Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 42 / Thursday, March 3, 2011 / Proposed Rules 11713 

payment only if means are authorized 

for payment of necessary expenses 

above such limits. 

§ 26.23 Certification process. 

(a) An appropriate State official may 

request in writing that the Attorney 

General determine whether the State 

meets the requirements for certification 

under § 26.22. 

(b) Upon receipt of a State’s request 

for certification, the Attorney General 

will make the request publicly available 

on the Internet (including any 

supporting materials included in the 

request) and publish a notice in the 

Federal Register— 

(1) Indicating that the State has 

requested certification; 

(2) Identifying the Internet address at 

which the public may view the State’s 

request for certification; and 

(3) Soliciting public comment on the 

request. 

(c) The State’s request will be 

reviewed by the Attorney General. The 

review will include consideration of 

timely public comments received in 

response to the Federal Register notice 

under paragraph (b) of this section. The 

certification will be published in the 

Federal Register if certification is 

granted. The certification will include a 

determination of the date the capital 

counsel mechanism qualifying the State 

for certification was established. 

(d) A certification by the Attorney 

General reflects the Attorney General’s 

determination that the State capital 

counsel mechanism reviewed under 

paragraph (c) of this section satisfies 28 

U.S.C. chapter 154’s requirements. A 

State may request a new certification by 

the Attorney General to ensure the 

continued applicability of chapter 154 

in cases in which State postconviction 

proceedings occur after a change or 

alleged change in the State’s certified 

capital counsel mechanism. Changes in 

a State’s capital counsel mechanism do 

not affect the applicability of chapter 

154 in any case in which a mechanism 

certified by the Attorney General existed 

throughout State postconviction 

proceedings in the case. 

Dated: February 25, 2011. 

Eric H. Holder, Jr., 

Attorney General. 

[FR Doc. 2011–4800 Filed 3–2–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–18–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 141 and 142 

[Docket No. OW–2009–0090; FRL–9274–2] 

RIN 2040–AF10 

Revisions to the Unregulated 

Contaminant Monitoring Regulation 

(UCMR 3) for Public Water Systems 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The 1996 amendments to the 

Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) 

require that the United States 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA 

or the Agency) establish criteria for a 

program to monitor unregulated 

contaminants and to publish a list of 

contaminants to be monitored every five 

years. This action meets the SDWA 

requirement by proposing the design for 

the third UCMR cycle (i.e., UCMR 3). 

EPA is proposing six EPA-developed 

analytical methods, and four equivalent 

consensus organization-developed 

methods to monitor for 28 new UCMR 

chemical contaminants. In addition, 

EPA proposes monitoring for two 

viruses, for a total of 30 UCMR 3 

contaminants. As envisioned, virus 

analysis (along with related analysis for 

pathogen indicators) would be 

conducted in laboratories under EPA 

contract. UCMR 3 provides EPA and 

other interested parties with 

scientifically valid data on the 

occurrence of these contaminants in 

drinking water, permitting the 

assessment of the number of people 

potentially being exposed and the levels 

of that exposure. These data are the 

primary source of occurrence and 

exposure information the Agency uses 

to determine whether to regulate these 

contaminants. In addition, as part of an 

Expedited Methods Update, this 

proposed action also would amend 

regulations concerning inorganic 

chemical sampling and analytical 

requirements. A minor editorial 

correction to the table moves methods 

from the ‘‘Other’’ column to the ‘‘ASTM’’ 

column, as it applies to the inorganic 

chemical sampling and analytical 

requirements. The UCMR program is not 

affected by these changes. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before May 2, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. OW–2009– 

0090, by one of the following methods: 

• http://www.regulations.gov. Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• E-mail: OW–Docket@epa.gov. 

• Mail: Send three copies of your 

comments and any enclosures to: Water 

Docket, United States Environmental 

Protection Agency, Mail Code 282211T, 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20460, Attention 

Docket ID No. OW–2009–0090. 

Commenters should use a separate 

paragraph for each issue discussed. In 

addition, please mail a copy of your 

comments on the information collection 

provisions to the Office of Information 

and Regulatory Affairs, Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB), Attn: 

Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th St., NW., 

Washington, DC 20503. 

• Hand Delivery: Deliver your 

comments to Water Docket, EPA Docket 

Center, Environmental Protection 

Agency, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution 

Ave., NW., Washington, DC, Attention 

Docket ID No. OW–2009–0090. Such 

deliveries are only accepted during the 

Docket’s normal hours of operation, and 

special arrangements should be made 

for deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–OW–2009–0090. 

EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through http:// 

www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The 

http://www.regulations.gov Web site is 

an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an e-mail comment directly 

to EPA without going through http:// 

www.regulations.gov your e-mail 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
11714 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 42 / Thursday, March 3, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the http:// 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

will be publicly available only in hard 

copy. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Water Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West, 

Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue, 

NW., Washington, DC. This Public 

Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 

4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

excluding legal holidays. The telephone 

number for the Public Reading Room is 

(202) 566–1744, and the Water Docket is 

(202) 566–2426. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

David J. Munch, Technical Support 

Center, Office of Ground Water and 

Drinking Water, United States 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Office of Water, 26 West Martin Luther 

King Drive (MS 140), Cincinnati, OH 

45268; telephone (513) 569–7843; or email at munch.dave@epa.gov; or Brenda 

D. Parris, Technical Support Center, 

Office of Ground Water and Drinking 

Water, United States Environmental 

Protection Agency, Office of Water, 26 

West Martin Luther King Drive (MS 

140), Cincinnati, Ohio 45268; telephone 

(513) 569–7961; or e-mail at 

parris.brenda@epa.gov. For general 

information, contact the Safe Drinking 

Water Hotline. Callers within the United 

States may reach the Hotline at (800) 

426–4791. The Hotline is open Monday 

through Friday, excluding legal 

holidays, from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m., Eastern 

time. The Safe Drinking Water Hotline 

may also be found on the Internet at: 

http://water.epa.gov/aboutow/ogwdw/ 

hotline/. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

Entities regulated by this action are 

public water systems (PWSs). All large 

community and non-transient noncommunity water systems serving more 

than 10,000 people would be required to 

monitor. A community water system 

(CWS) means a PWS which has at least 

15 service connections used by yearround residents or regularly serves an 

average of at least 25 year-round 

residents. A non-transient noncommunity water system (NTNCWS) 

means a PWS that is not a CWS and that 

regularly serves at least 25 of the same 

people over six months per year. Only 

a nationally representative sample of 

community and non-transient noncommunity systems serving 10,000 or 

fewer people would be required to 

monitor for chemical analytes (see 

USEPA, 2001 for a description of the 

statistical approach for the nationally 

representative sample). Transient noncommunity systems (i.e., systems that 

do not regularly serve at least 25 of the 

same people over six months per year) 

would not be required to monitor for the 

chemical analytes. However, transient 

ground water systems serving 1,000 or 

fewer would be subject to possible 

selection for virus monitoring. If 

selected, these systems would be 

required to permit EPA to sample and 

analyze for List 3 contaminants and 

pathogen indicators. EPA would pay for 

all sampling and analysis costs 

associated with virus monitoring at 

these small systems. States, Territories, 

and Tribes with primary enforcement 

responsibility (primacy) to administer 

the regulatory program for PWSs under 

the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) 

may participate in the implementation 

of UCMR 3 through Partnership 

Agreements (PAs) (see discussion of 

PAs in section III.G. of today’s action: 

‘‘What Is the States’ Role in the UCMR 

Program?’’). These primacy agencies 

may choose to conduct analyses to 

measure for contaminants in water 

samples collected for the UCMR 3; 

however, the PWS remains responsible 

for compliance. Regulated categories 

and entities are identified in the 

following table. 

Category Examples of potentially regulated entities NAICSa

State, Local, & Tribal 

Governments.

States, local and Tribal governments that analyze water samples on behalf of public water systems 

required to conduct such analysis; States, local and Tribal governments that directly operate community, transient and non-transient non-community water systems required to monitor.

924110 

Industry .......................... Private operators of community and non-transient non-community water systems required to monitor. 221310 

Municipalities .................. Municipal operators of community and non-transient non-community water systems required to monitor.924110 

a NAICS = North American Industry Classification System. 

This table is not exhaustive, but rather 

provides a guide for readers regarding 

entities likely to be regulated by this 

action. This table lists the types of 

entities that EPA is now aware may 

potentially be regulated by this action. 

Other types of entities not listed in the 

table could also be regulated. To 

determine whether your facility is 

regulated by this action, you should 

carefully examine the definition of PWS 

in § 141.2 of Title 40 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations, and applicability 

criteria in § 141.40(a)(1) and (2) of 

today’s proposed action. If you have 

questions regarding the applicability of 

this action to a particular entity, consult 

the persons listed in the preceding FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

B. Copies of This Document and Other 

Related Information 

This document is available for 

download at: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. For other related 

information, see preceding discussion 

on docket. 

Abbreviations and Acronyms 

μg/L Microgram per liter 

ASDWA Association of State Drinking 

Water Administrators 

ASTM American Society for Testing 

Materials 

CBI Confidential Business Information 

CCL Contaminant Candidate List 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

CWS Community water system 

DSMRT Distribution system maximum 

residence time 

EPA United States Environmental 

Protection Agency 

EPTDS Entry point to the distribution 

system 

FR Federal Register 

GC/MS Gas Chromatography/Mass 

Spectrometry 

GWUDI Ground water under the direct 

influence of surface water 

HCFC–22 Chlorodifluoromethane 

IC/MS Ion Chromatography/Mass 

Spectrometry 

ICR Information collection request 

IHS Indian Health Service 

LCMRL Lowest concentration minimum 

reporting level 

LC/MS/MS Liquid Chromatography/ 

Tandem Mass Spectrometry 

LFSM Laboratory fortified sample matrix 

LFSMD Laboratory fortified sample matrix 

duplicate 

MRL Minimum reporting level 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 42 / Thursday, March 3, 2011 / Proposed Rules 11715 

NAICS North American Industry 

Classification System 

NCOD National Drinking Water 

Contaminant Occurrence Database 

NPDWR National primary drinking water 

regulation 

NTNCWS Non-transient non-community 

water system 

NTTAA National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

OMB Office of Management and Budget 

PA Partnership Agreement 

PFBS Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid 

PFHpA Perfluoroheptanoic acid 

PFHxS Perfluorohexane sulfonic acid 

PFNA Perfluorononanoic acid 

PFOA Perfluorooctanoic acid 

PFOS Perfluorooctane sulfonic acid 

PT Proficiency testing 

PWS Public water system 

qPCR Quantitative polymerase chain 

reaction 

RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act 

SM Standard Methods 

SRF State Revolving Fund 

SBA Small Business Administration 

SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act 

SDWIS/Fed Federal Safe Drinking Water 

Information System 

UCMR Unregulated Contaminant 

Monitoring Regulation 

UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 

1995 

USEPA United States Environmental 

Protection Agency 

VOC Volatile Organic Compound 

Table of Contents 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

B. Copies of This Document and Other 

Related Information 

II. Statutory Authority and Background 

A. What is the statutory authority for this 

action? 

B. How does EPA meet these statutory 

requirements? 

C. How are the contaminant candidate list, 

the National Contaminant Occurrence 

Database, and the UCMR interrelated? 

III. Requirements of the Unregulated 

Contaminant Monitoring Program 

A. What are the changes being proposed for 

UCMR 3? 

B. What priority contaminants were 

selected for UCMR 3? 

1. Twenty Eight Chemicals 

2. Two Viruses 

C. How Were minimum reporting levels 

determined? 

D. How would laboratories conduct UCMR 

analyses? 

E. What are the new applicability 

considerations? 

1. Applicability Based on Population 

Served 

2. Applicability for Transient Systems 

F. UCMR 3 Timeline and Sampling Design 

Considerations 

1. UCMR 3 Reporting Considerations 

2. Assessment Monitoring 

3. Pre-Screen Testing 

G. What is the states’ role in the UCMR 

program? 

IV. Cost of This Proposed Action 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions that 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions 

to Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations 

VI. Public Involvement in Regulation 

Development 

VII. References 

II. Statutory Authority and Background 

A. What is the statutory authority for 

this action? 

Section 1445(a)(2) of the Safe 

Drinking Water Act (SDWA), as 

amended in 1996, requires that once 

every five years, beginning in August 

1999, the United States Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) issue a new 

list of no more than 30 unregulated 

contaminants to be monitored by public 

water systems (PWSs). It also requires 

that EPA enter the monitoring data into 

the Agency’s National Drinking Water 

Contaminant Occurrence Database 

(NCOD). EPA’s Unregulated 

Contaminant Monitoring Regulation 

(UCMR) program must ensure that only 

a national representative sample of 

PWSs serving 10,000 or fewer people 

would be required to monitor. EPA must 

vary the frequency and schedule for 

monitoring based on the number of 

persons served, the source of supply, 

and the contaminants likely to be found. 

B. How does EPA meet these statutory 

requirements? 

Today’s notice proposes 30 

contaminants for monitoring during the 

third five-year cycle, referred to as 

‘‘UCMR 3.’’ These contaminants include: 

28 chemicals using six analytical 

methods and/or four equivalent 

consensus organization-developed 

methods, and two viruses using one 

analytical method. EPA has developed a 

proposed contaminant list (Exhibit 1) 

and sampling design for UCMR 3 (2012– 

2016) with input from both stakeholders 

and an EPA–State working group. 

EXHIBIT 1—PROPOSED CONTAMINANT LISTS

List 1, Assessment Monitoring 

17-b-estradiol chlorodifluoromethane (HCFC–22) 

17-a-ethynylestradiol (ethinyl estradiol) bromochloromethane (Halon 1011) 

estriol 1,4-dioxane 

equilin vanadium 

estrone molybdenum 

testosterone cobalt 

4-androstene-3,17-dione strontium 

1,2,3-trichloropropane chlorate 

1,3-butadiene perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS) 

chloromethane (methyl chloride) perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) 

1,1-dichloroethane perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA) 

n-propylbenzene perfluorohexane sulfonic acid (PFHxS) 

bromomethane (methyl bromide) perfluoroheptanoic acid (PFHpA) 

sec-butylbenzene perfluorobutanesulfonic acid (PFBS) 

List 3, Pre-Screen Testing 

enteroviruses noroviruses 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
11716 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 42 / Thursday, March 3, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

EPA published the first list for the 

Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring 

Regulation cycle (i.e., UCMR 1) in the 

Federal Register on September 17, 1999 

(64 FR 50556), and the second list (i.e., 

UCMR 2) on January 4, 2007 (72 FR 

367). The monitoring lists that were 

applicable under UCMR 1 and 2 are 

available at: http://water.epa.gov/ 

lawsregs/rulesregs/sdwa/ucmr/. 

In UCMR 1, EPA established a threetiered approach for monitoring 

contaminants based on the availability 

of analytical methods. Assessment 

Monitoring for List 1 contaminants 

typically relies on analytical methods 

that are in common use in drinking 

water laboratories. Screening Survey 

monitoring for List 2 contaminants 

relies on newly developed analytical 

methods that are not commonly used in 

drinking water laboratories. Laboratory 

capacity to perform List 2 analyses is 

expected to be limited. Finally, UCMR 

1 established the option of Pre-Screen 

Testing for List 3 contaminants to 

address contaminants with analytical 

methods that are in an early stage of 

development. The expectation was that 

it would be used at a limited number of 

systems determined to be most 

vulnerable to the targeted contaminants. 

For UCMR 2, EPA built on this 

established structure, and instituted 

some changes to the rule design. These 

changes were based upon lessons 

learned during UCMR 1. All large PWSs, 

serving more than 10,000 people, and a 

nationally representative selection of 

800 small PWSs serving 10,000 or fewer 

people monitored for List 1 

contaminants. This monitoring was 

conducted during a continuous 12- 

month period during the January 2008 

to December 2010 sampling time frame 

(quarterly for surface water systems, and 

twice, at 6-month intervals, for ground 

water systems). Systems subject to 

UCMR 2 included community water 

systems (CWSs) and non-transient noncommunity water systems (NTNCWSs), 

except those systems that purchase all 

of their finished water from another 

PWS. 

EPA designed the Assessment 

Monitoring sampling frame to ensure 

that sample results would yield a high 

level of confidence and a low margin of 

error. The design for a nationally 

representative sample of small systems 

called for the sample to be stratified by 

water source type (ground or surface 

water), service size category, and State 

(where each State is allocated a 

minimum of two systems in its State 

Monitoring Plan). With monitoring data 

from all large PWSs (a census of all large 

systems) and a statistically 

representative sample of 800 small 

PWSs (for a total of over 4,000 systems), 

UCMR1 and UCMR 2 Assessment 

Monitoring provided sample data 

suitable to characterize exposure, as 

would UCMR 3. Twenty eight chemicals 

are being proposed for Assessment 

Monitoring under UCMR 3. 

For the UCMR 2 Screening Survey, 

monitoring for List 2 contaminants was 

conducted by approximately 400 PWSs 

serving more than 100,000 people (i.e., 

a census of all systems in this largest 

size category), with a randomly selected 

sample of 320 PWSs serving between 

10,001 and 100,000 people, and 480 

small PWSs serving 10,000 or fewer 

people (EPA included additional PWSs 

in the Screening Survey design under 

UCMR 2—as compared to UCMR 1—to 

increase the statistical power of the 

sample). During UCMR 2, Screening 

Survey systems were required to 

monitor during a continuous 12-month 

period during the time frame of January 

2008 to December 2010 (quarterly for 

surface water systems, and twice, at 6- 

month intervals, for ground water 

systems). With approximately 1,200 

systems participating in the Screening 

Survey, sufficient data were generated 

to provide an overall national estimate 

of population exposure. No List 2 

Screening Survey monitoring is being 

proposed under UCMR 3. 

As under UCMR 1, no Pre-Screen 

Testing was conducted during the 

UCMR 2. However, in UCMR 3, two 

viruses are proposed for Pre-Screen 

monitoring. 

EPA is proposing that UCMR 3 

include: Assessment Monitoring for 28 

chemicals; no Screening Survey; and, 

Pre-Screen Testing for two viruses. 

Other proposed changes between UCMR 

2 and UCMR 3 are summarized in 

section III.A. ‘‘What Are the Changes 

Being Proposed for UCMR 3?’’, and 

discussed in further detail throughout 

today’s proposed rule preamble. 

C. How are the contaminant candidate 

list, the National Contaminant 

Occurrence Database, and the UCMR 

interrelated? 

The 1996 amendments to SDWA 

instituted the Contaminant Candidate 

List (CCL) and UCMR programs to 

provide information EPA needs to 

determine which drinking water 

contaminants have the greatest potential 

to present a meaningful opportunity to 

reduce health risk through a national 

primary drinking water regulation 

(NPDWR). The CCL is the primary 

mechanism for the identification of 

contaminants that may require 

regulation while UCMR provides EPA 

with the data necessary to determine if 

a contaminant occurs at a frequency and 

concentration that would be a public 

health concern. The CCL and UCMR are 

coordinated parts of EPA’s risk 

management process, and they support 

each other. The UCMR sampling 

program is limited by statute to 30 

contaminants at one time, and was 

designed in consideration of the 

technical difficulty and expense of 

analyzing up to 30 contaminants, as 

well as their potential to occur in 

treated drinking water at levels of public 

health concern. The data collected 

through the UCMR program are being 

stored in the NCOD to: facilitate 

analysis and review of contaminant 

occurrence; guide the conduct of the 

CCL process; and support the 

Administrator’s determination whether 

to regulate a contaminant in the interest 

of protecting public health, as required 

under SDWA section 1412 (b)(1). 

Results of the UCMR 1 and 2 monitoring 

can be viewed by the public at EPA’s 

UCMR Web site: http://water.epa.gov/ 

lawsregs/rulesregs/sdwa/ucmr/data.cfm. 

III. Requirements of the Unregulated 

Contaminant Monitoring Program 

A. What are the changes being proposed 

for UCMR 3? 

EPA developed, and is proposing in 

today’s action, a slightly revised design 

for UCMR 3 based on experience with 

UCMR 1 and UCMR 2. EPA reviewed 

various aspects of the UCMR 1 and 2 

programs and identified several critical 

changes that would improve 

implementation. EPA’s proposed 

approach and rationale for changes are 

described in the following sections. Key 

aspects of the UCMR program that 

would remain the same include direct 

implementation of the rule by EPA, the 

design of Assessment Monitoring, and 

EPA funding for the small system 

testing. In addition to requesting 

comment on the proposed list of 

contaminants, EPA also requests 

comment on: Monitoring based on retail 

population; revised data elements; and 

other changes between UCMR 2 and 

UCMR 3 that are outlined in Exhibit 2. 

Updates to Web addresses, applicability 

dates, corrections of minor 

typographical errors, and other minor 

clerical edits are reflected in rule 

language, but do not appear in Exhibit 

2. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 42 / Thursday, March 3, 2011 / Proposed Rules 11717 

EXHIBIT 2—NOTABLE CHANGES BEING PROPOSED FOR UCMR 3 

Rule section 

Description of change 

Corresponding 

preamble 

Number Title/description section 

141.35(a) and 141.40(a) ......... Population-based applicability 

and related applicability 

date.

Base applicability on retail population. Under UCMR 1 and 

2, systems that purchased all of their water were not required to monitor. These systems would now be subject 

to UCMR monitoring requirements. The new SDWIS/Fed 

applicability date (i.e., the date used to determine which 

systems are subject to monitoring) is also specified 

III.E. 

141.35(c)(3)(ii) ......................... Demonstrating representative 

ground water sampling locations.

Clarifies that when identifying a representative well, the well 

must be one of the higher annual volume producing and 

consistently active wells. Should this location go off-line, 

an alternative location must be sampled.

III.F. 

141.35(c)(6)(ii) and 

141.40(a)(5)(vi).

Reporting schedule ................ Reduces time for labs to electronically report results (from 

120 to 60 days); and for systems to review, approve, and 

report data (from 60 to 30 days).

III.F. 

141.35(c)(6) and 141.35(d)(2) Reporting monitoring results .. Requires small and large systems to report all data elements in Table 1 with each sample. Previously, only a 

subset of the data elements were to be reported with 

each sample.

III.F. 

141.35(e) ................................. Data elements ........................ Revises Table 1 of § 141.35 to: 

• Add the zip code, optional zip code extension, and 

zip codes served to Data Element 4—Sampling Point 

Identification Code.

• Clarify and update the definition of Data Element 6— 

Disinfectant Type.

III.F. and V.J. 

141.40(a)(1) ............................. Applicability to transient systems.Removes exemption for transient systems, which would 

now be subject to monitoring for List 3 contaminants if 

notified by EPA or State.

III.E. 

141.40(a)(2)(ii)(C) and 

141.40(a)(3).

Pre-Screen Testing viruses 

and indicators.

Systems participating in List 3 monitoring would be required 

to allow EPA to monitor for enterovirus and norovirus and 

collect specified pathogen indicators.

III.B. and III.F. 

141.40(a)(3) ............................. Analytes to be monitored and 

related specifications.

Revises Table 1 of this section to include: ............................

New list of 28 priority contaminants, with 6 EPA-developed and 4 consensus organization developed analytical methods, as well as new monitoring dates of 

January 2013 through December 2015.

III.B. and III.F. 

141.40(a)(4)(i)(B) ..................... Sampling requirements—frequency.Specifies that schedules must be adjusted based on sample 

point availability. Clarifies that sampling points within a 

system may have different schedules.

Also, revises Table 2 of this section to include monitoring 

requirements for microbiological contaminants for ground 

water systems at a frequency of two times during a consecutive 12-month period.

III.F. 

141.40(a)(4)(i)(C) .................... Location ................................. Requires systems conducting Assessment Monitoring to collect metal and chlorate samples at distribution system 

maximum residence time (DSMRT) sampling locations. If 

these locations are not defined, requires PWS to collect 

samples at locations that best represents the maximum 

residence time in the distribution system.

III.F. 

141.40(a)(5)(iii) ........................ Minimum Reporting Level 

(MRL) definition.

Revises the definition of the MRL .......................................... III.C. 

B. What priority contaminants were 

selected for UCMR 3? 

EPA used a stepwise prioritization 

process to identify potential UCMR 3 

contaminants. As a first step, the 

Agency reviewed the recently 

promulgated CCL 3 list and the ‘‘preCCL’’ contaminants considered in the 

development of CCL 3. Under the CCL 

3 process, the Agency considered the 

best available data and information on 

health effects and occurrence to 

evaluate 7,500 unregulated 

contaminants. The final CCL 3 is 

comprised of 104 chemicals or chemical 

groups and 12 microbiological 

contaminants that were selected through 

a data-driven process that considered 

adverse health effects (potency and 

severity) and occurrence (prevalence 

and magnitude). The list includes 

pesticides, biological toxins, 

disinfection byproducts, chemicals used 

in commerce, and waterborne pathogens 

(74 FR 51850, October 8, 2009 (USEPA, 

2009c)). EPA used CCL 3, along with 

additional sources of information about 

other emerging contaminants of 

potential concern, to establish an initial 

list of approximately 150 potential 

UCMR 3 contaminants. 

The proposed contaminant list for 

UCMR 3 was further pared down as 

follows: (1) Contaminants with no 

currently available methods, or methods 

that would not be ready in time for 

UCMR 3 monitoring were eliminated; 

and, (2) those contaminants included in 

UCMR 1 or UCMR 2 monitoring were 

also eliminated from inclusion. This 

narrowed list of fewer than 35 analytes 

was further considered by an EPA and 

State working group, and prioritized 

using health effects data and other 

critical endpoints, to arrive at a final 

proposed list of 30 analytes listed in 

Exhibit 3. Further information on this 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
11718 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 42 / Thursday, March 3, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

prioritization process, and on the health 

effects and occurrence data EPA used to 

select the chemical analytes proposed 

for UCMR 3 are contained in ‘‘Possible 

Contaminants for Inclusion on UCMR 

3—Information Compendium’’ (USEPA, 

2010d). 

EPA has not included hexavalent 

chromium (chromium-6) in the 

proposed list of chemicals for UCMR 3 

monitoring; however, EPA is aware of 

potential concerns about chromium-6 

occurrence in public water supplies. 

EPA thus requests comment on whether 

the Agency should include chromium-6 

as one of the 30 contaminants for UCMR 

3 Assessment Monitoring. EPA has 

recently issued voluntary guidance to 

water systems on monitoring for 

chromium-6, including 

recommendations regarding the use of a 

modified version of EPA Method 218.6 

for the analysis of samples and a 

recommended reporting level of 0.06 

ug/L (see http://water.epa.gov/drink/ 

info/chromium/guidance.cfm). If EPA 

were to include chromium-6 in UCMR 

3, the Agency would incorporate it into 

Assessment Monitoring. Under this 

approach, EPA would make chromium6 monitoring mandatory for all large 

water systems and a subset of small 

systems; see also Section III.F.2 for 

further discussion of the Assessment 

Monitoring approach. EPA requests 

comments on what contaminant(s) 

should be removed from the list of 30 

UCMR 3 contaminants if chromium-6 

were added, as well as comments 

regarding the recommended and 

alternative analytical method(s) and the 

appropriate reporting level. EPA also 

requests comments on whether total 

chromium should also be measured 

concurrent with chromium-6. Side-byside measurements may provide 

valuable information on relative 

occurrence and the utility of total 

chromium monitoring as a surrogate for 

chromium-6. 

EPA compiled background 

information for each of the 28 chemicals 

being proposed for monitoring, 

including: Source and use; health 

effects; production and release; 

occurrence in water; and persistence 

and mobility (USEPA, 2010d). Health 

effects, occurrence in water, 

transmission and treatment information 

were considered for the two viruses. 

The primary source of this information 

is CCL 3 (74 FR 51850, October 8, 2009 

(USEPA, 2009c)). Where newer or 

additional information was available 

and for those proposed UCMR 3 

contaminants that were not part of CCL 

3, references are provided separately. In 

addition, preliminary occurrence data 

are included that were collected as part 

of EPA’s second Six-Year Review of 

NPDWRs (75 FR 15500, March 29, 2010 

(USEPA, 2010b)). 

EXHIBIT 3—30 PROPOSED UCMR 3 ANALYTES

7 Hormones using EPA Method 539 (LC/MS/MS) 1: 

17-b-estradiol estrone 

17-a-ethynylestradiol (ethinyl estradiol) testosterone 

estriol (16-a-hydroxy-17-b-estradiol) 4-androstene-3,17-dione 

equilin 

9 Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) using EPA Method 524.3 (GC/MS) 2: 

1,2,3-trichloropropane bromomethane (methyl bromide) 

1,3-butadiene sec-butylbenzene 

chloromethane (methyl chloride) chlorodifluoromethane (HCFC–22) 

1,1-dichloroethane bromochloromethane (halon 1011) 

n-propylbenzene 

Synthetic Organic Compound using EPA Method 522 (GC/MS) 3: 

1,4-dioxane 

4 Metals using EPA Method 200.8 (IC/MS) 4 or alternate SM 5 or ASTM Methods 6: 

cobalt strontium 

molybdenum vanadium 

Oxyhalide Anion using EPA Method 300.1 (IC/Conductivity) 7 or alternate SM 8 or ASTM Methods 9: 

chlorate 

6 Perfluorinated Chemicals using EPA Method 537 (LC/MS/MS) 10: 

perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) perfluorohexane sulfonic acid (PFHxS) 

perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) perfluoroheptanoic acid (PFHpA) 

perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA) perfluorobutane sulfonic acid (PFBS) 

2 Viruses (see Section III.B.7 for methods discussion): 11

enterovirus norovirus 

1. EPA Method 539 (LC/MS/MS) (USEPA, 2010c) 

2. EPA Method 524.3 (GC/MS) (USEPA, 2009a) 

3. EPA Method 522 (GC/MS) (USEPA, 2008) 

4. EPA Method 200.8 (ICP/MS) (USEPA, 1994) 

5. SM 3125 (SM, 1997) 

6. ASTM D5673–10 (ASTM, 2010) 

7. EPA Method 300.1 (IC/Conductivity) (USEPA, 1997) 

8. SM 4110D (SM, 1997) 

9. ASTM D6581–08 (ASTM, 2008) 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 42 / Thursday, March 3, 2011 / Proposed Rules 11719 

10. EPA Method 537 (LC/MS/MS) (USEPA, 2009b) 

11. Monitoring also includes sampling for pathogen indicators such as total coliforms, E.coli, bacteriophage, Enterococci and aerobic spores. 

EPA would pay for all sampling and analysis costs associated with virus monitoring at these small systems. 

1. Twenty-Eight Chemicals 

EPA proposes monitoring for 28 

chemicals in UCMR 3. Details of the 

health effects and occurrence data EPA 

used to make these selections are 

contained in ‘‘Possible Contaminants for 

Inclusion on UCMR 3—Information 

Compendium’’ (USEPA, 2010d), 

available at Docket ID No. OW–2009– 

0090. 

2. Two Viruses 

a. Enterovirus and Norovirus 

EPA proposes to monitor for 

enterovirus and norovirus in UCMR 3. 

Both enterovirus and norovirus (a group 

of viruses in the Caliciviruses family) 

are listed on CCL3. They are proposed 

for UCMR 3 monitoring because very 

limited data are available (Francy et al., 

2004) on their occurrence in 

undisinfected PWSs located in sensitive 

hydrogeological areas. Of particular 

concern are PWSs in areas with karst or 

fractured bedrock, as well as in noncommunity water systems. Recent data 

indicate that undisinfected ground 

water systems with low total coliform 

occurrence (and no Total Coliform Rule 

violations) had significant viral 

presence and disease manifestation 

(Borchardt, 2008). This draft study 

showed a statistically significant 

correlation between viral qPCR 

(quantitative polymerase chain reaction) 

and self-reported acute gastrointestinal 

illness. This indicates that qPCR can be 

used as an indicator of relative 

vulnerability and potential disease 

incidence. Borchardt’s work showed a 

viral occurrence of 9% for enterovirus 

and 4% for norovirus in CWSs, almost 

all of which were in aquifers not 

considered sensitive. EPA proposes to 

perform this monitoring as a Pre-Screen 

Testing of targeted undisinfected ground 

water systems located in karst or 

fractured bedrock. The monitoring 

would include CWSs, as well as nontransient and transient non-community 

water systems. Monitoring would also 

include sampling for pathogen 

indicators such as total coliforms, E.coli, 

bacteriophage, Enterococci and aerobic 

spores. 

The objectives of this monitoring are 

to obtain information concerning the 

occurrence of enterovirus and norovirus 

for further evaluation, and to gain a 

better understanding of the cooccurrence of pathogen indicators and 

viruses. 

Enterovirus would be monitored 

using one method that has two detection 

assays. The first is a tissue culture assay 

also used in the Information Collection 

Rule survey conducted by EPA (USEPA, 

1996), with one change; the 1 MDS filter 

would be replaced with the 

NanoCeram® filter, to significantly 

reduce sampling cost. The NanoCeram®

filter has proven to be as effective as 1 

MDS filter for the recovery of 

enteroviruses (Karim et al., 2009) and 

norovirus (Gibbons et al., 2010). The 

second assay is the qPCR, which detects 

the viral nucleic acid. 

Norovirus would only be monitored 

using qPCR, as there is no tissue culture 

method available. Both norovirus and 

enterovirus qPCR would be performed 

as per the protocol in Lambertini et al. 

(2008). The qPCR primers and probe for 

GI Norovirus would be as referenced in 

Jothikumar et al. (2005), while GII 

Norovirus primers and probe would be 

as referenced in Ando et al. (1995). 

Primers and probe referenced in De 

Leon et al. (1990) and Monpoeho et al. 

(2000) would be used for enterovirus 

qPCR. 

A technical presentation describing 

Borchardt’s work, and supporting EPA’s 

rationale for including these viruses in 

UCMR 3, is available through the 

docket. EPA welcomes comments on the 

Borchardt data and on the merits of the 

proposed UCMR 3 monitoring. EPA 

anticipates that a peer-reviewed journal 

article describing the Borchardt work 

will be published in advance of the 

publication of the UCMR 3 final rule, 

and is committed to conducting 

appropriate peer review of the UCMR 3 

virus data before any final regulatory 

determination by the Agency. 

C. How were minimum reporting levels 

determined? 

The quality of measurement 

definition is based on a standard tool of 

analytical chemistry, percent recovery 

of a known amount of analyte added to 

a reagent water sample (spiked blank). 

The lowest concentration minimum 

reporting level (LCMRL) is defined as 

the lowest spiking concentration at 

which recovery of between 50 and 

150% is expected 99% of the time by a 

single analyst. 

The LCMRL is estimated using 

sophisticated statistical procedures that 

have been incorporated into an LCMRL 

calculator tool that is available on EPA’s 

Web site (http://water.epa.gov/scitech/ 

drinkingwater/labcert/ 

analyticalmethods_ogwdw.cfm). The 

statistical tool estimates a probability 

distribution for spike recovery as a 

function of spiking concentration. This 

requires regression modeling that 

estimates expected value and expected 

variance for repeated measurements as 

functions of spiking concentration. 

Often this variance is an increasing 

function of spiking level. In this case, 

ordinary least squares regression is not 

appropriate to estimate the expected 

value function. Weighted least squares 

is used with weights proportional to the 

reciprocal of the expected variance, 

multiplied by a weight (Tukey’s 

biweight) that gives robustness against 

outliers. The variance model is 

estimated using a Generalized Linear 

Model. To estimate these regressions, an 

experimental design with replicate 

spiking at multiple concentrations is 

required. If the LCMRL estimate is 

below the lowest non-blank spiking 

concentration or above the highest 

spiking concentration, another set of 

blanks must be spiked so that the 

LCMRL is bracketed by the lowest and 

highest spike concentrations when the 

LCMRL is re-estimated. The spiked 

concentrations must be contained 

within the instrument calibration curve 

that is routinely used for each analyte. 

The combined procedure provides a 

robust estimator of the LCMRL and a 

sophisticated and useful measure of 

method capability. 

MRL 

In today’s action, EPA is proposing 

revisions to the definition of the 

minimum reporting level (MRL). The 

proposed definition of the MRL reflects 

improvements in the statistical 

procedures for determining the LCMRL 

and MRL. These improvements were 

implemented by EPA to make the 

models more robust, i.e., so that the 

models can accommodate a wider range 

of observed LCMRL data sets. The MRL 

for an analyte measured by a specified 

analytical method is designed to be an 

estimate of an LCMRL that is 

achievable, with 95% confidence, by a 

capable analyst/laboratory at least 75% 

of the time. Such a demonstration of 

ability to reliably make quality 

measurements at the MRL is intended to 

achieve high quality across the nation’s 

laboratories. 

In UCMR 2, the MRL was established 

by EPA by adding the mean of the 

LCMRL determined according to the 

procedure detailed in ‘‘Statistical 

Protocol for the Determination of The 

Single-Laboratory Lowest Concentration 

Minimum Reporting Level (LCMRL) and 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
11720 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 42 / Thursday, March 3, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

Validation of the Minimum Reporting 

Level (MRL)’’ (USEPA, 2004), (http:// 

www.epa.gov/ogwdw/methods/pdfs/ 

methods/methods_lcmrl.pdf) by the 

primary and secondary laboratories 

conducting the development and 

validation of the analytical method to 

three times the difference of the 

LCMRLs. If LCMRL data from three or 

more laboratories were available, the 

MRL was established by EPA by adding 

three times the standard deviation of the 

LCMRLs to the mean of the LCMRLs. 

In UCMR 3, EPA estimated the MRL 

for an analyte/method by obtaining data 

from several laboratories performing 

corresponding LCMRL studies. These 

data are used to construct an 

approximation to the distribution that 

would result from picking at random a 

laboratory/analyst proficient in 

performing the analytical method, and 

having them perform an LCMRL study 

and compute an LCMRL estimate. The 

strategy for computing the MRL is twofold. First, for each LCMRL data set, a 

distribution for repeated LCMRL 

determinations by the same laboratory/ 

analyst is estimated by generating a 

large number of simulated values using 

a Bayesian bootstrap approach. Second, 

these values are combined to create an 

estimated overall distribution. If a result 

from one of the laboratories is 

significantly higher than that of other 

laboratories, this value would be downweighted using a robust weight 

function. The resulting weighted values 

are used to construct a probability 

distribution from which the MRL is 

computed as the 95th percentile. EPA 

requests comments regarding the 

proposed definition of the MRL. 

D. How would laboratories conduct 

UCMR analyses? 

As proposed, all laboratories 

conducting analyses for UCMR 3 List 1 

contaminants would need to receive 

EPA approval to perform those analyses. 

Laboratories seeking approval would be 

required to provide EPA with data that 

demonstrate their successful completion 

of an initial demonstration of capability 

as outlined in each method, verification 

of successful performance at the MRLs 

as specified in today’s action, and 

successful participation in an EPA 

Proficiency testing (PT) program for the 

analytes of interest. On-site audits of 

selected candidate laboratories may be 

conducted. Details of the EPA laboratory 

approval program are contained in the 

technical manual titled: ‘‘UCMR 3 

Laboratory Approval Requirements and 

Information Document’’ (USEPA, 

2010e). This document will be available 

on the electronic docket at: http:// 

www.regulations.gov and will be 

provided to laboratories that register for 

the laboratory approval program. In 

addition, EPA may supply analytical 

reference standards of known 

concentrations for selected analytes to 

participating/approved laboratories, 

where such standards are not readily 

available through commercial sources. 

Laboratory Approval Process for UCMR 

3 

The proposed UCMR 3 laboratory 

approval program is the same as that 

employed in previous UCMR cycles. It 

is designed to assess and confirm the 

capability of laboratories to perform 

analyses using the methods listed in 

§ 141.40(a)(3), Table 1, of today’s 

proposed rule. The UCMR 3 laboratory 

approval process is designed to assess 

whether laboratories meet the required 

equipment, laboratory performance, and 

data reporting criteria described in 

today’s action. This evaluation program 

is voluntary in that it only applies to 

laboratories intending to analyze UCMR 

3 samples. However, EPA would require 

systems to use UCMR 3 approved 

laboratories when conducting 

monitoring for those analytes listed in 

Table 1 of § 141.40(a)(3) of this 

proposed rule. A list of laboratories 

approved for UCMR 3 would be posted 

to EPA’s UCMR Web site: http:// 

water.epa.gov/lawsregs/rulesregs/sdwa/ 

ucmr/ucmr3/labs.cfm. Laboratories are 

encouraged to apply for UCMR 3 

approvals as early as possible, as 

schedules for large PWS sampling 

would be completed soon after the final 

rule is promulgated. The steps for the 

laboratory approval process are listed in 

the following paragraphs, a through f. 

a. Request to Participate. 

To request participation in the UCMR 

3 laboratory approval process, the 

laboratory must contact EPA. 

Laboratories must send this request to: 

UCMR 3 Laboratory Approval 

Coordinator, USEPA, Technical Support 

Center, 26 West Martin Luther King 

Drive (MS 140), Cincinnati, OH 45268; 

or e-mail at: 

UCMR_Sampling_Coordinator@epa.gov. 

EPA plans to begin accepting requests 

for registration forms for the List 1 

(Assessment Monitoring) methods 

beginning March 3, 2011. EPA 

anticipates that the final opportunity for 

a laboratory to request the necessary 

registration forms would be 90 days 

after final rule publication, though 

laboratories are encouraged to apply as 

early as is practical after the publication 

of today’s proposed rule. 

b. Registration. 

Each laboratory that wishes to 

participate in UCMR 3 monitoring 

would be required to complete a 

registration form. EPA expects this 

registration information to include: 

Laboratory name; mailing address; 

shipping address; contact name; phone 

number; fax number; e-mail address; 

and a list of the UCMR 3 methods for 

which the laboratory is seeking 

approval. The purpose of the 

registration step is to provide EPA with 

the necessary contact information, and 

ensure that each laboratory receives a 

customized application package of 

materials and instructions for the 

methods that it plans to use. 

c. Application Package. 

When EPA receives the registration 

information, a customized application 

package would be sent to the laboratory 

for completion. Information requested 

in the application would include the 

following: Initial demonstration of 

capability data, including precision, 

accuracy, and results of MRL studies, 

information regarding analytical 

equipment, proof of current drinking 

water laboratory certification, and 

example chromatograms for each 

method under review. 

The laboratory would be required to 

confirm that it will post UCMR 3 

monitoring results (on behalf of its PWS 

clients) to EPA’s UCMR electronic data 

reporting system. 

d. EPA Review of Application 

Package. 

EPA would review the application 

package and, if necessary, request 

follow-up information. Satisfactory 

completion of this portion of the process 

would be required for the laboratory to 

participate in the UCMR 3 Proficiency 

Testing (PT) program. 

e. Proficiency Testing. 

A PT sample is a synthetic sample 

containing a concentration of an analyte 

that is known to EPA, but unknown to 

the laboratory being tested. To complete 

the initial laboratory approval process, a 

laboratory would be expected to meet 

specific acceptance criteria for the 

analysis of a UCMR 3 PT sample(s) for 

each method for which the laboratory is 

seeking approval. EPA intends to offer 

up to four opportunities for a laboratory 

to successfully analyze the UCMR 3 PT 

samples. Up to three of these studies 

would be conducted prior to the 

publication of the final rule, but at least 

one study would be conducted after 

publication of the final rule. This would 

allow laboratories to complete their 

portion of the laboratory approval 

process prior to publication of the final 

rule, and therefore, receive their 

approval, immediately following the 

publication of the final rule, or to wait 

until the final rule is published before 

completing the required laboratory 

approval analyses. A laboratory only 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 42 / Thursday, March 3, 2011 / Proposed Rules 11721 

needs to pass one of the PT studies for 

each analytical method for which they 

are requesting approval. Laboratories 

applying for UCMR 3 approval, and 

laboratories conducting UCMR 3 

analyses, may be subject to on-site 

laboratory audits. No PT studies would 

be conducted after the start of 

monitoring; however, laboratory audits 

would be ongoing throughout the entire 

monitoring period of 2013–2015. Initial 

laboratory approval would be 

contingent upon successful completion 

of a PT study. Continued laboratory 

approval is contingent upon successful 

completion of audits. 

f. Written EPA Approval. 

After steps ‘‘a’’ through ‘‘e’’ of the PT 

approval process have been successfully 

completed, EPA would send the 

laboratory a letter listing the methods 

for which approval is pending (if the PT 

study and laboratory evaluation is 

conducted prior to promulgation of the 

final rule) or approval is granted (after 

promulgation of the final rule). 

Laboratories receiving a pending 

approval may then be approved without 

further action, following promulgation 

of the final rule, or they may need to 

take additional action, contingent upon 

what changes are applied to the rule 

between this proposal and promulgation 

of the final rule. 

E. What are the new applicability 

considerations? 

In section 141.40(a) of today’s 

proposed rule changes, EPA is 

proposing a new applicability date for 

information in the SDWIS/Fed system 

inventory. As proposed, the 

determination of whether a PWS is 

required to monitor under UCMR 3 

would be based on the type of system 

(e.g., community water system, nontransient non-community water system, 

etc.), and its retail population served, as 

indicated by SDWIS/Fed on December 

31, 2010. 

In addition, EPA is proposing two 

changes to the applicability of UCMR 3 

to PWSs. First, EPA proposes that 

applicability be based on retail 

population served. Whereas under 

UCMR 1 and 2 systems that purchased 

all of their water were not required to 

monitor; these systems would now be 

subject to UCMR monitoring 

requirements. Second, under UCMR 1 

and 2, transient systems were exempt 

from monitoring. EPA’s proposed 

changes would include transient 

systems in the universe from which EPA 

may select small PWSs for List 3 

monitoring. Such systems would only 

be included in UCMR 3 List 3 

monitoring if they are notified by EPA 

that they have been selected, and this 

monitoring would be done by EPA or its 

contractor. All other applicability 

criteria for UCMR 3 remain the same as 

those under UCMR 2. 

1. Applicability Based on Population 

Served 

Under UCMR 1, large PWSs were 

defined as those systems that served a 

population of more than 10,000 people 

and small PWSs were those that served 

10,000 or fewer people. While this 

included the sum of the population 

served by the combined distribution 

system, this requirement was 

occasionally misunderstood. For UCMR 

2, EPA clarified the population 

definition to include the sum of the 

retail population served directly by the 

PWS plus the population served by any 

consecutive system(s), receiving all or 

part of its finished water from that PWS. 

As established in the Stage 2 

Disinfectants and Disinfection 

Byproducts Rule (68 FR 49548, August 

18, 2003 (USEPA, 2003)), EPA defines a 

‘‘consecutive system’’ as a PWS that 

buys or otherwise receives some or all 

of its finished water from one or more 

wholesale system(s). Under the 

population definition of UCMR 2, 

systems that purchased all of their water 

from other systems were not required to 

monitor. EPA is proposing a change in 

the definition of system population to 

include only a system’s retail 

population. UCMR 3 requirements for 

systems would be based on their retail 

population served as reported to 

SDWIS/Fed as ‘‘Population Served’’ (i.e., 

wholesale or consecutive populations 

are not included). 

EPA is proposing that PWSs be 

required to monitor for UCMR 3 

contaminants, regardless of whether 

they purchase any or all of their water 

from another system. The population 

definitions used for the previous 

UCMRs created an inconsistency for 

PWSs purchasing their water. If a PWS 

purchased all of their water, they were 

not required to monitor at all, and 

systems that had no retail connections 

did have to monitor. If a PWS purchased 

some of their water, they were required 

to monitor from their own sources as 

well as their purchased source. The new 

proposed definition would eliminate 

this inconsistency. It would also 

eliminate the requirements for systems 

with no retail connections to monitor. 

EPA is aware that PWSs that purchase 

water evaluate their supply needs and 

associated costs, and may make 

adjustments during the UCMR 

monitoring period. They have been 

known to change wholesale suppliers or 

switch sources that they can directly 

access and treat for their retail 

customers. The dynamic nature of 

wholesale water supply is prompting 

EPA to propose and solicit stakeholder 

comment on establishing retail 

population as a clearer measure for 

determining applicability of the UCMR 

3 requirements. Retail population is a 

consistent factor for applicability 

determination and evaluating the direct 

sources (all entry points including 

wholesale connections) would improve 

data quality by directly assessing the 

drinking water served to the respective 

retail population. It is also difficult to 

accurately determine the total 

population served by each source of 

water. For example, if PWS ‘‘A’’ buys all 

of its water from three different PWSs 

(‘‘B, C, D’’), it is unclear how to divide 

PWS A’s retail population among the 

three PWSs to determine the wholesale 

populations for systems B, C, and D. 

Under the previous UCMR 

specifications, the total population of all 

systems was added together, which 

could lead to overestimating the 

population served by each source of 

water. 

Moreover, a system’s population is 

used to determine exposure estimates. 

Because the retail population comprises 

all of the people exposed to water from 

a particular system, EPA would have a 

clearer understanding of the number of 

people exposed to a detected 

contaminant. The proposed change to 

the definition of population would 

allow EPA to better estimate the total 

population served by a water system 

and ensures that exposure calculations 

are more accurate. 

PWSs are required to report their 

retail population to the Safe Drinking 

Water Information System-Federal 

(SDWIS/Fed), so this population is 

readily accessible to EPA when 

determining which systems are required 

to monitor for the UCMR 3. Using a 

system’s retail population would also 

make the list of PWSs subject to UCMR 

more stable over the UCMR 3 

monitoring period, and eliminate 

another inconsistency in previous 

UCMRs. In past UCMRs, if a PWS began 

purchasing all of their water after the 

applicability date, the PWS would still 

have to monitor under UCMR. If, 

however, a system began using its own 

water sources after the UCMR 

applicability date, the system would not 

be required to begin monitoring under 

UCMR. Using a system’s retail 

population to determine whether a 

system is subject to UCMR requirements 

would eliminate this disparity. 

Note that systems that purchase water 

with multiple connections from the 

same wholesaler would be permitted to 

propose one representative connection 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
11722 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 42 / Thursday, March 3, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

from that wholesaler. PWSs would 

choose a sampling location from among 

the higher annual volume EPTDS 

connections. If the connection selected 

as the representative EPTDS was not 

available for sampling, an alternate 

representative connection would need 

to be sampled. 

2. Applicability for Transient Systems 

Under UCMR 1 and 2, Section 

141.40(a)(1), transient non-community 

water systems were specifically 

exempted from UCMR monitoring. EPA 

is proposing revisions that would allow 

for certain transient systems to be 

selected for Pre-Screen Testing for List 

3 contaminants. Under UCMR 3, EPA is 

proposing to conduct Pre-Screen Testing 

for enterovirus and norovirus and 

related pathogen indicators at targeted 

undisinfected ground water systems that 

serve 1,000 or fewer customers. EPA is 

proposing to include transient systems 

among the possible targeted systems— 

and to focus on viruses and not 

chemicals at those systems—since 

viruses are acute pathogens and 

exposure through a one-time ingestion 

(e.g., at a transient system) is of 

potential health concern. EPA requests 

comments regarding the inclusion of 

transient systems in UCMR 3 Pre-Screen 

Testing. 

As proposed under 141.40(a)(1) and 

141.40(a)(2)(ii)(C), if any system 

(including transient systems) is notified 

by EPA or their state that they have been 

selected for Pre-Screen Testing the 

system must permit EPA (at EPA’s 

expense) to sample and analyze for List 

3 contaminants, and pathogen 

indicators, such as total coliform, E. 

coli, bacteriophage, Enterococci, and 

aerobic spores. 

F. UCMR 3 Sampling Design and 

Reporting Considerations 

As proposed, PWSs and EPA would 

conduct sampling and analysis for List 

1 and List 3 contaminants at each PWS 

during a 12 month period within the 

2013 to 2015 timeframe. Preparation 

would begin prior to 2013 and would 

include coordination of laboratory 

approval, selection of representative 

samples of small systems, development 

of State Monitoring Plans, establishment 

of monitoring schedules, and 

notification of participating PWSs. As 

proposed, UCMR 3 would not include a 

Screening Survey for List 2 

contaminants. Exhibit 4 illustrates the 

major activities that would take place in 

preparation for and during 

implementation of UCMR 3. 

To minimize the impact of the rule on 

small systems (those serving 10,000 or 

fewer people), EPA would pay for the 

sample kit preparation, sample shipping 

fees, and analysis costs for these 

systems. In addition, no small system 

would be required to monitor for both 

List 1 and List 3 contaminants. Large 

systems (those serving more than 10,000 

people) would pay for the cost of 

shipping and laboratory testing. 

1. UCMR 3 Reporting Considerations 

EPA is proposing a few notable 

changes to reporting requirements based 

on lessons learned from UCMR 1 and 

UCMR 2, as well as some necessary 

changes related to new UCMR 3 

analytes. 

Demonstrating Representative Ground 

Water Sampling Locations: As 

established under UCMR 2, large 

systems that use ground water sources 

and have multiple EPTDSs can, with 

prior approval, conduct monitoring at 

representative entry point(s) rather than 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALSEP03MR11.007</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 42 / Thursday, March 3, 2011 / Proposed Rules 11723 

at each EPTDS. To monitor at 

representative EPTDSs, large systems 

must meet the reporting criteria 

specified in § 141.35(c)(3)(ii), and 

receive approval from EPA or the State. 

Today’s proposed changes to the rule 

language clarify that when identifying a 

representative well, the well must be 

one of the higher annual volume 

producing and consistently active wells. 

In addition, should this location go offline, an alternative location must be 

sampled. 

Reporting Schedule: As under 

previous UCMR cycles, large systems 

would be responsible for reviewing, 

approving, and submitting (i.e., 

‘‘reporting’’) monitoring results to EPA. 

To help ensure that monitoring and 

reporting is conducted as scheduled, 

EPA is proposing that systems must 

require their laboratories to post data to 

the EPA’s electronic data reporting 

system—Safe Drinking Water Accession 

and Review System—within 60 days of 

sample collection; and that large 

systems must review, approve, and 

submit the data to the State and EPA 

within 30 days of when the laboratory 

posts the data. These time frames are 

specified in 141.35(c)(6)(ii) and 

141.40(a)(5)(vi) and compare to 120 

days, and 60 days, (respectively) that 

were allowed under UCMR 1 and 2. 

With the previous turn-around times, it 

was sometimes difficult to ensure 

compliance with established monitoring 

schedules; these new turnaround times 

would reduce the chance of scheduled 

monitoring being missed or delayed. If 

systems do not electronically approve 

the laboratory data within 30 days of the 

laboratory’s posting to EPA’s electronic 

reporting system, the data would be 

considered approved for EPA and State 

review. EPA and the State would 

conduct its quality control reviews of 

the data after the system reports the 

data. States would also be given at least 

60 days for their quality control review. 

After the EPA and State quality control 

review, EPA would place the data in the 

NCOD at the time of the next database 

update, typically three to four times per 

year. EPA requests comment on these 

shortened reporting timeframes. 

Changes to Data Elements and their 

Reporting: EPA is proposing two 

changes to the data elements listed in 

Table 1 of 141.35(e). In addition, EPA is 

proposing a related change that would 

require systems to report all data 

elements with each sample. 

• Adding zip code, optional zip code 

extension, and zip codes served to Data 

Element 4—Sampling Point 

Identification Code: This additional 

location information is being requested 

related to sampling points because 

current information identifying the 

location of sampling points is limited. 

Zip code of the sampling point would 

assist with future vulnerability 

assessments. Zip codes tying the 

populations served to each sampling 

point would assist with future 

occurrence and exposure analyses. 

• Clarifying and updating the 

definition of Data Element 6— 

Disinfectant Type: Under UCMR 2, Data 

Element 6 was established to provide 

information on ‘‘Disinfectant Residual 

Type’’ as it related to distribution system 

monitoring for nitrosamines (part of 

Screening Survey monitoring). EPA is 

proposing modification to the definition 

of this data element to account for 

changes to the analyte and monitoring 

specifications between UCMR 2 and 

UCMR 3. This revised definition lists 

additional disinfectant types to 

accommodate recent advances and 

changes to disinfectant technologies 

being used by water systems, and it 

provides that this data element be 

reported with all sample results. 

• Reporting all data elements with 

each sample: Under UCMR 2 

Assessment Monitoring, systems were 

required to report data elements 1 

through 5 and 7 through 15. Data 

Element 6 (Disinfectant Residual Type) 

was only reported as required by 

systems subject to the List 2 Screening 

Survey monitoring of nitrosamines in 

distribution systems. EPA is proposing 

revisions to UCMR that would require 

systems to report all data elements with 

each sample (including Data Element 6 

(Disinfectant Type)) since Assessment 

Monitoring within the distribution 

system is proposed and since the 

information on disinfectant type would 

be useful in the Agency’s evaluation of 

results for chlorate and the metals on 

List 1—Assessment Monitoring and 

confirming no disinfection is applied at 

systems subject to List 3—Pre-Screen 

Testing. 

2. Assessment Monitoring 

As proposed, Assessment Monitoring 

for List 1 contaminants would be 

conducted from January 1, 2013 through 

December 31, 2015 by all large systems 

(those systems serving more than 10,000 

people), and by a nationally 

representative sample of 800 small 

systems (those serving 10,000 people or 

fewer). Other than these new monitoring 

dates, there are no other changes to the 

schedule and frequency of Assessment 

Monitoring between UCMR 2 and 

UCMR 3. Small systems would be 

selected using the same type of 

stratified, random selection process as 

used in previous UCMRs. Samples 

would be collected from the entry point 

to the distribution systems (EPTDSs). 

Large ground water systems with 

multiple EPTDSs would be permitted to 

sample at representative sampling 

locations for each ground water source 

if those sites have been approved by 

EPA or the State. In addition to EPTDS 

monitoring, the four metals—cobalt, 

molybdenum, vanadium, and 

strontium—as well as chlorate, would 

be sampled at one distribution system 

sampling point per treatment plant (i.e., 

at the distribution system maximum 

residence time (DSMRT)). If the 

system’s treatment plant/water source is 

subject to sampling requirements under 

§ 141.132(b)(1) (the Stage 2 Disinfectants 

and Disinfection Byproducts Rule), 

samples for the metals and chlorate 

must be collected at the DSMRT 

sampling location(s) identified for that 

rule. If a treatment plant/water source is 

not subject to the sampling required in 

40 CFR 141.132(b)(1), then the 

distribution system samples must be 

collected at a location that, in the 

judgment of the PWS, represents the 

maximum residence time in the 

distribution system. 

Chlorate is being monitored at both 

the EPTDS and the DSMRT to determine 

the magnitude of chorate increases in 

the distribution system. The metals are 

monitored at both locations to assess 

any potential contribution from the 

distribution system. EPA is requesting 

comment on DSMRT sampling for the 

metals and chlorate. 

As under previous UCMR cycles, 

samples at ground water locations 

would be collected twice during a 

designated consecutive 12-month 

period. Samples at locations that are fed 

in whole or part by a surface water or 

ground water under the direct influence 

of surface water (GWUDI) source would 

be collected quarterly during a 

designated consecutive 12-month 

period. Large system schedules (year 

and months of monitoring) would 

initially be determined by EPA in 

conjunction with the States (as 

described in section III.G. of today’s 

action) and these systems would have 

an opportunity to modify this schedule. 

In today’s proposed action, EPA has 

incorporated clarifying revisions in 

141.40(a)(4)(i)(B) to specify that large 

system monitoring schedules must be 

adjusted based on sample point 

availability. If it is not possible for a 

system to meet its specified sampling 

schedule (if, for instance, a particular 

sampling point is inactive during the 

scheduled sampling timeframe), the 

system must notify EPA to reschedule 

their sampling. As under previous 

UCMR cycles, the Agency would 

continue to schedule and coordinate 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
11724 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 42 / Thursday, March 3, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

small system monitoring, working 

closely with partnering States. State 

monitoring plans would provide a 

venue for States to review and revise the 

initial sampling schedules that EPA 

proposes (see discussion of State 

monitoring plans in section III.G. of 

today’s action: ‘‘What is the States’ Role 

in the UCMR Program?’’). The 28 

proposed List 1 contaminants to be 

monitored under Assessment 

Monitoring are listed in Exhibit 3, in 

section III.B of today’s action. 

3. Pre-Screen Testing 

As proposed, sampling under the PreScreen Testing for List 3 contaminants 

would be conducted from January 1, 

2013 through December 31, 2015 by a 

targeted sample of 800 PWSs serving 

1,000 or fewer people. Sampling would 

occur twice during a designated 

consecutive 12-month period at each 

PWS. 

EPA proposes to monitor for 

enterovirus and norovirus (as well as 

associated pathogen indicators) in 

UCMR 3. Both enterovirus and 

norovirus are listed on CCL3. EPA 

proposes to perform this monitoring 

under Pre-Screen Testing at 800 targeted 

undisinfected ground water wells from 

systems serving 1,000 or fewer 

customers that include CWSs, 

NTNCWSs and transient noncommunity water systems. This 

monitoring is proposed for systems that 

serve 1,000 or fewer customers because 

these smaller systems are the least likely 

to be disinfected, and therefore, would 

be most vulnerable to contamination 

with viruses. The wells would be 

selected from vulnerable areas such as 

karst or fractured bedrock. Monitoring 

would also include sampling for 

pathogen indicators such as total 

coliforms, E. coli, bacteriophage, 

Enterococci, and aerobic spores. The 

objectives of this monitoring are: (1) To 

obtain occurrence information to 

support regulatory determinations for 

enterovirus and norovirus; (2) to gain a 

better understanding of pathogen 

indicator and viral co-occurrence; and, 

(3) to gain more exposure/health risk 

information on viruses and indicators. 

A summary of the estimated number 

of systems to monitor under each UCMR 

3 component is listed in Exhibit 5. 

EXHIBIT 5—SYSTEMS TO PARTICIPATE IN UCMR 3 MONITORING

System size (number of 

people served) 

Assessment monitoring for 28 List 1 chemicals 

Pre-screen testing for two List 3 microbials 1 Total 2

National sample 

Small Systems 

25–10,000 ....................... 800 randomly selected systems .......................... 800 selected undisinfected ground water wells 

from systems serving 1,000 or fewer.

1,600 

Large Systems 3

10,001 and over ............. All (4,200) ............................................................. 0 ........................................................................... 4,200 

Total ........................ 5,000 .................................................................... 800 ....................................................................... 5,800 

1Sampling for List 3 contaminants to be conducted at 800 undisinfected wells, located in karst or fractured bedrock, in systems serving 1,000 

or fewer customers. Monitoring also includes sampling for pathogen indicators: Total coliforms, E. coli, bacteriophage, Enterococci and aerobic 

spores. EPA would pay for all sampling and analysis costs associated with virus and pathogen indicator monitoring at these small systems. 2Total for small systems is additive because these systems would only be selected for one component of UCMR 3 sampling. Number is approximate. 3 Large system counts are approximate. 

G. What is the States’ role in the UCMR 

program? 

Under UCMR 1 and UCMR 2, EPA 

described implementation and oversight 

activities that States could agree to 

through a Partnership Agreement (PA) 

process. Because the UCMR is a direct 

implementation rule, State participation 

is voluntary. Under UCMR 1, specific 

activities for individual States were 

identified in the rule language. 

Beginning with UCMR 2, specific 

activities for individual States are 

identified and established exclusively 

through the PAs, not through rule 

language. UCMR 3 would maintain this 

previously established process for 

UCMR 2. 

In compliance with SDWA section 

1445(a)(2)(C)(i), the UCMR program 

provides a role for States in developing 

a representative monitoring plan for 

small systems. This is important 

because States/primacy agencies most 

often have the best information about 

PWSs in their State. Through PAs, 

States can help EPA implement the 

UCMR program and help ensure that the 

UCMR data used for future regulatory 

determinations are of the highest quality 

possible. EPA would continue to use the 

previously established PA structure 

during implementation of UCMR 3 to 

address the following: The process for 

review and revision of the state 

monitoring plans; replacing and 

updating system information; modifying 

timing for monitoring, review and 

approval of proposed representative 

EPTDS; notification and instructions for 

systems; and compliance assistance. 

As established under UCMR 1 and 2, 

state monitoring plans include tabular 

listings of the systems that EPA selected 

to conduct monitoring and the EPA 

proposed date on which they are to be 

sampled. Initial state monitoring plans 

also include instructions to States for 

revising and/or correcting the state 

monitoring plans, including 

modifications to sampling schedules for 

small systems. EPA incorporates 

revisions from States, and returns the 

final state monitoring plans to each 

State. 

IV. Cost of This Proposed Action 

In today’s action, EPA proposes a new 

set of contaminants for monitoring in 

the third five-year UCMR monitoring 

cycle. In addition, UCMR 3 incorporates 

modifications to improve the rule 

design. UCMR 3 Assessment Monitoring 

(for List 1 contaminants) would be 

conducted from January 2013 through 

December 2015 by 800 systems serving 

10,000 or fewer people, and by all 

systems serving more than 10,000 

people. Eight hundred small systems 

would be randomly selected for List 1 

monitoring. The Pre-Screen Testing for 

List 3 contaminants would also be 

conducted from January 2013 through 

December 2015 in 800 undisinfected 

ground water wells from systems 

serving 1,000 or fewer persons. It is 

assumed for this cost estimation that 

one-third of systems would monitor 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 42 / Thursday, March 3, 2011 / Proposed Rules 11725 

during each of the three monitoring 

years. 

Labor costs pertain to systems, States, 

and EPA. They include activities such 

as reading the regulation, notifying 

systems selected to participate, sample 

collection, data review, reporting, and 

recordkeeping. Non-labor costs would 

be incurred primarily by EPA and by 

large PWSs. They include the cost of 

shipping samples to laboratories for 

testing and the cost of the actual 

laboratory analyses. 

In today’s action, EPA proposes six 

EPA developed analytical methods and 

four equivalent consensus organization 

developed methods to monitor for 28 

new UCMR 3 chemical contaminants. 

While the preamble to this proposed 

rule also describes the analytical 

methods that would be used for the 

proposed virus monitoring, the proposal 

does not address these methods. 

Laboratory approval for virus 

monitoring is not expected to be 

necessary since all of the analyses for 

the two viruses are expected to be 

conducted in laboratories under EPA 

contract and at EPA’s expense. 

However, estimated system and EPA 

costs are based on the analytical costs 

for all UCMR 3 methods. With the 

exception of Methods 200.8 and 300.1, 

these methods are comparatively new 

and would not coincide with other 

compliance monitoring (i.e., no cost 

savings for coincident monitoring can 

be realized). Laboratory analysis and 

shipping of samples account for 

approximately 86% of the total national 

cost for UCMR 3 implementation. These 

costs are calculated as follows: The 

number of systems, multiplied by the 

number of sampling locations, 

multiplied by the sampling frequency, 

multiplied by the unit cost of laboratory 

analysis. Under UCMR 3, for List 1 

Assessment Monitoring, surface water 

(and GWUDI) sampling points would be 

monitored four times during the 

applicable year of monitoring, and 

ground water sample points would be 

monitored twice during the applicable 

year of monitoring. Systems would 

monitor for the four metals—cobalt, 

molybdenum, vanadium, and 

strontium—as well as chlorate, at their 

EPTDS sampling locations and at one 

distribution system sampling point per 

treatment plant (i.e., at the DSMRT). 

Pre-Screen Testing systems would 

monitor two times during the three-year 

monitoring period (2013 through 2015) 

at their EPTDS. EPA estimates of 

laboratory fees are based on 

consultations with national drinking 

water laboratories and a review of the 

costs of analytical methods similar to 

those proposed in today’s action. The 

cost of the Assessment Monitoring 

analysis for the UCMR 3 chemicals is 

estimated at $1,320 per sample set (at 

the EPTDS); the cost of the Pre-Screen 

analyses for viruses and related 

pathogen indicators (i.e., total coliform, 

E. coli, bacteriophage, Enterococci, and 

aerobic spores) is estimated at $1,650 

per sample set. Shipping estimates are 

added to the calculated costs to derive 

the total direct analytical non-labor 

costs. Estimated shipping costs were 

based on the average cost of shipping a 

25-pound package. 

In preparing the UCMR 3 information 

collection request (ICR), EPA relied on 

standard assumptions and data sources 

used in the preparation of other 

drinking water program ICRs. These 

include the PWS inventory, number of 

sampling points per system, and labor 

rates. EPA expects that States would 

incur only labor costs associated with 

voluntary assistance with UCMR 3 

implementation. State costs were 

estimated using the relevant modules of 

the State Resource Model that was 

developed by the Association of State 

Drinking Water Administrators 

(ASDWA) in conjunction with EPA 

(ASDWA, 2003) to help States forecast 

resource needs. Model estimates were 

adjusted to account for actual levels of 

State participation under UCMR 2. 

Because State participation would be 

voluntary, level of effort would vary 

across States and depend on their 

individual agreements with EPA. 

Over the UCMR implementation 

period of 2012–2016, EPA estimates that 

nationwide, the average annual cost of 

UCMR 3 is approximately $14.9 million. 

These total estimated annual costs 

(labor and non-labor) are incurred as 

follows: 

Respondent Average annual cost (all 

respondents (2012–16)) 

Small Systems (25–10,000), including labor only, non-labor costs paid for by EPA ......................................................... $0.049 m 

Large Systems (10,001–100,000), including labor and non-labor costs ............................................................................ 8.75 m 

Very Large Systems (100,001 and greater), including labor and non-labor costs ............................................................. 2.1 m 

States, including labor costs related to implementation coordination ................................................................................. 0.75 m 

EPA, including labor for implementation, non-labor for small system testing .................................................................... 3.3 m 

Average Annual National Total .................................................................................................................................... 14.949 m 

Additional details regarding EPA’s 

cost assumptions and estimates can be 

found in the ICR Number 2192.04 

amendment prepared for this proposed 

rule (Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) number 2040—NEW), which 

presents estimated cost and burden for 

the 2012–2014 period. Estimates of costs 

over the entire third five-year UCMR 

cycle of 2012–2016 are attached as an 

appendix to the ICR. Copies of the ICR 

and its amendment may be obtained 

from the EPA public docket for this 

proposed rule, which includes this ICR, 

under Docket ID Number OW–2004– 

0001. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

Under Executive Order (EO) 12866 

(58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this 

action is a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action.’’ Accordingly, EPA submitted 

this action to the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) for review under EO 

12866 and any changes made in 

response to OMB recommendations 

have been documented in the docket for 

this action. 

In addition, EPA prepared an analysis 

of the potential costs associated with 

this action. This analysis is briefly 

summarized in section IV of the 

preamble of this proposed rule. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

The information collection 

requirements in this proposed rule have 

been submitted for approval to the 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction 

Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The 

Information Collection Request (ICR) 

document prepared by EPA has been 

assigned EPA ICR number 2192.04. 

The information to be collected under 

today’s proposed rule fulfills the 

statutory requirements of section 

1445(a)(2) of SDWA, as amended in 

1996. The data to be collected would 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
11726 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 42 / Thursday, March 3, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

describe the source of the water, 

location, and test results for samples 

taken from PWSs. The concentrations of 

any identified UCMR contaminants 

would be evaluated regarding health 

effects and would be considered for 

future regulation accordingly. Reporting 

is mandatory. The data are not subject 

to confidentiality protection. 

The annual burden and cost estimates 

described in this section are for the 

implementation assumptions described 

in section IV. Cost and Benefits of the 

Rule, in today’s proposed action. 

Respondents to the UCMR 3 would 

include 1,600 small water systems (800 

for Assessment Monitoring, and 800 

wells for Pre-Screen Testing), the 4,191 

large PWSs, and the 56 States and 

Primacy agencies (5,047 total 

respondents). The frequency of response 

varies across respondents and years. 

System costs (particularly laboratory 

analytical costs) vary depending on the 

number of sampling locations. For cost 

estimations, it is assumed that systems 

would conduct sampling evenly across 

January 2013 through December 2015 

(i.e., one-third of systems in each of the 

3 consecutive 12-month periods). 

Because the applicable ICR period is 

2012–2014, there is one year of 

monitoring activity (i.e., January 

through December of 2015) that is not 

captured in the ICR estimates. 

Small systems (those serving 10,000 

or fewer) that are selected for UCMR 3 

monitoring would sample an average of 

1.5 times per system (i.e., number of 

responses per system) across the threeyear ICR period of 2012–2014. The 

average burden per response for small 

systems is estimated to be 3.0 hours. 

Large systems (those serving 10,001 to 

100,000 people) and very large systems 

(those serving more than 100,000 

people) would sample and report an 

average of 2.7 and 3.7 times per system, 

respectively, across the three-year ICR 

period of 2012–2014. The average 

burden per response for large and very 

large systems is estimated to be 6.1 and 

6.3 hours, respectively. States are 

assumed to have an average of 1.0 

response per year, related to 

coordination with EPA and systems, 

with an average burden per response of 

184 hours. In aggregate, during the ICR 

period of 2012–2014, the average 

response (e.g., responses from systems 

and States) is associated with a burden 

of 8.3 hours, with a labor plus non-labor 

cost of $2,714 per response. 

The annual average per respondent 

burden hours and costs for the ICR 

period of 2012–2014 are: small 

systems—1.5 hour burden at $34 for 

labor; large systems—5.5 hours at $170 

for labor, and $2,381 for analytical costs; 

very large systems—7.7 hours at $295 

for labor, and $5,460 for analytical costs; 

and States—233.4 hours at $13,992 for 

labor. Annual average burden and cost 

per respondent (including both systems 

and States) is estimated to be 8.3 hours, 

with a labor plus non-labor cost of 

$1,985 per respondent (note that small 

systems do not pay for testing costs, and 

thus only incur labor costs). Burden is 

defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). 

An agency may not conduct or 

sponsor, and a person is not required to 

respond to, a collection of information 

unless it displays a currently valid OMB 

control number. The OMB control 

numbers for EPA’s regulations in 40 

CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. 

To comment on the Agency’s need for 

this information, the accuracy of the 

provided burden estimates, and any 

suggested methods for minimizing 

respondent burden, EPA has established 

a public docket for this rule, which 

includes this ICR, under Docket ID 

number EPA–HQ–OW–2009–0090. 

Submit any comments related to the ICR 

to EPA and OMB. See ADDRESSES

section at the beginning of this notice 

for where to submit comments to EPA. 

Send comments to OMB at the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs, 

Office of Management and Budget, 725 

17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 

20503, Attention: Desk Office for EPA. 

Since OMB is required to make a 

decision concerning the ICR between 30 

and 60 days after March 3, 2011, a 

comment to OMB is best assured of 

having its full effect if OMB receives it 

by April 4, 2011. The final rule will 

respond to any OMB or public 

comments on the information collection 

requirements contained in this proposal. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

generally requires an agency to prepare 

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any 

rule subject to notice and comment 

rulemaking requirements under the 

Administrative Procedure Act or any 

other statute unless the agency certifies 

that the rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. Small entities 

include small businesses, small 

organizations, and small governmental 

jurisdictions. 

The RFA provides default definitions 

for each type of small entity. Small 

entities are defined as: (1) A small 

business as defined by the Small 

Business Administration’s (SBA) 

regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a 

small governmental jurisdiction that is a 

government of a city, county, town, 

school district or special district with a 

population of less than 50,000; and (3) 

a small organization that is any ‘‘not-forprofit enterprise which is independently 

owned and operated and is not 

dominant in its field.’’ However, the 

RFA also authorizes an agency to use 

alternative definitions for each category 

of small entity, ‘‘which are appropriate 

to the activities of the agency’’ after 

proposing the alternative definition(s) in 

the Federal Register and taking 

comment (5 U.S.C. 601(3)–(5)). In 

addition, to establish an alternative 

small business definition, agencies must 

consult with SBA’s Chief Counsel for 

Advocacy. 

For purposes of assessing the impacts 

of today’s proposed rule on small 

entities, EPA considered small entities 

to be PWSs serving 10,000 or fewer 

people, because this is the system size 

specified in SDWA as requiring special 

consideration with respect to small 

system flexibility. As required by the 

RFA, EPA proposed using this 

alternative definition in the Federal 

Register, (63 FR 7606, February 13, 1998 

(USEPA, 1998a)), requested public 

comment, consulted with the SBA, and 

finalized the alternative definition in 

the Consumer Confidence Reports 

rulemaking, (63 FR 44512, August 19, 

1998 (USEPA, 1998b)). As stated in that 

Final Rule, the alternative definition 

would be applied to future drinking 

water regulations, including this 

regulation. 

After considering the economic 

impacts of today’s proposed rule on 

small entities, I certify that this action 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. The small entities directly 

regulated by this proposed rule are 

PWSs serving 10,000 or fewer people. 

EPA has determined that the small 

entities subject to the requirements of 

this proposed rule are a subset of the 

small PWSs (those serving 10,000 or 

fewer people). The Agency has 

determined that 1,600 small PWSs 

(across Assessment Monitoring and PreScreen Testing), or approximately 3% of 

small systems, would experience an 

impact of less than 0.4% of revenues; 

the remainder of small systems would 

not be impacted. 

Although this proposed rule will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities, 

EPA nonetheless has tried to reduce the 

impact of this rule on small entities. To 

ensure that this proposed rule will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities, 

EPA will assume all costs for analyses 

of the samples and for shipping the 

samples from these systems to the 

laboratories contracted by EPA to 

analyze UCMR 3 samples. EPA has set 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 42 / Thursday, March 3, 2011 / Proposed Rules 11727 

aside $2.0 million each year from the 

State Revolving Fund (SRF) with its 

authority to use SRF monies for the 

purposes of implementing this 

provision of SDWA. Thus, the costs to 

these small systems will be limited to 

the labor hours associated with 

collecting a sample and preparing it for 

shipping. 

The Agency continues to be interested 

in the potential impacts of the proposed 

rule on small entities and welcomes 

comments on issues related to such 

impacts. 

The evaluation of the overall impact 

on small systems, summarized in the 

preceding discussion, is further 

described as follows. EPA analyzed the 

impacts for privately-owned and 

publicly-owned water systems 

separately, due to the different 

economic characteristics of these 

ownership types, such as different rate 

structures and profit goals. However, for 

both publicly- and privately-owned 

systems, EPA used the ‘‘revenue test,’’ 

which compares annual system costs 

attributed to the rule to the system’s 

annual revenues. Median revenue data 

from the not yet published 2006 

Community Water System Survey were 

used for public and private water 

systems. EPA assumes that the 

distribution of the sample of 

participating small systems will reflect 

the proportions of publicly- and 

privately-owned systems in the national 

inventory. The estimated distribution of 

the representative sample, categorized 

by ownership type, source water, and 

system size, is presented in Exhibit 6. 

EXHIBIT 6—NUMBER OF PUBLICLY- AND PRIVATELY-OWNED SMALL SYSTEMS SUBJECT TO UCMR 3 

System size (number of people served) Publicly-owned Privately-owned Total 

Ground Water 

500 and under ........................................................................................................... 126 378 504 

501 to 3,300 ............................................................................................................... 477 182 659 

3,301 to 10,000 .......................................................................................................... 207 48 255 

Subtotal GW ....................................................................................................... 810 608 1,418 

Surface Water (and GWUDI) 

500 and under ........................................................................................................... 2 3 5 

501 to 3,300 ............................................................................................................... 35 13 48 

3,301 to 10,000 .......................................................................................................... 100 29 129 

Subtotal SW ........................................................................................................ 137 45 182 

Total of Small Water Systems .................................................................... 947 653 1,600 

The basis for the UCMR 3 RFA 

certification for this proposed rule is as 

follows: for the 1,600 small water 

systems that would be affected, the 

average annual costs for complying with 

this rule represent less than 0.4% of 

system revenues (the highest estimated 

percentage is for ground water systems 

serving 500 or fewer people, at 0.38% of 

its median revenue). Exhibit 7 presents 

the yearly costs to small systems, and to 

EPA for the small system sampling 

program, along with an illustration of 

system participation for each year of the 

UCMR 3 program. 

EXHIBIT 7—EPA AND SYSTEMS COSTS FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF UCMR 3 AT SMALL SYSTEMS

Cost description 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total 

Costs to EPA for Small System Program (including Assessment Monitoring, and Pre-Screen Testing) 

$0 $3,943,827 ................ $3,943,827 ................ $3,943,827 ................ $0 $11,831,481 

Costs to Small Systems (including Assessment Monitoring, and Pre-Screen Testing): 

$0 $81,707 ..................... $81,707 ..................... $81,707 ..................... $0 $245,121 

Total Costs to EPA and Small Systems for UCMR 2: 

$0 $4,025,533 ................ $4,025,533 ................ $4,025,533 ................ $0 $12,076,599 

System Monitoring Activity Timeline: 1

Assessment Monitoring......................... 1/3 PWSs Sample ..... 1/3 PWSs Sample ..... 1/3 PWSs Sample ..... ........................ 800 

Pre-Screen Testing......................... 1/3 PWSs Sample ..... 1/3 PWSs Sample ..... 1/3 PWSs Sample ..... ........................ 800 

1Total number of systems is 1,600. No small system conducts more than one type of monitoring study. 

System costs are attributed to the 

labor required for reading about their 

requirements, monitoring, reporting, 

and record keeping. The estimated 

average annual burden across the fiveyear UCMR 3 implementation period of 

2012–2016 is estimated to be 1.3 hours 

at $31 per small system. Average annual 

cost, in all cases, is less than 0.4% of 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
11728 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 42 / Thursday, March 3, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

system revenues. As required by the 

SDWA, the Agency specifically 

structured the rule to avoid significantly 

affecting small entities by assuming all 

costs for laboratory analyses, shipping, 

and quality control for small entities. As 

a result, EPA incurs the entirety of the 

non-labor costs associated with UCMR 3 

small system monitoring, or 98% of 

total small system testing costs. Exhibits 

8 and 9 present the estimated economic 

impacts in the form of a revenue test for 

publicly- and privately-owned systems. 

EXHIBIT 8—UCMR 3 RELATIVE COST ANALYSIS FOR SMALL PUBLICLY-OWNED SYSTEMS (2012–2016) 

System size (number of people served) Annual number of 

systems impacted 

Average annual 

hours per system 

(2012–2016) 

Average annual 

cost per system 

(2012–2016) 

Revenue test 1

(percent) 

Ground Water Systems 

500 and under ....................................................................... 25 1.1 $22.63 0 .07 

501 to 3,300 ........................................................................... 96 1.2 26.84 0 .02 

3,301 to 10,000 ...................................................................... 41 1.7 43.71 0 .01 

Surface Water (and GWUDI) Systems 

500 and under ....................................................................... 1 1.8 38.06 0 .07 

501 to 3,300 ........................................................................... 7 1.9 41.99 0 .02 

3,301 to 10,000 ...................................................................... 20 2.0 51.02 0 .005 

1The Revenue Test was used to evaluate the economic impact of an information collection on small government entities (e.g., publicly-owned 

systems); costs are presented as a percentage of median annual revenue in each size category. 

EXHIBIT 9—UCMR 3 RELATIVE COST ANALYSIS FOR SMALL PRIVATELY-OWNED SYSTEMS (2012–2016) 

System size (number of people served) Annual number of 

systems impacted 

Average annual 

hours per system 

(2012–2016) 

Average annual 

cost per system 

(2012–2016) 

Revenue test 1

(percent) 

Ground Water Systems 

500 and under ....................................................................... 76 1.1 $22.63 0 .38 

501 to 3,300 ........................................................................... 36 1.2 26.84 0 .02 

3,301 to 10,000 ...................................................................... 10 1.7 43.71 0 .004 

Surface Water (and GWUDI) Systems 

500 and under ....................................................................... 1 1.8 38.06 0 .11 

501 to 3,300 ........................................................................... 3 1.9 41.99 0 .02 

3,301 to 10,000 ...................................................................... 6 2.0 51.02 0 .005 

1The ‘‘Revenue Test’’ was used to evaluate the economic impact of an information collection on small private entities (e.g., privately-owned 

systems); costs are presented as a percentage of median annual revenue in each size category. 

The Agency continues to be interested 

in the potential impacts of the proposed 

rule on small entities and welcomes 

comments on issues related to such 

impacts. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

This rule does not contain a Federal 

mandate that may result in expenditures 

of $100 million or more for State, local, 

and Tribal governments, in the 

aggregate, or the private sector in any 

one year. Total annual costs of today’s 

proposed rule (across the 

implementation period of 2012–2016), 

for State, local, and Tribal governments 

and the private sector, are estimated to 

be $14.9 million, of which EPA would 

pay $3.3 million, or approximately 22%. 

Thus, this rule is not subject to the 

requirements of sections 202 or 205 of 

UMRA. 

This rule is also not subject to the 

requirements of section 203 of UMRA 

because it contains no regulatory 

requirements that might significantly or 

uniquely affect small governments. The 

Agency expects to pay for the 

reasonable costs of sample analysis for 

the small PWSs required to monitor for 

unregulated contaminants under this 

proposed rule, including those owned 

and operated by small governments. The 

only costs that small systems would 

incur are those attributed to collecting 

the UCMR samples and packing them 

for shipping to the laboratory (EPA 

would pay for shipping). These costs are 

minimal. They are not significant or 

unique. Thus, today’s rule is not subject 

to the requirements of UMRA section 

203. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

This proposed rule does not have 

Federalism implications. It will not 

have substantial direct effects on the 

States, on the relationship between the 

national government and the States, or 

on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132. The cost to State 

and local governments is minimal, and 

the rule does not preempt State law. 

Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not 

apply to this action. 

In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, 

and consistent with EPA policy to 

promote communications between EPA 

and State and local governments, EPA 

specifically solicits comment on the 

proposed rule from State and local 

officials. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

Subject to the Executive Order 13175 

(65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000) EPA 

may not issue a regulation that has 

Tribal implications, that imposes 

substantial direct compliance costs, and 

that is not required by statute, unless 

the Federal government provides the 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 42 / Thursday, March 3, 2011 / Proposed Rules 11729 

funds necessary to pay the direct 

compliance costs incurred by Tribal 

governments, or EPA consults with 

Tribal officials early in the process of 

developing the proposed regulation and 

develops a Tribal summary impact 

statement. 

EPA has concluded that this action 

will have Tribal implications. However, 

it will neither impose substantial direct 

compliance costs on Tribal 

governments, nor preempt Tribal law. 

As described previously, this proposed 

rule requires monitoring by all large 

systems (i.e., those serving more than 

10,000 people); 17 Tribal water systems 

have been identified as large systems 

based on information in the SDWIS/Fed 

water system inventory. EPA estimates 

the average annual cost to each of these 

large systems, over the five-year rule 

period, to be less than $2,381. This cost 

is based on a labor component 

(associated with the collection of 

samples) and a non-labor component 

(associated with shipping and 

laboratory fees) and represents less than 

0.126% of average revenue/sales for 

large systems. UCMR also requires 

monitoring by a nationally 

representative sample of small systems 

(i.e., those serving 10,000 or fewer 

people). EPA estimates that 

approximately one percent of small 

Tribal systems will be selected as a 

nationally representative sample for 

Assessment Monitoring. EPA estimates 

the average annual cost over the fiveyear rule period to be $34. Such cost is 

based on the labor associated with 

collecting a sample and preparing it for 

shipping and represents less than 0.4% 

of average revenue/sales for small 

systems. All other small-system 

expenses (associated with shipping and 

laboratory fees) are paid by EPA. 

EPA consulted with Tribal officials 

early in the process of developing the 

UCMR program to permit them to have 

meaningful and timely input into its 

development. In developing the original 

UCMR rule, EPA held stakeholder 

meetings and prepared background 

information for stakeholder review. EPA 

sent requests for review of stakeholder 

documents to nearly 400 Tribes, Tribal 

organizations, and small systems 

organizations to obtain their input. 

Representatives from the Indian Health 

Service (IHS) Sanitary Deficiency 

System and Tribes were consulted 

regarding decisions on rule design, the 

design for the statistical selection of 

small systems, and potential costs. 

Tribes raised issues concerning the 

selection of the nationally 

representative sample of small systems, 

particularly the manner in which Tribal 

systems would be considered under the 

sample selection process. EPA 

developed the sample frame for Tribal 

systems and Alaska Native water 

systems in response to those concerns. 

EPA worked with the Tribes, Alaska 

Natives, the IHS, and the States to 

determine how to classify each Tribal 

system for consideration in the 

statistically-based selection of the 

nationally representative sample of 

small systems. As a result of those 

discussions, small PWSs located in 

Indian country in each of the EPA 

Regions containing Indian country were 

evaluated as part of a Tribal category 

that receives selection consideration 

comparable to that of small systems 

outside of Indian country. Thus, Tribal 

systems have the same probability of 

being selected as other water systems in 

the stratified selection process that 

weighs systems by water source and size 

class by population served. Today’s 

proposed rule, addressing the third 

UCMR period, maintains the basic 

program design of UCMR 1 and 2, and 

continues to build upon the structure of 

this cyclical program. As part of the 

development of this proposed rule, EPA 

held a public stakeholder meeting on 

April 7, 2010. This meeting was 

announced to the public in a Federal 

Register notice dated February 23, 2010 

(75 FR 8063 (USEPA, 2010a)). Prior to 

the meeting, background materials and 

rule development information were sent 

to specific stakeholders, including 

representatives from the Indian Health 

Service and the Native American Water 

Association. 

EPA specifically solicits additional 

comment on this proposed action from 

tribal officials. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks 

This action is not subject to EO 13045 

because it does not establish an 

environmental standard intended to 

mitigate health or safety risks and it is 

not an economically significant 

regulation pursuant to EO 12866. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This action is not a ‘‘significant energy 

action’’ as defined in Executive Order 

13211 (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)), 

because it is not likely to have a 

significant adverse effect on the supply, 

distribution, or use of energy. None of 

the proposed UCMR requirements 

involve actions that use a measurable 

amount of energy. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (‘‘NTTAA’’), Public Law 

104–113 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs 

EPA to use voluntary consensus 

standards in its regulatory activities 

unless to do so would be inconsistent 

with applicable law or otherwise 

impractical. Voluntary consensus 

standards are technical standards (e.g., 

materials specifications, test methods, 

sampling procedures, and business 

practices) that are developed or adopted 

by voluntary consensus standards 

bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provide 

Congress, through OMB, explanations 

when the Agency decides not to use 

available and applicable voluntary 

consensus standards. 

This proposed rulemaking involves 

technical standards. EPA proposes to 

use the methods developed by the 

Agency for the analysis of UCMR 3 

contaminants. The Agency conducted a 

search of potentially applicable 

voluntary consensus standards and 

identified three major voluntary 

consensus method organizations whose 

methods might be acceptable for 

determinations under Unregulated 

Contaminant Monitoring. These 

organizations are Standard Methods, 

Association of Analytical Communities 

International, and American Society for 

Testing and Materials. For the majority 

of the parameters included in this 

proposed action, EPA was unable to 

identify methods from voluntary 

consensus method organizations that 

were applicable to the monitoring 

required. However, EPA identified 

acceptable consensus method 

organization standards for the analysis 

of vanadium, molybdenum, cobalt, 

strontium and chlorate. Therefore, EPA 

is proposing analytical methods 

published by EPA, Standard Methods, 

and American Society for Testing and 

Materials for these analytes. 

EPA welcomes comments on this 

aspect of the proposed rulemaking and, 

specifically, invites the public to 

identify potentially-applicable 

voluntary consensus standards and to 

explain why such standards should be 

used in this regulation. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 

7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes Federal 

executive policy on environmental 

justice. Its main provision directs 

Federal agencies, to the greatest extent 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
11730 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 42 / Thursday, March 3, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

practicable and permitted by law, to 

make environmental justice part of their 

mission by identifying and addressing, 

as appropriate, disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, 

policies, and activities on minority 

populations and low-income 

populations in the United States. 

EPA has determined that this 

proposed rule will not have 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

on minority or low-income populations 

because it increases the level of 

environmental protection for all affected 

populations without having any 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

on any population, including any 

minority or low-income population. By 

seeking to identify unregulated 

contaminants that may pose health risks 

via drinking water from all PWSs, 

UCMR furthers the protection of public 

health for all citizens, including 

minority and low-income populations 

using public water supplies. UCMR uses 

a statistically-derived set of systems for 

the nationally representative sample 

that is population-weighted within each 

system size and source water category 

so that any PWS within a category has 

an equivalent likelihood of selection. 

Additionally, EPA is proposing to 

require additional reporting elements 

that include U.S. Postal Service Zip 

Codes for both the finished water entry 

point(s) and the PWS’s service area. 

EPA is soliciting comment on additional 

actions the Agency could take to further 

address environmental justice within 

the UCMR program. EPA requests 

stakeholder input on additional 

reporting elements to consider to 

support the Agency’s assessment of the 

monitoring results. EPA also requests 

comments regarding sampling and/or 

modeling approaches, and the feasibility 

and utility of applying these 

approaches, to determine 

disproportionate impacts on drinking 

water quality at PWSs serving minority 

and low-income populations. 

VI. Public Involvement in Regulation 

Development 

EPA’s Office of Ground Water and 

Drinking Water has developed a process 

for stakeholder involvement in its 

regulatory activities for the purpose of 

providing early input to regulation 

development. When designing and 

developing the UCMR program, in the 

late 1990s, EPA held meetings for 

developing the CCL, establishing the 

information requirements of the NCOD, 

and selecting priority contaminants for 

monitoring. During the initial 

development of the UCMR program, 

stakeholders, including PWSs, States, 

industry, and other organizations 

attended meetings to discuss the UCMR. 

Seventeen other meetings were held 

specifically concerning UCMR 

development. For a description of 

public involvement activities related to 

the first UCMR (UCMR 1), please see the 

discussion in the September 17, 1999 

UCMR Final Rule Federal Register at 64 

FR 50556 (USEPA, 1999). 

Specific to the development of UCMR 

3, a stakeholder meeting was held on 

April 7, 2010, in Washington, DC. There 

were 22 attendees, representing State 

agencies, laboratories, PWSs, 

environmental groups, and drinking 

water associations. The topics of 

presentations and discussions included: 

Status of UCMR 2; rationale for 

developing a new list of potential 

contaminants; analytical methods that 

could be used in measuring these 

contaminants; sampling design; 

procedure for determining LCMRLs; 

laboratory approval; and other potential 

revisions based on lessons learned 

during implementation of UCMR 1 and 

UCMR 2 (see USEPA, 2010f for 

presentation materials, and 2010g for 

meeting notes). 

EPA has established a public docket 

for this rule, under Docket ID No. OW– 

2009–0090. EPA is soliciting comments 

on this proposed regulation. Please see 

the summary section at the beginning of 

this notice for instructions on 

submitting comments. 

VII. References 

Ando, T., S.S. Monroe, J.R. Gentsch, Q. Jin, 

D.C. Lewis, and R.I. Glass. 1995. 

Detection and differentiation of 

antigenically distinct small roundstructured viruses (Norwalk-like viruses) 

by reverse transcription-PCR and 

southern hybridization. Journal of 

Clinical Microbiology. 33(1):64–71. 

Association of State Drinking Water 

Administrators (ASDWA). 2003. Public 

Health Protection Threatened by 

Inadequate Resources for State Drinking 

Water Programs—An Analysis of State 

Drinking Water Programs Resources, 

Needs, and Barriers. April 2003. 

ASTM D5673–10. 2010. Standard Test 

Method for Elements in Water by 

Inductively Coupled Plasma-Mass 

Spectrometry. Available for purchase on 

the Internet at http://www.astm.org/ 

Standards/D5673.htm. 

ASTM D6581–08. 2008. Standard Test 

Methods for Bromate, Bromide, Chlorate, 

and Chlorite in Drinking Water by 

Suppressed Ion Chromatography. 

Available for purchase on the Internet at 

http://www.astm.org/Standards/ 

D6581.htm. 

Borchardt, M.A. 2008. Wisconsin Water And 

Health Trial for Enteric Risks (WAHTER 

Study)—Part 1: Risk of Illness from 

Municipal Groundwater Consumption. 

EPA Office of Water Symposium on 

Groundwater-Borne Infectious Disease, 

Etiologic Agents and Indicators, 

Washington, DC, December 2–4, 2008. 

De Leon, R., C. Shieh, R.S. Baric, and M.D. 

Sobsey. 1990. Detection of enteroviruses 

and hepatitis A virus in environmental 

samples by gene probes and polymerase 

chain reaction. P. 833–835. In Advances 

of Water Analysis and Treatment 

Proceedings 1989. Water Quality 

Technology Conference, American Water 

Works Association, Denver, CO. 

American Water Works Association, San 

Diego, CA. 

Francy, D.S., R.N. Bushon, J. Stopar, E.J. 

Luzano, and G.S. Fout. 2004. 

Environmental Factors and Chemical 

and Microbiological Water-Quality 

Constituents Related to the Presence of 

Enteric Viruses in Ground Water From 

Small Public Water Supplies in 

Southeastern Michigan. US Geological 

Survey Science Investigations Report 

2004–5219. 

Gibbons, C.D., R.A. Rodriguez., L. Tallon, 

M.D. Sobsey. 2010. Evaluation of 

positively charged alumina nanofibre 

cartridge filters for the primary 

concentration of noroviruses, 

adenoviruses and male-specific 

coliphages from seawater. Journal of 

Applied Microbiology. 109(2):635–641. 

Jothikumar, N., J.A. Lowther, K. 

Henshilwood, D.N. Lees, V.R. Hill, and 

J. Vinje ́. 2005. Rapid and sensitive 

detection of noroviruses by using 

TaqMan-based one-step reverse 

transcription-PCR assays and application 

to naturally contaminated shellfish 

samples. Applied and Environmental 

Microbiology. 71(4):1870–1875. 

Karim, M.R., E.R. Rhodes, N. Brinkman, L. 

Wymer, and G.S. Fout. 2009. New 

electropositive filter for concentrating 

enteroviruses and noroviruses from large 

volumes of water. Applied and 

Environmental Microbiology. 75(8):2393– 

2399. 

Lambertini, E., S.K. Spencer, P.D. Bertz, F.J. 

Loge, B.A. Kieke, and M.A. Borchardt. 

2008. Concentration of enteroviruses, 

adenoviruses, and noroviruses from 

drinking water by use of glass wool 

filters. Applied and Environmental 

Microbiology. 74(10):2990–2996. 

Monpoeho, S., A. Dehe ́e, B. Mignotte, L. 

Schwartzbrod, V. Marechal, J.C. Nicolas, 

S. Billaudel, and V. Ferre ́. 2000. 

Quantification of enterovirus RNA in 

sludge samples by single tube real-time 

RT–PCR. BioTechniques. 29:88–95. 

SM 3125. 1997. Metals by Inductively 

Coupled Plasma/Mass Spectrometry. 

Available for purchase on the Internet at 

http://www.standardmethods.org/store/ 

ProductView.cfm?ProductID=211. 

SM 4110D. 2000. Determination of Anions by 

Ion Chromatography, Part D, IC 

determination of oxyhalides and 

bromide. Available for purchase on the 

Internet at http:// 

www.standardmethods.org/store/ 

ProductView.cfm?ProductID=31. 

USEPA. 1994. Method 200.8—Determination 

of Trace Elements in Waters and Wastes 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 42 / Thursday, March 3, 2011 / Proposed Rules 11731 

by Inductively Coupled Plasma-Mass 

Spectrometry. Revision 5.4. Available on 

the Internet at https://www.nemi.gov/. 

USEPA. 1996. Information Collection Rule 

Microbial Laboratory Manual. Office of 

Research and Development. April 1996. 

EPA/600/R–95/178. Available on the 

Internet at http://www.epa.gov/microbes/ 

online.html#icr. 

USEPA. 1997. Method 300.1—Determination 

of Inorganic Anions in Drinking Water by 

Ion Chromatography. Revision 1.0. 

Available on the Internet at http:// 

water.epa.gov/scitech/drinkingwater/ 

labcert/analyticalmethods_ogwdw.cfm. 

USEPA. 1998a. 40 CFR Parts 141 and 142 

National Primary Drinking Water 

Regulations: Consumer Confidence; 

Proposed Rule. Federal Register. Vol. 63, 

No. 30, p. 7606, February 13, 1998. 

USEPA. 1998b. 40 CFR Parts 141 and 142 

National Primary Drinking Water 

Regulation: Consumer Confidence 

Reports; Final Rule. Federal Register. 

Vol. 63, No. 160, p. 44512, August 19, 

1998. 

USEPA. 1999. Revisions to the Unregulated 

Contaminant Monitoring Regulation for 

Public Water Systems; Final Rule. 

Federal Register. Vol. 64, No. 180, p. 

50556, September 17, 1999. 

USEPA. 2001. Statistical Design and Sample 

Selection for the Unregulated 

Contaminant Monitoring Regulation 

(1999). EPA 815–R–01–004. August 

2001. 

USEPA. 2003. National Primary Drinking 

Water Regulations: Stage 2 Disinfectants 

and Disinfection Byproducts Rule; 

National Primary and Secondary 

Drinking Water Regulations: Approval of 

Analytical Methods for Chemical 

Contaminants. Federal Register. Vol. 68, 

No. 159, p. 49547, August 18, 2003. 

USEPA. 2004. Statistical Protocol for the 

Determination of the Single-Laboratory 

Lowest Concentration Minimum 

Reporting Level (LCMRL) and Validation 

of Laboratory Performance at or Below 

the Minimum Reporting Level (MRL). 

EPA 815–R–05–006. November 2004. 

USEPA. 2007. Unregulated Contaminant 

Monitoring Regulation (UCMR) for 

Public Water Systems Revisions. Federal 

Register. Vol. 72, No. 2, p. 367, January 

4, 2007. 

USEPA. 2008. Method 522—Determination of 

1,4-Dioxane in Drinking Water by Solid 

Phase Extraction (SPE) and Gas 

Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry 

(GC/MS) with Selected Ion Monitoring 

(SIM). EPA/600/R–08/101. Version 1.0, 

September 2008. Available on the 

Internet at http://www.epa.gov/ 

nerlcwww/ordmeth.htm. 

USEPA. 2009a. Method 524.3—Measurement 

of Purgeable Organic Compounds in 

Water by Capillary Column Gas 

Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry. 

EPA/815/B–09/009. Version 1.0, June 

2009. Available on the Internet at http:// 

water.epa.gov/scitech/drinkingwater/

labcert/analyticalmethods_ogwdw.cfm. 

USEPA. 2009b. Method 537—Determination 

of Selected Perfluorinated Alkyl Acids in 

Drinking Water by Solid Phase 

Extraction and Liquid Chromatography/ 

Tandem Mass Spectrometry (LC/MS/ 

MS). EPA/600/R–08/092. Version 1.1, 

September 2009. Available on the 

Internet at http://www.epa.gov/ 

nerlcwww/ordmeth.htm. 

USEPA. 2009c. Drinking Water Contaminant 

Candidate List 3–Final. Federal Register. 

Vol. 74, No. 194, p. 51850, October 8, 

2009. 

USEPA. 2010a. Stakeholder Meeting 

Regarding Revisions to the Unregulated 

Contaminant Monitoring Regulation. 

Federal Register. Vol. 75, No. 35, p. 

8063, February 23, 2010. 

USEPA. 2010b. National Primary Drinking 

Water Regulations; Announcement of the 

Results of EPA’s Review of Existing 

Drinking Water Standards and Request 

for Public Comment and/or Information 

on Related Issues; Notice. Federal 

Register. Vol. 75, No. 59, p. 15500, 

March 29, 2010. 

USEPA. 2010c. Method 539—Determination 

of Hormones in Drinking Water by Solid 

Phase Extraction (SPE) and Liquid 

Chromatography Electrospray Ionization 

Tandem Mass Spectrometry (LC–ESI– 

MS/MS). Available on the Internet at 

http://water.epa.gov/scitech/

drinkingwater/labcert/

analyticalmethods_ogwdw.cfm. 

USEPA. 2010d. Possible Contaminants for 

Inclusion on UCMR 3—Information 

Compendium. EPA 815–B–10–002. 

USEPA. 2010e. UCMR 3 Laboratory Approval 

Requirements and Information 

Document. Draft in process. 

USEPA. 2010f. Stakeholder Meeting 

Regarding Revisions to the Unregulated 

Contaminant Monitoring Regulation— 

Presentation Materials. April 7, 2010. 

USEPA. 2010g. Stakeholder Meeting 

Regarding Revisions to the Unregulated 

Contaminant Monitoring Regulation— 

Meeting Notes. April 2010. 

List of Subjects 

40 CFR Part 141 

Environmental protection, Chemicals, 

Indians—lands, Intergovernmental 

relations, Radiation protection, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Water supply. 

40 CFR Part 142 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practices and 

procedures, Chemicals, Indian lands, 

Radiation protection, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Water 

supply. 

Dated: February 17, 2011. 

Lisa P. Jackson, 

Administrator. 

For the reasons set out in the 

preamble, Title 40, chapter 1 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations is proposed 

to be amended as follows: 

PART 141—NATIONAL PRIMARY 

DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS 

1. The authority citation for part 141 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 300f, 300g–1, 300g–2, 

300g–3, 300g–4, 300g–5, 300g–6, 300j–4, 

300j–9, and 300j–11. 

Subpart C—Monitoring and Analytical 

Requirements 

2. Section 141.23 is amended in the 

table to paragraph (k)(1) by revising 

entries 18, 19, and 20; and by removing 

footnote 23. 

The revisions read as follows: 

§ 141.23 Inorganic chemical sampling and 

analytical requirements. 

* * * * * 

(k) Inorganic analysis: 

* * * * * 

Contaminant Methodology 13 EPA Method ASTM 3 SM 4 (18th, 19th 

ed.) SM 4 (20th ed.) SM Online 22 Other 

*******

18. Nitrate .......... Ion Chromatography ...................... 6 300.0 19 300.1 

D4327–97, 03 4110 B 4110 B 4110 B–00 8B–1011 

Automated Cadmium Reduction .... 6 353.2 D3867–90 A 4500–NO3F 4500–NO3

-

F 4500–NO3F–00 

Ion Selective Electrode .................. 4500–NO3D 4500–NO3

-

D 4500–NO3D–00 7 601 

Manual Cadmium Reduction ......... .......................... D3867–90 B 4500–NO3E 4500–NO3

-

E 4500–NO3E–00 

Capillary Ion Electrophoresis ......... .......................... D6508–00. 

19. Nitrite ........... Ion Chromatography ...................... 6 300.0 19 300.1 

D4327–97, 03 4110 B 4110 B 4110 B–00 8B–1011 

Automated Cadmium Reduction .... 6 353.2 D3867–90 A 4500–NO3F 4500–NO3

-

F 4500–NO3F–00 

Manual Cadmium Reduction ......... .......................... D3867–90 B 4500–NO3E 4500–NO3

-

E 4500–NO3E–00 

Spectrophotometric ........................ .......................... .......................... 4500–NO2

-

B 4500–NO2

-

B 4500–NO2

-

B–00 

Capillary Ion Electrophoresis ......... .......................... D6508–00 

20. Ortho-phosphate.Colorimetric, Automated, Ascorbic 

Acid.

6 365.1 .......................... 4500–P F 4500–P F 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
11732 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 42 / Thursday, March 3, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

Contaminant Methodology 13 EPA Method ASTM 3 SM 4 (18th, 19th 

ed.) SM 4 (20th ed.) SM Online 22 Other 

Colorimetric, ascorbic acid, single 

reagent.

.......................... D515–88 A 4500–P E 4500–P E 

Colorimetric Phosphomolybdate; 5 I–1601–85 

Automated-segmented flow; .......... 5 I–2601–90 

Automated Discrete ....................... 5 I–2598–85 

Ion Chromatography ...................... 6 300.0 19 300.1 

D4327–97, 03 4110 B 4110 B 4110 B–00 

Capillary Ion Electrophoresis ......... .......................... D6508–00 

* * * * * * * 

* * * * * 3Annual Book of ASTM Standards, 1994, 

1996, 1999, or 2003, Vols. 11.01 and 11.02, 

ASTM International; any year containing the 

cited version of the method may be used. The 

previous versions of D1688–95A, D1688–95C 

(copper), D3559–95D (lead), D1293–95 (pH), 

D1125–91A (conductivity) and D859–94 

(silica) are also approved. These previous 

versions D1688–90A, C; D3559–90D, D1293– 

84, D1125–91A and D859–88, respectively 

are located in the Annual Book of ASTM 

Standards, 1994, Vol. 11.01. Copies may be 

obtained from ASTM International, 100 Barr 

Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken, PA 

19428. 4Standard Methods for the Examination of 

Water and Wastewater, 18th edition (1992), 

19th edition (1995) or 20th edition (1998). 

American Public Health Association, 800 I 

Street, NW., Washington, DC 20001–3710. 

The cited methods published in any of these 

three editions may be used, except that the 

versions of 3111 B, 3111 D, 3113 B and 3114 

B in the 20th edition may not be used. 5Method I–2601–90, Methods for Analysis 

by the U.S. Geological Survey National Water 

Quality Laboratory—Determination of 

Inorganic and Organic Constituents in Water 

and Fluvial Sediment, Open File Report 93– 

125, 1993; For Methods I–1030–85; I–1601– 

85; I–1700–85; I–2598–85; I–2700–85; and I– 

3300–85. See Techniques of Water Resources 

Investigation of the U.S. Geological Survey, 

Book 5, Chapter A–1, 3rd edition, 1989; 

Available from Information Services, U.S. 

Geological Survey, Federal Center, Box 

25286, Denver, CO 80225–0425. 6 ‘‘Methods for the Determination of 

Inorganic Substances in Environmental 

Samples,’’ EPA/600/R–93/100, August 1993. 

Available at NTIS, PB94–120821. 7The procedure shall be done in 

accordance with the Technical Bulletin 601 

‘‘Standard Method of Test for Nitrate in 

Drinking Water,’’ July 1994, PN 221890–001, 

Analytical Technology, Inc. Copies may be 

obtained from ATI Orion, 529 Main Street, 

Boston, MA 02129. 8Method B–1011. ‘‘Waters Test Method for 

Determination of Nitrite/Nitrate in Water 

Using Single Column Ion Chromatography,’’ 

August, 1987. Copies may be obtained from 

Waters Corporation, Technical Services 

Division, 34 Maple Street, Milford, MA 

01757, Telephone: 508/482–2963, Fax: 508/ 

482–4056. 

* * * * * 13Because MDLs reported in EPA Methods 

200.7 and 200.9 were determined using a 2x 

preconcentration step during sample 

digestion, MDLs determined when samples 

are analyzed by direct analysis (i.e., no 

sample digestion) will be higher. For direct 

analysis of cadmium and arsenic by Method 

200.7, and arsenic by Method 3120 B, sample 

preconcentration using pneumatic 

nebulization may be required to achieve 

lower detection limits. Preconcentration may 

also be required for direct analysis of 

antimony, lead, and thallium by Method 

200.9; antimony and lead by Method 3113 B; 

and lead by Method D3559–90D, unless 

multiple in-furnace depositions are made. 

* * * * * 19 ‘‘Methods for the Determination of 

Organic and Inorganic Compounds in 

Drinking Water,’’ Vol. 1, EPA 815–R–00–014, 

August 2000. Available at NTIS, PB2000– 

106981. 

* * * * * 22Standard Methods Online are available 

at http://www.standardmethods.org. The year 

in which each method was approved by the 

Standard Methods Committee is designated 

by the last two digits in the method number. 

The methods listed are the only online 

versions that may be used. 

3. Section 141.35 is amended as 

follows: 

a. In paragraph (a) by revising the 

third sentence, 

b. By revising paragraph (b) 

introductory text, 

c. In paragraph (b)(1) by revising the 

third sentence, 

d. In paragraph (b)(2) by revising the 

second sentence, 

e. In paragraph (c)(1) by removing 

‘‘April 4, 2007’’ and adding in its place, 

‘‘[DATE 90 DAYS AFTER DATE OF 

PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE],’’ 

f. In paragraph (c)(2) by removing 

‘‘August 2, 2007’’ and adding in its 

place, ‘‘[DATE 240 DAYS AFTER DATE 

OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL 

RULE],’’ 

g. In paragraph (c)(2) by revising the 

last sentence, 

h. In paragraph (c)(3)(i) by removing 

‘‘May 4, 2007’’ and adding in its place, 

‘‘[DATE 120 DAYS AFTER DATE OF 

PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE],’’ 

i. In paragraph (c)(3)(ii) by adding a 

new second and third sentence, 

j. In paragraph (c)(4) by removing 

‘‘June 4, 2007’’ and adding in its place, 

‘‘[DATE 150 DAYS AFTER DATE OF 

PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE],’’ 

k. In paragraph (c)(5)(i) by removing 

the two instances of the date ‘‘August 2, 

2007’’ and add in their place, ‘‘[DATE 

240 DAYS AFTER DATE OF 

PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE],’’ 

l. By revising paragraph (c)(6) 

introductory text, 

m. By revising paragraph (c)(6)(ii), 

n. By revising paragraph (d)(2), and 

o. In the table to paragraph (e) by 

revising entries 4 and 6. 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

§ 141.35 Reporting for unregulated 

contaminant monitoring results. 

(a) * * * For the purposes of this 

section, PWS ‘‘population served’’ is the 

retail population served directly by the 

PWS as reported to the Federal Safe 

Drinking Water Information System 

(SDWIS/Fed).* * * 

(b) Reporting by all systems. You must 

meet the reporting requirements of this 

paragraph if you meet the applicability 

criteria in § 141.40(a)(1) and (2). 

* * * * * 

(1) * * * Information that must be 

submitted using EPA’s electronic data 

reporting system must be submitted 

through: http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/ 

rulesregs/sdwa/ucmr/ucmr3/ 

reporting.cfm. * * * 

(2) * * * If you have received a letter 

from EPA concerning your required 

monitoring and your system does not 

meet the applicability criteria for UCMR 

established in § 141.40(a)(1) or (2), or if 

a change occurs at your system that may 

affect your requirements under UCMR 

as defined in § 141.40(a)(3) through (5), 

you must fax, mail, or e-mail a letter to 

EPA, as specified in paragraph (b)(1) of 

this section. * * * 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(2) * * * If this information changes, 

you must report updates, including new 

sources and sampling locations which 

are put in use before or during the PWS’ 

UCMR sampling period, to EPA’s 

electronic data reporting system within 

30 days of the change. 

* * * * * 

(3) * * * 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 42 / Thursday, March 3, 2011 / Proposed Rules 11733 

(ii) * * * The proposed 

representative well must be one of the 

higher annual volume producing and 

more consistently active wells in the 

representative array. If that 

representative well is not in use at the 

scheduled sampling time, an alternative 

representative well must be sampled. 

* * * 

* * * * * 

(6) Reporting monitoring results. For 

each sample, you must report all data 

elements specified in Table 1 of 

paragraph (e) of this section, using 

EPA’s electronic data reporting system. 

You also must report any changes, 

relative to what is currently posted, 

made to data elements 1 through 6 to 

EPA, in writing, explaining the nature 

and purpose of the proposed change, as 

specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this 

section. 

* * * * * 

(ii) Reporting schedule. You must 

ensure that your laboratory posts the 

data to EPA’s electronic data reporting 

system within 60 days from the sample 

collection date (sample collection must 

occur as specified in § 141.40(a)(4)). You 

have 30 days from when the laboratory 

posts the data in EPA’s electronic data 

reporting system to review, approve, 

and submit the data to the State and 

EPA, at the Web address specified in 

paragraph (b)(1) of this section. If you 

do not electronically approve and 

submit the laboratory data to EPA 

within 30 days of the laboratory’s 

posting to EPA’s electronic reporting 

system, the data will be considered 

approved by you and available for State 

and EPA review. 

* * * * * 

(d) * * * 

(2) Reporting sampling information. 

You must record all data elements listed 

in Table 1 of paragraph (e) of this 

section on each sample form and sample 

bottle provided to you by the UCMR 

Sampling Coordinator. You must send 

this information as specified in the 

instructions of your sampling kit, which 

will include the due date and return 

address. You must report any changes 

made in data elements 1 through 6 by 

mailing or e-mailing an explanation of 

the nature and purpose of the proposed 

change to EPA, as specified in 

paragraph (b)(1) of this section. 

(e) * * * 

TABLE 1—UNREGULATED CONTAMINANT MONITORING REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

Data element Definition 

*******

4. (a) Sampling Point Identification Code, 

(b) Sampling Point Zip Code, (c) Optional Zip Code Extension, and (d) Zip 

Codes Served.

(a) An identification code established by the State, or at the State’s discretion, by the PWS, that 

uniquely identifies each sampling point. Each sampling code must be unique within each applicable 

facility, for each applicable sampling location (i.e., entry point to the distribution system or distribution system sample at maximum residence time). The same identification code must be used to 

represent the sampling location for all current and future UCMR monitoring. 

(b) The U.S. Postal Service (USPS) ZIP code in which the sampling point is located, with format: 

ZZZZZ. 

(c) The optional Zip Code Extension in which the sampling point is located, with format: EEEE. 

(d) Zip codes of all areas supplied with water from this sampling point, with format: ZZZZZ. 

* * * * * * * 

6. Disinfectant Type ................................. The disinfectant in use at the time of UCMR monitoring. To be reported by systems for each sampling point, with possible values including: 

CLG = gaseous chlorine. 

CLS = Sodium hypochlorite solution. 

CLP = Potassium hypochlorite solution. 

CAG = chloramine (gaseous chlorine). 

CAS = chloramine (sodium hypochlorite solution). 

CAP = chloramine (potassium hypochlorite solution). 

CLD = chlorine dioxide. 

GOS = Hypochlorite generated off site. 

GIH = Hypochlorite generated at DW facility. 

OTH = all other types of disinfectant (e.g. ozone). 

NOD = no disinfectant used. 

* * * * * * * 

Subpart E—Special Regulations, 

Including Monitoring Regulations and 

Prohibition on Lead Use 

4. Section 141.40 is amended as 

follows: 

a. By revising paragraph (a) 

introductory text, 

b. By revising paragraph (a)(1), 

c. By revising paragraph (a)(2)(i) 

introductory text, 

d. By revising paragraph (a)(2)(ii) 

introductory text, 

e. By revising paragraph (a)(2)(ii)(C), 

f. By revising paragraph (a)(3), 

g. In paragraph (a)(4)(i) introductory 

text by removing ‘‘August 2, 2007’’ and 

adding in its place, ‘‘[DATE 240 DAYS 

AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF 

THE FINAL RULE],’’ 

h. By revising paragraph (a)(4)(i)(B), 

i. By revising paragraph (a)(4)(i)(C), 

j. In paragraph (a)(4)(i)(D) by 

removing the last sentence, 

k. By revising paragraph (a)(4)(ii)(G), 

l. In paragraph (a)(5)(ii) by removing 

‘‘April 4, 2007’’ and adding in its place, 

‘‘[DATE 90 DAYS AFTER DATE OF 

PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE]’’ 

and by revising the last sentence, 

m. By revising paragraph (a)(5)(iii) 

introductory text, 

n. By revising paragraph 

(a)(5)(iii)(A)(1), 

o. By revising paragraph (a)(5)(iv), and 

p. By revising paragraph (a)(5)(vi). 

The revisions read as follows: 

§ 141.40 Monitoring requirements for 

unregulated contaminants. 

(a) General applicability. This section 

specifies the monitoring and quality 

control requirements that must be 

followed if you own or operate a public 

water system (PWS) that is subject to the 

Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
11734 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 42 / Thursday, March 3, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

Regulation (UCMR), as specified in 

paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this section. 

In addition, this section specifies the 

UCMR requirements for State and Tribal 

participation. For the purposes of this 

section, PWS ‘‘population served,’’ 

‘‘State,’’ ’’ PWS Official,’’ ‘‘PWS 

Technical Contact,’’ and ‘‘finished 

water’’ apply as defined in § 141.35(a). 

The determination of whether a PWS is 

required to monitor under this rule is 

based on the type of system (e.g., 

community water system, non-transient 

non-community water system, etc.), and 

its retail population, as indicated by 

SDWIS/Fed on December 31, 2010. 

(1) Applicability to transient noncommunity systems. If you own or 

operate a transient non-community 

water system, you will have to monitor 

for the contaminants specified on List 3 

of Table 1, in paragraph (a)(3) of this 

section if you are notified by your State 

or EPA. 

(2) * * * 

(i) Large systems. If you own or 

operate a retail PWS (other than a 

transient non-community system) that 

serves more than 10,000 people, you 

must monitor according to the 

specifications in this paragraph (a)(2)(i). 

If you believe that your applicability 

status is different than EPA has 

specified in the notification letter that 

you received, or if you are subject to 

UCMR requirements and you have not 

been notified by either EPA or your 

State, you must report to EPA, as 

specified in § 141.35(b)(2) or (c)(4). 

* * * * * 

(ii) Small systems. Small PWSs, as 

defined in this paragraph, will not be 

selected to monitor for any more than 

one of the three monitoring lists 

provided in Table 1, UCMR 

Contaminant List, in paragraph (a)(3) of 

this section. EPA will provide sample 

containers, provide pre-paid air bills for 

shipping the sampling materials, 

conduct the laboratory analysis, and 

report and review monitoring results for 

all small systems selected to conduct 

monitoring under paragraphs 

(a)(2)(ii)(A) through (C) of this section. 

If you own or operate a PWS that serves 

10,000 or fewer people you must 

monitor as follows: 

* * * * * 

(C) Pre-Screen Testing. You must 

allow EPA or its representative to 

collect samples to support monitoring 

for the unregulated contaminants on 

List 3 of Table 1, in paragraph (a)(3) of 

this section, if you are notified by your 

State or EPA that you are part of the 

State Monitoring plan for Pre-Screen 

Testing. In addition, you must permit 

the collection of samples as necessary 

for EPA to perform analysis for total 

coliform, E. coli, bacteriophage, 

Enterococci, and aerobic spores. 

(3) Analytes to be monitored. Lists 1, 

2, and 3 of unregulated contaminants 

are provided in the following table: 

TABLE 1—UCMR CONTAMINANT LIST

1—Contaminant 2—CAS 

Registry No. 

3—Analytical 

methods a

4—Minimum 

reporting level b

5—Sampling 

location c

6—Period during which 

monitoring to be 

completed 

List 1: Assessment Monitoring—Chemical Contaminants 

Hormones 

17-b-estradiol ....................................... 50–28–2 EPA 539 d ............. 0.0004 μg/L .......... EPTDS ................. 1/1/2013–12/31/2015. 

17-a-ethynylestradiol ........................... 57–63–6 EPA 539 d ............. 0.0009 μg/L .......... EPTDS ................. 1/1/2013–12/31/2015. 

estriol ................................................... 50–27–1 EPA 539 d ............. 0.0008 μg/L .......... EPTDS ................. 1/1/2013–12/31/2015. 

equilin .................................................. 474–86–2 EPA 539 d ............. 0.004 μg/L ............ EPTDS ................. 1/1/2013–12/31/2015. 

estrone ................................................. 53–16–7 EPA 539 d ............. 0.002 μg/L ............ EPTDS ................. 1/1/2013–12/31/2015. 

testosterone ......................................... 58–22–0 EPA 539 d ............. 0.0001 μg/L .......... EPDTS ................. 1/1/2013–12/31/2015. 

4-androstene-3,17-dione ..................... 63–05–8 EPA 539 d ............. 0.0003 μg/L .......... EPTDS ................. 1/1/2013–12/31/2015. 

Volatile Organic Compounds 

1,2,3-trichloropropane .......................... 96–18–4 EPA 524.3 e .......... 0.03 μg/L .............. EPTDS ................. 1/1/2013–12/31/2015. 

1,3-butadiene ....................................... 106–99–0 EPA 524.3 e .......... 0.1 μg/L ................ EPTDS ................. 1/1/2013–12/31/2015. 

chloromethane ..................................... 74–87–3 EPA 524.3 e .......... 0.2 μg/L ................ EPTDS ................. 1/1/2013–12/31/2015. 

1,1-dichloroethane ............................... 75–34–3 EPA 524.3 e .......... 0.03 μg/L .............. EPTDS ................. 1/1/2013–12/31/2015. 

n-propylbenzene .................................. 103–65–1 EPA 524.3 e .......... 0.03 μg/L .............. EPTDS ................. 1/1/2013–12/31/2015. 

bromomethane ..................................... 74–83–9 EPA 524.3 e .......... 0.2 μg/L ................ EPTDS ................. 1/1/2013–12/31/2015. 

sec-butylbenzene ................................. 135–98–8 EPA 524.3 e .......... 0.04 μg/L .............. EPTDS ................. 1/1/2013–12/31/2015. 

chlorodifluoromethane (HCFC–22) ...... 75–45–6 EPA 524.3 e .......... 0.08 μg/L .............. EPTDS ................. 1/1/2013–12/31/2015. 

bromochloromethane (halon 1011) ..... 74–97–5 EPA 524.3 e .......... 0.06 μg/L .............. EPTDS ................. 1/1/2013–12/31/2015. 

Synthetic Organic Compound 

1,4-dioxane .......................................... 123–91–1 EPA 522 f ............. 0.07 μg/L .............. EPTDS ................. 1/1/2013–12/31/2015. 

Metals 

vanadium ............................................. 7440–62–2 EPA 200.8 ............

ASTM ...................

D5673–10 ............

SM 3125 g ............

0.2 μg/L ................ EPTDS and 

DSMRT.

1/1/2013–12/31/2015. 

molybdenum ........................................ 7439–98–7 EPA 200.8 ............

ASTM ...................

D5673–10 ............

SM 3125 g ............

1. μg/L .................. EPTDS and 

DSMRT.

1/1/2013–12/31/2015. 

cobalt ................................................... 7440–48–4 EPA 200.8 ............

ASTM ...................

D5673–10 ............

SM 3125 g ............

1. μg/L .................. EPTDS and 

DSMRT.

1/1/2013–12/31/2015. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 42 / Thursday, March 3, 2011 / Proposed Rules 11735 

TABLE 1—UCMR CONTAMINANT LIST—Continued 

1—Contaminant 2—CAS 

Registry No. 

3—Analytical 

methods a

4—Minimum 

reporting level b

5—Sampling 

location c

6—Period during which 

monitoring to be 

completed 

strontium .............................................. 7440–24–6 EPA 200.8 ............

ASTM ...................

D5673–10 ............

SM 3125 g ............

0.3 μg/L ................ EPTDS and 

DSMRT.

1/1/2013–12/31/2015. 

Oxyhalide Anion 

Chlorate ............................................... 14866–68–3 EPA 300.1 ............

ASTM D ...............

6581–08 ...............

SM 4110D h ..........

20 μg/L ................. EPTDS and 

DSMRT.

1/1/2013–12/31/2015. 

Perfluorinated Compounds 

perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS) 1763–23–1 EPA 537 i ............. 0.04 μg/L .............. EPTDS ................. 1/1/2013–12/31/2015. 

perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) ............ 335–67–1 EPA 537 i ............. 0.02 μg/L .............. EPTDS ................. 1/1/2013–12/31/2015. 

perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA) ........... 375–95–1 EPA 537 i ............. 0.02 μg/L .............. EPTDS ................. 1/1/2013–12/31/2015. 

perfluorohexane sulfonic acid (PFHxS) 355–46–4 EPA 537 i ............. 0.03 μg/L .............. EPTDS ................. 1/1/2013–12/31/2015. 

perfluoroheptanoic acid (PFHpA) ........ 375–85–9 EPA 537 i ............. 0.01 μg/L .............. EPTDS ................. 1/1/2013–12/31/2015. 

perfluorobutanesulfonic acid (PFBS) ... 375–73–5 EPA 537 i ............. 0.09 μg/L .............. EPTDS ................. 1/1/2013–12/31/2015. 

List 2: Screening Survey 

Reserved .............................................. Reserved Reserved .............. Reserved .............. Reserved .............. Reserved. 

List 3: Pre-Screen Testing—Microbiological Contaminants 

enteroviruses ....................................... N/A N/A ....................... N/A ....................... EPTDS ................. 1/1/2013–12/31/2015. 

noroviruses .......................................... N/A N/A ....................... N/A ....................... EPTDS ................. 1/1/2013–12/31/2015. 

Column headings are: 

1—Contaminant: the name of the 

contaminant to be analyzed. 

2—CAS (Chemical Abstract Service) 

Registry Number or Identification 

Number: a unique number identifying 

the chemical contaminants. 

3—Analytical Methods: method 

numbers identifying the methods that 

must be used to test the contaminants. 

For List 3, analysis will only be 

performed by laboratories under 

contract to EPA. 

4—Minimum Reporting Level: the 

value and unit of measure at or above 

which the concentration of the 

contaminant must be measured using 

the approved analytical methods. For 

List 3, minimum reporting level is based 

on volume of water filtered and PCR 

amplification level. 

5—Sampling Location: the locations 

within a PWS at which samples must be 

collected. 

6—Period During Which Monitoring 

to be Completed: the time period during 

which the sampling and testing are to 

occur for the indicated contaminant. 

aThe analytical procedures shall be 

performed in accordance with the documents 

associated with each method (per the 

following footnotes). The incorporation by 

reference of the following documents listed 

in footnotes d–i was approved by the Director 

of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 

U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Information 

on how to obtain these documents can be 

provided by the Safe Drinking Water Hotline 

at (800) 426–4791. Documents may be 

inspected at EPA’s Drinking Water Docket, 

1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., EPA West, 

Room 3334, Washington, DC 20460, 

Telephone: (202) 566–2426; or at the 

National Archives and Records 

Administration (NARA). For information on 

availability of this material at NARA, call 

202–741–6030, or go to: http:// 

www.archives.gov/Federal-register/cfr/ 

index.html. The version of the EPA methods 

which you must follow for this Regulation 

are listed in footnotes d through i as follows: bThe minimum reporting level (MRL) is 

the minimum concentration of each analyte 

that must be reported to EPA. cSampling must occur at entry points to 

the distribution system (EPTDSs) after 

treatment is applied that represent each nonemergency water source in routine use over 

the 12-month period of monitoring. Systems 

that purchase water with multiple 

connections from the same wholesaler may 

propose one representative connection from 

that wholesaler. This representative EPTDS 

sampling location must be one of the higher 

annual volume connections. If the 

connection selected as the representative 

EPTDS is not available for sampling, an 

alternate representative connection must be 

sampled. See 40 CFR 141.35(c)(3) for an 

explanation of the requirements related to 

use of representative ground water EPTDSs. 

Sampling for metals and chlorate at 

disinfection byproduct distribution system 

maximum residence time (DSMRT) sampling 

locations as defined in 40 CFR 

141.132(b)(1)(i). If a treatment plant/water 

source is not subject to the sampling required 

in 40 CFR 141.132(b)(1), then the distribution 

system samples for metals must be collected 

at a location that the system determines 

represents the maximum residence time in 

the distribution system. d EPA Method 539 ‘‘Determination of 

Hormones in Drinking Water Using Liquid 

Chromatography Tandem Mass 

Spectrometry,’’ is available at http:// 

water.epa.gov/scitech/drinkingwater/labcert/ 

analyticalmethods_ogwdw.cfm. eEPA Method 524.3 ‘‘Measurement of 

Purgeable Organic Compounds in Water by 

Capillary Column Gas Chromatography/Mass 

Spectrometry,’’ Version 1.0, June 2009 is 

available at http://water.epa.gov/scitech/ 

drinkingwater/labcert/ 

analyticalmethods_ogwdw.cfm. fEPA Method 522 ‘‘Determination of 1,4– 

Dioxane in Drinking Water by Solid Phase 

Extraction (SPE) and Gas Chromatography/ 

Mass Spectrometry (GC/MS) with Selective 

Ion Monitoring (SIM),’’ Version 1.0, 

September 2008 is available at http:// 

www.epa.gov/nerlcwww/ordmeth.htm. gEPA Method 200.8 ‘‘Determination of 

Trace Elements in Waters and Wastes by 

Inductively Coupled Plasma-Mass 

Spectrometry,’’ Version 5.4, 1994 is available 

at http://www.NEMI.gov. 

ASTM D5673–10. Standard Test Method 

for Elements in Water by Inductively 

Coupled Plasma-Mass Spectrometry. 

Available for purchase on the Internet at 

http://www.astm.org/Standards/D5673.htm. 

SM 3125. Metals by Inductively Coupled 

Plasma/Mass Spectrometry (1997). Available 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
11736 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 42 / Thursday, March 3, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

for purchase on the Internet at http:// 

www.standardmethods.org/store/ 

ProductView.cfm?ProductID=211. h EPA Method 300.1 ‘‘Determination of 

Inorganic Anions in Drinking Water by Ion 

Chromatography,’’ Revision 1.0, 1997 is 

available at http://water.epa.gov/scitech/ 

drinkingwater/labcert/ 

analyticalmethods_ogwdw.cfm. 

ASTM D6581–08. Standard Test Methods 

for Bromate, Bromide, Chlorate, and Chlorite 

in Drinking Water by Suppressed Ion 

Chromatography. Available for purchase on 

the Internet at http://www.astm.org/ 

Standards/D6581.htm. 

SM 4110D. Determination of Anions by Ion 

Chromatography, Part D, Ion 

Chromatography Determination of 

Oxyhalides and Bromide. Available for 

purchase on the Internet at http:// 

www.standardmethods.org/store/ 

ProductView.cfm?ProductID=31. iEPA Method 537 ‘‘Determination of 

Selected Perfluorinated Alkyl Acids in 

Drinking Water by Solid Phase Extraction 

and Liquid Chromatography/Tandem Mass 

Spectrometry,’’ Version 1.1, September 2009 

is available at http://www.epa.gov/nerlcwww/ 

ordmeth.htm. 

* * * * * 

(4) * * * 

(i) * * * 

(B) Frequency. You must collect the 

samples within the time frame and 

according to the frequency specified by 

contaminant type and water source type 

for each sampling location, as specified 

in Table 2, in this paragraph. For the 

second or subsequent round of 

sampling, if a sample location is nonoperational for more than one month 

before and one month after the 

scheduled sampling month (i.e., it is not 

possible for you to sample within the 

window specified in Table 2, in this 

paragraph), you must notify EPA as 

specified in § 141.35(c)(5) to reschedule 

your sampling. 

TABLE 2—MONITORING FREQUENCY BY CONTAMINANT AND WATER SOURCE TYPES

Contaminant type Water source type Time frame Frequency 

Chemical .................... Surface water or ground water under the direct influence of surface 

water (GWUDI) (includes all sampling locations for which some or 

all of the water comes from a surface water or GWUDI source at 

any time during the 12 month monitoring period).

12 months ... You must monitor for 4 consecutive quarters. Sample events 

must occur 3 months apart. 

Ground water ...................................................................................... 12 months ... You must monitor twice in a consecutive 12-month period. 

Sample events must occur 5–7 

months apart. 

Microbiological ........... Ground water ...................................................................................... 12 months ... You must monitor twice in a consecutive 12-month period. 

Sample events must occur 5–7 

months apart. 

(C) Location. You must collect 

samples for each List 1 Assessment 

Monitoring contaminant, and, if 

applicable, for each List 2 Screening 

Survey, or List 3 Pre-Screen Testing 

contaminant, as specified in Table 1, in 

paragraph (a)(3) of this section. Samples 

must be collected at each sample point 

that is specified in column 5 and 

footnote c of Table 1, in paragraph (a)(3) 

of this section. If you are a ground water 

system with multiple EPTDSs, and you 

request and receive approval from EPA 

or the State for sampling at 

representative EPTDS(s), as specified in 

§ 141.35(c)(3), you must collect your 

samples from the approved 

representative sampling location(s). 

Systems conducting Assessment 

Monitoring must also sample for metals 

and chlorate at the disinfection 

byproduct distribution system 

maximum residence time (DSMRT) 

sampling location(s) if they are subject 

to sampling requirements in 

§ 141.132(b)(1). If a treatment plant/ 

water source is not subject to the 

sampling required in 40 CFR 

141.132(b)(1), then the distribution 

system samples must be collected at a 

location that the system determines 

represents the maximum residence time 

in the distribution system. 

(ii) * * * 

* * * * * 

(G) Sampling forms. You must 

completely fill out each of the sampling 

forms and bottles sent to you by the 

UCMR Sampling Coordinator, including 

data elements listed in § 141.35(e) for 

each sample, as specified in 

§ 141.35(d)(2). You must sign and date 

the sampling forms. 

* * * * * 

(5) * * * 

* * * * * 

(ii) * * * Correspondence must be 

addressed to: UCMR Laboratory 

Approval Coordinator, USEPA, 

Technical Support Center, 26 West 

Martin Luther King Drive, (MS 140), 

Cincinnati, OH 45268; or e-mailed to 

EPA at: UCMR_Sampling 

_Coordinator@epa,gov. 

(iii) Minimum Reporting Level. The 

MRL is an estimate of the quantitation 

limit that, with 95% confidence, is 

achievable by a capable analyst/ 

laboratory at least 75% of the time. 

Assuming good instrumentation and 

experienced analysts, with 95% 

confidence, an MRL is achievable by 

75% of laboratories nationwide. 

(A) * * * 

(1) All laboratories performing 

analysis under UCMR must demonstrate 

that they are capable of meeting data 

quality objectives (DQOs) at or below 

the MRL listed in Table 1, column 4, in 

paragraph (a)(3) of this section. 

* * * * * 

(iv) Laboratory fortified sample matrix 

and laboratory fortified sample matrix 

duplicate. You must ensure that your 

laboratory prepares and analyzes the 

Laboratory Fortified Sample Matrix 

(LFSM) sample for accuracy and 

Laboratory Fortified Sample Matrix 

Duplicate (LFSMD) samples for 

precision to determine method accuracy 

and precision for all contaminants in 

Table 1, in paragraph (a)(3) of this 

section. LFSM/LFSMD samples must be 

prepared using a sample collected and 

analyzed in accordance with UCMR 

requirements and analyzed at a 

frequency of 5% (or 1 LFSM/LFSMD set 

per every 20 samples) or with each 

sample batch, whichever is more 

frequent. In addition, the LFSM/LFSMD 

fortification concentrations must be 

alternated between a low-level 

fortification and mid-level fortification 

approximately 50% of the time. (For 

example: a set of 40 samples will 

require preparation and analysis of 2 

LFSM/LFSMD paired samples. The first 

LFSM/LFSMD paired sample set must 

be fortified at either the low-level or 

mid-level, and the second LFSM/ 

LFSMD paired sample set must be 

fortified with the other standard, either 

the low-level or mid-level, whichever 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 42 / Thursday, March 3, 2011 / Proposed Rules 11737 

was not used for the initial LFSM/ 

LFSMD paired sample set.) The lowlevel LFSM/LFSMD fortification 

concentration must be within ±50% of 

the MRL for each contaminant (e.g., for 

an MRL of 1 μg/L the acceptable 

fortification levels must be between 0.5 

μg/L and 1.5 μg/L). The mid-level 

LFSM/LFSMD fortification 

concentration must be within ±20% of 

the mid-level calibration standard for 

each contaminant, and should 

represent, where possible and where the 

laboratory has data from previously 

analyzed samples, an approximate 

average concentration observed in 

previous analyses of that analyte. There 

are no UCMR contaminant recovery 

acceptance criteria specified for LFSM/ 

LFSMD analyses. All LFSM/LFSMD 

data are to be reported. 

* * * * * 

(vi) Reporting. You must require your 

laboratory to submit these data 

electronically to the State and EPA 

using EPA’s electronic data reporting 

system, accessible at (http:// 

water.epa.gov/lawsregs/rulesregs/sdwa/ 

ucmr/ucmr3/reporting.cfm), within 60 

days from the sample collection date. 

You then have 30 days from when the 

laboratory posts the data to review, 

approve and submit the data to the State 

and EPA, via EPA’s electronic data 

reporting system. If you do not 

electronically approve and submit the 

laboratory data to EPA within 30 days 

of the laboratories posting to EPA’s 

electronic reporting system, the data 

will be considered approved and 

available for State and EPA review. 

* * * * * 

PART 142—NATIONAL PRIMARY 

DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS 

IMPLEMENTATION 

5. The authority citation for part 142 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 300f, 300g–1, 300g– 

2, 300g–3, 300g–4, 300g–5, 300g–6, 300j–4, 

300j–9, and 300j–11. 

Subpart B—Primary Enforcement 

Responsibility 

6. Section 142.16 is amended as 

follows: 

a. In paragraph (j) introductory text by 

removing ‘‘§ 141.40’’. 

b. In paragraph (j)(1) by revising the 

first sentence. 

§ 142.16 Special primacy requirements. 

* * * * * 

(j) * * * 

(1) If a State chooses to issue waivers 

from the monitoring requirements in 

§§ 141.23 and 141.24, the State shall 

describe the procedures and criteria 

which it will use to review waiver 

applications and issue wavier 

determinations. * * * 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2011–4641 Filed 3–2–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 73 

[MB Docket No. 10–108; Report No. 2925] 

Petition for Reconsideration of Action 

of Rulemaking Proceeding 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Petition for reconsideration. 

SUMMARY: In this document, a Petition 

for Reconsideration (Petition) has been 

filed in the Commission’s Rulemaking 

proceeding listed in this document 

(Table of Allotments, FM Broadcast 

Stations (Pacific Junction, Iowa)). 

DATES: Oppositions to the Petition must 

be filed by March 18, 2011. Replies to 

an opposition must be filed March 28, 

2011. 

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications 

Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., 

Washington, DC. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Andrew J. Rhodes, Media Bureau, (202) 

418–2180. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of Commission’s document, 

Report No. 2925, released February 7, 

2011. The full text of this document is 

available for viewing and copying in 

Room CY–B402, 445 12th Street, SW., 

Washington, DC or may be purchased 

from the Commission’s copy contractor, 

Best Copy and Printing, Inc. (BCPI) (1– 

800–378–3160). The Commission will 

not send a copy of this Notice pursuant 

to the Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A), because this Notice 

does not have an impact on any rules of 

particular applicability. 

This document is published pursuant 

to 47 CFR 1.429(e). See 1.4(b)(1) of the 

Commission’s rules (47 CFR 1.4(b)(1)). 

Subject: In the Matter of Amendment 

of Section 73.202(b), Table of 

Allotments, FM Broadcast Stations 

(Pacific Junction, Iowa) (MB Docket No. 

10–108). 

Number of Petitions Filed: 1. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Bulah P. Wheeler, 

Deputy Manager, Office of the Secretary, 

Office of Managing Director. 

[FR Doc. 2011–4687 Filed 3–2–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 648 

[Docket No. 090225241–0561–02] 

RIN 0648–AX70 

Fisheries of the Northeastern United 

States; Monkfish; Amendment 5 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; amendment; 

request for comments. 

SUMMARY: NMFS proposes regulations to 

implement measures in Amendment 5 

to the Monkfish Fishery Management 

Plan (Monkfish FMP). The New England 

and Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management 

Councils (Councils) developed 

Amendment 5 to bring the Monkfish 

FMP into compliance with the annual 

catch limit (ACL) and accountability 

measure (AM) requirements of the 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act 

(Magnuson-Stevens Act). NMFS is 

considering disapproving proposed 

annual catch targets (ACT) that are not 

consistent with the most recent 

scientific advice. This proposed rule 

also proposes three management 

measures in Amendment 5 to promote 

efficiency and reduce waste: Automatic 

days-at-sea (DAS) adjustment for trip 

limit overages; authorization to land 

monkfish heads; and enable changes to 

the Monkfish Research Set-Aside (RSA) 

Program through framework adjustment, 

and to bring the biological and 

management reference points in the 

Monkfish FMP into compliance with 

recently revised National Standard 1 

(NS1) Guidelines. 

DATES: Public comments must be 

received no later than 5 p.m., eastern 

standard time, on April 4, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: An environmental 

assessment (EA) was prepared for 

Amendment 5 that describes the 

proposed action and other considered 

alternatives, and provides a thorough 

analysis of the impacts of the proposed 

measures and alternatives. Copies of 

Amendment 5, including the EA and the 

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

(IRFA), are available on request from 

Paul J. Howard, Executive Director, New 

England Fishery Management Council 

(Council), 50 Water Street, 

Newburyport, MA 01950. These 

documents are also available online at 

http://www.nefmc.org. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS