[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 46 (Thursday, March 11, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 13846-13872]
[FR Doc No: 2021-03920]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 141

[EPA-HQ-OW-2020-0530; FRL 10019-46-OW]
RIN 2040-AF89

Revisions to the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR 5)
for Public Water Systems and Announcement of Public Meeting

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Proposed rule and notice of public meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or Agency) is
proposing a Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) rule that would require
public water systems to collect national occurrence data for 29 per-
and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) and lithium. This proposed rule
would require all community and non-transient non community water
systems serving 3,300 or more people, and a representative sample of
smaller water systems, to conduct monitoring. PFAS and lithium are not
currently subject to national primary drinking water regulations, and
EPA is proposing to require the collection of drinking water occurrence
data to inform EPA decisions. This proposal fulfills a key commitment
in ``EPA's 2019 Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) Action
Plan'' (https://www.epa.gov/pfas/epas-pfas-action-plan) by proposing
the collection of more drinking water occurrence data for a broader
group of PFAS. EPA is also announcing two public meetings (via webinar)
to discuss this proposal of the fifth Unregulated Contaminant
Monitoring Rule (UCMR 5).

DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 10, 2021. Under the
Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), comments on the information collection
provisions are best assured of consideration if the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) receives a copy of your comments on or
before April 12, 2021.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OW-2020-0530, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov/
(our preferred method). Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
     Mail: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket
Center, Water Docket, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW,
Washington, DC 20460.
     Hand Delivery or Courier (by scheduled appointment only):
EPA Docket Center, WJC West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution
Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20004. The Docket Center's hours of
operations are 8:30 a.m.-4:30 p.m., Monday-Friday (except Federal
Holidays).
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OW-2020-0530 for this rulemaking. Comments received may be
posted without change to https://www.regulations.gov/, including any
personal information provided. For detailed instructions on sending
comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see the
``Public Participation'' heading of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
section of this document.
    Out of an abundance of caution for members of the public and our
staff, the EPA Docket Center and Reading Room are closed to the public,
with limited exceptions, to reduce the risk of transmitting COVID-19.
Our Docket Center staff will continue to provide remote customer
service via email, phone, and webform.
    We encourage the public to submit comments via https://www.regulations.gov/ or email, as there may be a delay in processing
mail and faxes. Hand deliveries and couriers may be received by
scheduled appointment only. For further information on EPA Docket
Center services and the current status, please visit us online at
https://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    EPA is offering a virtual meeting twice during the public comment
period. For more details on the meeting (including dates and times) and
to register, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dwucmr/unregulated-contaminant-monitoring-rule-ucmr-meetings-and-materials. Refer to the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document for additional
information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brenda D. Bowden, Standards and Risk
Management Division (SRMD), Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water
(OGWDW) (MS 140), Environmental Protection Agency, 26 West Martin
Luther King Drive, Cincinnati, Ohio 45268; telephone number: (513) 569-
7961; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or Melissa Simic, SRMD,
OGWDW (MS 140), Environmental Protection Agency, 26 West Martin Luther
King Drive, Cincinnati, Ohio 45268; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For general information, visit
the Safe Drinking Water Information web page on the internet at:
https://www.epa.gov/ground-water-and-drinking-water/safe-drinking-water-information.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Summary Information
    A. Purpose of the Regulatory Action
    1. What action is EPA taking?
    2. Does this action apply to me?
    3. What is EPA's authority for taking this action?
    B. Summary of the Regulatory Action
    C. Economic Analysis
    1. What is the estimated cost of this proposed action?
    2. Benefits of the Proposed Action
II. Public Participation

    A. Written Comments
    B. What stakeholder meetings have been held in preparation for
UCMR 5?
    C. How do I participate in the upcoming stakeholder meeting?
    1. Meeting Participation
    2. Meeting Materials
III. General Information
    A. How does EPA use different monitoring tiers to implement the
Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Program?
    B. How are the CCL, the UCMR program, the Regulatory
Determination process, and the NCOD interrelated?
    C. What are the Consumer Confidence Reporting and Public Notice
Reporting requirements for public water systems that are subject to
UCMR?
    D. What notable changes are being proposed for UCMR 5?
    E. How did EPA prioritize candidate contaminants and what
contaminants are proposed for UCMR 5?
    F. What other contaminants did EPA consider?
    1. Legionella pneumophila
    2. Haloacetonitriles
    3. 1,2,3-trichloropropane
    4. Total Organic Fluorine (TOF)
    G. What are the costs of alternatives to the proposed UCMR 5?
    H. What is the proposed applicability date?
    I. What are the proposed UCMR 5 sampling design and timeline of
activities?
    1. Sampling Frequency, Timing
    2. Sampling Locations and Ground Water Representative Monitoring
Plans
    3. Reporting Times
    J. What are the reporting requirements for the UCMR 5?
    K. What are Minimum Reporting Levels (MRLs) and how were they
determined?
    L. How do laboratories become approved to conduct the UCMR 5
analyses?
    1. Request To Participate
    2. Registration
    3. Application Package
    4. EPA's Review of Application Package
    5. Proficiency Testing
    6. Written EPA Approval
    M. What documents are being incorporated by reference?
    1. Methods From the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
    2. Alternative Methods From American Public Health Association--
Standard Methods (SM)
    3. Methods From ASTM International
    N. What is the State's role in the UCMR?
    O. How did EPA consider Children's Environmental Health?
    P. How did EPA address Environmental Justice?
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
    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 Risks and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)
    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
V. References

I. Summary Information

A. Purpose of the Regulatory Action

1. What action is EPA taking?
    EPA is proposing a SDWA rule that would require public water
systems to collect national occurrence data for 29 PFAS and lithium.
This proposed rule would require all community and non-transient non
community water systems serving 3,300 or more people, and a
representative sample of smaller water systems, to conduct monitoring.
PFAS and lithium are not currently subject to national primary drinking
water regulations, and EPA is proposing to require collection of the
data to inform EPA decisions. This proposal fulfills a key commitment
in ``EPA's 2019 Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) Action
Plan'' (USEPA, 2019a) by proposing the collection of more drinking
water occurrence data for a broader group of PFAS.
    This proposal identifies three analytical methods to support water
system monitoring for a total of 30 contaminants, consisting of 29 PFAS
and lithium. This document also describes EPA's evaluation of other
candidate contaminants, including Legionella pneumophila; four
haloacetonitriles (dichloroacetonitrile, dibromoacetonitrile,
trichloroacetonitrile, and bromochloroacetonitrile); 1,2,3-
trichloropropane; and ``total organic fluorine'' (TOF), and invites
public comment.
2. Does this action apply to me?
    This proposed rule applies to public water systems (PWSs) described
in this section. PWSs are systems that provide water for human
consumption through pipes, or constructed conveyances, to at least 15
service connections or that regularly serve an average of at least 25
individuals daily at least 60 days out of the year. A community water
system (CWS) is a PWS that has at least 15 service connections used by
year-round residents or regularly serves at least 25 year-round
residents. A non-transient non-community water system (NTNCWS) is a PWS
that is not a CWS and that regularly serves at least 25 of the same
people over 6 months per year. Under this proposal, all large CWSs and
NTNCWSs serving more than 10,000 people would be required to monitor.
In addition, all small CWSs and NTNCWs serving between 3,300 and 10,000
people would be required to monitor, subject to the availability of
appropriations and appropriate laboratory capacity (see discussion of
America's Water Infrastructure Act of 2018 in sections I.A. and I.B of
this document). A nationally representative sample of CWSs and NTNCWSs
serving fewer than 3,300 people would also be required to monitor (see
``Selection of Nationally Representative Public Water Systems for the
Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule: 2020 Update'' for a
description of the statistical approach for the nationally
representative sample (USEPA, 2020a)). As is generally the case for
UCMR sampling, transient non-community water systems (TNCWSs) (i.e.,
non-community water systems that do not regularly serve at least 25 of
the same people over 6 months per year) would not be required to
monitor under UCMR 5. States, territories, and tribes with primary
enforcement responsibility (primacy) to administer the regulatory
program for PWSs under SDWA (sometimes collectively referred to in this
notice as ``states''), can participate in the implementation of UCMR 5
through voluntary Partnership Agreements (see discussion of Partnership
Agreements in section III.N in this document). Primacy agencies with
Partnership Agreements can choose to be involved in various aspects of
the UCMR 5 monitoring for PWSs they oversee; however, the PWS remains
responsible for all compliance activities. Potentially regulated
categories and entities are identified in the following table.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Category                        Examples of potentially regulated entities        NAICS \a\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State, local, & tribal governments............  State, local, and tribal governments that                 924110
                                                 analyze water samples on behalf of PWSs
                                                 required to conduct such analysis; state,
                                                 local, and tribal governments that directly
                                                 operate CWSs and NTNCWSs required to monitor.

Industry......................................  Private operators of CWSs and NTNCWSs required            221310
                                                 to monitor.
Municipalities................................  Municipal operators of CWSs and NTNCWSs required          924110
                                                 to monitor.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ NAICS = North American Industry Classification System.

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this
action. This table lists the types of entities that EPA is aware could
potentially be regulated by this action. Other types of entities not
listed in the table could also be regulated. To determine whether your
entity is regulated by this action, you should carefully examine the
definition of PWS found in Sec. Sec.  141.2 and 141.3, and the
applicability criteria found in Sec.  141.40(a)(1) and (2) of Title 40
in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). If you have questions
regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity,
please consult the contacts listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document.
3. What is EPA's authority for taking this action?
    As part of its responsibilities under the SDWA, EPA implements
Sec.  1445(a)(2), Monitoring Program for Unregulated Contaminants. This
section, as amended in 1996, requires that once every five years,
beginning in August 1999, EPA issues a list of not more than 30
unregulated contaminants to be monitored by PWSs. The SDWA requires
that EPA enters the monitoring data into the Agency's publicly
available National Contaminant Occurrence Database (NCOD) at https://www.epa.gov/sdwa/national-contaminant-occurrence-database-ncod.
    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. EPA is using the SDWA Sec.  1445(a)(2)
authority as the basis for monitoring the unregulated contaminants
proposed under this rule.
    The SDWA, as amended by Section 2021 of America's Water
Infrastructure Act of 2018 (AWIA) (Pub. L. 115-270), specifies that,
subject to the availability of EPA appropriations for such purpose and
appropriate laboratory capacity, EPA's UCMR program must require all
systems serving between 3,300 and 10,000 persons to monitor for the
contaminants in a particular UCMR cycle, and ensure that only a
nationally representative sample of systems serving fewer than 3,300
persons are required to monitor for those contaminants. The program
would continue to ensure that systems serving a population larger than
10,000 people are required to monitor for the contaminants in a
particular UCMR cycle. This AWIA provision becomes effective October
23, 2021 (i.e., prior to the start of UCMR 5 sample collection).
    The SDWA, as amended by Section 7311 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020 (NDAA) (Pub. L. 116-92),
specifies that EPA shall include all PFAS in UCMR 5 for which a
drinking water method has been validated by the Administrator, and that
are not subject to a national primary drinking water regulation. The
NDAA specifies that unregulated PFAS included in UCMR 5 shall not count
towards the traditional SDWA limit of not more than 30 unregulated
contaminants being included in the UCMR (Sec.  1445(a)(2)(B)(i)).

B. Summary of the Regulatory Action

    EPA is proposing to require PWSs to collect occurrence data for
29PFAS and lithium. These contaminants may be present in drinking
water, but are not subject to national primary drinking water
regulations. This proposal fulfills a key commitment in EPA's 2019 PFAS
Action Plan (USEPA, 2019a) by proposing the collection of more drinking
water occurrence data for a broader group of PFAS. More specifically,
the UCMR 5 proposal identifies the following: Analytical methods to
measure the UCMR contaminants; monitoring time frame; sampling
locations; data elements (i.e., information required to be collected
along with the occurrence data); data reporting timeframes; and
conforming and editorial changes, such as those necessary to remove
requirements solely related to UCMR 4.
    This proposal includes monitoring for lithium based on anticipated
national occurrence in PWS-supplied drinking water and available
health-effects information that indicates adverse human health effects
in several organs and systems (USEPA, 2008). Nationally representative
occurrence data from EPA's National Inorganics and Radionuclides
Survey, 1984-1986, shows lithium was detected at levels between 5 and
7,929 [micro]g/L (microgram per liter) in the finished drinking water
of approximately 55% of PWSs (ground water systems only) (USEPA, 2009).
In more recent literature, lithium was detected in 56% of treated
drinking water samples from 25 PWSs at a median concentration of 10.8
[micro]g/L (Glassmeyer et al., 2017). EPA has determined that
monitoring for lithium under the UCMR is needed to assess the
occurrence of this contaminant nationally.
    This proposed action would provide EPA, states, and communities
with scientifically valid data on the national occurrence of these
contaminants in drinking water. The data represent one of the primary
sources of national occurrence data in drinking water that EPA uses to
inform regulatory and other risk management decisions for drinking
water contaminant candidates. This proposal identifies three analytical
methods to be used by laboratories analyzing UCMR samples for the
unregulated contaminants. In addition, EPA describes how it evaluated
other candidate contaminants, including Legionella pneumophila; four
haloacetonitriles (dichloroacetonitrile, dibromoacetonitrile,
trichloroacetonitrile, and bromochloroacetonitrile); 1, 2, 3-
trichloropropane; and ``total organic fluorine'' (TOF). In section
III.F, EPA describes why it has not proposed these particular
contaminants for UCMR 5. The UCMR 5 proposal reflects a consideration
of the utility of the information to be collected. Due to ongoing
regulatory evaluations, described in the following sections, data
collection for Legionella pneumophila and the four haloacetonitriles
would not be sufficiently timely to be useful.
    This proposed rule reflects the monitoring approach defined in the
AWIA and thus describes the UCMR 5 scope as including all systems
serving 3,300 or more people (as opposed to a representative sample of
those systems serving 3,300 to 10,000), and a representative sample of
systems serving fewer than 3,300 people. EPA has the statutory
obligation under the SDWA to pay the ``reasonable cost of such testing
and laboratory analysis'' for all applicable PWS serving 10,000 or
fewer individuals. Accordingly, the AWIA conditioned the inclusion of
all systems serving 3,300 to 10,000 persons in UCMR 5 on the
availability of appropriations. AWIA also conditioned the inclusion of
all systems serving 3,300 to 10,000 persons in UCMR 5 on

a determination by the Administrator of sufficient laboratory capacity
to analyze the samples.
    Based on EPA's experience over the first four cycles of UCMR
implementation, and informed by our ongoing engagement with the
laboratory community, EPA anticipates that sufficient laboratory
capacity will exist to support the expanded UCMR scope. Regarding EPA's
resources, however, if EPA concludes that it will not have the
resources necessary to support the expanded monitoring described by the
AWIA, the Agency will not promulgate a final rule that requires all
water systems serving between 3,300 and 10,000 persons to monitor as
presented in this proposed rule. Accordingly, this proposal also
describes EPA's alternative plan (i.e., in the absence of adequate
funds) that would involve selecting a representative sample of small
PWSs consistent with the approach established under the original (pre-
AWIA) UCMR program (i.e., that used for UCMR 4 and for prior cycles)
which includes 800 representative water systems serving fewer than or
equal to 10,000 in the UCMR program. See ``Selection of Nationally
Representative Public Water Systems for the Unregulated Contaminant
Monitoring Rule: 2020 Update'' for further details about the nationally
representative sample (USEPA, 2020a)).
    This proposed rule also addresses the requirements of the NDAA by
including all 29 PFAS that are within the scope of EPA Methods 533 and
537.1. Both of these methods have been validated by EPA for drinking
water analysis.

C. Economic Analysis

1. What is the estimated cost of this proposed action?
    EPA estimates the total average national cost of this proposed
action will be $21 million per year over the five-year effective period
of the rule (2022-2026). Costs fall upon large PWSs (for sampling and
analysis); small PWS (for sampling); state regulatory agencies (i.e.,
those who volunteer to assist EPA with oversight and implementation
support); and EPA (for regulatory support and oversight activities, and
analytical and shipping costs for small PWSs). These costs are
summarized in Exhibit 1. EPA has further documented the assumptions and
data sources used in the preparation of this estimate in the ``Draft
Information Collection Request for the Unregulated Contaminant
Monitoring Rule (UCMR 5)'' (USEPA, 2020b).
    Costs for a particular UCMR cycle are heavily influenced by the
selection of contaminants and associated analytical methods. EPA
proposes three EPA-developed analytical methods (and, in the case of
lithium, multiple optional alternative methods) to analyze samples for
the UCMR 5 chemical contaminants. EPA's estimate of the analytical cost
for the UCMR 5 contaminants is $950 per sample set (i.e., $950 to
analyze a set of samples from one sample point and one sample event for
all of the UCMR 5 contaminants). EPA calculated these costs by summing
the laboratory unit cost of each method. Exhibit 1 presents a breakdown
of EPA-estimated annual average national costs. Estimated PWS- (i.e.,
large and very large) and EPA costs reflect the analytical cost (i.e.,
non-labor) for all the UCMR 5 methods. EPA pays for the analytical
costs for all systems serving a population of 10,000 or fewer people.
Laboratory analysis and sample shipping account for approximately 82%
of the total national cost for the implementation of UCMR 5. EPA
estimated laboratory unit costs based on consultations with multiple
commercial drinking water testing laboratories and, in the case of new
methods, a review of the costs of analytical methods similar to those
proposed in this action. The cost of the laboratory methods includes
shipping along with the cost for the analysis.
    EPA expects that states may incur modest labor costs associated
with voluntary assistance with the implementation of UCMR 5. EPA
estimated state costs using the relevant assumptions from the State
Resource Model developed by the Association of State Drinking Water
Administrators (ASDWA) (ASDWA, 2013) to help states forecast resource
needs. Model estimates were adjusted to account for actual levels of
state participation under UCMR 4. State assistance with EPA's
implementation of UCMR 5 is voluntary; thus, the level of effort is
expected to vary among states and would depend on their individual
agreements with EPA.
    EPA assumes that one-third of the systems would monitor during each
of the three sample-collection years from January 2023 through December
2025. The total estimated annual costs (labor and non-labor) including
the additional small systems included according to the AWIA mandate
would be incurred as follows:

  Exhibit 1--Estimated Average Annual Costs of the Proposed UCMR 5 \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Average annual
                       Entity                           cost (million)
                                                        (2022-2026) \2\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Small Systems (25-10,000), including labor \3\ only                 $0.3
 (non-labor costs \4\ paid for by EPA)..............
Large Systems (10,001-100,000), including labor and                  7.2
 non-labor costs....................................
Very Large Systems (100,001 and greater), including                  2.3
 labor and non-labor costs..........................
States, including labor costs related to                             0.8
 implementation coordination........................
EPA, including labor for implementation and non-                \5\ 10.5
 labor for small system testing.....................
                                                     -------------------
    Average Annual National Total...................                21.1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Based on the scope of small-system monitoring described in AWIA.
\2\ Totals may not equal the sum of components due to rounding.
\3\ Labor costs pertain to systems, states, and EPA. Costs include
  activities such as reading the rule, notifying systems selected to
  participate, sample collection, data review, reporting, and record
  keeping.
\4\ Non-labor costs will be incurred primarily by EPA and by large and
  very large PWSs. They include the cost of shipping samples to
  laboratories for testing and the cost of the laboratory analyses.
\5\ EPA estimates an average annual cost to the Agency of $17M/year
  (over a five-year cycle) for a typical UCMR program that involves the
  expanded scope prescribed by AWIA ($2M/year for the representative
  sample of 800 PWSs serving <3,300 and $15M/year for all PWSs serving
  between 3,300 and 10,000); EPA projects an average annual cost of
  $10.5M for UCMR 5, as proposed, based on the relatively lower than
  typical unit analytical costs associated with the proposed UCMR 5
  contaminants.

    Additional details regarding EPA's cost assumptions and estimates
can be found in the Draft Information Collection Request (ICR) (USEPA,
2020b), ICR Number 2040-NEW, which presents estimated cost and labor
hours for the 5-year UCMR 5 period of 2022-2026. Copies of the Draft
ICR may be obtained from the EPA public docket for this proposed rule,
under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2020-0530. See also section III.G of this
document for a discussion of cost scenarios based on potential changes
between the publication of this proposed rule and the final rule.
2. Benefits of the Proposed Action
    The public benefits from the information about whether or not
unregulated contaminants are present in their drinking water. If
contaminants are not found, consumer confidence in their drinking water
will improve. If contaminants are found, related health effects may be
avoided when subsequent actions, such as regulations, reduce or
eliminate those contaminants.

II. Public Participation

A. Written Comments

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2020-
0530, at https://www.regulations.gov or other methods identified in the
ADDRESSES section of this document. Once submitted, comments cannot be
edited or removed from the docket. EPA may publish any comment received
to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you
consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Contact EPA if
you want to submit CBI; see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of
this document. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be
accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the
official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish
to make. EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents
located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or
other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full
EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please
visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets. EPA is
temporarily suspending its Docket Center and Reading Room for public
visitors, with limited exceptions, to reduce the risk of transmitting
COVID-19. Our Docket Center staff will continue to provide remote
customer service via email, phone, and webform. We encourage the public
to submit comments via https://www.regulations.gov/ as there may be a
delay in processing mail and faxes. Hand deliveries or couriers will be
received by scheduled appointment only. For further information and
updates on EPA Docket Center services, please visit us online at
https://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    EPA continues to carefully and continuously monitor information
from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), local area
health departments, and our Federal partners so that we can respond
rapidly as conditions change regarding COVID-19.

B. What stakeholder meetings have been held in preparation for UCMR 5?

    EPA incorporates stakeholder involvement into each UCMR cycle.
Specific to the development of UCMR 5, EPA held two public stakeholder
meetings and is announcing two additional public meetings via webinars
in this proposal (see section II.C of this document). EPA held a
meeting focused on drinking water methods for unregulated contaminants
on June 6, 2018, in Cincinnati, Ohio. Representatives from state
agencies, laboratories, PWSs, environmental organizations, and drinking
water associations joined the meeting via webinar and in person.
Meeting topics included an overview of regulatory process elements
(including the Contaminant Candidate List (CCL), UCMR, and Regulatory
Determination), and drinking water methods under development (see
USEPA, 2018a for presentation materials). EPA held a second stakeholder
meeting on July 16, 2019, in Cincinnati, Ohio. Participants
representing state agencies, tribes, laboratories, PWSs, environmental
organizations, and drinking water associations participated in the
meeting via webinar and in person. Meeting topics included the impacts
of the AWIA, analytical methods and contaminants being considered by
EPA, potential sampling design, and other possible aspects of the UCMR
5 approach (see USEPA, 2019b for meeting materials).
    This proposal fulfills a commitment made in EPA's PFAS Action Plan
found on EPA's website at https://www.epa.gov/pfas/epas-pfas-action-plan. EPA conducted extensive public outreach in the development of the
PFAS Action Plan (USEPA, 2019a), including gathering diverse
perspectives through the May 2018 ``National Leadership Summit,''
direct engagement with the public in impacted communities in five
states, engagement with tribal partners, and roundtables conducted with
community leaders near impacted sites. EPA reviewed approximately
120,000 comments in the public docket that was specifically established
to gather input for the PFAS Action Plan (USEPA, 2019a). Through this
outreach, EPA heard significant concerns from the public on the
challenges these contaminants pose for communities nationwide, and the
need for improved understanding of the frequency and concentration of
PFAS occurrence in finished U.S. drinking water.

C. How do I participate in the upcoming stakeholder meeting?

    EPA will hold two virtual stakeholder meetings during the public
comment period. Topics will include the proposed UCMR 5 monitoring
requirements, analyte selection and rationale, analytical methods, the
laboratory approval process, and ground water representative monitoring
plans (GWRMPs). If stakeholder interest results in exceeding the
maximum number of available connections for participants in the first
two webinar offerings, EPA may schedule additional webinars, with dates
and times posted on EPA's Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Program
Meetings and Materials web page at https://www.epa.gov/dwucmr/unregulated-contaminant-monitoring-rule-ucmr-meetings-and-materials.
    Please note that EPA is deviating from its typical approach because
the President has declared a national emergency. Because of current CDC
recommendations, as well as state and local orders for social
distancing to limit the spread of COVID-19, EPA cannot hold in-person
public meetings at this time.
1. Meeting Participation
    Those who wish to participate in the initial public meeting or
repeat subsequent webinar offerings can find information on how to
register, including dates and times, at https://www.epa.gov/dwucmr/unregulated-contaminant-monitoring-rule-ucmr-meetings-and-materials. To
ensure adequate time for public statements, individuals or
organizations interested in making a statement should identify their
interest when they register. We ask that only one person present on
behalf of a group or organization, and that the presentation be limited
to ten minutes. Any additional statements from participants will be
taken during the meeting if time permits. Formal

comments must be submitted to the docket. The number of webinar
connections available for the meeting is limited and will be available
on a first-come, first-served basis. Further details about registration
and participation can be found on EPA's Unregulated Contaminant
Monitoring Program Meetings and Materials web page at https://www.epa.gov/dwucmr/unregulated-contaminant-monitoring-rule-ucmr-meetings-and-materials.
2. Meeting Materials
    EPA expects to send meeting materials by email to all registered
participants prior to the meeting. The materials will be posted on
EPA's website at https://www.epa.gov/dwucmr/unregulated-contaminant-monitoring-rule-ucmr-meetings-and-materials for persons who do not
participate in the webinar.

III. General Information

A. How does EPA use different monitoring tiers to implement the
Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Program?

    EPA published the list of contaminants for the first UCMR (UCMR 1)
in the Federal Register (FR) on September 17, 1999 (64 FR 50556,
(USEPA, 1999)), the second UCMR (UCMR 2) on January 4, 2007 (72 FR 367,
(USEPA, 2007)), the third UCMR (UCMR 3) on May 2, 2012 (77 FR 26072,
(USEPA, 2012)), and the fourth UCMR (UCMR 4) on December 20, 2016 (81
FR 92666, (USEPA, 2016a)). EPA has utilized up to three different tiers
of contaminant monitoring, associated with three different ``lists'' of
contaminants, in past UCMRs. EPA designed the monitoring tiers to
reflect the availability and complexity of analytical methods,
laboratory capacity, sampling frequency, and cost, as well as labor
hours on and the characteristics of PWSs performing the monitoring. For
example, monitoring that is more complex, costly, and/or tailored is
more likely to be implemented under the second or third tiers, as
described below.
    The Assessment Monitoring tier is the largest in scope and is used
to collect data to determine the national occurrence of ``List 1''
contaminants in PWS-supplied drinking water for the purpose of
estimating national population exposure. The Assessment Monitoring tier
has been used in the four previous UCMRs to collect occurrence data
from all systems serving more than 10,000 people and a representative
sample of 800 smaller systems. Consistent with the AWIA, the Assessment
Monitoring approach was redesigned for the proposed UCMR 5 and would
require all systems serving 3,300 or more people and a representative
sample of systems serving fewer than 3,300 to perform monitoring
(USEPA, 2020a). The population-weighted sampling design for the
nationally representative sample of small systems (used in previous
UCMR cycles to select 800 systems serving 10,000 or fewer, and proposed
to be used in UCMR 5 to select 800 systems serving fewer than 3,300)
calls for the sample to be stratified by water source type (ground
water or surface water), service size category, and state (where each
state is allocated a minimum of two systems in its State Monitoring
Plan). The allowable margin of error at the 99% confidence level is
1% for an expected contaminant occurrence of 1%. Assessment
Monitoring is the primary tier used for contaminants and generally
relies on analytical methods that use more common techniques, and are
expected to be widely available. EPA has used an Assessment Monitoring
tier for 72 contaminants and contaminant groups over the course of UCMR
1 through UCMR 4. The Agency is proposing to exclusively require
Assessment Monitoring in UCMR 5 and anticipates that this will
generally be the case in future UCMR cycles when practical, since this
monitoring approach yields the most complete set of occurrence data to
support EPA's decision making.
    The Screening Survey tier is smaller in scope than Assessment
Monitoring, applying to all very large water systems serving more than
100,000 people, 320 randomly selected systems serving 10,001 to 100,000
people, and 480 randomly selected systems serving 10,000 or fewer
people. The Screening Survey approach is used to collect data to
determine the national occurrence of ``List 2'' contaminants in PWS-
supplied drinking water. This tier generally pertains to monitoring
with less established analytical techniques, such that laboratory
capacity and/or cost may be a concern. The Screening Survey design for
the nationally representative sample of PWSs serving fewer than 100,000
people has an allowable margin of error of 1% at the 99%
confidence level for an expected occurrence of 1%; however, unlike
Assessment Monitoring, the stratified design is not population-
weighted. EPA has used Screening Survey monitoring for 36 contaminants
over the course of UCMR 1 through UCMR 4. A Screening Survey tier is
not proposed for UCMR 5 because Assessment Monitoring for the 30
proposed contaminants has been deemed practical and would allow EPA to
collect a more robust set of occurrence data than provided for under a
Screening Survey approach.
    A Pre-Screen Testing tier for ``List 3'' contaminants can be
customized to meet the specific monitoring objectives for a specific
group of PWSs. EPA used Pre-Screen Testing to collect data for two
viruses under UCMR 3. That monitoring relied on specialized analytical
methods and sampling techniques, and focused on 800 small,
undisinfected groundwater systems in vulnerable areas. A Pre-Screen
Testing tier is not proposed for UCMR 5.

B. How are the CCL, the UCMR program, the Regulatory Determination
process, and the NCOD interrelated?

    Under the 1996 amendments to the SDWA, Congress established a
multi-step, risk-based approach for determining which contaminants
would become subject to drinking water standards. Under the first step,
EPA is required to publish a CCL every five years that identifies
contaminants that are not subject to any proposed or promulgated
drinking water regulations, are known or anticipated to occur in PWSs,
and may require future regulation under the SDWA. Under the second
step, EPA must require, every five years, monitoring of unregulated
contaminants to determine their occurrence in drinking water systems;
this is the UCMR program. Under the third step, EPA is required to
determine, every five years, whether or not to regulate at least five
contaminants from the CCL. Under Sec.  1412(b)(1)(A) of the SDWA, EPA
regulates a contaminant in drinking water if the Administrator
determines that:

    (1) The contaminant may have an adverse effect on the health of
persons;
    (2) the contaminant is known to occur or there is substantial
likelihood that the contaminant will occur in PWSs with a frequency
and at levels of public health concern; and
    (3) in the sole judgment of the Administrator, regulation of
such contaminant presents a meaningful opportunity for health risk
reduction for persons served by PWSs.

    For the contaminants that meet all of the three criteria, the SDWA
requires EPA to publish national primary drinking water regulations
(NPDWRs). Information on the CCL and the regulatory determination
process can be found at: https://www.epa.gov/ccl.
    The data collected through the UCMR program are made available to
the public through the National Contaminant Occurrence Database

(NCOD) for drinking water. EPA developed the NCOD to satisfy statutory
requirements in the 1996 Amendments to the SDWA to assemble, and
maintain a drinking water contaminant occurrence database for both
regulated and unregulated contaminants in water systems. NCOD houses
data on unregulated contaminant occurrence; data from EPA's ``Six Year
Review'' of national drinking water regulations; and ambient and/or
source water data. Section 1445(g)(3) of the SDWA requires that EPA
maintain UCMR data in the NCOD, and use the data when evaluating the
frequency and level of occurrence of contaminants in drinking water at
a level of public health concern. The UCMR results can be viewed by the
public via NCOD (https://www.epa.gov/sdwa/national-contaminant-occurrence-database-ncod) or via the UCMR web page at: https://www.epa.gov/dwucmr.

C. What are the Consumer Confidence Reporting and Public Notice
Reporting requirements for public water systems that are subject to
UCMR?

    In addition to reporting UCMR monitoring data to EPA, PWSs are
responsible for presenting and addressing UCMR results in their annual
Consumer Confidence Reports (CCRs) (40 CFR 141.153), and must address
Public Notice (PN) requirements associated with UCMR (40 CFR 141.207).
Today's notice does not propose changes to these reporting
requirements. More details about the CCR and PN requirements can be
viewed by the public at: https://www.epa.gov/ccr and https://www.epa.gov/dwreginfo/public-notification-rule, respectively.

D. What notable changes are being proposed for UCMR 5?

    This action proposes to revise the existing UCMR to address recent
changes in the SDWA, and to reflect lessons learned through prior
experience implementing the UCMR. These additional proposed changes
include: Requiring water systems serving 3,300 or more persons to
monitor per the AWIA requirements; updating the list of the UCMR 5
contaminants, analytical methods, monitoring time frame, and sampling
locations; revising the data elements required in addition to the
occurrence data (outlined in Exhibit 2 below); revising data reporting
timeframes; and effecting conforming and editorial changes, such as
those necessary to remove requirements solely related to UCMR 4. A
track-changes version of the rule language, comparing UCMR 4 to the
proposed changes for UCMR 5, (``Proposed Revisions to CFR parts 141.35
and 141.40'' (USEPA, 2020c)), is included in the public docket (Docket
ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2020-0530) for this proposed rule. EPA's proposed
approach and rationale for changes are described in the following
sections.

                                 Exhibit 2--Notable Changes Proposed for UCMR 5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                CFR rule section
-----------------------------------------------------------------------     Description of       Corresponding
                                    Title/          Current (UCMR 4)       proposed change      preamble section
            Number                description         requirement
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.   141.35(d), Sec.         Scope of UCMR 5   UCMR 4 included all    Proposes revisions to  I.A.
 141.40(a)(2)(ii), and Sec.     applicability.    CWSs and NTNCWSs       the scope of UCMR 5
 141.40(a)(4)(ii).                                that serve more than   to address all CWSs
                                                  10,000 people, and a   and NTNCWSs serving
                                                  representative set     3,300 or more people
                                                  of 800 systems         and a representative
                                                  serving 10,000 or      set of systems
                                                  fewer people.          serving fewer than
                                                                         3,300 people
                                                                         (consistent with
                                                                         AWIA).
Sec.   141.40(a)(3)..........  Related           UCMR 4 specified 30    Proposes a new list    III.E + III.I.
                                specifications    contaminants           of 29 PFAS and
                                for the           (cyanotoxins,          lithium as
                                analytes to be    metals, pesticides,    contaminants for
                                monitored,        brominated             monitoring;
                                including         haloacetic acid        identifies
                                sampling          groups, alcohols,      associated
                                timeframe.        and semivolatile       analytical methods,
                                                  chemicals) and         MRLs, and sampling
                                                  sample collection      locations; and
                                                  from January 2018      proposes to revise
                                                  through December       the sample
                                                  2020.                  collection dates to
                                                                         January 2023 through
                                                                         December 2025.
Sec.   141.40(a).............  Applicability     UCMR 4 specified       Proposes to revise     III.H.
                                date.             December 31, 2015,     the date used to
                                                  as the basis for       determine which
                                                  determining which      systems are subject
                                                  systems were subject   to monitoring to
                                                  to monitoring.         February 1, 2021.
Sec.   141.35(c)(3)..........  Ground Water      UCMR 4 specified       Proposes flexibility   III.I.
                                Representative    ``within 120 from      to the deadline for
                                Monitoring        publication of the     PWSs to submit a
                                Plans (GWRMPs).   final rule (April      GWRMP proposal to
                                                  19, 2017)'' as the     EPA.
                                                  deadline to submit a
                                                  GWRMP.
Sec.   141.35(c)(6)(ii) and    Reporting         UCMR 4 specified that  Proposes to revise     III.I.
 Sec.   141.40(a)(5)(vi).       timeframe.        laboratories must      the timeframe for
                                                  approve analytical     laboratories to post
                                                  results in EPA's       and approve
                                                  electronic data        analytical results
                                                  reporting system       in EPA's electronic
                                                  within 120 days from   data reporting
                                                  the sample             system (for review
                                                  collection date and    by the PWS) to
                                                  specified that PWS     ``within 90 days
                                                  had 60 days (from      from the sample
                                                  when the laboratory    collection date.''.
                                                  posted the data to    Proposes to revise
                                                  EPA's electronic       the timeframe for
                                                  data reporting         PWSs to review,
                                                  system) to review,     approve, and submit
                                                  approve, and submit    data to the state
                                                  their data to the      and EPA to no more
                                                  state and EPA.         than ``30 days from
                                                                         when the laboratory
                                                                         posts the data to
                                                                         EPA's electronic
                                                                         data reporting
                                                                         system''.
Sec.   141.35(e).............  Reporting         UCMR 4 specified data  Proposes changes to    III.J.
                                requirements--D   elements applicable    the data elements to
                                ata elements.     to the contaminants    be reported to EPA
                                                  included in that       based on the
                                                  cycle.                 contaminants
                                                                         proposed for
                                                                         monitoring.
Sec.   141.40(a)(5)(ii)......  Laboratory        UCMR 4 specified that  Proposes a more        III.L.
                                approval          laboratories           flexible timeframe
                                application       interested in          for laboratories to
                                timeframe.        supporting             apply to support
                                                  monitoring must        UCMR 5 monitoring.
                                                  initially apply        Proposes that
                                                  within 120 days of     registration and
                                                  publication of the     application
                                                  final rule. April      materials are to be
                                                  19, 2017 was           submitted to EPA
                                                  specified as the       ``by August 1,
                                                  date by which all      2022.'' Additonally,
                                                  registration and       revises the email
                                                  application            correspondence to be
                                                  materials must be      [email protected]
                                                  completed and          a.gov.
                                                  returned to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. How did EPA prioritize candidate contaminants and what contaminants
are proposed for UCMR 5?

    In establishing the proposed list of contaminants for UCMR 5, EPA
evaluated unregulated contaminants in accordance with the statutory
authorities described in section I.A of this document. In accordance
with these requirements, EPA's commitments under the PFAS Action Plan
(USEPA, 2019a), and the process described in this document, EPA is
proposing monitoring for the unregulated contaminants listed in Exhibit
3 using the specified methods.

                   Exhibit 3--Proposed UCMR 5 Analytes
------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                             List 1 Analytes
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Twenty-five Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) using EPA Method
                         533 (SPE LC/MS/MS): \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
11-chloroeicosafluoro-3-oxaundecane-1-   perfluorodecanoic acid (PFDA).
 sulfonic acid (11Cl-PF3OUdS).
1H, 1H, 2H, 2H-perfluorodecane sulfonic  perfluorododecanoic acid
 acid (8:2 FTS).                          (PFDoA).
1H, 1H, 2H, 2H-perfluorohexane sulfonic  perfluoroheptanesulfonic acid
 acid (4:2 FTS).                          (PFHpS).
1H, 1H, 2H, 2H-perfluorooctane sulfonic  perfluoroheptanoic acid
 acid (6:2 FTS).                          (PFHpA).
4,8-dioxa-3H-perfluorononanoic acid      perfluorohexanesulfonic acid
 (ADONA).                                 (PFHxS).
9-chlorohexadecafluoro-3-oxanone-1-      perfluorohexanoic acid (PFHxA).
 sulfonic acid (9Cl-PF3ONS).
hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid     perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA).
 (HFPO-DA) (GenX).
nonafluoro-3,6-dioxaheptanoic acid       perfluorooctanesulfonic acid
 (NFDHA).                                 (PFOS).
perfluoro (2-ethoxyethane) sulfonic      perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA).
 acid (PFEESA).
perfluoro-3-methoxypropanoic acid        perfluoropentanesulfonic acid
 (PFMPA).                                 (PFPeS).
perfluoro-4-methoxybutanoic acid         perfluoropentanoic acid
 (PFMBA).                                 (PFPeA).
perfluorobutanesulfonic acid (PFBS)....  perfluoroundecanoic acid
                                          (PFUnA).
perfluorobutanoic acid (PFBA)..........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Four Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) using EPA Method 537.1
                           (SPE LC/MS/MS): \2\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
n-ethyl                                  perfluorotetradecanoic acid
 perfluorooctanesulfonamidoacetic acid    (PFTA).
 (NEtFOSAA).
n-methyl                                 perfluorotridecanoic acid
 perfluorooctanesulfonamidoacetic acid    (PFTrDA).
 (NMeFOSAA).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
    One Metal/Pharmaceutical using EPA Method 200.7 (ICP-AES) \3\ or
                      alternate SM \4\ or ASTM: \5\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
lithium................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ EPA Method 533 (Solid phase extraction (SPE) liquid chromatography/
  tandem mass spectrometry (LC/MS/MS)) (USEPA, 2019c).
\2\ EPA Method 537.1 Version 2.0 (Solid phase extraction (SPE) liquid
  chromatography/tandem mass spectrometry (LC/MS/MS)) (USEPA, 2020d).
\3\ EPA Method 200.7 (Inductively coupled plasma-atomic emission
  spectrometry (ICP-AES)) (USEPA, 1994).
\4\ Standard Methods (SM) 3120 B (SM, 2017) or SM 3120 B-99 (SM Online,
  1999).
\5\ ASTM International (ASTM) D1976-20 (ASTM, 2020).

    EPA considered the current (fourth) Contaminant Candidate List (CCL
4), which includes 97 chemicals or chemical groups and 12 microbes (81
FR 81099, November 17, 2016 (USEPA, 2016b)). EPA also evaluated
contaminants nominated by the public for potential inclusion on the
next (fifth) CCL (CCL 5) (83 FR 50364, October 5, 2018 (USEPA, 2018b))
and considered other priority contaminants, including those highlighted
in the PFAS Action Plan (USEPA, 2019a). Further, EPA considered the
opportunity to collect occurrence data for non-CCL contaminants using
the proposed methods for CCL contaminants that would result in little-
to-no additional expense (i.e., concurrent with the collection of data
for CCL contaminants). EPA's proposed approach addresses the PFAS
requirement in NDAA (Pub. L. 116-92) by including all 29 PFAS that are
within the scope of EPA Methods 533, published December 2019 (USEPA,
2019c), and 537.1, initially published November 2018 and updated via
version 2.0 in March 2020 (USEPA, 2020d).
    EPA evaluated candidate UCMR 5 contaminants using a multi-step
prioritization process. The first step included identifying
contaminants that: (1) Were not monitored under prior UCMR cycles; (2)
may occur in drinking water; and (3) are expected to have a completed,
validated drinking water method in time for rule proposal.
    The next step was to consider the following: Availability of health
assessments or other health-effects information (e.g., critical health
endpoints suggesting carcinogenicity); public interest (e.g., PFAS);
active use (e.g., pesticides that are registered for use); and
availability of occurrence data.
    During the final step, EPA considered stakeholder input; looked at
cost-effectiveness of the potential monitoring approaches; considered
implementation factors (e.g., laboratory capacity); and further
evaluated health effects, occurrence, and persistence/mobility data to
identify the proposed list of UCMR 5 contaminants.
    Contaminant-specific information (e.g., source, use, production,
release, persistence, mobility, health effects, and occurrence) that
EPA used to evaluate candidate contaminants, is contained in
``Information Compendium for Candidate Contaminants for the Proposed
Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR 5)'' (USEPA, 2020e). The
Information Compendium can be found in EPA public docket for this
proposed rule, under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2020-0530. EPA invites
comment on the proposed UCMR 5 contaminants (and their associated
analytical methods) identified in Exhibit 3.

F. What other contaminants did EPA consider?

    This notice describes the 30 contaminants that EPA has identified
as the highest priorities for UCMR 5 monitoring through the process
described in the preceding section. This process prioritizes the
unregulated contaminants for which nationally representative data on
the frequency

and level of occurrence are useful. EPA believes that the primary
utility of the UCMR data is for the Agency's regulatory evaluation. The
SDWA requires that the data collected under the UCMR be used to develop
the CCL (see Sec.  1412(b)(1)(B)(i)(I)) and to make regulatory
determinations for CCL contaminants (see Sec.  1412(b)(1)(B)(ii)(II)).
EPA believes that the UCMR can be useful to States, water systems, and
to water system consumers but that is not the primary purpose of the
data collection.
    In developing a UCMR rule EPA also considers the burden that UCMR
places upon water systems to perform monitoring and, in accordance with
SDWA Sec.  1445(j)(1) and 1445(j)(3), the new expenses of small system
monitoring and the laboratory capacity to support the analysis of UCMR
samples. EPA is proposing a rule that reflects a consideration of the
burden on water systems, the new expenses associated with implementing
the rule, and the utility of the information to be collected. Although
the NDAA allows the Agency to require monitoring for more contaminants
beyond those proposed, EPA believes that the utility of the additional
data that would be collected does not warrant their inclusion. As
described in the following sections, data collection for Legionella
pneumophila and four haloacetonitriles (dichloroacetonitrile,
dibromoacetonitrile, trichloroacetonitrile, and
bromochloroacetonitrile) would not be useful to EPA's regulatory
deliberations.
    Also, due to limitations of analytical methodologies, data
collection for 1,2,3-trichloropropane and total organic fluorine (TOF)
would not be useful.
    The information that EPA considered when evaluating contaminants
may be found in the Information Compendium (USEPA, 2020e).
    EPA invites comment on these contaminants and any other priority
contaminants commenters wish to recommend. In your comments, please
identify the following: Any new contaminant(s) that you believe EPA
should include in the UCMR 5 monitoring; any contaminant(s) in Exhibit
3 that you believe should be removed from the list; the recommended
analytical method(s) for any new contaminant(s) that you propose; and
other relevant details (e.g., reporting level, sampling location,
sampling frequency, analytical cost). Comments that provide supporting
data or rationale are especially helpful to EPA.
1. Legionella pneumophila
    Legionella pneumophila is recognized as an important biofilm-
related opportunistic pathogen associated with waterborne disease. It
is a naturally occurring pathogen, widely found in the environment.
Legionella pneumophila may enter drinking water distribution systems
and proliferate under certain conditions (USEPA, 2001). Under EPA's
Surface Water Treatment Rule (SWTR), EPA established NPDWRs for
Giardia, viruses, Legionella, turbidity and heterotrophic bacteria and
set maximum contaminant limit goals of zero for Giardia lamblia,
viruses and Legionella (54 FR 27486, June 29, 1989 (USEPA, 1989)). EPA
is currently examining opportunities to enhance protection against
Legionella pneumophila through potential revisions to the suite of
Microbial and Disinfection Byproduct (MDBP) rules, which includes the
SWTR. As stated in the conclusions from EPA's third ``Six-Year Review
of Drinking Water Standards'' (82 FR 3518, January 11, 2017 (USEPA,
2017)), ``EPA identified the following NPDWRs under the SWTR as
candidates for revision under the Six-Year Review 3, because of the
opportunity to further reduce residual risk from pathogens (including
opportunistic pathogens such as Legionella) beyond the risk addressed
by the current SWTR.'' In accordance with the dates in the Settlement
Agreement between EPA and Waterkeeper Alliance (Waterkeeper Alliance,
Inc. v. U.S. EPA, No. 1:19-cv-00899-LJL (S.D.N.Y. Jun. 1, 2020)), the
Agency anticipates signing a proposal for revisions to the MDBP rules
and a final action on the proposal by July 31, 2024 and September 30,
2027, respectively. Accordingly, EPA has concerns about the utility of
a UCMR 5 data set on Legionella pneumophila based on the timeframe for
the Agency deliberations about the MDBP revisions. The UCMR 5 data
collection would not be complete in time to inform regulatory revision
and would not reflect conditions in water systems after any regulatory
revisions become effective.
    The Six-Year Review 3 conclusion and Settlement Agreement state
EPA's approach to investigating public health risks potentially
associated with Legionella. Inclusion of Legionella pneumophila in UCMR
5 would add significant monitoring and reporting complexity, and cost.
If Legionella pneumophila were to be added to UCMR 5, most of the
additional cost would be borne by large PWSs (for analysis of their
samples) and EPA (for analysis of samples from small PWSs). In such
case, sample collection would likely be at the distribution-system
sampling locations described in the Disinfectants and Disinfection
Byproducts Rule (D/DBPR) (40 CFR 141.622). Because Legionella
pneumophila is regulated via ``treatment technique'' and EPA does not
require that it be measured, the Agency has not evaluated or validated
analytical methods for its measurement. EPA is aware that there are a
number of potential techniques for measuring Legionella pneumophila,
including the commercially-available Legiolert\TM\ test (IDEXX
Laboratories, Inc., 2020). EPA estimates that this additional
monitoring would result in $11 million in new expenses for large PWSs,
$20 million in new expenses for the Agency for small system monitoring,
and $0.5 million in new expenses for small PWSs and states over the 5-
year UCMR period. EPA believes this is a significant burden for data
that would not be available in time to inform regulatory revision and
that would not reflect conditions in water systems after any regulatory
revisions become effective. EPA invites comments on whether Legionella
pneumophila should be included in UCMR 5.
2. Haloacetonitriles
    The four haloacetonitriles represent a group of unregulated
disinfection byproducts (DBPs). They were detected relatively
frequently in monitoring under the DBP Information Collection Rule
(1997-1998), available via https://www.epa.gov/dwsixyearreview/supplemental-data-six-year-review-3, and are generally considered more
cytotoxic and genotoxic than the regulated DBPs. EPA Method 551.1 is an
existing validated method approved for measuring regulated total
trihalomethanes in drinking water (USEPA, 1995); it is also capable of
measuring unregulated haloacetonitriles. Similar to the situation with
Legionella pneumophila, EPA is examining opportunities to enhance
protection against DBPs, including these haloacetonitriles through
potential revisions to the MDBP rules; see previous paragraph regarding
the anticipated timeframe for those revisions and note the concern
about timing relative to UCMR 5 data collection. As with Legionella
pneumophila, inclusion of haloacetonitriles in UCMR 5 would introduce
significant monitoring and reporting complexity and cost compared to
the sampling design for PFAS and lithium. If haloacetonitriles were to
be added to UCMR 5, most of the additional expenses would be borne by
large PWSs (for analysis of their

samples) and EPA (for analysis of samples from small PWSs). In such
case, sample collection would likely be at the distribution-system
sampling locations described in the Disinfectants and Disinfection
Byproducts Rule (D/DBPR) (40 CFR 141.622). EPA estimates this would
result in $16 million in new expenses for large PWSs, $20 million in
new expenses for the Agency, and $0.5 million in new expenses for small
PWSs and states over the 5-year UCMR period. EPA invites comments on
whether haloacetonitriles should be included in UCMR 5.
3. 1,2,3-trichloropropane
    1,2,3-trichloropropane is a man-made chemical used as an industrial
solvent, cleaning and degreasing agent, and synthesis intermediate.
1,2,3-trichloropropane occurrence data collected during UCMR 3 (USEPA,
2012) may be found at https://www.epa.gov/dwucmr/occurrence-data-unregulated-contaminant-monitoring-rule#3. EPA's March 2020
``Announcement of Preliminary Regulatory Determinations for
Contaminants on the Fourth Drinking Water Contaminant Candidate List''
(available via https://www.epa.gov/ccl/regulatory-determination-4)
concluded that the Agency needs additional lower-level occurrence
information prior to making a preliminary regulatory determination for
1,2,3-trichloropropane. EPA is not proposing 1,2,3-trichloropropane
monitoring in UCMR 5 because the Agency concludes that available
analytical methods would not support the collection of data at
concentrations lower than the levels monitored during UCMR 3 (USEPA,
2019d). At 0.03 [micro]g/L, the minimum reporting level (MRL)
established in UCMR 3 is higher than the EPA health reference level
(HRL) associated with a cancer risk level of one cancer case per
million people (0.0004 [micro]g/L (0.4 ng/L) (USEPA, 2019d), but lower
than the cancer risk level associated with one cancer case per 10,000
people (0.04 [micro]g/L)). EPA invites comment on any aspects of 1,2,3-
trichloropropane as a candidate for UCMR 5, particularly comments on
additional methods that may support national monitoring at quantitation
levels lower than 0.0004 [micro]g/L.
4. Total Organic Fluorine (TOF)
    There are a number of analytical techniques that have been applied
to measuring organic fluorine in environmental matrices and drinking
water, and some have proposed trying to correlate PFAS, in aggregate,
with measurements of total organic fluorine. TOF, by combustion ion
chromatography, relies on extracting fluorine-containing compounds from
water, defluorinating, and capturing the resulting hydrogen flouride
gas in solution for analysis. While there is high interest in TOF (and
other techniques that might capture a broader suite of PFAS), the
measurement approach is subject to significant technical challenges,
and a robust method that would support national monitoring is unlikely
to be ready in time to support UCMR 5 rulemaking. Further, TOF methods
for drinking water may not be sensitive or specific enough to support
decision making; TOF is not specific to PFAS, and any fluorine-
containing compounds (e.g., pesticides, pharmaceuticals) that are
retained during extraction would be included in the organic fluorine
measurement. EPA cannot reliably estimate the cost to measure TOF under
UCMR because TOF methods have little commercial laboratory availability
at this time.

G. What are the costs of alternatives to the proposed UCMR 5?

    As described in the preceding sections, EPA considered alternatives
to the proposed UCMR 5. One alternative EPA considered recognizes that
the Agency cost to support the expanded small-PWS monitoring scope
defined in the AWIA may exceed available resources. Specifically, the
AWIA provisions would increase the number of PWS samples for which EPA
would perform analysis by 8-fold. Exhibit 4 presents the cost over 5
years for the proposed-rule baseline and presents the alternative cost
if EPA were to promulgate a final UCMR 5 that reverts to the
traditional UCMR approach to small system monitoring (i.e., includes
800 systems serving 10,000 or fewer people).

  Exhibit 4--Estimated 5-Year (2022-2026) Cost ($ million) of the Proposed UCMR and an Alternative With Reduced
                                           Small System Monitoring \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Total program
                                                                                cost  (sum of
                                                                                Total cost to      costs  for
                    Action                      Total cost to   Total cost  to  small PWSs  and     large and
                                                  large PWSs        EPA \2\          states        small PWSs,
                                                                                EPA, and
                                                                                states)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UCMR 5 proposed-rule baseline (presumes funds            $47.8           $52.7             $5.5           $105.9
 are available to support AWIA-based scope
 and that 29 PFAS and lithium are monitored).
Alternative UCMR 5 which would include only               47.8            14.7              3.4             65.9
 include 800 systems serving 10,000 or fewer
 people......................................
(presumes that 29 PFAS and lithium are
 monitored)..................................
                                              ------------------------------------------------------------------
    Difference between proposed-rule baseline                0            38.0              2.1             40.0
     and alternative.........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Totals may not equal the sum of components due to rounding.
\2\ Accounts for cost of analyses for samples from small PWSs and other implementation expenses.

    Exhibit 5 presents the costs over 5 years for the UCMR 5 proposed-
rule baseline and alternatives, in which EPA would add monitoring for
Legionella pneumophila and/or haloacetonitriles to the proposed UCMR 5
analytes (29 PFAS and lithium).

     Exhibit 5--Estimated 5-Year (2022-2026) Cost ($ million) of the Proposed UCMR and Alternatives That Add
                         Monitoring for Legionella pneumophila and/or Haloacetonitriles
          [Differences between the baseline and alternatives [$ million] are noted parenthetically] \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Total program
                                                                                cost (sum of
                                                Total cost to    Total cost to   Total cost to   costs for large
                    Action                        large PWSs        EPA \2\      small PWSs and  and small PWSs,
                                                                                states          EPA, and
                                                                                states)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UCMR 5 proposed-rule baseline (presumes funds            $47.8           $52.7             $5.5           $105.9
 are available to support AWIA-based scope
 and that 29 PFAS and lithium are monitored).
Require monitoring for Legionella pneumophila     58.7 (+11.0)    72.9 (+20.2)       6.0 (+0.5)    137.6 (+31.7)
 (in addition to 29 PFAS and lithium)........
Require monitoring for haloacetonitriles (in      63.6 (+15.8)    72.7 (+20.0)       6.0 (+0.5)    142.2 (+36.3)
 addition to 29 PFAS and lithium)............
Require monitoring for Legionella pneumophila     73.3 (+25.6)    92.9 (+40.2)       6.0 (+0.5)    172.2 (+66.3)
 and haloacetonitriles (in addition to 29
 PFAS and lithium)...........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Totals may not equal the sum of components due to rounding.
\2\ Accounts for cost of analyses for samples from small PWSs and other implementation expenses.

    Exhibit 6 presents the costs over 5 years for the UCMR 5 ``pre-
AWIA'' alternative baseline proposed-rule baseline (i.e., in which the
Agency would include 800 nationally-representative water systems
serving fewer than or equal to 10,000), and associated scenarios in
which EPA would add monitoring for Legionella pneumophila and/or
haloacetonitriles to the proposed UCMR 5 analytes (29 PFAS and
lithium).

   Exhibit 6--Estimated 5-Year (2022-2026) Cost ($ million) of a UCMR 5 ``Pre-AWIA'' Alternative Baseline, and
          Associated Scenarios That Add Monitoring for Legionella pneumophila and/or Haloacetonitriles
          [Differences between the baseline and alternatives [$ million] are noted parenthetically] \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Total program
                                                                                cost (sum of
                                                Total cost to    Total cost to   Total cost to   costs for large
                    Action                        large PWSs        EPA \2\      small PWSs and  and small PWSs,
                                                                                states          EPA, and
                                                                                states)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UCMR 5 ``pre-AWIA'' alternative baseline                 $47.8           $14.7             $3.4            $65.8
 (presumes that monitoring includes 800 PWSs
 serving <=10,000 and that 29 PFAS and
 lithium are monitored)......................
Require monitoring for Legionella pneumophila     58.7 (+11.0)     18.4 (+3.7)      3.4 (+0.04)     80.5 (+14.7)
 (in addition to 29 PFAS and lithium)........
Require monitoring for haloacetonitriles (in      63.6 (+15.8)     16.2 (+1.5)      3.4 (+0.04)     83.2 (+17.4)
 addition to 29 PFAS and lithium)............
Require monitoring for Legionella pneumophila     73.3 (+25.6)     19.2 (+4.5)      3.4 (+0.04)     96.0 (+30.2)
 and haloacetonitriles (in addition to 29
 PFAS and lithium)...........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Totals may not equal the sum of components due to rounding.
\2\ Accounts for cost of analyses for samples from small PWSs and other implementation expenses.

H. What is the proposed applicability date?

    The applicability date represents an internal milestone used by EPA
to determine if a PWS is included in the UCMR program, and if it is a
small or large PWS. It does not represent a date by which respondents
need to take any action. In Sec.  141.40(a), EPA proposes February 1,
2021 as the new applicability date to determine which PWSs are subject
to UCMR 5. That is, the determination of whether a PWS is required to
monitor under UCMR 5 is based on the type of system (e.g., CWS, NTNCWS,
etc.) and its retail population served, as indicated by the Safe
Drinking Water Information System Federal Reporting Services (SDWIS/
Fed) inventory on February 1, 2021. A determination of applicability on
February 1, 2021 allows time for EPA to share the tentative list of
PWSs with the states for their review, and to load PWS information into
EPA's reporting system so that PWSs can be notified promptly once the
final rule is published. If a PWS receives such notification and
believes its retail population served in SDWIS/Fed is inaccurate
(resulting in the PWS being erroneously included in UCMR 5), the system
should contact their state authority to verify its population as of the
applicability date and request a correction, if necessary. The
applicability date for a given UCMR cycle is routinely established near
the publication of the UCMR proposal. EPA believes that a later
applicability date would be impractical given the planning that needs
to occur prior to sample collection.

I. What are the proposed UCMR 5 sampling design and timeline of
activities?

    The proposed rule identifies sampling and analysis for UCMR 5
contaminants within the sampling period of 2023 to 2025 based on the
Assessment Monitoring framework because, as described in section I.B of
this document, EPA anticipates that there will be appropriate
laboratory capacity.

Preparations prior to 2023 are expected to include coordinating
laboratory approval, selecting representative small systems, organizing
Partnership Agreements, developing State Monitoring Plans (see III.N of
this document), establishing monitoring schedules and inventory, and
conducting outreach and training. Exhibit 7 illustrates the major
activities that EPA expects will take place in preparation for, and
during the implementation of the UCMR 5.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11MR21.000

To minimize the impact of the rule on small systems (those serving
10,000 or fewer people), EPA pays for their sample kit preparation,
sample shipping fees, and sample analysis.
    As noted in section I.B of this document, the AWIA mandates the
expanded UCMR monitoring ``subject to the availability of
appropriations for such purpose,'' recognizing the greater EPA burden
created by the AWIA (as EPA funds testing and laboratory analysis for
small systems under the UCMR). If EPA concludes that it will not have
the resources necessary to support the expanded monitoring described by
the AWIA, the Agency will not promulgate a final rule that requires all
water systems serving between 3,300 and 10,000 persons to monitor.
Rather, EPA will use the approach from prior to the enactment of AWIA,
and include 800 nationally-representative water systems serving fewer
than or equal to 10,000 in the UCMR program.
    Large systems (those serving more than 10,000 people) pay for all
costs associated with their monitoring. Exhibit 8 shows a summary of
the estimated number of PWSs subject to monitoring.

         Exhibit 8--Systems to Participate in UCMR 5 Monitoring
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    National Sample:
                                  Assessment monitoring  Total number of
 System size (number of people           design             systems per
            served)             ------------------------  size category
                                    List 1 Chemicals
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Small Systems \1\ (25--3,299)..  800 randomly selected               800
                                  systems (CWSs and
                                  NTNCWSs).
Small Systems \2\ (3,300--       All systems (CWSs and             5,147
 10,000).                         NTNCWSs).
Large Systems \3\ (10,001 and    All systems (CWSs and             4,364
 over).                           NTNCWSs).
                                ----------------------------------------
    Total......................  ......................           10,311
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ EPA pays for all analytical costs associated with monitoring at
  small systems.
\2\ Small system counts are approximate. EPA pays for all analytical
  costs associated with monitoring at small systems.
\3\ Large system counts are approximate.

1. Sampling Frequency, Timing
    On a per-system basis, the anticipated number of samples collected
by each system is consistent with sample collection during prior UCMR
cycles (although, as described elsewhere, the number of water systems
subject to UCMR would be significantly greater under this proposal).
Water systems would be required to collect samples based on the typical
UCMR sampling frequency and time frame as follows: For surface water,
ground water under the direct influence of surface water,

and mixed locations, sampling would take place for four consecutive
quarters over the course of 12 months (total of 4 sampling events).
Sampling events would occur 3 months apart. For example, if the first
sample is taken in January, the second would then occur anytime in
April, the third would occur anytime in July, and the fourth would
occur anytime in October. For ground water locations, sampling would
take place twice over the course of 12 months (total of 2 sampling
events). Sampling events would occur five to seven months apart. For
example, if the first sample is taken in April, the second sample would
then occur anytime in September, October, or November.
    EPA expects to consult with the states and initially determine
schedules (year and months of monitoring) for large water systems.
Thereafter, these PWSs would have an opportunity to modify this initial
schedule for planning purposes or other reasons (e.g., to spread costs
over multiple years, a sampling location will be closed during the
scheduled month of monitoring, etc.). EPA proposes to schedule and
coordinate small system monitoring by working closely with states.
State Monitoring Plans provide an opportunity for states to review and
revise the initial sampling schedules that EPA proposes (see discussion
of State Monitoring Plans in section III.N of this document).
2. Sampling Locations and Ground Water Representative Monitoring Plans
    Consistent with past UCMR cycles, sample collection for the UCMR 5
contaminants would take place at the entry point to the distribution
system (EPTDS). As during past UCMRs and as described in Sec.
141.35(c)(3), the proposed rule would allow large ground water systems
(or large surface water systems with ground water sources) that have
multiple ground water EPTDSs to request approval to sample at
representative monitoring locations rather than at each ground water
EPTDS. GWRMPs approved under prior UCMRs may be used for UCMR 5,
presuming no significant changes in the configuration of the ground
water EPTDSs since the prior approval. Water systems that intend to use
a previously approved plan must send EPA a copy of the approval
documents received under prior UCMRs from their state (if reviewed by
the state) or EPA.
    Relative to the rules for prior UCMR cycles, this proposal provides
greater flexibility to PWSs in submitting GWRMPs to EPA. As proposed,
plans must be submitted to EPA six months prior to the PWS's scheduled
sample collection, instead of by a specified date; those scheduled to
collect samples in 2024 or 2025 would have significant additional time
to develop and propose representative plans. PWSs, particularly those
scheduled for sample collection in 2023, are encouraged to submit
proposals for new GWRMP by December 31, 2022, to allow time for review
by EPA and, as appropriate, the state. EPA will work closely with the
states to coordinate the review of GWRMPs in those cases where such
review is part of the state's Partnership Agreement. Changes to
inventory data in the Safe Drinking Water Accession and Review System
(SDWARS) that impact a PWS's representative plan before or during the
UCMR sampling period must be reported within 30 days of the change. EPA
will collaborate with small systems (particularly those with many
ground water locations) to develop a GWRMP when warranted, recognizing
that EPA pays for the analysis of samples from small systems.
3. Reporting Times
    This action proposes changes in the timeframes for laboratories to
post and approve analytical results in SDWARS, and for PWSs to then
review and approve the posted results in SDWARS. EPA recognizes that
multiple states have expressed an interest in earlier access to UCMR
data (see Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2020-0530) and believes that shorter
timeframes for posting and approving data are feasible based on our
experience with UCMR reporting to-date. EPA has observed that many
laboratories are routinely posting data to SDWARS within 90 days of
sample collection. EPA has also observed that many large PWSs are
approving and submitting data within 30 days of their laboratory
posting the data. Accordingly, EPA proposes that laboratories be given
90 days (versus the current 120 days) from the sample collection date
to post and approve analytical results in SDWARS for PWS review. EPA
proposes that large PWSs be given 30 days (versus the current 60 days)
to review and approve the analytical results posted to SDWARS. As with
the current UCMR requirements, data would be considered approved and
available for state and EPA review if the PWS takes no action within
their allotted review period. EPA welcomes comments on these proposed
changes to the reporting requirements and invites input on other
changes that could address the interest in earlier access to data.

J. What are the reporting requirements for the UCMR 5?

    EPA proposes changes to the reporting requirements currently
established for UCMR 4, as detailed in Table 1 of Sec.  141.35(e), to
account for the UCMR 5 contaminants and the monitoring approach being
proposed. These changes include removing data elements related to the
specific contaminants from the previous UCMR, and adding and updating
data elements based on the proposed list of contaminants to be
monitored. EPA is proposing certain data element changes, based on
experience from the previous UCMR, that are intended to improve data
reporting from laboratories and water systems. Recognizing that data
elements are specifically tailored to the requirements of each
monitoring cycle, EPA invites comment on the appropriateness of the
proposed UCMR 5 data elements relative to the proposed UCMR 5
contaminants, analytical methods and reporting requirements. EPA
welcomes comments on the proposed data elements and associated
definitions, as well as any others that may provide useful ancillary
data to support an assessment of the occurrence information.

K. What are Minimum Reporting Levels (MRLs) and how were they
determined?

    EPA establishes MRLs for contaminants under the UCMR to ensure
consistency in the quality of the information reported to the Agency.
As defined inSec.  141.40(a)(5)(iii), the MRL is the minimum
quantitation level that, with 95% confidence, can be achieved by
capable analysts at 75% or more of the laboratories using a specified
analytical method. More detailed explanation of the MRL calculation is
in the ``Technical Basis for the Lowest Concentration Minimum Reporting
Level (LCMRL) Calculator'' (USEPA, 2010), available on the internet at
(https://www.epa.gov/dwanalyticalmethods/lowest-concentration-minimum-reporting-level-lcmrl-calculator).
    EPA requires each laboratory interested in supporting UCMR analyses
to demonstrate that they can reliably make quality measurements at or
below the established MRL to ensure that high quality results are being
reported by participating laboratories. EPA established the proposed
MRLs in Sec.  141.40(a)(3), Table 1, for each analyte/method by
obtaining data from at least three laboratories that performed ``lowest
concentration minimum reporting level'' (LCMRL) studies. The results
from these laboratory LCMRL

studies can be found in the ``UCMR 5 Laboratory Approval Manual''
(USEPA, 2020f).
    The LCMRL is the lowest concentration of a contaminant that can be
quantified with the precision and accuracy specified in ``Technical
Basis for the Lowest Concentration Minimum Reporting Level (LCMRL)
Calculator'' (USEPA, 2010), available on the internet at (https://www.epa.gov/dwanalyticalmethods/lowest-concentration-minimum-reporting-level-lcmrl-calculator). The multiple laboratory LCMRLs were then
processed through a statistical routine to derive an MRL that, with 95%
confidence, is predicted to be attainable by 75% of laboratories using
the prescribed method. EPA considers these to be the lowest reporting
levels that can practically and consistently be achieved on a national
basis (recognizing that individual laboratories may be able to measure
at lower levels). EPA invites comments on the proposed MRLs, and will
consider changing the proposed MRLs if the Agency obtains scientific
information demonstrating that a different MRL is attainable and
practical.

L. How do laboratories become approved to conduct the UCMR 5 analyses?

    Consistent with prior UCMRs, this proposed action maintains the
requirement that PWS use laboratories approved by EPA to analyze UCMR 5
samples. Interested laboratories are encouraged to apply for EPA
approval as early as possible, beginning with the publication of this
proposal. The UCMR 5 laboratory approval process is designed to assess
whether laboratories possess the required equipment and can meet
laboratory-performance and data-reporting criteria described in this
action.
    EPA expects demand for laboratory support to increase significantly
based on the greater number of water systems proposed for UCMR 5. EPA
estimates that the number of participating small water systems will
increase from the typical 800 to approximately 6,000 (see Exhibit 8 in
section III.I of this document). In preparation for this increased
participation, EPA anticipates soliciting proposals and awarding
contracts to laboratories to support small system monitoring prior to
the end of the proficiency testing (PT) program. Historically,
laboratories awarded contracts by EPA have been required to first be
approved to perform all methods. The anticipated steps and requirements
for the laboratory approval process are described in steps 1 through 6
of the following paragraphs.
    EPA anticipates following its typical approach to approving UCMR
laboratories, which would require laboratories seeking approval to: (1)
Provide EPA with data that demonstrate a successful completion of an
initial demonstration of capability (IDC) as outlined in each method;
(2) verify successful performance at or below the MRLs as specified in
this action; (3) provide information about laboratory standard
operating procedures (SOPs); and (4) participate in two EPA PT studies
for the analytes of interest. Audits of laboratories may be conducted
by EPA prior to and/or following approval, and maintaining approval is
contingent on timely and accurate reporting. The ``UCMR 5 Laboratory
Approval Manual'' (USEPA, 2020f) provides more specific guidance on EPA
laboratory approval program and the specific method acceptance
criteria. EPA will also include sample collection procedures that are
specific to the methods in the ``UCMR 5 Laboratory Manual,'' and will
address this point in our outreach to the public water systems that
will be collecting samples.
    The structure of the anticipated UCMR 5 laboratory approval program
is similar to that employed in the previous UCMRs, and would provide an
assessment of the ability of laboratories to perform analyses using the
methods listed in Sec.  141.40(a)(3), Table 1. Laboratory participation
in the UCMR laboratory approval program is voluntary. However, as in
the previous UCMRs, and as proposed for UCMR 5, EPA would require PWSs
to exclusively use laboratories that have been approved under the
program. EPA expects to post a list of approved UCMR 5 laboratories to:
https://www.epa.gov/dwucmr and will bring this to the attention of the
PWSs in our outreach to them.
    1. Request To Participate
    Laboratories interested in the UCMR 5 laboratory approval program
first email EPA at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>to request registration
materials. EPA expects to accept such requests beginning with the
publication of the proposal in the Federal Register. Based on a January
1, 2023, anticipated start for UCMR 5 sample collection, EPA
anticipates that the final opportunity for a laboratory to complete and
submit the necessary registration and application information will be
August 1, 2022.
    2. Registration
    Laboratory applicants provide registration information that
includes: Laboratory name, mailing address, shipping address, contact
name, phone number, email address and a list of the UCMR 5 methods for
which the laboratory is seeking approval. This registration step
provides EPA with the necessary contact information, and ensures that
each laboratory receives a customized application package.
    3. Application Package
    Laboratory applicants will complete and return a customized
application package that includes the following: IDC data, including
precision, accuracy and results of MRL studies; information regarding
analytical equipment and other materials; proof of current drinking
water laboratory certification (for select compliance monitoring
methods); method specific SOPs; and example chromatograms for each
method under review.
    As a condition of receiving and maintaining approval, the
laboratory will be expected to promptly post UCMR 5 monitoring results
and quality control data that meet method criteria (on behalf of its
PWS clients) to EPA's UCMR electronic data reporting system, SDWARS.
    4. EPA's Review of Application Package
    EPA will review the application packages and, if necessary, request
follow-up information. Laboratories that successfully complete the
application process become eligible to participate in the UCMR 5 PT
program.
    5. Proficiency Testing
    A PT sample is a synthetic sample containing a concentration of an
analyte or mixture of analytes that is known to EPA, but unknown to the
laboratory. To be approved, a laboratory is expected to meet specific
acceptance criteria for the analysis of a UCMR 5 PT sample(s) for each
analyte in each method, for which the laboratory is seeking approval.
EPA anticipates offering up to three of these studies prior to the
publication of the final rule, and at least two studies after
publication of the final rule. This allows laboratories to complete
their portion of the laboratory approval process prior to publication
of the final rule, and receive their approval immediately following the
publication of the final rule. A laboratory is expected to participate
in and report data for at least two PT studies. This allows EPA to
collect a robust data set for PT results, and provides laboratories
with extra analytical experience using UCMR 5 methods. Laboratories
must pass a PT for every analyte in the method to be approved for that
method, and may participate in multiple PT studies in order to produce
passing results for each analyte. EPA has taken this approach in UCMR
5, recognizing that EPA Method 533 contains 25 analytes. EPA does not

expect to conduct additional PT studies after the start of PWS
monitoring; however, laboratory audits will likely be ongoing
throughout the implementation of UCMR 5. Initial laboratory approval is
expected to be contingent on successful completion of PT studies, which
includes properly uploading the PT results to SDWARS. Continued
laboratory approval is contingent on successful completion of the audit
process and satisfactorily meeting all the other stated conditions.
    6. Written EPA Approval
    After a laboratory successfully completes steps 1 through 5, EPA
expects to send the laboratory a notification letter listing the
methods for which approval is either ``pending'' (i.e., pending
promulgation of the final rule if the PT studies have been conducted
prior to that time), or for which approval is ``granted'' (if after
promulgation of the final rule). Laboratories receiving pending
approval are expected to be granted approval without further action
following promulgation of the final rule if no changes have been made
to the rule that impact the laboratory approval program. EPA expects to
contact the laboratory if changes are made between the proposed and
final rules that warrant additional action by the laboratory.

M. What documents are being incorporated by reference?

    The following methods are being incorporated by reference into this
section for the UCMR 5 monitoring. All method material is available for
inspection electronically at http://www.regulations.gov (Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OW-2020-0530), or from the sources listed for each method. EPA
has worked to make these methods and documents reasonably available to
interested parties. The methods that may be used to support monitoring
under this rule are as follows:
1. Methods From the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
    The following methods are available at EPA's Docket No. EPA-HQ-OW-
2020-0530.
    (i) EPA Method 200.7 ``Determination of Metals and Trace Elements
in Water and Wastes by Inductively Coupled Plasma-Atomic Emission
Spectrometry,'' Revision 4.4, 1994. Available on the internet at
https://www.epa.gov/esam/method-2007-determination-metals-and-trace-elements-water-and-wastes-inductively-coupled-plasma. This is an EPA
method for the analysis of metals and trace elements in water by ICP-
AES and is proposed to measure lithium during UCMR 5. See also the
discussion of non-EPA methods for lithium in this section.
    (ii) EPA Method 533 ``Determination of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl
Substances in Drinking Water by Isotope Dilution Anion Exchange Solid
Phase Extraction and Liquid Chromatography/Tandem Mass Spectrometry,''
November 2019, EPA 815-B-19-020. Available on the internet at https://www.epa.gov/dwanalyticalmethods. This is an EPA method for the analysis
PFAS in drinking water using SPE and LC/MS/MS and is proposed to
measure 25 PFAS during UCMR 5 (11Cl-PF3OUdS, 8:2 FTS, 4:2 FTS, 6:2 FTS,
ADONA, 9Cl-PF3ONS, HFPO-DA (GenX), NFDHA, PFEESA, PFMPA, PFMBA, PFBS,
PFBA, PFDA, PFDoA, PFHpS, PFHpA, PFHxS, PFHxA, PFNA, PFOS, PFOA, PFPeS,
PFPeA, and PFUnA).
    (iii) EPA Method 537.1 ``Determination of Selected Per- and
Polyfluorinated Alkyl Substances in Drinking Water by Solid Phase
Extraction and Liquid Chromatography/Tandem Mass Spectrometry (LC/MS/
MS),'' Version 2.0, November 2020, EPA/600/R-20/006. Available on the
internet at https://www.epa.gov/dwanalyticalmethods. This is an EPA
method for the analysis of PFAS in drinking water using SPE and LC/MS/
MS and is proposed to measure four PFAS during UCMR 5 (NEtFOSAA,
NMeFOSAA, PFTA, and PFTrDA).
2. Alternative Methods From American Public Health Association--
Standard Methods (SM)
    The following methods are from American Public Health--Standard
Methods (SM), 800 I Street NW, Washington, DC 20001-3710.
    (i) ``Standard Methods for the Examination of Water & Wastewater,''
23rd edition (2017).
    (a) SM 3120 B ``Metals by Plasma Emission Spectroscopy (2017):
Inductively Coupled Plasma (ICP) Method.'' This is a Standard Method
for the analysis of metals in water and wastewater by emission
spectroscopy using ICP and may be used for the analysis of lithium.
    (ii) ``Standard Methods Online,'' approved 1999. Available for
purchase on the internet at http://www.standardmethods.org.
    (a) SM 3120 B ``Metals by Plasma Emission Spectroscopy: Inductively
Coupled Plasma (ICP) Method (Editorial Revisions, 2011),'' (SM 3120 B-
99). This is a Standard Method for the analysis of metals in water and
wastewater by emission spectroscopy using ICP and may be used for the
analysis of lithium.
3. Methods From ASTM International
    The following methods are from ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor
Drive, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959.
    (i) ASTM D1976-20 ``Standard Test Method for Elements in Water by
Inductively-Coupled Plasma Atomic Emission Spectroscopy,'' approved May
1, 2020. Available for purchase on the internet at https://www.astm.org/Standards/D1976.htm. This is an ASTM method for the
analysis of elements in water by ICP-AES and may be used to measure
lithium.

N. What is the State's role in the UCMR?

    UCMR is a direct implementation rule (i.e., EPA has primary
responsibility for its implementation), and state participation is
voluntary. Under the previous UCMR cycles, specific activities that
individual states agreed to carry out or assist with were identified
and established exclusively through Partnership Agreements. Through
Partnership Agreements, states can help EPA implement the UCMR, and
help ensure that the UCMR data are of the highest quality possible to
best support the Agency decision making. Under UCMR 5, EPA expects to
continue to use the Partnership Agreement process to determine and
document the following: The process for review and revision of the
State Monitoring plans; replacing and updating system information
including inventory; review of proposed GWRMPs; notification and
instructions for systems; and compliance assistance. EPA is considering
deploying a SDWIS/State extraction tool to assist partnered states with
providing system information to the Agency. EPA recognizes that primacy
agencies often have the best information about their PWSs and
encourages them to partner in the UCMR 5 program.

O. How did EPA consider Children's Environmental Health?

    By monitoring for unregulated contaminants that may pose health
risks via drinking water, UCMR furthers the protection of public health
for all citizens, including children. Children consume more water per
unit of body weight compared to adults. Moreover, formula-fed infants
drink a large amount of water compared to their body weight. Thus,
while children's exposure to contaminants in drinking water may present
a disproportionate health risk (USEPA, 2011), the objective of UCMR 5
is to collect nationally representative drinking water occurrence data
on unregulated contaminants for consideration in potential future

regulation. The detailed information on the prioritization process, as
well as contaminant-specific information (e.g., source, use,
production, release, persistence, mobility, health effects, and
occurrence), that EPA used to select the proposed analyte list, is
contained in ``Information Compendium for Candidate Contaminants for
the Proposed Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR 5)'' (USEPA,
2020e).
    Executive Order 13045 does not apply to UCMR 5 because EPA does not
believe the environmental health or safety risks addressed by this
action present a disproportionate risk to children (See IV.G. Executive
Order 13045 of this document). However, EPA's Policy on Evaluating
Health Risks to Children, which ensures that the health of infants and
children is explicitly considered in the Agency's decision making, is
applicable, see: https://www.epa.gov/children/epas-policy-evaluating-risk-children.
    Using quantitation data from multiple laboratories, EPA establishes
statistically-based UCMR reporting levels that are projected to be
feasible for the national network of approved drinking water
laboratories to quantify accurately. EPA generally sets the reporting
levels as low as is practical, even if that level is well below
concentrations that are currently associated with known or suspected
health effects. In doing so, EPA positions itself to better address
contaminant risk information in the future, including that associated
with unique risks to children. EPA requests comments regarding any
further steps that may be taken to evaluate and address health risks to
children that fall within the scope of UCMR 5.

P. How did EPA address environmental justice?

    EPA has concluded that this action is not subject to Executive
Order 12898 because it does not establish an environmental health or
safety standard (see IV.J. Executive Order 12898 of this document).
This proposed action would provide EPA and other interested parties
with scientifically valid data on the national occurrence data of
selected contaminants in drinking water. 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. EPA recognizes that unregulated contaminants in drinking
water are of interest to all populations and structured the rulemaking
process and implementation of the UCMR 5 rule to allow for meaningful
involvement and transparency. EPA organized public meetings and
webinars to share information regarding the development of UCMR 5;
consulted with tribal governments; and convened a workgroup that
included representatives from several states.
    EPA proposes to continue to collect U.S. Postal Service Zip Codes
for each PWS's service area, as collected under UCMR 3 and UCMR 4, to
support potential assessments of whether or not minority, low-income
and/or indigenous-population communities are uniquely impacted by
particular drinking water contaminants. EPA solicits comment on the
utility of this approach (including whether this is an appropriate way
for PWSs to identify service areas), and welcomes comments regarding
other actions the Agency could take to further address environmental
justice within the UCMR. EPA welcomes, for example, comments regarding
sampling and/or modeling approaches, and the feasibility and utility of
applying these approaches to determine disproportionate impacts. EPA
also welcomes comments on information other than Zip Codes that could
be collected and used to support potential assessments of whether or
not minority, low-income and/or indigenous-population communities are
uniquely impacted by particular drinking water contaminants.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This action is a significant regulatory action that was submitted
to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review. Any changes
made in response to OMB recommendations have been documented in the
docket. A full analysis of potential costs associated with this action,
the ``Draft Information Collection Request for the Unregulated
Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR 5),''(USEPA, 2020b) ICR Number 2040-
NEW, is also available in the docket (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2020-
0530). A summary of the draft ICR can be found in section I.C of this
document.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    The information collection activities in this proposed rule have
been submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) under the PRA. The Information Collection Request (ICR) document
(USEPA, 2020b) that EPA prepared has been assigned EPA ICR number 2040-
NEW. You can find a copy of the ICR in the docket for this rule, and it
is briefly summarized here.
    The information that EPA proposes to collect under this rule
fulfills the statutory requirements of Sec.  1445(a)(2) of the SDWA, as
amended in 1996, 2018, and 2019. The data will describe the source of
the water, location and test results for samples taken from public
water systems (PWSs). The information collected will support EPA's
decisions as to whether or not to regulate particular contaminants
under the SDWA. Reporting is mandatory. The data are not subject to
confidentiality protection.
    The five-year UCMR 5 period spans 2022-2026. As proposed, UCMR 5
sample collection begins in 2023 and continues through 2025. Since ICRs
cannot be approved by OMB for a period longer than three years pursuant
to 5 CFR 1320.10, the primary analysis in the ICR only covers the first
three years of the collection (i.e., 2022-2024). Prior to expiration of
the ICR, EPA will seek to renew the ICR and thus receive approval to
collect information under the PRA in the remaining two years of the
UCMR 5 period.
    Respondents/affected entities: The respondents/affected entities
are small PWSs (those serving 10,000 or fewer people); large PWSs
(those serving 10,001 to 100,000 people); very large PWSs (those
serving more than 100,000 people); and states.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR 141.35).
    Estimated number of respondents: Respondents to UCMR 5, as
proposed, include ~5,900 small PWSs, ~4,400 large PWSs, and the 56
primacy agencies (50 states, one tribal nation, and five territories)
for a total of ~10,400 respondents.
    Frequency of response: The frequency of response varies across
respondents and years. Across the initial 3-year ICR period for UCMR 5,
small PWSs would sample an average of 2.8 times per PWS (i.e., number
of responses per PWS); large PWSs would sample and report and average
of 3.2 times per PWS; and very large PWSs would sample and report an
average of 3.7 times per PWS.
    Total estimated burden: 48,406.1 hours (per year). Burden is
defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    Total estimated cost: $9,734,617, annualized capital or operation &
maintenance costs.
    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.
    Submit your comments on the Agency's need for this information, the
accuracy of the provided burden estimates and any suggested methods for
minimizing respondent burden to EPA using the docket identified at the
beginning of this rule. Written comments and recommendations for the
proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of
publication of this notice to www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. Find
this particular information collection by selecting ``Currently under
30-day Review--Open for Public Comments'' or by using the search
function. Since OMB is required to make a decision concerning the ICR
between 30 and 60 days after receipt, OMB must receive comments no
later than April 12, 2021. EPA will respond to any ICR-related comments
in the final rule.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    For purposes of assessing the impacts of this rule on small
entities, EPA considered small entities to be PWSs serving 10,000 or
fewer people. As required by the RFA, EPA proposed using this
alternative definition in the Federal Register (63 FR 7606, February
13, 1998 (USEPA, 1998a)), sought public comment, consulted with the
Small Business Administration (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 apply to this regulation, and future
drinking water rules.

               Exhibit 9--Number of Publicly- and Privately-Owned Small Systems Subject to UCMR 5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              System size (number of people served)                 Publicly-owned    Privately-owned  Total \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Ground Water
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
500 and under....................................................               134               401        534
501 to 3,300.....................................................               120                45        165
3,301 to 10,000..................................................             2,334               541      2,875
                                                                  ----------------------------------------------
    Subtotal Ground Water........................................             2,588               987      3,574
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Surface Water (and Ground Water Under the Direct Influence of Surface Water)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
500 and under....................................................                22                27         49
501 to 3,300.....................................................                38                14         52
3,301 to 10,000..................................................             1,762               509      2,272
                                                                  ----------------------------------------------
    Subtotal Surface Water.......................................             1,822               550      2,373
                                                                  ----------------------------------------------
        Total of Small Water Systems.............................             4,410             1,537      5,947
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ PWS counts were adjusted to display as whole numbers in each size category.

    The basis for the proposed UCMR 5 RFA certification is as follows:
For the 5,947 small water systems that would be affected, the average
annual cost for complying with this rule represents no more than 0.5%
of system revenues (the highest estimated percentage is for GW systems
serving 500 or fewer people, at 0.5% of its median revenue). The
average yearly cost to small systems to comply with UCMR 5 over the
five-year period of 2022-2026, as proposed, is approximately $0.3
million. The average yearly cost to EPA to implement UCMR 5 over the
same period, as proposed, is approximately $10.5 million, with most of
that cost associated with the small system sampling program. EPA
anticipates that approximately one third of the 5,947 small PWSs will
collect samples in each of three years (2023, 2024, and 2025).
    PWS costs are attributed to the labor required for reading about
UCMR 5 requirements, monitoring, reporting and record keeping. The
estimated average annual burden across the 5-year UCMR 5 implementation
period of 2022-2026 is 1.3 hours at $52 per small system. Average
annual cost, in all cases, is less than 0.5% of system revenues. By
assuming all costs for laboratory analyses, shipping and quality
control for small entities, EPA incurs the entirety of the non-labor
costs associated with the UCMR 5 small system monitoring, or 96% of
total small system testing costs. Exhibit 10 and Exhibit 11 present the
estimated economic impacts in the form of a revenue test for publicly-
and privately-owned systems.

                   Exhibit 10--UCMR 5 Relative Cost Analysis for Small Publicly-Owned Systems
                                                   [2022-2026]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                SBREFA
                                                  Annual  number      Average         Average        criteria-
     System size  (number of people served)         of  systems    annual hours     annual cost    revenue test
                                                   impacted \1\     per system      per system        \2\ (%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Ground Water Systems
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
500 and under...................................              27             1.0          $40.65            0.09
501 to 3,300....................................              24             1.1           43.37            0.02
3,301 to 10,000.................................             467             1.3           49.92            0.01
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Surface Water (and Ground Water Under the Direct Influence of Surface Water) Systems
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
500 and under...................................               5             1.4           54.39            0.07

501 to 3,300....................................               8             1.4           56.19            0.02
3,301 to 10,000.................................             353             1.5           57.39           0.004
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ PWS counts were adjusted to display as whole numbers in each size category. Includes the publicly-owned
  portion of small systems subject to UCMR 5.
\2\ Costs are presented as a percentage of median annual revenue for each size category.

                   Exhibit 11--UCMR 5 Relative Cost Analysis for Small Privately-Owned Systems
                                                   [2022-2026]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                SBREFA
                                                  Annual  number      Average         Average        criteria-
     System size  (number of people served)         of  systems    annual hours     annual cost    revenue test
                                                   impacted \1\     per system      per system        \2\ (%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Ground Water Systems
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
500 and under...................................              80             1.0          $40.65            0.48
501 to 3,300....................................               9             1.1           43.37            0.03
3,301 to 10,000.................................             108             1.3           49.92           0.004
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Surface Water (and Ground Water Under the Direct Influence of Surface Water) Systems
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
500 and under...................................               5             1.4           54.39            0.11
501 to 3,300....................................               3             1.4           56.19            0.02
3,301 to 10,000.................................             102             1.5           57.39           0.004
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ PWS counts were adjusted to display as whole numbers in each size category. Includes the privately-owned
  portion of small systems subject to the UCMR 5.
\2\ Costs are presented as a percentage of median annual revenue for each size category.

    EPA has determined that 5,947 small PWSs (for Assessment
Monitoring), or approximately 9.35% of all small systems, would
experience an impact of no more than 0.5% of revenues. This accounts
for small PWSs familiarizing themselves with the regulatory
requirements; reading sampling instructions; traveling to the sampling
location; collecting and shipping the samples; and maintaining their
records. The 5,975 small PWSs are comprised of all 5,147 systems
serving between 3,300 and 10,000, and the representative group of 800
systems serving fewer than 3,300; the remainder of small systems would
not participate in UCMR 5 monitoring and would not be impacted.
    The Agency certifies that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
RFA. In making this determination, EPA believes that the impact of
concern is any significant adverse economic impact on small entities,
and that an agency may certify that a rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities if the rule
relieves regulatory burden, has no net burden or otherwise has a
positive economic effect on the small entities subject to the rule.
Although this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities, EPA has attempted to reduce
impacts by assuming all costs for analyses of the samples, and for
shipping the samples from small systems to laboratories contracted by
EPA to analyze the UCMR 5 samples (the cost of shipping is included in
the cost of each analytical method). EPA has historically set aside
$2.0 million each year from the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund
(DWSRF) with its authority to use DWSRF monies for the purposes of
implementing this provision of the SDWA. EPA anticipates drawing on
these and additional funds, if available, to implement the proposed
plan and carry out the expanded UCMR monitoring approach outlined in
the AWIA rather than the alternative approach used in UCMR 4 and the
preceding UCMR cycles. Thus, the costs to these small systems will be
modest and limited to the labor associated with collecting a sample and
preparing it for shipping.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or
more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action
implements mandate(s) specifically and explicitly set forth in the
SDWA, Sec.  1445(a)(2), Monitoring Program for Unregulated
Contaminants. without the exercise of any policy discretion by EPA.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action 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.

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

    This action has tribal implications. However, it will neither
impose substantial direct compliance costs on federally recognized
tribal governments, nor preempt tribal law. As described previously,
this proposed rule requires monitoring by all large PWSs. Information
in the SDWIS/Fed water system inventory indicates there are
approximately 19 large tribal PWSs

(ranging in size from 10,001 to 40,000 customers). EPA estimates the
average annual cost to each of these large PWSs, over the 5-year rule
period, to be $1,839. 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 1.2% of average revenue/sales for large PWSs. UCMR 5, as proposed,
would also require monitoring by all small PWSs serving 3,300 to 10,000
customers and a nationally representative sample of small PWSs serving
fewer than 3,300 customers. Information in the SDWIS/Fed water system
inventory indicates there are approximately 72 small tribal PWSs
(ranging in size from 3,300 to 10,000 customers). EPA estimates that
less than 2% of small tribal systems serving fewer than 3,300 customers
will be selected as part of the nationally representative sample. EPA
estimates the average annual cost to small tribal systems over the 5-
year rule period to be $52. Such cost is based on the labor associated
with collecting a sample and preparing it for shipping and represents
less than 0.5% of average revenue/sales for small PWSs. All other
small-PWS expenses (associated with shipping and laboratory fees) are
paid by EPA.
    EPA consulted with tribal officials under the Agency's Policy on
Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribes early in the process
of developing this regulation to permit them to have meaningful and
timely input into its development. A summary of that consultation,