Anda di halaman 1dari 5

Federal Register / Vol. 71, No.

58 / Monday, March 27, 2006 / Proposed Rules 15105

consensus standards are technical Subpart X—Provisions for ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION


standards (e.g., materials specifications, Implementation of the 8-Hour Ozone AGENCY
test methods, sampling procedures, and National Ambient Air Quality Standard
business practices) that are developed or 40 CFR Part 142
adopted by VCS bodies. The NTTAA 2. Section 51.919 is added to read as [EPA–HQ–OW–2002–0061; FRL–8046–5]
directs EPA to provide Congress, follows:
through OMB, explanations when the National Primary Drinking Water
Agency decides not to use available and § 51.919 What requirements apply to
overwhelming transport areas (OTAs) for
Regulations; Ground Water Rule;
applicable VCS. Notice of Data Availability
modeling and attainment demonstration,
This proposed rulemaking does not
reasonable further progress, and AGENCY: Environmental Protection
involve technical standards. Therefore, reasonably available control technology?
EPA is not considering the use of any Agency (EPA).
VCS. (a) Attainment demonstration. (1) An ACTION: Proprosed rule; notice of data
The EPA will encourage the States area classified as an OTA under ’§ 1.904 availability.
and Tribes to consider the use of such must submit an attainment
standards, where appropriate, in the demonstration meeting the requirements SUMMARY: On May 10, 2000, EPA
development of the implementation of § 51.112, which may be based on: published the proposed Ground Water
plans. Rule (GWR), a national primary
(i) photochemical grid modeling drinking water regulation, in the
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal conducted for the OTA; Federal Register. The purpose of the
Actions To Address Environmental (ii) attainment demonstrations proposed rule is to provide for increased
Justice in Minority Populations and completed by areas upwind of the OTA, protection against microbial pathogens
Low-Income Populations where the modeling domains include in public water systems that use ground
Executive Order 12898 requires that the OTA; or water sources. In the proposed rule,
each Federal agency make achieving (iii) regional or national modeling that EPA presented 16 occurrence studies.
environmental justice part of its mission demonstrates the area will attain the 8- Since the rule was proposed, new data
by identifying and addressing, as hour standard. have become available that further
appropriate, disproportionate high and delineate pathogen and fecal indicator
(2) A mid-course review (MCR) is not occurrence in groundwater. The
adverse human health or environmental required for an area classified as an
effects of its programs, policies, and purpose of this notice of data
OTA under § 51.904. availability is to present additional
activities on minorities and low-income
populations. (b) Reasonable further progress (RFP). occurrence studies that the Agency may
The EPA concluded that the Phase 1 An area classified as an OTA under use in performing its economic analysis
and Phase 2 Rules should not raise any § 51.904 with an approved attainment of the final GWR, and to solicit
environmental justice issues; for the demonstration is considered to have met comment on those additional studies
same reasons, this proposal should not the RFP obligation under section and on whether EPA should consider
raise any environmental justice issues. 172(c)(2) of the CAA with the measures any additional ground water microbial
The health and environmental risks that will bring the area into attainment occurrence data not mentioned in the
associated with ozone were considered by the attainment date. proposed rule or in this notice.
in the establishment of the 8-hour, 0.08 (c) Reasonably available control DATES: Comments must be received on
ppm ozone NAAQS. The level is technology (RACT) and reasonably or before April 26, 2006.
designed to be protective with an available control measures (RACM). For ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
adequate margin of safety. The proposed an area classified as an OTA under identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–
rule provides a framework for § 51.904, the State shall meet the RACT OW–2002–0061, by one of the following
improving environmental quality and and RACM requirements of section methods:
reducing health risks for areas that may 172(c)(1) by submitting an attainment • http://www.regulations.gov: Follow
be designated nonattainment. demonstration SIP showing that the area the on-line instructions for submitting
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 51 will attain as expeditiously as comments.
practicable, taking into consideration • E-mail: OW-Docket@epa.gov.
Environmental protection, Air emissions reductions in upwind • Mail: Water Docket, Environmental
pollution control, Carbon monoxide, nonattainment areas that contribute to Protection Agency, Mailcode: 4101T,
Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
the OTAs air quality.
Particulate matter, Sulfur oxides. Washington, DC 20460.
(d) Contingency measures. • Hand Delivery: Deliver your
Dated: March 21, 2006.
Contingency measures must accompany comments to Water Docket, EPA Docket
William L. Wehrum, the attainment demonstration SIP. All
Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and Center, Environmental Protection
subpart 1 ozone areas and subpart 2 Agency, Room B102, 1301 Constitution
Radiation.
areas other than marginal areas need Ave., NW., Washington, DC, Attention
For the reasons stated in the contingency measures. Overwhelming
preamble, Title 40, Chapter I of the Code Docket ID No. OW–2002–0061. Such
transport areas may rely on contingency deliveries are only accepted during the
of Federal Regulations, is proposed to be measures adopted by the upwind
amended as follows: Docket’s normal hours of operation, and
contributing areas; however such special arrangements should be made
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS

contingency measures must be for deliveries of boxed information.


PART 51—[AMENDED]
structured to be triggered by a failure in Instructions: Direct your comments to
1. The authority citation for part 51 the OTA itself to make RFP or attain the Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OW–2002–
continues to read as follows: standard by the applicable date. 0061. EPA’s policy is that all comments
Authority: 23 U.S.C. 101; 42 U.S.C. 7401– [FR Doc. 06–2909 Filed 3–24–06; 8:45 am] received will be included in the public
7671q. BILLING CODE 6560–50–P docket without change and may be

VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:28 Mar 24, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\27MRP1.SGM 27MRP1
15106 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 58 / Monday, March 27, 2006 / Proposed Rules

made available online at http:// Management Division, Office of Ground AWWSCo American Water Works
www.regulations.gov, including any Water and Drinking Water (MC 4607M), Service Company
personal information provided, unless Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 BGMK Buffalo Green Monkey Kidney
the comment includes information Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, CWS community water system
claimed to be Confidential Business DC 20460; telephone number: (202) DV data verification
Information (CBI) or other information 564–5275; e-mail address: EPA Environmental Protection Agency
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Rodgers.Crystal@epa.gov. FR Federal Register
Do not submit information that you GWR Ground Water Rule
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
consider to be CBI or otherwise GWUDI Ground Water Under the
protected through http:// I. General Information Direct Influence of Surface Water
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The mL milliliters
A. Does This Action Apply to Me? MPN most probable number
http://www.regulations.gov Web site is
Today’s action itself does not impose NCWS non-community water system
an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which
any requirements on anyone. Instead, it NTNCWS non-transient non-
means EPA will not know your identity
presents to interested parties pathogen community water system
or contact information unless you PCR polymerase chain reaction
and indicator occurrence data that the
provide it in the body of your comment. PWS public water system
Agency has become aware of after
If you send an e-mail comment directly RIA Regulatory Impact Analysis
publication of the proposed GWR. EPA
to EPA without going through http:// RT–PCR reverse-transcriptase,
is considering using this new
www.regulations.gov your e-mail polymerase chain reaction
information in this rulemaking.
address will automatically be captured SAL single agar layer
and included as part of the comment B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare SDWIS Safe Drinking Water
that is placed in the public docket and My Comments for EPA? Information System
made available on the Internet. If you 1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this TCR Total Coliform Rule
submit an electronic comment, EPA information to EPA through http:// TNCWS transient non-community
recommends that you include your www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly water system
name and other contact information in mark the part or all of the information USGS United States Geological Survey
the body of your comment and with any that you claim to be CBI. For CBI II. Purpose of This Document
disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA information in a disk or CD–ROM that
cannot read your comment due to you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the The purpose of this document is to
technical difficulties and cannot contact disk or CD–ROM as CBI and then present pathogen and indicator
you for clarification, EPA may not be identify electronically within the disk or occurrence data that the Agency has
able to consider your comment. CD–ROM the specific information that become aware of since publication of
Electronic files should avoid the use of is claimed as CBI. In addition to one the proposed GWR. EPA is considering
special characters, any form of complete version of the comment that the incorporation of the new
encryption, and be free of any defects or includes information claimed as CBI, a information in the economic analysis of
viruses. For additional information copy of the comment that does not the final GWR.
about EPA’s public docket visit the EPA contain the information claimed as CBI In the proposed GWR, EPA presented
Docket Center homepage at http:// must be submitted for inclusion in the 16 occurrence studies. The Agency did
www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. public docket. Information so marked not use data from all of those 16 studies
For additional instructions on will not be disclosed except in in developing the proposed rule because
submitting comments, go to Section I of accordance with procedures set forth in certain studies had a different scope and
the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section 40 CFR part 2. were not nationally representative.
of this document. 2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. Since the proposal, EPA has become
Docket: All documents in the docket When submitting comments, remember aware of seven additional relevant
are listed in the http:// to: studies. Based on public comments
www.regulations.gov index. Although • Follow directions—The agency may received on the proposed GWR, the
listed in the index, some information is ask you to respond to specific questions Agency has re-evaluated the 16
not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other or organize comments by referencing a occurrence studies described in the
information whose disclosure is Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part proposed rule and examined the data
restricted by statute. Certain other or section number. from the seven additional new studies.
material, such as copyrighted material, • Explain why you agree or disagree; Some of these seven additional studies
will be publicly available only in hard suggest alternatives and substitute demonstrate actual pathogen and/or
copy. Publicly available docket language for your requested changes. fecal indicator presence in ground water
materials are available either • Describe any assumptions and at detectable levels. The Agency
electronically at http:// provide any technical information and/ believes that, when considered
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at or data that you used. collectively, these studies inform EPA’s
the Water Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West, • Provide specific examples to understanding of the national
Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., illustrate your concerns, and suggest occurrence of viruses and fecal
NW., Washington, DC. The Public alternatives. indicators and confirm that certain
• Explain your views as clearly as public ground water systems may be at
Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to
possible, avoiding the use of profanity risk of fecal contamination, which may
4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday,
or personal threats. pose a threat to public health.
excluding legal holidays. The telephone • Make sure to submit your
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS

number for the Public Reading Room is comments by the comment period III. Background
(202) 566–1744, and the telephone deadline identified.
number for the Water Docket is (202) A. New Occurrence Data and
566–2426. Abbreviations Used in This Notice Information
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: AWWARF American Water Works The proposed Ground Water Rule
Crystal Rodgers, Standards and Risk Association Research Foundation provided summaries of 16 studies that

VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:28 Mar 24, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\27MRP1.SGM 27MRP1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 58 / Monday, March 27, 2006 / Proposed Rules 15107

evaluated pathogen and/or fecal assessing public health risk (65 FR studies that EPA is noticing for public
indicator occurrence in U.S. ground 30207). Table III–1 lists these 16 studies comment today. This section also
waters (65 FR 30194). The preamble to and presents updated publication dates provides a summary of the additional
the proposed rule discussed how EPA where available and applicable. Table studies.
planned to use those studies in III–1 also lists the seven additional

TABLE III–1.—LIST OF MICROBIAL OCCURRENCE STUDIES/SURVEYS


Studies cited in Proposed Rule Updated publication dates

1. AWWARF/AWWSCo (Abbaszadegan, 1999 a,b)1 ........................................................................................ 1999c, 2003 a,b.


2. EPA/AWWARF: Phase II (Lieberman et al. 1994, 1999) .............................................................................. 2002, Fout et al, 2003.
Dahling et al, 2002.
3. Missouri Ozark Plateau #1 (Davis and Witt, 1998, 1999) 2 ........................................................................... 2000.
4. Missouri Ozark Plateau #2 (Femmer, 1999) 3 ............................................................................................... 2000.
5. Missouri Alluvial Aquifer (Vaughn, 1996) 4 .................................................................................................... N/A.
6. Wisconsin Migrant Worker Camp (USEPA et al., 1998a) ............................................................................. N/A
7. EPA Vulnerability (USEPA, 1998b) ............................................................................................................... N/A.
8. U.S.-Mexico Border (TX and NM) (Pillai, 1997) ............................................................................................ N/A.
9. Whittier, CA (Yanko et al., 1999) ................................................................................................................... N/A.
10. Honolulu Board of Water Supply (Fujioka and Yoneyama, 1997) .............................................................. 2001.
11. New England (Doherty et al., 1998) 5 .......................................................................................................... N/A.
12. California Study. (Yates, 1999) .................................................................................................................... N/A.
13–16. Three-State Study: (Battigelli, 1999) ..................................................................................................... (Maryland-Banks and Battigelli,
2002)6; (Maryland-Banks et al.,
2001)7; (Minnesota DOH, 2000).

Additional Occurrence Studies:


1. Pennsylvania Noncommunity Wells (Lindsey et al., 2002).
2. Microbial Indicators (Karim et al., 2003, 2004).
3. Southeast Michigan (Francy et al., 2004).
4. Validation of Methods (USEPA, 2006).
5. La Crosse, WI (Borchardt et al., 2004).
6. Mountain Water Company in Missoula, MT (DeBorde et al., 1995).
7. New Jersey (Atherholt et al, 2003).
Updated results:
1 PCR: Rotavirus (62/448), Hepatitis A virus (31/448), Enterovirus (68/448).
2 Cell culture: Enterovirus (1/109).
3 Cell culture: Enterovirus (0/109).
4 Cell culture: Enterovirus (12/81).
5 Cell culture: Enterovirus (0/124); PCR: Enterovirus (11/119), HAV (37/119), Rotavirus (6/119).
6 Cell culture: Enteric virus (0/91); RT–PCR: Enteric virus (11/91).
7 Cell culture: Enteric virus (1/27); RT–PCR: Enteric virus (3/30).

1. Summary of Additional Occurrence (evaluated as surrogates for those consider the factors that affect the
Studies pathogens). presence of enteric viruses. From July
1999 through July 2001, researchers
EPA is now aware of seven additional b. Microbial Indicators (Karim et al.,
collected a total of 169 regular samples
studies that provide information on 2003, 2004)
and 32 replicate pairs in southeastern
pathogen occurrence in U.S. ground The overall objective of this study was Michigan from 38 wells in
waters. These studies were designed to to evaluate Methods 1601 and 1602, discontinuous sand and gravel aquifers.
collect occurrence data for varying analytical procedures that test for
reasons. This section includes a coliphage in water samples, and to d. Validation of Methods (USEPA, 2006)
summary of each study. develop a useful microbial indicator for
The purpose of this two-phase study
a. Pennsylvania Noncommunity Wells assessing the vulnerability of
was to evaluate EPA Methods 1601 and
(Lindsey et al., 2002) groundwater for viral/fecal
1602 in detecting coliphages in ground
contamination (Karim et al., 2003,
The purpose of this study was to water. In phase I, the data was used to
2004). Researchers selected and
measure pathogen and indicator further establish and quantify the
sampled for one year 20 ground water
occurrence in a random stratified performance of the methods. In phase II,
wells from 11 states from a previous
sample of non-community water system the methods were applied to samples
national study (Abbaszadegan et al.,
(NCWS) wells in primarily carbonate from geographically representative
2003).
aquifers and crystalline aquifers, which groundwater samples from both PWSs
are hydrogeologically sensitive settings. c. Southeast Michigan (Francy et al., and private wells that were potentially
The United States Geological Survey 2004) vulnerable to fecal contamination.
(USGS) (Lindsey et al. 2002) analyzed The purpose of this study of small e. La Crosse, WI (Borchardt et al., 2004)
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS

59 samples selected from 60 NCWS (serving fewer than 3,000 people) public
wells from September 2000 to January ground water supply wells was to assess The objective of this study was to
2001 to assess the occurrence and the presence of both viral contamination evaluate the vulnerability of six PWS
distribution of pathogens in ground and microbiological indicators of fecal wells in La Crosse, Wisconsin to enteric
water used for non-community water contamination, relate the co-existence of virus contamination (Borchardt et al.
supplies and indicator organisms indicators and enteric viruses, and 2004). Researchers sampled monthly for

VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:28 Mar 24, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\27MRP1.SGM 27MRP1
15108 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 58 / Monday, March 27, 2006 / Proposed Rules

one year, analyzing for the presence of enteric viruses in shallow ground water Francy, D.S., R.N. Bushon, J. Stopar, E.J.
several viruses. and factors affecting well vulnerability to Luzano, and G.S. Fout. 2004.
microbiological contamination in ‘‘Environmental factors and chemical
f. Mountain Water Company, MT (De Worcester and Wicomico Counties, and microbiological water-quality
Borde et al., 1995) Maryland.’’ USGS Water-Resources constituents related to the presence of
Investigations Report 01–4147. enteric viruses in ground water from
Two PWS production wells located in Banks, W.S.L. and D.A. Battigelli. 2002. small public water supplies in
the Missoula aquifer were tested for the ‘‘Occurrence and distribution of Southeastern Michigan.’’ USGS
presence of enteroviruses and coliphage microbiological contamination and Scientific Investigations Report 2004–
every month for one year. Both wells enteric viruses in shallow ground water 5219, 54 p.
were located in unsewered residential in Baltimore and Harford Counties, Fujioka, R.S. and B.S. Yoneyama. 1997.
areas. Maryland.’’ USGS Water-Resources ‘‘Vulnerability to pathogens: phase 1
Investigations Report 01–4216, 32 p. water quality monitoring and assessment
g. New Jersey (Atherholt et al., 2003) Battigelli, D.A. 1999. ‘‘Monitoring ground study.’’ Unpublished report to the
26 public water supply wells were waters in Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Honolulu Board of Water Supply by
sampled for a variety of fecal indicator Maryland for enteric viruses and Hawaii Water Resources Center,
candidate viral indicators.’’ Unpublished University of Hawaii, WRRC 98–01, 54 p.
organisms. Three wells were non- report, February 23, 1999. Fujioka, R.S. and B.S. Yoneyama. 2001.
community water supplies. 69 samples Borchardt, M.A., N. L. Haas, R.J. Hunt. 2004. ‘‘Assessing the vulnerability of
were collected from the 14 ground water ‘‘Vulnerability of drinking-water wells in groundwater sources to fecal
wells (128 samples from all wells) La Crosse, Wisconsin, to enteric-virus contamination.’’ Journal Amer. Water
between June 1999 and February 2002. contamination from surface water Works Assoc. 93(8):62–71.
contributions.’’ Applied Envir. Karim, M.R., M. Abbaszadegan, A. Alum, and
IV. Request for Comment Microbiology 70(10):5937–5946. M. LeChevallier. 2003. ‘‘Virological
Through this notice of data Dahling, D.R. 2002. ‘‘An improved filter quality of groundwater’’ in Proceedings,
availability, EPA solicits public elution and cell culture assay procedure Water Quality Technology Conference,
comment on the seven additional for evaluating public groundwater Philadelphia, PA, October, 1999.
studies listed and summarized in this systems for culturable enteroviruses.’’ Karim, M.R., M. LeChevallier, M.
Water Envir. Research 74(6):564–568. Abbaszadegan, A. Alum, J. Sobrinho, and
notice. In addition to soliciting public Davis, J.V. and E.C.Witt, III. 1999. J. Rosen. 2004. ‘‘Microbial indicators for
comment on those seven studies, EPA ‘‘Microbiological and Chemical Quality assessing the vulnerability of
also solicits public comment on whether of Ground Water Used as a Source of groundwater to fecal contamination.’’
EPA should consider any ground water Public Supply in Southern Missouri.’’ American Water Co. report, 106 p.
microbial occurrence data not included USGS Water-Resources Investigations Lieberman, R.J., L.C. Shadix, B.S. Newport,
in the seven studies listed and Report 99–XXXX. S.R. Crout, S.E. Buescher, R.S.
summarized in this notice or in the Davis, J.V. and E.C.Witt, III. 1998. Safferman, R.E. Stetler, D. Lye, G.S. Fout,
proposed Ground Water Rule. EPA is ‘‘Microbiological Quality of Public Water and D. Dahling. 1994. ‘‘Source water
not soliciting public comment on any Supplies in the Ozark Plateaus Aquifer microbial quality of some vulnerable
System, Missouri.’’ USGS Fact Sheet public ground water supplies.’’
other issues at this time. 028–98. Proceedings, Water Quality Technology
V. References Davis, J.V. and E.C.Witt, III. 2000. Conference, San Francisco, CA, October,
‘‘Microbiological and Chemical Quality 1994.
Abbaszadegan, M., P.W. Stewart, M.W. of Ground Water Used as a Source of Lieberman, R.J., L.C. Shadix, B.S. Newport,
LeChevallier, Rosen, Jeffery S. and C.P. Public Supply in Southern Missouri— S.R. Crout, S.E. Buescher, R.S.
Gerba. 1999a. Occurrence of viruses in Phase I, May 1997–March 1998.’’ USGS Safferman, R.E. Stetler, D. Lye, G.S. Fout,
ground water in the United States. Water-Resources Investigations Report and D. Dahling. 1999. ‘‘Source water
American Water Works Association 00–4038, 77 pp. microbial quality of some vulnerable
Research Foundation. Denver, CO, 162 p. DeBorde, D.C., R. Ward. 1995. Results of one public ground water supplies.’’
Abbaszadegan, M., P. Stewart, and M. year of virus testing at two high-yield Unpublished report in preparation.
LeChevallier. 1999b. ‘‘A Strategy for water table wells in areas served by Lieberman, R.J., L.C. Shadix, B.S. Newport,
Detection of Viruses in Groundwater by septic systems. Unpublished report to C.P. Frebis, M.W.N. Moyer, R.S.
PCR.’’ Applied and Envir. Microbiology,
Mountain Water Co., Missoula, MT. Safferman, R.E. Stetler, D. Lye, G.S. Fout,
65(2):444–449.
Doherty, K. 1998. ‘‘Status of the New England and D. Dahling. 2002. ‘‘Microbial
Abbaszadegan, M., M. Denhart, M. Spinner,
ground water viral study.’’ Proceedings, monitoring of vulnerable public ground
G. Di Giovanni, and M. LeChevallier.
American Water Works Association water supplies.’’ American Water Works
1999c. ‘‘Identification of viruses present
in ground water cell culture harvest by Annual Meeting, Dallas, Texas, June 23, Association Research Foundation,
PCR.’’ In Proceedings, Water Quality 1998. American Water Works Denver, CO, 162 p.
Technology Conference, Tampa, FL, Association, Denver. Lindsey, B.D., Raspberry, J.S. and
October, 1999. Femmer, S. 1999. ‘‘Microbiological Quality of Zimmerman, T.M. 2002.
Abbaszadegan, M., M. LeChevallier and C. Older Wells in Public Water Supplies in ‘‘Microbiological quality of water from
Gerba. 2003a. ‘‘Occurrence of viruses in the Ozark Plateaus Aquifer System, noncommunity supply wells in
U.S. Groundwaters.’’ Journal Amer. Missouri.’’ Unpublished report to carbonate and crystalline aquifers of
Water Works Assoc. 95(9):107–120. Missouri Department of Natural Pennsylvania.’’ U.S. Geological Survey
Abbaszadegan, M. 2003b. ‘‘Viruses in Resources. Water—Resources Investigations Report
Drinking Water and Groundwater’’ in Femmer, S. 2000. ‘‘Microbiological and 01–4268, 30 p.
Encyclopedia of Environmental chemical quality of ground water used as Minnesota Department of Health. 2000.
Microbiology, G. Bitton, editor in chief, a source of public supply in southern ‘‘Minnesota Department of Health viral
John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY, p. Missouri—Phase II, April–July, 1998.’’ occurrence study.’’ Minnesota
3288–3300. USGS Water-Resources Investigations Department of Health, St. Paul, 7 p.
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS

Atherholt, T., E. Feerst, B. Hovendon, J. Report 00–4260. Pillai, S. 1997. ‘‘Virus sampling and
Kwak, J. and D. Rosen. 2003. ‘‘Evaluation Fout, S., B.C. Martinson, M.W.N. Moyer, and microbial analysis at the U.S.-Mexico
of indicators of fecal contamination in D.R. Dahling. 2003. A multiplex reverse border for the U.S. Environmental
groundwater.’’ Journal Amer. Water transcription—PCR method for detection Protection Agency.’’ Unpublished report
Works Assoc. 95(10):119–131. of human enteric viruses in groundwater. for The Cadmus Group, Inc.
Banks, W.S.L., C.A. Klohe, D.A. Battigelli. Appl. Envir. Microbiology 69(6):3158– USEPA. 2006. National Field Study for
2001. ‘‘Occurrence and distribution of 3164. Coliphage Detection in Groundwater:

VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:28 Mar 24, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\27MRP1.SGM 27MRP1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 58 / Monday, March 27, 2006 / Proposed Rules 15109

Method 1601 and 1602 evaluation in proposed Base (1% annual-chance) insurance premium rates for new
regional aquifers. EPA Office of Water. Flood Elevations (BFEs) and proposed buildings built after these elevations are
EPA/822/R/06/002. BFE modifications for the communities made final, and for the contents in these
USEPA et al. 1998a. ‘‘Wisconsin migrant listed below. The BFEs and modified buildings.
worker camp drinking water quality
study.’’ Unpublished report prepared for
BFEs are the basis for the floodplain National Environmental Policy Act.
U.S. EPA Region V, Safe Drinking Water management measures that the This proposed rule is categorically
Branch, July, 1998, 37 p. community is required either to adopt excluded from the requirements of 44
USEPA. 1998b. ‘‘GWR vulnerability or to show evidence of being already in CFR part 10, Environmental
assessment study, April 3, 1998.’’ effect in order to qualify or remain Consideration. No environmental
Unpublished report prepared by qualified for participation in the impact assessment has been prepared.
International Consultants, Inc. for the National Flood Insurance Program Regulatory Flexibility Act. The
Office of Ground Water and Drinking (NFIP). Mitigation Division Director of the
Water, 29 p.
Vaughn, J.M. 1996. ‘‘Sample Analyses.’’ DATES: The comment period is ninety Federal Emergency Management Agency
Attachment, unpublished letter on the (90) days following the second certifies that this proposed rule is
analysis of alluvial wells in Missouri by publication of this proposed rule in a exempt from the requirements of the
J. Lane and K. Duzan, Missouri newspaper of local circulation in each Regulatory Flexibility Act because
Department of Natural Resources, Rolla, community. proposed or modified BFEs are required
MO, November 7, 1996. by the Flood Disaster Protection Act of
Yanko, W.A., J.L. Jackson, F.P. Williams, A.S. ADDRESSES: The proposed BFEs for each 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and are required
Walker and M.S. Castillo. 1999. ‘‘An community are available for inspection to establish and maintain community
unexpected temporal pattern of at the office of the Chief Executive eligibility in the NFIP. No regulatory
coliphage isolation in ground waters Officer of each community. The
sampled from wells at varied distance
flexibility analysis has been prepared.
respective addresses are listed in the Regulatory Classification. This
from reclaimed water recharge sites.’’
table below. proposed rule is not a significant
Wat. Research, 33:53–64.
Yates, M.V. 1999. Viruses and indicators in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: regulatory action under the criteria of
ground water, Results of repeated Doug Bellomo, P.E., Hazard section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 of
monitoring. Unpublished report, Identification Section, Mitigation September 30, 1993, Regulatory
February 23, 1999. Division, Federal Emergency Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735.
Dated: March 14, 2006. Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Executive Order 13132, Federalism.
Benjamin H. Grumbles, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646–2903. This rule involves no policies that have
Assistant Administrator, Office of Water. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FEMA federalism implications under Executive
[FR Doc. 06–2931 Filed 3–24–06; 8:45 am] proposes to make determinations of Order 13132.
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
BFEs and modified BFEs for each Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice
community listed below, in accordance Reform. This rule meets the applicable
with section 110 of the Flood Disaster standards of Executive Order 12988.
Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104,
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 67
and 44 CFR 67.4(a).
SECURITY Administrative practice and
These proposed BFEs and modified
Federal Emergency Management BFEs, together with the floodplain procedure, Flood insurance, Reporting
Agency management criteria required by 44 CFR and recordkeeping requirements.
60.3, are the minimum that are required. Accordingly, 44 CFR part 67 is
44 CFR Part 67 They should not be construed to mean proposed to be amended as follows:
that the community must change any
[Docket No. FEMA–B–7456] existing ordinances that are more PART 67—[AMENDED]
stringent in their floodplain
Proposed Flood Elevation 1. The authority citation for part 67
management requirements. The
Determinations continues to read as follows:
community may at any time enact
AGENCY: Federal Emergency stricter requirements of its own, or Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.;
Management Agency (FEMA), pursuant to policies established by other Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1978, 3 CFR,
Federal, State, or regional entities. 1978 Comp., p. 329; E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367,
Department of Homeland Security.
3 CFR, 1979 Comp., p. 376, § 67.4.
ACTION: Proposed rule. These proposed elevations are used to
meet the floodplain management 2. The tables published under the
SUMMARY:Technical information or requirements of the NFIP and are also authority of § 67.4 are proposed to be
comments are requested on the used to calculate the appropriate flood amended as follows:

*Elevation in feet (NGVD)


+Elevation in feet (NAVD)
#Depth in feet above
State City/town/county Source of flooding Location ground

Effective Modified

Arizona .................. Pinal County (Unin- Arizola Drain ..................... Shallow Flooding Area—Between I–10/ None #1
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS

corporated SR–84 Interchange to confluence with


Areas), City of North Santa Cruz Wash.
Casa Grande.

ADDRESSES
City of Casa Grande:

VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:28 Mar 24, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\27MRP1.SGM 27MRP1