[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 245 (Monday, December 27, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 73131-73157]
[FR Doc No: 2021-27858]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 141

[EPA-HQ-OW-2020-0530; FRL-6791-03-OW]
RIN 2040-AF89

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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule and notice of public meetings.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is finalizing a
Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) rule that requires certain public water
systems (PWSs) to collect national occurrence data for 29 per- and
polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) and lithium. Subject to the
availability of appropriations, EPA will include all systems serving
3,300 or more people and a representative sample of 800 systems serving
25 to 3,299 people. If EPA does not receive the appropriations needed
for monitoring all of these systems in a given year, EPA will reduce
the number of systems serving 25 to 10,000 people that will be asked to
perform monitoring. This final rule is a key action to ensure science-
based decision-making and prioritize protection of disadvantaged
communities in accordance with EPA's PFAS Strategic Roadmap. EPA is
also announcing plans for public webinars to discuss implementation of
the fifth Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR 5).

DATES: This final rule is effective on January 26, 2022. The
incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this final
rule is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of January
26, 2022.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OW-2020-0530. All documents in the docket are listed on the
https://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available electronically through https://www.regulations.gov.

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 protected]; 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 protected]. For general information, visit
the Ground Water and Drinking Water web page at: https://www.epa.gov/ground-water-and-drinking-water.

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?
    4. What is the applicability date?
    B. Summary of the Regulatory Action
    C. Economic Analysis
    1. What is the estimated cost of this action?
    2. What are the benefits of this action?
II. Public Participation
    A. What meetings have been held in preparation for UCMR 5?
    B. How do I participate in the upcoming meetings?
    1. Meeting Participation
    2. Meeting Materials
III. General Information
    A. How are CCL, UCMR, Regulatory Determination process, and NCOD
interrelated?
    B. What are the Consumer Confidence Reporting and Public Notice
Reporting requirements for public water systems that are subject to
UCMR?
    C. What is the UCMR 5 timeline?
    D. What is the role of ``States'' in UCMR?
    E. How did EPA consider Children's Environmental Health?
    F. How did EPA address Environmental Justice?
    G. How did EPA coordinate with Indian Tribal Governments?
    H. How are laboratories approved for 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
    I. 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
IV. Description of Final Rule and Summary of Responses to Public
Comments
    A. What contaminants must be monitored under UCMR 5?
    1. This Final Rule
    2. Summary of Major Comments and EPA Responses
    a. Aggregate PFAS Measure
    b. Legionella Pneumophila
    c. Haloacetonitriles
    d. 1,2,3-Trichloropropane
    B. What is the UCMR 5 sampling design?
    1. This Final Rule
    2. Summary of Major Comments and EPA Responses
    C. What is the sampling frequency and timing?
    1. This Final Rule
    2. Summary of Major Comments and EPA Responses
    D. Where are the sampling locations and what is representative
monitoring?
    1. This Final Rule
    2. Summary of Major Comments and EPA Responses
    E. How long do laboratories and PWSs have to report data?
    1. This Final Rule
    2. Summary of Major Comments and EPA Responses
    F. What are the reporting requirements for UCMR 5?
    1. This Final Rule
    2. Summary of Major Comments and EPA Responses
    a. Data Elements
    b. Reporting State Data
    G. What are the UCMR 5 Minimum Reporting Levels (MRLs) and how
were they determined?
    1. This Final Rule
    2. Summary of Major Comments and EPA Responses
    H. What are the requirements for laboratory analysis of field
reagent blank samples?
    1. This Final Rule
    2. Summary of Major Comments and EPA Responses
    I. How will EPA support risk communication for UCMR 5 results?
V. 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

    K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)
VI. References

Abbreviations and Acronyms

[mu]g/L Microgram per Liter
11Cl-PF3OUdS 11-chloroeicosafluoro-3-oxaundecane-1-sulfonic Acid
4:2 FTS 1H, 1H, 2H, 2H-perfluorohexane Sulfonic Acid
6:2 FTS 1H, 1H, 2H, 2H-perfluorooctane Sulfonic Acid
8:2 FTS 1H, 1H, 2H, 2H-perfluorodecane Sulfonic Acid
9Cl-PF3ONS 9-chlorohexadecafluoro-3-oxanone-1-sulfonic Acid
ADONA 4,8-dioxa-3H-perfluorononanoic Acid
AES Atomic Emission Spectrometry
ASDWA Association of State Drinking Water Administrators
ASTM ASTM International
AWIA America's Water Infrastructure Act of 2018
CASRN Chemical Abstracts Service Registry Number
CBI Confidential Business Information
CCL Contaminant Candidate List
CCR Consumer Confidence Report
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CRA Congressional Review Act
CWS Community Water System
DBP Disinfection Byproduct
DWSRF Drinking Water State Revolving Fund
EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
EPTDS Entry Point to the Distribution System
FR Federal Register
FRB Field Reagent Blank
GW Ground Water
GWRMP Ground Water Representative Monitoring Plan
HFPO-DA Hexafluoropropylene Oxide Dimer Acid (GenX)
HRL Health Reference Level
ICP Inductively Coupled Plasma
ICR Information Collection Request
IDC Initial Demonstration of Capability
LCMRL Lowest Concentration Minimum Reporting Level
LC/MS/MS Liquid Chromatography/Tandem Mass Spectrometry
MDBP Microbial and Disinfection Byproduct
MRL Minimum Reporting Level
NAICS North American Industry Classification System
NCOD National Contaminant Occurrence Database
NDAA National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020
NEtFOSAA N-ethyl Perfluorooctanesulfonamidoacetic Acid
NFDHA Nonafluoro[hyphen]3,6[hyphen]dioxaheptanoic Acid
ng/L Nanogram per Liter
NMeFOSAA N-methyl Perfluorooctanesulfonamidoacetic Acid
NPDWR National Primary Drinking Water Regulation
NTNCWS Non-transient Non-community Water System
NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
NTWC National Tribal Water Council
OGWDW Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water
OMB Office of Management and Budget
PFAS Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances
PFBA Perfluorobutanoic Acid
PFBS Perfluorobutanesulfonic Acid
PFDA Perfluorodecanoic Acid
PFDoA Perfluorododecanoic Acid
PFEESA Perfluoro (2[hyphen]ethoxyethane) Sulfonic Acid
PFHpA Perfluoroheptanoic Acid
PFHpS Perfluoroheptanesulfonic Acid
PFHxA Perfluorohexanoic Acid
PFHxS Perfluorohexanesulfonic Acid
PFMBA Perfluoro[hyphen]4[hyphen]methoxybutanoic Acid
PFMPA Perfluoro[hyphen]3[hyphen]methoxypropanoic Acid
PFNA Perfluorononanoic Acid
PFOA Perfluorooctanoic Acid
PFOS Perfluorooctanesulfonic Acid
PFPeA Perfluoropentanoic Acid
PFPeS Perfluoropentanesulfonic Acid
PFTA Perfluorotetradecanoic Acid
PFTrDA Perfluorotridecanoic Acid
PFUnA Perfluoroundecanoic Acid
PN Public Notice
PRA Paperwork Reduction Act
PT Proficiency Testing
PWS Public Water System
QC Quality Control
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
SBA Small Business Administration
SBREFA Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act
SDWARS Safe Drinking Water Accession and Review System
SDWIS/Fed Safe Drinking Water Information System Federal Reporting
Services
SM Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater
SOP Standard Operating Procedure
SPE Solid Phase Extraction
SRMD Standards and Risk Management Division
SW Surface Water
SWTR Surface Water Treatment Rule
TNCWS Transient Non-community Water System
TOF Total Organic Fluorine
TOP Total Oxidizable Precursors
UCMR Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule
UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
U.S. United States
USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency

I. Summary Information

A. Purpose of the Regulatory Action

1. What action is EPA taking?
    This final rule requires certain public water systems (PWSs),
described in section I.A.2 of this preamble, to collect national
occurrence data for 29 PFAS and lithium. PFAS and lithium are not
currently subject to national primary drinking water regulations, and
EPA is requiring collection of data under UCMR 5 to inform EPA
regulatory determinations and risk-management decisions. Consistent
with EPA's PFAS Strategic Roadmap, UCMR 5 will provide new data
critically needed to improve EPA's understanding of the frequency that
29 PFAS (and lithium) are found in the nation's drinking water systems
and at what levels. This data will ensure science-based decision-making
and help prioritize protection of disadvantaged communities.
2. Does this action apply to me?
    This final rule applies to 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 final rule, all large CWSs and NTNCWSs serving more than
10,000 people are required to monitor. In addition, small CWSs and
NTNCWSs serving between 3,300 and 10,000 people are required to monitor
(subject to available EPA appropriations and EPA notification of such
requirement) as are the PWSs included in a nationally representative
sample of CWSs and NTNCWSs serving between 25 and 3,299 people (see
``Selection of Nationally Representative Public Water Systems for the
Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule: 2021 Update'' for a
description of the statistical approach for EPA's selection of the
nationally representative sample (USEPA, 2021a), available in the UCMR
5 public docket). EPA expects to clarify the monitoring
responsibilities for affected small systems by approximately July 1 of
each year preceding sample collection, based on the availability of
appropriations each year.
    As in previous UCMRs, 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) are not required
to monitor under UCMR 5. EPA leads UCMR 5 monitoring as a direct-
implementation program. States, Territories, and Tribes with primary
enforcement responsibility (primacy) to administer the regulatory
program for PWSs under SDWA (hereinafter collectively referred to in
this document as ``states''), can participate in the implementation of
UCMR 5 through voluntary Partnership Agreements (see

discussion of Partnership Agreements in Section III.D of this
preamble). Under Partnership Agreements, states can choose to be
involved in various aspects of UCMR 5 monitoring for PWSs they oversee;
however, the PWS remains responsible for compliance with the final
rule. Potentially regulated categories and entities are identified in
the following table.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Category                        Examples of potentially regulated entities         NAICS *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* 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 Title 40 in the Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR) at 40 CFR 141.2 and 141.3, and the applicability criteria found
in 40 CFR 141.40(a)(1) and (2). 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 preamble.
3. What is EPA's authority for taking this action?
    As part of EPA's responsibilities under SDWA, the agency implements
section 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 issue a list of not more than 30
unregulated contaminants to be monitored by PWSs. SDWA requires that
EPA enter 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 people served, the source of supply, and the contaminants
likely to be found. EPA is using SDWA Section 1445(a)(2) authority as
the basis for monitoring the unregulated contaminants under this final
rule.
    Section 2021 of America's Water Infrastructure Act of 2018 (AWIA)
(Pub. L. 115-270) amended SDWA and specifies that, subject to the
availability of EPA appropriations for such purpose and sufficient
laboratory capacity, EPA's UCMR program must require all PWSs serving
between 3,300 and 10,000 people to monitor for the contaminants in a
particular UCMR cycle, and ensure that only a nationally representative
sample of systems serving between 25 and 3,299 people are required to
monitor for those contaminants. EPA has developed this final rule
anticipating that necessary appropriations will become available;
however, to date, Congress has not appropriated additional funding
(i.e., funding in addition to the $2.0 million that EPA has
historically set aside each year from the Drinking Water State
Revolving Fund, using SDWA authority, to support UCMR monitoring at
small systems) to cover monitoring expenses for all PWSs serving
between 3,300 and 10,000 people. Provisions in the final rule enable
the agency to adjust the number of these systems that must monitor
based upon available appropriations.
    AWIA did not amend the original SDWA requirements for large PWSs.
Therefore, PWSs serving a population larger than 10,000 people continue
to be responsible for participating in UCMR.
    Section 7311 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2020 (NDAA) (Pub. L. 116-92) amended SDWA and 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.
4. What is the applicability date?
    The applicability date represents an internal milestone used by EPA
to determine if a PWS is included in the UCMR program and whether it
will be treated as small (i.e., serving 25 to 10,000 people) or large
(i.e., serving more than 10,000 people). It does not represent a date
by which respondents need to take any action. 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. SDWIS/Fed
can be accessed at https://www.epa.gov/ground-water-and-drinking-water/safe-drinking-water-information-system-sdwis-federal-reporting.
Examining water system type and population served as of February 1,
2021 allowed EPA to develop a draft list of PWSs tentatively subject to
UCMR 5 and share that list with the states during 2021 for their
review. This advance planning and review then allowed EPA to load
state-reviewed PWS information into EPA's reporting system so that
those PWSs can be promptly notified upon publication of this final
rule. If a PWS receives such notification and believes it has been
erroneously included in UCMR 5 based on an incorrect retail population,
the system should contact their state authority to verify its
population served as of the applicability date. If an error impacting
rule applicability is identified, the state or the PWS may contact EPA
to address the error. The 5-year UCMR 5 cycle spans January 2022
through December 2026, with preparations in 2022, sample collection
between January 1, 2023, and December 31, 2025, and completion of data
reporting in 2026. By approximately July 1 of the year prior to each
year's sample collection (i.e., by July 1, 2022 for 2023 sampling; by
July 1, 2023 for 2024 sampling; and by July 1, 2024 for 2025 sampling)
EPA expects to determine whether it has received necessary
appropriations to support its plan to monitor at all systems serving
between 3,300 and 10,000 people and at a representative group of 800
smaller systems. As EPA finalizes its small-system plan for each sample
collection year, the agency will notify the small PWSs accordingly.

B. Summary of the Regulatory Action

    EPA is requiring certain PWSs to collect occurrence data for 29
PFAS and lithium. This document addresses key aspects of UCMR 5,
including the following: Analytical methods to

measure the contaminants; laboratory approval; monitoring timeframe;
sampling locations; data elements (i.e., information required to be
collected along with the occurrence data); data reporting timeframes;
monitoring cost; public participation; conforming and editorial
changes, such as those necessary to remove requirements solely related
to UCMR 4; and EPA responses to public comments on the proposed rule.
This document also discusses the implication for UCMR 5 of the AWIA
Section 2021(a) requirement that EPA collect monitoring data from all
systems serving more than 3,300 people ``subject to the availability of
appropriations.''
    Regardless of whether EPA is able to carry out the small-system
monitoring as planned, or instead reduces the scope of that monitoring,
the small-system data collection, coupled with data collection from all
systems serving more than 10,000 people under this action, will provide
scientifically valid data on the national occurrence of 29 PFAS and
lithium in drinking water. The UCMR data are the primary source of
national occurrence data that EPA uses to inform regulatory and other
risk management decisions for drinking water contaminant candidates.
    EPA is required under SDWA Section 1445(a)(2)(C)(ii) to pay the
``reasonable cost of such testing and laboratory analysis'' for all
applicable PWSs serving 25 to 10,000 people. Consistent with AWIA, EPA
will require monitoring at as many systems serving 3,300 to 10,000
people as appropriations support (see Section IV.B of this preamble for
more information on the agency's sampling design).
    The agency received several public comments expressing concern that
significant laboratory capacity will be needed to support the full
scope envisioned for UCMR 5 PFAS monitoring. EPA anticipates that
sufficient laboratory capacity will exist to support the expanded UCMR
5 scope. EPA's experience over the first four cycles of UCMR
implementation has been that laboratory capacity quickly grows to meet
UCMR demand. EPA also notes that the number of laboratories
successfully participating in the early stages of the UCMR 5 laboratory
approval program is a good indicator that there will be a robust
national network of laboratories experienced in PFAS drinking water
analysis.
    By early 2022, EPA will notify all small CWSs and NTNCWSs serving
between 3,300 and 10,000 people of their anticipated requirement to
monitor, which EPA expects to confirm and schedule by July 1 preceding
each collection year based on the availability of appropriations. The
nationally representative sample of smaller PWSs described in Section
I.A of this preamble will be similarly notified and advised of their
schedules.
    This final rule 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 action?
    EPA estimates the total average national cost of this action would
be $21 million per year over the 5-year effective period of the final
rule (2022-2026) assuming EPA collects information from all systems
serving between 3,300 and 10,000 people. All of these costs are
associated with paperwork burden under the Paperwork Reduction Act
(PRA). EPA discusses the expected costs as well as documents the
assumptions and data sources used in the preparation of this estimate
in the ``Information Collection Request for the Final Unregulated
Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR 5)'' (USEPA, 2021b). Costs are
incurred by large PWSs (for sampling and analysis); small PWSs (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 samples from small PWSs). These costs are also
summarized in Exhibit 1 of this preamble. EPA's estimates are based on
executing the full monitoring plan for small systems (i.e., including
all systems serving 3,300 to 10,000 people and a representative group
of 800 smaller systems). As such, those estimates represent an upper
bound. If EPA does not receive the necessary appropriations in one or
more of the collections years--and thus collects data from fewer small
systems--the actual costs would be lower than those estimated here.
    EPA received several comments on the cost of monitoring. EPA has
accounted for the cost/burden associated with all of the PWS activities
as part of the comprehensive cost/burden estimates. In order to provide
the most accurate and updated cost estimate, EPA re-examined labor
burden estimates for states, EPA, and PWS activities and updated costs
of laboratory services for sample analysis, based on consultations with
national drinking water laboratories, when developing this final rule.
    The costs for a particular UCMR cycle are heavily influenced by the
selection of contaminants and associated analytical methods. EPA
identified three EPA-developed analytical methods (and, in the case of
lithium, multiple optional alternative methods) to analyze samples for
UCMR 5 contaminants. EPA's estimate of the UCMR 5 analytical cost is
$740 per sample set (i.e., $740 to analyze a set of samples from one
sample point and one sample event for the 30 UCMR 5 contaminants).
    Exhibit 1 of this preamble details the EPA-estimated annual average
national costs (accounting for labor and non-labor expenses).
Laboratory analysis and sample shipping account for approximately 65
percent of the estimated total national cost for the implementation of
UCMR 5. EPA estimated laboratory costs based on consultations with
multiple commercial drinking water testing laboratories. EPA's cost
estimates for the laboratory methods include shipping and analysis.
    EPA expects that states will 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 will depend on their individual
agreements with EPA.
    EPA assumes that one-third of the systems will collect samples
during each of the three sample-collection years from January 2023
through December 2025.

         Exhibit 1--Estimated Average Annual Costs of UCMR 5 \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Average annual
                       Entity                           cost (million)
                                                       (2022-2026) \ 2\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Small PWSs (25-10,000), including labor \3\ only                    $0.3
 (non-labor costs \4\ paid for by EPA)..............
Large PWSs (10,001-100,000), including labor and non-                7.0
 labor costs........................................
Very Large PWSs (100,001 and greater), including                     2.2
 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...................                20.8
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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 PWSs, states, and EPA. Costs include
  activities such as reading the final 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\ For a typical UCMR program that involves the expanded scope
  prescribed by AWIA, EPA estimates an average annual cost to the agency
  of $17M/year (over a 5-year cycle) ($2M/year for the representative
  sample of 800 PWSs serving between 25 and 3,299 people and $15M/year
  for all PWSs serving between 3,300 and 10,000 people). The projected
  cost to EPA for UCMR 5 implementation is lower than for a typical UCMR
  program because of lower sample analysis expenses. Those lower
  expenses are a result of analytical method efficiencies (i.e., being
  able to monitor for 30 chemicals with only three analytical methods).

    Additional details regarding EPA's cost assumptions and estimates
can be found in the Information Collection Request (ICR) (USEPA,
2021b), ICR Number 2040-0304, which presents estimated cost and labor
hours for the 5-year UCMR 5 period of 2022-2026. Copies of the ICR may
be obtained from the EPA public docket for this final rule under Docket
ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2020-0530.
2. What are the benefits of this 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
should improve. If contaminants are found, related health effects may
be avoided when subsequent actions, such as regulations, are
implemented, reducing or eliminating those contaminants.

II. Public Participation

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

    EPA held three public meetings on UCMR 5 over the period of 2018
through 2021. 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, 2018 for presentation materials). EPA
held a second meeting on July 16, 2019, in Cincinnati, Ohio.
Representatives from 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 AWIA, analytical methods and contaminants being
considered by EPA, potential sampling design, and other possible
aspects of the UCMR 5 approach (see USEPA, 2019a for meeting
materials). EPA held two identical virtual meetings on April 6 and 7,
2021, during the public comment period for the proposed rule (see
USEPA, 2021c for presentation materials). Topics included the proposed
UCMR 5 monitoring requirements, analyte selection and rationale,
analytical methods, the laboratory approval process, and ground water
representative monitoring plans (GWRMPs). Representatives of state
agencies, laboratories, PWSs, environmental organizations, and drinking
water associations participated in the meeting via webinar. In Section
II.B of this preamble, the agency is announcing additional meetings to
be held in 2022, which will assist with implementation.

B. How do I participate in the upcoming meetings?

    EPA will hold multiple virtual meetings during 2022 to discuss UCMR
5 implementation planning, data reporting using Safe Drinking Water
Accession and Review System (SDWARS), and best practices for sample
collection. Dates and times of the upcoming meetings will be posted on
EPA's website at https://www.epa.gov/dwucmr/unregulated-contaminant-monitoring-rule-ucmr-meetings-and-materials. EPA anticipates hosting
the meetings focused on implementation planning in spring 2022, and the
SDWARS and sample-collection meetings in fall 2022. Stakeholders who
have participated in past UCMR meetings and/or those who register to
use SDWARS will receive notification of these events. Other interested
stakeholders are also welcome to participate.
1. Meeting Participation
    Those who wish to participate in the public meetings, via webinar,
can find information on how to register at https://www.epa.gov/dwucmr/unregulated-contaminant-monitoring-rule-ucmr-meetings-and-materials.
The number of webinar connections available for the meetings are
limited and will be available on a first-come, first-served basis. If
stakeholder interest results in exceeding the maximum number of
available connections for participants in upcoming 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.
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 people who do not
participate in the webinar.

III. General Information

A. How are CCL, UCMR, Regulatory Determination process, and NCOD
interrelated?

    Under the 1996 amendments to 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 SDWA. EPA published the draft
CCL 5 in the Federal Register on July 19, 2021 (86 FR 37948, July 19,
2021 (USEPA, 2021d)). Under the second step, EPA must require, every
five years, monitoring of unregulated contaminants as described in this
action. The third step requires EPA to determine, every five years,
whether or not to regulate at least five contaminants from the CCL.
Under Section 1412(b)(1)(A) of 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 three criteria, 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 requirements in
SDWA Section 1445(g), to assemble and maintain a drinking water
contaminant occurrence database for both regulated and unregulated
contaminants in drinking 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 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. 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.

B. 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).
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.

C. What is the UCMR 5 timeline?

    This final rule identifies a UCMR 5 sampling period of 2023 to
2025. Prior to 2023 EPA will coordinate laboratory approval,
tentatively select representative small systems (USEPA, 2021a),
organize Partnership Agreements, develop State Monitoring Plans (see
Section III.D of this preamble), establish monitoring schedules and
inventory, and conduct outreach and training. Exhibit 2 of this
preamble illustrates the major activities that EPA expects will take
place in preparation for and during the implementation of UCMR 5.
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR27DE21.000

BILLING CODE 6560-50-C

D. What is the role of ``States'' in 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 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 will 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 PWS information, including inventory (i.e., PWS
identification codes (PWSID), facility identification code along with
associated facility types and water source type, etc.); review of
proposed GWRMPs; notification and instructions for systems; and
compliance assistance. EPA recognizes that states often have the best
information about their PWSs and encourages them to partner in the UCMR
5 program.

E. 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,
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 future regulatory consideration.
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 analyte list, is contained in ``Information Compendium
for Contaminants for the Final Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule
(UCMR 5)'' (USEPA, 2021e), available in the UCMR 5 public docket.
    Since this is a final rule to monitor for contaminants and not to
reduce their presence in drinking water to an acceptable level, the
rule does not concern environmental health or safety risks presenting a
disproportionate risk to children that would be addressed by this
action (See Section V.G Executive Order 13045 of this preamble).
Therefore, Executive Order 13045 does not apply to UCMR. 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.
    EPA considered children's health risks during the development of
UCMR 5. This included considering public comments about candidate
contaminant priorities. Many commenters supported the agency's
inclusion of PFAS and lithium in UCMR 5. Some commenters requested that
EPA consider children and infant health risks in its risk communication
for UCMR 5.
    Using quantitation data from multiple laboratories, EPA establishes
statistically-based UCMR reporting levels the agency considers feasible
for the national network of approved drinking water laboratories. EPA
generally sets the reporting levels as low as is technologically
practical for measurement by that national network of laboratories,
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.

F. How did EPA address Environmental Justice (EJ)?

    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 Section V.J Executive Order 12898 of this
preamble). EPA Administrator Regan issued a directive to all EPA staff
to incorporate environmental justice (EJ) into the agency's work,
including regulatory activities, such as integrating EJ considerations
into the regulatory development processes and considering regulatory
options to maximize benefits to communities that ``continue to suffer
from disproportionately high pollution levels and the resulting adverse
health and environmental impacts.'' In keeping with this directive, and
consistent with AWIA, EPA will, subject to the availability of
sufficient appropriations, expand UCMR 5 to include all PWSs serving
between 3,300 and 10,000 people as described in Sections I.A.4 and IV.B
of this preamble. If there are sufficient appropriations, the expansion
in the number of participating PWSs will provide a more comprehensive
assessment of contaminant occurrence data from small and rural
communities, including disadvantaged communities.
    By developing a national characterization of unregulated
contaminants that may pose health risks via drinking water from PWSs,
UCMR furthers the protection of public health for all citizens. If EPA
receives the needed appropriations, the expansion in monitoring scope
reflected in UCMR 5 (i.e., including all PWSs serving 3,300 to 10,000
people) will better support state and regional analyses and
determination of potential EJ-related issues that need to be addressed.
EPA structured the UCMR 5 rulemaking process to allow for meaningful
involvement and transparency. EPA organized public meetings and
webinars to share information regarding the development and
implementation of UCMR 5; consulted with Tribal governments; and
convened a workgroup that included representatives from several states.
EPA will support stakeholder interest in UCMR 5 results by making them
publicly available, as described in Section III.A of this preamble, and
by developing additional risk-communication materials to help
individuals and communities understand the significance of contaminant
occurrence.
    EPA received multiple comments on environmental justice
considerations. Commenters expressed support for the continued
collection of U.S. Postal Service Zip Codes for each PWS's service area
and requested that EPA provide multilingual UCMR materials. EPA will
continue to collect Zip Codes for UCMR 5, as collected under UCMR 3 and
UCMR 4, to support potential assessments of whether or not certain
communities are disproportionately impacted by particular drinking
water contaminants. EPA also intends to develop the sampling
instructions, fact sheets, and data summaries in both English and
Spanish.

G. How did EPA coordinate with Indian Tribal Governments?

    EPA has concluded that this action has Tribal implications.
However, it will neither impose substantial direct compliance costs on
federally recognized Tribal governments, nor preempt Tribal law. (See
section V.F Executive Order 13175 of this preamble).
    EPA consulted with Tribal officials under the EPA Policy on
Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribes early in the process
of developing this action to ensure meaningful and timely input into
its development. EPA initiated the Tribal consultation and coordination
process before proposing the rule by mailing a ``Notification of
Consultation and Coordination'' letter on June 26, 2019, to the Tribal
leadership of the then 573 federally recognized Tribes. The letter
invited Tribal leaders and representatives of Tribal governments to
participate in an August 6, 2019, UCMR 5 Tribal consultation and
coordination informational meeting. Presentation topics included an
overview of the UCMR program, potential approaches to monitoring and
implementation for UCMR 5, and the UCMR 5 contaminants and analytical
methods under consideration. After the presentation, EPA provided an
opportunity for input

and questions on the action. Eight representatives from five Tribes
attended the August meeting. Tribal representatives asked clarifying
questions regarding program costs to PWSs and changes in PWS
participation per AWIA. EPA addressed the questions during the meeting.
Following the meeting, EPA received and addressed one additional
clarifying question from a Tribal representative during the Tribal
consultation process. No other Tribal representatives submitted written
comments during the UCMR 5 consultation comment period that ended
September 1, 2019.
    Prior to the August 2019 meeting, EPA provided additional
opportunities for Tribal officials to provide meaningful and timely
input into the development of the proposed rule. On July 10, 2019, EPA
participated in a monthly conference call with the National Tribal
Water Council (NTWC). EPA shared a brief summary of UCMR statutory
requirements with the Council and highlighted the upcoming official
Tribal meeting. EPA also invited Tribal leaders and representatives to
participate in a public meeting, held on July 16, 2019, to discuss the
development of the proposed rule. Representatives from six Tribes
participated in the public meeting. Following the publication of the
proposal, EPA advised the Indian Health Services of the 60-day public
comment period to assist with facilitating additional Tribal comments
on the proposed rule. EPA received no public comments from Tribal
officials.
    A complete summary of the consultation, titled, ``Summary of the
Tribal Coordination and Consultation Process for the Fifth Unregulated
Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR 5) Proposal,'' is provided in the
UCMR 5 public docket listed in the ADDRESSES section of this preamble.

H. How are laboratories approved for UCMR 5 analyses?

    Consistent with prior UCMRs, this action maintains the requirement
that PWSs use laboratories approved by EPA to analyze UCMR 5 samples.
Interested laboratories are encouraged to apply for EPA approval as
early as possible. The UCMR 5 laboratory approval process, which began
with the publication of the UCMR 5 proposal, 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 PWSs expected to participate in UCMR 5.
EPA anticipates that the number of participating small water systems
will increase from the typical 800 to approximately 6,000 (see Exhibit
5 in Section IV.B of this preamble). In preparation for this increase,
EPA will solicit proposals and award contracts to laboratories to
support small system monitoring prior to the end of the proficiency
testing (PT) program. As in previous UCMR programs, EPA expects that
laboratories awarded contracts by EPA will be required to first be
approved to perform all methods. The requirements for the laboratory
approval process are described in steps 1 through 6 of the following
paragraphs.
    EPA will require laboratories seeking approval to: (1) Provide EPA
with data documenting an initial demonstration of capability (IDC) as
outlined in each method; (2) verify successful performance at or below
the minimum reporting levels (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, 2021f), available in the UCMR 5 public docket, provides more
specific guidance on EPA laboratory approval program and the specific
method acceptance criteria. EPA has included sample-collection
procedures that are specific to the methods in the ``UCMR 5 Laboratory
Manual,'' and will address these procedures in our outreach to the PWSs
that will be collecting samples.
    The UCMR 5 laboratory approval program will provide an assessment
of the ability of laboratories to perform analyses using the methods
listed in 40 CFR 141.40(a)(3), Table 1 of this preamble. Laboratory
participation in the program is voluntary. However, as in the previous
UCMRs, EPA will require PWSs to exclusively use laboratories that have
been approved under the program. EPA will 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.
1. Request To Participate
    Laboratories interested in the UCMR 5 laboratory approval program
first email EPA at: [email protected] to request registration
materials. EPA began accepting requests beginning with the publication
of the proposal in the Federal Register.
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 must 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.
    Based on the January 1, 2023 start for UCMR 5 sample collection,
the deadline for a laboratory to submit the necessary registration and
application information is August 1, 2022.
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 must 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 offered
three PT studies between publication of the proposed rule and final
rule, and anticipates offering at least two additional studies.
Interested laboratories must participate in and report data for at
least two PT studies. This allows EPA to collect a robust dataset 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, EPA expects to conduct laboratory audits (remote
and/or on-site) throughout the implementation of UCMR 5 on an as needed
and/or random basis. Initial laboratory approval is 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
    For laboratories that have already successfully completed steps 1
through 5, EPA sent the laboratory a notification letter listing the
methods for which approval was ``pending'' (i.e., pending promulgation
of this final rule). Because no changes have been made to the final
rule that impact the laboratory approval program, laboratories that
received pending-approval letters will be notified of full approval
without further action on their part. Approval actions for additional
laboratories that successfully complete steps 1 through 5 will also be
documented by EPA in writing.

I. What documents are being incorporated by reference?

    The following methods are being incorporated by reference into this
section for UCMR 5 monitoring. All method material is available for
inspection electronically at https://www.regulations.gov (Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OW-2020-0530), or from the sources listed for each method. The
methods that may be used to support monitoring under this final 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 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 may be
used to measure lithium during UCMR 5. See also the discussion of non-
EPA alternative 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 at https://www.epa.gov/dwanalyticalmethods/analytical-methods-developed-epa-analysis-unregulated-contaminants. This is an EPA method for the analysis PFAS
in drinking water using SPE and LC/MS/MS and is to be used 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, March 2020, EPA/600/R-20/006. Available at https://www.epa.gov/dwanalyticalmethods/analytical-methods-developed-epa-analysis-unregulated-contaminants. This is an EPA method for the
analysis of PFAS in drinking water using SPE and LC/MS/MS and is to be
used 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 at https://www.standardmethods.org.
    (a) SM 3120 B, ``Metals by Plasma Emission Spectroscopy:
Inductively Coupled Plasma (ICP) Method, Standard Methods Online,''
revised December 14, 2020. 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 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.

IV. Description of Final Rule and Summary of Responses to Public
Comments

    EPA published ``Revisions to the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring
Rule (UCMR 5) for Public Water Systems and Announcement of Public
Meeting;'' Proposed Rule, on March 11, 2021 (86 FR 13846, (USEPA,
2021g)). The UCMR 5 proposal identified three EPA analytical methods,
and multiple alternative methods, to support water system monitoring
for 30 UCMR 5 contaminants (29 PFAS and lithium) and detailed other
potential changes relative to UCMR 4. Among the other changes reflected
in the UCMR 5 proposal were the following: Requirement for water
systems serving 3,300 to 10,000 people to monitor per AWIA requirements
``subject to the availability of appropriations''; provisions for
sampling frequency, timing, and locations; submission timeframe for
GWRMPs; data reporting timeframes; and reporting requirements.
    EPA received 75 sets of comments from 72 public commenters,
including other federal agencies, state and local governments,
utilities and utility stakeholder organizations, laboratories,
academia, non-governmental organizations, and other interested
stakeholders. After considering the comments, EPA developed the final
UCMR 5 as described in Exhibit 3 of this preamble. Except as noted, the
UCMR 5 final rule approach is consistent with the proposed rule. A
track-changes version of the rule language, comparing UCMR 4 to UCMR 5,
(``Revisions to 40 CFR 141.35 and 141.40'' (USEPA, 2021h)), is included
in the electronic docket listed in the ADDRESSES section of this
preamble.
    This section summarizes key aspects of this final rule and the
associated comments received in response to the

proposed rule. EPA has compiled all public comments and EPA's responses
in the ``Response to Comments on the Fifth Unregulated Contaminant
Monitoring Rule (UCMR 5) Proposal,'' (USEPA, 2021i), which can be found
in the electronic docket listed in the ADDRESSES section of this
preamble.

                                     Exhibit 3--Key Elements of Final UCMR 5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     CFR rule section
----------------------------------------------------------   Description of section      Corresponding preamble
              Number                        Title                                               section
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR 141.40(a)(3)...............  Contaminants in UCMR   Maintains proposed list of  IV.A
                                     5.                     29 PFAS and lithium for
                                                            monitoring.
40 CFR 141.35(d), 40 CFR            Scope of UCMR 5        Revises the scope of UCMR   IV.B
 141.40(a)(2)(ii), and 40 CFR        applicability.         5 to reflect that small
 141.40(a)(4)(ii).                                          CWSs and NTNCWSs serving
                                                            25 to 10,000 people will
                                                            monitor (consistent with
                                                            AWIA), if they are
                                                            notified by the agency.
40 CFR 141.40(a)(i)(B)............  Sampling frequency     Maintains proposed sample   IV.C
                                     and timing.            frequency (four sample
                                                            events for SW, two sample
                                                            events for GW).
40 CFR 141.35(c)(3)...............  Sampling locations     Maintains proposed          IV.D
                                     and Ground Water       flexibility for PWSs to
                                     Representative         submit a GWRMP proposal
                                     Monitoring Plans       to EPA.
                                     (GWRMPs).
40 CFR 141.35(c)(6)(ii) and 40 CFR  Reporting timeframe..  Maintains proposed          IV.E
 141.40(a)(5)(vi).                                          timeframe (``within 90
                                                            days from the sample
                                                            collection date'') for
                                                            laboratories to post and
                                                            approve analytical
                                                            results in EPA's
                                                            electronic data reporting
                                                            system (for review by the
                                                            PWS). Maintains proposed
                                                            timeframe (``30 days from
                                                            when the laboratory posts
                                                            the data to EPA's
                                                            electronic data reporting
                                                            system'') for PWSs to
                                                            review, approve, and
                                                            submit data to the state
                                                            and EPA.
40 CFR 141.35(e)..................  Reporting              Removes one proposed data   IV.F
                                     requirements.          element, maintains 27
                                                            proposed data elements,
                                                            and clarifies the use of
                                                            state data.
40 CFR 141.40(a)(3)...............  Minimum reporting      Maintains proposed MRLs     IV.G
                                     levels (MRL).          for contaminants.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. What contaminants must be monitored under UCMR 5?

1. This Final Rule
    EPA is maintaining the proposed list of UCMR 5 contaminants and the
methods associated with analyzing those contaminants (see Exhibit 4 of
this preamble). Further 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 analyte list, is contained in
``Information Compendium for Contaminants for the Final Unregulated
Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR 5)'' (USEPA, 2021e). This Information
Compendium can be found in the electronic docket listed in the
ADDRESSES section of this preamble.

                       Exhibit 4--UCMR 5 Analytes
------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Twenty-five Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) using EPA Method
 533 (SPE LC/MS/MS):
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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[hyphen]3,6[hyphen]dioxahepta  perfluorooctanesulfonic acid
 noic acid (NFDHA).                       (PFOS).
perfluoro (2[hyphen]ethoxyethane)        perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA).
 sulfonic acid (PFEESA).
perfluoro[hyphen]3[hyphen]methoxypropan  perfluoropentanesulfonic acid
 oic acid (PFMPA).                        (PFPeS).
perfluoro[hyphen]4[hyphen]methoxybutano  perfluoropentanoic acid
 ic 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):
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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)  or alternate
 SM  or ASTM:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
lithium................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ EPA Method 533 (Solid phase extraction (SPE) liquid chromatography/
  tandem mass spectrometry (LC/MS/MS)) (USEPA, 2019b).
\2\ EPA Method 537.1 Version 2.0 (Solid phase extraction (SPE) liquid
  chromatography/tandem mass spectrometry (LC/MS/MS)) (USEPA, 2020).
\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).

2. Summary of Major Comments and EPA Responses
    Those who expressed an opinion about the proposed UCMR 5 analytes
were supportive of EPA's inclusion of the 29 PFAS and lithium.
Commenters expressed mixed opinions on the consideration of additional
contaminants, particularly ``aggregate PFAS,'' Legionella pneumophilia,
haloacetonitriles, and 1,2,3-trichloropropane. The major comments and
EPA responses regarding these contaminants are summarized in the
discussion that follows.
a. Aggregate PFAS Measure
    EPA received multiple comments encouraging the agency to validate
and include a total organic fluorine (TOF) and/or total oxidizable
precursors (TOP) technique in UCMR 5 as a screening tool to determine
``total PFAS.'' EPA also received comments expressing concern for the
limitations of the analytical methodologies, including a lack of
sensitivity and specificity for PFAS using TOF.
    EPA has not identified a complete, validated, peer-reviewed
aggregate PFAS method with the appropriate specificity and sensitivity
to support UCMR 5 monitoring. EPA's Office of Water and Office of
Research and Development are currently developing and evaluating
methodologies for broader PFAS analysis in drinking water, however, the
measurement approaches are subject to significant technical challenges.
The sensitivity of TOF is currently in the low [mu]g/L range, as
opposed to the low ng/L range of interest required for PFAS analysis in
drinking water. TOF is also not specific to PFAS. TOP, while focusing
on PFAS, is limited to measuring compounds that can be detected by LC/
MS/MS and the technique requires two LC/MS/MS analyses; one before
oxidation and one after oxidation. EPA is evaluating the TOP approach
to understand the degree to which certain precursors are oxidized, and
subsequently measurable by LC/MS/MS, as well as the degree to which
PFAS that were measured in the pre-oxidation sample are still measured
post-oxidation.
    EPA is also monitoring progress by commercial laboratories and
academia. In 2020 and 2021, EPA contacted commercial laboratories that
advertised TOF capability, and these laboratories indicated that they
had not yet commercialized the TOF method (see Appendix 4 in ``Response
to Comments on the Fifth Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR
5) Proposal,'' (USEPA, 2021i), which can be found in the electronic
docket listed in the ADDRESSES section of this preamble). TOP has been
more widely commercialized but is often used as an exploratory tool to
estimate precursors.
    In summary, there are still analytical challenges leading to
uncertainties in the results using the TOF and TOP techniques. More
research and method refinement are needed before a peer-reviewed
validated method that meets UCMR quality control needs is available to
address PFAS more broadly.
b. Legionella Pneumophila
    Some comments supported EPA's proposal to not include Legionella
pneumophila in UCMR 5, while others encouraged EPA to add it. EPA has
decided not to include Legionella pneumophila in the final UCMR 5.
    Under EPA's Surface Water Treatment Rule (SWTR), EPA established
NPDWRs for Giardia, viruses, Legionella, turbidity and heterotrophic
bacteria and set maximum contaminant level goals of zero for Giardia
lamblia, viruses and Legionella pneumophila (54 FR 27486, June 29, 1989
(USEPA, 1989)). EPA is currently examining opportunities to enhance
protection against Legionella pneumophila through revisions to the
suite of Microbial and Disinfection Byproduct (MDBP) rules. In addition
to the SWTR, the MDBP suite includes the Stage 1 and Stage 2
Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproduct Rules; the Interim Enhanced
Surface Water Treatment Rule; and the Long Term 1 Enhanced Surface
Water Treatment Rule.
    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, 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. EPA has
concluded that UCMR 5 data collection for Legionella pneumophila would
not be completed in time to meaningfully inform MDBP revision and that
UCMR 5 data for Legionella pneumophila would soon lack significance
because it would not reflect conditions in water systems after any
regulatory revisions become effective (because water quality would be
expected to change as a result of PWSs complying with such regulatory
revisions).
    EPA estimates that Legionella pneumophila monitoring under UCMR 5
would have added $10.5 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. Because the data would not be available in time to inform
MDBP regulatory revisions and because MDBP revisions could change the
presence of Legionella pneumophila in drinking water distribution
systems (Legionella occurrence may change, for example, if the required
minimum disinfectant residual concentration is higher following MDBP
revisions), EPA concluded that the expense of this monitoring is not
warranted given the limited utility of the data.
c. Haloacetonitriles
    Some commenters agreed with EPA's rationale for not including the
four unregulated haloacetonitrile disinfection byproducts (DBPs) in
UCMR 5, while others encouraged EPA to include them. EPA has decided
not to include haloacetonitrile DBPs in the final UCMR 5.
    As was the case with Legionella pneumophila, EPA has concluded that
UCMR 5 data collection for haloacetonitriles would not be completed in
time to meaningfully inform MDBP revision and that UCMR 5 data would
not reflect conditions in water systems after any regulatory revisions
become effective (haloacetonitrile occurrence may change, for example,
if the required minimum disinfectant residual concentration is higher
following MDBP revisions).
    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). EPA estimates this
would result in $13 million in new expenses for large PWSs, $19 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.
    Because the data would not be available in time to inform MDBP

regulatory revisions and because MDBP revisions could change the
presence of haloacetonitriles in drinking water distribution systems,
EPA concluded that the expense of this monitoring is not warranted
given the limited utility of the data.
d. 1,2,3-Trichloropropane
    EPA received some comments that support the agency's proposed
decision to not include 1,2,3-trichloropropane (1,2,3-TCP) monitoring
in UCMR 5, and others recommending that 1,2,3-TCP be included. EPA
concluded that appropriate analytical methods are not currently
available to support additional UCMR data collection (i.e., above and
beyond the data collection under UCMR 3 (USEPA, 2019c)).
    Several commenters suggested that EPA consider analytical methods
to monitor for 1,2,3-trichloropropane at lower levels. They suggested,
for example, that the agency use California method SRL-524M (California
DHS, 2002), which is prescribed by the state for compliance monitoring
at 0.005 [mu]g/L (5 ng/L). EPA has reviewed SRL 524M and determined
that the associated quality control (QC) and IDC criteria do not meet
the EPA's needs for drinking water analysis. See also EPA's ``Response
to Comments on the Fifth Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR
5) Proposal,'' (USEPA, 2021i), which can be found in the electronic
docket listed in the ADDRESSES section of this preamble.
    Occurrence data collected during UCMR 3 (77 FR 26072, May 2, 2012
(USEPA, 2012)) for 1,2,3-trichloropropane may be found at https://www.epa.gov/dwucmr/occurrence-data-unregulated-contaminant-monitoring-rule#3.

B. What is the UCMR 5 sampling design?

1. This Final Rule
    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. The Assessment Monitoring tier is the
largest in scope and is used to collect data to determine the national
occurrence of ``List 1'' contaminants for the purpose of estimating
national population exposure. Assessment Monitoring 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 AWIA, the Assessment Monitoring
approach was redesigned for UCMR 5 and reflects the plan, subject to
additional appropriations being made available for this purpose, that
would require all systems serving 3,300 or more people and a
representative sample of systems serving 25 to 3,299 people to perform
monitoring (USEPA, 2021a). The population-weighted sampling design for
the nationally representative sample of small systems (used in previous
UCMR cycles to select 800 systems serving 25 to 10,000 people and used
in UCMR 5 to select 800 systems serving 25 to 3,299 people) 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 percent confidence level is 1 percent for an expected contaminant occurrence of 1 percent at
the national level. Assessment Monitoring is the primary tier used for
contaminants and generally relies on analytical methods that use more
common techniques that 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
exclusively requiring Assessment Monitoring in UCMR 5. This monitoring
approach yields the most complete set of occurrence data to support
EPA's decision making.
2. Summary of Major Comments and EPA Responses
    Many commenters expressed support for the increase in small system
Assessment Monitoring, with no opposition to the inclusion of all PWSs
serving 3,300 to 10,000 people in UCMR 5. The U.S. Small Business
Administration asked that EPA clarify small-system responsibilities in
the event of inadequate EPA funding to fully support the envisioned
monitoring.
    Recognizing the uncertainty in funding from year-to-year, the
agency will implement a ``monitor if notified'' approach for PWSs
serving 25 to 10,000 people. In 2022, EPA will notify the approximately
6,000 small PWSs tentatively selected for the expanded UCMR 5 (all PWSs
serving 3,300 to 10,000 people and a statistically-based, nationally
representative set of 800 PWSs serving 25 to 3,299 people) of their
anticipated UCMR 5 monitoring requirements; that initial notification
will specify that monitoring is conditioned on EPA having sufficient
funds and will be confirmed in a second notification. Upon receiving
appropriations for a particular year, EPA will determine the number of
small PWSs whose monitoring is covered by the appropriations, and
notify the included small PWSs of their upcoming requirements at least
six months prior to their scheduled monitoring. EPA has made minor
edits to 40 CFR 141.35 and 40 CFR 141.40 for consistency with this
approach.
    Additionally, to ensure that EPA has access to a nationally
representative set of small-system data, even in the absence of
sufficient appropriations to support the planned monitoring by small
systems, a statistically-based nationally representative set of 800
PWSs will also be selected from among the PWSs serving 25 to 10,000
people. An updated description of the statistical approach for the
nationally representative samples for UCMR 5 is available in the docket
as ``Selection of Nationally Representative Public Water Systems for
the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule: 2021 Update'' (USEPA
2021a).
    To minimize the impact of the final rule on small systems (those
serving 25 to 10,000 people), EPA pays for their sample kit
preparation, sample shipping fees, and sample analysis. Large systems
(those serving more than 10,000 people) pay for all costs associated
with their monitoring. Exhibit 5 of this preamble shows a summary of
the estimated number of PWSs subject to monitoring.

                         Exhibit 5--Systems Expected To Participate in UCMR 5 Monitoring
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               National sample: Assessment monitoring design    Total number of
    System size (number of people served)    ------------------------------------------------  systems per size
                                                             List 1 chemicals                      category
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Small Systems \1\ (25-3,299)................  800 randomly selected systems (CWSs and                    \4\ 800
                                               NTNCWSs).
Small Systems\1\ \2\ (3,300-10,000).........  All systems (CWSs and NTNCWSs) subject to the            \4\ 5,147
                                               availability of appropriations.

Large Systems \3\ (10,001 and over).........  All systems (CWSs and NTNCWSs)................               4,364
                                                                                -------------------
    Total...................................  ..............................................              10,311
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ EPA pays for all analytical costs associated with monitoring at small systems.
\2\ Counts for small PWSs serving 3,300-10,000 people are approximate.
\3\ Large system counts are approximate.
\4\ In the absence of appropriations to support monitoring at all PWSs serving 3,300 to 10,000 people, EPA could
  instead include as few as 400 PWSs serving 25 to 3,299 people and 400 PWSs serving 3,300 to 10,000 people (for
  a representative sample of 800 PWSs serving 25 to 10,000 people).

C. What is the sampling frequency and timing?

1. This Final Rule
    This final rule maintains the proposed sampling frequency and
timeframe for Assessment Monitoring. 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 in this document, the number of water systems expected to
participate in UCMR 5 is significantly greater under this final rule
per AWIA). Water systems will be required to collect samples based on
the typical UCMR sampling frequency and timeframe as follows: For
surface water, ground water under the direct influence of surface
water, and mixed locations, sampling will take place for four
consecutive quarters over the course of 12 months (total of 4 sampling
events). Sampling events will occur three months apart. For example, if
the first sample is taken in January, the second will then occur
anytime in April, the third will occur anytime in July, and the fourth
will occur anytime in October. For ground water locations, sampling
will take place twice over the course of 12 months (total of 2 sampling
events). Sampling events will occur five to seven months apart. For
example, if the first sample is taken in April, the second sample will
then occur anytime in September, October, or November.
    EPA, in conjunction with the states, will initially determine
schedules (year and months of monitoring) for large water systems.
Thereafter, large PWSs will have an opportunity to modify this initial
schedule for planning purposes or other reasons (e.g., to spread costs
over multiple years, if a sampling location will be closed during the
scheduled month of monitoring, etc.). EPA will schedule and coordinate
small system monitoring (for PWSs serving 3,300 to 10,000 people and
for the nationally representative sample of smaller PWSs) by working
closely with partnering states. State Monitoring Plans provide an
opportunity for states to review and revise the initial sampling
schedules developed by EPA (see discussion of State Monitoring Plans in
Section III.D of this preamble).
2. Summary of Major Comments and EPA Responses
    EPA received two comments recommending that the agency reduce the
sampling frequency for both ground water (GW) and surface water (SW)
systems, including a suggestion that UCMR 5 require only one sample per
system. EPA concluded that less frequent data collection would affect
the integrity of the data and result in insufficient data to fulfill
the needs envisioned by the 1996 SDWA Amendments, particularly with
regard to supporting the Administrator's regulatory determinations and
drinking water regulation development. Maintaining the proposed
sampling frequency allows the resulting contaminant data to be analyzed
for temporal variability, in addition to between-system variability.
These analyses are not possible with a single-sample structure. When
making regulatory determinations, EPA evaluates the number of systems
(and populations) with means or single measured values above health
levels of concern, as both values provide important information.
    EPA acknowledges that based on UCMR 3 (77 FR 26072, May 2, 2012
(USEPA, 2012)) data, the correlation between results from multiple
sample events can be high; however, the approach suggested by
commenters would yield less accurate data for several reasons. EPA's
assessment of sampling frequency using UCMR 3 and UCMR 4 data (see
Appendix 2 in ``Response to Comments on the Fifth Unregulated
Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR 5) Proposal,'' (USEPA, 2021i), which
can be found in the electronic docket listed in the ADDRESSES section
of this preamble) shows that for both SW and GW systems, there are
numerous cases where occurrence is notably different between sample
events. Focusing first on UCMR 3 results for PWS with SW sources, the
number of sample points at which PFOS was measured at or above the MRL
was 108 percent greater when considering multiple sample events, versus
only considering the first sample event. There were multiple occasions
where the results from the first sample event were below the health-
based reference concentration while subsequent results were above it.
Looking at UCMR 3 results for PWSs with GW sources, PFOS was measured
at or above the MRL at 26 percent more sample points in the second
sample event relative to the first. Similar to the UCMR 3 results for
SW systems, there were multiple occasions where the second result from
a GW system exceeded the reference concentration while the first result
did not.
    Some commenters suggested that between-system variability is much
greater for PFAS than within-system variability. While it may be less
than between-system variability, within-system variability can still be
important. Shifting to a single sample prevents reasonable assessments
of within-system variability and limits the ability to observe between-
system variability estimates. This would then drastically reduce the
ability to characterize uncertainty.
    Additionally, although the provisions of AWIA could include the
addition of approximately 5,200 more PWSs to UCMR 5 relative to earlier
cycles and thus capture more spatial variation in the resulting
dataset, it is important to note that spatial variation is different
than temporal or seasonal variation. Capturing more of one does not
diminish the influence of the others on national occurrence data and
reducing the frequency of sampling eliminates

the possibility of analyzing the resulting data for temporal variation.
In addition, statistical means based on two measurements have
considerably less error than a single measurement per system, and
provide a more robust dataset for future regulatory decisions. Having
more than one sample event also greatly reduces the chance of
underestimating the true proportion of occurrence of the contaminant in
drinking water (i.e., exposure).
    Regarding monitoring frequency and burden, EPA notes that the
agency allows large GW systems the opportunity to reduce monitoring
burden by using approved representative entry points (40 CFR
141.35(c)(3)) as described in Section IV.D of this preamble.
Representative monitoring plans will result in fewer samples and thus
time and cost savings to the PWS. Consecutive systems with multiple
connections from a particular wholesaler are also permitted to choose
one entry point as representative, thus reducing burden.

D. Where are the sampling locations and what is representative
monitoring?

1. This Final Rule
    Consistent with past UCMR cycles, sample collection for UCMR 5
contaminants will take place at the entry point to the distribution
system (EPTDS). As during past UCMRs and as described in 40 CFR
141.35(c)(3) of this preamble, this final rule will 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 final rule
provides greater flexibility to PWSs in submitting GWRMPs to EPA. Plans
must be submitted to EPA six months prior to the PWS's scheduled sample
collection, instead of by a specified date; those PWSs scheduled to
collect samples in 2024 or 2025 will 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 a 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 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.
2. Summary of Major Comments and EPA Responses
    EPA received multiple comments regarding GWRMPs and representative
sampling for wholesale systems and consecutive connections. Generally,
commenters supported the continued use of GWRMPS and the use of
previously approved monitoring plans. An additional supporting
document, titled, ``Instructions for Preparing a Ground Water
Representative Monitoring Plan for the Unregulated Contaminant
Monitoring Rule,'' (USEPA, 2021j) has been placed in the electronic
docket listed in the ADDRESSES section of this preamble.
    Several commenters recommended that EPA not require monitoring by
consecutive systems that purchase 100 percent of their water from
wholesale systems that are already subject to UCMR 5 monitoring. They
requested that EPA instead require wholesalers to identify the PWSIDs
of consecutive systems receiving water from the wholesaler, and that
EPA rely on wholesaler monitoring in lieu of monitoring by the
consecutive systems. EPA has decided to require monitoring by
consecutive systems to conduct monitoring in accordance with UCMR 5.
Previous UCMR data demonstrate that wholesalers and purchasers can have
different analytical results (see Appendix 3 in ``Response to Comments
on the Fifth Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR 5)
Proposal,'' (USEPA, 2021i), which can be found in the electronic docket
listed in the ADDRESSES section of this preamble). For example, pairing
the results from wholesaler to consecutive connections for 190
manganese results from UCMR 4 (81 FR 92666, December 20, 2016 (USEPA,
2016)), one-third of the results are higher at the wholesaler and one-
third of the results are higher at the consecutive connection, with
one-third of all results being comparable [0.4 [mu]g/L].
The agency therefore elected to maintain the proposed approach in which
all eligible consecutive systems must monitor, irrespective of
monitoring being conducted by the wholesale system from which they
purchase drinking water.

E. How long do laboratories and PWSs have to report data?

1. This Final Rule
    EPA is maintaining the revised reporting timeframes for
laboratories and PWSs as proposed. For UCMR 5, laboratories have 90
days (versus 120 days in prior UCMR cycles) from the sample collection
date to post and approve analytical results in SDWARS for PWS review.
Large PWSs have 30 days (versus 60 days in prior UCMR cycles) to review
and approve the analytical results posted to SDWARS. As with the UCMR 4
requirements, data will be considered approved and available for state
and EPA review if the PWS takes no action within their allotted review
period.
    In the proposed rule for UCMR 5, EPA noted that multiple states
have expressed an interest in earlier access to UCMR data (see Docket
ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2020-0530). EPA believes that the shorter timeframes
for posting and approving data are feasible and reasonable based on our
experience with UCMR reporting to date.
2. Summary of Major Comments and EPA Responses
    Commenters generally agreed with the revised timeframes for
laboratories to post and approve analytical results in SDWARS. The 90-
day laboratory timeframe makes UCMR results more readily available to
interested stakeholders and states. Some commenters supported the
timely reporting of data by laboratories to ensure that PWSs have
adequate time to reconcile QC issues, especially those that may require
a PWS to resample. Some expressed concerns that the revised timeframe
could be challenging for laboratories. Some suggested that the shorter
timeframe be conditioned on consistent functionality and availability
of SDWARS.
    Commenters generally agreed with the changes in the timeframes for
large PWSs to review and approve analytical results posted to SDWARS,
though several requested that EPA maintain the 60-day review period.
    EPA has observed that many laboratories are routinely posting data
to SDWARS within 90 days of sample collection and that many large PWSs
are approving and submitting data within 30 days of their laboratory
posting the

data. Judging by reporting for 2020 monitoring under UCMR 4 (81 FR
92666, December 20, 2016 (USEPA, 2016)), more than 75 percent of
laboratories posted and approved data within 90 days, and more than 85
percent of large PWSs who chose to act on their data, did so within 30
days of the laboratory posting it. During UCMR 3 and UCMR 4, less than
half of large PWSs chose to actively review and approve their data, as
opposed to letting the results default to ``approved'' status after the
review period. The many large PWSs that have routinely chosen to not
review and approve their data will not be impacted by the revised
timeframe for PWS data review for UCMR 5. See also Appendix 5 in
``Response to Comments on the Fifth Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring
Rule (UCMR 5) Proposal,'' (USEPA, 2021i), which can be found in the
electronic docket listed in the ADDRESSES section of this preamble.
    EPA does not anticipate functionality or availability issues with
SDWARS during UCMR 5 but is prepared to make case-by-case exceptions
for reporting timeframes should significant issues occur with the
reporting system.

F. What are the reporting requirements for UCMR 5?

1. This Final Rule
    Today's final rule removes 1 of the proposed data elements
(``Direct Potable Reuse Water Information'') and maintains the 27
others described in the proposed rule. EPA has updated some of the
data-element definitions for clarity and consistency in the reporting
requirements. Please see Table 1 of 40 CFR 141.35(e) of this preamble
for the complete list of data elements, definitions and drop-down
options that will be provided in the data reporting system.
2. Summary of Major Comments and EPA Responses
a. Data Elements
    EPA received multiple comments on the proposed contaminant-specific
data elements, with some commenters questioning the quality,
reliability, and utility of some of the data that would be provided to
the agency per the proposed data element requirements. Several
commenters requested that EPA include rationale explaining the intended
use of such data. EPA has updated the data elements for clarity (e.g.,
clarifying treatment types, and abbreviations for them; adding the
treatment option ``NMT = not modified after testing'') and has provided
additional rationale (including describing how the information could
impact regulatory decision making and risk-management strategies) in
the ``Response to Comments on the Fifth Unregulated Contaminant
Monitoring Rule (UCMR 5) Proposal,'' (USEPA, 2021i), available in the
UCMR 5 public docket (see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble). EPA
acknowledges the data collected will have some limitations but believes
that the collection of the information is still valuable. In addition,
EPA notes the modest burden associated with the collection.
b. Reporting State Data
    EPA received several comments suggesting that PWSs be permitted to
submit occurrence data collected under state-based monitoring, in lieu
of conducting UCMR 5 monitoring, to reduce the monitoring burden. In
those cases where the monitoring required by a state is aligned with
the requirements of UCMR 5, PWSs may be able to conduct PFAS monitoring
that meets the needs of their state and UCMR 5, with the understanding
that UCMR 5 requirements must be met. This includes the requirement
that PFAS samples be analyzed by a UCMR 5-approved laboratory using EPA
Method 533 and Method 537.1. EPA offers flexibility for PWSs to
reschedule their UCMR 5 monitoring, and PWSs may do so to coordinate it
with their state-required monitoring. PWSs wishing to conduct ``dual
purpose'' monitoring (i.e., concurrently meeting the state and UCMR 5
needs) may contact their state or EPA, as appropriate, if there are
questions about whether the state and UCMR 5 requirements are being
met.

G. What are the UCMR 5 Minimum Reporting Levels (MRLs) and how were
they determined?

1. This Final Rule
    EPA is maintaining the proposed minimum reporting levels for the
UCMR 5 contaminants. EPA establishes MRLs to ensure consistency in the
quality of the information reported to the agency. As defined in 40 CFR
141.40(a)(5)(iii) of this preamble, the MRL is the minimum quantitation
level that, with 95 percent confidence, can be achieved by capable
analysts at 75 percent 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 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 40 CFR 141.40(a)(3), Table 1 of this preamble, 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, 2021f), available
in the electronic docket (see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble).
    The multiple laboratory LCMRLs were then processed through a
statistical routine to derive an MRL that, with 95 percent confidence,
is predicted to be attainable by 75 percent 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).
2. Summary of Major Comments and EPA Responses
    Some commenters recommended that EPA establish lower MRLs for the
29 PFAS in UCMR 5. MRLs used for the UCMR program are based on
calculations that account for the ability of laboratories to report
accurate and precise measurements with a specific statistical
confidence. Based on the results from multiple laboratories that
participated in MRL-setting studies, EPA concluded that the proposed
MRLs represent the lowest feasible levels for a national MRL measure.
Sensitivity (i.e., quantitation limit) may improve with time,
experience, and instrumentation advances.

H. What are the requirements for laboratory analysis of field reagent
blank samples?

1. This Final Rule
    EPA initially proposed that laboratories analyze all field reagent
blank (FRB) samples, along with the corresponding field samples, to
reduce the possibility of invalidating a positive field sample result
(i.e., a field sample result at or above the MRL) because of FRB hold
times being exceeded.

2. Summary of Major Comments and EPA Responses
    EPA did not receive any comments expressing concerns with the
laboratory approval process; however, the agency did receive a comment
on the FRB sample analysis criteria, suggesting that the agency not
require analysis of every FRB sample. EPA Method 537.1 and Method 533,
used for PFAS analysis, require collection of a corresponding FRB
sample from each unique sampling location for each sampling event. The
methods require that the FRB be analyzed if there is a positive result
for a PFAS analyte in a corresponding field sample. Based on further
consideration, EPA is now providing laboratories with discretion as to
whether they analyze every FRB sample proactively or only those
associated with positive field sample results. This is with the
understanding that laboratories must analyze field samples promptly
enough such that the corresponding FRB analyses, if needed, may be
completed within the prescribed hold time. Compliance with the method
hold-time requirements, and other provisions of the methods, is a
condition of maintaining laboratory approval. EPA is studying the
possibility of extending the FRB hold times for EPA Method 537.1 and
Method 533, and will communicate the results of the studies with the
approved laboratories.

I. How will EPA support risk communication for UCMR 5 results?

    EPA received comments requesting that the agency develop and
provide risk communication materials to support interpretation and
characterization of UCMR 5 results. EPA intends to publish a
``reference concentration'' summary document with available EPA health
values; provide a template for PWSs to consider using in communicating
with their customers about the detection of PFAS in drinking water; and
provide other supporting material as risk-related information becomes
available.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders
can be found at http://www2.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.

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 ``Information Collection Request for the Final Unregulated
Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR 5),'' (USEPA, 2021b) ICR Number 2040-
0304, is also available in the docket (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2020-
0530). A summary of the ICR can be found in Section I.C of this
preamble.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    The information collection activities in this final rule have been
submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
under the PRA. The Information Collection Request (ICR) document
(USEPA, 2021b) that EPA prepared has been assigned EPA ICR number ICR
2683.02. You can find a copy of the ICR in the docket for this final
rule, and it is briefly summarized here. The information collection
requirements are not enforceable until OMB approves them.
    The information that EPA will collect under this final rule
fulfills the statutory requirements of Section1445(a)(2) of 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) as described in 40 CFR 141.35(e). The information
collected will support EPA's decisions as to whether or not to regulate
particular contaminants under SDWA. Reporting is mandatory. The data
are not subject to confidentiality protection.
    The 5-year UCMR 5 period spans 2022-2026. 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 UCMR 5 period (i.e., 2022-2024). Prior to expiration of
the initial UCMR 5 ICR, EPA will seek to extend the ICR and thus
receive approval to collect information under the PRA in the remaining
two years of the UCMR 5 period (2025-2026).
    EPA received several comments regarding cost and burden of the
proposed rule. Those comments recommended that EPA provide more
accurate cost estimates. EPA's response is detailed more fully in the
``Response to Comments on the Fifth Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring
Rule (UCMR 5) Proposal,'' (USEPA, 2021i), which can be found in the
electronic docket listed in the ADDRESSES section of this preamble.
    EPA has reviewed and, as appropriate, revised the cost and burden
figures for UCMR 5; this includes using updated unit cost estimates for
sample analysis. The annual burden and cost estimates described in this
section are based on the implementation assumptions described in
Section III of this preamble, among them the inclusion of all systems
serving 3,300 to 10,000 people and a representative sample of smaller
systems. As such, those estimates represent an upper bound. If EPA does
not receive the necessary appropriations in one or more of the
collections years--and thus collects data from fewer small systems--the
actual costs would be lower than those estimated here. In general,
burden hours were calculated by:
    1. Determining the activities that PWSs and states would complete
to comply with UCMR activity;
    2. Estimating the number of hours per activity;
    3. Estimating the number of respondents per activity; and
    4. Multiplying the hours per activity by the number of respondents
for that activity.
    Respondents/affected entities: The respondents/affected entities
are small PWSs (those serving 25 to 10,000 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 include
5,947 small PWSs, 4,364 large PWSs, and the 56 primacy agencies (50
States, one Tribal nation, and five Territories) for a total of 10,367
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 will sample an average of 2.8 times per PWS (i.e., number of
responses per PWS); large PWSs will sample and report an average of 3.2
times per PWS; and very large PWSs will sample and report an average of
3.7 times per PWS.
    Total estimated burden: 48,469 hours (per year). Burden is defined
at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    Total estimated cost: $9,404,007 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 the
EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. When OMB
approves this ICR, the agency will

announce that approval in the Federal Register and publish a technical
amendment to 40 CFR part 9 to display the OMB control number for the
approved information collection activities contained in this final
rule.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    For purposes of assessing the impacts of this final rule on small
entities, EPA considered small entities to be PWSs serving 25 to 10,000
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) Office of Advocacy, and finalized the
alternative definition in the Consumer Confidence Reports rulemaking
(63 FR 44512, August 19, 1998 (USEPA, 1998b)). As stated in that
document, the alternative definition applies to this regulation.

             Exhibit 6--Number of Publicly- and Privately-Owned Small Systems Subject to UCMR 5 \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             System size (number of people served)                Publicly-owned    Privately-owned   Total \2\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Ground Water
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
500 and under..................................................                42               126          168
501 to 3,300...................................................               320               121          441
3,301 to 10,000................................................             2,334               541        2,875
                                                                ------------------------------------------------
    Subtotal Ground Water......................................             2,696               788        3,484
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Surface Water (and Ground Water Under the Direct Influence of Surface Water)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
500 and under..................................................                 9                11           20
501 to 3,300...................................................               126                45          171
3,301 to 10,000................................................             1,762               510        2,272
                                                                ------------------------------------------------
    Subtotal Surface Water.....................................             1,897               566        2,463
                                                                ------------------------------------------------
        Total of Small Water Systems...........................             4,593             1,354        5,947
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In the absence of appropriations to support monitoring at all PWSs serving 3,300 to 10,000 people, EPA could
  instead include as few as 400 PWSs serving 25 to 3,299 people and 400 PWSs serving 3,300 to 10,000 people (for
  a representative sample of 800 PWSs serving 25 to 10,000 people).
\2\ PWS counts were adjusted to display as whole numbers in each size category.

    The basis for the UCMR 5 RFA certification is as follows: For the
5,947 small water systems that EPA anticipates will be affected, per
the planned monitoring, the average annual cost for complying with this
final rule represents an average of 0.02 percent of system revenues.
The average yearly cost to small systems to comply with UCMR 5 over the
5-year period of 2022-2026, is approximately $0.3 million. 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. 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 UCMR 5 small system monitoring, or 96 percent of total
small system testing costs. Exhibit 7 and Exhibit 8 of this preamble
present the estimated economic impacts in the form of a revenue test
for publicly- and privately-owned systems.

                    Exhibit 7--UCMR 5 Relative Cost Analysis for Small Publicly-Owned Systems
                                                 [2022-2026] \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                SBREFA
                                                  Annual number   Average annual  Average annual     criteria-
     System size (number of people served)         of systems       hours per        cost per      revenue test
                                                  impacted \2\        system          system          \3\ (%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Ground Water Systems
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
500 and under..................................               8              1.0          $40.65            0.09
501 to 3,300...................................              64              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..................................               2              1.4           54.39            0.07
501 to 3,300...................................              25              1.4           56.19            0.02
3,301 to 10,000................................             353              1.5           57.39           0.004
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In the absence of appropriations to support monitoring at all PWSs serving 3,300 to 10,000 people, EPA could
  instead include as few as 400 PWSs serving 25 to 3,299 people and 400 PWSs serving 3,300 to 10,000 people (for
  a representative sample of 800 PWSs serving 25 to 10,000 people).

\2\ 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.
\3\ Costs are presented as a percentage of median annual revenue for each size category.

                   Exhibit 8--UCMR 5 Relative Cost Analysis for Small Privately-Owned Systems
                                                 [2022-2026] \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                SBREFA
                                                   Annual number  Average annual  Average annual     criteria-
      System size (number of people served)         of systems       hours per       cost per      revenue test
                                                   impacted \2\       system          system          \3\ (%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Ground Water Systems
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
500 and under...................................              25             1.0          $40.65            0.48
501 to 3,300....................................              24             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...................................               2             1.4          $54.39            0.11
501 to 3,300....................................               9             1.4          $56.19            0.02
3,301 to 10,000.................................             102             1.5          $57.39           0.004
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In the absence of appropriations to support monitoring at all PWSs serving 3,300 to 10,000 people, EPA could
  instead include as few as 400 PWSs serving 25 to 3,299 people and 400 PWSs serving 3,300 to 10,000 people (for
  a representative sample of 800 PWSs serving 25 to 10,000 people).
\2\ PWS counts were adjusted to display as whole numbers in each size category. Includes the privately-owned
  portion of small systems subject to UCMR 5.
\3\ Costs are presented as a percentage of median annual revenue for each size category.

    Up to 9.4 percent of all small systems (i.e., up to 5,947 small
PWSs serving 25 to 10,000 people) will participate in UCMR 5 if EPA
receives the necessary appropriations to support its plan. EPA has
determined that participating small systems will experience an average
impact of 0.02 percent 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 5,947
small PWSs are comprised of all 5,147 systems serving between 3,300 and
10,000 people, and the representative group of 800 systems serving
between 25 and 3,299 people; the remainder of small systems will not
participate in UCMR 5 monitoring and will not be impacted.
    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. The
small entities subject to the requirements of this action along with a
description of the very minor impacts are previously addressed in this
section. Although this final 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 SDWA. EPA anticipates drawing on these
and additional funds, if available, to implement the plan and carry out
the expanded UCMR monitoring approach outlined in AWIA. We have
therefore concluded that this action will have no significant impact on
any directly regulated small entities.

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 SDWA
Section 1445(a)(2), Monitoring Program for Unregulated Contaminants.

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 in
this document, this final rule requires monitoring by all large PWSs.
Information in the SDWIS/Fed water system inventory indicates there are
approximately 27 large Tribal PWSs (serving 10,001 to 40,000 people).
EPA estimates the average annual cost to each of these large PWSs, over
the 5-year rule period, to be $1,783. 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). As planned,
UCMR 5 is expected to also require monitoring by all small PWSs serving
3,300 to 10,000 people and a nationally representative sample of small
PWSs serving 25 to 3,299 people. Information in the SDWIS/Fed water
system inventory indicates there are approximately 75 small Tribal PWSs
(serving 3,300 to 10,000 people). EPA estimates that less than 2
percent of small Tribal systems serving 25 to 3,299 people 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. All other small-PWS expenses (associated
with shipping and laboratory fees) are paid by EPA.
    EPA consulted with Tribal officials under the EPA 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,
titled, ``Summary of the Tribal Coordination and Consultation Process
for the Fifth Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR 5)
Proposal,'' is provided in the electronic docket listed in the
ADDRESSES section of this preamble.
    As required by section 7(a), the EPA's Tribal Consultation Official
has certified that the requirements of the executive order have been
met in a meaningful and timely manner. A copy of the certification is
included in the docket for this action.

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

    EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks
that EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children,
per the definition of ``covered regulatory action'' in section 2-202 of
the Executive Order. This action is not subject to Executive Order
13045 because it does not concern such an environmental health risk or
safety risk.

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

    This action is not a ``significant energy action'' because it is