13846 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 46 / Thursday, March 11, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this proposed 

rulemaking, in which EPA is proposing 

approval of the District’s certification 

that its existing emission statement 

program satisfies the emission statement 

requirements of the CAA for the 2015 

ozone NAAQS, does not have tribal 

implications as specified by Executive 

Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 

2000), because the SIP is not approved 

to apply in Indian country located in the 

state, and EPA notes that it will not 

impose substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

Dated: March 3, 2021. 

Diana Esher, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region III. 

[FR Doc. 2021–05097 Filed 3–10–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 141 

[EPA–HQ–OW–2020–0530; FRL 10019–46– 

OW] 

RIN 2040–AF89 

Revisions to the Unregulated 

Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR 

5) for Public Water Systems and 

Announcement of Public Meeting 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Proposed rule and notice of 

public meeting. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA or Agency) is 

proposing a Safe Drinking Water Act 

(SDWA) rule that would require public 

water systems to collect national 

occurrence data for 29 per- and 

polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) and 

lithium. This proposed rule would 

require all community and nontransient non community water systems 

serving 3,300 or more people, and a 

representative sample of smaller water 

systems, to conduct monitoring. PFAS 

and lithium are not currently subject to 

national primary drinking water 

regulations, and EPA is proposing to 

require the collection of drinking water 

occurrence data to inform EPA 

decisions. This proposal fulfills a key 

commitment in ‘‘EPA’s 2019 Per- and 

Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) 

Action Plan’’ (https://www.epa.gov/ 

pfas/epas-pfas-action-plan) by 

proposing the collection of more 

drinking water occurrence data for a 

broader group of PFAS. EPA is also 

announcing two public meetings (via 

webinar) to discuss this proposal of the 

fifth Unregulated Contaminant 

Monitoring Rule (UCMR 5). 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before May 10, 2021. Under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 

comments on the information collection 

provisions are best assured of 

consideration if the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) 

receives a copy of your comments on or 

before April 12, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OW–2020–0530, by any of the following 

methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

https://www.regulations.gov/ (our 

preferred method). Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Mail: U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, EPA Docket Center, 

Water Docket, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 

Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, 

DC 20460. 

• Hand Delivery or Courier (by 

scheduled appointment only): EPA 

Docket Center, WJC West Building, 

Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue 

NW, Washington, DC 20004. The Docket 

Center’s hours of operations are 8:30 

a.m.–4:30 p.m., Monday–Friday (except 

Federal Holidays). 

Instructions: All submissions received 

must include the Docket ID No. EPA– 

HQ–OW–2020–0530 for this 

rulemaking. Comments received may be 

posted without change to https://

www.regulations.gov/, including any 

personal information provided. For 

detailed instructions on sending 

comments and additional information 

on the rulemaking process, see the 

‘‘Public Participation’’ heading of the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this document. 

Out of an abundance of caution for 

members of the public and our staff, the 

EPA Docket Center and Reading Room 

are closed to the public, with limited 

exceptions, to reduce the risk of 

transmitting COVID–19. Our Docket 

Center staff will continue to provide 

remote customer service via email, 

phone, and webform. 

We encourage the public to submit 

comments via https://

www.regulations.gov/ or email, as there 

may be a delay in processing mail and 

faxes. Hand deliveries and couriers may 

be received by scheduled appointment 

only. For further information on EPA 

Docket Center services and the current 

status, please visit us online at https:// 

www.epa.gov/dockets. 

EPA is offering a virtual meeting 

twice during the public comment 

period. For more details on the meeting 

(including dates and times) and to 

register, please visit https://

www.epa.gov/dwucmr/unregulatedcontaminant-monitoring-rule-ucmrmeetings-and-materials. Refer to the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this document for additional 

information. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Brenda D. Bowden, Standards and Risk 

Management Division (SRMD), Office of 

Ground Water and Drinking Water 

(OGWDW) (MS 140), Environmental 

Protection Agency, 26 West Martin 

Luther King Drive, Cincinnati, Ohio 

45268; telephone number: (513) 569– 

7961; email address: bowden.brenda@

epa.gov; or Melissa Simic, SRMD, 

OGWDW (MS 140), Environmental 

Protection Agency, 26 West Martin 

Luther King Drive, Cincinnati, Ohio 

45268; telephone number: (513) 569– 

7864; email address: simic.melissa@

epa.gov. For general information, visit 

the Safe Drinking Water Information 

web page on the internet at: https://

www.epa.gov/ground-water-anddrinking-water/safe-drinking-waterinformation. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Summary Information 

A. Purpose of the Regulatory Action 

1. What action is EPA taking? 

2. Does this action apply to me? 

3. What is EPA’s authority for taking this 

action? 

B. Summary of the Regulatory Action 

C. Economic Analysis 

1. What is the estimated cost of this 

proposed action? 

2. Benefits of the Proposed Action 

II. Public Participation 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 46 / Thursday, March 11, 2021 / Proposed Rules 13847 

A. Written Comments 

B. What stakeholder meetings have been 

held in preparation for UCMR 5? 

C. How do I participate in the upcoming 

stakeholder meeting? 

1. Meeting Participation 

2. Meeting Materials 

III. General Information 

A. How does EPA use different monitoring 

tiers to implement the Unregulated 

Contaminant Monitoring Program? 

B. How are the CCL, the UCMR program, 

the Regulatory Determination process, 

and the NCOD interrelated? 

C. What are the Consumer Confidence 

Reporting and Public Notice Reporting 

requirements for public water systems 

that are subject to UCMR? 

D. What notable changes are being 

proposed for UCMR 5? 

E. How did EPA prioritize candidate 

contaminants and what contaminants are 

proposed for UCMR 5? 

F. What other contaminants did EPA 

consider? 

1. Legionella pneumophila 

2. Haloacetonitriles 

3. 1,2,3-trichloropropane 

4. Total Organic Fluorine (TOF) 

G. What are the costs of alternatives to the 

proposed UCMR 5? 

H. What is the proposed applicability date? 

I. What are the proposed UCMR 5 sampling 

design and timeline of activities? 

1. Sampling Frequency, Timing 

2. Sampling Locations and Ground Water 

Representative Monitoring Plans 

3. Reporting Times 

J. What are the reporting requirements for 

the UCMR 5? 

K. What are Minimum Reporting Levels 

(MRLs) and how were they determined? 

L. How do laboratories become approved to 

conduct the UCMR 5 analyses? 

1. Request To Participate 

2. Registration 

3. Application Package 

4. EPA’s Review of Application Package 

5. Proficiency Testing 

6. Written EPA Approval 

M. What documents are being incorporated 

by reference? 

1. Methods From the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency 

2. Alternative Methods From American 

Public Health Association—Standard 

Methods (SM) 

3. Methods From ASTM International 

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

O. How did EPA consider Children’s 

Environmental Health? 

P. How did EPA address Environmental 

Justice? 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA) 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution or Use 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act (NTTAA) 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions 

To Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations 

V. References 

I. Summary Information 

A. Purpose of the Regulatory Action 

1. What action is EPA taking? 

EPA is proposing a SDWA rule that 

would require public water systems to 

collect national occurrence data for 29 

PFAS and lithium. This proposed rule 

would require all community and nontransient non community water systems 

serving 3,300 or more people, and a 

representative sample of smaller water 

systems, to conduct monitoring. PFAS 

and lithium are not currently subject to 

national primary drinking water 

regulations, and EPA is proposing to 

require collection of the data to inform 

EPA decisions. This proposal fulfills a 

key commitment in ‘‘EPA’s 2019 Perand Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) 

Action Plan’’ (USEPA, 2019a) by 

proposing the collection of more 

drinking water occurrence data for a 

broader group of PFAS. 

This proposal identifies three 

analytical methods to support water 

system monitoring for a total of 30 

contaminants, consisting of 29 PFAS 

and lithium. This document also 

describes EPA’s evaluation of other 

candidate contaminants, including 

Legionella pneumophila; four 

haloacetonitriles (dichloroacetonitrile, 

dibromoacetonitrile, 

trichloroacetonitrile, and 

bromochloroacetonitrile); 1,2,3- 

trichloropropane; and ‘‘total organic 

fluorine’’ (TOF), and invites public 

comment. 

2. Does this action apply to me? 

This proposed rule applies to public 

water systems (PWSs) described in this 

section. PWSs are systems that provide 

water for human consumption through 

pipes, or constructed conveyances, to at 

least 15 service connections or that 

regularly serve an average of at least 25 

individuals daily at least 60 days out of 

the year. A community water system 

(CWS) is a PWS that has at least 15 

service connections used by year-round 

residents or regularly serves at least 25 

year-round residents. A non-transient 

non-community water system 

(NTNCWS) is a PWS that is not a CWS 

and that regularly serves at least 25 of 

the same people over 6 months per year. 

Under this proposal, all large CWSs and 

NTNCWSs serving more than 10,000 

people would be required to monitor. In 

addition, all small CWSs and NTNCWs 

serving between 3,300 and 10,000 

people would be required to monitor, 

subject to the availability of 

appropriations and appropriate 

laboratory capacity (see discussion of 

America’s Water Infrastructure Act of 

2018 in sections I.A. and I.B of this 

document). A nationally representative 

sample of CWSs and NTNCWSs serving 

fewer than 3,300 people would also be 

required to monitor (see ‘‘Selection of 

Nationally Representative Public Water 

Systems for the Unregulated 

Contaminant Monitoring Rule: 2020 

Update’’ for a description of the 

statistical approach for the nationally 

representative sample (USEPA, 2020a)). 

As is generally the case for UCMR 

sampling, transient non-community 

water systems (TNCWSs) (i.e., noncommunity water systems that do not 

regularly serve at least 25 of the same 

people over 6 months per year) would 

not be required to monitor under UCMR 

5. States, territories, and tribes with 

primary enforcement responsibility 

(primacy) to administer the regulatory 

program for PWSs under SDWA 

(sometimes collectively referred to in 

this notice as ‘‘states’’), can participate 

in the implementation of UCMR 5 

through voluntary Partnership 

Agreements (see discussion of 

Partnership Agreements in section III.N 

in this document). Primacy agencies 

with Partnership Agreements can 

choose to be involved in various aspects 

of the UCMR 5 monitoring for PWSs 

they oversee; however, the PWS remains 

responsible for all compliance activities. 

Potentially regulated categories and 

entities are identified in the following 

table. 

Category Examples of potentially regulated entities NAICSa

State, local, & tribal governments.State, local, and tribal governments that analyze water samples on behalf of PWSs required 

to conduct such analysis; state, local, and tribal governments that directly operate CWSs 

and NTNCWSs required to monitor.

924110 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
13848 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 46 / Thursday, March 11, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

Category Examples of potentially regulated entities NAICSa

Industry ..................................... Private operators of CWSs and NTNCWSs required to monitor ................................................. 221310 

Municipalities ............................ Municipal operators of CWSs and NTNCWSs required to monitor ............................................. 924110 

a NAICS = North American Industry Classification System. 

This table is not intended to be 

exhaustive, but rather provides a guide 

for readers regarding entities likely to be 

regulated by this action. This table lists 

the types of entities that EPA is aware 

could potentially be regulated by this 

action. Other types of entities not listed 

in the table could also be regulated. To 

determine whether your entity is 

regulated by this action, you should 

carefully examine the definition of PWS 

found in §§ 141.2 and 141.3, and the 

applicability criteria found in 

§ 141.40(a)(1) and (2) of Title 40 in the 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). If 

you have questions regarding the 

applicability of this action to a 

particular entity, please consult the 

contacts listed in the preceding FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of 

this document. 

3. What is EPA’s authority for taking 

this action? 

As part of its responsibilities under 

the SDWA, EPA implements 

§ 1445(a)(2), Monitoring Program for 

Unregulated Contaminants. This 

section, as amended in 1996, requires 

that once every five years, beginning in 

August 1999, EPA issues a list of not 

more than 30 unregulated contaminants 

to be monitored by PWSs. The SDWA 

requires that EPA enters the monitoring 

data into the Agency’s publicly 

available National Contaminant 

Occurrence Database (NCOD) at https:// 

www.epa.gov/sdwa/nationalcontaminant-occurrence-database-ncod. 

EPA must vary the frequency and 

schedule for monitoring based on the 

number of persons served, the source of 

supply, and the contaminants likely to 

be found. EPA is using the SDWA 

§ 1445(a)(2) authority as the basis for 

monitoring the unregulated 

contaminants proposed under this rule. 

The SDWA, as amended by Section 

2021 of America’s Water Infrastructure 

Act of 2018 (AWIA) (Pub. L. 115–270), 

specifies that, subject to the availability 

of EPA appropriations for such purpose 

and appropriate laboratory capacity, 

EPA’s UCMR program must require all 

systems serving between 3,300 and 

10,000 persons to monitor for the 

contaminants in a particular UCMR 

cycle, and ensure that only a nationally 

representative sample of systems 

serving fewer than 3,300 persons are 

required to monitor for those 

contaminants. The program would 

continue to ensure that systems serving 

a population larger than 10,000 people 

are required to monitor for the 

contaminants in a particular UCMR 

cycle. This AWIA provision becomes 

effective October 23, 2021 (i.e., prior to 

the start of UCMR 5 sample collection). 

The SDWA, as amended by Section 

7311 of the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020 

(NDAA) (Pub. L. 116–92), specifies that 

EPA shall include all PFAS in UCMR 5 

for which a drinking water method has 

been validated by the Administrator, 

and that are not subject to a national 

primary drinking water regulation. The 

NDAA specifies that unregulated PFAS 

included in UCMR 5 shall not count 

towards the traditional SDWA limit of 

not more than 30 unregulated 

contaminants being included in the 

UCMR (§ 1445(a)(2)(B)(i)). 

B. Summary of the Regulatory Action 

EPA is proposing to require PWSs to 

collect occurrence data for 29PFAS and 

lithium. These contaminants may be 

present in drinking water, but are not 

subject to national primary drinking 

water regulations. This proposal fulfills 

a key commitment in EPA’s 2019 PFAS 

Action Plan (USEPA, 2019a) by 

proposing the collection of more 

drinking water occurrence data for a 

broader group of PFAS. More 

specifically, the UCMR 5 proposal 

identifies the following: Analytical 

methods to measure the UCMR 

contaminants; monitoring time frame; 

sampling locations; data elements (i.e., 

information required to be collected 

along with the occurrence data); data 

reporting timeframes; and conforming 

and editorial changes, such as those 

necessary to remove requirements solely 

related to UCMR 4. 

This proposal includes monitoring for 

lithium based on anticipated national 

occurrence in PWS-supplied drinking 

water and available health-effects 

information that indicates adverse 

human health effects in several organs 

and systems (USEPA, 2008). Nationally 

representative occurrence data from 

EPA’s National Inorganics and 

Radionuclides Survey, 1984–1986, 

shows lithium was detected at levels 

between 5 and 7,929 mg/L (microgram 

per liter) in the finished drinking water 

of approximately 55% of PWSs (ground 

water systems only) (USEPA, 2009). In 

more recent literature, lithium was 

detected in 56% of treated drinking 

water samples from 25 PWSs at a 

median concentration of 10.8 mg/L 

(Glassmeyer et al., 2017). EPA has 

determined that monitoring for lithium 

under the UCMR is needed to assess the 

occurrence of this contaminant 

nationally. 

This proposed action would provide 

EPA, states, and communities with 

scientifically valid data on the national 

occurrence of these contaminants in 

drinking water. The data represent one 

of the primary sources of national 

occurrence data in drinking water that 

EPA uses to inform regulatory and other 

risk management decisions for drinking 

water contaminant candidates. This 

proposal identifies three analytical 

methods to be used by laboratories 

analyzing UCMR samples for the 

unregulated contaminants. In addition, 

EPA describes how it evaluated other 

candidate contaminants, including 

Legionella pneumophila; four 

haloacetonitriles (dichloroacetonitrile, 

dibromoacetonitrile, 

trichloroacetonitrile, and 

bromochloroacetonitrile); 1, 2, 3- 

trichloropropane; and ‘‘total organic 

fluorine’’ (TOF). In section III.F, EPA 

describes why it has not proposed these 

particular contaminants for UCMR 5. 

The UCMR 5 proposal reflects a 

consideration of the utility of the 

information to be collected. Due to 

ongoing regulatory evaluations, 

described in the following sections, data 

collection for Legionella pneumophila 

and the four haloacetonitriles would not 

be sufficiently timely to be useful. 

This proposed rule reflects the 

monitoring approach defined in the 

AWIA and thus describes the UCMR 5 

scope as including all systems serving 

3,300 or more people (as opposed to a 

representative sample of those systems 

serving 3,300 to 10,000), and a 

representative sample of systems 

serving fewer than 3,300 people. EPA 

has the statutory obligation under the 

SDWA to pay the ‘‘reasonable cost of 

such testing and laboratory analysis’’ for 

all applicable PWS serving 10,000 or 

fewer individuals. Accordingly, the 

AWIA conditioned the inclusion of all 

systems serving 3,300 to 10,000 persons 

in UCMR 5 on the availability of 

appropriations. AWIA also conditioned 

the inclusion of all systems serving 

3,300 to 10,000 persons in UCMR 5 on 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 46 / Thursday, March 11, 2021 / Proposed Rules 13849 

a determination by the Administrator of 

sufficient laboratory capacity to analyze 

the samples. 

Based on EPA’s experience over the 

first four cycles of UCMR 

implementation, and informed by our 

ongoing engagement with the laboratory 

community, EPA anticipates that 

sufficient laboratory capacity will exist 

to support the expanded UCMR scope. 

Regarding EPA’s resources, however, if 

EPA concludes that it will not have the 

resources necessary to support the 

expanded monitoring described by the 

AWIA, the Agency will not promulgate 

a final rule that requires all water 

systems serving between 3,300 and 

10,000 persons to monitor as presented 

in this proposed rule. Accordingly, this 

proposal also describes EPA’s 

alternative plan (i.e., in the absence of 

adequate funds) that would involve 

selecting a representative sample of 

small PWSs consistent with the 

approach established under the original 

(pre-AWIA) UCMR program (i.e., that 

used for UCMR 4 and for prior cycles) 

which includes 800 representative water 

systems serving fewer than or equal to 

10,000 in the UCMR program. See 

‘‘Selection of Nationally Representative 

Public Water Systems for the 

Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring 

Rule: 2020 Update’’ for further details 

about the nationally representative 

sample (USEPA, 2020a)). 

This proposed rule also addresses the 

requirements of the NDAA by including 

all 29 PFAS that are within the scope of 

EPA Methods 533 and 537.1. Both of 

these methods have been validated by 

EPA for drinking water analysis. 

C. Economic Analysis 

1. What is the estimated cost of this 

proposed action? 

EPA estimates the total average 

national cost of this proposed action 

will be $21 million per year over the 

five-year effective period of the rule 

(2022–2026). Costs fall upon large PWSs 

(for sampling and analysis); small PWS 

(for sampling); state regulatory agencies 

(i.e., those who volunteer to assist EPA 

with oversight and implementation 

support); and EPA (for regulatory 

support and oversight activities, and 

analytical and shipping costs for small 

PWSs). These costs are summarized in 

Exhibit 1. EPA has further documented 

the assumptions and data sources used 

in the preparation of this estimate in the 

‘‘Draft Information Collection Request 

for the Unregulated Contaminant 

Monitoring Rule (UCMR 5)’’ (USEPA, 

2020b). 

Costs for a particular UCMR cycle are 

heavily influenced by the selection of 

contaminants and associated analytical 

methods. EPA proposes three EPAdeveloped analytical methods (and, in 

the case of lithium, multiple optional 

alternative methods) to analyze samples 

for the UCMR 5 chemical contaminants. 

EPA’s estimate of the analytical cost for 

the UCMR 5 contaminants is $950 per 

sample set (i.e., $950 to analyze a set of 

samples from one sample point and one 

sample event for all of the UCMR 5 

contaminants). EPA calculated these 

costs by summing the laboratory unit 

cost of each method. Exhibit 1 presents 

a breakdown of EPA-estimated annual 

average national costs. Estimated PWS- 

(i.e., large and very large) and EPA costs 

reflect the analytical cost (i.e., nonlabor) for all the UCMR 5 methods. EPA 

pays for the analytical costs for all 

systems serving a population of 10,000 

or fewer people. Laboratory analysis and 

sample shipping account for 

approximately 82% of the total national 

cost for the implementation of UCMR 5. 

EPA estimated laboratory unit costs 

based on consultations with multiple 

commercial drinking water testing 

laboratories and, in the case of new 

methods, a review of the costs of 

analytical methods similar to those 

proposed in this action. The cost of the 

laboratory methods includes shipping 

along with the cost for the analysis. 

EPA expects that states may incur 

modest labor costs associated with 

voluntary assistance with the 

implementation of UCMR 5. EPA 

estimated state costs using the relevant 

assumptions from the State Resource 

Model developed by the Association of 

State Drinking Water Administrators 

(ASDWA) (ASDWA, 2013) to help states 

forecast resource needs. Model 

estimates were adjusted to account for 

actual levels of state participation under 

UCMR 4. State assistance with EPA’s 

implementation of UCMR 5 is 

voluntary; thus, the level of effort is 

expected to vary among states and 

would depend on their individual 

agreements with EPA. 

EPA assumes that one-third of the 

systems would monitor during each of 

the three sample-collection years from 

January 2023 through December 2025. 

The total estimated annual costs (labor 

and non-labor) including the additional 

small systems included according to the 

AWIA mandate would be incurred as 

follows: 

EXHIBIT 1—ESTIMATED AVERAGE ANNUAL COSTS OF THE PROPOSED UCMR 5 1

Entity 

Average 

annual cost 

(million) 

(2022–2026) 2

Small Systems (25–10,000), including labor 3 only (non-labor costs 4 paid for by EPA) ........................................................... $0.3 

Large Systems (10,001–100,000), including labor and non-labor costs .................................................................................... 7.2 

Very Large Systems (100,001 and greater), including labor and non-labor costs ..................................................................... 2.3 

States, including labor costs related to implementation coordination ......................................................................................... 0.8 

EPA, including labor for implementation and non-labor for small system testing ...................................................................... 5 10.5 

Average Annual National Total ............................................................................................................................................ 21.1 

1Based on the scope of small-system monitoring described in AWIA. 

2Totals may not equal the sum of components due to rounding. 

3 Labor costs pertain to systems, states, and EPA. Costs include activities such as reading the rule, notifying systems selected to participate, 

sample collection, data review, reporting, and record keeping. 4 Non-labor costs will be incurred primarily by EPA and by large and very large PWSs. They include the cost of shipping samples to laboratories for testing and the cost of the laboratory analyses. 5EPA estimates an average annual cost to the Agency of $17M/year (over a five-year cycle) for a typical UCMR program that involves the expanded scope prescribed by AWIA ($2M/year for the representative sample of 800 PWSs serving <3,300 and $15M/year for all PWSs serving 

between 3,300 and 10,000); EPA projects an average annual cost of $10.5M for UCMR 5, as proposed, based on the relatively lower than typical unit analytical costs associated with the proposed UCMR 5 contaminants. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
13850 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 46 / Thursday, March 11, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

Additional details regarding EPA’s 

cost assumptions and estimates can be 

found in the Draft Information 

Collection Request (ICR) (USEPA, 

2020b), ICR Number 2040–NEW, which 

presents estimated cost and labor hours 

for the 5-year UCMR 5 period of 2022– 

2026. Copies of the Draft ICR may be 

obtained from the EPA public docket for 

this proposed rule, under Docket ID No. 

EPA–HQ–OW–2020–0530. See also 

section III.G of this document for a 

discussion of cost scenarios based on 

potential changes between the 

publication of this proposed rule and 

the final rule. 

2. Benefits of the Proposed Action 

The public benefits from the 

information about whether or not 

unregulated contaminants are present in 

their drinking water. If contaminants are 

not found, consumer confidence in their 

drinking water will improve. If 

contaminants are found, related health 

effects may be avoided when 

subsequent actions, such as regulations, 

reduce or eliminate those contaminants. 

II. Public Participation 

A. Written Comments 

Submit your comments, identified by 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OW–2020– 

0530, at https://www.regulations.gov or 

other methods identified in the 

ADDRESSES section of this document. 

Once submitted, comments cannot be 

edited or removed from the docket. EPA 

may publish any comment received to 

its public docket. Do not submit 

electronically any information you 

consider to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Contact EPA if you want to submit CBI; 

see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

section of this document. Multimedia 

submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be 

accompanied by a written comment. 

The written comment is considered the 

official comment and should include 

discussion of all points you wish to 

make. EPA will generally not consider 

comments or comment contents located 

outside of the primary submission (i.e., 

on the web, cloud, or other file sharing 

system). For additional submission 

methods, the full EPA public comment 

policy, information about CBI or 

multimedia submissions, and general 

guidance on making effective 

comments, please visit https://

www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epadockets. EPA is temporarily suspending 

its Docket Center and Reading Room for 

public visitors, with limited exceptions, 

to reduce the risk of transmitting 

COVID–19. Our Docket Center staff will 

continue to provide remote customer 

service via email, phone, and webform. 

We encourage the public to submit 

comments via https://

www.regulations.gov/ as there may be a 

delay in processing mail and faxes. 

Hand deliveries or couriers will be 

received by scheduled appointment 

only. For further information and 

updates on EPA Docket Center services, 

please visit us online at https://

www.epa.gov/dockets. 

EPA continues to carefully and 

continuously monitor information from 

the Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention (CDC), local area health 

departments, and our Federal partners 

so that we can respond rapidly as 

conditions change regarding COVID–19. 

B. What stakeholder meetings have been 

held in preparation for UCMR 5? 

EPA incorporates stakeholder 

involvement into each UCMR cycle. 

Specific to the development of UCMR 5, 

EPA held two public stakeholder 

meetings and is announcing two 

additional public meetings via webinars 

in this proposal (see section II.C of this 

document). EPA held a meeting focused 

on drinking water methods for 

unregulated contaminants on June 6, 

2018, in Cincinnati, Ohio. 

Representatives from state agencies, 

laboratories, PWSs, environmental 

organizations, and drinking water 

associations joined the meeting via 

webinar and in person. Meeting topics 

included an overview of regulatory 

process elements (including the 

Contaminant Candidate List (CCL), 

UCMR, and Regulatory Determination), 

and drinking water methods under 

development (see USEPA, 2018a for 

presentation materials). EPA held a 

second stakeholder meeting on July 16, 

2019, in Cincinnati, Ohio. Participants 

representing state agencies, tribes, 

laboratories, PWSs, environmental 

organizations, and drinking water 

associations participated in the meeting 

via webinar and in person. Meeting 

topics included the impacts of the 

AWIA, analytical methods and 

contaminants being considered by EPA, 

potential sampling design, and other 

possible aspects of the UCMR 5 

approach (see USEPA, 2019b for 

meeting materials). 

This proposal fulfills a commitment 

made in EPA’s PFAS Action Plan found 

on EPA’s website at https://

www.epa.gov/pfas/epas-pfas-actionplan. EPA conducted extensive public 

outreach in the development of the 

PFAS Action Plan (USEPA, 2019a), 

including gathering diverse perspectives 

through the May 2018 ‘‘National 

Leadership Summit,’’ direct engagement 

with the public in impacted 

communities in five states, engagement 

with tribal partners, and roundtables 

conducted with community leaders near 

impacted sites. EPA reviewed 

approximately 120,000 comments in the 

public docket that was specifically 

established to gather input for the PFAS 

Action Plan (USEPA, 2019a). Through 

this outreach, EPA heard significant 

concerns from the public on the 

challenges these contaminants pose for 

communities nationwide, and the need 

for improved understanding of the 

frequency and concentration of PFAS 

occurrence in finished U.S. drinking 

water. 

C. How do I participate in the upcoming 

stakeholder meeting? 

EPA will hold two virtual stakeholder 

meetings during the public comment 

period. Topics will include the 

proposed UCMR 5 monitoring 

requirements, analyte selection and 

rationale, analytical methods, the 

laboratory approval process, and ground 

water representative monitoring plans 

(GWRMPs). If stakeholder interest 

results in exceeding the maximum 

number of available connections for 

participants in the first two webinar 

offerings, EPA may schedule additional 

webinars, with dates and times posted 

on EPA’s Unregulated Contaminant 

Monitoring Program Meetings and 

Materials web page at https://

www.epa.gov/dwucmr/unregulatedcontaminant-monitoring-rule-ucmrmeetings-and-materials. 

Please note that EPA is deviating from 

its typical approach because the 

President has declared a national 

emergency. Because of current CDC 

recommendations, as well as state and 

local orders for social distancing to limit 

the spread of COVID–19, EPA cannot 

hold in-person public meetings at this 

time. 

1. Meeting Participation 

Those who wish to participate in the 

initial public meeting or repeat 

subsequent webinar offerings can find 

information on how to register, 

including dates and times, at https://

www.epa.gov/dwucmr/unregulatedcontaminant-monitoring-rule-ucmrmeetings-and-materials. To ensure 

adequate time for public statements, 

individuals or organizations interested 

in making a statement should identify 

their interest when they register. We ask 

that only one person present on behalf 

of a group or organization, and that the 

presentation be limited to ten minutes. 

Any additional statements from 

participants will be taken during the 

meeting if time permits. Formal 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 46 / Thursday, March 11, 2021 / Proposed Rules 13851 

comments must be submitted to the 

docket. The number of webinar 

connections available for the meeting is 

limited and will be available on a firstcome, first-served basis. Further details 

about registration and participation can 

be found on EPA’s Unregulated 

Contaminant Monitoring Program 

Meetings and Materials web page at 

https://www.epa.gov/dwucmr/ 

unregulated-contaminant-monitoringrule-ucmr-meetings-and-materials. 

2. Meeting Materials 

EPA expects to send meeting 

materials by email to all registered 

participants prior to the meeting. The 

materials will be posted on EPA’s 

website at https://www.epa.gov/ 

dwucmr/unregulated-contaminantmonitoring-rule-ucmr-meetings-andmaterials for persons who do not 

participate in the webinar. 

III. General Information 

A. How does EPA use different 

monitoring tiers to implement the 

Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring 

Program? 

EPA published the list of 

contaminants for the first UCMR (UCMR 

1) in the Federal Register (FR) on 

September 17, 1999 (64 FR 50556, 

(USEPA, 1999)), the second UCMR 

(UCMR 2) on January 4, 2007 (72 FR 

367, (USEPA, 2007)), the third UCMR 

(UCMR 3) on May 2, 2012 (77 FR 26072, 

(USEPA, 2012)), and the fourth UCMR 

(UCMR 4) on December 20, 2016 (81 FR 

92666, (USEPA, 2016a)). EPA has 

utilized up to three different tiers of 

contaminant monitoring, associated 

with three different ‘‘lists’’ of 

contaminants, in past UCMRs. EPA 

designed the monitoring tiers to reflect 

the availability and complexity of 

analytical methods, laboratory capacity, 

sampling frequency, and cost, as well as 

labor hours on and the characteristics of 

PWSs performing the monitoring. For 

example, monitoring that is more 

complex, costly, and/or tailored is more 

likely to be implemented under the 

second or third tiers, as described 

below. 

The Assessment Monitoring tier is the 

largest in scope and is used to collect 

data to determine the national 

occurrence of ‘‘List 1’’ contaminants in 

PWS-supplied drinking water for the 

purpose of estimating national 

population exposure. The Assessment 

Monitoring tier has been used in the 

four previous UCMRs to collect 

occurrence data from all systems serving 

more than 10,000 people and a 

representative sample of 800 smaller 

systems. Consistent with the AWIA, the 

Assessment Monitoring approach was 

redesigned for the proposed UCMR 5 

and would require all systems serving 

3,300 or more people and a 

representative sample of systems 

serving fewer than 3,300 to perform 

monitoring (USEPA, 2020a). The 

population-weighted sampling design 

for the nationally representative sample 

of small systems (used in previous 

UCMR cycles to select 800 systems 

serving 10,000 or fewer, and proposed 

to be used in UCMR 5 to select 800 

systems serving fewer than 3,300) calls 

for the sample to be stratified by water 

source type (ground water or surface 

water), service size category, and state 

(where each state is allocated a 

minimum of two systems in its State 

Monitoring Plan). The allowable margin 

of error at the 99% confidence level is 

±1% for an expected contaminant 

occurrence of 1%. Assessment 

Monitoring is the primary tier used for 

contaminants and generally relies on 

analytical methods that use more 

common techniques, and are expected 

to be widely available. EPA has used an 

Assessment Monitoring tier for 72 

contaminants and contaminant groups 

over the course of UCMR 1 through 

UCMR 4. The Agency is proposing to 

exclusively require Assessment 

Monitoring in UCMR 5 and anticipates 

that this will generally be the case in 

future UCMR cycles when practical, 

since this monitoring approach yields 

the most complete set of occurrence 

data to support EPA’s decision making. 

The Screening Survey tier is smaller 

in scope than Assessment Monitoring, 

applying to all very large water systems 

serving more than 100,000 people, 320 

randomly selected systems serving 

10,001 to 100,000 people, and 480 

randomly selected systems serving 

10,000 or fewer people. The Screening 

Survey approach is used to collect data 

to determine the national occurrence of 

‘‘List 2’’ contaminants in PWS-supplied 

drinking water. This tier generally 

pertains to monitoring with less 

established analytical techniques, such 

that laboratory capacity and/or cost may 

be a concern. The Screening Survey 

design for the nationally representative 

sample of PWSs serving fewer than 

100,000 people has an allowable margin 

of error of ±1% at the 99% confidence 

level for an expected occurrence of 1%; 

however, unlike Assessment 

Monitoring, the stratified design is not 

population-weighted. EPA has used 

Screening Survey monitoring for 36 

contaminants over the course of UCMR 

1 through UCMR 4. A Screening Survey 

tier is not proposed for UCMR 5 because 

Assessment Monitoring for the 30 

proposed contaminants has been 

deemed practical and would allow EPA 

to collect a more robust set of 

occurrence data than provided for under 

a Screening Survey approach. 

A Pre-Screen Testing tier for ‘‘List 3’’ 

contaminants can be customized to meet 

the specific monitoring objectives for a 

specific group of PWSs. EPA used PreScreen Testing to collect data for two 

viruses under UCMR 3. That monitoring 

relied on specialized analytical methods 

and sampling techniques, and focused 

on 800 small, undisinfected 

groundwater systems in vulnerable 

areas. A Pre-Screen Testing tier is not 

proposed for UCMR 5. 

B. How are the CCL, the UCMR program, 

the Regulatory Determination process, 

and the NCOD interrelated? 

Under the 1996 amendments to the 

SDWA, Congress established a multistep, risk-based approach for 

determining which contaminants would 

become subject to drinking water 

standards. Under the first step, EPA is 

required to publish a CCL every five 

years that identifies contaminants that 

are not subject to any proposed or 

promulgated drinking water regulations, 

are known or anticipated to occur in 

PWSs, and may require future 

regulation under the SDWA. Under the 

second step, EPA must require, every 

five years, monitoring of unregulated 

contaminants to determine their 

occurrence in drinking water systems; 

this is the UCMR program. Under the 

third step, EPA is required to determine, 

every five years, whether or not to 

regulate at least five contaminants from 

the CCL. Under § 1412(b)(1)(A) of the 

SDWA, EPA regulates a contaminant in 

drinking water if the Administrator 

determines that: 

(1) The contaminant may have an adverse 

effect on the health of persons; 

(2) the contaminant is known to occur or 

there is substantial likelihood that the 

contaminant will occur in PWSs with a 

frequency and at levels of public health 

concern; and 

(3) in the sole judgment of the 

Administrator, regulation of such 

contaminant presents a meaningful 

opportunity for health risk reduction for 

persons served by PWSs. 

For the contaminants that meet all of 

the three criteria, the SDWA requires 

EPA to publish national primary 

drinking water regulations (NPDWRs). 

Information on the CCL and the 

regulatory determination process can be 

found at: https://www.epa.gov/ccl. 

The data collected through the UCMR 

program are made available to the 

public through the National 

Contaminant Occurrence Database 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
13852 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 46 / Thursday, March 11, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

(NCOD) for drinking water. EPA 

developed the NCOD to satisfy statutory 

requirements in the 1996 Amendments 

to the SDWA to assemble, and maintain 

a drinking water contaminant 

occurrence database for both regulated 

and unregulated contaminants in water 

systems. NCOD houses data on 

unregulated contaminant occurrence; 

data from EPA’s ‘‘Six Year Review’’ of 

national drinking water regulations; and 

ambient and/or source water data. 

Section 1445(g)(3) of the SDWA requires 

that EPA maintain UCMR data in the 

NCOD, and use the data when 

evaluating the frequency and level of 

occurrence of contaminants in drinking 

water at a level of public health 

concern. The UCMR results can be 

viewed by the public via NCOD (https:// 

www.epa.gov/sdwa/nationalcontaminant-occurrence-database-ncod) 

or via the UCMR web page at: https:// 

www.epa.gov/dwucmr. 

C. What are the Consumer Confidence 

Reporting and Public Notice Reporting 

requirements for public water systems 

that are subject to UCMR? 

In addition to reporting UCMR 

monitoring data to EPA, PWSs are 

responsible for presenting and 

addressing UCMR results in their 

annual Consumer Confidence Reports 

(CCRs) (40 CFR 141.153), and must 

address Public Notice (PN) requirements 

associated with UCMR (40 CFR 

141.207). Today’s notice does not 

propose changes to these reporting 

requirements. More details about the 

CCR and PN requirements can be 

viewed by the public at: https://

www.epa.gov/ccr and https://

www.epa.gov/dwreginfo/publicnotification-rule, respectively. 

D. What notable changes are being 

proposed for UCMR 5? 

This action proposes to revise the 

existing UCMR to address recent 

changes in the SDWA, and to reflect 

lessons learned through prior 

experience implementing the UCMR. 

These additional proposed changes 

include: Requiring water systems 

serving 3,300 or more persons to 

monitor per the AWIA requirements; 

updating the list of the UCMR 5 

contaminants, analytical methods, 

monitoring time frame, and sampling 

locations; revising the data elements 

required in addition to the occurrence 

data (outlined in Exhibit 2 below); 

revising data reporting timeframes; and 

effecting conforming and editorial 

changes, such as those necessary to 

remove requirements solely related to 

UCMR 4. A track-changes version of the 

rule language, comparing UCMR 4 to the 

proposed changes for UCMR 5, 

(‘‘Proposed Revisions to CFR parts 

141.35 and 141.40’’ (USEPA, 2020c)), is 

included in the public docket (Docket 

ID No. EPA–HQ–OW–2020–0530) for 

this proposed rule. EPA’s proposed 

approach and rationale for changes are 

described in the following sections. 

EXHIBIT 2—NOTABLE CHANGES PROPOSED FOR UCMR 5 

CFR rule section 

Description of proposed change 

Corresponding 

preamble 

Number Title/description Current (UCMR 4) requirement section 

§ 141.35(d), 

§ 141.40(a)(2)(ii), and 

§ 141.40(a)(4)(ii).

Scope of UCMR 5 applicability.UCMR 4 included all CWSs and NTNCWSs 

that serve more than 10,000 people, and a 

representative set of 800 systems serving 

10,000 or fewer people.

Proposes revisions to the scope of UCMR 5 to 

address all CWSs and NTNCWSs serving 

3,300 or more people and a representative 

set of systems serving fewer than 3,300 

people (consistent with AWIA).

I.A. 

§ 141.40(a)(3) ............... Related specifications 

for the analytes to 

be monitored, including sampling timeframe.

UCMR 4 specified 30 contaminants 

(cyanotoxins, metals, pesticides, brominated 

haloacetic acid groups, alcohols, and 

semivolatile chemicals) and sample collection from January 2018 through December 

2020.

Proposes a new list of 29 PFAS and lithium 

as contaminants for monitoring; identifies 

associated analytical methods, MRLs, and 

sampling locations; and proposes to revise 

the sample collection dates to January 2023 

through December 2025.

III.E + III.I. 

§ 141.40(a) ................... Applicability date ......... UCMR 4 specified December 31, 2015, as the 

basis for determining which systems were 

subject to monitoring.

Proposes to revise the date used to determine 

which systems are subject to monitoring to 

February 1, 2021.

III.H. 

§ 141.35(c)(3) ............... Ground Water Representative Monitoring Plans 

(GWRMPs).

UCMR 4 specified ‘‘within 120 from publication of the final rule (April 19, 2017)’’ as the 

deadline to submit a GWRMP.

Proposes flexibility to the deadline for PWSs 

to submit a GWRMP proposal to EPA.

III.I. 

§ 141.35(c)(6)(ii) and 

§ 141.40(a)(5)(vi).

Reporting timeframe ... UCMR 4 specified that laboratories must approve analytical results in EPA’s electronic 

data reporting system within 120 days from 

the sample collection date and specified 

that PWS had 60 days (from when the laboratory posted the data to EPA’s electronic 

data reporting system) to review, approve, 

and submit their data to the state and EPA.

Proposes to revise the timeframe for laboratories to post and approve analytical results 

in EPA’s electronic data reporting system 

(for review by the PWS) to ‘‘within 90 days 

from the sample collection date.’’.

Proposes to revise the timeframe for PWSs to 

review, approve, and submit data to the 

state and EPA to no more than ‘‘30 days 

from when the laboratory posts the data to 

EPA’s electronic data reporting system’’.

III.I. 

§ 141.35(e) ................... Reporting requirements—Data elements.UCMR 4 specified data elements applicable to 

the contaminants included in that cycle.

Proposes changes to the data elements to be 

reported to EPA based on the contaminants 

proposed for monitoring.

III.J. 

§ 141.40(a)(5)(ii) ........... Laboratory approval 

application timeframe.

UCMR 4 specified that laboratories interested 

in supporting monitoring must initially apply 

within 120 days of publication of the final 

rule. April 19, 2017 was specified as the 

date by which all registration and application materials must be completed and returned to UCMR_Sampling_Coordinator@

epa.gov.

Proposes a more flexible timeframe for laboratories to apply to support UCMR 5 monitoring. Proposes that registration and application materials are to be submitted to EPA 

‘‘by August 1, 2022.’’ Additonally, revises 

the email correspondence to be UCMR_

Lab_Approval@epa.gov.

III.L. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 46 / Thursday, March 11, 2021 / Proposed Rules 13853 

E. How did EPA prioritize candidate 

contaminants and what contaminants 

are proposed for UCMR 5? 

In establishing the proposed list of 

contaminants for UCMR 5, EPA 

evaluated unregulated contaminants in 

accordance with the statutory 

authorities described in section I.A of 

this document. In accordance with these 

requirements, EPA’s commitments 

under the PFAS Action Plan (USEPA, 

2019a), and the process described in 

this document, EPA is proposing 

monitoring for the unregulated 

contaminants listed in Exhibit 3 using 

the specified methods. 

EXHIBIT 3—PROPOSED UCMR 5 ANALYTES

List 1 Analytes 

Twenty-five Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) using EPA Method 533 (SPE LC/MS/MS): 1

11-chloroeicosafluoro-3-oxaundecane-1-sulfonic acid (11Cl-PF3OUdS) perfluorodecanoic acid (PFDA). 

1H, 1H, 2H, 2H-perfluorodecane sulfonic acid (8:2 FTS) ........................ perfluorododecanoic acid (PFDoA). 

1H, 1H, 2H, 2H-perfluorohexane sulfonic acid (4:2 FTS) ........................ perfluoroheptanesulfonic acid (PFHpS). 

1H, 1H, 2H, 2H-perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (6:2 FTS) ......................... perfluoroheptanoic acid (PFHpA). 

4,8-dioxa-3H-perfluorononanoic acid (ADONA) ....................................... perfluorohexanesulfonic acid (PFHxS). 

9-chlorohexadecafluoro-3-oxanone-1-sulfonic acid (9Cl-PF3ONS) ......... perfluorohexanoic acid (PFHxA). 

hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid (HFPO–DA) (GenX) .................... perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA). 

nonafluoro-3,6-dioxaheptanoic acid (NFDHA) ......................................... perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS). 

perfluoro (2-ethoxyethane) sulfonic acid (PFEESA) ................................ perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA). 

perfluoro-3-methoxypropanoic acid (PFMPA) .......................................... perfluoropentanesulfonic acid (PFPeS). 

perfluoro-4-methoxybutanoic acid (PFMBA) ............................................ perfluoropentanoic acid (PFPeA). 

perfluorobutanesulfonic acid (PFBS) ........................................................ perfluoroundecanoic acid (PFUnA). 

perfluorobutanoic acid (PFBA).

Four Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) using EPA Method 537.1 (SPE LC/MS/MS): 2

n-ethyl perfluorooctanesulfonamidoacetic acid (NEtFOSAA) .................. perfluorotetradecanoic acid (PFTA). 

n-methyl perfluorooctanesulfonamidoacetic acid (NMeFOSAA) .............. perfluorotridecanoic acid (PFTrDA). 

One Metal/Pharmaceutical using EPA Method 200.7 (ICP–AES) 3 or alternate SM 4 or ASTM: 5

lithium.

1EPA Method 533 (Solid phase extraction (SPE) liquid chromatography/tandem mass spectrometry (LC/MS/MS)) (USEPA, 2019c). 

2EPA Method 537.1 Version 2.0 (Solid phase extraction (SPE) liquid chromatography/tandem mass spectrometry (LC/MS/MS)) (USEPA, 

2020d). 3EPA Method 200.7 (Inductively coupled plasma-atomic emission spectrometry (ICP–AES)) (USEPA, 1994). 

4Standard Methods (SM) 3120 B (SM, 2017) or SM 3120 B–99 (SM Online, 1999). 

5ASTM International (ASTM) D1976–20 (ASTM, 2020). 

EPA considered the current (fourth) 

Contaminant Candidate List (CCL 4), 

which includes 97 chemicals or 

chemical groups and 12 microbes (81 FR 

81099, November 17, 2016 (USEPA, 

2016b)). EPA also evaluated 

contaminants nominated by the public 

for potential inclusion on the next (fifth) 

CCL (CCL 5) (83 FR 50364, October 5, 

2018 (USEPA, 2018b)) and considered 

other priority contaminants, including 

those highlighted in the PFAS Action 

Plan (USEPA, 2019a). Further, EPA 

considered the opportunity to collect 

occurrence data for non-CCL 

contaminants using the proposed 

methods for CCL contaminants that 

would result in little-to-no additional 

expense (i.e., concurrent with the 

collection of data for CCL 

contaminants). EPA’s proposed 

approach addresses the PFAS 

requirement in NDAA (Pub. L. 116–92) 

by including all 29 PFAS that are within 

the scope of EPA Methods 533, 

published December 2019 (USEPA, 

2019c), and 537.1, initially published 

November 2018 and updated via version 

2.0 in March 2020 (USEPA, 2020d). 

EPA evaluated candidate UCMR 5 

contaminants using a multi-step 

prioritization process. The first step 

included identifying contaminants that: 

(1) Were not monitored under prior 

UCMR cycles; (2) may occur in drinking 

water; and (3) are expected to have a 

completed, validated drinking water 

method in time for rule proposal. 

The next step was to consider the 

following: Availability of health 

assessments or other health-effects 

information (e.g., critical health 

endpoints suggesting carcinogenicity); 

public interest (e.g., PFAS); active use 

(e.g., pesticides that are registered for 

use); and availability of occurrence data. 

During the final step, EPA considered 

stakeholder input; looked at costeffectiveness of the potential monitoring 

approaches; considered implementation 

factors (e.g., laboratory capacity); and 

further evaluated health effects, 

occurrence, and persistence/mobility 

data to identify the proposed list of 

UCMR 5 contaminants. 

Contaminant-specific information 

(e.g., source, use, production, release, 

persistence, mobility, health effects, and 

occurrence) that EPA used to evaluate 

candidate contaminants, is contained in 

‘‘Information Compendium for 

Candidate Contaminants for the 

Proposed Unregulated Contaminant 

Monitoring Rule (UCMR 5)’’ (USEPA, 

2020e). The Information Compendium 

can be found in EPA public docket for 

this proposed rule, under Docket ID No. 

EPA–HQ–OW–2020–0530. EPA invites 

comment on the proposed UCMR 5 

contaminants (and their associated 

analytical methods) identified in Exhibit 

3. 

F. What other contaminants did EPA 

consider? 

This notice describes the 30 

contaminants that EPA has identified as 

the highest priorities for UCMR 5 

monitoring through the process 

described in the preceding section. This 

process prioritizes the unregulated 

contaminants for which nationally 

representative data on the frequency 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
13854 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 46 / Thursday, March 11, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

and level of occurrence are useful. EPA 

believes that the primary utility of the 

UCMR data is for the Agency’s 

regulatory evaluation. The SDWA 

requires that the data collected under 

the UCMR be used to develop the CCL 

(see § 1412(b)(1)(B)(i)(I)) and to make 

regulatory determinations for CCL 

contaminants (see § 1412(b)(1)(B)(ii)(II)). 

EPA believes that the UCMR can be 

useful to States, water systems, and to 

water system consumers but that is not 

the primary purpose of the data 

collection. 

In developing a UCMR rule EPA also 

considers the burden that UCMR places 

upon water systems to perform 

monitoring and, in accordance with 

SDWA § 1445(j)(1) and 1445(j)(3), the 

new expenses of small system 

monitoring and the laboratory capacity 

to support the analysis of UCMR 

samples. EPA is proposing a rule that 

reflects a consideration of the burden on 

water systems, the new expenses 

associated with implementing the rule, 

and the utility of the information to be 

collected. Although the NDAA allows 

the Agency to require monitoring for 

more contaminants beyond those 

proposed, EPA believes that the utility 

of the additional data that would be 

collected does not warrant their 

inclusion. As described in the following 

sections, data collection for Legionella 

pneumophila and four haloacetonitriles 

(dichloroacetonitrile, 

dibromoacetonitrile, 

trichloroacetonitrile, and 

bromochloroacetonitrile) would not be 

useful to EPA’s regulatory deliberations. 

Also, due to limitations of analytical 

methodologies, data collection for 1,2,3- 

trichloropropane and total organic 

fluorine (TOF) would not be useful. 

The information that EPA considered 

when evaluating contaminants may be 

found in the Information Compendium 

(USEPA, 2020e). 

EPA invites comment on these 

contaminants and any other priority 

contaminants commenters wish to 

recommend. In your comments, please 

identify the following: Any new 

contaminant(s) that you believe EPA 

should include in the UCMR 5 

monitoring; any contaminant(s) in 

Exhibit 3 that you believe should be 

removed from the list; the 

recommended analytical method(s) for 

any new contaminant(s) that you 

propose; and other relevant details (e.g., 

reporting level, sampling location, 

sampling frequency, analytical cost). 

Comments that provide supporting data 

or rationale are especially helpful to 

EPA. 

1. Legionella pneumophila 

Legionella pneumophila is recognized 

as an important biofilm-related 

opportunistic pathogen associated with 

waterborne disease. It is a naturally 

occurring pathogen, widely found in the 

environment. Legionella pneumophila 

may enter drinking water distribution 

systems and proliferate under certain 

conditions (USEPA, 2001). Under EPA’s 

Surface Water Treatment Rule (SWTR), 

EPA established NPDWRs for Giardia, 

viruses, Legionella, turbidity and 

heterotrophic bacteria and set maximum 

contaminant limit goals of zero for 

Giardia lamblia, viruses and Legionella 

(54 FR 27486, June 29, 1989 (USEPA, 

1989)). EPA is currently examining 

opportunities to enhance protection 

against Legionella pneumophila through 

potential revisions to the suite of 

Microbial and Disinfection Byproduct 

(MDBP) rules, which includes the 

SWTR. As stated in the conclusions 

from EPA’s third ‘‘Six-Year Review of 

Drinking Water Standards’’ (82 FR 3518, 

January 11, 2017 (USEPA, 2017)), ‘‘EPA 

identified the following NPDWRs under 

the SWTR as candidates for revision 

under the Six-Year Review 3, because of 

the opportunity to further reduce 

residual risk from pathogens (including 

opportunistic pathogens such as 

Legionella) beyond the risk addressed 

by the current SWTR.’’ In accordance 

with the dates in the Settlement 

Agreement between EPA and 

Waterkeeper Alliance (Waterkeeper 

Alliance, Inc. v. U.S. EPA, No. 1:19–cv– 

00899–LJL (S.D.N.Y. Jun. 1, 2020)), the 

Agency anticipates signing a proposal 

for revisions to the MDBP rules and a 

final action on the proposal by July 31, 

2024 and September 30, 2027, 

respectively. Accordingly, EPA has 

concerns about the utility of a UCMR 5 

data set on Legionella pneumophila 

based on the timeframe for the Agency 

deliberations about the MDBP revisions. 

The UCMR 5 data collection would not 

be complete in time to inform regulatory 

revision and would not reflect 

conditions in water systems after any 

regulatory revisions become effective. 

The Six-Year Review 3 conclusion 

and Settlement Agreement state EPA’s 

approach to investigating public health 

risks potentially associated with 

Legionella. Inclusion of Legionella 

pneumophila in UCMR 5 would add 

significant monitoring and reporting 

complexity, and cost. If Legionella 

pneumophila were to be added to 

UCMR 5, most of the additional cost 

would be borne by large PWSs (for 

analysis of their samples) and EPA (for 

analysis of samples from small PWSs). 

In such case, sample collection would 

likely be at the distribution-system 

sampling locations described in the 

Disinfectants and Disinfection 

Byproducts Rule (D/DBPR) (40 CFR 

141.622). Because Legionella 

pneumophila is regulated via ‘‘treatment 

technique’’ and EPA does not require 

that it be measured, the Agency has not 

evaluated or validated analytical 

methods for its measurement. EPA is 

aware that there are a number of 

potential techniques for measuring 

Legionella pneumophila, including the 

commercially-available LegiolertTM test 

(IDEXX Laboratories, Inc., 2020). EPA 

estimates that this additional 

monitoring would result in $11 million 

in new expenses for large PWSs, $20 

million in new expenses for the Agency 

for small system monitoring, and $0.5 

million in new expenses for small PWSs 

and states over the 5-year UCMR period. 

EPA believes this is a significant burden 

for data that would not be available in 

time to inform regulatory revision and 

that would not reflect conditions in 

water systems after any regulatory 

revisions become effective. EPA invites 

comments on whether Legionella 

pneumophila should be included in 

UCMR 5. 

2. Haloacetonitriles 

The four haloacetonitriles represent a 

group of unregulated disinfection 

byproducts (DBPs). They were detected 

relatively frequently in monitoring 

under the DBP Information Collection 

Rule (1997–1998), available via https:// 

www.epa.gov/dwsixyearreview/ 

supplemental-data-six-year-review-3, 

and are generally considered more 

cytotoxic and genotoxic than the 

regulated DBPs. EPA Method 551.1 is an 

existing validated method approved for 

measuring regulated total 

trihalomethanes in drinking water 

(USEPA, 1995); it is also capable of 

measuring unregulated 

haloacetonitriles. Similar to the 

situation with Legionella pneumophila, 

EPA is examining opportunities to 

enhance protection against DBPs, 

including these haloacetonitriles 

through potential revisions to the MDBP 

rules; see previous paragraph regarding 

the anticipated timeframe for those 

revisions and note the concern about 

timing relative to UCMR 5 data 

collection. As with Legionella 

pneumophila, inclusion of 

haloacetonitriles in UCMR 5 would 

introduce significant monitoring and 

reporting complexity and cost compared 

to the sampling design for PFAS and 

lithium. If haloacetonitriles were to be 

added to UCMR 5, most of the 

additional expenses would be borne by 

large PWSs (for analysis of their 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 46 / Thursday, March 11, 2021 / Proposed Rules 13855 

samples) and EPA (for analysis of 

samples from small PWSs). In such case, 

sample collection would likely be at the 

distribution-system sampling locations 

described in the Disinfectants and 

Disinfection Byproducts Rule (D/DBPR) 

(40 CFR 141.622). EPA estimates this 

would result in $16 million in new 

expenses for large PWSs, $20 million in 

new expenses for the Agency, and $0.5 

million in new expenses for small PWSs 

and states over the 5-year UCMR period. 

EPA invites comments on whether 

haloacetonitriles should be included in 

UCMR 5. 

3. 1,2,3-trichloropropane 

1,2,3-trichloropropane is a man-made 

chemical used as an industrial solvent, 

cleaning and degreasing agent, and 

synthesis intermediate. 1,2,3- 

trichloropropane occurrence data 

collected during UCMR 3 (USEPA, 

2012) may be found at https://

www.epa.gov/dwucmr/occurrence-dataunregulated-contaminant-monitoringrule#3. EPA’s March 2020 

‘‘Announcement of Preliminary 

Regulatory Determinations for 

Contaminants on the Fourth Drinking 

Water Contaminant Candidate List’’ 

(available via https://www.epa.gov/ccl/ 

regulatory-determination-4) concluded 

that the Agency needs additional lowerlevel occurrence information prior to 

making a preliminary regulatory 

determination for 1,2,3- 

trichloropropane. EPA is not proposing 

1,2,3-trichloropropane monitoring in 

UCMR 5 because the Agency concludes 

that available analytical methods would 

not support the collection of data at 

concentrations lower than the levels 

monitored during UCMR 3 (USEPA, 

2019d). At 0.03 mg/L, the minimum 

reporting level (MRL) established in 

UCMR 3 is higher than the EPA health 

reference level (HRL) associated with a 

cancer risk level of one cancer case per 

million people (0.0004 mg/L (0.4 ng/L) 

(USEPA, 2019d), but lower than the 

cancer risk level associated with one 

cancer case per 10,000 people (0.04 mg/ 

L)). EPA invites comment on any 

aspects of 1,2,3-trichloropropane as a 

candidate for UCMR 5, particularly 

comments on additional methods that 

may support national monitoring at 

quantitation levels lower than 0.0004 

mg/L. 

4. Total Organic Fluorine (TOF) 

There are a number of analytical 

techniques that have been applied to 

measuring organic fluorine in 

environmental matrices and drinking 

water, and some have proposed trying to 

correlate PFAS, in aggregate, with 

measurements of total organic fluorine. 

TOF, by combustion ion 

chromatography, relies on extracting 

fluorine-containing compounds from 

water, defluorinating, and capturing the 

resulting hydrogen flouride gas in 

solution for analysis. While there is high 

interest in TOF (and other techniques 

that might capture a broader suite of 

PFAS), the measurement approach is 

subject to significant technical 

challenges, and a robust method that 

would support national monitoring is 

unlikely to be ready in time to support 

UCMR 5 rulemaking. Further, TOF 

methods for drinking water may not be 

sensitive or specific enough to support 

decision making; TOF is not specific to 

PFAS, and any fluorine-containing 

compounds (e.g., pesticides, 

pharmaceuticals) that are retained 

during extraction would be included in 

the organic fluorine measurement. EPA 

cannot reliably estimate the cost to 

measure TOF under UCMR because 

TOF methods have little commercial 

laboratory availability at this time. 

G. What are the costs of alternatives to 

the proposed UCMR 5? 

As described in the preceding 

sections, EPA considered alternatives to 

the proposed UCMR 5. One alternative 

EPA considered recognizes that the 

Agency cost to support the expanded 

small-PWS monitoring scope defined in 

the AWIA may exceed available 

resources. Specifically, the AWIA 

provisions would increase the number 

of PWS samples for which EPA would 

perform analysis by 8-fold. Exhibit 4 

presents the cost over 5 years for the 

proposed-rule baseline and presents the 

alternative cost if EPA were to 

promulgate a final UCMR 5 that reverts 

to the traditional UCMR approach to 

small system monitoring (i.e., includes 

800 systems serving 10,000 or fewer 

people). 

EXHIBIT 4—ESTIMATED 5-YEAR (2022–2026) COST ($ MILLION) OF THE PROPOSED UCMR AND AN ALTERNATIVE WITH

REDUCED SMALL SYSTEM MONITORING 1

Action Total cost to 

large PWSs 

Total cost 

to EPA2

Total cost to 

small PWSs 

and states 

Total program 

cost 

(sum of costs 

for large and 

small PWSs, 

EPA, and 

states) 

UCMR 5 proposed-rule baseline (presumes funds are available to support AWIA-based scope and that 29 PFAS and lithium are monitored) $47.8 $52.7 $5.5 $105.9 

Alternative UCMR 5 which would include only include 800 systems 

serving 10,000 or fewer people .............................................................

(presumes that 29 PFAS and lithium are monitored) ............................... 47.8 14.7 3.4 65.9 

Difference between proposed-rule baseline and alternative .............. 0 38.0 2.1 40.0 

1Totals may not equal the sum of components due to rounding. 

2Accounts for cost of analyses for samples from small PWSs and other implementation expenses. 

Exhibit 5 presents the costs over 5 

years for the UCMR 5 proposed-rule 

baseline and alternatives, in which EPA 

would add monitoring for Legionella 

pneumophila and/or haloacetonitriles to 

the proposed UCMR 5 analytes (29 

PFAS and lithium). 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
13856 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 46 / Thursday, March 11, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

EXHIBIT 5—ESTIMATED 5-YEAR (2022–2026) COST ($ MILLION) OF THE PROPOSED UCMR AND ALTERNATIVES THAT ADD

MONITORING FOR Legionella pneumophila AND/OR HALOACETONITRILES

[Differences between the baseline and alternatives [$ million] are noted parenthetically] 1

Action Total cost to 

large PWSs 

Total cost 

to EPA2

Total cost to 

small PWSs 

and states 

Total program 

cost 

(sum of costs 

for large and 

small PWSs, 

EPA, and 

states) 

UCMR 5 proposed-rule baseline (presumes funds are available to support AWIA-based scope and that 29 PFAS and lithium are monitored) $47.8 $52.7 $5.5 $105.9 

Require monitoring for Legionella pneumophila (in addition to 29 PFAS 

and lithium) ............................................................................................. 58.7 (+11.0) 72.9 (+20.2) 6.0 (+0.5) 137.6 (+31.7) 

Require monitoring for haloacetonitriles (in addition to 29 PFAS and lithium) ........................................................................................................ 63.6 (+15.8) 72.7 (+20.0) 6.0 (+0.5) 142.2 (+36.3) 

Require monitoring for Legionella pneumophila and haloacetonitriles (in 

addition to 29 PFAS and lithium) ........................................................... 73.3 (+25.6) 92.9 (+40.2) 6.0 (+0.5) 172.2 (+66.3) 

1Totals may not equal the sum of components due to rounding. 

2Accounts for cost of analyses for samples from small PWSs and other implementation expenses. 

Exhibit 6 presents the costs over 5 

years for the UCMR 5 ‘‘pre-AWIA’’ 

alternative baseline proposed-rule 

baseline (i.e., in which the Agency 

would include 800 nationallyrepresentative water systems serving 

fewer than or equal to 10,000), and 

associated scenarios in which EPA 

would add monitoring for Legionella 

pneumophila and/or haloacetonitriles to 

the proposed UCMR 5 analytes (29 

PFAS and lithium). 

EXHIBIT 6—ESTIMATED 5-YEAR (2022–2026) COST ($ MILLION) OF A UCMR 5 ‘‘PRE-AWIA’’ ALTERNATIVE BASELINE, AND

ASSOCIATED SCENARIOS THAT ADD MONITORING FOR Legionella pneumophila AND/OR HALOACETONITRILES

[Differences between the baseline and alternatives [$ million] are noted parenthetically] 1

Action Total cost to 

large PWSs 

Total cost 

to EPA2

Total cost to 

small PWSs 

and states 

Total program 

cost 

(sum of costs 

for large and 

small PWSs, 

EPA, and 

states) 

UCMR 5 ‘‘pre-AWIA’’ alternative baseline (presumes that monitoring includes 800 PWSs serving ≤10,000 and that 29 PFAS and lithium are 

monitored) .............................................................................................. $47.8 $14.7 $3.4 $65.8 

Require monitoring for Legionella pneumophila (in addition to 29 PFAS 

and lithium) ............................................................................................. 58.7 (+11.0) 18.4 (+3.7) 3.4 (+0.04) 80.5 (+14.7) 

Require monitoring for haloacetonitriles (in addition to 29 PFAS and lithium) ........................................................................................................ 63.6 (+15.8) 16.2 (+1.5) 3.4 (+0.04) 83.2 (+17.4) 

Require monitoring for Legionella pneumophila and haloacetonitriles (in 

addition to 29 PFAS and lithium) ........................................................... 73.3 (+25.6) 19.2 (+4.5) 3.4 (+0.04) 96.0 (+30.2) 

1Totals may not equal the sum of components due to rounding. 

2Accounts for cost of analyses for samples from small PWSs and other implementation expenses. 

H. What is the proposed applicability 

date? 

The applicability date represents an 

internal milestone used by EPA to 

determine if a PWS is included in the 

UCMR program, and if it is a small or 

large PWS. It does not represent a date 

by which respondents need to take any 

action. In § 141.40(a), EPA proposes 

February 1, 2021 as the new 

applicability date to determine which 

PWSs are subject to UCMR 5. That is, 

the determination of whether a PWS is 

required to monitor under UCMR 5 is 

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

NTNCWS, etc.) and its retail population 

served, as indicated by the Safe 

Drinking Water Information System 

Federal Reporting Services (SDWIS/Fed) 

inventory on February 1, 2021. A 

determination of applicability on 

February 1, 2021 allows time for EPA to 

share the tentative list of PWSs with the 

states for their review, and to load PWS 

information into EPA’s reporting system 

so that PWSs can be notified promptly 

once the final rule is published. If a 

PWS receives such notification and 

believes its retail population served in 

SDWIS/Fed is inaccurate (resulting in 

the PWS being erroneously included in 

UCMR 5), the system should contact 

their state authority to verify its 

population as of the applicability date 

and request a correction, if necessary. 

The applicability date for a given UCMR 

cycle is routinely established near the 

publication of the UCMR proposal. EPA 

believes that a later applicability date 

would be impractical given the planning 

that needs to occur prior to sample 

collection. 

I. What are the proposed UCMR 5 

sampling design and timeline of 

activities? 

The proposed rule identifies sampling 

and analysis for UCMR 5 contaminants 

within the sampling period of 2023 to 

2025 based on the Assessment 

Monitoring framework because, as 

described in section I.B of this 

document, EPA anticipates that there 

will be appropriate laboratory capacity. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 46 / Thursday, March 11, 2021 / Proposed Rules 13857 

Preparations prior to 2023 are expected 

to include coordinating laboratory 

approval, selecting representative small 

systems, organizing Partnership 

Agreements, developing State 

Monitoring Plans (see III.N of this 

document), establishing monitoring 

schedules and inventory, and 

conducting outreach and training. 

Exhibit 7 illustrates the major activities 

that EPA expects will take place in 

preparation for, and during the 

implementation of the UCMR 5. 

To minimize the impact of the rule on 

small systems (those serving 10,000 or 

fewer people), EPA pays for their 

sample kit preparation, sample shipping 

fees, and sample analysis. 

As noted in section I.B of this 

document, the AWIA mandates the 

expanded UCMR monitoring ‘‘subject to 

the availability of appropriations for 

such purpose,’’ recognizing the greater 

EPA burden created by the AWIA (as 

EPA funds testing and laboratory 

analysis for small systems under the 

UCMR). If EPA concludes that it will 

not have the resources necessary to 

support the expanded monitoring 

described by the AWIA, the Agency will 

not promulgate a final rule that requires 

all water systems serving between 3,300 

and 10,000 persons to monitor. Rather, 

EPA will use the approach from prior to 

the enactment of AWIA, and include 

800 nationally-representative water 

systems serving fewer than or equal to 

10,000 in the UCMR program. 

Large systems (those serving more 

than 10,000 people) pay for all costs 

associated with their monitoring. 

Exhibit 8 shows a summary of the 

estimated number of PWSs subject to 

monitoring. 

EXHIBIT 8—SYSTEMS TO PARTICIPATE IN UCMR 5 MONITORING

System size 

(number of people served) 

National Sample: Assessment monitoring design Total number of 

systems per 

List 1 Chemicals size category 

Small Systems 1 (25—3,299) ..................................................... 800 randomly selected systems (CWSs and NTNCWSs) ........ 800 

Small Systems 2 (3,300—10,000) .............................................. All systems (CWSs and NTNCWSs) ........................................ 5,147 

Large Systems 3 (10,001 and over) ........................................... All systems (CWSs and NTNCWSs) ........................................ 4,364 

Total .................................................................................... .................................................................................................... 10,311 

1EPA pays for all analytical costs associated with monitoring at small systems. 

2Small system counts are approximate. EPA pays for all analytical costs associated with monitoring at small systems. 

3 Large system counts are approximate. 

1. Sampling Frequency, Timing 

On a per-system basis, the anticipated 

number of samples collected by each 

system is consistent with sample 

collection during prior UCMR cycles 

(although, as described elsewhere, the 

number of water systems subject to 

UCMR would be significantly greater 

under this proposal). Water systems 

would be required to collect samples 

based on the typical UCMR sampling 

frequency and time frame as follows: 

For surface water, ground water under 

the direct influence of surface water, 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALSEP11MR21.000</GPH>
13858 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 46 / Thursday, March 11, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

and mixed locations, sampling would 

take place for four consecutive quarters 

over the course of 12 months (total of 4 

sampling events). Sampling events 

would occur 3 months apart. For 

example, if the first sample is taken in 

January, the second would then occur 

anytime in April, the third would occur 

anytime in July, and the fourth would 

occur anytime in October. For ground 

water locations, sampling would take 

place twice over the course of 12 

months (total of 2 sampling events). 

Sampling events would occur five to 

seven months apart. For example, if the 

first sample is taken in April, the second 

sample would then occur anytime in 

September, October, or November. 

EPA expects to consult with the states 

and initially determine schedules (year 

and months of monitoring) for large 

water systems. Thereafter, these PWSs 

would have an opportunity to modify 

this initial schedule for planning 

purposes or other reasons (e.g., to 

spread costs over multiple years, a 

sampling location will be closed during 

the scheduled month of monitoring, 

etc.). EPA proposes to schedule and 

coordinate small system monitoring by 

working closely with states. State 

Monitoring Plans provide an 

opportunity for states to review and 

revise the initial sampling schedules 

that EPA proposes (see discussion of 

State Monitoring Plans in section III.N 

of this document). 

2. Sampling Locations and Ground 

Water Representative Monitoring Plans 

Consistent with past UCMR cycles, 

sample collection for the UCMR 5 

contaminants would take place at the 

entry point to the distribution system 

(EPTDS). As during past UCMRs and as 

described in § 141.35(c)(3), the proposed 

rule would allow large ground water 

systems (or large surface water systems 

with ground water sources) that have 

multiple ground water EPTDSs to 

request approval to sample at 

representative monitoring locations 

rather than at each ground water 

EPTDS. GWRMPs approved under prior 

UCMRs may be used for UCMR 5, 

presuming no significant changes in the 

configuration of the ground water 

EPTDSs since the prior approval. Water 

systems that intend to use a previously 

approved plan must send EPA a copy of 

the approval documents received under 

prior UCMRs from their state (if 

reviewed by the state) or EPA. 

Relative to the rules for prior UCMR 

cycles, this proposal provides greater 

flexibility to PWSs in submitting 

GWRMPs to EPA. As proposed, plans 

must be submitted to EPA six months 

prior to the PWS’s scheduled sample 

collection, instead of by a specified 

date; those scheduled to collect samples 

in 2024 or 2025 would have significant 

additional time to develop and propose 

representative plans. PWSs, particularly 

those scheduled for sample collection in 

2023, are encouraged to submit 

proposals for new GWRMP by December 

31, 2022, to allow time for review by 

EPA and, as appropriate, the state. EPA 

will work closely with the states to 

coordinate the review of GWRMPs in 

those cases where such review is part of 

the state’s Partnership Agreement. 

Changes to inventory data in the Safe 

Drinking Water Accession and Review 

System (SDWARS) that impact a PWS’s 

representative plan before or during the 

UCMR sampling period must be 

reported within 30 days of the change. 

EPA will collaborate with small systems 

(particularly those with many ground 

water locations) to develop a GWRMP 

when warranted, recognizing that EPA 

pays for the analysis of samples from 

small systems. 

3. Reporting Times 

This action proposes changes in the 

timeframes for laboratories to post and 

approve analytical results in SDWARS, 

and for PWSs to then review and 

approve the posted results in SDWARS. 

EPA recognizes that multiple states have 

expressed an interest in earlier access to 

UCMR data (see Docket ID No. EPA– 

HQ–OW–2020–0530) and believes that 

shorter timeframes for posting and 

approving data are feasible based on our 

experience with UCMR reporting todate. EPA has observed that many 

laboratories are routinely posting data to 

SDWARS within 90 days of sample 

collection. EPA has also observed that 

many large PWSs are approving and 

submitting data within 30 days of their 

laboratory posting the data. 

Accordingly, EPA proposes that 

laboratories be given 90 days (versus the 

current 120 days) from the sample 

collection date to post and approve 

analytical results in SDWARS for PWS 

review. EPA proposes that large PWSs 

be given 30 days (versus the current 60 

days) to review and approve the 

analytical results posted to SDWARS. 

As with the current UCMR 

requirements, data would be considered 

approved and available for state and 

EPA review if the PWS takes no action 

within their allotted review period. EPA 

welcomes comments on these proposed 

changes to the reporting requirements 

and invites input on other changes that 

could address the interest in earlier 

access to data. 

J. What are the reporting requirements 

for the UCMR 5? 

EPA proposes changes to the 

reporting requirements currently 

established for UCMR 4, as detailed in 

Table 1 of § 141.35(e), to account for the 

UCMR 5 contaminants and the 

monitoring approach being proposed. 

These changes include removing data 

elements related to the specific 

contaminants from the previous UCMR, 

and adding and updating data elements 

based on the proposed list of 

contaminants to be monitored. EPA is 

proposing certain data element changes, 

based on experience from the previous 

UCMR, that are intended to improve 

data reporting from laboratories and 

water systems. Recognizing that data 

elements are specifically tailored to the 

requirements of each monitoring cycle, 

EPA invites comment on the 

appropriateness of the proposed UCMR 

5 data elements relative to the proposed 

UCMR 5 contaminants, analytical 

methods and reporting requirements. 

EPA welcomes comments on the 

proposed data elements and associated 

definitions, as well as any others that 

may provide useful ancillary data to 

support an assessment of the occurrence 

information. 

K. What are Minimum Reporting Levels 

(MRLs) and how were they determined? 

EPA establishes MRLs for 

contaminants under the UCMR to 

ensure consistency in the quality of the 

information reported to the Agency. As 

defined in§ 141.40(a)(5)(iii), the MRL is 

the minimum quantitation level that, 

with 95% confidence, can be achieved 

by capable analysts at 75% or more of 

the laboratories using a specified 

analytical method. More detailed 

explanation of the MRL calculation is in 

the ‘‘Technical Basis for the Lowest 

Concentration Minimum Reporting 

Level (LCMRL) Calculator’’ (USEPA, 

2010), available on the internet at 

(https://www.epa.gov/ 

dwanalyticalmethods/lowestconcentration-minimum-reporting-levellcmrl-calculator). 

EPA requires each laboratory 

interested in supporting UCMR analyses 

to demonstrate that they can reliably 

make quality measurements at or below 

the established MRL to ensure that high 

quality results are being reported by 

participating laboratories. EPA 

established the proposed MRLs in 

§ 141.40(a)(3), Table 1, for each analyte/ 

method by obtaining data from at least 

three laboratories that performed 

‘‘lowest concentration minimum 

reporting level’’ (LCMRL) studies. The 

results from these laboratory LCMRL 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 46 / Thursday, March 11, 2021 / Proposed Rules 13859 

studies can be found in the ‘‘UCMR 5 

Laboratory Approval Manual’’ (USEPA, 

2020f). 

The LCMRL is the lowest 

concentration of a contaminant that can 

be quantified with the precision and 

accuracy specified in ‘‘Technical Basis 

for the Lowest Concentration Minimum 

Reporting Level (LCMRL) Calculator’’ 

(USEPA, 2010), available on the internet 

at (https://www.epa.gov/ 

dwanalyticalmethods/lowestconcentration-minimum-reporting-levellcmrl-calculator). The multiple 

laboratory LCMRLs were then processed 

through a statistical routine to derive an 

MRL that, with 95% confidence, is 

predicted to be attainable by 75% of 

laboratories using the prescribed 

method. EPA considers these to be the 

lowest reporting levels that can 

practically and consistently be achieved 

on a national basis (recognizing that 

individual laboratories may be able to 

measure at lower levels). EPA invites 

comments on the proposed MRLs, and 

will consider changing the proposed 

MRLs if the Agency obtains scientific 

information demonstrating that a 

different MRL is attainable and 

practical. 

L. How do laboratories become 

approved to conduct the UCMR 5 

analyses? 

Consistent with prior UCMRs, this 

proposed action maintains the 

requirement that PWS use laboratories 

approved by EPA to analyze UCMR 5 

samples. Interested laboratories are 

encouraged to apply for EPA approval 

as early as possible, beginning with the 

publication of this proposal. The UCMR 

5 laboratory approval process is 

designed to assess whether laboratories 

possess the required equipment and can 

meet laboratory-performance and datareporting criteria described in this 

action. 

EPA expects demand for laboratory 

support to increase significantly based 

on the greater number of water systems 

proposed for UCMR 5. EPA estimates 

that the number of participating small 

water systems will increase from the 

typical 800 to approximately 6,000 (see 

Exhibit 8 in section III.I of this 

document). In preparation for this 

increased participation, EPA anticipates 

soliciting proposals and awarding 

contracts to laboratories to support 

small system monitoring prior to the 

end of the proficiency testing (PT) 

program. Historically, laboratories 

awarded contracts by EPA have been 

required to first be approved to perform 

all methods. The anticipated steps and 

requirements for the laboratory approval 

process are described in steps 1 through 

6 of the following paragraphs. 

EPA anticipates following its typical 

approach to approving UCMR 

laboratories, which would require 

laboratories seeking approval to: (1) 

Provide EPA with data that demonstrate 

a successful completion of an initial 

demonstration of capability (IDC) as 

outlined in each method; (2) verify 

successful performance at or below the 

MRLs as specified in this action; (3) 

provide information about laboratory 

standard operating procedures (SOPs); 

and (4) participate in two EPA PT 

studies for the analytes of interest. 

Audits of laboratories may be conducted 

by EPA prior to and/or following 

approval, and maintaining approval is 

contingent on timely and accurate 

reporting. The ‘‘UCMR 5 Laboratory 

Approval Manual’’ (USEPA, 2020f) 

provides more specific guidance on EPA 

laboratory approval program and the 

specific method acceptance criteria. 

EPA will also include sample collection 

procedures that are specific to the 

methods in the ‘‘UCMR 5 Laboratory 

Manual,’’ and will address this point in 

our outreach to the public water systems 

that will be collecting samples. 

The structure of the anticipated 

UCMR 5 laboratory approval program is 

similar to that employed in the previous 

UCMRs, and would provide an 

assessment of the ability of laboratories 

to perform analyses using the methods 

listed in § 141.40(a)(3), Table 1. 

Laboratory participation in the UCMR 

laboratory approval program is 

voluntary. However, as in the previous 

UCMRs, and as proposed for UCMR 5, 

EPA would require PWSs to exclusively 

use laboratories that have been 

approved under the program. EPA 

expects to post a list of approved UCMR 

5 laboratories to: https://www.epa.gov/ 

dwucmr and will bring this to the 

attention of the PWSs in our outreach to 

them. 

1. Request To Participate 

Laboratories interested in the UCMR 5 

laboratory approval program first email 

EPA at: UCMR_Lab_Approval@epa.gov 

to request registration materials. EPA 

expects to accept such requests 

beginning with the publication of the 

proposal in the Federal Register. Based 

on a January 1, 2023, anticipated start 

for UCMR 5 sample collection, EPA 

anticipates that the final opportunity for 

a laboratory to complete and submit the 

necessary registration and application 

information will be August 1, 2022. 

2. Registration 

Laboratory applicants provide 

registration information that includes: 

Laboratory name, mailing address, 

shipping address, contact name, phone 

number, email address and a list of the 

UCMR 5 methods for which the 

laboratory is seeking approval. This 

registration step provides EPA with the 

necessary contact information, and 

ensures that each laboratory receives a 

customized application package. 

3. Application Package 

Laboratory applicants will complete 

and return a customized application 

package that includes the following: IDC 

data, including precision, accuracy and 

results of MRL studies; information 

regarding analytical equipment and 

other materials; proof of current 

drinking water laboratory certification 

(for select compliance monitoring 

methods); method specific SOPs; and 

example chromatograms for each 

method under review. 

As a condition of receiving and 

maintaining approval, the laboratory 

will be expected to promptly post 

UCMR 5 monitoring results and quality 

control data that meet method criteria 

(on behalf of its PWS clients) to EPA’s 

UCMR electronic data reporting system, 

SDWARS. 

4. EPA’s Review of Application 

Package 

EPA will review the application 

packages and, if necessary, request 

follow-up information. Laboratories that 

successfully complete the application 

process become eligible to participate in 

the UCMR 5 PT program. 

5. Proficiency Testing 

A PT sample is a synthetic sample 

containing a concentration of an analyte 

or mixture of analytes that is known to 

EPA, but unknown to the laboratory. To 

be approved, a laboratory is expected to 

meet specific acceptance criteria for the 

analysis of a UCMR 5 PT sample(s) for 

each analyte in each method, for which 

the laboratory is seeking approval. EPA 

anticipates offering up to three of these 

studies prior to the publication of the 

final rule, and at least two studies after 

publication of the final rule. This allows 

laboratories to complete their portion of 

the laboratory approval process prior to 

publication of the final rule, and receive 

their approval immediately following 

the publication of the final rule. A 

laboratory is expected to participate in 

and report data for at least two PT 

studies. This allows EPA to collect a 

robust data set for PT results, and 

provides laboratories with extra 

analytical experience using UCMR 5 

methods. Laboratories must pass a PT 

for every analyte in the method to be 

approved for that method, and may 

participate in multiple PT studies in 

order to produce passing results for each 

analyte. EPA has taken this approach in 

UCMR 5, recognizing that EPA Method 

533 contains 25 analytes. EPA does not 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
13860 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 46 / Thursday, March 11, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

expect to conduct additional PT studies 

after the start of PWS monitoring; 

however, laboratory audits will likely be 

ongoing throughout the implementation 

of UCMR 5. Initial laboratory approval 

is expected to be contingent on 

successful completion of PT studies, 

which includes properly uploading the 

PT results to SDWARS. Continued 

laboratory approval is contingent on 

successful completion of the audit 

process and satisfactorily meeting all 

the other stated conditions. 

6. Written EPA Approval 

After a laboratory successfully 

completes steps 1 through 5, EPA 

expects to send the laboratory a 

notification letter listing the methods for 

which approval is either ‘‘pending’’ (i.e., 

pending promulgation of the final rule 

if the PT studies have been conducted 

prior to that time), or for which 

approval is ‘‘granted’’ (if after 

promulgation of the final rule). 

Laboratories receiving pending approval 

are expected to be granted approval 

without further action following 

promulgation of the final rule if no 

changes have been made to the rule that 

impact the laboratory approval program. 

EPA expects to contact the laboratory if 

changes are made between the proposed 

and final rules that warrant additional 

action by the laboratory. 

M. What documents are being 

incorporated by reference? 

The following methods are being 

incorporated by reference into this 

section for the UCMR 5 monitoring. All 

method material is available for 

inspection electronically at http://

www.regulations.gov (Docket ID No. 

EPA–HQ–OW–2020–0530), or from the 

sources listed for each method. EPA has 

worked to make these methods and 

documents reasonably available to 

interested parties. The methods that 

may be used to support monitoring 

under this rule are as follows: 

1. Methods From the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency 

The following methods are available 

at EPA’s Docket No. EPA–HQ–OW– 

2020–0530. 

(i) EPA Method 200.7 ‘‘Determination 

of Metals and Trace Elements in Water 

and Wastes by Inductively Coupled 

Plasma-Atomic Emission 

Spectrometry,’’ Revision 4.4, 1994. 

Available on the internet at https://

www.epa.gov/esam/method-2007- 

determination-metals-and-traceelements-water-and-wastes-inductivelycoupled-plasma. This is an EPA method 

for the analysis of metals and trace 

elements in water by ICP–AES and is 

proposed to measure lithium during 

UCMR 5. See also the discussion of nonEPA methods for lithium in this section. 

(ii) EPA Method 533 ‘‘Determination 

of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances 

in Drinking Water by Isotope Dilution 

Anion Exchange Solid Phase Extraction 

and Liquid Chromatography/Tandem 

Mass Spectrometry,’’ November 2019, 

EPA 815–B–19–020. Available on the 

internet at https://www.epa.gov/ 

dwanalyticalmethods. This is an EPA 

method for the analysis PFAS in 

drinking water using SPE and LC/MS/ 

MS and is proposed to measure 25 

PFAS during UCMR 5 (11Cl-PF3OUdS, 

8:2 FTS, 4:2 FTS, 6:2 FTS, ADONA, 9ClPF3ONS, HFPO–DA (GenX), NFDHA, 

PFEESA, PFMPA, PFMBA, PFBS, PFBA, 

PFDA, PFDoA, PFHpS, PFHpA, PFHxS, 

PFHxA, PFNA, PFOS, PFOA, PFPeS, 

PFPeA, and PFUnA). 

(iii) EPA Method 537.1 

‘‘Determination of Selected Per- and 

Polyfluorinated Alkyl Substances in 

Drinking Water by Solid Phase 

Extraction and Liquid Chromatography/ 

Tandem Mass Spectrometry (LC/MS/ 

MS),’’ Version 2.0, November 2020, 

EPA/600/R–20/006. Available on the 

internet at https://www.epa.gov/ 

dwanalyticalmethods. This is an EPA 

method for the analysis of PFAS in 

drinking water using SPE and LC/MS/ 

MS and is proposed to measure four 

PFAS during UCMR 5 (NEtFOSAA, 

NMeFOSAA, PFTA, and PFTrDA). 

2. Alternative Methods From American 

Public Health Association—Standard 

Methods (SM) 

The following methods are from 

American Public Health—Standard 

Methods (SM), 800 I Street NW, 

Washington, DC 20001–3710. 

(i) ‘‘Standard Methods for the 

Examination of Water & Wastewater,’’ 

23rd edition (2017). 

(a) SM 3120 B ‘‘Metals by Plasma 

Emission Spectroscopy (2017): 

Inductively Coupled Plasma (ICP) 

Method.’’ This is a Standard Method for 

the analysis of metals in water and 

wastewater by emission spectroscopy 

using ICP and may be used for the 

analysis of lithium. 

(ii) ‘‘Standard Methods Online,’’ 

approved 1999. Available for purchase 

on the internet at http://

www.standardmethods.org. 

(a) SM 3120 B ‘‘Metals by Plasma 

Emission Spectroscopy: Inductively 

Coupled Plasma (ICP) Method (Editorial 

Revisions, 2011),’’ (SM 3120 B–99). This 

is a Standard Method for the analysis of 

metals in water and wastewater by 

emission spectroscopy using ICP and 

may be used for the analysis of lithium. 

3. Methods From ASTM International 

The following methods are from 

ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor 

Drive, West Conshohocken, PA 19428– 

2959. 

(i) ASTM D1976–20 ‘‘Standard Test 

Method for Elements in Water by 

Inductively-Coupled Plasma Atomic 

Emission Spectroscopy,’’ approved May 

1, 2020. Available for purchase on the 

internet at https://www.astm.org/ 

Standards/D1976.htm. This is an ASTM 

method for the analysis of elements in 

water by ICP–AES and may be used to 

measure lithium. 

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

UCMR is a direct implementation rule 

(i.e., EPA has primary responsibility for 

its implementation), and state 

participation is voluntary. Under the 

previous UCMR cycles, specific 

activities that individual states agreed to 

carry out or assist with were identified 

and established exclusively through 

Partnership Agreements. Through 

Partnership Agreements, states can help 

EPA implement the UCMR, and help 

ensure that the UCMR data are of the 

highest quality possible to best support 

the Agency decision making. Under 

UCMR 5, EPA expects to continue to use 

the Partnership Agreement process to 

determine and document the following: 

The process for review and revision of 

the State Monitoring plans; replacing 

and updating system information 

including inventory; review of proposed 

GWRMPs; notification and instructions 

for systems; and compliance assistance. 

EPA is considering deploying a SDWIS/ 

State extraction tool to assist partnered 

states with providing system 

information to the Agency. EPA 

recognizes that primacy agencies often 

have the best information about their 

PWSs and encourages them to partner in 

the UCMR 5 program. 

O. How did EPA consider Children’s 

Environmental Health? 

By monitoring for unregulated 

contaminants that may pose health risks 

via drinking water, UCMR furthers the 

protection of public health for all 

citizens, including children. Children 

consume more water per unit of body 

weight compared to adults. Moreover, 

formula-fed infants drink a large amount 

of water compared to their body weight. 

Thus, while children’s exposure to 

contaminants in drinking water may 

present a disproportionate health risk 

(USEPA, 2011), the objective of UCMR 

5 is to collect nationally representative 

drinking water occurrence data on 

unregulated contaminants for 

consideration in potential future 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 46 / Thursday, March 11, 2021 / Proposed Rules 13861 

regulation. The detailed information on 

the prioritization process, as well as 

contaminant-specific information (e.g., 

source, use, production, release, 

persistence, mobility, health effects, and 

occurrence), that EPA used to select the 

proposed analyte list, is contained in 

‘‘Information Compendium for 

Candidate Contaminants for the 

Proposed Unregulated Contaminant 

Monitoring Rule (UCMR 5)’’ (USEPA, 

2020e). 

Executive Order 13045 does not apply 

to UCMR 5 because EPA does not 

believe the environmental health or 

safety risks addressed by this action 

present a disproportionate risk to 

children (See IV.G. Executive Order 

13045 of this document). However, 

EPA’s Policy on Evaluating Health Risks 

to Children, which ensures that the 

health of infants and children is 

explicitly considered in the Agency’s 

decision making, is applicable, see: 

https://www.epa.gov/children/epaspolicy-evaluating-risk-children. 

Using quantitation data from multiple 

laboratories, EPA establishes 

statistically-based UCMR reporting 

levels that are projected to be feasible 

for the national network of approved 

drinking water laboratories to quantify 

accurately. EPA generally sets the 

reporting levels as low as is practical, 

even if that level is well below 

concentrations that are currently 

associated with known or suspected 

health effects. In doing so, EPA 

positions itself to better address 

contaminant risk information in the 

future, including that associated with 

unique risks to children. EPA requests 

comments regarding any further steps 

that may be taken to evaluate and 

address health risks to children that fall 

within the scope of UCMR 5. 

P. How did EPA address environmental 

justice? 

EPA has concluded that this action is 

not subject to Executive Order 12898 

because it does not establish an 

environmental health or safety standard 

(see IV.J. Executive Order 12898 of this 

document). This proposed action would 

provide EPA and other interested 

parties with scientifically valid data on 

the national occurrence data of selected 

contaminants in drinking water. By 

seeking to identify unregulated 

contaminants that may pose health risks 

via drinking water from all PWSs, 

UCMR furthers the protection of public 

health for all citizens. EPA recognizes 

that unregulated contaminants in 

drinking water are of interest to all 

populations and structured the 

rulemaking process and implementation 

of the UCMR 5 rule to allow for 

meaningful involvement and 

transparency. EPA organized public 

meetings and webinars to share 

information regarding the development 

of UCMR 5; consulted with tribal 

governments; and convened a 

workgroup that included representatives 

from several states. 

EPA proposes to continue to collect 

U.S. Postal Service Zip Codes for each 

PWS’s service area, as collected under 

UCMR 3 and UCMR 4, to support 

potential assessments of whether or not 

minority, low-income and/or 

indigenous-population communities are 

uniquely impacted by particular 

drinking water contaminants. EPA 

solicits comment on the utility of this 

approach (including whether this is an 

appropriate way for PWSs to identify 

service areas), and welcomes comments 

regarding other actions the Agency 

could take to further address 

environmental justice within the UCMR. 

EPA welcomes, for example, comments 

regarding sampling and/or modeling 

approaches, and the feasibility and 

utility of applying these approaches to 

determine disproportionate impacts. 

EPA also welcomes comments on 

information other than Zip Codes that 

could be collected and used to support 

potential assessments of whether or not 

minority, low-income and/or 

indigenous-population communities are 

uniquely impacted by particular 

drinking water contaminants. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

This action is a significant regulatory 

action that was submitted to the Office 

of Management and Budget (OMB) for 

review. Any changes made in response 

to OMB recommendations have been 

documented in the docket. A full 

analysis of potential costs associated 

with this action, the ‘‘Draft Information 

Collection Request for the Unregulated 

Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR 

5),’’(USEPA, 2020b) ICR Number 2040– 

NEW, is also available in the docket 

(Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OW–2020– 

0530). A summary of the draft ICR can 

be found in section I.C of this 

document. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 

The information collection activities 

in this proposed rule have been 

submitted for approval to the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) under 

the PRA. The Information Collection 

Request (ICR) document (USEPA, 

2020b) that EPA prepared has been 

assigned EPA ICR number 2040–NEW. 

You can find a copy of the ICR in the 

docket for this rule, and it is briefly 

summarized here. 

The information that EPA proposes to 

collect under this rule fulfills the 

statutory requirements of § 1445(a)(2) of 

the SDWA, as amended in 1996, 2018, 

and 2019. The data will describe the 

source of the water, location and test 

results for samples taken from public 

water systems (PWSs). The information 

collected will support EPA’s decisions 

as to whether or not to regulate 

particular contaminants under the 

SDWA. Reporting is mandatory. The 

data are not subject to confidentiality 

protection. 

The five-year UCMR 5 period spans 

2022–2026. As proposed, UCMR 5 

sample collection begins in 2023 and 

continues through 2025. Since ICRs 

cannot be approved by OMB for a 

period longer than three years pursuant 

to 5 CFR 1320.10, the primary analysis 

in the ICR only covers the first three 

years of the collection (i.e., 2022–2024). 

Prior to expiration of the ICR, EPA will 

seek to renew the ICR and thus receive 

approval to collect information under 

the PRA in the remaining two years of 

the UCMR 5 period. 

Respondents/affected entities: The 

respondents/affected entities are small 

PWSs (those serving 10,000 or fewer 

people); large PWSs (those serving 

10,001 to 100,000 people); very large 

PWSs (those serving more than 100,000 

people); and states. 

Respondent’s obligation to respond: 

Mandatory (40 CFR 141.35). 

Estimated number of respondents: 

Respondents to UCMR 5, as proposed, 

include ∼5,900 small PWSs, ∼4,400 large 

PWSs, and the 56 primacy agencies (50 

states, one tribal nation, and five 

territories) for a total of ∼10,400 

respondents. 

Frequency of response: The frequency 

of response varies across respondents 

and years. Across the initial 3-year ICR 

period for UCMR 5, small PWSs would 

sample an average of 2.8 times per PWS 

(i.e., number of responses per PWS); 

large PWSs would sample and report 

and average of 3.2 times per PWS; and 

very large PWSs would sample and 

report an average of 3.7 times per PWS. 

Total estimated burden: 48,406.1 

hours (per year). Burden is defined at 5 

CFR 1320.3(b). 

Total estimated cost: $9,734,617, 

annualized capital or operation & 

maintenance costs. 

An agency may not conduct or 

sponsor, and a person is not required to 

respond to, a collection of information 

unless it displays a currently valid OMB 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
13862 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 46 / Thursday, March 11, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

control number. The OMB control 

numbers for EPA’s regulations in 40 

CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. 

Submit your comments on the 

Agency’s need for this information, the 

accuracy of the provided burden 

estimates and any suggested methods 

for minimizing respondent burden to 

EPA using the docket identified at the 

beginning of this rule. Written 

comments and recommendations for the 

proposed information collection should 

be sent within 30 days of publication of 

this notice to www.reginfo.gov/public/ 

do/PRAMain. Find this particular 

information collection by selecting 

‘‘Currently under 30-day Review—Open 

for Public Comments’’ or by using the 

search function. Since OMB is required 

to make a decision concerning the ICR 

between 30 and 60 days after receipt, 

OMB must receive comments no later 

than April 12, 2021. EPA will respond 

to any ICR-related comments in the final 

rule. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

For purposes of assessing the impacts 

of this rule on small entities, EPA 

considered small entities to be PWSs 

serving 10,000 or fewer people. As 

required by the RFA, EPA proposed 

using this alternative definition in the 

Federal Register (63 FR 7606, February 

13, 1998 (USEPA, 1998a)), sought public 

comment, consulted with the Small 

Business Administration (SBA) and 

finalized the alternative definition in 

the Consumer Confidence Reports 

rulemaking, (63 FR 44512, August 19, 

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

Final Rule, the alternative definition 

would apply to this regulation, and 

future drinking water rules. 

EXHIBIT 9—NUMBER OF PUBLICLY- AND PRIVATELY-OWNED SMALL SYSTEMS SUBJECT TO UCMR 5 

System size (number of people served) Publicly-owned Privately-owned Total 1

Ground Water 

500 and under ............................................................................................................................. 134 401 534 

501 to 3,300 ................................................................................................................................. 120 45 165 

3,301 to 10,000 ............................................................................................................................ 2,334 541 2,875 

Subtotal Ground Water ......................................................................................................... 2,588 987 3,574 

Surface Water (and Ground Water Under the Direct Influence of Surface Water) 

500 and under ............................................................................................................................. 22 27 49 

501 to 3,300 ................................................................................................................................. 38 14 52 

3,301 to 10,000 ............................................................................................................................ 1,762 509 2,272 

Subtotal Surface Water ........................................................................................................ 1,822 550 2,373 

Total of Small Water Systems ...................................................................................... 4,410 1,537 5,947 

1PWS counts were adjusted to display as whole numbers in each size category. 

The basis for the proposed UCMR 5 

RFA certification is as follows: For the 

5,947 small water systems that would be 

affected, the average annual cost for 

complying with this rule represents no 

more than 0.5% of system revenues (the 

highest estimated percentage is for GW 

systems serving 500 or fewer people, at 

0.5% of its median revenue). The 

average yearly cost to small systems to 

comply with UCMR 5 over the five-year 

period of 2022–2026, as proposed, is 

approximately $0.3 million. The average 

yearly cost to EPA to implement UCMR 

5 over the same period, as proposed, is 

approximately $10.5 million, with most 

of that cost associated with the small 

system sampling program. EPA 

anticipates that approximately one third 

of the 5,947 small PWSs will collect 

samples in each of three years (2023, 

2024, and 2025). 

PWS costs are attributed to the labor 

required for reading about UCMR 5 

requirements, monitoring, reporting and 

record keeping. The estimated average 

annual burden across the 5-year UCMR 

5 implementation period of 2022–2026 

is 1.3 hours at $52 per small system. 

Average annual cost, in all cases, is less 

than 0.5% of system revenues. By 

assuming all costs for laboratory 

analyses, shipping and quality control 

for small entities, EPA incurs the 

entirety of the non-labor costs 

associated with the UCMR 5 small 

system monitoring, or 96% of total 

small system testing costs. Exhibit 10 

and Exhibit 11 present the estimated 

economic impacts in the form of a 

revenue test for publicly- and privatelyowned systems. 

EXHIBIT 10—UCMR 5 RELATIVE COST ANALYSIS FOR SMALL PUBLICLY-OWNED SYSTEMS

[2022–2026] 

System size 

(number of people served) 

Annual 

number of 

systems 

impacted 1

Average 

annual hours 

per system 

Average 

annual cost 

per system 

SBREFA 

criteriarevenue test 2

(%) 

Ground Water Systems 

500 and under ................................................................................................. 27 1.0 $40.65 0.09 

501 to 3,300 ..................................................................................................... 24 1.1 43.37 0.02 

3,301 to 10,000 ................................................................................................ 467 1.3 49.92 0.01 

Surface Water (and Ground Water Under the Direct Influence of Surface Water) Systems 

500 and under ................................................................................................. 5 1.4 54.39 0.07 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 46 / Thursday, March 11, 2021 / Proposed Rules 13863 

EXHIBIT 10—UCMR 5 RELATIVE COST ANALYSIS FOR SMALL PUBLICLY-OWNED SYSTEMS—Continued 

[2022–2026] 

System size 

(number of people served) 

Annual 

number of 

systems 

impacted 1

Average 

annual hours 

per system 

Average 

annual cost 

per system 

SBREFA 

criteriarevenue test 2

(%) 

501 to 3,300 ..................................................................................................... 8 1.4 56.19 0.02 

3,301 to 10,000 ................................................................................................ 353 1.5 57.39 0.004 

1PWS counts were adjusted to display as whole numbers in each size category. Includes the publicly-owned portion of small systems subject 

to UCMR 5. 2 Costs are presented as a percentage of median annual revenue for each size category. 

EXHIBIT 11—UCMR 5 RELATIVE COST ANALYSIS FOR SMALL PRIVATELY-OWNED SYSTEMS

[2022–2026] 

System size 

(number of people served) 

Annual 

number of 

systems 

impacted 1

Average 

annual hours 

per system 

Average 

annual cost 

per system 

SBREFA 

criteriarevenue test 2

(%) 

Ground Water Systems 

500 and under ................................................................................................. 80 1.0 $40.65 0.48 

501 to 3,300 ..................................................................................................... 9 1.1 43.37 0.03 

3,301 to 10,000 ................................................................................................ 108 1.3 49.92 0.004 

Surface Water (and Ground Water Under the Direct Influence of Surface Water) Systems 

500 and under ................................................................................................. 5 1.4 54.39 0.11 

501 to 3,300 ..................................................................................................... 3 1.4 56.19 0.02 

3,301 to 10,000 ................................................................................................ 102 1.5 57.39 0.004 

1PWS counts were adjusted to display as whole numbers in each size category. Includes the privately-owned portion of small systems subject 

to the UCMR 5. 2 Costs are presented as a percentage of median annual revenue for each size category. 

EPA has determined that 5,947 small 

PWSs (for Assessment Monitoring), or 

approximately 9.35% of all small 

systems, would experience an impact of 

no more than 0.5% of revenues. This 

accounts for small PWSs familiarizing 

themselves with the regulatory 

requirements; reading sampling 

instructions; traveling to the sampling 

location; collecting and shipping the 

samples; and maintaining their records. 

The 5,975 small PWSs are comprised of 

all 5,147 systems serving between 3,300 

and 10,000, and the representative 

group of 800 systems serving fewer than 

3,300; the remainder of small systems 

would not participate in UCMR 5 

monitoring and would not be impacted. 

The Agency certifies that this action 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities under the RFA. In making this 

determination, EPA believes that the 

impact of concern is any significant 

adverse economic impact on small 

entities, and that an agency may certify 

that a rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities if the rule 

relieves regulatory burden, has no net 

burden or otherwise has a positive 

economic effect on the small entities 

subject to the rule. Although this 

proposed rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities, EPA has 

attempted to reduce impacts by 

assuming all costs for analyses of the 

samples, and for shipping the samples 

from small systems to laboratories 

contracted by EPA to analyze the UCMR 

5 samples (the cost of shipping is 

included in the cost of each analytical 

method). EPA has historically set aside 

$2.0 million each year from the 

Drinking Water State Revolving Fund 

(DWSRF) with its authority to use 

DWSRF monies for the purposes of 

implementing this provision of the 

SDWA. EPA anticipates drawing on 

these and additional funds, if available, 

to implement the proposed plan and 

carry out the expanded UCMR 

monitoring approach outlined in the 

AWIA rather than the alternative 

approach used in UCMR 4 and the 

preceding UCMR cycles. Thus, the costs 

to these small systems will be modest 

and limited to the labor associated with 

collecting a sample and preparing it for 

shipping. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA) 

This action does not contain an 

unfunded mandate of $100 million or 

more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 

1531–1538, and does not significantly or 

uniquely affect small governments. The 

action implements mandate(s) 

specifically and explicitly set forth in 

the SDWA, § 1445(a)(2), Monitoring 

Program for Unregulated Contaminants. 

without the exercise of any policy 

discretion by EPA. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

This action does not have federalism 

implications. It will not have substantial 

direct effects on the states, on the 

relationship between the national 

government and the states, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

This action has tribal implications. 

However, it will neither impose 

substantial direct compliance costs on 

federally recognized tribal governments, 

nor preempt tribal law. As described 

previously, this proposed rule requires 

monitoring by all large PWSs. 

Information in the SDWIS/Fed water 

system inventory indicates there are 

approximately 19 large tribal PWSs 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
13864 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 46 / Thursday, March 11, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

(ranging in size from 10,001 to 40,000 

customers). EPA estimates the average 

annual cost to each of these large PWSs, 

over the 5-year rule period, to be $1,839. 

This cost is based on a labor component 

(associated with the collection of 

samples), and a non-labor component 

(associated with shipping and 

laboratory fees), and represents less than 

1.2% of average revenue/sales for large 

PWSs. UCMR 5, as proposed, would 

also require monitoring by all small 

PWSs serving 3,300 to 10,000 customers 

and a nationally representative sample 

of small PWSs serving fewer than 3,300 

customers. Information in the SDWIS/ 

Fed water system inventory indicates 

there are approximately 72 small tribal 

PWSs (ranging in size from 3,300 to 

10,000 customers). EPA estimates that 

less than 2% of small tribal systems 

serving fewer than 3,300 customers will 

be selected as part of the nationally 

representative sample. EPA estimates 

the average annual cost to small tribal 

systems over the 5-year rule period to be 

$52. Such cost is based on the labor 

associated with collecting a sample and 

preparing it for shipping and represents 

less than 0.5% of average revenue/sales 

for small PWSs. All other small-PWS 

expenses (associated with shipping and 

laboratory fees) are paid by EPA. 

EPA consulted with tribal officials 

under the Agency’s Policy on 

Consultation and Coordination with 

Indian Tribes early in the process of 

developing this regulation to permit 

them to have meaningful and timely 

input into its development. A summary 

of that consultation, titled, ‘‘Summary of 

the Tribal Coordination and 

Consultation Process for the Fifth 

Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring 

Rule (UCMR 5) Proposal,’’ is provided 

in the electronic docket listed in the 

ADDRESSES section of this document. 

EPA specifically solicits additional 

comment on this proposed rule from 

tribal officials. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

Executive Order 13045 applies to 

those regulatory actions that concern 

environmental health or safety risks that 

EPA has reason to believe may 

disproportionately affect children, per 

the definition of ‘‘covered regulatory 

action’’ in section 2–202 of the 

Executive Order. This action does not 

meet those criteria and is not subject to 

Executive Order 13045. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution or Use 

This action is not a ‘‘significant 

energy action’’ because it is not likely to 

have a significant adverse effect on the 

supply, distribution or use of energy 

and has not otherwise been designated 

by the Administrator of the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs as a 

significant energy action. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act (NTTAA) 

This action involves technical 

standards. EPA proposes to allow the 

use of methods developed by the 

Agency, and three major voluntary 

consensus method organizations to 

support UCMR 5 monitoring. The 

voluntary consensus method 

organizations are Standard Methods for 

the Examination of Water and 

Wastewater, and ASTM International. 

EPA identified acceptable consensus 

method organization standards for the 

analysis of lithium. 

All of these standards are reasonably 

available for public use. EPA methods 

are free for download on the Agency’s 

website. The methods in the Standard 

Methods for the Examination of Water 

and Wastewater 23rd edition are 

consensus standards, available for 

purchase from the publisher, and are 

commonly used by the drinking water 

laboratory community. The methods in 

the Standard Methods Online are 

consensus standards, available for 

purchase from the publisher’s website, 

and are commonly used by the drinking 

water laboratory community. The 

methods from ASTM International are 

consensus standards, are available for 

purchase from the publisher’s website, 

and are commonly used by the drinking 

water laboratory community. EPA 

welcomes comments on this aspect of 

the proposed rulemaking; the Agency 

specifically invites the public to identify 

potentially-applicable voluntary 

consensus standards and explain why 

such standards should be used in this 

rule. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

EPA believes that this action is not 

subject to Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 

7629, February 16, 1994) because it does 

not establish an environmental health or 

safety standard. Background 

information regarding EPA’s 

consideration of Executive Order 12898 

in the development of this proposed 

rule is provided in section III.P of this 

document, and an additional supporting 

document has been placed in the 

electronic docket listed in the 

ADDRESSES section of this document. 

V. References 

(i) ASDWA. 2013. Insufficient Resources for 

State Drinking Water Programs Threaten 

Public Health: An Analysis of State 

Drinking Water Programs’ Resources and 

Needs. December 2013. Available on the 

internet at: https://www.asdwa.org/ 

asdwa-reports/. 

(ii) ASTM. 2020. ASTM D1976–20— 

Standard Test Method for Elements in 

Water by Inductively-Coupled Plasma 

Atomic Emission Spectroscopy. ASTM, 

100 Barr Harbor Drive, West 

Conshohocken, PA 19428. Approved 

May 1, 2020. Available for purchase on 

the internet at https://www.astm.org/ 

Standards/D1976.htm. 

(iii) Glassmeyer, S.T., E.T. Furlong, D.W. 

Kolpin, A.L. Batt, R. Benson, J.S. Boone, 

O. Conerly, M.J. Donohue, D.N. King, 

M.S. Kostich, H.E. Mash, S.L. Pfaller, 

K.M. Schenck, J.E. Simmons, E.A. 

Varughese, S.J. Vesper, E.N. Villegas, and 

V.S. Wilson. 2017. Nationwide 

Reconnaissance of Contaminants of 

Emerging Concern in Source and Treated 

Drinking Waters of the United States. 

Science of the Total Environment (581– 

582):909–922. 

(iv) IDEXX Laboratories, Inc. 2020. 

LegiolertTM Test. One IDEXX Drive, 

Westbrook, Maine 04092 USA. 

(v) Settlement Agreement, Waterkeeper 

Alliance, Inc. v. U.S. EPA, No. 1:19–cv– 

00899–LJL (S.D.N.Y. Jun. 1, 2020). 

(vi) SM. 2017. 3120B—Metals by Plasma 

Emission Spectroscopy (2017): 

Inductively Coupled Plasma (ICP) 

Method. Standard Methods for the 

Examination of Water and Wastewater, 

23rd edition. American Public Health 

Association, 800 I Street NW, 

Washington, DC 20001–3710. 

(vii) SM Online. 1999. 3120B–99—Metals by 

Plasma Emission Spectroscopy: 

Inductively Coupled Plasma (ICP) 

Method (Editorial Revisions, 2011). 

Standard Methods Online. Available for 

purchase on the internet at http://

www.standardmethods.org. 

(viii) USEPA. 1989. National Primary 

Drinking Water Regulations; Filtration, 

Disinfection; Turbidity, Giardia lamblia, 

Viruses, Legionella, and Heterotrophic 

Bacteria; Final Rule. Federal Register. 

Vol. 54, No. 124, p. 27486, June 29, 1989. 

(ix) USEPA. 1994. EPA Method 200.7— 

Determination of Metals and Trace 

Elements in Water and Wastes by 

Inductively Coupled Plasma-Atomic 

Emission Spectrometry, Revision 4.4. 

Office of Research and Development, 

Cincinnati, OH. Available on the internet 

at https://www.epa.gov/esam/method2007-determination-metals-and-traceelements-water-and-wastes-inductivelycoupled-plasma. 

(x) USEPA. 1995. EPA Method 551.1— 

Determination of Chlorination 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 46 / Thursday, March 11, 2021 / Proposed Rules 13865 

Disinfection Byproducts, Chlorinated 

Solvents, and Halogenated Pesticides/ 

Herbicides in Drinking Water by LiquidLiquid Extraction and Gas 

Chromatography with Electron-Capture 

Detection, Revision 1.0. Office of 

Research and Development, Cincinnati, 

OH. Available on the internet at https:// 

www.epa.gov/esam/epa-method-5511- 

determination-chlorination-disinfectionbyproducts-chlorinated-solvents-and 

(xi) USEPA. 1998a. National Primary 

Drinking Water Regulations: Consumer 

Confidence Reports; Proposed Rule. 

Federal Register. Vol. 63, No. 30, p. 

7606, February 13, 1998. 

(xii) USEPA. 1998b. National Primary 

Drinking Water Regulation: Consumer 

Confidence Reports; Final Rule. Federal 

Register. Vol. 63, No. 160, p. 44512, 

August 19, 1998. 

(xiii) 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. 

(xiv) USEPA. 2001. Legionella: Drinking 

Water Health Advisory. EPA–822–B–01– 

005. Office of Water, Washington, DC. 

March 2001. Available on the internet at 

https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/ 

files/2015-10/documents/legionellareport.pdf. 

(xv) USEPA. 2007. Unregulated Contaminant 

Monitoring Regulation (UCMR) for 

Public Water Systems Revisions. Federal 

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

4, 2007. 

(xvi) USEPA. 2008. Provisional Peer 

Reviewed Toxicity Values for Lithium 

(CASRN 7439–93–2). Office of Research 

and Development, Cincinnati, OH. 

Available on the internet at https://

cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/pprtv/documents/ 

Lithium.pdf. 

(xvii) USEPA. 2009. Summary of National 

Inorganics and Radionuclides Survey 

(NIRS) Data for CCL 3 Chemical 

Occurrence Analysis. Docket ID EPA– 

HQ–OW–2007–1189. Available on the 

internet at http://www.regulations.gov. 

(xviii) USEPA. 2010. Technical Basis for the 

Lowest Concentration Minimum 

Reporting Level (LCMRL) Calculator. 

EPA 815–R–11–001. Office of Water. 

December 2010. Available on the 

internet at https://www.epa.gov/ 

dwanalyticalmethods. 

(xix) USEPA. 2011. Exposure Factors 

Handbook 2011 Edition (Final Report). 

U.S. EPA, Washington DC, EPA/600/R– 

09/052F. Office of Research and 

Development, Washington DC. 

September 2011. Available on the 

internet at https://www.epa.gov/ 

expobox/about-exposure-factorshandbook. 

(xx) USEPA. 2012. Revisions to the 

Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring 

Regulation (UCMR 3) for Public Water 

Systems; Final Rule. Federal Register. 

Vol. 77, No. 85, p. 26071, May 2, 2012. 

(xxi) USEPA. 2016a. Revisions to the 

Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring 

Rule (UCMR 4) for Public Water Systems 

and Announcement of Public Meeting. 

Federal Register. Vol. 81, No. 244, p. 

92666, December 20, 2016. 

(xxii) USEPA. 2016b. Drinking Water 

Contaminant Candidate List 4—Final. 

Federal Register. Vol. 81, No. 222, p. 

81099, November 17, 2016. 

(xxiii) USEPA. 2017. 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. Federal Register. Vol. 82, No. 7, 

p. 3518, January 11, 2017. 

(xxiv) USEPA. 2018a. Method Development 

for Unregulated Contaminants in 

Drinking Water: Public Meeting and 

Webinar. EPA 815–A–18–001. Office of 

Water. June 2018. Available on the 

internet at https://www.epa.gov/ 

dwanalyticalmethods. 

(xxv) USEPA. 2018b. Request for 

Nominations of Drinking Water 

Contaminants for the Fifth Contaminant 

Candidate List. Federal Register. Vol. 83, 

No. 194, p. 50364, October 5, 2018. 

(xxvi) USEPA. 2019a. EPA’s Per- and 

Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) 

Action Plan. EPA 823–R–18–004, 

February 2019. Available on the internet 

at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/ 

files/2019-02/documents/pfas_action_

plan_021319_508compliant_1.pdf. 

(xxvii) USEPA. 2019b. Development of the 

Proposed Unregulated Contaminant 

Monitoring Rule for the Fifth Monitoring 

Cycle (UCMR 5). Presentation Slides. 

EPA 815–A–19–001. Office of Water. 

Available on the internet at https://

www.epa.gov/dwucmr/unregulatedcontaminant-monitoring-rule-ucmrmeetings-and-materials. 

(xxviii) USEPA. 2019c. EPA Method 533— 

Determination of Per- and 

Polyfluoroalkyl Substances in Drinking 

Water by Isotope Dilution Anion 

Exchange Solid Phase Extraction and 

Liquid Chromatography/Tandem Mass 

Spectrometry. EPA 815–B–19–020. 

Office of Water, Cincinnati, OH. 

November 2019. Available on the 

internet at https://www.epa.gov/ 

dwanalyticalmethods. 

(xxix) USEPA. 2019d. Appendix C: 1,2,3- 

Trichloropropane in Regulatory 

Determination 4 Support Document for 

Selected Contaminants from the Fourth 

Drinking Water Contaminant Candidate 

List (CCL 4). EPA 815–R–19–006. Docket 

ID EPA–HQ–OW–2019–0583. Available 

on the internet at http://

www.regulations.gov. 

(xxx) USEPA. 2020a. Selection of Nationally 

Representative Public Water Systems for 

the Unregulated Contaminant 

Monitoring Rule: 2020 Update. EPA 815– 

B–20–008. Office of Water. December 

2020. 

(xxxi) USEPA. 2020b. Draft Information 

Collection Request for the Unregulated 

Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR 5). 

EPA 815–D–20–002. Office of Water. 

December 2020. 

(xxxii) USEPA. 2020c. Proposed Revisions to 

CFR parts 141.35 and 141.40. EPA 815– 

B–20–010. Office of Water December 

2020. Available in EPA’s public docket 

(under Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OW– 

2020–0530) on the internet at http://

www.regulations.gov. 

(xxxiii) USEPA. 2020d. EPA Method 537.1— 

Determination of Selected Per- and 

Polyfluorinated Alkyl Substances in 

Drinking Water by Solid Phase 

Extraction and Liquid Chromatography/ 

Tandem Mass Spectrometry (LC/MS/ 

MS). Version 2.0. EPA/600/R–20/006. 

Office of Research and Development, 

Cincinnati, OH. March 2020. Available 

on the internet at https://www.epa.gov/ 

dwanalyticalmethods. 

(xxxiv) USEPA. 2020e. Information 

Compendium for Candidate 

Contaminants for the Proposed 

Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring 

Rule (UCMR 5). EPA 815–B–20–006. 

Office of Water. December 2020. 

(xxxv) USEPA. 2020f. UCMR 5 Laboratory 

Approval Manual. EPA 815–B–20–007. 

Office of Water. December 2020. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 141 

Environmental protection, Chemicals, 

Incorporation by reference, Indianlands, Intergovernmental relations, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Water supply. 

Jane Nishida, 

Acting Administrator. 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, EPA proposes to amend 40 

CFR part 141 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 D—Reporting and 

Recordkeeping 

■ 2. Amend § 141.35 by: 

■ a. Revising in paragraph (a) the fourth 

sentence. 

■ b. Removing in paragraph (c)(1) the 

words ‘‘December 31, 2017,’’ and add in 

its place the words ‘‘December 31, 

2022,’’. 

■ c. Revising paragraphs (c)(2), (3)(i) 

through (iii), (c)(4), (5)(i), (6)(ii). 

■ d. Revising in paragraphs (d) and 

(d)(2) the first, second, and third 

sentences. 

■ e. Adding paragraph (d)(3). 

■ f. Revising paragraph (e). 

The revisions and addition 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
13866 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 46 / Thursday, March 11, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

Drinking Water Information System 

(SDWIS/Fed). * * * 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(2) Sampling location inventory 

information. You must provide your 

inventory information by December 31, 

2022, using EPA’s electronic data 

reporting system, as specified in 

paragraph (b)(1) of this section. You 

must submit, verify or update data 

elements 1–9 (as defined in Table 1 of 

paragraph (e) of this section) for each 

sampling location, or for each approved 

representative sampling location (as 

specified in paragraph (c)(3) of this 

section regarding representative 

sampling locations. If this information 

changes, you must report updates, 

including new sources and sampling 

locations that are put in use before or 

during the UCMR sampling period, to 

EPA’s electronic data reporting system 

within 30 days of the change. 

(3) * * * 

(i) Qualifications. Large PWSs that 

have EPA- or State-approved 

representative EPTDS sampling 

locations from a previous UCMR cycle, 

or as provided for under § 141.23(a)(1), 

§ 141.24(f)(1), or § 141.24(h)(1), may 

submit a copy of documentation from 

your State or EPA that approves your 

representative sampling plan. PWSs that 

do not have an approved representative 

EPTDS sampling plan may submit a 

proposal to sample at representative 

EPTDS(s) rather than at each individual 

EPTDS if: You use ground water as a 

source; all of your well sources have 

either the same treatment or no 

treatment; and you have multiple 

EPTDSs from the same source, (i.e., 

same aquifer). You must submit a copy 

of the existing or proposed 

representative EPTDS sampling plan, as 

appropriate, at least six months prior to 

your scheduled sample collection, as 

specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this 

section. If changes to your inventory 

that impact your representative plan 

occur before or during the UCMR 

sampling period, you must report 

updates within 30 days of the change. 

(ii) Demonstration. If you are 

submitting a proposal to sample at 

representative EPTDS(s) rather than at 

each individual EPTDS, you must 

demonstrate that any EPTDS that you 

propose as representative of multiple 

wells is associated with a well that 

draws from the same aquifer as the 

wells it will represent. The proposed 

well must be representative of the 

highest annual-volume and most 

consistently active wells in the 

representative array. If that 

representative well is not in use at the 

scheduled sampling time, you must 

select and sample an alternative 

representative well. You must submit 

the information defined in Table 1, 

paragraph (e) of this section for each 

proposed representative sampling 

location. You must also include 

documentation to support your proposal 

that the specified wells are 

representative of other wells. This 

documentation can include systemmaintained well logs or construction 

drawings indicating that the 

representative well(s) is/are at a 

representative depth, and details of well 

casings and grouting; data 

demonstrating relative homogeneity of 

water quality constituents (e.g., pH, 

dissolved oxygen, conductivity, iron, 

manganese) in samples drawn from each 

well; and data showing that your wells 

are located in a limited geographic area 

(e.g., all wells within a 0.5 mile radius) 

and/or, if available, the hydrogeologic 

data indicating the time of travel 

separating the representative well from 

each of the individual wells it 

represents (e.g., all wells within a fiveyear time of travel delineation). Your 

proposal must be sent in writing to EPA, 

as specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this 

section. 

(iii) Approval. EPA or the State (as 

specified in the partnership agreement 

reached between the State and EPA) 

will review your proposal and 

coordinate any necessary changes with 

you. Your plan will not be final until 

you receive written approval from EPA, 

identifying the final list of EPTDSs 

where you will be required to monitor. 

(4) Contacting EPA if your PWS has 

not been notified of requirements. If you 

believe you are subject to UCMR 

requirements, as defined in 

§ 141.40(a)(1) and (2)(i), and you have 

not been contacted by either EPA or 

your State by [120 days after publication 

of the Federal Register], you must send 

a letter to EPA, as specified in paragraph 

(b)(1) of this section. The letter must be 

from your PWS Official and must 

include an explanation as to why the 

UCMR requirements are applicable to 

your system along with the appropriate 

contact information. A copy of the letter 

must also be submitted to the State, as 

directed by the State. EPA will make an 

applicability determination based on 

your letter, and in consultation with the 

State when necessary, and will notify 

you regarding your applicability status 

and required sampling schedule. 

However, if your PWS meets the 

applicability criteria specified in 

§ 141.40(a)(2)(i), you are subject to the 

UCMR monitoring and reporting 

requirements, regardless of whether you 

have been contacted by the State or 

EPA. 

(5) * * * 

(i) General rescheduling notification 

requirements. Large systems may 

independently change their monitoring 

schedules up to December 31, 2022, 

using EPA’s electronic data reporting 

system, as specified in paragraph (b)(1) 

of this section. After this date has 

passed, if your PWS cannot sample 

according to your assigned sampling 

schedule (e.g., because of budget 

constraints, or if a sampling location 

will be closed during the scheduled 

month of monitoring), you must mail or 

email a letter to EPA, as specified in 

paragraph (b)(1) of this section, prior to 

the scheduled sampling date. You must 

include an explanation of why the 

samples cannot be taken according to 

the assigned schedule, and you must 

provide the alternative schedule you are 

requesting. You must not reschedule 

monitoring specifically to avoid sample 

collection during a suspected vulnerable 

period. You are subject to your assigned 

UCMR sampling schedule or the 

schedule that you revised on or before 

December 31, 2022, unless and until 

you receive a letter from EPA specifying 

a new schedule. 

* * * * * 

(6) * * * 

(ii) Reporting schedule. You must 

require your laboratory, on your behalf, 

to post and approve the data in EPA’s 

electronic data reporting system, 

accessible at https://www.epa.gov/ 

dwucmr, for your review within 90 days 

from the sample collection date (sample 

collection must occur as specified in 

§ 141.40(a)(4)). You then have 30 days 

from when the laboratory posts and 

approves your data to review, approve, 

and submit the data to the State and 

EPA via the Agency’s electronic data 

reporting system. If you do not 

electronically approve and submit the 

laboratory data to EPA within 30 days 

of the laboratory posting approved data, 

the data will be considered approved by 

you and available for State and EPA 

review. 

* * * * * 

(d) Reporting by small systems. If you 

serve a population of 3,300 to 10,000, 

and meet the applicability criteria in 

§ 141.40(a)(2)(ii), you must meet the 

reporting requirements in paragraphs 

(d)(1) through (3) of this section. If you 

serve a population of less than 3,300 

people, and you are notified that you 

have been selected for UCMR 

monitoring, your reporting requirements 

will be specified within the materials 

that EPA sends you, including a request 

for contact information, and a request 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 46 / Thursday, March 11, 2021 / Proposed Rules 13867 

for information associated with the 

sampling kit. 

* * * * * 

(2) Sampling location inventory 

information. You must provide your 

inventory information by December 31, 

2022, using EPA’s electronic data 

reporting system, as specified in 

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

information changes, you must report 

updates, including new sources, and 

sampling locations that are put in use 

before or during the UCMR sampling 

period, to EPA’s electronic data 

reporting system within 30 days of the 

change, as specified in paragraph (b)(1) 

of this section. * * * 

(3) Contacting EPA if your PWS has 

not been notified of requirements. If you 

believe you are subject to UCMR 

requirements, as defined in 

§ 141.40(a)(1) and (2)(ii), and you have 

not been contacted by either EPA or 

your State by [120 days after publication 

of the Federal Register], you must send 

a letter to EPA, as specified in paragraph 

(b)(1) of this section. The letter must be 

from your PWS Official and must 

include an explanation as to why the 

UCMR requirements are applicable to 

your system along with the appropriate 

contact information. A copy of the letter 

must also be submitted to the State, as 

directed by the State. EPA will make an 

applicability determination based on 

your letter, and in consultation with the 

State when necessary, and will notify 

you regarding your applicability status 

and required sampling schedule. 

However, if your PWS meets the 

applicability criteria specified in 

§ 141.40(a)(2)(ii), you are subject to the 

UCMR monitoring and reporting 

requirements, regardless of whether you 

have been contacted by the State or 

EPA. 

(e) Data elements. Table 1 defines the 

data elements that must be provided for 

UCMR monitoring. 

TABLE 1—UNREGULATED CONTAMINANT MONITORING REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

Data element Definition 

1. Public Water System Identification (PWSID) Code.The code used to identify each PWS. The code begins with the standard 2-character postal State abbreviation or Region code; the remaining 7 numbers are unique to each PWS in the State. The same identification code must be used to represent the PWS identification for all current and future UCMR monitoring. 

2. Public Water System Name ....... Unique name, assigned once by the PWS. 

3. Public Water System Facility 

Identification Code.

An identification code established by the State or, at the State’s discretion, by the PWS, following the format of a 5-digit number unique within each PWS for each applicable facility (i.e., for each source of 

water, treatment plant, distribution system, or any other facility associated with water treatment or delivery). The same identification code must be used to represent the facility for all current and future UCMR 

monitoring. 

4. Public Water System Facility 

Name.

Unique name, assigned once by the PWS, for every facility ID (e.g., Treatment Plant). 

5. Public Water System Facility 

Type.

That code that identifies that type of facility as either: 

CC = consecutive connection. 

SS = sampling station. 

TP = treatment plant. 

OT = other. 

6. Water Source Type ..................... The type of source water that supplies a water system facility. Systems must report one of the following 

codes for each sampling location: 

SW = surface water (to be reported for water facilities that are served entirely by a surface water source 

during the twelve-month period). 

GU = ground water under the direct influence of surface water (to be reported for water facilities that are 

served all or in part by ground water under the direct influence of surface water at any time during the 

twelve-month sampling period), and are not served at all by surface water during this period. 

MX = mixed water (to be reported for water facilities that are served by a mix of surface water, ground 

water and/or ground water under the direct influence of surface water during the twelve-month period). 

GW = ground water (to be reported for water facilities that are served entirely by a ground water source 

during the twelve-month period). 

7. Sampling Point Identification 

Code.

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). The same identification code 

must be used to represent the sampling location for all current and future UCMR monitoring. 

8. Sampling Point Name ................. Unique sample point name, assigned once by the PWS, for every sample point ID (e.g., Entry Point). 

9. Sampling Point Type Code ......... A code that identifies the location of the sampling point as: 

EP = entry point to the distribution system. 

10. Disinfectant Type ...................... All of the disinfectants/oxidants that have been added prior to and at the entry point to the distribution system. Please select all that apply: 

PEMB = Permanganate. 

HPXB = Hydrogen peroxide. 

CLGA = Gaseous chlorine. 

CLOF = Offsite Generated Hypochlorite (stored as a liquid form). 

CLON = Onsite Generated Hypochlorite. 

CAGC = Chloramine (formed with gaseous chlorine). 

CAOF = Chloramine (formed with offsite hypochlorite). 

CAON = Chloramine (formed with onsite hypochlorite). 

CLDB = Chlorine dioxide. 

OZON = Ozone. 

ULVL = Ultraviolet light. 

OTHD = All other types of disinfectant/oxidant. 

NODU = No disinfectant/oxidant used. 

11. Treatment Information .............. Treatment information associated with the sample point. Please select all that apply. 

CON = Conventional (non-softening, consisting of at least coagulation/sedimentation basins and filtration). 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
13868 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 46 / Thursday, March 11, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 1—UNREGULATED CONTAMINANT MONITORING REPORTING REQUIREMENTS—Continued 

Data element Definition 

SFN = Softening. 

RBF = River bank filtration. 

PSD = Pre-sedimentation. 

INF = In-line filtration. 

DFL = Direct filtration. 

SSF = Slow sand filtration. 

BIO = Biological filtration (operated with an intention of maintaining biological activity within filter). 

UTR = Unfiltered treatment for surface water source. 

GWD = Groundwater system with disinfection only. 

PAC = Application of powder activated carbon. 

GAC = Granular activated carbon adsorption (not part of filters in CON, SCO, INF, DFL, or SSF). 

AIR = Air stripping (packed towers, diffused gas contactors). 

POB = Pre-oxidation with chlorine (applied before coagulation for CON or SFN plants or before filtration for 

other filtration plants). 

MFL = Membrane filtration. 

IEX = Ionic exchange. 

DAF = Dissolved air floatation. 

CWL = Clear well/finished water storage without aeration. 

CWA = Clear well/finished water storage with aeration. 

ADS = Aeration in distribution system (localized treatment). 

OTH = All other types of treatment. 

NTU = No treatment used. 

DKN = Do not know. 

12. Sample Collection Date ............ The date the sample is collected, reported as 4-digit year, 2-digit month, and 2-digit day (YYYYMMDD). 

13. Sample Identification Code ....... An alphanumeric value up to 30 characters assigned by the laboratory to uniquely identify containers, or 

groups of containers, containing water samples collected at the same sampling location for the same 

sampling date. 

14. Contaminant .............................. The unregulated contaminant for which the sample is being analyzed. 

15. Analytical Method Code ............ The identification code of the analytical method used. 

16. Extraction Batch Identification 

Code.

Laboratory assigned extraction batch ID. Must be unique for each extraction batch within the laboratory for 

each method. For CCC samples report the Analysis Batch Identification Code as the value for this field. 

For methods without an extraction batch, leave this field null. 

17. Extraction Date ......................... Date for the start of the extraction batch (YYYYMMDD). For methods without an extraction batch, leave 

this field null. 

18. Analysis Batch Identification 

Code.

Laboratory assigned analysis batch ID. Must be unique for each analysis batch within the laboratory for 

each method. 

19. Analysis Date ............................ Date for the start of the analysis batch (YYYYMMDD). 

20. Sample Analysis Type .............. The type of sample collected and/or prepared, as well as the fortification level. Permitted values include: 

CCCL = MRL level continuing calibration check; a calibration standard containing the contaminant, the internal standard, and surrogate analyzed to verify the existing calibration for those contaminants. 

CCCM = medium level continuing calibration check; a calibration standard containing the contaminant, the 

internal standard, and surrogate analyzed to verify the existing calibration for those contaminants. 

CCCH = high level continuing calibration check; a calibration standard containing the contaminant, the internal standard, and surrogate analyzed to verify the existing calibration for those contaminants. 

FS = field sample; sample collected and submitted for analysis under this rule. 

LFB = laboratory fortified blank; an aliquot of reagent water fortified with known quantities of the contaminants and all preservation compounds. 

LRB = laboratory reagent blank; an aliquot of reagent water treated exactly as a field sample, including the 

addition of preservatives, internal standards, and surrogates to determine if interferences are present in 

the laboratory, reagents, or other equipment. 

LFSM = laboratory fortified sample matrix; a UCMR field sample with a known amount of the contaminant 

of interest and all preservation compounds added. 

LFSMD = laboratory fortified sample matrix duplicate; duplicate of the laboratory fortified sample matrix. 

QCS = quality control sample; a sample prepared with a source external to the one used for initial calibration and CCC. The QCS is used to check calibration standard integrity. 

FRB = field reagent blank; an aliquot of reagent water treated as a sample including exposure to sampling 

conditions to determine if interferences or contamination are present from sample collection through 

analysis. 

21. Analytical Results—Sign ........... A value indicating whether the sample analysis result was: (<) ‘‘less than’’ means the contaminant was not 

detected, or was detected at a level below the Minimum Reporting Level. (=) ‘‘equal to’’ means the contaminant was detected at the level reported in ‘‘Analytical Result—Measured Value.’’ 

22. Analytical Result—Measured 

Value.

The actual numeric value of the analytical results for: Field samples; laboratory fortified matrix samples; 

laboratory fortified sample matrix duplicates; and concentration fortified. 

23. Additional Value ........................ Represents the true value or the fortified concentration for spiked samples for QC Sample Analysis Types 

(CCCL, CCCM, CCCH, QCS, LFB, LFSM and LFSMD). 

24. Laboratory Identification Code .. The code, assigned by EPA, used to identify each laboratory. The code begins with the standard two-character State postal abbreviation; the remaining five numbers are unique to each laboratory in the State. 

25. Sample Event Code .................. A code assigned by the PWS for each sample event. This will associate samples with the PWS monitoring 

plan to allow EPA to track compliance and completeness. Systems must assign the following codes: 

SE1, SE2, SE3 and SE4—represent samples collected to meet UCMR Assessment Monitoring requirements; where ‘‘SE1’’ and ‘‘SE2’’ represent the first and second sampling period for all water types; and 

‘‘SE3’’ and ‘‘SE4’’ represent the third and fourth sampling period for SW, GU, and MX sources only. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 46 / Thursday, March 11, 2021 / Proposed Rules 13869 

TABLE 1—UNREGULATED CONTAMINANT MONITORING REPORTING REQUIREMENTS—Continued 

Data element Definition 

26. Historical Information for Contaminant Detections and Treatment.A yes or no answer provided by the PWS for each entry point to the distribution system. 

Question: Have you tested for the contaminant in your drinking water in the past? 

YES = If yes, did you modify your treatment and if so, what types of treatment did you implement? Select 

all that apply. 

PAC = Application of powder activated carbon. 

GAC = Granular activated carbon adsorption (not part of filters in CON, SCO, INF, DFL, or SSF). 

IEX = Ionic exchange. 

Nanofiltration and reverse osmosis. 

OZON = Ozone. 

Biologically Active Carbon. 

MFL = Membrane filtration. 

ULVL = Ultraviolet light. 

Other. 

No = have never tested for the contaminant. 

DK = I do not know. 

27. Potential PFAS Sources ........... A yes or no answer provided by the PWS for each entry point to the distribution system. 

Question: Are you aware of any potential current and/or historical sources of PFAS that may have impacted the drinking water sources at your water system? 

YES = If yes, select all that apply: 

MB = Military Base. 

FT = Firefighting training school. 

AO = Airport Operations. 

CW = Car Wash or Industrial Launderers. 

PS = Public Safety Activities (e.g., fire and rescue services). 

WM = Waste Management. 

HW = Hazardous waste collection, treatment and disposal, Underground Injection Well. 

SC = Solid waste collection, combustors, incinerators. 

MF = Manufacturing. 

FP = Food Packaging. 

TA = Textile and Apparel (e.g., stain- and water- resistant, fiber/thread, carpet, house furnishings, 

leather). 

PP = Paper. 

CC = Chemical. 

PR = Plastics and Rubber Products. 

MM = Machinery. 

CE = Computer and Electronic Products. 

FM = Fabricated Metal Products (e.g., nonstick cookware). 

PC = Petroleum and Coal Products. 

FF = Furniture. 

OG = Oil and Gas Production. 

UT = Utilities (e.g., sewage treatment facilities). 

CT = Construction (e.g., wood floor finishing, electrostatic painting). 

OT = Other. 

No = I am not aware of any potential current and/or historical sources. 

DK—I do not know. 

28. Direct Potable Reuse Water Information.A yes or no answer provided by the PWS for each entry point to the distribution system. 

Question: Do you use direct potable reuse as a source of water? 

Yes = If yes, what is the blending ratio when used? 

Enter blending ratio at sample point. 

No = do not use direct potable reuse water. 

Subpart E—Special Regulations, 

Including Montoring Regulations and 

Prohibtion on Lead Use 

■ 3. Amend § 141.40 by: 

■ a. Removing in paragraph (a) 

introductory text the words ‘‘December 

31, 2015’’ and add it its place the words 

‘‘February 1, 2021 or subsequent 

corrections from the State,’’, 

■ b. Revising paragraphs (a)(2)(ii), 

(2)(ii)(A), (3), (4)(i)(A) and (B) and (C). 

■ c. Revising paragraph (a)(4)(ii) and the 

first sentence in paragraph (4)(ii)(A). 

■ d. Removing paragraph (a)(4)(iii). 

■ e. Revising in paragraph (a)(5)(ii) the 

fifth and sixth sentences. 

■ f. Revising paragraph (a)(5)(iii). 

■ g. Removing and reserving paragraph 

(a)(5)(iv). 

■ h. Revising paragraphs (a)(5)(v) and 

(vi) and paragraph (c). 

The revisions read as follows: 

§ 141.40 Monitoring requirements for 

unregulated contaminants. 

(a) * * * 

* * * * * 

(2) * * * 

(ii) Small systems. 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 (other than a transient noncommunity water system) that serves a 

retail population of 3,300 to 10,000 

people, or if you serve a population of 

fewer than 3,300 people and you are 

notified of monitoring requirements by 

the State or EPA, you must monitor as 

follows: 

(A) Assessment Monitoring. You must 

monitor for the contaminants on List 1 

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

section, if you serve 3,300 to 10,000 

people or are notified by your State or 

EPA that you are part of the State 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
13870 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 46 / Thursday, March 11, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

Monitoring Plan for Assessment 

Monitoring. 

* * * * * 

(3) Analytes to be monitored. Lists 1, 

2, and 3 contaminants are provided in 

the following table: 

TABLE 1—UCMR CONTAMINANT LIST

1—Contaminant 2—CASRN 3—Analytical 

methods a

4—Minimum 

reporting level b

5—Sampling 

location c

6—Period during 

which sample 

collection to be 

completed 

List 1: Assessment Monitoring 

Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) 

11-chloroeicosafluoro-3-oxaundecane-1-sulfonic acid (11Cl-PF3OUdS).763051–92–9 ........... EPA 533 ................... 0.005 μg/L ................ EPTDS ..................... 1/1/2023–12/31/2025. 

1H, 1H, 2H, 2H-perfluorodecane sulfonic acid 

(8:2 FTS).

39108–34–4 ............. EPA 533 ................... 0.005 μg/L ................ EPTDS ..................... 1/1/2023–12/31/2025. 

1H, 1H, 2H, 2H-perfluorohexane sulfonic acid 

(4:2 FTS).

757124–72–4 ........... EPA 533 ................... 0.003 μg/L ................ EPTDS ..................... 1/1/2023–12/31/2025. 

1H, 1H, 2H, 2H-perfluorooctane sulfonic acid 

(6:2 FTS).

27619–97–2 ............. EPA 533 ................... 0.005 μg/L ................ EPTDS ..................... 1/1/2023–12/31/2025. 

4,8-dioxa-3H-perfluorononanoic acid 

(ADONA).

919005–14–4 ........... EPA 533 ................... 0.003 μg/L ................ EPTDS ..................... 1/1/2023–12/31/2025. 

9-chlorohexadecafluoro-3-oxanone-1-sulfonic 

acid (9Cl-PF3ONS).

756426–58–1 ........... EPA 533 ................... 0.002 μg/L ................ EPTDS ...................... 1/1/2023–12/31/2025. 

hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid 

(HFPO–DA) (GenX).

13252–13–6 ............. EPA 533 ................... 0.005 μg/L ................ EPTDS ..................... 1/1/2023–12/31/2025. 

nonafluoro-3,6-dioxaheptanoic acid (NFDHA) 151772–58–6 ........... EPA 533 ................... 0.02 μg/L .................. EPTDS ...................... 1/1/2023–12/31/2025. 

perfluoro (2-ethoxyethane) sulfonic acid 

(PFEESA).

113507–82–7 ........... EPA 533 ................... 0.003 μg/L ................ EPTDS ..................... 1/1/2023–12/31/2025. 

perfluoro-3-methoxypropanoic acid (PFMPA) 377–73–1 ................. EPA 533 ................... 0.004 μg/L ................ EPTDS ...................... 1/1/2023–12/31/2025. 

perfluoro-4-methoxybutanoic acid (PFMBA) .. 863090–89–5 ........... EPA 533 ................... 0.003 μg/L ................ EPTDS ..................... 1/1/2023–12/31/2025. 

perfluorobutanesulfonic acid (PFBS) ............. 375–73–5 ................. EPA 533 ................... 0.003 μg/L ................ EPTDS ...................... 1/1/2023–12/31/2025. 

perfluorobutanoic acid (PFBA) ....................... 375–22–4 ................. EPA 533 ................... 0.005 μg/L ................ EPTDS ..................... 1/1/2023–12/31/2025. 

perfluorodecanoic acid (PFDA) ...................... 335–76–2 ................. EPA 533 ................... 0.003 μg/L ................ EPTDS ..................... 1/1/2023–12/31/2025. 

perfluorododecanoic acid (PFDoA) ................ 307–55–1 ................. EPA 533 ................... 0.003 μg/L ................ EPTDS ...................... 1/1/2023–12/31/2025. 

perfluoroheptanesulfonic acid (PFHpS) ......... 375–92–8 ................. EPA 533 ................... 0.003 μg/L ................ EPTDS ..................... 1/1/2023–12/31/2025. 

perfluoroheptanoic acid (PFHpA) ................... 375–85–9 ................. EPA 533 ................... 0.003 μg/L ................ EPTDS ..................... 1/1/2023–12/31/2025. 

perfluorohexanesulfonic acid (PFHxS) ........... 355–46–4 ................. EPA 533 ................... 0.003 μg/L ................ EPTDS ...................... 1/1/2023–12/31/2025. 

perfluorohexanoic acid (PFHxA) .................... 307–24–4 ................. EPA 533 ................... 0.003 μg/L ................ EPTDS ..................... 1/1/2023–12/31/2025. 

perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA) ...................... 375–95–1 ................. EPA 533 ................... 0.004 μg/L ................ EPTDS ..................... 1/1/2023–12/31/2025. 

perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) ............. 1763–23–1 ............... EPA 533 ................... 0.004 μg/L ................ EPTDS ..................... 1/1/2023–12/31/2025. 

perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) ....................... 335–67–1 ................. EPA 533 ................... 0.004 μg/L ................ EPTDS ..................... 1/1/2023–12/31/2025. 

perfluoropentanesulfonic acid (PFPeS) ......... 2706–91–4 ............... EPA 533 ................... 0.004 μg/L ................ EPTDS ..................... 1/1/2023–12/31/2025. 

perfluoropentanoic acid (PFPeA) ................... 2706–90–3 ............... EPA 533 ................... 0.003 μg/L ................ EPTDS ...................... 1/1/2023–12/31/2025. 

perfluoroundecanoic acid (PFUnA) ................ 2058–94–8 ............... EPA 533 ................... 0.002 μg/L ................ EPTDS ..................... 1/1/2023–12/31/2025. 

n-ethyl perfluorooctanesulfonamidoacetic 

acid (NEtFOSAA).

2991–50–6 ............... EPA 537.1 ................ 0.005 μg/L ................ EPTDS ..................... 1/1/2023–12/31/2025. 

n-methyl perfluorooctanesulfonamidoacetic 

acid (NMeFOSAA).

2355–31–9 ............... EPA 537.1 ................ 0.006 μg/L ................ EPTDS ..................... 1/1/2023–12/31/2025. 

perfluorotetradecanoic acid (PFTA) ............... 376–06–7 ................. EPA 537.1 ................ 0.008 μg/L ................ EPTDS ..................... 1/1/2023–12/31/2025. 

perfluorotridecanoic acid (PFTrDA) ................ 72629–94–8 ............. EPA 537.1 ................ 0.007 μg/L ................ EPTDS ..................... 1/1/2023–12/31/2025. 

Metal/Pharmaceutical 

lithium ............................................................. 7439–93–2 ............... EPA 200.7, SM 3120 

B, ASTM D1976– 

20.

9 μg/L ....................... EPTDS ..................... 1/1/2023–12/31/2025. 

List 2: Screening Survey 

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

List 3: Pre-Screen Testing 

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

Column headings are: 

1—Contaminant: The name of the contaminant to be analyzed. 

2—CASRN (Chemical Abstracts 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. 

4—Minimum Reporting Level (MRL): The value and unit of measure at or above which the concentration of the contaminant must be measured using the approved 

analytical methods. If EPA determines, after the first six months of monitoring that the specified MRLs result in excessive resampling, EPA will establish alternate 

MRLs and will notify affected PWSs and laboratories of the new MRLs. N/A is defined as non-applicable. 

5—Sampling Location: The locations within a PWS at which samples must be collected. 

6—Period During Which Sample Collection to be Completed: The time period during which the sampling and testing will occur for the indicated contaminant. aThe analytical procedures shall be performed in accordance with the documents associated with each method, see paragraph (c) of this section. 

bThe MRL is the minimum concentration of each analyte that must be reported to EPA. 

cSampling must occur at your PWS’s entry points to the distribution system (EPTDSs), after treatment is applied, that represent each non-emergency water source 

in routine use over the 12-month period of monitoring. Systems that purchase water with multiple connections from the same wholesaler may select one representative connection from that wholesaler. The representative EPTDS must be a location within the purchaser’s water system. This EPTDS sampling location must be representative of the highest annual volume connections. If the connection selected as the representative EPTDS is not available for sampling, an alternate highest volume representative connection must be sampled. See 40 CFR 141.35(c)(3) for an explanation of the requirements related to the use of representative GW EPTDSs. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 46 / Thursday, March 11, 2021 / Proposed Rules 13871 

(4) * * * 

(i) * * * 

(A) Sample collection period. You 

must collect the samples in one 

continuous 12-month period for List 1 

Assessment Monitoring, and, if 

applicable, for List 2 Screening Survey, 

or List 3 Pre-Screen Testing, during the 

time frame indicated in column 6 of 

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

section. EPA or your State will specify 

the month(s) and year(s) in which your 

monitoring must occur. As specified in 

§ 141.35(c)(5), you must contact EPA if 

you believe you cannot collect samples 

according to your schedule. 

(B) Frequency. You must collect the 

samples within the timeframe 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 Timeframe Frequency 1

List 1 Contaminants— ......... Surface water, Mixed, or 

GWUDI.

12 months .......................... You must monitor for four consecutive quarters. Sample events must occur three months apart. (Example: If first monitoring is in January, the second 

monitoring must occur any time in April, the third 

any time in July and the fourth any time in October). 

Ground water ..................... 12 months .......................... You must monitor twice in a consecutive 12-month period. Sample events must occur 5–7 months apart. 

(Example: If the first monitoring event is in April, the 

second monitoring event must occur any time in 

September, October or November). 

1Systems must assign a sample event code for each contaminant listed in Table 1. Sample event codes must be assigned by the PWS for 

each sample event. For more information on sample event codes see § 141.35(e) Table 1. 

(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 GW 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). 

* * * * * 

(ii) Small systems. If you serve a 

population of 3,300 to 10,000 people 

and meet the UCMR applicability 

criteria specified in paragraph (a)(2)(ii) 

of this section, or if you serve a 

population of fewer than 3,300 people 

and are notified that you are part of the 

State Monitoring Plan, you must comply 

with the requirements specified in 

paragraphs (a)(4)(ii)(A) through (H) of 

this section. If EPA or the State informs 

you that they will be collecting your 

UCMR samples, you must assist them in 

identifying the appropriate sampling 

locations and in collecting the samples. 

(A) Sample collection and frequency. 

You must collect samples at the times 

specified for you by the State or EPA. 

Your schedule must follow both the 

timing of monitoring specified in Table 

1, List 1, and, if applicable, List 2, or 

List 3, and the frequency of monitoring 

in Table 2 of this section. 

* * * * * 

(5) * * * 

* * * * * 

(ii) * * * To participate in the UCMR 

Laboratory Approval Program, the 

laboratory must register and complete 

the necessary application materials by 

August 1, 2022. Correspondence must 

be addressed to: UCMR Laboratory 

Approval Coordinator, USEPA, 

Technical Support Center, 26 West 

Martin Luther King Drive, (MS 140), 

Cincinnati, Ohio 45268; or emailed to 

EPA at: UCMR_Lab_Approval@epa.gov. 

(iii) Minimum Reporting Level. The 

MRL is defined by EPA as the 

quantitation limit achievable, with 95% 

confidence, by 75% of laboratories 

nationwide, assuming the use of good 

instrumentation and experienced 

analysts. 

* * * * * 

(iv) [Reserved] 

(v) Method defined quality control. 

You must ensure that your laboratory 

analyzes Laboratory Fortified Blanks 

and conducts Laboratory Performance 

Checks, as appropriate to the method’s 

requirements, for those methods listed 

in Table 1, column 3, in paragraph (a)(3) 

of this section. Each method specifies 

acceptance criteria for these QC checks. 

(vi) Reporting. You must require your 

laboratory, on your behalf, to post and 

approve these data in EPA’s electronic 

data reporting system, accessible at 

https://www.epa.gov/dwucmr, for your 

review within 90 days from the sample 

collection date. You then have 30 days 

from when the laboratory posts and 

approves your data to review, approve 

and submit the data to the State and 

EPA, via the Agency’s electronic data 

reporting system. If you do not 

electronically approve and submit the 

laboratory data to EPA within 30 days 

of the laboratory posting approved data, 

the data will be considered approved by 

you and available for State and EPA 

review. 

* * * * * 

(c) Incorporation by reference. These 

standards are incorporated by reference 

into this section with the approval of 

the Director of the Federal Register 

under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Water Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West, 

Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, 

Washington, DC 20004 (202) 566–1744, 

email Docket-customerservice@epa.gov, 

or go to https://www.epa.gov/dockets/ 

epa-docket-center-reading-room.. The 

material is also available for inspection 

at the National Archives and Records 

Administration (NARA). For 

information on the availability of this 

material at NARA, email fedreg.legal@

nara.gov, or go to www.archives.gov/ 

federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html. 

(1) U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 

Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC 

20004. 

(i) Method 200.7 ‘‘Determination of 

Metals and Trace Elements in Water and 

Wastes by Inductively Coupled PlasmaAtomic Emission Spectrometry,’’ 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
13872 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 46 / Thursday, March 11, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

Revision 4.4, EMMC Version, 1994. 

Available on the internet at https://

www.epa.gov/esam/method-2007- 

determination-metals-and-traceelements-water-and-wastes-inductivelycoupled-plasma. 

(ii) Method 537.1 ‘‘Determination of 

Selected Per- and Polyfluorinated Alkyl 

Substances in Drinking Water by Solid 

Phase Extraction and Liquid 

Chromatography/Tandem Mass 

Spectrometry,’’ Version 2.0, 2020. 

Available on the internet at https://

www.epa.gov/water-research/epadrinking-water-research-methods. 

(iii) Method 533 ‘‘Determination of 

Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances in 

Drinking Water by Isotope Dilution 

Anion Exchange Solid Phase Extraction 

and Liquid Chromatography/Tandem 

Mass Spectrometry,’’ November 2019, 

EPA 815–B–19–020. Available on the 

internet at https://www.epa.gov/ 

dwanalyticalmethods. 

(2) American Public Health 

Association, 800 I Street NW, 

Washington, DC 20001–3710. 

(i) ‘‘Standard Methods for the 

Examination of Water & Wastewater,’’ 

23rd edition (2017). 

(A) SM 3120 B ‘‘Metals by Plasma 

Emission Spectroscopy (2017): 

Inductively Coupled Plasma (ICP) 

Method.’’ 

(B) [Reserved] 

(ii) The following methods are from 

‘‘Standard Methods Online.’’ Available 

for purchase on the internet at https:// 

www.standardmethods.org. 

(A) SM 3120 B ‘‘Metals by Plasma 

Emission Spectroscopy: Inductively 

Coupled Plasma (ICP) Method (Editorial 

Revisions, 2011),’’ (SM 3120 B–99) 

(B) [Reserved] 

(3) ASTM International, 100 Barr 

Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken, PA 

19428–2959. 

(i) ASTM D1976–20 ‘‘Standard Test 

Method for Elements in Water by 

Inductively-Coupled Plasma Atomic 

Emission Spectroscopy,’’ approved May 

1, 2020. Available for purchase on the 

internet at https://www.astm.org/ 

Standards/D1976.htm. 

(ii) [Reserved] 

[FR Doc. 2021–03920 Filed 3–10–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

42 CFR Part 51c 

RIN 0906–AB25 

Implementation of Executive Order on 

Access to Affordable Life-Saving 

Medications; Delay of Effective Date 

AGENCY: Health Resources and Services 

Administration (HRSA), Department of 

Health and Human Services (HHS). 

ACTION: Proposed delay of effective date; 

request for comments. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with the 

Presidential directive as expressed in 

the memorandum of January 20, 2021, 

from the Assistant to the President and 

Chief of Staff, entitled ‘‘Regulatory 

Freeze Pending Review,’’ this action 

proposes, following a 5-day public 

comment period, to further delay until 

July 20, 2021, the effective date of the 

rule entitled ‘‘Implementation of 

Executive Order on Access to Affordable 

Life-saving Medications’’ published in 

the Federal Register on December 23, 

2020. That final rule is currently 

scheduled to take effect on March 22, 

2021, after an initial delay from its 

original effective date of January 22, 

2021. HHS seeks comments on this 

proposed delay of the effective date to 

July 20, 2021, which would allow it 

additional opportunity for review and 

consideration of the new rule. HHS will 

take comments about issues of fact, law, 

and policy raised by rule into account 

as the rule is reviewed during the delay 

period. 

DATES: The effective date for the final 

rule published December 23, 2020, at 85 

FR 83822, delayed January 26, 2021, at 

86 FR 7059, is proposed to be further 

delayed until July 20, 2021. Written 

comments and related material to this 

proposal must be received to the online 

docket via https://www.regulations.gov 

on or before March 14, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit written 

comments electronically by the 

following method: Federal eRulemaking 

Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. 

Follow the instructions on the website 

for submitting comments. 

Instructions. Include the HHS Docket 

No. HRSA–2021–0002 in your 

comments. All comments received will 

be posted without change to http://

www.regulations.gov. Please do not 

include any personally identifiable or 

confidential business information you 

do not want publicly disclosed. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jennifer Joseph, Director, Office of 

Policy and Program Development, 

Bureau of Primary Health Care, HRSA, 

5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 

20857; by email at jjoseph@hrsa.gov; 

telephone: 301–594–4300; fax: 301– 

594–4997. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: HHS 

published a notice of proposed 

rulemaking in the Federal Register on 

September 28, 2020 (85 FR 60748), and 

a final rule on December 23, 2020 (85 

FR 83822), delayed on January 26, 2021, 

at 86 FR 7069. The final rule, 

‘‘Implementation of Executive Order on 

Access to Affordable Life-Saving 

Medications,’’ established a new 

requirement directing all health centers 

receiving grants under section 330(e) of 

the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 

254b(e)) that participate in the 340B 

Drug Pricing Program (340B Program) 

(42 U.S.C. 256b), to the extent that they 

plan to make insulin and/or injectable 

epinephrine available to their patients, 

to provide assurances that they have 

established practices to provide these 

drugs at or below the discounted price 

paid by the health center or subgrantees 

under the 340B Drug Pricing Program 

(plus a minimal administration fee) to 

health center patients with low 

incomes, as determined by the 

Secretary, who have a high cost sharing 

requirement for either insulin or 

injectable epinephrine; have a high 

unmet deductible; or have no health 

insurance. 

The January 20, 2021, memorandum 

from the Assistant to the President and 

Chief of Staff, entitled ‘‘Regulatory 

Freeze Pending Review,’’ instructed 

Federal agencies to consider delaying 

the effective date of rules published in 

the Federal Register, but which have 

not yet taken effect, for a period of 60 

days so that the new Administration 

may review recently published rules for 

‘‘any questions of fact, law, and policy 

the rule may raise.’’ The 

‘‘Implementation of Executive Order on 

Access to Affordable Life-Saving 

Medications’’ rule falls within this 

category. On January 20, 2021, the 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) also published OMB 

Memorandum M–21–14, 

Implementation of Memorandum 

Concerning Regulatory Freeze Pending 

Review, which provides guidance 

regarding the Regulatory Freeze 

Memorandum. See M–21–14, 

Implementation of Memorandum 

Concerning Regulatory Freeze Pending 

Review, https://www.whitehouse.gov/ 

wp-content/uploads/2021/01/M-21-14- 

Regulatory-Review.pdf. OMB 

Memorandum M–21–14 explains that 

pursuant to the Regulatory Freeze 

Memorandum, agencies ‘‘should 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS