[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 42 (Thursday, March 3, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 11713-11737]
[FR Doc No: 2011-4641]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 141 and 142

[Docket No. OW-2009-0090; FRL-9274-2]
RIN 2040-AF10

Revisions to the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation
(UCMR 3) for Public Water Systems

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The 1996 amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA)
require that the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or
the Agency) establish criteria for a program to monitor unregulated
contaminants and to publish a list of contaminants to be monitored
every five years. This action meets the SDWA requirement by proposing
the design for the third UCMR cycle (i.e., UCMR 3). EPA is proposing
six EPA-developed analytical methods, and four equivalent consensus
organization-developed methods to monitor for 28 new UCMR chemical
contaminants. In addition, EPA proposes monitoring for two viruses, for
a total of 30 UCMR 3 contaminants. As envisioned, virus analysis (along
with related analysis for pathogen indicators) would be conducted in
laboratories under EPA contract. UCMR 3 provides EPA and other
interested parties with scientifically valid data on the occurrence of
these contaminants in drinking water, permitting the assessment of the
number of people potentially being exposed and the levels of that
exposure. These data are the primary source of occurrence and exposure
information the Agency uses to determine whether to regulate these
contaminants. In addition, as part of an Expedited Methods Update, this
proposed action also would amend regulations concerning inorganic
chemical sampling and analytical requirements. A minor editorial
correction to the table moves methods from the ``Other'' column to the
``ASTM'' column, as it applies to the inorganic chemical sampling and
analytical requirements. The UCMR program is not affected by these
changes.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 2, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. OW-2009-
0090, by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
     E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Mail: Send three copies of your comments and any
enclosures to: Water Docket, United States Environmental Protection
Agency, Mail Code 282211T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington,
DC 20460, Attention Docket ID No. OW-2009-0090. Commenters should use a
separate paragraph for each issue discussed. In addition, please mail a
copy of your comments on the information collection provisions to the
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and
Budget (OMB), Attn: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th St., NW.,
Washington, DC 20503.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver your comments to Water Docket, EPA
Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Room 3334, 1301
Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC, Attention Docket ID No. OW-
2009-0090. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal
hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for
deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-OW-2009-
0090. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in
the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through http://www.regulations.gov your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses.

    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Water Docket, EPA/
DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC.
This 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<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the Water Docket is (202)
566-2426.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David J. Munch, Technical Support
Center, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water, United States
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, 26 West Martin Luther
King Drive (MS 140), Cincinnati, OH 45268; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; or
e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or Brenda D. Parris, Technical Support
Center, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water, United States
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, 26 West Martin Luther
King Drive (MS 140), Cincinnati, Ohio 45268; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
or e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For general information, contact
the Safe Drinking Water Hotline. Callers within the United States may
reach the Hotline at<PHONE_NUMBER>. The Hotline is open Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays, from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m., Eastern time.
The Safe Drinking Water Hotline may also be found on the Internet at:
http://water.epa.gov/aboutow/ogwdw/hotline/.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    Entities regulated by this action are public water systems (PWSs).
All large community and non-transient non-community water systems
serving more than 10,000 people would be required to monitor. A
community water system (CWS) means a PWS which has at least 15 service
connections used by year-round residents or regularly serves an average
of at least 25 year-round residents. A non-transient non-community
water system (NTNCWS) means a PWS that is not a CWS and that regularly
serves at least 25 of the same people over six months per year. Only a
nationally representative sample of community and non-transient non-
community systems serving 10,000 or fewer people would be required to
monitor for chemical analytes (see USEPA, 2001 for a description of the
statistical approach for the nationally representative sample).
Transient non-community systems (i.e., systems that do not regularly
serve at least 25 of the same people over six months per year) would
not be required to monitor for the chemical analytes. However,
transient ground water systems serving 1,000 or fewer would be subject
to possible selection for virus monitoring. If selected, these systems
would be required to permit EPA to sample and analyze for List 3
contaminants and pathogen indicators. EPA would pay for all sampling
and analysis costs associated with virus monitoring at these small
systems. States, Territories, and Tribes with primary enforcement
responsibility (primacy) to administer the regulatory program for PWSs
under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) may participate in the
implementation of UCMR 3 through Partnership Agreements (PAs) (see
discussion of PAs in section III.G. of today's action: ``What Is the
States' Role in the UCMR Program?''). These primacy agencies may choose
to conduct analyses to measure for contaminants in water samples
collected for the UCMR 3; however, the PWS remains responsible for
compliance. Regulated categories and entities are identified in the
following table.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Category                        Examples of potentially regulated entities          NAICS \a\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State, Local, & Tribal Governments.......  States, local and Tribal governments that analyze              924110
                                            water samples on behalf of public water systems
                                            required to conduct such analysis; States, local and
                                            Tribal governments that directly operate community,
                                            transient and non-transient non-community water
                                            systems required to monitor.
Industry.................................  Private operators of community and non-transient non-          221310
                                            community water systems required to monitor.
Municipalities...........................  Municipal operators of community and non-transient             924110
                                            non-community water systems required to monitor.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 \a\ NAICS = North American Industry Classification System.

    This table is not exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for
readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this action. This
table lists the types of entities that EPA is now aware may potentially
be regulated by this action. Other types of entities not listed in the
table could also be regulated. To determine whether your facility is
regulated by this action, you should carefully examine the definition
of PWS in Sec.  141.2 of Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations,
and applicability criteria in Sec.  141.40(a)(1) and (2) of today's
proposed action. If you have questions regarding the applicability of
this action to a particular entity, consult the persons listed in the
preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

B. Copies of This Document and Other Related Information

    This document is available for download at: http://www.regulations.gov. For other related information, see preceding
discussion on docket.

Abbreviations and Acronyms

[micro]g/L Microgram per liter
ASDWA Association of State Drinking Water Administrators
ASTM American Society for Testing Materials
CBI Confidential Business Information
CCL Contaminant Candidate List
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CWS Community water system
DSMRT Distribution system maximum residence time
EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
EPTDS Entry point to the distribution system
FR Federal Register
GC/MS Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry
GWUDI Ground water under the direct influence of surface water
HCFC-22 Chlorodifluoromethane
IC/MS Ion Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry
ICR Information collection request
IHS Indian Health Service
LCMRL Lowest concentration minimum reporting level
LC/MS/MS Liquid Chromatography/Tandem Mass Spectrometry
LFSM Laboratory fortified sample matrix
LFSMD Laboratory fortified sample matrix duplicate
MRL Minimum reporting level

NAICS North American Industry Classification System
NCOD National Drinking Water Contaminant Occurrence Database
NPDWR National primary drinking water regulation
NTNCWS Non-transient non-community water system
NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
OMB Office of Management and Budget
PA Partnership Agreement
PFBS Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid
PFHpA Perfluoroheptanoic acid
PFHxS Perfluorohexane sulfonic acid
PFNA Perfluorononanoic acid
PFOA Perfluorooctanoic acid
PFOS Perfluorooctane sulfonic acid
PT Proficiency testing
PWS Public water system
qPCR Quantitative polymerase chain reaction
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
SM Standard Methods
SRF State Revolving Fund
SBA Small Business Administration
SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act
SDWIS/Fed Federal Safe Drinking Water Information System
UCMR Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation
UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
VOC Volatile Organic Compound

Table of Contents

I. General Information
    A. Does this action apply to me?
    B. Copies of This Document and Other Related Information
II. Statutory Authority and Background
    A. What is the statutory authority for this action?
    B. How does EPA meet these statutory requirements?
    C. How are the contaminant candidate list, the National
Contaminant Occurrence Database, and the UCMR interrelated?
III. Requirements of the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Program
    A. What are the changes being proposed for UCMR 3?
    B. What priority contaminants were selected for UCMR 3?
    1. Twenty Eight Chemicals
    2. Two Viruses
    C. How Were minimum reporting levels determined?
    D. How would laboratories conduct UCMR analyses?
    E. What are the new applicability considerations?
    1. Applicability Based on Population Served
    2. Applicability for Transient Systems
    F. UCMR 3 Timeline and Sampling Design Considerations
    1. UCMR 3 Reporting Considerations
    2. Assessment Monitoring
    3. Pre-Screen Testing
    G. What is the states' role in the UCMR program?
IV. Cost of This Proposed Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions that Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
VI. Public Involvement in Regulation Development
VII. References

II. Statutory Authority and Background

A. What is the statutory authority for this action?

    Section 1445(a)(2) of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), as
amended in 1996, requires that once every five years, beginning in
August 1999, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
issue a new list of no more than 30 unregulated contaminants to be
monitored by public water systems (PWSs). It also requires that EPA
enter the monitoring data into the Agency's National Drinking Water
Contaminant Occurrence Database (NCOD). EPA's Unregulated Contaminant
Monitoring Regulation (UCMR) program must ensure that only a national
representative sample of PWSs serving 10,000 or fewer people would be
required to monitor. EPA must vary the frequency and schedule for
monitoring based on the number of persons served, the source of supply,
and the contaminants likely to be found.

B. How does EPA meet these statutory requirements?

    Today's notice proposes 30 contaminants for monitoring during the
third five-year cycle, referred to as ``UCMR 3.'' These contaminants
include: 28 chemicals using six analytical methods and/or four
equivalent consensus organization-developed methods, and two viruses
using one analytical method. EPA has developed a proposed contaminant
list (Exhibit 1) and sampling design for UCMR 3 (2012-2016) with input
from both stakeholders and an EPA-State working group.

                  Exhibit 1--Proposed Contaminant Lists
------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      List 1, Assessment Monitoring
------------------------------------------------------------------------
17-[beta]-estradiol                  chlorodifluoromethane (HCFC-22)
17-[alpha]-ethynylestradiol          bromochloromethane (Halon 1011)
 (ethinyl estradiol)
estriol                              1,4-dioxane
equilin                              vanadium
estrone                              molybdenum
testosterone                         cobalt
4-androstene-3,17-dione              strontium
1,2,3-trichloropropane               chlorate
1,3-butadiene                        perfluorooctane sulfonic acid
                                      (PFOS)
chloromethane (methyl chloride)      perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA)
1,1-dichloroethane                   perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA)
n-propylbenzene                      perfluorohexane sulfonic acid
                                      (PFHxS)
bromomethane (methyl bromide)        perfluoroheptanoic acid (PFHpA)
sec-butylbenzene                     perfluorobutanesulfonic acid (PFBS)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       List 3, Pre-Screen Testing
------------------------------------------------------------------------
enteroviruses                        noroviruses
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA published the first list for the Unregulated Contaminant
Monitoring Regulation cycle (i.e., UCMR 1) in the Federal Register on
September 17, 1999 (64 FR 50556), and the second list (i.e., UCMR 2) on
January 4, 2007 (72 FR 367). The monitoring lists that were applicable
under UCMR 1 and 2 are available at: http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/rulesregs/sdwa/ucmr/.
    In UCMR 1, EPA established a three-tiered approach for monitoring
contaminants based on the availability of analytical methods.
Assessment Monitoring for List 1 contaminants typically relies on
analytical methods that are in common use in drinking water
laboratories. Screening Survey monitoring for List 2 contaminants
relies on newly developed analytical methods that are not commonly used
in drinking water laboratories. Laboratory capacity to perform List 2
analyses is expected to be limited. Finally, UCMR 1 established the
option of Pre-Screen Testing for List 3 contaminants to address
contaminants with analytical methods that are in an early stage of
development. The expectation was that it would be used at a limited
number of systems determined to be most vulnerable to the targeted
contaminants.
    For UCMR 2, EPA built on this established structure, and instituted
some changes to the rule design. These changes were based upon lessons
learned during UCMR 1. All large PWSs, serving more than 10,000 people,
and a nationally representative selection of 800 small PWSs serving
10,000 or fewer people monitored for List 1 contaminants. This
monitoring was conducted during a continuous 12-month period during the
January 2008 to December 2010 sampling time frame (quarterly for
surface water systems, and twice, at 6-month intervals, for ground
water systems). Systems subject to UCMR 2 included community water
systems (CWSs) and non-transient non-community water systems (NTNCWSs),
except those systems that purchase all of their finished water from
another PWS.
    EPA designed the Assessment Monitoring sampling frame to ensure
that sample results would yield a high level of confidence and a low
margin of error. The design for a nationally representative sample of
small systems called for the sample to be stratified by water source
type (ground or surface water), service size category, and State (where
each State is allocated a minimum of two systems in its State
Monitoring Plan). With monitoring data from all large PWSs (a census of
all large systems) and a statistically representative sample of 800
small PWSs (for a total of over 4,000 systems), UCMR1 and UCMR 2
Assessment Monitoring provided sample data suitable to characterize
exposure, as would UCMR 3. Twenty eight chemicals are being proposed
for Assessment Monitoring under UCMR 3.
    For the UCMR 2 Screening Survey, monitoring for List 2 contaminants
was conducted by approximately 400 PWSs serving more than 100,000
people (i.e., a census of all systems in this largest size category),
with a randomly selected sample of 320 PWSs serving between 10,001 and
100,000 people, and 480 small PWSs serving 10,000 or fewer people (EPA
included additional PWSs in the Screening Survey design under UCMR 2--
as compared to UCMR 1--to increase the statistical power of the
sample). During UCMR 2, Screening Survey systems were required to
monitor during a continuous 12-month period during the time frame of
January 2008 to December 2010 (quarterly for surface water systems, and
twice, at 6-month intervals, for ground water systems). With
approximately 1,200 systems participating in the Screening Survey,
sufficient data were generated to provide an overall national estimate
of population exposure. No List 2 Screening Survey monitoring is being
proposed under UCMR 3.
    As under UCMR 1, no Pre-Screen Testing was conducted during the
UCMR 2. However, in UCMR 3, two viruses are proposed for Pre-Screen
monitoring.
    EPA is proposing that UCMR 3 include: Assessment Monitoring for 28
chemicals; no Screening Survey; and, Pre-Screen Testing for two
viruses. Other proposed changes between UCMR 2 and UCMR 3 are
summarized in section III.A. ``What Are the Changes Being Proposed for
UCMR 3?'', and discussed in further detail throughout today's proposed
rule preamble.

C. How are the contaminant candidate list, the National Contaminant
Occurrence Database, and the UCMR interrelated?

    The 1996 amendments to SDWA instituted the Contaminant Candidate
List (CCL) and UCMR programs to provide information EPA needs to
determine which drinking water contaminants have the greatest potential
to present a meaningful opportunity to reduce health risk through a
national primary drinking water regulation (NPDWR). The CCL is the
primary mechanism for the identification of contaminants that may
require regulation while UCMR provides EPA with the data necessary to
determine if a contaminant occurs at a frequency and concentration that
would be a public health concern. The CCL and UCMR are coordinated
parts of EPA's risk management process, and they support each other.
The UCMR sampling program is limited by statute to 30 contaminants at
one time, and was designed in consideration of the technical difficulty
and expense of analyzing up to 30 contaminants, as well as their
potential to occur in treated drinking water at levels of public health
concern. The data collected through the UCMR program are being stored
in the NCOD to: facilitate analysis and review of contaminant
occurrence; guide the conduct of the CCL process; and support the
Administrator's determination whether to regulate a contaminant in the
interest of protecting public health, as required under SDWA section
1412 (b)(1). Results of the UCMR 1 and 2 monitoring can be viewed by
the public at EPA's UCMR Web site: http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/rulesregs/sdwa/ucmr/data.cfm.

III. Requirements of the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Program

A. What are the changes being proposed for UCMR 3?

    EPA developed, and is proposing in today's action, a slightly
revised design for UCMR 3 based on experience with UCMR 1 and UCMR 2.
EPA reviewed various aspects of the UCMR 1 and 2 programs and
identified several critical changes that would improve implementation.
EPA's proposed approach and rationale for changes are described in the
following sections. Key aspects of the UCMR program that would remain
the same include direct implementation of the rule by EPA, the design
of Assessment Monitoring, and EPA funding for the small system testing.
In addition to requesting comment on the proposed list of contaminants,
EPA also requests comment on: Monitoring based on retail population;
revised data elements; and other changes between UCMR 2 and UCMR 3 that
are outlined in Exhibit 2. Updates to Web addresses, applicability
dates, corrections of minor typographical errors, and other minor
clerical edits are reflected in rule language, but do not appear in
Exhibit 2.

                              Exhibit 2--Notable Changes Being Proposed for UCMR 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Rule section
-----------------------------------------------------       Description of change         Corresponding preamble
             Number                Title/description                                             section
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
141.35(a) and 141.40(a).........  Population-based    Base applicability on retail       III.E.
                                   applicability and   population. Under UCMR 1 and 2,
                                   related             systems that purchased all of
                                   applicability       their water were not required to
                                   date.               monitor. These systems would now
                                                       be subject to UCMR monitoring
                                                       requirements. The new SDWIS/Fed
                                                       applicability date (i.e., the
                                                       date used to determine which
                                                       systems are subject to
                                                       monitoring) is also specified
141.35(c)(3)(ii)................  Demonstrating       Clarifies that when identifying a  III.F.
                                   representative      representative well, the well
                                   ground water        must be one of the higher annual
                                   sampling            volume producing and
                                   locations.          consistently active wells.
                                                       Should this location go off-
                                                       line, an alternative location
                                                       must be sampled.
141.35(c)(6)(ii) and              Reporting schedule  Reduces time for labs to           III.F.
 141.40(a)(5)(vi).                                     electronically report results
                                                       (from 120 to 60 days); and for
                                                       systems to review, approve, and
                                                       report data (from 60 to 30 days).
141.35(c)(6) and 141.35(d)(2)...  Reporting           Requires small and large systems   III.F.
                                   monitoring          to report all data elements in
                                   results.            Table 1 with each sample.
                                                       Previously, only a subset of the
                                                       data elements were to be
                                                       reported with each sample.
141.35(e).......................  Data elements.....  Revises Table 1 of Sec.   141.35
                                                       to:
                                                          Add the zip code,
                                                          optional zip code extension,
                                                          and zip codes served to Data
                                                          Element 4--Sampling Point
                                                          Identification Code.
                                                          Clarify and update     III.F. and V.J.
                                                          the definition of Data
                                                          Element 6--Disinfectant Type.
141.40(a)(1)....................  Applicability to    Removes exemption for transient    III.E.
                                   transient systems.  systems, which would now be
                                                       subject to monitoring for List 3
                                                       contaminants if notified by EPA
                                                       or State.
141.40(a)(2)(ii)(C) and           Pre-Screen Testing  Systems participating in List 3    III.B. and III.F.
 141.40(a)(3).                     viruses and         monitoring would be required to
                                   indicators.         allow EPA to monitor for
                                                       enterovirus and norovirus and
                                                       collect specified pathogen
                                                       indicators.
141.40(a)(3)....................  Analytes to be      Revises Table 1 of this section    III.B. and III.F.
                                   monitored and       to include:.
                                   related            New list of 28 priority
                                   specifications.     contaminants, with 6 EPA-
                                                       developed and 4 consensus
                                                       organization developed
                                                       analytical methods, as well as
                                                       new monitoring dates of January
                                                       2013 through December 2015.
141.40(a)(4)(i)(B)..............  Sampling            Specifies that schedules must be
                                   requirements--fre   adjusted based on sample point
                                   quency.             availability. Clarifies that
                                                       sampling points within a system
                                                       may have different schedules.
                                                      Also, revises Table 2 of this      III.F.
                                                       section to include monitoring
                                                       requirements for microbiological
                                                       contaminants for ground water
                                                       systems at a frequency of two
                                                       times during a consecutive 12-
                                                       month period.
141.40(a)(4)(i)(C)..............  Location..........  Requires systems conducting        III.F.
                                                       Assessment Monitoring to collect
                                                       metal and chlorate samples at
                                                       distribution system maximum
                                                       residence time (DSMRT) sampling
                                                       locations. If these locations
                                                       are not defined, requires PWS to
                                                       collect samples at locations
                                                       that best represents the maximum
                                                       residence time in the
                                                       distribution system.
141.40(a)(5)(iii)...............  Minimum Reporting   Revises the definition of the MRL  III.C.
                                   Level (MRL)
                                   definition.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. What priority contaminants were selected for UCMR 3?

    EPA used a stepwise prioritization process to identify potential
UCMR 3 contaminants. As a first step, the Agency reviewed the recently
promulgated CCL 3 list and the ``pre-CCL'' contaminants considered in
the development of CCL 3. Under the CCL 3 process, the Agency
considered the best available data and information on health effects
and occurrence to evaluate 7,500 unregulated contaminants. The final
CCL 3 is comprised of 104 chemicals or chemical groups and 12
microbiological contaminants that were selected through a data-driven
process that considered adverse health effects (potency and severity)
and occurrence (prevalence and magnitude). The list includes
pesticides, biological toxins, disinfection byproducts, chemicals used
in commerce, and waterborne pathogens (74 FR 51850, October 8, 2009
(USEPA, 2009c)). EPA used CCL 3, along with additional sources of
information about other emerging contaminants of potential concern, to
establish an initial list of approximately 150 potential UCMR 3
contaminants.
    The proposed contaminant list for UCMR 3 was further pared down as
follows: (1) Contaminants with no currently available methods, or
methods that would not be ready in time for UCMR 3 monitoring were
eliminated; and, (2) those contaminants included in UCMR 1 or UCMR 2
monitoring were also eliminated from inclusion. This narrowed list of
fewer than 35 analytes was further considered by an EPA and State
working group, and prioritized using health effects data and other
critical endpoints, to arrive at a final proposed list of 30 analytes
listed in Exhibit 3. Further information on this

prioritization process, and on the health effects and occurrence data
EPA used to select the chemical analytes proposed for UCMR 3 are
contained in ``Possible Contaminants for Inclusion on UCMR 3--
Information Compendium'' (USEPA, 2010d).
    EPA has not included hexavalent chromium (chromium-6) in the
proposed list of chemicals for UCMR 3 monitoring; however, EPA is aware
of potential concerns about chromium-6 occurrence in public water
supplies. EPA thus requests comment on whether the Agency should
include chromium-6 as one of the 30 contaminants for UCMR 3 Assessment
Monitoring. EPA has recently issued voluntary guidance to water systems
on monitoring for chromium-6, including recommendations regarding the
use of a modified version of EPA Method 218.6 for the analysis of
samples and a recommended reporting level of 0.06 ug/L (see http://water.epa.gov/drink/info/chromium/guidance.cfm). If EPA were to include
chromium-6 in UCMR 3, the Agency would incorporate it into Assessment
Monitoring. Under this approach, EPA would make chromium-6 monitoring
mandatory for all large water systems and a subset of small systems;
see also Section III.F.2 for further discussion of the Assessment
Monitoring approach. EPA requests comments on what contaminant(s)
should be removed from the list of 30 UCMR 3 contaminants if chromium-6
were added, as well as comments regarding the recommended and
alternative analytical method(s) and the appropriate reporting level.
EPA also requests comments on whether total chromium should also be
measured concurrent with chromium-6. Side-by-side measurements may
provide valuable information on relative occurrence and the utility of
total chromium monitoring as a surrogate for chromium-6.
    EPA compiled background information for each of the 28 chemicals
being proposed for monitoring, including: Source and use; health
effects; production and release; occurrence in water; and persistence
and mobility (USEPA, 2010d). Health effects, occurrence in water,
transmission and treatment information were considered for the two
viruses. The primary source of this information is CCL 3 (74 FR 51850,
October 8, 2009 (USEPA, 2009c)). Where newer or additional information
was available and for those proposed UCMR 3 contaminants that were not
part of CCL 3, references are provided separately. In addition,
preliminary occurrence data are included that were collected as part of
EPA's second Six-Year Review of NPDWRs (75 FR 15500, March 29, 2010
(USEPA, 2010b)).

                 Exhibit 3--30 Proposed UCMR 3 Analytes
------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------
             7 Hormones using EPA Method 539 (LC/MS/MS) \1\:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
17-[beta]-estradiol                  estrone
17-[alpha]-ethynylestradiol          testosterone
 (ethinyl estradiol)
estriol (16-[alpha]-hydroxy-17-      4-androstene-3,17-dione
 [beta]-estradiol)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
equilin                              ...................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9 Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) using EPA Method 524.3 (GC/MS) \2\:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1,2,3-trichloropropane               bromomethane (methyl bromide)
1,3-butadiene                        sec-butylbenzene
chloromethane (methyl chloride)      chlorodifluoromethane (HCFC-22)
1,1-dichloroethane                   bromochloromethane (halon 1011)
n-propylbenzene                      ...................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Synthetic Organic Compound using EPA Method 522 (GC/MS) \3\:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1,4-dioxane
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4 Metals using EPA Method 200.8 (IC/MS) \4\ or alternate SM \5\ or ASTM
                              Methods \6\:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
cobalt                               strontium
molybdenum                           vanadium
------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Oxyhalide Anion using EPA Method 300.1 (IC/Conductivity) \7\ or
                  alternate SM \8\ or ASTM Methods \9\:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
chlorate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
    6 Perfluorinated Chemicals using EPA Method 537 (LC/MS/MS) \10\:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS)     perfluorohexane sulfonic acid
                                      (PFHxS)
perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA)        perfluoroheptanoic acid (PFHpA)
perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA)        perfluorobutane sulfonic acid
                                      (PFBS)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
      2 Viruses (see Section III.B.7 for methods discussion): \11\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
enterovirus                          norovirus
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. EPA Method 539 (LC/MS/MS) (USEPA, 2010c)
2. EPA Method 524.3 (GC/MS) (USEPA, 2009a)
3. EPA Method 522 (GC/MS) (USEPA, 2008)
4. EPA Method 200.8 (ICP/MS) (USEPA, 1994)
5. SM 3125 (SM, 1997)
6. ASTM D5673-10 (ASTM, 2010)
7. EPA Method 300.1 (IC/Conductivity) (USEPA, 1997)
8. SM 4110D (SM, 1997)
9. ASTM D6581-08 (ASTM, 2008)

10. EPA Method 537 (LC/MS/MS) (USEPA, 2009b)
11. Monitoring also includes sampling for pathogen indicators such as
  total coliforms, E.coli, bacteriophage, Enterococci and aerobic
  spores. EPA would pay for all sampling and analysis costs associated
  with virus monitoring at these small systems.

1. Twenty-Eight Chemicals
    EPA proposes monitoring for 28 chemicals in UCMR 3. Details of the
health effects and occurrence data EPA used to make these selections
are contained in ``Possible Contaminants for Inclusion on UCMR 3--
Information Compendium'' (USEPA, 2010d), available at Docket ID No. OW-
2009-0090.
2. Two Viruses
a. Enterovirus and Norovirus
    EPA proposes to monitor for enterovirus and norovirus in UCMR 3.
Both enterovirus and norovirus (a group of viruses in the Caliciviruses
family) are listed on CCL3. They are proposed for UCMR 3 monitoring
because very limited data are available (Francy et al., 2004) on their
occurrence in undisinfected PWSs located in sensitive hydrogeological
areas. Of particular concern are PWSs in areas with karst or fractured
bedrock, as well as in non-community water systems. Recent data
indicate that undisinfected ground water systems with low total
coliform occurrence (and no Total Coliform Rule violations) had
significant viral presence and disease manifestation (Borchardt, 2008).
This draft study showed a statistically significant correlation between
viral qPCR (quantitative polymerase chain reaction) and self-reported
acute gastrointestinal illness. This indicates that qPCR can be used as
an indicator of relative vulnerability and potential disease incidence.
Borchardt's work showed a viral occurrence of 9% for enterovirus and 4%
for norovirus in CWSs, almost all of which were in aquifers not
considered sensitive. EPA proposes to perform this monitoring as a Pre-
Screen Testing of targeted undisinfected ground water systems located
in karst or fractured bedrock. The monitoring would include CWSs, as
well as non-transient and transient non-community water systems.
Monitoring would also include sampling for pathogen indicators such as
total coliforms, E.coli, bacteriophage, Enterococci and aerobic spores.
    The objectives of this monitoring are to obtain information
concerning the occurrence of enterovirus and norovirus for further
evaluation, and to gain a better understanding of the co-occurrence of
pathogen indicators and viruses.
    Enterovirus would be monitored using one method that has two
detection assays. The first is a tissue culture assay also used in the
Information Collection Rule survey conducted by EPA (USEPA, 1996), with
one change; the 1 MDS filter would be replaced with the
NanoCeram[supreg] filter, to significantly reduce sampling cost. The
NanoCeram[supreg] filter has proven to be as effective as 1 MDS filter
for the recovery of enteroviruses (Karim et al., 2009) and norovirus
(Gibbons et al., 2010). The second assay is the qPCR, which detects the
viral nucleic acid.
    Norovirus would only be monitored using qPCR, as there is no tissue
culture method available. Both norovirus and enterovirus qPCR would be
performed as per the protocol in Lambertini et al. (2008). The qPCR
primers and probe for GI Norovirus would be as referenced in Jothikumar
et al. (2005), while GII Norovirus primers and probe would be as
referenced in Ando et al. (1995). Primers and probe referenced in De
Leon et al. (1990) and Monpoeho et al. (2000) would be used for
enterovirus qPCR.
    A technical presentation describing Borchardt's work, and
supporting EPA's rationale for including these viruses in UCMR 3, is
available through the docket. EPA welcomes comments on the Borchardt
data and on the merits of the proposed UCMR 3 monitoring. EPA
anticipates that a peer-reviewed journal article describing the
Borchardt work will be published in advance of the publication of the
UCMR 3 final rule, and is committed to conducting appropriate peer
review of the UCMR 3 virus data before any final regulatory
determination by the Agency.

C. How were minimum reporting levels determined?

    The quality of measurement definition is based on a standard tool
of analytical chemistry, percent recovery of a known amount of analyte
added to a reagent water sample (spiked blank). The lowest
concentration minimum reporting level (LCMRL) is defined as the lowest
spiking concentration at which recovery of between 50 and 150% is
expected 99% of the time by a single analyst.
    The LCMRL is estimated using sophisticated statistical procedures
that have been incorporated into an LCMRL calculator tool that is
available on EPA's Web site (http://water.epa.gov/scitech/drinkingwater/labcert/analyticalmethods_ogwdw.cfm). The statistical
tool estimates a probability distribution for spike recovery as a
function of spiking concentration. This requires regression modeling
that estimates expected value and expected variance for repeated
measurements as functions of spiking concentration. Often this variance
is an increasing function of spiking level. In this case, ordinary
least squares regression is not appropriate to estimate the expected
value function. Weighted least squares is used with weights
proportional to the reciprocal of the expected variance, multiplied by
a weight (Tukey's biweight) that gives robustness against outliers. The
variance model is estimated using a Generalized Linear Model. To
estimate these regressions, an experimental design with replicate
spiking at multiple concentrations is required. If the LCMRL estimate
is below the lowest non-blank spiking concentration or above the
highest spiking concentration, another set of blanks must be spiked so
that the LCMRL is bracketed by the lowest and highest spike
concentrations when the LCMRL is re-estimated. The spiked
concentrations must be contained within the instrument calibration
curve that is routinely used for each analyte. The combined procedure
provides a robust estimator of the LCMRL and a sophisticated and useful
measure of method capability.
MRL
    In today's action, EPA is proposing revisions to the definition of
the minimum reporting level (MRL). The proposed definition of the MRL
reflects improvements in the statistical procedures for determining the
LCMRL and MRL. These improvements were implemented by EPA to make the
models more robust, i.e., so that the models can accommodate a wider
range of observed LCMRL data sets. The MRL for an analyte measured by a
specified analytical method is designed to be an estimate of an LCMRL
that is achievable, with 95% confidence, by a capable analyst/
laboratory at least 75% of the time. Such a demonstration of ability to
reliably make quality measurements at the MRL is intended to achieve
high quality across the nation's laboratories.
    In UCMR 2, the MRL was established by EPA by adding the mean of the
LCMRL determined according to the procedure detailed in ``Statistical
Protocol for the Determination of The Single-Laboratory Lowest
Concentration Minimum Reporting Level (LCMRL) and

Validation of the Minimum Reporting Level (MRL)'' (USEPA, 2004),
(http://www.epa.gov/ogwdw/methods/pdfs/methods/methods_lcmrl.pdf) by
the primary and secondary laboratories conducting the development and
validation of the analytical method to three times the difference of
the LCMRLs. If LCMRL data from three or more laboratories were
available, the MRL was established by EPA by adding three times the
standard deviation of the LCMRLs to the mean of the LCMRLs.
    In UCMR 3, EPA estimated the MRL for an analyte/method by obtaining
data from several laboratories performing corresponding LCMRL studies.
These data are used to construct an approximation to the distribution
that would result from picking at random a laboratory/analyst
proficient in performing the analytical method, and having them perform
an LCMRL study and compute an LCMRL estimate. The strategy for
computing the MRL is two-fold. First, for each LCMRL data set, a
distribution for repeated LCMRL determinations by the same laboratory/
analyst is estimated by generating a large number of simulated values
using a Bayesian bootstrap approach. Second, these values are combined
to create an estimated overall distribution. If a result from one of
the laboratories is significantly higher than that of other
laboratories, this value would be down-weighted using a robust weight
function. The resulting weighted values are used to construct a
probability distribution from which the MRL is computed as the 95th
percentile. EPA requests comments regarding the proposed definition of
the MRL.

D. How would laboratories conduct UCMR analyses?

    As proposed, all laboratories conducting analyses for UCMR 3 List 1
contaminants would need to receive EPA approval to perform those
analyses. Laboratories seeking approval would be required to provide
EPA with data that demonstrate their successful completion of an
initial demonstration of capability as outlined in each method,
verification of successful performance at the MRLs as specified in
today's action, and successful participation in an EPA Proficiency
testing (PT) program for the analytes of interest. On-site audits of
selected candidate laboratories may be conducted. Details of the EPA
laboratory approval program are contained in the technical manual
titled: ``UCMR 3 Laboratory Approval Requirements and Information
Document'' (USEPA, 2010e). This document will be available on the
electronic docket at: http://www.regulations.gov and will be provided
to laboratories that register for the laboratory approval program. In
addition, EPA may supply analytical reference standards of known
concentrations for selected analytes to participating/approved
laboratories, where such standards are not readily available through
commercial sources.
Laboratory Approval Process for UCMR 3
    The proposed UCMR 3 laboratory approval program is the same as that
employed in previous UCMR cycles. It is designed to assess and confirm
the capability of laboratories to perform analyses using the methods
listed in Sec.  141.40(a)(3), Table 1, of today's proposed rule. The
UCMR 3 laboratory approval process is designed to assess whether
laboratories meet the required equipment, laboratory performance, and
data reporting criteria described in today's action. This evaluation
program is voluntary in that it only applies to laboratories intending
to analyze UCMR 3 samples. However, EPA would require systems to use
UCMR 3 approved laboratories when conducting monitoring for those
analytes listed in Table 1 of Sec.  141.40(a)(3) of this proposed rule.
A list of laboratories approved for UCMR 3 would be posted to EPA's
UCMR Web site: http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/rulesregs/sdwa/ucmr/ucmr3/labs.cfm. Laboratories are encouraged to apply for UCMR 3 approvals as
early as possible, as schedules for large PWS sampling would be
completed soon after the final rule is promulgated. The steps for the
laboratory approval process are listed in the following paragraphs, a
through f.
    a. Request to Participate.
    To request participation in the UCMR 3 laboratory approval process,
the laboratory must contact EPA. Laboratories must send this request
to: UCMR 3 Laboratory Approval Coordinator, USEPA, Technical Support
Center, 26 West Martin Luther King Drive (MS 140), Cincinnati, OH
45268; or e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>EPA plans to
begin accepting requests for registration forms for the List 1
(Assessment Monitoring) methods beginning March 3, 2011. EPA
anticipates that the final opportunity for a laboratory to request the
necessary registration forms would be 90 days after final rule
publication, though laboratories are encouraged to apply as early as is
practical after the publication of today's proposed rule.
    b. Registration.
    Each laboratory that wishes to participate in UCMR 3 monitoring
would be required to complete a registration form. EPA expects this
registration information to include: Laboratory name; mailing address;
shipping address; contact name; phone number; fax number; e-mail
address; and a list of the UCMR 3 methods for which the laboratory is
seeking approval. The purpose of the registration step is to provide
EPA with the necessary contact information, and ensure that each
laboratory receives a customized application package of materials and
instructions for the methods that it plans to use.
    c. Application Package.
    When EPA receives the registration information, a customized
application package would be sent to the laboratory for completion.
Information requested in the application would include the following:
Initial demonstration of capability data, including precision,
accuracy, and results of MRL studies, information regarding analytical
equipment, proof of current drinking water laboratory certification,
and example chromatograms for each method under review.
    The laboratory would be required to confirm that it will post UCMR
3 monitoring results (on behalf of its PWS clients) to EPA's UCMR
electronic data reporting system.
    d. EPA Review of Application Package.
    EPA would review the application package and, if necessary, request
follow-up information. Satisfactory completion of this portion of the
process would be required for the laboratory to participate in the UCMR
3 Proficiency Testing (PT) program.
    e. Proficiency Testing.
    A PT sample is a synthetic sample containing a concentration of an
analyte that is known to EPA, but unknown to the laboratory being
tested. To complete the initial laboratory approval process, a
laboratory would be expected to meet specific acceptance criteria for
the analysis of a UCMR 3 PT sample(s) for each method for which the
laboratory is seeking approval. EPA intends to offer up to four
opportunities for a laboratory to successfully analyze the UCMR 3 PT
samples. Up to three of these studies would be conducted prior to the
publication of the final rule, but at least one study would be
conducted after publication of the final rule. This would allow
laboratories to complete their portion of the laboratory approval
process prior to publication of the final rule, and therefore, receive
their approval, immediately following the publication of the final
rule, or to wait until the final rule is published before completing
the required laboratory approval analyses. A laboratory only

needs to pass one of the PT studies for each analytical method for
which they are requesting approval. Laboratories applying for UCMR 3
approval, and laboratories conducting UCMR 3 analyses, may be subject
to on-site laboratory audits. No PT studies would be conducted after
the start of monitoring; however, laboratory audits would be ongoing
throughout the entire monitoring period of 2013-2015. Initial
laboratory approval would be contingent upon successful completion of a
PT study. Continued laboratory approval is contingent upon successful
completion of audits.
    f. Written EPA Approval.
    After steps ``a'' through ``e'' of the PT approval process have
been successfully completed, EPA would send the laboratory a letter
listing the methods for which approval is pending (if the PT study and
laboratory evaluation is conducted prior to promulgation of the final
rule) or approval is granted (after promulgation of the final rule).
Laboratories receiving a pending approval may then be approved without
further action, following promulgation of the final rule, or they may
need to take additional action, contingent upon what changes are
applied to the rule between this proposal and promulgation of the final
rule.

E. What are the new applicability considerations?

    In section 141.40(a) of today's proposed rule changes, EPA is
proposing a new applicability date for information in the SDWIS/Fed
system inventory. As proposed, the determination of whether a PWS is
required to monitor under UCMR 3 would be based on the type of system
(e.g., community water system, non-transient non-community water
system, etc.), and its retail population served, as indicated by SDWIS/
Fed on December 31, 2010.
    In addition, EPA is proposing two changes to the applicability of
UCMR 3 to PWSs. First, EPA proposes that applicability be based on
retail population served. Whereas under UCMR 1 and 2 systems that
purchased all of their water were not required to monitor; these
systems would now be subject to UCMR monitoring requirements. Second,
under UCMR 1 and 2, transient systems were exempt from monitoring.
EPA's proposed changes would include transient systems in the universe
from which EPA may select small PWSs for List 3 monitoring. Such
systems would only be included in UCMR 3 List 3 monitoring if they are
notified by EPA that they have been selected, and this monitoring would
be done by EPA or its contractor. All other applicability criteria for
UCMR 3 remain the same as those under UCMR 2.
1. Applicability Based on Population Served
    Under UCMR 1, large PWSs were defined as those systems that served
a population of more than 10,000 people and small PWSs were those that
served 10,000 or fewer people. While this included the sum of the
population served by the combined distribution system, this requirement
was occasionally misunderstood. For UCMR 2, EPA clarified the
population definition to include the sum of the retail population
served directly by the PWS plus the population served by any
consecutive system(s), receiving all or part of its finished water from
that PWS. As established in the Stage 2 Disinfectants and Disinfection
Byproducts Rule (68 FR 49548, August 18, 2003 (USEPA, 2003)), EPA
defines a ``consecutive system'' as a PWS that buys or otherwise
receives some or all of its finished water from one or more wholesale
system(s). Under the population definition of UCMR 2, systems that
purchased all of their water from other systems were not required to
monitor. EPA is proposing a change in the definition of system
population to include only a system's retail population. UCMR 3
requirements for systems would be based on their retail population
served as reported to SDWIS/Fed as ``Population Served'' (i.e.,
wholesale or consecutive populations are not included).
    EPA is proposing that PWSs be required to monitor for UCMR 3
contaminants, regardless of whether they purchase any or all of their
water from another system. The population definitions used for the
previous UCMRs created an inconsistency for PWSs purchasing their
water. If a PWS purchased all of their water, they were not required to
monitor at all, and systems that had no retail connections did have to
monitor. If a PWS purchased some of their water, they were required to
monitor from their own sources as well as their purchased source. The
new proposed definition would eliminate this inconsistency. It would
also eliminate the requirements for systems with no retail connections
to monitor. EPA is aware that PWSs that purchase water evaluate their
supply needs and associated costs, and may make adjustments during the
UCMR monitoring period. They have been known to change wholesale
suppliers or switch sources that they can directly access and treat for
their retail customers. The dynamic nature of wholesale water supply is
prompting EPA to propose and solicit stakeholder comment on
establishing retail population as a clearer measure for determining
applicability of the UCMR 3 requirements. Retail population is a
consistent factor for applicability determination and evaluating the
direct sources (all entry points including wholesale connections) would
improve data quality by directly assessing the drinking water served to
the respective retail population. It is also difficult to accurately
determine the total population served by each source of water. For
example, if PWS ``A'' buys all of its water from three different PWSs
(``B, C, D''), it is unclear how to divide PWS A's retail population
among the three PWSs to determine the wholesale populations for systems
B, C, and D. Under the previous UCMR specifications, the total
population of all systems was added together, which could lead to
overestimating the population served by each source of water.
    Moreover, a system's population is used to determine exposure
estimates. Because the retail population comprises all of the people
exposed to water from a particular system, EPA would have a clearer
understanding of the number of people exposed to a detected
contaminant. The proposed change to the definition of population would
allow EPA to better estimate the total population served by a water
system and ensures that exposure calculations are more accurate.
    PWSs are required to report their retail population to the Safe
Drinking Water Information System-Federal (SDWIS/Fed), so this
population is readily accessible to EPA when determining which systems
are required to monitor for the UCMR 3. Using a system's retail
population would also make the list of PWSs subject to UCMR more stable
over the UCMR 3 monitoring period, and eliminate another inconsistency
in previous UCMRs. In past UCMRs, if a PWS began purchasing all of
their water after the applicability date, the PWS would still have to
monitor under UCMR. If, however, a system began using its own water
sources after the UCMR applicability date, the system would not be
required to begin monitoring under UCMR. Using a system's retail
population to determine whether a system is subject to UCMR
requirements would eliminate this disparity.
    Note that systems that purchase water with multiple connections
from the same wholesaler would be permitted to propose one
representative connection

from that wholesaler. PWSs would choose a sampling location from among
the higher annual volume EPTDS connections. If the connection selected
as the representative EPTDS was not available for sampling, an
alternate representative connection would need to be sampled.
2. Applicability for Transient Systems
    Under UCMR 1 and 2, Section 141.40(a)(1), transient non-community
water systems were specifically exempted from UCMR monitoring. EPA is
proposing revisions that would allow for certain transient systems to
be selected for Pre-Screen Testing for List 3 contaminants. Under UCMR
3, EPA is proposing to conduct Pre-Screen Testing for enterovirus and
norovirus and related pathogen indicators at targeted undisinfected
ground water systems that serve 1,000 or fewer customers. EPA is
proposing to include transient systems among the possible targeted
systems--and to focus on viruses and not chemicals at those systems--
since viruses are acute pathogens and exposure through a one-time
ingestion (e.g., at a transient system) is of potential health concern.
EPA requests comments regarding the inclusion of transient systems in
UCMR 3 Pre-Screen Testing.
    As proposed under 141.40(a)(1) and 141.40(a)(2)(ii)(C), if any
system (including transient systems) is notified by EPA or their state
that they have been selected for Pre-Screen Testing the system must
permit EPA (at EPA's expense) to sample and analyze for List 3
contaminants, and pathogen indicators, such as total coliform, E. coli,
bacteriophage, Enterococci, and aerobic spores.

F. UCMR 3 Sampling Design and Reporting Considerations

    As proposed, PWSs and EPA would conduct sampling and analysis for
List 1 and List 3 contaminants at each PWS during a 12 month period
within the 2013 to 2015 timeframe. Preparation would begin prior to
2013 and would include coordination of laboratory approval, selection
of representative samples of small systems, development of State
Monitoring Plans, establishment of monitoring schedules, and
notification of participating PWSs. As proposed, UCMR 3 would not
include a Screening Survey for List 2 contaminants. Exhibit 4
illustrates the major activities that would take place in preparation
for and during implementation of UCMR 3.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03MR11.007

    To minimize the impact of the rule on small systems (those serving
10,000 or fewer people), EPA would pay for the sample kit preparation,
sample shipping fees, and analysis costs for these systems. In
addition, no small system would be required to monitor for both List 1
and List 3 contaminants. Large systems (those serving more than 10,000
people) would pay for the cost of shipping and laboratory testing.
1. UCMR 3 Reporting Considerations
    EPA is proposing a few notable changes to reporting requirements
based on lessons learned from UCMR 1 and UCMR 2, as well as some
necessary changes related to new UCMR 3 analytes.
    Demonstrating Representative Ground Water Sampling Locations: As
established under UCMR 2, large systems that use ground water sources
and have multiple EPTDSs can, with prior approval, conduct monitoring
at representative entry point(s) rather than

at each EPTDS. To monitor at representative EPTDSs, large systems must
meet the reporting criteria specified in Sec.  141.35(c)(3)(ii), and
receive approval from EPA or the State. Today's proposed changes to the
rule language clarify that when identifying a representative well, the
well must be one of the higher annual volume producing and consistently
active wells. In addition, should this location go off-line, an
alternative location must be sampled.
    Reporting Schedule: As under previous UCMR cycles, large systems
would be responsible for reviewing, approving, and submitting (i.e.,
``reporting'') monitoring results to EPA. To help ensure that
monitoring and reporting is conducted as scheduled, EPA is proposing
that systems must require their laboratories to post data to the EPA's
electronic data reporting system--Safe Drinking Water Accession and
Review System--within 60 days of sample collection; and that large
systems must review, approve, and submit the data to the State and EPA
within 30 days of when the laboratory posts the data. These time frames
are specified in 141.35(c)(6)(ii) and 141.40(a)(5)(vi) and compare to
120 days, and 60 days, (respectively) that were allowed under UCMR 1
and 2. With the previous turn-around times, it was sometimes difficult
to ensure compliance with established monitoring schedules; these new
turnaround times would reduce the chance of scheduled monitoring being
missed or delayed. If systems do not electronically approve the
laboratory data within 30 days of the laboratory's posting to EPA's
electronic reporting system, the data would be considered approved for
EPA and State review. EPA and the State would conduct its quality
control reviews of the data after the system reports the data. States
would also be given at least 60 days for their quality control review.
After the EPA and State quality control review, EPA would place the
data in the NCOD at the time of the next database update, typically
three to four times per year. EPA requests comment on these shortened
reporting timeframes.
    Changes to Data Elements and their Reporting: EPA is proposing two
changes to the data elements listed in Table 1 of 141.35(e). In
addition, EPA is proposing a related change that would require systems
to report all data elements with each sample.
     Adding zip code, optional zip code extension, and zip
codes served to Data Element 4--Sampling Point Identification Code:
This additional location information is being requested related to
sampling points because current information identifying the location of
sampling points is limited. Zip code of the sampling point would assist
with future vulnerability assessments. Zip codes tying the populations
served to each sampling point would assist with future occurrence and
exposure analyses.
     Clarifying and updating the definition of Data Element 6--
Disinfectant Type: Under UCMR 2, Data Element 6 was established to
provide information on ``Disinfectant Residual Type'' as it related to
distribution system monitoring for nitrosamines (part of Screening
Survey monitoring). EPA is proposing modification to the definition of
this data element to account for changes to the analyte and monitoring
specifications between UCMR 2 and UCMR 3. This revised definition lists
additional disinfectant types to accommodate recent advances and
changes to disinfectant technologies being used by water systems, and
it provides that this data element be reported with all sample results.
     Reporting all data elements with each sample: Under UCMR 2
Assessment Monitoring, systems were required to report data elements 1
through 5 and 7 through 15. Data Element 6 (Disinfectant Residual Type)
was only reported as required by systems subject to the List 2
Screening Survey monitoring of nitrosamines in distribution systems.
EPA is proposing revisions to UCMR that would require systems to report
all data elements with each sample (including Data Element 6
(Disinfectant Type)) since Assessment Monitoring within the
distribution system is proposed and since the information on
disinfectant type would be useful in the Agency's evaluation of results
for chlorate and the metals on List 1--Assessment Monitoring and
confirming no disinfection is applied at systems subject to List 3--
Pre-Screen Testing.
2. Assessment Monitoring
    As proposed, Assessment Monitoring for List 1 contaminants would be
conducted from January 1, 2013 through December 31, 2015 by all large
systems (those systems serving more than 10,000 people), and by a
nationally representative sample of 800 small systems (those serving
10,000 people or fewer). Other than these new monitoring dates, there
are no other changes to the schedule and frequency of Assessment
Monitoring between UCMR 2 and UCMR 3. Small systems would be selected
using the same type of stratified, random selection process as used in
previous UCMRs. Samples would be collected from the entry point to the
distribution systems (EPTDSs). Large ground water systems with multiple
EPTDSs would be permitted to sample at representative sampling
locations for each ground water source if those sites have been
approved by EPA or the State. In addition to EPTDS monitoring, the four
metals--cobalt, molybdenum, vanadium, and strontium--as well as
chlorate, would be sampled at one distribution system sampling point
per treatment plant (i.e., at the distribution system maximum residence
time (DSMRT)). If the system's treatment plant/water source is subject
to sampling requirements under Sec.  141.132(b)(1) (the Stage 2
Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule), samples for the metals
and chlorate must be collected at the DSMRT sampling location(s)
identified for that rule. If a treatment plant/water source is not
subject to the sampling required in 40 CFR 141.132(b)(1), then the
distribution system samples must be collected at a location that, in
the judgment of the PWS, represents the maximum residence time in the
distribution system.
    Chlorate is being monitored at both the EPTDS and the DSMRT to
determine the magnitude of chorate increases in the distribution
system. The metals are monitored at both locations to assess any
potential contribution from the distribution system. EPA is requesting
comment on DSMRT sampling for the metals and chlorate.
    As under previous UCMR cycles, samples at ground water locations
would be collected twice during a designated consecutive 12-month
period. Samples at locations that are fed in whole or part by a surface
water or ground water under the direct influence of surface water
(GWUDI) source would be collected quarterly during a designated
consecutive 12-month period. Large system schedules (year and months of
monitoring) would initially be determined by EPA in conjunction with
the States (as described in section III.G. of today's action) and these
systems would have an opportunity to modify this schedule. In today's
proposed action, EPA has incorporated clarifying revisions in
141.40(a)(4)(i)(B) to specify that large system monitoring schedules
must be adjusted based on sample point availability. If it is not
possible for a system to meet its specified sampling schedule (if, for
instance, a particular sampling point is inactive during the scheduled
sampling timeframe), the system must notify EPA to reschedule their
sampling. As under previous UCMR cycles, the Agency would continue to
schedule and coordinate

small system monitoring, working closely with partnering States. State
monitoring plans would provide a venue for States to review and revise
the initial sampling schedules that EPA proposes (see discussion of
State monitoring plans in section III.G. of today's action: ``What is
the States' Role in the UCMR Program?''). The 28 proposed List 1
contaminants to be monitored under Assessment Monitoring are listed in
Exhibit 3, in section III.B of today's action.
3. Pre-Screen Testing
    As proposed, sampling under the Pre-Screen Testing for List 3
contaminants would be conducted from January 1, 2013 through December
31, 2015 by a targeted sample of 800 PWSs serving 1,000 or fewer
people. Sampling would occur twice during a designated consecutive 12-
month period at each PWS.
    EPA proposes to monitor for enterovirus and norovirus (as well as
associated pathogen indicators) in UCMR 3. Both enterovirus and
norovirus are listed on CCL3. EPA proposes to perform this monitoring
under Pre-Screen Testing at 800 targeted undisinfected ground water
wells from systems serving 1,000 or fewer customers that include CWSs,
NTNCWSs and transient non-community water systems. This monitoring is
proposed for systems that serve 1,000 or fewer customers because these
smaller systems are the least likely to be disinfected, and therefore,
would be most vulnerable to contamination with viruses. The wells would
be selected from vulnerable areas such as karst or fractured bedrock.
Monitoring would also include sampling for pathogen indicators such as
total coliforms, E. coli, bacteriophage, Enterococci, and aerobic
spores. The objectives of this monitoring are: (1) To obtain occurrence
information to support regulatory determinations for enterovirus and
norovirus; (2) to gain a better understanding of pathogen indicator and
viral co-occurrence; and, (3) to gain more exposure/health risk
information on viruses and indicators.
    A summary of the estimated number of systems to monitor under each
UCMR 3 component is listed in Exhibit 5.

                             Exhibit 5--Systems To Participate in UCMR 3 Monitoring
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Assessment monitoring for
                                              28 List 1 chemicals     Pre-screen testing for two
  System size (number of people served)  ----------------------------    List 3 microbials \1\       Total \2\
                                                National sample
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Small Systems
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
25-10,000...............................  800 randomly selected       800 selected undisinfected           1,600
                                           systems.                    ground water wells from
                                                                       systems serving 1,000 or
                                                                       fewer.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Large Systems 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10,001 and over.........................  All (4,200)...............  0.........................           4,200
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total...............................  5,000.....................  800.......................           5,800
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Sampling for List 3 contaminants to be conducted at 800 undisinfected wells, located in karst or fractured
  bedrock, in systems serving 1,000 or fewer customers. Monitoring also includes sampling for pathogen
  indicators: Total coliforms, E. coli, bacteriophage, Enterococci and aerobic spores. EPA would pay for all
  sampling and analysis costs associated with virus and pathogen indicator monitoring at these small systems.
\2\ Total for small systems is additive because these systems would only be selected for one component of UCMR 3
  sampling. Number is approximate.
\3\ Large system counts are approximate.

G. What is the States' role in the UCMR program?

    Under UCMR 1 and UCMR 2, EPA described implementation and oversight
activities that States could agree to through a Partnership Agreement
(PA) process. Because the UCMR is a direct implementation rule, State
participation is voluntary. Under UCMR 1, specific activities for
individual States were identified in the rule language. Beginning with
UCMR 2, specific activities for individual States are identified and
established exclusively through the PAs, not through rule language.
UCMR 3 would maintain this previously established process for UCMR 2.
    In compliance with SDWA section 1445(a)(2)(C)(i), the UCMR program
provides a role for States in developing a representative monitoring
plan for small systems. This is important because States/primacy
agencies most often have the best information about PWSs in their
State. Through PAs, States can help EPA implement the UCMR program and
help ensure that the UCMR data used for future regulatory
determinations are of the highest quality possible. EPA would continue
to use the previously established PA structure during implementation of
UCMR 3 to address the following: The process for review and revision of
the state monitoring plans; replacing and updating system information;
modifying timing for monitoring, review and approval of proposed
representative EPTDS; notification and instructions for systems; and
compliance assistance.
    As established under UCMR 1 and 2, state monitoring plans include
tabular listings of the systems that EPA selected to conduct monitoring
and the EPA proposed date on which they are to be sampled. Initial
state monitoring plans also include instructions to States for revising
and/or correcting the state monitoring plans, including modifications
to sampling schedules for small systems. EPA incorporates revisions
from States, and returns the final state monitoring plans to each
State.

IV. Cost of This Proposed Action

    In today's action, EPA proposes a new set of contaminants for
monitoring in the third five-year UCMR monitoring cycle. In addition,
UCMR 3 incorporates modifications to improve the rule design. UCMR 3
Assessment Monitoring (for List 1 contaminants) would be conducted from
January 2013 through December 2015 by 800 systems serving 10,000 or
fewer people, and by all systems serving more than 10,000 people. Eight
hundred small systems would be randomly selected for List 1 monitoring.
The Pre-Screen Testing for List 3 contaminants would also be conducted
from January 2013 through December 2015 in 800 undisinfected ground
water wells from systems serving 1,000 or fewer persons. It is assumed
for this cost estimation that one-third of systems would monitor

during each of the three monitoring years.
    Labor costs pertain to systems, States, and EPA. They include
activities such as reading the regulation, notifying systems selected
to participate, sample collection, data review, reporting, and
recordkeeping. Non-labor costs would be incurred primarily by EPA and
by large PWSs. They include the cost of shipping samples to
laboratories for testing and the cost of the actual laboratory
analyses.
    In today's action, EPA proposes six EPA developed analytical
methods and four equivalent consensus organization developed methods to
monitor for 28 new UCMR 3 chemical contaminants. While the preamble to
this proposed rule also describes the analytical methods that would be
used for the proposed virus monitoring, the proposal does not address
these methods. Laboratory approval for virus monitoring is not expected
to be necessary since all of the analyses for the two viruses are
expected to be conducted in laboratories under EPA contract and at
EPA's expense. However, estimated system and EPA costs are based on the
analytical costs for all UCMR 3 methods. With the exception of Methods
200.8 and 300.1, these methods are comparatively new and would not
coincide with other compliance monitoring (i.e., no cost savings for
coincident monitoring can be realized). Laboratory analysis and
shipping of samples account for approximately 86% of the total national
cost for UCMR 3 implementation. These costs are calculated as follows:
The number of systems, multiplied by the number of sampling locations,
multiplied by the sampling frequency, multiplied by the unit cost of
laboratory analysis. Under UCMR 3, for List 1 Assessment Monitoring,
surface water (and GWUDI) sampling points would be monitored four times
during the applicable year of monitoring, and ground water sample
points would be monitored twice during the applicable year of
monitoring. Systems would monitor for the four metals--cobalt,
molybdenum, vanadium, and strontium--as well as chlorate, at their
EPTDS sampling locations and at one distribution system sampling point
per treatment plant (i.e., at the DSMRT). Pre-Screen Testing systems
would monitor two times during the three-year monitoring period (2013
through 2015) at their EPTDS. EPA estimates of laboratory fees are
based on consultations with national drinking water laboratories and a
review of the costs of analytical methods similar to those proposed in
today's action. The cost of the Assessment Monitoring analysis for the
UCMR 3 chemicals is estimated at $1,320 per sample set (at the EPTDS);
the cost of the Pre-Screen analyses for viruses and related pathogen
indicators (i.e., total coliform, E. coli, bacteriophage, Enterococci,
and aerobic spores) is estimated at $1,650 per sample set. Shipping
estimates are added to the calculated costs to derive the total direct
analytical non-labor costs. Estimated shipping costs were based on the
average cost of shipping a 25-pound package.
    In preparing the UCMR 3 information collection request (ICR), EPA
relied on standard assumptions and data sources used in the preparation
of other drinking water program ICRs. These include the PWS inventory,
number of sampling points per system, and labor rates. EPA expects that
States would incur only labor costs associated with voluntary
assistance with UCMR 3 implementation. State costs were estimated using
the relevant modules of the State Resource Model that was developed by
the Association of State Drinking Water Administrators (ASDWA) in
conjunction with EPA (ASDWA, 2003) to help States forecast resource
needs. Model estimates were adjusted to account for actual levels of
State participation under UCMR 2. Because State participation would be
voluntary, level of effort would vary across States and depend on their
individual agreements with EPA.
    Over the UCMR implementation period of 2012-2016, EPA estimates
that nationwide, the average annual cost of UCMR 3 is approximately
$14.9 million. These total estimated annual costs (labor and non-labor)
are incurred as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Average annual cost
                   Respondent                    (all respondents (2012-
                                                           16))
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Small Systems (25-10,000), including labor                      $0.049 m
 only, non-labor costs paid for by EPA.........
Large Systems (10,001-100,000), including labor                   8.75 m
 and non-labor costs...........................
Very Large Systems (100,001 and greater),                          2.1 m
 including labor and non-labor costs...........
States, including labor costs related to                          0.75 m
 implementation coordination...................
EPA, including labor for implementation, non-                      3.3 m
 labor for small system testing................
                                                ------------------------
    Average Annual National Total..............                 14.949 m
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additional details regarding EPA's cost assumptions and estimates
can be found in the ICR Number 2192.04 amendment prepared for this
proposed rule (Office of Management and Budget (OMB) number 2040--NEW),
which presents estimated cost and burden for the 2012-2014 period.
Estimates of costs over the entire third five-year UCMR cycle of 2012-
2016 are attached as an appendix to the ICR. Copies of the ICR and its
amendment may be obtained from the EPA public docket for this proposed
rule, which includes this ICR, under Docket ID Number OW-2004-0001.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    Under Executive Order (EO) 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993),
this action is a ``significant regulatory action.'' Accordingly, EPA
submitted this action to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for
review under EO 12866 and any changes made in response to OMB
recommendations have been documented in the docket for this action.
    In addition, EPA prepared an analysis of the potential costs
associated with this action. This analysis is briefly summarized in
section IV of the preamble of this proposed rule.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The information collection requirements in this proposed rule have
been submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The
Information Collection Request (ICR) document prepared by EPA has been
assigned EPA ICR number 2192.04.
    The information to be collected under today's proposed rule
fulfills the statutory requirements of section 1445(a)(2) of SDWA, as
amended in 1996. The data to be collected would

describe the source of the water, location, and test results for
samples taken from PWSs. The concentrations of any identified UCMR
contaminants would be evaluated regarding health effects and would be
considered for future regulation accordingly. Reporting is mandatory.
The data are not subject to confidentiality protection.
    The annual burden and cost estimates described in this section are
for the implementation assumptions described in section IV. Cost and
Benefits of the Rule, in today's proposed action. Respondents to the
UCMR 3 would include 1,600 small water systems (800 for Assessment
Monitoring, and 800 wells for Pre-Screen Testing), the 4,191 large
PWSs, and the 56 States and Primacy agencies (5,047 total respondents).
The frequency of response varies across respondents and years. System
costs (particularly laboratory analytical costs) vary depending on the
number of sampling locations. For cost estimations, it is assumed that
systems would conduct sampling evenly across January 2013 through
December 2015 (i.e., one-third of systems in each of the 3 consecutive
12-month periods). Because the applicable ICR period is 2012-2014,
there is one year of monitoring activity (i.e., January through
December of 2015) that is not captured in the ICR estimates.
    Small systems (those serving 10,000 or fewer) that are selected for
UCMR 3 monitoring would sample an average of 1.5 times per system
(i.e., number of responses per system) across the three-year ICR period
of 2012-2014. The average burden per response for small systems is
estimated to be 3.0 hours. Large systems (those serving 10,001 to
100,000 people) and very large systems (those serving more than 100,000
people) would sample and report an average of 2.7 and 3.7 times per
system, respectively, across the three-year ICR period of 2012-2014.
The average burden per response for large and very large systems is
estimated to be 6.1 and 6.3 hours, respectively. States are assumed to
have an average of 1.0 response per year, related to coordination with
EPA and systems, with an average burden per response of 184 hours. In
aggregate, during the ICR period of 2012-2014, the average response
(e.g., responses from systems and States) is associated with a burden
of 8.3 hours, with a labor plus non-labor cost of $2,714 per response.
    The annual average per respondent burden hours and costs for the
ICR period of 2012-2014 are: small systems--1.5 hour burden at $34 for
labor; large systems--5.5 hours at $170 for labor, and $2,381 for
analytical costs; very large systems--7.7 hours at $295 for labor, and
$5,460 for analytical costs; and States--233.4 hours at $13,992 for
labor. Annual average burden and cost per respondent (including both
systems and States) is estimated to be 8.3 hours, with a labor plus
non-labor cost of $1,985 per respondent (note that small systems do not
pay for testing costs, and thus only incur labor costs). Burden is
defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
    To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy
of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for
minimizing respondent burden, EPA has established a public docket for
this rule, which includes this ICR, under Docket ID number EPA-HQ-OW-
2009-0090. Submit any comments related to the ICR to EPA and OMB. See
ADDRESSES section at the beginning of this notice for where to submit
comments to EPA. Send comments to OMB at the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street,
NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Office for EPA. Since OMB is
required to make a decision concerning the ICR between 30 and 60 days
after March 3, 2011, a comment to OMB is best assured of having its
full effect if OMB receives it by April 4, 2011. The final rule will
respond to any OMB or public comments on the information collection
requirements contained in this proposal.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative
Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses,
small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
    The RFA provides default definitions for each type of small entity.
Small entities are defined as: (1) A small business as defined by the
Small Business Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13 CFR 121.201;
(2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city,
county, town, school district or special district with a population of
less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any ``not-for-
profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not
dominant in its field.'' However, the RFA also authorizes an agency to
use alternative definitions for each category of small entity, ``which
are appropriate to the activities of the agency'' after proposing the
alternative definition(s) in the Federal Register and taking comment (5
U.S.C. 601(3)-(5)). In addition, to establish an alternative small
business definition, agencies must consult with SBA's Chief Counsel for
Advocacy.
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's proposed rule on
small entities, EPA considered small entities to be PWSs serving 10,000
or fewer people, because this is the system size specified in SDWA as
requiring special consideration with respect to small system
flexibility. As required by the RFA, EPA proposed using this
alternative definition in the Federal Register, (63 FR 7606, February
13, 1998 (USEPA, 1998a)), requested public comment, consulted with the
SBA, and finalized the alternative definition in the Consumer
Confidence Reports rulemaking, (63 FR 44512, August 19, 1998 (USEPA,
1998b)). As stated in that Final Rule, the alternative definition would
be applied to future drinking water regulations, including this
regulation.
    After considering the economic impacts of today's proposed rule on
small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The small
entities directly regulated by this proposed rule are PWSs serving
10,000 or fewer people. EPA has determined that the small entities
subject to the requirements of this proposed rule are a subset of the
small PWSs (those serving 10,000 or fewer people). The Agency has
determined that 1,600 small PWSs (across Assessment Monitoring and Pre-
Screen Testing), or approximately 3% of small systems, would experience
an impact of less than 0.4% of revenues; the remainder of small systems
would not be impacted.
    Although this proposed rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities, EPA nonetheless has
tried to reduce the impact of this rule on small entities. To ensure
that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities, EPA will assume all costs for
analyses of the samples and for shipping the samples from these systems
to the laboratories contracted by EPA to analyze UCMR 3 samples. EPA
has set

aside $2.0 million each year from the State Revolving Fund (SRF) with
its authority to use SRF monies for the purposes of implementing this
provision of SDWA. Thus, the costs to these small systems will be
limited to the labor hours associated with collecting a sample and
preparing it for shipping.
    The Agency continues to be interested in the potential impacts of
the proposed rule on small entities and welcomes comments on issues
related to such impacts.
    The evaluation of the overall impact on small systems, summarized
in the preceding discussion, is further described as follows. EPA
analyzed the impacts for privately-owned and publicly-owned water
systems separately, due to the different economic characteristics of
these ownership types, such as different rate structures and profit
goals. However, for both publicly- and privately-owned systems, EPA
used the ``revenue test,'' which compares annual system costs
attributed to the rule to the system's annual revenues. Median revenue
data from the not yet published 2006 Community Water System Survey were
used for public and private water systems. EPA assumes that the
distribution of the sample of participating small systems will reflect
the proportions of publicly- and privately-owned systems in the
national inventory. The estimated distribution of the representative
sample, categorized by ownership type, source water, and system size,
is presented in Exhibit 6.

               Exhibit 6--Number of Publicly- and Privately-Owned Small Systems Subject to UCMR 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
         System size (number of people served)             Publicly-owned    Privately-owned         Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Ground Water
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
500 and under..........................................                126                378                504
501 to 3,300...........................................                477                182                659
3,301 to 10,000........................................                207                 48                255
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
    Subtotal GW........................................                810                608              1,418
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Surface Water (and GWUDI)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
500 and under..........................................                  2                  3                  5
501 to 3,300...........................................                 35                 13                 48
3,301 to 10,000........................................                100                 29                129
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
    Subtotal SW........................................                137                 45                182
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
        Total of Small Water Systems...................                947                653              1,600
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The basis for the UCMR 3 RFA certification for this proposed rule
is as follows: for the 1,600 small water systems that would be
affected, the average annual costs for complying with this rule
represent less than 0.4% of system revenues (the highest estimated
percentage is for ground water systems serving 500 or fewer people, at
0.38% of its median revenue). Exhibit 7 presents the yearly costs to
small systems, and to EPA for the small system sampling program, along
with an illustration of system participation for each year of the UCMR
3 program.

                                                         Exhibit 7--EPA and Systems Costs for Implementation of UCMR 3 at Small Systems
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Cost description                 2012                      2013                                2014                                2015                      2016            Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Costs to EPA for Small System Program (including Assessment Monitoring, and Pre-Screen Testing)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  $0  $3,943,827........................  $3,943,827........................  $3,943,827........................              $0     $11,831,481
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Costs to Small Systems (including Assessment Monitoring, and Pre-Screen Testing):
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  $0  $81,707...........................  $81,707...........................  $81,707...........................              $0        $245,121
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        Total Costs to EPA and Small Systems for UCMR 2:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  $0  $4,025,533........................  $4,025,533........................  $4,025,533........................              $0     $12,076,599
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                            System Monitoring Activity Timeline: \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assessment Monitoring...............  ..............  1/3 PWSs Sample...................  1/3 PWSs Sample...................  1/3 PWSs Sample...................  ..............             800
Pre-Screen Testing..................  ..............  1/3 PWSs Sample...................  1/3 PWSs Sample...................  1/3 PWSs Sample...................  ..............             800
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 \1\ Total number of systems is 1,600. No small system conducts more than one type of monitoring study.

    System costs are attributed to the labor required for reading about
their requirements, monitoring, reporting, and record keeping. The
estimated average annual burden across the five-year UCMR 3
implementation period of 2012-2016 is estimated to be 1.3 hours at $31
per small system. Average annual cost, in all cases, is less than 0.4%
of

system revenues. As required by the SDWA, the Agency specifically
structured the rule to avoid significantly affecting small entities by
assuming all costs for laboratory analyses, shipping, and quality
control for small entities. As a result, EPA incurs the entirety of the
non-labor costs associated with UCMR 3 small system monitoring, or 98%
of total small system testing costs. Exhibits 8 and 9 present the
estimated economic impacts in the form of a revenue test for publicly-
and privately-owned systems.

              Exhibit 8--UCMR 3 Relative Cost Analysis for Small Publicly-Owned Systems (2012-2016)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Average annual     Average annual
   System size (number of people      Annual number of   hours per system   cost per system    Revenue test \1\
              served)                 systems impacted     (2012-2016)        (2012-2016)          (percent)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Ground Water Systems
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
500 and under......................                 25                1.1             $22.63               0.07
501 to 3,300.......................                 96                1.2              26.84               0.02
3,301 to 10,000....................                 41                1.7              43.71               0.01
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Surface Water (and GWUDI) Systems
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
500 and under......................                  1                1.8              38.06               0.07
501 to 3,300.......................                  7                1.9              41.99               0.02
3,301 to 10,000....................                 20                2.0              51.02               0.005
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 \1\ The Revenue Test was used to evaluate the economic impact of an information collection on small government
  entities (e.g., publicly-owned systems); costs are presented as a percentage of median annual revenue in each
  size category.

             Exhibit 9--UCMR 3 Relative Cost Analysis for Small Privately-Owned Systems (2012-2016)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Average annual     Average annual
   System size (number of people      Annual number of   hours per system   cost per system    Revenue test \1\
              served)                 systems impacted     (2012-2016)        (2012-2016)          (percent)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Ground Water Systems
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
500 and under......................                 76                1.1             $22.63               0.38
501 to 3,300.......................                 36                1.2              26.84               0.02
3,301 to 10,000....................                 10                1.7              43.71               0.004
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Surface Water (and GWUDI) Systems
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
500 and under......................                  1                1.8              38.06               0.11
501 to 3,300.......................                  3                1.9              41.99               0.02
3,301 to 10,000....................                  6                2.0              51.02               0.005
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 \1\ The ``Revenue Test'' was used to evaluate the economic impact of an information collection on small private
  entities (e.g., privately-owned systems); costs are presented as a percentage of median annual revenue in each
  size category.

    The Agency continues to be interested in the potential impacts of
the proposed rule on small entities and welcomes comments on issues
related to such impacts.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    This rule does not contain a Federal mandate that may result in
expenditures of $100 million or more for State, local, and Tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any one year.
Total annual costs of today's proposed rule (across the implementation
period of 2012-2016), for State, local, and Tribal governments and the
private sector, are estimated to be $14.9 million, of which EPA would
pay $3.3 million, or approximately 22%. Thus, this rule is not subject
to the requirements of sections 202 or 205 of UMRA.
    This rule is also not subject to the requirements of section 203 of
UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that might
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The Agency expects
to pay for the reasonable costs of sample analysis for the small PWSs
required to monitor for unregulated contaminants under this proposed
rule, including those owned and operated by small governments. The only
costs that small systems would incur are those attributed to collecting
the UCMR samples and packing them for shipping to the laboratory (EPA
would pay for shipping). These costs are minimal. They are not
significant or unique. Thus, today's rule is not subject to the
requirements of UMRA section 203.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This proposed rule does not have Federalism implications. It will
not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government,
as specified in Executive Order 13132. The cost to State and local
governments is minimal, and the rule does not preempt State law. Thus,
Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this action.
    In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA
policy to promote communications between EPA and State and local
governments, EPA specifically solicits comment on the proposed rule
from State and local officials.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

    Subject to the Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9,
2000) EPA may not issue a regulation that has Tribal implications, that
imposes substantial direct compliance costs, and that is not required
by statute, unless the Federal government provides the

funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by Tribal
governments, or EPA consults with Tribal officials early in the process
of developing the proposed regulation and develops a Tribal summary
impact statement.
    EPA has concluded that this action will have Tribal implications.
However, it will neither impose substantial direct compliance costs on
Tribal governments, nor preempt Tribal law. As described previously,
this proposed rule requires monitoring by all large systems (i.e.,
those serving more than 10,000 people); 17 Tribal water systems have
been identified as large systems based on information in the SDWIS/Fed
water system inventory. EPA estimates the average annual cost to each
of these large systems, over the five-year rule period, to be less than
$2,381. This cost is based on a labor component (associated with the
collection of samples) and a non-labor component (associated with
shipping and laboratory fees) and represents less than 0.126% of
average revenue/sales for large systems. UCMR also requires monitoring
by a nationally representative sample of small systems (i.e., those
serving 10,000 or fewer people). EPA estimates that approximately one
percent of small Tribal systems will be selected as a nationally
representative sample for Assessment Monitoring. EPA estimates the
average annual cost over the five-year rule period to be $34. Such cost
is based on the labor associated with collecting a sample and preparing
it for shipping and represents less than 0.4% of average revenue/sales
for small systems. All other small-system expenses (associated with
shipping and laboratory fees) are paid by EPA.
    EPA consulted with Tribal officials early in the process of
developing the UCMR program to permit them to have meaningful and
timely input into its development. In developing the original UCMR
rule, EPA held stakeholder meetings and prepared background information
for stakeholder review. EPA sent requests for review of stakeholder
documents to nearly 400 Tribes, Tribal organizations, and small systems
organizations to obtain their input. Representatives from the Indian
Health Service (IHS) Sanitary Deficiency System and Tribes were
consulted regarding decisions on rule design, the design for the
statistical selection of small systems, and potential costs. Tribes
raised issues concerning the selection of the nationally representative
sample of small systems, particularly the manner in which Tribal
systems would be considered under the sample selection process. EPA
developed the sample frame for Tribal systems and Alaska Native water
systems in response to those concerns. EPA worked with the Tribes,
Alaska Natives, the IHS, and the States to determine how to classify
each Tribal system for consideration in the statistically-based
selection of the nationally representative sample of small systems. As
a result of those discussions, small PWSs located in Indian country in
each of the EPA Regions containing Indian country were evaluated as
part of a Tribal category that receives selection consideration
comparable to that of small systems outside of Indian country. Thus,
Tribal systems have the same probability of being selected as other
water systems in the stratified selection process that weighs systems
by water source and size class by population served. Today's proposed
rule, addressing the third UCMR period, maintains the basic program
design of UCMR 1 and 2, and continues to build upon the structure of
this cyclical program. As part of the development of this proposed
rule, EPA held a public stakeholder meeting on April 7, 2010. This
meeting was announced to the public in a Federal Register notice dated
February 23, 2010 (75 FR 8063 (USEPA, 2010a)). Prior to the meeting,
background materials and rule development information were sent to
specific stakeholders, including representatives from the Indian Health
Service and the Native American Water Association.
    EPA specifically solicits additional comment on this proposed
action from tribal officials.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health and Safety Risks

    This action is not subject to EO 13045 because it does not
establish an environmental standard intended to mitigate health or
safety risks and it is not an economically significant regulation
pursuant to EO 12866.

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

    This action is not a ``significant energy action'' as defined in
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)), because it is not
likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy. None of the proposed UCMR requirements
involve actions that use a measurable amount of energy.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law 104-113 (15 U.S.C. 272 note)
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory
activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling
procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by
voluntary consensus standards bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provide
Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use
available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
    This proposed rulemaking involves technical standards. EPA proposes
to use the methods developed by the Agency for the analysis of UCMR 3
contaminants. The Agency conducted a search of potentially applicable
voluntary consensus standards and identified three major voluntary
consensus method organizations whose methods might be acceptable for
determinations under Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring. These
organizations are Standard Methods, Association of Analytical
Communities International, and American Society for Testing and
Materials. For the majority of the parameters included in this proposed
action, EPA was unable to identify methods from voluntary consensus
method organizations that were applicable to the monitoring required.
However, EPA identified acceptable consensus method organization
standards for the analysis of vanadium, molybdenum, cobalt, strontium
and chlorate. Therefore, EPA is proposing analytical methods published
by EPA, Standard Methods, and American Society for Testing and
Materials for these analytes.
    EPA welcomes comments on this aspect of the proposed rulemaking
and, specifically, invites the public to identify potentially-
applicable voluntary consensus standards and to explain why such
standards should be used in this regulation.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes
Federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision
directs Federal agencies, to the greatest extent

practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of
their mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate,
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority
populations and low-income populations in the United States.
    EPA has determined that this proposed rule will not have
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority or low-income populations because it increases the
level of environmental protection for all affected populations without
having any disproportionately high and adverse human health or
environmental effects on any population, including any minority or low-
income population. By seeking to identify unregulated contaminants that
may pose health risks via drinking water from all PWSs, UCMR furthers
the protection of public health for all citizens, including minority
and low-income populations using public water supplies. UCMR uses a
statistically-derived set of systems for the nationally representative
sample that is population-weighted within each system size and source
water category so that any PWS within a category has an equivalent
likelihood of selection. Additionally, EPA is proposing to require
additional reporting elements that include U.S. Postal Service Zip
Codes for both the finished water entry point(s) and the PWS's service
area. EPA is soliciting comment on additional actions the Agency could
take to further address environmental justice within the UCMR program.
EPA requests stakeholder input on additional reporting elements to
consider to support the Agency's assessment of the monitoring results.
EPA also requests comments regarding sampling and/or modeling
approaches, and the feasibility and utility of applying these
approaches, to determine disproportionate impacts on drinking water
quality at PWSs serving minority and low-income populations.

VI. Public Involvement in Regulation Development

    EPA's Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water has developed a
process for stakeholder involvement in its regulatory activities for
the purpose of providing early input to regulation development. When
designing and developing the UCMR program, in the late 1990s, EPA held
meetings for developing the CCL, establishing the information
requirements of the NCOD, and selecting priority contaminants for
monitoring. During the initial development of the UCMR program,
stakeholders, including PWSs, States, industry, and other organizations
attended meetings to discuss the UCMR. Seventeen other meetings were
held specifically concerning UCMR development. For a description of
public involvement activities related to the first UCMR (UCMR 1),
please see the discussion in the September 17, 1999 UCMR Final Rule
Federal Register at 64 FR 50556 (USEPA, 1999).
    Specific to the development of UCMR 3, a stakeholder meeting was
held on April 7, 2010, in Washington, DC. There were 22 attendees,
representing State agencies, laboratories, PWSs, environmental groups,
and drinking water associations. The topics of presentations and
discussions included: Status of UCMR 2; rationale for developing a new
list of potential contaminants; analytical methods that could be used
in measuring these contaminants; sampling design; procedure for
determining LCMRLs; laboratory approval; and other potential revisions
based on lessons learned during implementation of UCMR 1 and UCMR 2
(see USEPA, 2010f for presentation materials, and 2010g for meeting
notes).
    EPA has established a public docket for this rule, under Docket ID
No. OW-2009-0090. EPA is soliciting comments on this proposed
regulation. Please see the summary section at the beginning of this
notice for instructions on submitting comments.

VII. References

Ando, T., S.S. Monroe, J.R. Gentsch, Q. Jin, D.C. Lewis, and R.I.
Glass. 1995. Detection and differentiation of antigenically distinct
small round-structured viruses (Norwalk-like viruses) by reverse
transcription-PCR and southern hybridization. Journal of Clinical
Microbiology. 33(1):64-71.
Association of State Drinking Water Administrators (ASDWA). 2003.
Public Health Protection Threatened by Inadequate Resources for
State Drinking Water Programs--An Analysis of State Drinking Water
Programs Resources, Needs, and Barriers. April 2003.
ASTM D5673-10. 2010. Standard Test Method for Elements in Water by
Inductively Coupled Plasma-Mass Spectrometry. Available for purchase
on the Internet at http://www.astm.org/Standards/D5673.htm.
ASTM D6581-08. 2008. Standard Test Methods for Bromate, Bromide,
Chlorate, and Chlorite in Drinking Water by Suppressed Ion
Chromatography. Available for purchase on the Internet at http://www.astm.org/Standards/D6581.htm.
Borchardt, M.A. 2008. Wisconsin Water And Health Trial for Enteric
Risks (WAHTER Study)--Part 1: Risk of Illness from Municipal
Groundwater Consumption. EPA Office of Water Symposium on
Groundwater-Borne Infectious Disease, Etiologic Agents and
Indicators, Washington, DC, December 2-4, 2008.
De Leon, R., C. Shieh, R.S. Baric, and M.D. Sobsey. 1990. Detection
of enteroviruses and hepatitis A virus in environmental samples by
gene probes and polymerase chain reaction. P. 833-835. In Advances
of Water Analysis and Treatment Proceedings 1989. Water Quality
Technology Conference, American Water Works Association, Denver, CO.
American Water Works Association, San Diego, CA.
Francy, D.S., R.N. Bushon, J. Stopar, E.J. Luzano, and G.S. Fout.
2004. Environmental Factors and Chemical and Microbiological Water-
Quality Constituents Related to the Presence of Enteric Viruses in
Ground Water From Small Public Water Supplies in Southeastern
Michigan. US Geological Survey Science Investigations Report 2004-
5219.
Gibbons, C.D., R.A. Rodriguez., L. Tallon, M.D. Sobsey. 2010.
Evaluation of positively charged alumina nanofibre cartridge filters
for the primary concentration of noroviruses, adenoviruses and male-
specific coliphages from seawater. Journal of Applied Microbiology.
109(2):635-641.
Jothikumar, N., J.A. Lowther, K. Henshilwood, D.N. Lees, V.R. Hill,
and J. Vinje[acute]. 2005. Rapid and sensitive detection of
noroviruses by using TaqMan-based one-step reverse transcription-PCR
assays and application to naturally contaminated shellfish samples.
Applied and Environmental Microbiology. 71(4):1870-1875.
Karim, M.R., E.R. Rhodes, N. Brinkman, L. Wymer, and G.S. Fout.
2009. New electropositive filter for concentrating enteroviruses and
noroviruses from large volumes of water. Applied and Environmental
Microbiology. 75(8):2393-2399.
Lambertini, E., S.K. Spencer, P.D. Bertz, F.J. Loge, B.A. Kieke, and
M.A. Borchardt. 2008. Concentration of enteroviruses, adenoviruses,
and noroviruses from drinking water by use of glass wool filters.
Applied and Environmental Microbiology. 74(10):2990-2996.
Monpoeho, S., A. Deh[eacute]e, B. Mignotte, L. Schwartzbrod, V.
Marechal, J.C. Nicolas, S. Billaudel, and V. Ferr[eacute]. 2000.
Quantification of enterovirus RNA in sludge samples by single tube
real-time RT-PCR. BioTechniques. 29:88-95.
SM 3125. 1997. Metals by Inductively Coupled Plasma/Mass
Spectrometry. Available for purchase on the Internet at http://www.standardmethods.org/store/ProductView.cfm?ProductID=211.
SM 4110D. 2000. Determination of Anions by Ion Chromatography, Part
D, IC determination of oxyhalides and bromide. Available for
purchase on the Internet at http://www.standardmethods.org/store/ProductView.cfm?ProductID=31.
USEPA. 1994. Method 200.8--Determination of Trace Elements in Waters
and Wastes

by Inductively Coupled Plasma-Mass Spectrometry. Revision 5.4.
Available on the Internet at https://www.nemi.gov/.
USEPA. 1996. Information Collection Rule Microbial Laboratory
Manual. Office of Research and Development. April 1996. EPA/600/R-
95/178. Available on the Internet at http://www.epa.gov/microbes/online.html#icr.
USEPA. 1997. Method 300.1--Determination of Inorganic Anions in
Drinking Water by Ion Chromatography. Revision 1.0. Available on the
Internet at http://water.epa.gov/scitech/drinkingwater/labcert/analyticalmethods_ogwdw.cfm.
USEPA. 1998a. 40 CFR Parts 141 and 142 National Primary Drinking
Water Regulations: Consumer Confidence; Proposed Rule. Federal
Register. Vol. 63, No. 30, p. 7606, February 13, 1998.
USEPA. 1998b. 40 CFR Parts 141 and 142 National Primary Drinking
Water Regulation: Consumer Confidence Reports; Final Rule. Federal
Register. Vol. 63, No. 160, p. 44512, August 19, 1998.
USEPA. 1999. Revisions to the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring
Regulation for Public Water Systems; Final Rule. Federal Register.
Vol. 64, No. 180, p. 50556, September 17, 1999.
USEPA. 2001. Statistical Design and Sample Selection for the
Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation (1999). EPA 815-R-01-
004. August 2001.
USEPA. 2003. National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Stage 2
Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule; National Primary and
Secondary Drinking Water Regulations: Approval of Analytical Methods
for Chemical Contaminants. Federal Register. Vol. 68, No. 159, p.
49547, August 18, 2003.
USEPA. 2004. Statistical Protocol for the Determination of the
Single-Laboratory Lowest Concentration Minimum Reporting Level