that the quality of the occurrence data
from the UCMR effort would be any
better than the quality of the compliance
data. The second commenter urged EPA
to resolve this quality issue before trying
to make CCL 2 regulatory decisions that
are based on rather precise calculations
of occurrence levels and the number of
persons exposed.
  Agency Response: In response to  the
first comment, EPA considers both  the
extent of national occurrence and the
severity of health effects for a
contaminant, as well as other factors
(e.g., sources of exposure), when
deciding whether regulation presents  a
meaningful opportunity for health risk
reduction. As a result, the Agency does
not believe it is appropriate to set
minimum occurrence thresholds for
regulatory determinations.
  In response to the second comment
regarding variability in occurrence
  8 This paper can be found in the Docket for this
notice at http://www.regulations.gov under the
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2007-0068.
  9 This paper can be found in the Docket for this
notice at http://www.Tegulations.gov under the
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2007-0068.
measures based on the compliance
monitoring data for regulated
contaminants, the Agency believes the
variability issues identified by Phillips
and Chambless  do not directly reflect
the dependability of the UCMR 1 data
used to support the Agency's regulatory
determinations. Compliance monitoring
data is State data resulting from
individual public water systems efforts
to comply with  regulatory monitoring
requirements. The UCMR 1 is EPA's
program to collect data for contaminants
suspected to be  present in drinking
water based upon a statistically-valid
data set for nationwide occurrence
estimates. The UCMR 1 program was
designed to address this variability issue
at the national level by defining a
vulnerable period (the season of greatest
vulnerability of contaminant
occurrence, the  season of increased flux
of water movement) and requiring at
least one UCMR 1 sample during that
period. In addition, the monitoring
periods for the large and small systems
were performed over a three year
period. Approximately one-third of all
small UCMR 1 systems throughout the
country conducted monitoring in each
of the three years of UCMR 1
monitoring. Furthermore, the
monitoring schedules for these systems
were conducted to include monitoring
in every month  and every season around
the country. Large systems could
conduct their one year of monitoring
anytime during  the UCMR 1 period from
2001 to 2003. Like small systems, their
monitoring schedules were spread
throughout the year and were to include
one sample during what was considered
the most vulnerable season. In this way,
the UCMR 1 monitoring results reflect
multiple seasons and multiple years of
climatic conditions throughout the
country and are not directly affected (or
biased) by weather conditions of a
single season, year, or geographic
region. Whereas some variability might
still be expected, EPA believes this is
unlikely to be a source of bias for
national level occurrence  estimates.
  In addition, it should be noted that
EPA used peak occurrence estimates
(the number and percent of systems
with at least one observed detection
greater than Vz the HRL and the HRL)
as opposed to mean values in making its
final decisions not to regulate the 11
CCL 2 contaminants.  Hence, taking
variability around the mean into
account would not have influenced the
outcome of the final determinations for
these 11 contaminants. The
characterization of national occurrence
provided by the UCMR 1 monitoring

-------
44256
Federal  Register/Vol.  73, No. 147/Wednesday, July 30, 2008/Notices
data is adequate and the best available
data to support today's decisions.

D. Comments on Boron, Perchlorate,
MTBE, Metolachlor, and Cyanobacteria
and Its Toxins
  1. Boron. One anonymous commenter
agreed with our determination for boron
but commented on the fact that the
health reference level does not
incorporate the results of the
preliminary chemical-specific Health
Advisory Level (HAL) derived recently
by EPA and presented at the 2007
Society of Toxicology (SOT) meeting.
  Agency Response: The HRL used in
making regulatory determinations is not
equivalent to a lifetime health advisory
value. As stated in the Health Effects
Support Document for Boron (USEPA,
2008d) and the May 1, 2007, notice  (72
FR 24016 (USEPA, 2007a)), an HRL  is a
benchmark against which to measure
the occurrence data; it is not a Health
Advisory guideline. For noncarcinogens
such as boron, the HRL is calculated by
multiplying the Agency Reference Dose
by a 70 kg body weight and a 20 percent
default Relative Source Contribution
(RSC) and dividing the product by a
drinking water intake of 2 L/day.
  As described in the May 2007 notice
(72 FR 24016 (USEPA, 2007a)) and in
evaluating contaminants for regulatory
determinations, the Agency initially
uses a default 20 percent RSC to
estimate the HRLs for non-carcinogens
because this approach derives the
lowest and  most conservative HRL value
to use in screening the occurrence data.
EPA used this approach to calculate the
HRL benchmark for boron and to
determine if boron might be occurring
nationally at a level of potential health
concern. In developing the health
advisory for boron, the Agency
performed a more refined assessment of
the risk for  those PWSs that
occasionally find levels of boron that
exceed the  lifetime or shorter term
health advisory values. While the
Agency derived a more refined RSC for
the determination of the lifetime Health
Advisory for boron, this value is still
limited by the RSC ceiling of 80 percent
as a matter  of policy. The derivation of
health advisory values also incorporates
the use of appropriate body weights for
the target population. The 2007 SOT
poster presentation used a body weight
of 67 kg for a pregnant woman,
consistent with the Human Health
Methodology (USEPA, 2000) guidelines.
There may be changes to that policy
based on more recent data on pregnancy
weights, and if so, the draft Health
Advisory will be revised to reflect the
new policy.
                    2. Perchlorate. EPA received comment
                  letters on perchlorate from eight
                  commenters. The major areas of concern
                  raised in the comments related to (1) the
                  Agency's decision not to make a
                  regulatory determination for perchlorate
                  at the same time as for the 11
                  contaminants for which a regulatory
                  determination is being finalized today,
                  and (2) the Agency's discussion of
                  potential analyses to more fully
                  characterize total perchlorate exposure
                  in order to assess the opportunity for
                  public health protection through a
                  drinking water regulation.
                    Agency Response: EPA will soon
                  publish a preliminary determination for
                  perchlorate. EPA will request public
                  comment as part of that notice. EPA will
                  consider the comments received on the
                  May 2007 notice (72 FR 24016 (USEPA,
                  2007a)) with respect to perchlorate as a
                  part of that regulatory determination
                  and will respond to such public
                  comments at the time the Agency issues
                  a regulatory determination for
                  perchlorate. EPA intends to finalize a
                  regulatory determination for perchlorate
                  by December 2008.
                    3. MTBE. Most commenters supported
                  EPA's decision not to make a regulatory
                  determination for methyl tertiary-butyl
                  ether (MTBE) at this time because the
                  IRIS  assessment is currently being
                  revised. Also, one commenter felt that
                  UCMR 1 would provide valuable
                  occurrence data for MTBE when the risk
                  assessment becomes available.
                    Agency Response: EPA agrees that
                  UCMR 1 data provides important
                  occurrence information on MTBE and
                  will be useful in making a regulatory
                  determination once the final risk
                  assessment is available.
                    4. Metolachlor. Some commenters
                  noted that additional research for the
                  health effects and occurrence of
                  metolachlor and its degradates is
                  needed. One commenter felt that UCMR
                  2 would provide valuable occurrence
                  information for metolachlor and its
                  degradates. One commenter did not
                  have additional data but believes more
                  information is needed on the occurrence
                  and health effects of many herbicides
                  and pesticides and their degradates. The
                  results of this research should be
                  appropriately included in regulatory
                  decisions by the Office of Pesticide
                  Programs (OPP) and the Office of
                  Ground Water and Drinking Water. The
                  commenter stated that EPA should
                  promote further research to definitively
                  determine whether metolachlor, a very
                  widely used pesticide, is carcinogenic,
                  as acetochlor, alachlor and metolachlor
                  have very similar chemical structures.
                    Agency Response: The Agency agrees
                  that more information on the occurrence
of metolachlor and its degradates is
needed in order to determine if the
combined parent compound and its
degradates are occurring at levels of
health concern. The available
metolachlor data from earlier
unregulated contaminant monitoring
surveys indicate that metolachlor is
found in finished water in many
locations but at levels below the HRL.
The occurrence data on the parent
metolachlor, combined with the
knowledge that it decomposes to several
degradates that are more persistent than
the parent, supported the inclusion of
both metolachlor and its degradates in
UCMR 2. Once available, the UCMR 2
data will be useful in evaluating the
occurrence of metolachlor and its
degradates in public water systems and
will assist the Agency in deciding
whether to regulate these compounds.
  5. Cyanobacteria and its toxins. In the
May 2007 notice (72 FR 24016 (USEPA,
200 7a)), EPA asked for comment on the
usefulness of providing an information
summary about Cyanobacteria and its
toxins. One commenter responded and
recommended that EPA provide an
information summary describing the
state of the knowledge on the
prevention, treatment, and health effects
of Cyanobacteria and its toxins. The
commenter felt that a document would
be useful for utilities and State agencies.
The commenter recommended that the
summary include information on
occurrence, conditions that might favor
growth of algae and production of
toxins, and a strategy for
communicating this information to
utility customers. In addition, the
commenter suggested that the summary
include information on research funded
by other organizations, particularly the
AWWA Research Foundation
(AwwaRF).
  Agency Response: EPA is developing
an information sheet that will include
the information suggested by the
commenter and links to organizations
performing research on the
Cyanobacteria and its toxins. The
Agency anticipates making this
information sheet available on its
Safewater Web site (http://
www.epa.gov/safewater) shortly after
the publication of this notice.

V. Summary of the Agency's Findings
on the 11 CCL 2 Contaminants
A. Boron
  1. Description. Boron,  a metalloid,
tends to occur in nature in the form of
borates (e.g., boric acid, borax, boron
oxide). Man-made releases are typically
in the form of borates or boron halides
(e.g., boron trichloride, boron

-------
                     Federal Register/Vol. 73, No.  147/Wednesday, July  30,  2008/Notices
                                                                     44257
trifluoride). Boron compounds are used
in the production of glass, ceramics,
cleaning agents, fire retardants,
pesticides, cosmetics, photographic
materials, and high energy fuels (USGS,
2004; ATSDR, 1992).
  2. Agency Findings. The Agency is
making a determination not to regulate
boron with a national primary drinking
water regulation. As noted in the May
2007 notice (72 FR 24016 (USEPA,
200 7a)), EPA used data from MRS and
an AwwaRF study (Frey et al, 2004) to
evaluate occurrence and exposure at the
HRL of 1,400 ng/L (as well as Vz the
HRL). The MRS data indicate that
approximately 4.3 percent (or 43) of the
989 ground water PWSs sampled had at
least one detection of boron at levels
greater than 700 (ig/L, affecting
approximately 2.9 percent of the
population served (or 42,700 people
from 1.48 million). Approximately 1.7
percent (or 17) of 989 ground water
PWSs sampled had at least one
detection of boron at levels greater than
1,400 |ig/L, affecting approximately 0.4
percent of the population served (6,400
people from 1.48 million) (USEPA,
2008c and 2008d).
  Because MRS did not contain data for
surface water systems, the Agency
evaluated the results of the AwwaRF
study (Frey et al., 2004) to gain a better
understanding of the potential
occurrence of boron in surface water
systems. The AwwaRF study recruited
189 PWSs representing 407 source
waters that covered 41 States. Of these
407 PWS source water samples, 342
were returned and 341 were analyzed
for boron. Of these 341 samples,
approximately 67 percent (or 228)
represented ground water sources and
33 percent (or 113) represented surface
water sources. None of the 113 surface
water sources exceeded the boron HRL
of 1,400 |-ig/L and the maximum
concentration observed in surface water
was 345 (ig/L. Extrapolation of the data
indicates that 95 percent of the ground
water detections had boron levels less
than 1,054 (ig/L; the maximum observed
concentration in ground water was
approximately 3,300 |ig/L. Seven of the
228 ground water sources (from 5
systems) had at least one sample with  a
boron concentration greater than 1,400
Hg/L (Seidel, 2006).
  While boron was found at levels
greater than the HRL of 1,400 |J,g/L (and
Vz the HRL) in several of the ground
water systems surveyed by MRS,  it was
not found at levels greater than the HRL
(or Vz the HRL) in the surface water
sources evaluated in the AwwaRF
study. Taking this surface water
information into account, the Agency
believes the overall occurrence and
exposure from both surface and ground
water systems together is likely to be
lower than the values observed for the
MRS ground water data. Because boron
is not likely to occur at health levels of
concern when considering both surface
and ground water systems, the Agency
believes that a national primary
drinking water regulation does not
present a meaningful opportunity for
health risk reduction.
  The Agency presented a complete
review of our analysis of the health
effects, occurrence, and exposure for
boron in the May 2007 notice (72 FR
24016 (USEPA,  2007a)), the final
regulatory support document (USEPA,
2008a), and the  health effects support
document for boron (USEPA, 2008d).
The Agency also plans to update the
Health Advisory for boron to provide
more recent health information. The
updated Health Advisory will provide
information to any States with public
water systems that may have boron
above the HRL.  If a State finds highly
localized occurrence of boron at
concentrations above the HRL, the
Agency encourages States to consider
whether State-level guidance (or some
other type of action) may be
appropriate.

B. Dacthal Mono- and Di-Acid
Degradates
  1. Description. Dimethyl
tetrachloroterephthalate (DCPA), a
synthetic organic compound (SOC)
marketed under the trade name
"Dacthal," is a pre-emergent herbicide
historically used to control weeds in
ornamental turf and plants,
strawberries, seeded and transplanted
vegetables, cotton, and field beans.
DCPA is not especially mobile or
persistent in the environment.
Biodegradation  and volatilization are
the primary dissipation routes.
Degradation of DCPA forms two
breakdown products, the mono-acid
degradate  (monomethyl
tetrachloroterephthalate or MTP) and
the di-acid degradate
(tetrachloroterephthalic acid or TPA).
The di-acid, which is the major
degradate, is unusually mobile and
persistent in the field, with a potential
to leach into water (USEPA, 1998a).
  2. Agency Findings. The Agency is
making a determination not to regulate
the DCPA mono-acid degradate and/or
the DCPA di-acid degradate with a
national primary drinking water
regulation. As noted in the May 2007
notice (72 FR 24016 (USEPA, 2007a)),
these degradates appear to occur
infrequently at health levels of concern
in PWSs, and the Agency believes that
a national primary drinking water
regulation does not present a
meaningful opportunity for health risk
reduction. While the Agency recognizes
that these degradates have been detected
in the PWSs monitored under the
UCMR 1, only one PWS detected these
degradates at a concentration above the
HRL of 70 ng/L.
  The Agency presented a complete
review of our analysis of the health
effects, occurrence, and exposure for
dacthal mono- and di-acid degradates in
the May 2007 notice (72 FR 24016
(USEPA, 2007a)), the final regulatory
support document (USEPA,  2008a), and
the health effects support document
(USEPA, 2008e). The Agency also plans
to update the Health Advisory for the
DCPA parent to include the mono- and
di-acid degradates, as well as any recent
health information related to these
compounds. The updated Health
Advisory will provide information to
any States with public water systems
that may have DCPA degradates  at
levels above the HRL. If a State finds
highly  localized occurrence  of DCPA
degradates at concentrations above the
HRL, the Agency encourages States  to
consider whether State-level guidance
(or some other type of action) may be
appropriate.

C. l,l-Dichloro-2,2-bis(p-
chlorophenyl)ethylene
  1. Description. DDE is a primary
metabolite of l,l,l-trichloro-2,2-bis(p-
chlorophenyl)ethane (DDT), a pesticide
used to protect crops and eliminate
disease-carrying insects in the U.S. until
it was banned in  1973. DDE itself has no
commercial use and is only found in the
environment as a result of prior
contamination with DDT. While  DDE
tends to adsorb strongly to surface soil
and is fairly insoluble in water, it may
enter surface waters from runoff  that
contains DDE bound to soil particles. In
both soil and water, DDE is subject to
photodegradation, biodegradation, and
volatilization (ATSDR, 2002).
  2. Agency Findings. The Agency is
making a determination not to regulate
DDE with a national primary drinking
water regulation. As noted in the May
2007 notice (72 FR 24016 (USEPA,
2007a)), DDE appears to occur
infrequently at health levels of concern
in PWSs, and the Agency believes that
a national primary drinking water
regulation does not present a
meaningful opportunity for health risk
reduction. DDE was detected in only
one of the PWSs monitored under the
UCMR 1  at a level greater than the MRL
(0.8 ng/L). The MRL is greater than the
HRL of 0.2 ng/L but represents a
concentration that is within  the 10 ~4 to
the 10 ~6 cancer risk range targeted by

-------
44258
Federal  Register/Vol. 73, No. 147/Wednesday, July 30, 2008/Notices
the Agency. In addition, ambient water
data from the USGS (Martin et al, 2003;
Kolpin and Martin, 2003) indicate that
the maximum concentrations detected
in surface and ground water were less
than the HRL.
  The Agency presented a complete
review of our analysis of the health
effects, occurrence, and exposure for
DDE in the May 2007 notice (72 FR
24016 (USEPA, 2007a)), the final
regulatory support document (USEPA,
2008a), and the health effects support
document (USEPA, 2008 f). If a State
finds highly localized occurrence of
DDE at concentrations above the HRL,
the Agency encourages  States to
consider whether State-level guidance
(or some other type of action) may be
appropriate.

D. 1,3-Dichloropropene
  1. Description. 1,3-Dichloropropene
(1,3-DCP), a synthetic volatile organic
compound, is used as a pre-plant soil
fumigant to control nematodes and
other pests in soils planted with all
types of food  and feed crops. 1,3-DCP is
typically injected 12 inches to 18 inches
beneath the soil surface and can only be
used by certified handlers (USEPA,
1998b).
  2. Agency Findings. The Agency is
making a determination not to regulate
1,3-DCP with a national primary
drinking water regulation. As noted in
the May 2007 notice (72 FR 24016
(USEPA, 2007a)), 1,3-DCP appears to
occur infrequently at health levels of
concern in PWSs, and the Agency
believes that a national  primary
drinking water regulation does not
present a meaningful opportunity for
health risk reduction. While 1,3-DCP
was detected  in the UCM Round 1 (late
1980s) and the UCM Round 2 (mid
1990s) surveys, it was not detected in a
subsequent evaluation of 796 small
systems from the UCMR 1 survey. In
addition, the  USGS did not detect 1,3-
DCP in two occurrence  studies
performed between 1999 and 2001 using
monitoring levels that were lower than
the HRL. EPA believes the 1999
pesticide application requirements,
which are intended to mitigate risks to
drinking water, may be  one reason for
the lack of occurrence of 1,3-DCP at
health levels of concern in subsequent
monitoring surveys.
  The Agency presented a complete
review of our analysis of the health
effects, occurrence, and exposure for
1,3-DCP in the May 2007 notice (72 FR
24016 (USEPA, 2007a))  and in the
health effects support document
(USEPA, 2008J). The Agency also plans
to update the Health Advisory
document for 1,3-DCP with more recent
                  health information. The updated Health
                  Advisory will provide information to
                  any States with public water systems
                  that may have 1,3-DCP above the HRL.
                  If a State finds a highly localized
                  occurrence of 1,3-DCP at concentrations
                  above the HRL, the Agency encourages
                  States to consider whether State-level
                  guidance (or some other type of action)
                  may be appropriate.

                  E. 2,4-Dinitrotoluene and 2,6-
                  Dinitrotoluene
                    1. Description. 2,4- and 2,6-
                  dinitrotoluene (DNT), semi-volatile
                  organic compounds, are two of the six
                  isomers of dinitrotoluene.
                  Dinitrotoluenes are used in the
                  production of polyurethane foams,
                  automobile air bags, dyes, ammunition,
                  and explosives, including
                  trinitrotoluene or TNT (HSDB, 2004a
                  and 2004b; ATSDR, 1998). Neither 2,4-
                  DNT nor 2,6-DNT occurs naturally.
                  They are generally produced as
                  individual isomers or as a mixture
                  called technical grade DNT. Technical
                  grade DNT primarily contains a mixture
                  of 2,4-DNT and 2,6-DNT, with the
                  remainder consisting of the other
                  isomers and minor contaminants such
                  as TNT and mononitrotoluenes (HSDB,
                  2004c).
                    2. Agency Findings. The Agency is
                  making a determination not to regulate
                  2,4-or 2,6-DNT with a national primary
                  drinking water regulation. As noted in
                  the May 2007 notice (72 FR 24016
                  (USEPA, 2007a)), 2,4- and 2,6-DNT
                  appear to occur infrequently at health
                  levels of concern in PWSs, and the
                  Agency believes that a national primary
                  drinking water regulation does not
                  present a meaningful opportunity for
                  health risk reduction. 2,4-DNT was
                  detected only once at a minimum
                  reporting level (MRL) of 2 ng/L and 2,6-
                  DNT was not detected at this  same level
                  in any of the PWSs monitored under the
                  UCMR 1. While the MRL is slightly
                  greater than the HRL of 0.05 |J,g/L, this
                  concentration is within the acceptable
                  10~4 to the 10~6 cancer risk range
                  targeted by the Agency.
                    The Agency presented a complete
                  review of our analysis of the health
                  effects, occurrence, and exposure for
                  2,4- and 2,6-DNT in the May 2007
                  notice (72 FR 24016 (USEPA, 2007a))
                  and in the health effects support
                  document (USEPA, 20081). The
                  Agency's original Health Advisories for
                  2,4- and 2,6-DNT were developed for
                  military installations. Because the
                  Agency recognizes that 2,4 and 2,6-DNT
                  may still be found at some military sites,
                  the Agency has updated the Health
                  Advisories to reflect recent health
                  effects publications. EPA published a
draft of the updated Health Advisory
document for both 2,4 and 2,6-DNT as
part of the regulatory determinations for
these two isomers. The updated
document is available on the Web at:
http ://www. epa .gov/safewater/ccl/
reg_determine2.html. The final Health
Advisory document will be published in
2008 and will provide information to
States with public water systems that
may have either 2,4- or 2,6-DNT at
concentrations above health levels of
concern. If a State finds highly localized
occurrence of 2,4- and/or 2,6-DNT at
concentrations above the HRL, the
Agency encourages States to consider
whether State-level guidance (or some
other type of action) may be
appropriate.
F. s-Ethyl dipropylthiocarbamate
  1. Description. EPTC, a synthetic
organic compound, is a thiocarbamate
herbicide used to control weed growth
during the pre-emergence and early
post-emergence stages of weed
germination. First registered for use in
1958, EPTC is used across the U.S. in
the agricultural production of a number
of crops, most notably corn, potatoes,
dried beans, alfalfa, and snap beans.
EPTC is also used residentially on shade
trees, annual and perennial
ornamentals, and evergreens (USEPA,
1999c).
  2. Agency Findings. The Agency is
making a determination not to regulate
EPTC with a national primary drinking
water regulation. As noted in the May
2007 notice (72 FR 24016 (USEPA,
2007a)), EPTC does not appear to occur
at health levels of concern in PWSs, and
the Agency believes that a national
primary drinking water regulation does
not present a meaningful opportunity
for health risk reduction. While EPTC
has been found in ambient waters at
levels less than the HRL of 175 |o,g/L (as
well as Vz the HRL), it was not found
in the UCMR 1 survey of public water
supplies. The Agency presented a
complete review of our analysis of the
health  effects, occurrence, and exposure
for EPTC in the May 2007 notice (72 FR
24016 (USEPA, 2007a)), the final
regulatory support document (USEPA,
2008a), and in the health effects support
document (USEPA, 2008g).

G. Fonofos
  1. Description. Fonofos, an
organophosphate, is a soil insecticide
used to control pests such as corn
rootworms, cutworms, symphylans (i.e.,
garden centipedes), and wireworms.
Primarily used on corn crops, fonofos
was also used on other crops such as
asparagus, beans, beets, onions,
peppers, tomatoes, cole crops,  sweet

-------
                     Federal Register/Vol. 73, No. 147/Wednesday, July 30, 2008/Notices
                                                                     44259
potatoes, peanuts, peas, peppermint,
plantains, sorghum, soybeans,
spearmint, strawberries, sugarcane,
sugar beets, white (Irish) potatoes, and
tobacco (USEPA, 1999d).
  Fonofos was scheduled for a
reregistration decision in 1999.
However, before the review was
completed, the registrant requested
voluntary cancellation. The cancellation
was announced in the Federal Register
on May 6, 1998 (63 FR 25033 (USEPA,
1998d)), with an effective date of
November 2, 1998, plus a one-year grace
period to permit the exhaustion of
existing stocks (USEPA, 1999d).
  2. Agency Findings. The Agency is
making a determination not to regulate
fonofos with a national primary
drinking water regulation. As noted in
the May 2007 notice (72 FR 24016
(USEPA, 2007a)), fonofos does not
appear to occur at health levels of
concern in PWSs and the Agency
believes that a national primary
drinking water regulation does not
present a meaningful opportunity for
health risk reduction. While fonofos has
been found in ambient waters at levels
less than the HRL of 10 |o,g/L (as well as
Vz the HRL), it was not found in the
UCMR 1 Screening Survey of public
water supplies.  Fonofos was voluntarily
cancelled in 1998 and the Agency
expects any remaining stocks and
releases into the environment to
decline. In addition, since fonofos tends
to bind strongly to soil, any releases to
the environment are not likely to
contaminate source waters. The Agency
presented a complete review of our
analysis of the health effects,
occurrence, and exposure for fonofos in
the May 2007 notice (72 FR 24016
(USEPA, 2007a)), the final regulatory
support document (USEPA, 2008a), and
in the health effects support document
(USEPA, 2008h).

H. Terbacil
  1. Description. Terbacil, a synthetic
organic compound, is a selective
herbicide used to control broadleaf
weeds and grasses on terrestrial food/
feed crops (e.g., apples, mint,
peppermint, spearmint, and sugarcane),
terrestrial food (e.g., asparagus,
blackberry, boysenberry, dewberry,
loganberry, peach, raspberry,
youngberry, and strawberry), terrestrial
feed (e.g., alfalfa, forage, and hay) and
forest trees (e.g., cottonwood) (USEPA,
1998c).
  2. Agency Findings. The Agency is
making a determination not to regulate
terbacil with a national primary
drinking water regulation. As noted in
the May 2007 notice (72 FR 24016
(USEPA, 2007a)), terbacil does not
appear to occur at health levels of
concern in PWSs. Accordingly, the
Agency believes that a national primary
drinking water regulation does not
present a meaningful opportunity for
health risk reduction. While terbacil has
been found in ambient waters at the
levels less than the HRL of 90 ng/L (as
well as Vz the HRL), it was not found
in the UCMR 1 survey of public water
supplies. The Agency presented a
complete review of our analysis of the
health effects, occurrence, and exposure
for terbacil in the May 2007 notice (72
FR 24016 (USEPA, 2007a)), the final
regulatory support document (USEPA,
2008a), and in the health effects support
document (USEPA, 20081).

I. 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
  1. Description. 1,1,2,2-
Tetrachloroethane, a volatile organic
compound, is not known to occur
naturally in the environment (IARC,
1979). Prior to the 1980s, 1,1,2,2-
tetrachloroethane was synthesized for
use in the production of other
chemicals, primarily chlorinated
ethylenes. 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
was also once used as a solvent to clean
and degrease metals, in paint removers,
varnishes, lacquers, and photographic
films, and for oil/fat extraction (Hawley,
1981). Commercial production of
1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane in the U.S.
ceased in the 1980s, when other
processes to generate chlorinated
ethylenes were discovered (ATSDR,
1996).
  2. Agency Findings. The Agency is
making a determination not to regulate
1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane with a national
primary drinking water regulation. As
noted in the May 2007 notice (72 FR
24016 (USEPA, 2007a)), 1,1,2,2-
tetrachloroethane appears to occur
infrequently at health levels of concern
in PWSs. Accordingly, the Agency
believes that a national primary
drinking water regulation does not
present a meaningful opportunity for
health risk reduction. While 1,1,2,2-
tetrachloroethane was detected in both
the UCM Round 1 and the UCM Round
2 surveys, the percentage of detections
had decreased by the time the UCM
Round 2 survey was performed in the
mid-1990's.10 In addition, the USGS did
not detect 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane in
two subsequent monitoring surveys of
source waters that supply community
water systems, using a reporting limit
that is less than the 1,1,2,2-
tetrachloroethane HRL of 0.4 |ig/L. The
  10 The UCM Round 1 and 2 surveys were
performed in the late 1980's and the mid 1990's.
These surveys should not be confused with the
UCMR 1 Screening and Assessment Monitoring that
began in 2001.
Agency believes that this decrease in
detections occurred because commercial
production of 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane
ceased in the mid-1980's. Hence, the
Agency does not expect 1,1,2,2-
tetrachloroethane to occur in many
public water systems today.
  The Agency presented a complete
review? of our analysis of the health
effects, occurrence, and exposure for
1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane in the May
2007 notice (72 FR 24016 (USEPA,
2007a)), the final regulatory support
document (USEPA, 2008a), and in the
health effects support document
(USEPA, 2008k). The Agency also plans
to update the Health Advisory
document for 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane
to provide more recent health
information. The updated Health
Advisory will provide information to
any States with public water systems
that may have 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane
at levels above the HRL. If a State finds
highly localized occurrence of 1,1,2,2-
tetrachloroethane at concentrations
above the HRL, the Agency encourages
States to consider whether State-level
guidance (or some other type of action)
may be appropriate.

VI. How Will EPA Address the Data
Needs of the Remaining CCL 2
Contaminants?
  To support decisions on CCL
contaminants, the Agency evaluates
when and where these contaminants
occur, the extent of exposure, and their
risk to public health. EPA must also
determine if regulating the contaminant
presents a meaningful opportunity for
reducing public health risk.
Contaminants deemed ready for
regulatory determination are those that
have sufficient health and occurrence
data to evaluate both exposure and risk
to public health and support a decision
as to whether a regulation is
appropriate. The remaining CCL 2
contaminants for which decisions are
not being made today do not have
sufficient data to support regulatory
decisions at this time, except for
perchlorate, which is the subject of a
separate regulatory determination effort
(see section IV.D.2 in this notice).
Tables 2 and 3  list each contaminant
and the type of data lacking for each
contaminant.
  In addition, the Agency is evaluating
the contaminants on CCL 2 as part of the
new CCL 3 classification process. The
new process is an expanded
comprehensive system that evaluates a
wider range of existing information,
including data published after the CCL
2 preliminary regulatory
determinations. The new process also
applies revised screening criteria to

-------
44260
Federal  Register/Vol.  73, No. 147/Wednesday, July  30,  2008/Notices
generate the CCL 3 based upon            determining future research needs once
recommendations from NRG (2001) and   the CCL 3 is finalized.
NDWAC (2004). EPA anticipates

              TABLE 2—INFORMATION GAPS FOR THE CCL 2 CHEMICAL CONTAMINANTS  (As OF MAY 2007)*
               Health effects
                                                          Occurrence
                                                                      Health effects and occurrence
Acetochlor3	
Aluminum45 	
Bromobenzene 3 	
1,1-Dichloroethane4 	
1,3-Dichloropropane4  	
2,2-Dichloropropane4  	
1,1-Dichloropropene4  	
p-lsopropyltoluane4 	
Methyl Bromide4  	
Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE)3
Molinate3 	
Nitrobenzene3
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene4
Vanadium 4
                     Diazinon6 	
                     2,4-Dichloropheno6	
                     2,4-Dinitrophenol6	
                     1,2-Diphenylhydrazine 6
                     Disulfoton6 	
                     Diuron6.
                     Linuron6.
                     2-Methylphenol6.
                     Terbufos6.
                     Triazines257.
                     2,4,6-Trichlorophenol6.
Alachlor ESA47
Metolachlor78
Organotins1 357
Prometon 3 6
RDX37
  'Perchlorate is not included in this table (see section IV.D.2).
  1 Organotins include dimethyl tin, dibutyl tin, monomethyl tin, monobutyl tin from PVC stabilizers and triphenyl tin pesticide.
  2Triazines include the chlorodegradates (DEA, DIA, and DACT) of regulated contaminants—atrazine and simazine.
  3 IRIS or OPP  assessment in progress or needs an updated risk assessment.
  4 Insufficient data to do a quantitative risk assessment, health assessment incomplete, or no risk assessment available.
  5These chemicals also have analytical methods (i.e., organotins) and/or treatment (i.e. triazines, aluminum) gaps.
  6 Insufficient occurrence (sampling) data for a national estimate.
  7 Lack of finished water occurrence (monitoring) data.
  8 Lack of occurrence data for metolachlor's degradates (ESA & OA). Metolachlor and its degradates are on UCMR 2.

                  TABLE 3—INFORMATION GAPS FOR THE  MICROBIAL CONTAMINANTS  (AS OF MAY 2007)
Health effects
Microsporidia 	
Some Cyanotoxins 	








Occurrence
Microsporidia 	
Some Cyanotoxins 	
Aeromonas
Helicobacter
MAC 	
Adenoviruses 	
Caliciviruses
Coxsackieviruses
Echovi ruses 	

Treatment
Microsporidia 	
Some Cyanotoxins 	
Aeromonas
Helicobacter
MAC 	
Adenoviruses 	
Caliciviruses
Coxsackievi ruses
Echovi ruses 	

Analytical methods
Microsporidia
Some Cyanotoxins
Aeromonas
Helicobacter
MAC





VII. References

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease
    Registry (ATSDR). 1992. Toxicological
    Profile for Boron. Atlanta, GA: Agency
    for Toxic Substances and Disease
    Registry, Public Health Service, U.S.
    Department of Health and Human
    Services. Available on the Internet at:
    http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/
    tp26.html.
ATSDR. 1996. Toxicological Profile for
    1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane. Available on
    the Internet at: http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/
    toxprofiles/tp93.html.
ATSDR. 1998. Toxicological Profile for 2,4-
    and 2,6-Dinitrotoluene. Available on the
    Internet at: http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/
    toxprofiles/tpl09.html.
ATSDR. 2002. Toxicological Profile DDT,
    DDE, and DDD. Available on the Internet
    at: h ttp://www. atsdr. cdc.gov/toxprofiles/
    tp35.html.
Frey, M.M., C. Seidel, M. Edwards, J. Parks,
    and L. McNeill. 2004. Occurrence Survey
    for Boron and Hexavalent Chromium.
    AwwaRF Report 91044F.
Hawley, G.G. 1981. Condensed Chemical
                        Dictionary. 10th ed. New York, NY: Van
                        Nostrand Reinhold Co. (As cited in
                        ATSDR, 1996)
                    Hazardous Substances Database (HSDB).
                        2004a. "TOXNET: Toxicology Data
                        Network—2,4-Dinitrotoluene." Available
                        on the Internet at: http://
                        toxnet.nlm.nih.gov. [Search for 2,4-
                        dinitrotoluene.] Accessed November 1,
                        2004.
                    HSDB. 2004b. "TOXNET: Toxicology Data
                        Network—2,6-Dinitrotoluene." Available
                        on the Internet at: http://
                        toxnet.nlm.nih.gov. [Search for 2,6-
                        dinitrotoluene.] Accessed November 1,
                        2004.
                    International Agency for Research on Cancer
                        (IARC). 1979. 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane.
                        IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of
                        the Carcinogenic Risk of Chemicals to
                        Humans: Some Halogenated
                        Hydrocarbons. Vol.  20. pp. 477-489. (As
                        cited in ATSDR, 1996)
                    Kolpin, D.W. and J.D. Martin. 2003.
                        "Pesticides in Ground Water: Summary
                        Statistics; Preliminary Results from
                        Cycle I of the National Water Quality
                        Assessment Program (NAWQA), 1992-
    2001." Available on the Internet at:
    http://ca.water.usgs.gov/pnsp/pestgw/
    Pest-GW_2001_Text.html. Accessed
    August 24, 2004. A copy of this report
    is available in the docket.
Martin, J.D., C.G. Crawford, and S.J. Larson.
    2003. "Pesticides in Streams: Summary
    Statistics; Preliminary Results from
    Cycle I of the National Water Quality
    Assessment Program (NAWQA), 1992-
    2001." Available on the Internet at:
    http://ca.water.usgs.gov/pnsp/pestsw/
    Pest-SW_2001_Text.html. Accessed
    August 24, 2004. A copy of this report
    is available in the docket.
National Drinking Water Advisory Council
    (NDWAC). 2004. Report on the CCL
    Classification Process to the U.S.
    Environmental Protection Agency; May
    19, 2004.
NDWAC. 2000. Proposed Recommendation
    from the Working Group on CCL and 6-
    Year Review to the U.S. Environmental
    Protection Agency; May 23, 2000.
National Research Council. 2001. Classifying
    Drinking Water Contaminants for
    Regulatory Consideration. National
    Academy Press, Washington DC.

-------
                     Federal  Register/Vol. 73, No. 147/Wednesday, July  30,  2008/Notices
                                                                        44261
Seidel, C. 2006. Email Communication from
    C. Seidel to Brent Ranalli at The Cadmus
    Group, Inc. [concerning boron data from
    an AwwaRF-sponsored study, with data
    in an attached spreadsheet]. Denver, CO:
    McGuire Malcolm Pirnie; May 19, 2006.
USEPA. 1998a. Registration Eligibility
    Decision (RED)-DCPA. EPA  Report
    738-R-98-005. Washington, DC: Office
    of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic
    Substances. November 1998. Available
    on the Internet at: http://www.epa.gov/
    oppsrrdl/REDs/0270red.pdf.
USEPA. 1998b. Reregistration Eligibility
    Decision (RED)—1,3-Dichloropropene.
    EPA Report 738-R-98-016. Washington,
    DC: Office of Prevention, Pesticides and
    Toxic Substances. December 1998.
    Available on the Internet at: http://
    www. epa .gov/oppsrrdl /REDs/
    0328red.pdf.
USEPA. 1998c. Reregistration Eligibility
    Decision (RED)-Terbacil. EPA Report
    738-R-97-011. Washington, DC: Office
    of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic
    Substances. January 1998. Available on
    the Internet at: http://www.epa.gov/
    oppsrrdl/REDs/0039red.pdf.
USEPA. 1998d. Notice of Receipt  of Requests
    to Voluntarily Cancel Certain Pesticide
    Registrations. Federal Register. Vol. 63,
    No. 87. p. 25033, May 6, 1998.
USEPA. 1999c. Reregistration Eligibility
    Decision (RED)—EPIC. EPA Report 738-
    R-99-006. Washington, DC: Office of
    Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic
    Substances. December 1999. Available
    on the Internet at: http://www.epa.gov/
    oppsrrdl/REDs/0064red.pdf.
USEPA. 1999d. Reregistration Eligibility
    Decision (RED) Facts—O-Ethyl S-phenyl
    ethylphosphonodithiolate (Fonofos).
    EPA Report 738-F-99-019. Washington,
    DC: Office of Prevention, Pesticides and
    Toxic Substances. November 1999.
    Available on the Internet at: http://
    www.epa.gov/oppsrrdl/REDs/factsheets/
    0105fact.pdf.
USEPA. 2000. Methodology for Deriving
    Ambient Water Quality Criteria for the
    Protection of Human Health (2000). EPA
    Report EPA-822-B-00-004. Washington,
    DC: Office of Water. October 2000.
    Available on the Internet at: http://
    www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/
    humanhealth/method/method.html
USEPA. 2007a. Drinking Water: Regulatory
    Determinations Regarding Contaminants
    on the Second Drinking Water
    Contaminant Candidate List—
    Preliminary Determinations. Notice.
    Federal Register. Vol. 72, No. 83, p.
    24016, May 1, 2007.
USEPA. 2008a. Regulatory Determinations
    Support Document for Selected
    Contaminants from the Second Drinking
    Water Contaminant Candidate List (CCL
    2). EPA Report 815-R-08-012. June
    2008.
USEPA. 2008b. The Analysis of Occurrence
    Data from the First Unregulated
    Contaminant Monitoring Regulation
    (UCMR I) in Support of Regulatory
    Determinations for the Second Drinking
    Water Contaminant Candidate List. EPA
    Report 815-R-08-013. June 2008.
USEPA. 2008c. The Analysis of Occurrence
    Data from the Unregulated Contaminant
    Monitoring (UCM) Program and National
    Inorganics and Radionuclides Survey
    (MRS) in Support of Regulatory
    Determinations for the Second Drinking
    Water Contaminant Candidate List. EPA
    Report 815-R-08-014. June 2008.
USEPA. 2008d. Health Effects Support
    Document for Boron. EPA Report 822-R-
    08-002. June 2008.
USEPA. 2008e. Health Effects Support
    Document for Dacthal Degradates:
    Tetrachloroterephthalic Acid (TPA) and
    Monomethyl Tetrachloroterephthalic
    Acid (MTP). EPA Report 822-R-08-005.
    June 2008.
USEPA. 2008f. Health Effects  Support
    Document for l,l-Dichloro-2,2-bis(p-
    chlorophenyljethylene (DDE). EPA
    Report 822-R-08-003. June 2008.
USEPA. 2008g. Health Effects Support
    Document for S-Ethyl
    dipropylthiocarbamate (EPTC). EPA
    Report 822-R-08-006. June 2008.
USEPA. 2008h. Health Effects Support
    Document for Fonofos. EPA Report 822-
    R-08-009. June 2008.
USEPA. 20081. Health Effects  Support
    Document for Terbacil. EPA Report 822-
    R-08-004. June 2008.
USEPA. 2008J. Health Effects Support
    Document for 1,3-Dichloropropene. EPA
    Report 822-R-08-008. June 2008.
USEPA. 2008k. Health Effects Support
    Document for 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane.
    EPA Report 822-R-08-007. June 2008.
USEPA. 20081. Health Advisory for 2,4- and
    2,6-Dinitrotoluene. EPA Report 822-R-
    08-010. June 2008.
USEPA. 2008m. Comment Response
    Document for the Regulatory
    Determinations on the Second Drinking
    Water Contaminant Candidate List 2
    (Categorized Public Comments). June
    2008.
USGS. 2004. "Mineral Commodity
    Summaries, January 2004—Boron."
    January 2004. Available on the Internet
    at: http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/
    pubs/commodity/boron/boronmcs04.pdf.
  Dated: July 24, 2008.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. E8-17463 Filed 7-29-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
[EPA-HQ-OPP-2003-0397;FRL-8374-6]

Molinate; Product Cancellation Order
and Amendment to Terminate Uses

AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: This notice announces EPA's
amendment to the order for the
termination of uses, voluntarily
requested by the registrant and accepted
by the Agency, of products containing
the pesticide molinate, pursuant to
section 6(f)(l) of the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
(FIFRA), as amended. This amendment
follows an April 7, 2004 Federal
Register Notice  of Order to Amend
Registrations to  Terminate Uses of
molinate to control water grass in  rice
grown in California and the south
central/south eastern states  of Arkansas,
Louisiana, Missouri, Tennessee, and
Texas. Nothing in today's action
changes the previous stop production
date of June 30,  2008, nor does it change
the stop use date of August  31, 2009.
Today's action only clarifies the
deadline for persons other than the
registrant to sell and distribute molinate
until July 1, 2009.
DATES: The cancellation amendment is
effective July 30, 2008.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Wilhelmena Livingston, Special Review
and Reregistration Division  (7508P),
Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington,
DC 20460-0001; telephone number:
(703) 308-8025; fax number: (703) 308-
8005; e-mail address:
livingston.wilhelmena@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?
  This action is directed to the public
in general, and may be of interest to a
wide range of stakeholders including
environmental, human health, and
agricultural advocates; the chemical
industry; pesticide users; and members
of the public interested in the sale,
distribution, or use of pesticides. Since
others also may be interested, the
Agency has not  attempted to describe all
the specific entities that may be affected
by this action. If you have any questions
regarding the applicability of this  action
to a particular entity, consult the person
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT.

B. How Can I Get Copies of this
Document and Other Related
Information?
  1. Docket. EPA has established a
docket for this action under docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-
OPP-2003-0397. Publicly available
docket materials are available either in
the electronic docket at http://
www.regulations.gov, or, if only
available in hard copy, at the Office of
Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory
Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One
Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S.
Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The hours of

-------