Thursday, 

January 4, 2007 

Part II 

Environmental 

Protection Agency 

40 CFR Parts 9, 141, and 142 

Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring 

Regulation (UCMR) for Public Water 

Systems Revisions; Final Rule 

mstockstill on PROD1PC61 with RULES2

368 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 2 / Thursday, January 4, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 9, 141 and 142 

[Docket No. OW–2004–0001; FRL–8261–7] 

RIN 2040–AD93 

Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring 

Regulation (UCMR) for Public Water 

Systems Revisions 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Safe Drinking Water Act 

(SDWA), as amended in 1996, requires 

the United States Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) to establish 

criteria for a program to monitor 

unregulated contaminants and to 

publish a list of contaminants to be 

monitored every five years. EPA 

published the first set of contaminants 

in 1999. This final regulation meets the 

SDWA requirement by publishing the 

next set of unregulated contaminants to 

be monitored and the requirements for 

such monitoring. 

This final rule describes the design for 

the second Unregulated Contaminant 

Monitoring Regulation (UCMR) cycle 

(i.e., UCMR 2) of 2007–2011. EPA is 

requiring monitoring of 25 chemicals 

using 5 different analytical methods. 

UCMR 2 monitoring will occur during 

2008–2010. Implementation of this final 

rule will benefit the environment by 

providing EPA and other interested 

parties with scientifically valid data on 

the occurrence of these contaminants in 

drinking water, thereby permitting the 

assessment of the population potentially 

being exposed and the levels of that 

exposure. These data are the primary 

source of occurrence and exposure data 

for the Agency to determine whether to 

regulate these contaminants. 

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

February 5, 2007. For purposes of 

judicial review, this rule is promulgated 

as of 1 p.m. eastern time on January 4, 

2007 as provided in 40 CFR 23.7. The 

incorporation by reference of certain 

publications listed in this rule is 

approved by the Director of the Federal 

Register as of February 5, 2007. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. OW–2004–0001. All documents in 

the docket are listed in the index at 

www.regulations.gov. Although listed 

in the index, some information is not 

publicly available, e.g., confidential 

business information or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

is not placed on the Internet and will be 

publicly available only in hard copy 

form. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically at http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Water Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West, 

Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., 

NW., Washington, DC. This Public 

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

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

excluding legal holidays. The telephone 

number for this Public Reading Room is 

(202) 566–1744, and the telephone 

number for the Water Docket is (202) 

566–2426. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

David J. Munch, Technical Support 

Center, Office of Ground Water and 

Drinking Water, United States 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Office of Water, 26 West Martin Luther 

King Drive (MS 140), Cincinnati, OH 

45268, telephone (513) 569–7843; e-mail 

address munch.dave@epa.gov. For 

general information, contact the Safe 

Drinking Water Hotline. Callers within 

the United States may reach the Hotline 

at (800) 426–4791. The Hotline is open 

Monday through Friday, excluding legal 

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

time. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information 

Does This Action Apply to Me? 

Entities regulated by this action are 

public water systems (PWSs). All large 

community and non-transient noncommunity water systems serving more 

than 10,000 people will be required to 

monitor. A community water system 

means a PWS which serves at least 15 

service connections used by year-round 

residents or regularly serves at least 25 

year-round residents. Non-transient 

non-community water system means a 

PWS that is not a community water 

system and that regularly serves at least 

25 of the same people over 6 months per 

year. Only a nationally representative 

sample of community and non-transient 

non-community systems serving 10,000 

or fewer people will be required to 

monitor. Transient non-community 

systems (i.e., systems that do not 

regularly serve at least 25 of the same 

people over 6 months per year) will not 

be required to monitor. States, 

Territories, and Tribes that qualify for 

treatment as a State for purposes of this 

program, may participate in the 

implementation of the second cycle of 

the Unregulated Contaminant 

Monitoring Regulation (i.e., UCMR 2) 

through a Partnership Agreement. These 

agencies may choose to conduct 

analyses to measure for contaminants in 

water samples collected for the UCMR 

2, in which case they will be regulated 

by this action. 

Regulated categories and entities are 

identified in the following table. 

Category Examples of potentially regulated entities NAICSa

State, local, & tribal Governments ................................................ States, local and tribal governments that analyze water samples on behalf of PWSs required to conduct such analysis; 

States, local and tribal governments that directly operate 

community and non-transient non-community water systems 

required to monitor.

924110 

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

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

a NAICS = North American Industry Classification System. 

This table is not 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 now 

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 

facility is regulated by this action, you 

should carefully examine the definition 

of PWS in § 141.2 of title 40 of the Code 

of Federal Regulations, and applicability 

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

final action. If you have questions 

regarding the applicability of this action 

to a particular entity, consult the person 

mstockstill on PROD1PC61 with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 2 / Thursday, January 4, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 369 

listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

Abbreviations and Acronyms 

HBB 2,2’,4,4’,5,5’-hexabromobiphenyl 

μg/L Microgram per liter 

ASDWA Association of State Drinking 

Water Administrators 

BDE–47 2,2’,4,4’-tetrabromodiphenyl 

ether 

BDE–99 2,2’,4,4’,5- 

pentabromodiphenyl ether 

BDE–100 2,2’,4,4’,6- 

pentabromodiphenyl ether 

BDE–153 2,2’,4,4’,5,5’- 

hexabromodiphenyl ether 

CCL Contaminant Candidate List 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

DBP Disinfection Byproduct 

DBPR Stage 1 or Stage 2 Disinfectants 

and Disinfection Byproducts Rule 

DSMRT Distribution system maximum 

residence time 

DQO Data quality objective 

DWSRF Drinking Water State 

Revolving Fund 

EPA United States Environmental 

Protection Agency 

EPTDS Entry point to the distribution 

system 

ESA Ethane sulfonic acid 

FR Federal Register 

GC Gas chromatography 

GWUDI Ground water under the direct 

influence of surface water 

HAA5 Haloacetic acid 5 (5 HAAs 

currently regulated) 

HPLC High performance liquid 

chromatography 

HRPIR Half range prediction interval of 

results 

ICR Information collection request 

IDC Initial demonstration of capability 

IDSE Initial distribution system 

evaluation 

IHS Indian Health Service 

LC Liquid chromatography 

LCMRL Lowest concentration 

minimum reporting level 

LFSM Laboratory fortified sample 

matrix 

LFSMD Laboratory fortified sample 

matrix duplicate 

MCL Maximum contaminant level 

MRL Minimum reporting level 

MS Mass spectrometry 

NAICS National American Industry 

Classification System 

NCOD National Drinking Water 

Contaminant Occurrence Database 

NDBA N-nitroso-di-n-butylamine 

NDEA N-nitrosodiethylamine 

NDMA N-nitrosodimethylamine 

NDPA N-nitroso-di-n-propylamine 

NMEA N-nitrosomethylethylamine 

NPDWR National Primary Drinking 

Water Regulation 

NPYR N-nitrosopyrrolidine 

NTTAA National Technology Transfer 

and Advancement Act 

OA Oxanilic acid 

OMB Office of Management and 

Budget 

PA Partnership agreement 

PIR Prediction interval of results 

PT Proficiency testing 

PWS Public water system 

PWSID Public water system 

identification 

QA Quality assurance 

QC Quality control 

RDX Hexahydro-1,3,5-trinitro-1,3,5- 

triazine 

RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act 

RSD Relative standard deviation 

SBA Small Business Administration 

SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act 

SDWARS Safe Drinking Water 

Accession and Review System 

SDWIS Safe Drinking Water 

Information System 

SPE Solid phase extraction 

TNT 2,4,6-trinitrotoluene 

TTHM Total trihalomethanes 

UCMR Unregulated Contaminant 

Monitoring Regulation 

UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform 

Act of 1995 

USEPA United States Environmental 

Protection Agency 

Table of Contents 

I. General Information 

Does This Action Apply to Me? 

II. Statutory Authority and Background 

A. What Is the Statutory Authority for 

UCMR? 

B. How Does EPA Meet These Statutory 

Requirements? 

III. Summary of This Rule 

A. What Are the Major Changes between 

the Proposed and Final Rule? 

Exhibit 1: Changes to UCMR 2 between 

Proposed and Final Rule 

B. Which Water Systems Must Monitor? 

1. This Rule 

2. Summary of Major Comments 

C. What Are the UCMR 2 Priority 

Contaminants and Associated Methods? 

1. List Compilation 

Exhibit 2: Analytical Methods Approved 

for UCMR 2 Monitoring 

2. Acetanilide Pesticides, Degradation 

Products, and Related Methods 

3. Explosives and Related Methods 

4. Perchlorate and Related Methods 

5. Nitrosamines/NDMA and Related 

Methods 

6. Flame Retardants, Other Priority 

Contaminants, and Related Methods 

7. Triazines Chlorodegradates and Parent 

Compounds 

8. Other Compounds That Were 

Considered 

D. How Are Laboratories Approved for 

UCMR 2 Monitoring? 

1. This Rule 

2. Summary of Major Comments 

E. What Is A System’s Responsibility 

Regarding the Use of Laboratories? 

1. This Rule 

2. Summary of Major Comments 

F. What Specific Quality Control 

Requirements Must Be Followed? 

1. Method Development Approach and 

Method Defined Quality Control 

2. Minimum Reporting Level 

3. Lowest Concentration Minimum 

Reporting Level 

4. Laboratory Fortified Sample Matrix and 

Laboratory Fortified Sample Matrix 

Duplicate 

G. When Are Samples Collected? 

1. This Rule 

2. Summary of Major Comments 

H. Where Are Samples Collected? 

1. Entry Points to the Distribution System 

2. Distribution System Maximum 

Residence Time 

I. How Should Samples Be Collected? 

1. This Rule 

2. Summary of Major Comments 

J. What Are the UCMR 2 Reporting 

Requirements? 

1. Information Required Prior to 

Monitoring 

2. Reporting of Required Data Elements 

3. Reporting Process 

4. Cross-Media Reporting and Data 

Availability 

K. What Constitutes a Violation Under 

UCMR 2? 

L. Technical Correction Rule Changes in 

This Rule 

1. Changes Pertaining to Aldicarb 

Monitoring 

2. Changes Pertaining to State Primacy 

IV. State and Tribal Participation 

A. Partnership Agreements 

1. This Rule 

2. Summary of Major Comments 

B. Governors’ Petition and State-Wide 

Waivers 

V. Cost and Benefits of This Rule 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions 

To Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations 

K. Congressional Review Act 

VII. Public Involvement in Regulation 

Development 

VIII. References 

List of Exhibits 

Exhibit 1: Changes to UCMR 2 between 

Proposed and Final Rule 

Exhibit 2: Analytical Methods Approved for 

UCMR 2 Monitoring 

mstockstill on PROD1PC61 with RULES2

370 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 2 / Thursday, January 4, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

II. Statutory Authority and Background 

A. What Is the Statutory Authority for 

UCMR? 

Section 1445(a)(2) of the Safe 

Drinking Water Act (SDWA), as 

amended in 1996, requires that once 

every five years, beginning in August 

1999, the United States Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) shall issue a 

list of no more than 30 unregulated 

contaminants to be monitored by public 

water systems (PWSs), and that EPA 

enter the monitoring data into the 

National Drinking Water Contaminant 

Occurrence Database (NCOD). EPA’s 

UCMR program must ensure that only a 

nationally representative sample of 

PWSs serving 10,000 or fewer people 

will be required to monitor; however, 

there are no such restrictions on the 

number of systems serving more than 

10,000 people. EPA must vary the 

frequency and schedule for monitoring 

based on the number of people a system 

serves, the source of supply, and the 

contaminants likely to be found. 

B. How Does EPA Meet These Statutory 

Requirements? 

To fulfill the initial SDWA 

requirements, EPA published 

‘‘Revisions to the Unregulated 

Contaminant Monitoring Regulation for 

Public Water Systems; Final Rule,’’ on 

September 17, 1999 (64 FR 50556, 

(USEPA, 1999)). Several supplemental 

rules were published to establish 

analytical methods and to provide 

clarifications and refinements to the 

initial rule: 65 FR 11372, March 2, 2000 

(USEPA, 2000); 66 FR 2273, January 11, 

2001 (USEPA, 2001a); and 67 FR 65888, 

October 29, 2002 (USEPA, 2002b). 

SDWA, as amended in 1996, requires 

that at least once every five years EPA 

identify a list of no more than 30 

unregulated contaminants to be 

monitored. This final action fulfills this 

statutory obligation, identifying 25 

priority contaminants for monitoring 

using five analytical methods. EPA has 

developed a contaminant list (Exhibit 2, 

in Section III.C.1) and sampling design 

for UCMR 2 (2007–2011) with input 

from both stakeholders and an EPA 

working group. This list is the same as 

was presented in the proposed rule, 

with one exception: perchlorate has 

been removed from the UCMR 2 

monitoring requirements (see Section 

III.C. 4 for further discussion). 

III. Summary of This Rule 

A. What Are the Major Changes Between 

the Proposed and Final Rule? 

EPA published ‘‘Revisions to the 

Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring 

Regulation for Public Water Systems; 

Proposed Rule,’’ on August 22, 2005 (70 

FR 49094, (USEPA, 2005a)). EPA 

received comments from 36 public 

commenters. 

In response to comments received and 

further consideration, EPA removed 

perchlorate from the list of 

contaminants to be monitored for under 

UCMR 2, and revised or clarified 

requirements pertaining to system 

applicability criteria, reporting, 

monitoring, and quality control. In 

addition, to accommodate PWS 

preparation for rule implementation and 

to provide additional assurance of 

sufficient laboratory capacity, this rule 

contains revised language that changes 

the start of monitoring from July 2007 to 

January 2008, such that the effective 

monitoring period is now January 2008 

through December 2010. Exhibit 1 

provides a summary of these changes, 

and a listing of the corresponding 

preamble section, which provides a 

more detailed discussion of the 

revisions and related public comments. 

Sections III.B–K summarize the different 

aspects of this rule and the associated 

major comments received in response to 

the August 2005 proposed rule and their 

impact, if any, on this rule. 

This summary focuses on the changes 

between the proposed and final rule, 

and requirements with deadlines that 

are triggered by the publication date of 

this final rule. EPA has compiled a 

document containing all public 

comments and EPA’s responses entitled 

‘‘UCMR 2 Categorized Public 

Comments,’’ which can be obtained by 

going to http://www.regulations.gov, 

and searching for Docket ID No. OW–

2004–0001 under the advanced search 

tab. 

EXHIBIT 1.—CHANGES TO UCMR 2 BETWEEN PROPOSED AND FINAL RULE

Rule section 

Description of change Corresponding 

preamble section Number Title/description 

141.35(a) ........................................ General applicability ..................... Defines ‘‘finished water’’ to clarify the definition of 

‘‘population served’’.

III.B. 

141.35(c)(3)(i) ................................ Documenting ground water representative sampling locations.Clarifies that approved representative well plans 

from previous UCMR cycles can be submitted to 

identify representative entry point(s).

III.J.1.c. 

141.35(c)(5) ................................... PWS notification of EPA if sampling schedule cannot be met.Provides exception to notification requirement for 

PWS with ground water sampling location that 

can collect second sample sets within 5–7 

months of the first sample set.

III.J.1.d. 

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

1. Clarify the definition of ‘‘Water Source Type’’ for 

a sampling point. 

2. Change the name of ‘‘Sampling Point Type Identification Code’’ to ‘‘Sampling Point Type Code’’ 

and distinguish this data element from ‘‘Sampling 

Point Identification Code’’. 

3. Clarify the definition for ‘‘Disinfectant Residual 

Type’’. 

III.J.2. 

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

monitoring period.

Revises Table 1 of 141.40 to: 

1. Change monitoring begin date to January 2008, 

and Screening Survey monitoring period to coincide with Assessment Monitoring. 

2. Delete perchlorate from table and associated 

footnotes. 

3. Revise minimum reporting levels to one significant figure. 

III.G. 

III.C.4. 

III.F.2. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC61 with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 2 / Thursday, January 4, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 371 

EXHIBIT 1.—CHANGES TO UCMR 2 BETWEEN PROPOSED AND FINAL RULE—Continued 

Rule section 

Description of change Corresponding 

preamble section Number Title/description 

141.40(a)(4)(i)(A) ........................... Monitoring schedules .................... Clarifies that EPA or the State will determine PWS 

monitoring schedules.

III.G. and 

III.J.1.d. 

141.40(a)(4)(i)(B) ........................... Frequency ..................................... 1. Requires PWSs with ground water sampling locations that cannot collect their second samples 

within 5–7 months of the first samples to contact 

EPA.

2. Changes Table 2 to indicate that ground water 

sample events must occur 5–7 months apart. 

III.G. 

141.40(a)(4)(i)(D) ........................... Sampling Instructions ................... 1. Clarifies that acetanilide parent and degradates 

must be sampled at the same time and location.

2. Deletes reference to collection methods for perchlorate samples 

III.C.2; III.F.1; 

and III.C.4. 

141.40(a)(4)(i)(G) ........................... Laboratory errors or sampling deviations.Changes resampling deadline from within 14 days 

to within 30 days.

III. I. 

141.40(a)(5)(i) ................................ Sample collection preservation .... Deletes reference to preservation methods for perchlorate samples.III.C.4. 

141.40(a)(5)(iii)(B)(2) ..................... Quality control requirements ........ Deletes additional quality control requirements for 

perchlorate methods.

III.C.4. 

141.40(a)(5)(iv) .............................. Laboratory accuracy and precision.Changes method requirement to fortify the matrix 

at the minimum reporting level (MRL) concentration to within ;+/¥50% vs. +/¥20%.

III.F.4. 

141.40(a)(5)(v) ............................... Detection confirmation for perchlorate.Deletes requirements in this section; and renumbers subsequent paragraphs accordingly.III.C.4 and 

III.F.1. 

B. Which Water Systems Must Monitor? 

1. This Rule 

This rule requires that Assessment 

Monitoring be conducted by all large 

community and non-transient, noncommunity water systems serving more 

than 10,000 people, and a nationally 

representative sample of 800 small 

water systems serving 10,000 or fewer 

people. Transient non-community water 

systems and those systems that 

purchase all of their finished water from 

another system are excluded from the 

requirements of UCMR 2. Assessment 

Monitoring is the largest in scope of the 

three UCMR 2 monitoring components 

(or tiers). Under Assessment 

Monitoring, ‘‘List 1’’ contaminants, for 

which standard analytical methods are 

available, are monitored to assess 

national occurrence in drinking water. 

These are the priority contaminants for 

which analytical method technologies 

are well established. 

The second tier of UCMR 2 is referred 

to as ‘‘List 2’’ or Screening Survey 

monitoring. List 2 contaminants are 

those for which analytical methods have 

been recently developed, and for which 

the technologies are not widely used; 

laboratory capacity, therefore, may be 

insufficient to conduct the larger scale 

Assessment Monitoring. The Screening 

Survey will be conducted by 

approximately 400 PWSs serving more 

than 100,000 people (all systems in this 

largest size category), by a randomly 

selected sample of 320 PWSs serving 

between 10,001 and 100,000 people, 

and by 480 small PWSs. 

Pre-Screen Testing, the third tier of 

UCMR monitoring that is designed for 

priority ‘‘List 3’’ contaminants, whose 

methods are very new or specialized, is 

not required in this action, although 

EPA is retaining the regulatory language 

that supports Pre-Screen Testing 

authority as part of the three-tiered 

UCMR framework. If EPA ultimately 

decides to include Pre-Screen Testing as 

part of this or a future UCMR, EPA will 

initiate a rulemaking action to propose 

List 3 contaminants (and their 

associated analytical methods) and to 

solicit public comments. 

This rule also defines ‘‘population 

served’’ as ‘‘the number of people 

served directly by the PWS’’ plus those 

served ‘‘by any consecutive system 

receiving all or part of its finished water 

from that PWS.’’ To help clarify the 

definition of population served, the 

final regulation will also include the 

definition of ‘‘finished water’’ that was 

recently finalized as part of the ‘‘Stage 

2 Disinfectants and Disinfection 

Byproducts Rule’’ (71 FR 388, January 4, 

2006 (USEPA, 2006a)) as follows: 

‘‘Finished water is water that is 

introduced into the distribution system 

of a public water system and is intended 

for distribution and consumption 

without further treatment, except the 

treatment necessary to maintain water 

quality in the distribution system (e.g., 

booster disinfection, addition of 

corrosion control chemicals).’’ This final 

regulation also specifies the PWS 

system’s water source and population 

served, as of June 30, 2005, as the basis 

for establishing a defined list of PWSs 

that are subject to the rule requirements. 

2. Summary of Major Comments 

Comments included a 

recommendation for EPA to define the 

term ‘‘finished water’’ in EPA’s 

definition of ‘‘population served,’’ and 

support for the designation of the June 

30, 2005, applicability date because it 

would eliminate some of the confusion 

that occurred under UCMR 1 and avoid 

extra effort to keep monitoring plans 

accurate and current. In response to 

these comments, this final regulation 

contains the definition of ‘‘finished 

water’’ that was recently finalized as 

part of the Stage 2 Disinfection 

Byproducts Rule and retains the 

proposed applicability date. EPA agrees 

that the specific applicability date of 

June 30, 2005, will help to streamline 

the implementation process. 

Other comments included 

recommendations to publish the list of 

systems that are subject to UCMR 2. 

Such a list, including preliminary 

schedules, is posted on the UCMR Web 

page: http://www.epa.gov/safewater/ 

ucmr/ucmr2. 

C. What Are the UCMR 2 Priority 

Contaminants and Associated Methods? 

1. List Compilation 

a. This Rule 

This rule specifies 25 contaminants 

for monitoring, along with five EPA 

mstockstill on PROD1PC61 with RULES2

372 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 2 / Thursday, January 4, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

Methods for analysis as listed in Exhibit 

2. EPA began with a list of over 200 

contaminants, compiled from a variety 

of different sources, including: UCMR 1 

reserved contaminants; Candidate 

Contaminant List 1 (CCL 1) ‘‘deferred 

pesticides’’; CCL 1 suspected endocrine 

disruptors; and other emerging 

contaminants. The CCL is a list of 

contaminants that are not subject to any 

proposed or promulgated National 

Primary Drinking Water Regulation 

(NPDWR), are known or anticipated to 

occur at PWSs, and may require 

regulation under SDWA. The first CCL, 

published in March 1998 (referred to as 

‘‘CCL 1’’), identified 60 contaminants or 

contaminant groups (63 FR 10274, 

March 2, 1998 (USEPA, 1998b)) that 

were divided into categories to 

represent research and data needs for 

each of the following: (1) Regulatory 

determination priorities; (2) health 

effects research priorities; (3) treatment 

research priorities; (4) analytical 

methods research priorities; and (5) 

occurrence priorities. Through a multistepped review and prioritization 

process (with relative health effects the 

top priority), the UCMR analyte list was 

narrowed and prioritized, as described 

in the August 2005 proposed rule, and 

26 contaminants were identified. 

However, based on public comment and 

further consideration, EPA has removed 

the requirement for monitoring 

perchlorate under the UCMR 2 program 

(see Section III.C.4). 

EXHIBIT 2.—ANALYTICAL METHODS APPROVED FOR UCMR 2 MONITORING

Analytical method 1 Contaminant UCMR 2 ‘‘List’’

EPA Method 527 (SPE/GC/MS) ....................................... 2,2′,4,4′-tetrabromodiphenyl ether (BDE–47) ................. List 1, Assessment Monitoring: 7 contaminants. 

2,2′,4,4′,5-pentabromodiphenyl ether (BDE–99).

2,2′,4,4′,5,5′-hexabromobiphenyl (HBB).

2,2′,4,4′,5,5′-hexabromodiphenyl ether (BDE–153).

2,2′,4,4′,6-pentabromodiphenyl ether (BDE–100).

Dimethoate.

Terbufos sulfone.

EPA Method 529 (SPE/GC/MS) ....................................... 1,3-dinitrobenzene ........................................................... List 1, Assessment Monitoring: 3 contaminants. 

2,4,6-trinitrotoluene (TNT).

Hexahydro-1,3,5-trinitro-1,3,5-triazine (RDX).

EPA Method 521 (SPE/GC/CI/MS/MS) ............................ N-nitrosodiethylamine (NDEA) ........................................ List 2, Screening Survey: 6 

contaminants. 

N-nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA).

N-nitroso-di-n-butylamine (NDBA).

N-nitroso-di-n-propylamine (NDPA).

N-nitrosomethylethylamine (NMEA).

N-nitrosopyrrolidine (NPYR).

EPA Method 535 (SPE/LC/MS/MS) ................................. Acetochlor ethane sulfonic acid (ESA) ........................... List 2, Screening Survey: 6 

contaminants. 

Acetochlor oxanilic acid (OA).

Alachlor ESA.

Alachlor OA.

Metolachlor ESA.

Metolachlor OA.

EPA Method 525.2 (SPE/GC/MS) .................................... Acetochlor ....................................................................... List 2, Screening Survey: 3 

contaminants. 

Alachlor.

Metolachlor.

Total of 25 UCMR 2 contaminants.

1EPA Method 521: Determination of Nitrosamines in Drinking Water by Solid Phase Extraction and Capillary Column Gas Chromatography 

with Large Volume Injection and Chemical Ionization Tandem Mass Spectrometry (MS/MS) (USEPA, 2004a). 

EPA Method 525.2: Determination of Organic Compounds in Drinking Water by Liquid-Solid Extraction and Capillary Column Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry (USEPA, 1995). 

EPA Method 527: Determination of Selected Pesticides and Flame Retardants in Drinking Water by Solid Phase Extraction and Capillary Column Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry (GC/MS) (USEPA, 2004b). 

EPA Method 529: Determination of Explosives and Related Compounds in Drinking Water by Solid Phase Extraction and Capillary Column 

Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry (GC/MS) (USEPA, 2002a). 

EPA Method 535, Revision 1.1: Measurement of Chloroacetanilide and Other Acetamide Herbicide Degradates in Drinking Water by Solid 

Phase Extraction and Liquid Chromatography/Tandem Mass Spectrometry (LC/MS/MS) (USEPA, 2004c). 

b. Summary of Major Comments 

Some commenters supported the 

contaminant selection process in 

general, but disagreed with EPA’s 

criterion that pesticides must be 

currently registered to be considered for 

UCMR 2 because pesticides can persist 

even after they are no longer in use. EPA 

agrees that the issue of pesticides and 

their degradates is an important one and 

will consider, in future contaminant 

selection processes, the commenters’

concern about the requirement that 

pesticides be registered. EPA did not 

receive comments on its health effects 

prioritization process. 

Comments were received 

recommending that EPA substantially 

increase the number of UCMR 2 

contaminants because of the large 

number of contaminants that are 

manufactured and sold in the United 

States. Section 1445(a)(2)(B)(i) of SDWA 

specifically limits the number of 

unregulated contaminants to 30 in each 

UCMR five-year cycle. The UCMR 2 list 

represents what EPA believes to be the 

highest priority drinking water 

contaminants for which monitoring 

information is needed and obtainable. 

Further comments indicated that EPA 

needs to clarify the process for 

prioritization of both UCMR and CCL 

contaminants. In general, concern was 

expressed that EPA did not sufficiently 

explain the status of CCL research 

mstockstill on PROD1PC61 with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 2 / Thursday, January 4, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 373 

priorities, especially with respect to the 

UCMR contaminant selection process. 

In the August 2005 preamble to the 

proposed rule, as well as in other past 

Federal Register notifications, EPA has 

explained in detail the connections 

between the CCL and the UCMR 

programs (http://www.epa.gov/ 

safewater/ucmr). The preamble to the 

proposed UCMR 2 regulation presented 

the logic behind the consideration of 

potential analytes for the UCMR. 

Section III ‘‘Requirements of the 

Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring 

Program’’ detailed all aspects of how 

EPA selected the contaminants 

proposed in this regulation with 

subsections describing what priority 

contaminants were selected for UCMR 

2; a compilation of the initial list of 

potential UCMR 2 candidates; how EPA 

established priorities for UCMR 2; EPA’s 

health effects prioritization approach; 

and the specific information and 

considerations that went into EPA’s 

decisions on each analyte selected. 

EPA has also been engaged in a multiyear process designed to create an 

improved CCL process. This process 

began after the first CCL was published 

in 1998 and EPA expects the next CCL 

(CCL 3) to reflect substantial progress in 

implementing this new process. Because 

the new CCL process was underway but 

not yet completed in 2005, CCL 2 

carried over the previous list and did 

not reflect the changes EPA is expecting 

to make in identifying contaminants for 

possible regulation. EPA expects that 

CCL 3 will reflect a more robust, 

transparent, and systematic process to 

identify priority contaminants in 

drinking water that will form the 

primary basis for future UCMR lists. 

Before EPA can list a chemical 

compound or microbiological parameter 

on UCMR, adequate analytical methods 

must be available. For some of the 

chemicals (i.e., organotins, triazines and 

algal toxins) and for all the 

microbiological parameters listed on the 

CCL, adequate analytical methods have 

not yet been developed. EPA is actively 

engaged in analytical method 

development research for these 

parameters both in-house and through 

its various contracts and grant 

mechanisms. EPA regularly publishes 

journal articles and other reports on the 

progress of all of these research 

activities that are available for the 

public to review. 

2. Acetanilide Pesticides, Degradation 

Products, and Related Methods 

a. This Rule 

Under this rule, the three highest-use 

parent acetanilide compounds, 

acetochlor, alachlor, and metolachlor, 

and their ESA and OA degradation 

products are specified as List 2, 

Screening Survey contaminants. The 

final rule also specifies EPA Method 

525.2 for analysis of the parent 

compounds and EPA Method 535 for 

analysis of the acetanilide degradates. 

There were no changes between the 

proposed and final rule language 

regarding these priority contaminants 

and their associated methods. However, 

this rule contains revised language to 

clarify that acetanilide parent and 

degradation product sampling must be 

conducted at the same time and same 

location. 

b. Summary of Major Comments 

Some commenters did not agree with 

EPA’s proposal to monitor the three 

parent acetanilide compounds because 

some water systems include these as 

part of their regulated volatile organic 

compound analyses using EPA Method 

525.2. Another recommendation was 

that no special certification for Method 

525.2 be required, since many 

laboratories are already approved to 

conduct this analysis for regulated 

contaminants. EPA is requiring 

monitoring of these three parent 

pesticides because it is essential that the 

acetanilide parent and the degradation 

products analysis be conducted using 

samples collected in the same location 

and at the same time to provide data on 

their relative concentrations (i.e., to 

establish relationships, if any, between 

the two). In addition, because UCMR 

requires only a sample of PWSs to 

conduct monitoring, and the resulting 

occurrence data is used to support EPA 

decisions about whether to regulate a 

contaminant to protect public health, 

the quality of data collected, at 

minimum reporting levels that are 

considerably lower than those used for 

compliance monitoring, is very 

important. Therefore, the analyses must 

meet even more stringent quality control 

procedures than those used for other 

national drinking water analyses, and 

special approval of laboratories is 

warranted for both EPA Method 535 and 

525.2. These analyses are required as 

part of the Screening Survey, and 

therefore analytical costs to PWSs are 

limited to approximately 720 large 

systems (EPA is paying for the 

analytical costs of small system 

monitoring). 

EPA agreed with recommendations in 

public comment to require monitoring 

for acetanilide parents and their 

degradation products at the same 

location and time to provide data on 

their relative concentrations. The final 

regulation contains revised language to 

include this requirement. 

Finally, concern was expressed in 

public comments that EPA may develop 

a single maximum contaminant level 

(MCL) for the parents plus their 

degradates; commenters specifically 

pointed out that different toxicity 

endpoints may exist for parents and 

degradates, and that a single MCL could 

conflict with some state standards. EPA 

has made no decision regarding whether 

or how to regulate these compounds. 

Such decisions are beyond the scope of 

this rule. 

3. Explosives and Related Methods 

a. This Rule 

Under this rule, EPA is requiring that 

three explosives: Hexahydro-1,3,5- 

trinitro-1,3,5-triazine (RDX), 1,3- 

dinitrobenzene, and, 2,4,6- 

trinitrotoluene (TNT) be monitored as 

part of List 1, Assessment Monitoring. 

The final rule also specifies EPA 

Method 529 for analysis of these 

compounds. There were no changes 

between the proposed and final rule 

language regarding these priority 

contaminants and their associated 

method. 

b. Summary of Major Comments 

Some commenters thought that other 

contaminants may be more widespread 

and should take priority over explosives 

for testing. However, if monitoring for 

explosives was required, the 

commenters recommended that it be 

limited to areas near munitions 

facilities. The explosives have not yet 

undergone a sufficiently widespread 

occurrence study for EPA to be 

confident that these contaminants are 

only a concern near munitions facilities. 

The decision to monitor for these 

contaminants, versus others considered, 

was driven by their potential health 

effects through the process described 

previously. 

4. Perchlorate and Related Methods 

a. This Rule 

Under this rule, EPA has removed the 

requirement for monitoring perchlorate 

under the UCMR 2 program. All 

references to perchlorate, its associated 

methods, and specific quality control 

requirements have been removed from 

the final rule. As a result, the 

requirements of § 141.40(a)(5)(v), 

Detection Confirmation, were deleted, 

and all subsequent sections have been 

renumbered accordingly. The other rule 

sections that were impacted by this 

decision (with reference to perchlorate 

or relevant analytical methods being 

removed) are: § 141.40(a)(3)—Analytes 

mstockstill on PROD1PC61 with RULES2

374 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 2 / Thursday, January 4, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

to be monitored; § 141.40(a)(4)(i)(D)—

Sampling Instructions; 

§ 141.40(a)(5)(i)—Sample collection/ 

preservation; and 

§ 141.40(a)(5)(iii)(B)(2)—Quality control 

requirements for validation of laboratory 

performance at or below the MRL. 

b. Summary of Major Comments 

Approximately 75 percent of 

commenters submitted comments on the 

topic of perchlorate. The majority of the 

commenters did not support an 

additional round of perchlorate 

monitoring, the most common reason 

being the added cost of monitoring, 

without the perceived potential for 

gaining sufficient, new information. 

Monitoring for perchlorate was 

conducted during UCMR 1 in over 3,800 

PWSs, with a minimum reporting level 

of 4.0 micrograms per liter (μg/L). The 

data collected during this survey 

represents a statistically valid set of 

high quality data that will inform EPA 

on the occurrence and potential 

exposure to perchlorate from public 

drinking water supplies. EPA will 

continue to evaluate these exposure data 

along with other available information 

(e.g., health effects) as the Agency 

makes its regulatory determination. 

Until that evaluation is complete, EPA 

agrees with the commenters that it is not 

clear that the Agency needs additional 

information on the occurrence of 

perchlorate in drinking water. As a 

result, imposing additional perchlorate 

monitoring costs on water systems is not 

warranted at this time. Therefore, EPA 

has removed the requirement for 

monitoring perchlorate under the UCMR 

2 program. If EPA later decides that 

additional perchlorate monitoring is 

warranted, the Agency will undertake 

an appropriate rulemaking action. 

5. Nitrosamines/NDMA and Related 

Methods 

a. This Rule 

This rule requires systems to monitor 

for six nitrosamines as part of the List 

2, Screening Survey. The final rule also 

specifies EPA Method 521 for analysis 

of these compounds. There were no 

changes between the proposed and final 

rule language regarding these priority 

contaminants and their associated 

method. 

b. Summary of Major Comments 

Some commenters thought that 

nitrosamine sampling would be more 

appropriately conducted as part of the 

Stage 1 and Stage 2 DBPRs. EPA 

disagrees with these comments for 

several reasons. While in fact, to date, 

the scientific literature identifies only 

N-nitroso-dimethylamine (NDMA) and 

N-nitrosodiethylamine (NDEA) as 

disinfection byproducts, the Screening 

Survey for nitrosamines is designed to 

aid in understanding the proportion of 

nitrosamines, particularly NDMA, that 

results from source water contamination 

versus that which results from 

disinfection. Also, the nitrosamines in 

this regulation are all compounds 

projected to have significant adverse 

health effects. All of these compounds 

are probable human carcinogens with 

10¥6 cancer risk levels that are in the 

low nanogram per liter range. These 

compounds would be high priorities for 

monitoring whether their occurrence is 

the result of source water contamination 

or disinfection. 

Several commenters disagreed with 

the use of Method 521, mostly because 

of questions on the scope and extent of 

interlaboratory testing and validation. 

Commenters thought that methods that 

are already being used by laboratories 

should be allowed under UCMR. 

Several commenters gave specific 

suggestions as to which methods were 

commonly in use that could be used for 

UCMR monitoring. 

The methods developed by EPA, for 

this and other chemical methods needs 

for the analysis of drinking water, were 

subjected to a rigorous process that 

included a series of testing, validation 

studies and peer review, which went 

beyond the proficiency testing or round 

robin study of the alternative draft 

unpublished methods suggested by the 

commenters. Each individual procedure 

of every method proposed by EPA was 

subjected to rigorous testing for a 

minimum of two years using 

scientifically sound procedures. EPA’s 

review of the suggested alternative draft 

methods also identified technical 

deficiencies that preclude their approval 

for monitoring under UCMR 2. 

6. Flame Retardants, Other Priority 

Contaminants, and Related Methods 

a. This Rule 

Under this rule, EPA is requiring 

monitoring for five flame retardants, as 

well as terbufos sulfone and dimethoate, 

as part of List 1, Assessment 

Monitoring. The final rule also specifies 

EPA Method 527 for analysis of these 

compounds. There were no changes 

between the proposed and final rule 

language regarding these priority 

contaminants and their associated 

method. 

b. Summary of Major Comments 

Concern was raised through public 

comment that only one citation was 

provided in the proposed rule preamble 

supporting the rationale for choosing 

this group of contaminants. Public 

comment suggestions were made that 

there may be other groups of 

contaminants, such as endocrine 

disruptors, that would be a better choice 

than the flame retardants. EPA notes 

that both Darnerud, 2001 and Hites, 

2004 were cited in the preamble of the 

proposed regulation as sources of the 

statements concerning flame retardants. 

There are however, many additional 

articles in the scientific literature which 

could have also been cited. In an article 

entitled ‘‘An overview of brominated 

flame retardants in the environment’’ by 

Cynthia A. deWit, which was published 

in Chemosphere, 46 (2002), the author 

cites over 180 published articles on 

flame retardants. In addition, three 

published articles; T.E. Stoker, 

‘‘Toxicology and Applied 

Pharmacology’’, 207 (2005); T.A. 

McDonald, ‘‘Chemosphere’’, 46 (2002); 

and I.A.T.M. Meerts, ‘‘Environmental 

Health Perspectives’’, 109 Vol. 4 (2001) 

concern tests that have been performed 

which support that the flame retardants 

specified for monitoring in UCMR 2 are 

endocrine disruptors. 

7. Triazines Chlorodegradates and 

Parent Compounds 

a. This Rule 

In the proposed rule preamble, EPA 

solicited public comment regarding 

three triazine chlorodegradates and 

three of their parent compounds 

because the Agency is conducting a 

cumulative risk assessment for the 

chlorodegradates as a group with 

atrazine, simazine, and propazine. 

While atrazine and simazine are already 

regulated under NPDWRs, EPA was 

considering UCMR monitoring for these 

parent compounds concurrent with the 

collection of UCMR data for their 

degradation products to determine the 

degree of correlation between the 

occurrence of the parents and their 

degrades. Though public comment was 

requested, triazines were not officially 

proposed for inclusion under UCMR 2 

monitoring. There were no changes 

between the proposed and final rule 

language, and thus, the triazines are not 

part of the UCMR 2 monitoring 

requirements. 

b. Summary of Major Comments 

Commenter opinion varied regarding 

inclusion of triazines in UCMR 2 

monitoring. For those that supported 

their inclusion, the primary reason was 

health effects. One of these commenters 

also recommended that cyanizine be 

included in this contaminant group. Of 

those who opposed including this 

group, the following reasons were given: 

mstockstill on PROD1PC61 with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 2 / Thursday, January 4, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 375 

concern about laboratory capacity if two 

similar analyses using liquid 

chromatography/tandem mass 

spectrometry (LC/MS/MS) were 

required to be conducted in the same 

time frame; concern regarding the status 

of method development; the belief that 

the manufacturer should pay for 

occurrence testing; and the fact that 

information on the parent compounds is 

already available. 

Although validation of a new triazine 

method has been completed, EPA agrees 

that requiring the use of two LC/MS/MS 

methods in the same UCMR cycle could 

present a laboratory capacity problem. 

Due to these concerns, EPA has 

concluded that triazine monitoring 

should be postponed until a future cycle 

of the UCMR. 

8. Other Compounds That Were 

Considered 

a. This Rule 

In identifying the target contaminants 

for this rule, EPA began with a list of 

over 200 contaminants, compiled from a 

variety of different sources, including: 

UCMR 1 reserved contaminants; CCL 1 

deferred pesticides; CCL 1 suspected 

endocrine disruptors; and other 

emerging contaminants. Through a 

multi-stepped review and prioritization 

process, the list was narrowed and 

prioritized. EPA’s final prioritization 

was based on the available relative 

health effects information for each 

compound. 

b. Summary of Major Comments 

EPA received comment encouraging 

the Agency to include some endocrine 

disruptors on the UCMR 2 contaminant 

list. The initial list that EPA compiled 

included several contaminants that were 

identified as suspected endocrine 

disruptors during CCL 1 development, 

as well as others that are widely 

suspected to be endocrine disruptors. 

EPA used a multi-stepped review and 

prioritization process to select 25 

contaminants for monitoring from the 

broader pool of 200 contaminants. 

Several different health effects criteria 

were used to prioritize contaminants in 

addition to endocrine disruption, such 

as cancer classification and toxicity. 

Although some contaminants that are 

considered endocrine disruptors are not 

part of the final monitoring list, all five 

flame retardants that are part of UCMR 

2 are suspected endocrine disruptors. In 

addition, EPA will consider these other 

contaminants for monitoring in future 

rounds of UCMR monitoring. 

D. How Are Laboratories Approved for 

UCMR 2 Monitoring? 

1. This Rule 

The UCMR 2 laboratory approval 

process is designed to assess whether 

laboratories meet the required 

equipment, laboratory performance, and 

data reporting criteria. Laboratories 

wishing to participate in UCMR 2 must 

contact EPA to be considered. This rule 

requires laboratories to complete and 

submit their registration to EPA by April 

4, 2007 (i.e., within 90 days of final rule 

publication). To be approved to conduct 

UCMR testing, this rule requires that the 

laboratory be certified under § 141.28 

for one or more compliance analyses; 

demonstrate, for each analytical method 

it plans to use for UCMR testing, that it 

can meet the Initial Demonstration of 

Capability (IDC) requirements and 

successfully participate in the UCMR 

Proficiency Testing (PT) Program; and 

has the capability to post monitoring 

data to EPA’s electronic reporting 

system. Laboratories are encouraged to 

apply for UCMR 2 approval as early as 

possible. The steps for the laboratory 

approval process are as follows: 

a. Request To Participate 

The laboratory must contact EPA 

requesting to participate in the UCMR 2 

laboratory approval process. 

Laboratories must send this request to: 

UCMR 2 Laboratory Approval 

Coordinator, USEPA, Technical Support 

Center, 26 West Martin Luther King 

Drive (MS 140), Cincinnati, OH 45268; 

or e-mail at: 

UCMR_Sampling_Coordinator@epa.gov. 

EPA began accepting participation 

requests for the methods associated with 

UCMR 2 (including List 1, Assessment 

Monitoring, and List 2, Screening 

Survey) following publication of the 

proposed rule on August 22, 2005. The 

laboratory must complete and submit 

the necessary registration by April 4, 

2007. 

b. Registration 

EPA will send each laboratory that 

requests a registration package a list of 

information that EPA will need to 

process that application. This 

registration information will provide 

EPA with the basic information about 

the candidate laboratory including: 

Laboratory name; mailing address; 

shipping address; contact name; phone 

number; fax number; e-mail address; 

and UCMR 2 methods for which the 

laboratory is seeking approval. Thus, the 

purpose of the registration step is to 

ensure that EPA has all of the necessary 

contact information and that each 

laboratory receives a customized 

application package, which will include 

materials and instructions for the 

methods that it plans to use. 

c. Application Package 

When EPA receives the registration 

information, an application package will 

be sent to the laboratory for completion. 

This application package will be 

customized to address only those EPA 

methods selected in the laboratory’s 

registration. EPA may provide analytical 

standards to be used when conducting 

monitoring; however, laboratories will 

be required to procure their own 

standards, where commercially 

available, to be used to complete the 

application process. Information 

requested in the application will 

include: 

• IDC data, including precision, 

accuracy, and MRL studies; 

• Information regarding analytical 

equipment; 

• Proof of current drinking water 

laboratory certification; and 

• Example chromatograms for each 

method under review. 

The laboratory must also confirm that 

it will post UCMR 2 monitoring results 

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

UCMR electronic data reporting system. 

d. EPA Review of Application Package 

EPA will review the application 

package and, if necessary, request 

follow-up information. Satisfactory 

completion of this portion of the process 

will allow the laboratory to participate 

in the UCMR 2 PT program. 

e. Proficiency Testing 

A PT sample is a synthetic sample 

containing a concentration of an analyte 

that is known to EPA, but unknown to 

the laboratory being tested. To complete 

the initial laboratory approval process, a 

laboratory must successfully analyze 

UCMR 2 PT sample(s) for each method 

for which the laboratory is seeking 

approval. A laboratory must pass only 

one PT for each of the UCMR 2 

methods. Laboratories applying for 

UCMR 2 approval, and laboratories 

conducting UCMR 2 analyses, may be 

subject to on-site laboratory audits. No 

PT studies will be conducted after the 

start of monitoring. Laboratories will not 

be approved if they did not successfully 

complete a PT study. 

f. Written EPA Approval 

After the first five steps (a–e, above) 

have been successfully completed, EPA 

will send the laboratory a letter listing 

the methods for which approval is 

granted. These letters will also include 

a reminder that the laboratory may be 

subject to on-site audits. A list of 

mstockstill on PROD1PC61 with RULES2

376 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 2 / Thursday, January 4, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

laboratories approved for UCMR 2 will 

be posted to EPA’s UCMR Web site: 

http://www.epa.gov/safewater/ucmr/ 

ucmr2/labs.html. 

2. Summary of Major Comments 

Several comments recommended that 

EPA continue to oversee the laboratory 

approval process and offer PTs 

throughout the UCMR 2 period to 

ensure that approved laboratories are 

maintaining data quality. EPA notes that 

the laboratory approval process is meant 

to establish a list of laboratories that 

have demonstrated their ability to 

perform the Quality Assurance/Quality 

Control (QA/QC) requirements for 

UCMR 2 methods. EPA and its 

supporting contractor will be assisting 

candidate laboratories to achieve the 

required proficiency during the 

laboratory approval process. Once the 

approvals are completed, EPA does not 

intend to invest the resources to 

maintain an ongoing laboratory 

monitoring program. However, EPA will 

continue to provide technical assistance 

to laboratories that request it. In 

addition, EPA will conduct a limited 

number of on-site laboratory audits. 

PWSs also have a role to play in data 

quality. In selecting a laboratory for 

conducting UCMR 2 analyses, the PWS 

should consider the laboratory’s 

commitment to data quality. As a 

partner in the commitment to quality 

data, the PWS should request and 

review the QC data associated with their 

UCMR 2 occurrence samples. 

Public comments also expressed 

concern that there may not be adequate 

time for laboratories to receive 

certification, resulting in reduced 

laboratory capacity at the onset of 

monitoring. Recommendations 

included: Adjusting monitoring 

schedules in instances of inadequate 

laboratory capacity; conducting the 

laboratory approval process prior to rule 

promulgation; and extending the 

deadline for laboratories to report 

monitoring results. EPA began offering 

the first round of preliminary laboratory 

PTs in mid-2006. Additional rounds 

were conducted before and are 

scheduled to be conducted after 

promulgation of the final regulation. 

EPA is confident that sufficient 

laboratory capacity will be available, but 

will also closely evaluate the results of 

these preliminary PTs. 

In addition, this rule contains 

language that revises the Screening 

Survey and Assessment Monitoring time 

frame to January 2008 through 

December 2010. This revision extends 

the start date of UCMR 2 monitoring by 

6 months from the proposed July 2007 

start date and allows the Screening 

Survey to be conducted across three 

years as opposed to the two-year time 

frame that was proposed. This will 

allow PWSs more time for UCMR 2 

planning and budgeting and provide 

additional assurance of sufficient 

laboratory capacity. 

E. What Is A System’s Responsibility 

Regarding the Use of Laboratories? 

1. This Rule 

Under this rule, systems selected to 

participate in monitoring will be 

required to use laboratories that are 

approved by EPA for UCMR 2 

monitoring (see Section III.D, above). 

Large systems must ensure that the 

laboratories conducting their analyses 

meet UCMR 2 QC requirements and post 

the data in EPA’s electronic data 

reporting system within 120 days of the 

sample collection date. 

2. Summary of Major Comments 

Several comments were received 

regarding PWSs’ responsibility for 

laboratory compliance with QC and 

reporting requirements, indicating that 

EPA should be responsible for ensuring 

laboratory compliance, as a condition of 

certification. 

PWSs have always been responsible 

for the quality of the results produced 

by the laboratory they employ, whether 

that monitoring was conducted in 

support of UCMR 1 or compliance 

monitoring under SDWA. Large PWSs 

(serving greater than 10,000 people) 

must ensure that their laboratories have 

received appropriate EPA approvals to 

conduct UCMR 2 methods and must 

ensure that laboratories follow the 

specific UCMR 2 QC requirements. EPA 

recommends that laboratory 

requirements be addressed in the 

contractual language between the PWS 

and laboratory. EPA’s UCMR Web site 

at: http://www.epa.gov/safewater/ucmr/ 

ucmr2 provides informational materials 

that PWSs can use to help them evaluate 

their data. These materials include: a 

laboratory approval manual, the 

analytical methods (each of which 

contain a table summarizing QC 

requirements of that method), and a 

general reference guide designed to help 

PWSs develop laboratory contracts. 

F. What Specific Quality Control 

Requirements Must Be Followed? 

1. Method Development Approach and 

Method Defined Quality Control 

a. This Rule 

Under this rule, UCMR 2 analyses 

will be conducted using five EPA 

methods. This final rule revises several 

aspects of the methods QC requirements 

compared to those that were established 

under UCMR 1, including: revising the 

definition of and procedures for MRL 

detection limits (see Section III.F.2. for 

more detail); and no longer requiring QC 

samples because standards are generally 

not available. The final rule language 

also contains other revisions to QC 

requirements that were necessary 

because of the removal of perchlorate 

from the final UCMR 2 monitoring list. 

See Section III.C.4 for a listing of those 

changes. 

b. Summary of Major Comments 

A few commenters were concerned 

that the methods have not been properly 

validated, potentially increasing costs if 

repeat sampling is needed. These 

commenters also believe that laboratory 

capacity would be insufficient to 

conduct all required monitoring. 

As noted elsewhere, EPA is confident 

that the analytical method validation 

procedures that it has followed provide 

the appropriate evaluation of analytical 

methods and that the design of the 

Assessment Monitoring and Screening 

Surveys ensures that adequate 

laboratory capacity will be available. 

Moreover, as noted elsewhere, the final 

rule extends the time frame for 

Screening Survey monitoring from two 

years (as originally proposed) to three 

years, coinciding with Assessment 

Monitoring. This extended timeframe 

will further enable approved 

laboratories to handle the analyses 

associated with UCMR 2 monitoring. 

EPA received comments disagreeing 

with its proposal to no longer require 

QC samples, arguing that this will 

diminish the quality of the analyses, 

and that companies that manufacture 

QC standards will have them available 

in 2006. A quality control sample, in 

this context, is a primary dilution 

standard of methods analytes that is 

obtained from a source external to the 

laboratory and different from the source 

of calibration standards. Although EPA 

agrees that the periodic measurement of 

a QC sample is an important element of 

standard laboratory quality control, it is 

not feasible to require the use of QC 

samples that do not currently exist and 

may or may not exist in the future. In 

addition, all laboratories will be 

required to pass an EPA performance 

study, which will help to assure the 

quality of the calibration standards 

being used. However, EPA is strongly 

encouraging all UCMR laboratories to 

analyze an independently prepared 

quantitative standard on a quarterly 

basis. If commercially prepared QC 

standards are available, they should be 

used. If not, laboratories should have a 

second analyst prepare a separate set of 

quantitative standards to serve as 

mstockstill on PROD1PC61 with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 2 / Thursday, January 4, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 377 

independent quality control checks of 

the calibration standards being used by 

the laboratory. EPA will continue to 

require that UCMR laboratories analyze 

a variety of other samples (i.e., duplicate 

samples, laboratory fortified reagent and 

matrix samples, etc.) designed to assess 

the quality of their analyses, as specified 

in each analytical method and in the 

‘‘UCMR 2 Laboratory Approval Manual’’

(USEPA, 2004d). 

2. Minimum Reporting Level 

a. This Rule 

Under this rule, all laboratories 

certified to conduct UCMR analysis 

must be able to demonstrate their ability 

to detect each UCMR contaminant at the 

specified MRL. MRLs represent an 

estimate of the lowest concentration of 

a compound that can be quantitatively 

measured by a group of experienced 

drinking water laboratories. Previously, 

MRLs had been determined by 

analytical laboratories using expert 

professional judgment, but standard 

criteria for MRL determinations had not 

been established. For this rule, EPA has 

revised the process for developing MRLs 

as follows. The MRLs are now based on 

Lowest Concentration Minimum 

Reporting Levels (LCMRLs) which were 

determined by each laboratory that 

developed or subsequently tested the 

methods. LCMRLs represent the lowest 

concentration of a compound that can 

be quantitatively determined in each 

individual laboratory. In the interest of 

greater consistency, EPA has developed 

a statistical protocol for singlelaboratory determinations of LCMRLs, 

using linear regression and prediction 

intervals. 

b. Summary of Major Comments 

Several comments were received 

regarding the number of significant 

figures associated with the MRLs. These 

commenters wanted the number of 

significant figures reduced. In 

considering public comments, EPA 

agrees that the MRLs should be reported 

to one significant figure. The final 

regulation contains revised language 

reflecting that MRLs are rounded to one 

significant figure. 

Commenters also thought that having 

a different MRL for each analyte may 

lead to calibration errors. They 

suggested revising the MRLs within 

each method to achieve some 

proportional relationship among the 

MRLs. EPA does not agree with this 

comment. The MRLs are based upon a 

statistical analysis of the quantitation 

levels achieved at multiple laboratories. 

To adjust those to some proportional 

level would be arbitrary. 

3. Lowest Concentration Minimum 

Reporting Level 

a. This Rule 

EPA has developed a protocol for 

developing MRLs based on LCMRLs 

determined by each laboratory that 

developed or subsequently tested the 

methods listed in this action. For UCMR 

1, EPA specified MRLs and a 

requirement for recovery at the MRL so 

that data quality was documented daily. 

In the interest of greater consistency, 

EPA developed a statistical protocol for 

single-laboratory determinations of 

LCMRLs using linear regression and 

prediction intervals. This approach has 

been evaluated through expert peer 

review conducted in accordance with 

the Agency’s formal peer review process 

and through the performance of a pilotscale interlaboratory study. A free tool 

for calculating the LCMRL was 

developed and is available for download 

on the Web: http://www.epa.gov/ 

safewater/methods/ 

sourcalt.html#Mlcmrl. 

b. Summary of Major Comments 

Some public commenters disagreed 

with the 50–150 percent acceptance 

criteria for MRLs, arguing that it exceeds 

routinely accepted criteria, and 

suggested instead to use ± 10–20 

percent. EPA believes that these 

commenters are referring to ± 10–20% 

relative standard deviation (RSD) and 

notes that the MRL verification 

requirement is based on the three sigma 

prediction interval being within 50–150 

percent. EPA believes that the 50–150 

percent criteria is in fact, a very 

stringent requirement comparable to 

that advocated by the commenters. As 

an example, to meet the 50–150 percent 

criteria for the 99 percent prediction 

interval, as specified in 

§ 141.40(a)(5)(iii), and assuming 100 

percent accuracy, would require an RSD 

of 13.5 percent. Since both precision 

and accuracy are measured by this 

criterion, any errors in accuracy would 

serve to reduce the required RSD even 

further, and make the precision criteria 

more stringent. 

Other comments expressed concern 

that acceptance criteria were not 

consistently applied, possibly leading to 

inconsistencies in the precision and 

accuracy of reported values. EPA agrees 

that the LCMRL process, as specified in 

the proposed regulation, does not apply 

consistent acceptance criteria over the 

analytical range of the test method. EPA 

has always recognized that precision 

and accuracy of analytical methods are 

a function of concentration, and has 

generally published differing acceptance 

criteria for its methods in recognition of 

this fact. These concentration-based 

criteria do not in any way represent a 

change in policy, rather, recognition of 

the reality of analytical measurements. 

4. Laboratory Fortified Sample Matrix 

and Laboratory Fortified Sample Matrix 

Duplicate 

a. This Rule 

Under this rule, all participating 

laboratories will be required to analyze 

Laboratory Fortified Sample Matrix 

(LFSM) samples for accuracy, and 

Laboratory Fortified Sample Matrix 

Duplicate (LFSMD) samples for 

precision, for all UCMR 2 contaminants. 

LFSM/LFSMD samples must be 

prepared using a sample collected and 

analyzed in accordance with UCMR 2 

requirements and analyzed at a 

frequency of 5 percent (or one LFSM/ 

LFSMD set per every 20 samples) or 

with each sample batch, whichever is 

more frequent. In addition, the LFSM/ 

LFSMD fortification concentrations 

must be alternated between a low-level 

fortification and mid-level fortification 

approximately 50 percent of the time. 

The low-level LFSM/LFSMD 

fortification concentration must be 

within ± 50 percent of the MRL for each 

contaminant, and the mid-level LFSM/ 

LFSMD fortification concentration must 

be within ± 20 percent of the mid-level 

calibration standard for each 

contaminant. The low-level method 

fortification level requirement of ± 50 

percent represents a revision to the 

proposed rule language based on public 

comments that ± 20 percent was too 

restrictive. 

b. Summary of Major Comments 

Some commenters expressed 

concerned about the added expense of 

extra bottles and the time needed to 

coordinate with laboratories and other 

utilities to ensure that the proper 

number of LFSM/LFSMD samples will 

be submitted. Although EPA has 

changed the way that QC data will be 

tracked, EPA has not changed the 

number of sample bottles which need to 

be collected. The requirement to fortify 

at least one UCMR field sample per 

analytical batch, and to report these data 

to EPA, has not changed from UCMR 1. 

The only change compared to UCMR 1 

is in how the data are to be reported. 

Previously, laboratories were required to 

report the percent recoveries of each 

analyte in the fortified field samples; in 

UCMR 2 they are required to report the 

analytical result and EPA will compute 

the recoveries. 

Other commenters suggested using 

the same sample for duplicates instead 

of a second sample and using more 

mstockstill on PROD1PC61 with RULES2

378 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 2 / Thursday, January 4, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

laboratory blanks to decrease cost. EPA 

notes that data from laboratory blanks 

and fortified matrix samples provide 

very different information. Data from 

fortified reagent water samples help the 

data user understand how well the 

laboratory is performing the analysis. 

Fortified matrix samples are used to 

determine if there are interfering 

compounds in the matrix that preclude 

accurate analysis and to assess the 

precision and accuracy of the database 

of field results. Since fortified reagent 

water samples are not subject to the 

same type of matrix interferences that 

field samples are, data from reagent 

water samples are not a scientifically 

valid way to determine the precision 

and accuracy of field data. 

G. When Are Samples Collected? 

1. This Rule 

To accommodate PWS preparation for 

rule implementation and to provide 

additional assurance of sufficient 

laboratory capacity, this rule contains 

revised language that changes the start 

of monitoring from July 2007 to January 

2008, such that the effective monitoring 

period is now January 2008 through 

December 2010. This rule also contains 

language that revises the Screening 

Survey time frame to match that of 

Assessment Monitoring. Thus, 

Screening Survey systems will be 

scheduled to monitor during a 

continuous 12-month period during 

January 2008 through December 2010. 

In addition, as under UCMR 1, ground 

water sampling points must be 

monitored twice in a consecutive 

12-month period. However, to provide 

PWSs with more flexibility, the final 

rule contains revised language to allow 

the second sampling event for ground 

water sampling points to occur within 

5–7 months of the first sampling event 

instead of within 6 months, as 

proposed. EPA will establish schedules 

for all systems to ensure adequate 

laboratory capacity for the analysis of 

UCMR contaminants and to improve the 

oversight of monitoring and data 

reporting. EPA will use the State 

Monitoring Plans to identify all systems 

that will participate in the UCMR 2 

program, and to identify the monitoring 

schedule for each system. 

This action also contains language 

that clarifies the definition of a 

sampling location’s source type. The 

final rule language specifies that if any 

percentage of the total water associated 

with a sampling point originates either 

from surface water or ground water 

under the direct influence of surface 

water (GWUDI) during the 12-month 

monitoring period, then that source 

should be reported as ‘‘SW’’ or ‘‘GU’’ as 

appropriate. These sampling points 

must be monitored for four consecutive 

quarters, with sample events occurring 

three months apart (e.g., a system could 

conduct monitoring in either: (1) 

January, April, July, October; (2) 

February, May, August, November; or 

(3) March, June, September, December). 

2. Summary of Major Comments 

Many commenters did not support 

EPA’s proposal to designate each PWS’s 

month and year of monitoring, 

expressing concern for budget and 

scheduling, and some specific concerns 

that the assigned schedule could 

conflict with the Initial Distribution 

System Evaluation (IDSE) that is 

required under the Stage 2 DBPR. 

Alternatives recommended by 

commenters included: setting a 

‘‘window’’ in which monitoring must be 

completed; allowing systems to conduct 

monitoring over the entire monitoring 

period; and allowing systems to set their 

own schedules. Some commenters 

recommended that EPA change the 

Screening Survey time frame to match 

that of Assessment Monitoring; others 

recommended delaying the start of the 

Screening Survey by one year. Based on 

its experience with UCMR 1, EPA has 

determined that establishing a defined 

schedule (month and year) for each 

PWS is necessary. Under UCMR 1, EPA 

did not establish Assessment 

Monitoring schedules for large systems. 

This resulted in delayed or incomplete 

monitoring for a number of large 

systems, leading to enforcement actions 

that may have been avoided had 

schedules been established. To help 

PWSs with scheduling and to provide 

additional assurance of laboratory 

capacity, the final regulation contains 

revised language that: (1) Changes the 

monitoring period for UCMR 2 from July 

2007 through June 2010 to January 2008 

through December 2010; and (2) extends 

the two-year monitoring period for the 

List 2 Screening Survey contaminants to 

three years, such that the Screening 

Survey will coincide with the three-year 

Assessment Monitoring period of 

January 2008 through December 2010. 

In addition, systems will have the 

opportunity to change their sampling 

schedules either through EPA’s 

electronic data reporting system by 

August 2, 2007, or after this date by fax, 

mail, or e-mail request to EPA. 

Some commenters indicated that 

wells may not be operating continually 

and therefore, some systems with 

ground water sources will be unable to 

meet EPA’s schedule. Some 

recommended that EPA allow systems 

to conduct the second sampling event 

within 5–7 months of the first sample, 

as was done under UCMR 1. In response 

to this recommendation, the final 

regulation contains revised language 

that extends the time frame for 

collecting the second ground water 

sample to 5–7 months following the 

collection of the first round of samples. 

For planning purposes, EPA will 

initially schedule these sampling events 

6 months apart. However, systems will 

have the flexibility to sample within a 

5–7 month window. Systems will be 

required to notify EPA if they cannot 

monitor within this 3-month window. 

Refer to Section III.J.1.c for more detail 

on the requirement for a water system 

to notify EPA if it is unable to monitor 

according to its assigned schedule. 

H. Where Are Samples Collected? 

1. Entry Points to the Distribution 

System 

a. This Rule 

This rule establishes that all UCMR 2 

samples will be collected at entry points 

to the distribution system (EPTDSs), and 

for nitrosamines, within the distribution 

system, and eliminates the option of 

source water monitoring (except for 

source water that leaves the EPTDS 

untreated). 

b. Summary of Major Comments 

Several commenters disagreed with 

EPA’s proposal to eliminate monitoring 

from ‘‘raw source water’’ samples. 

Several reasons were given, including: 

Cost savings through coordination with 

compliance monitoring; raw water 

samples would provide useful 

information for determining which 

water treatment technologies are needed 

and potential human exposure; and EPA 

allowed systems the option of sampling 

raw water or EPTDS locations under 

UCMR 1. Other alternatives suggested 

were to allow systems with multiple 

source water sampling locations to 

collect a sample from the highest risk 

source based on their Source Water 

Assessments, and to require a portion of 

large systems with surface water sources 

to conduct raw water sampling under 

Assessment Monitoring. 

In response to these comments, EPA 

notes that the UCMR design was 

established in fulfillment of the 1996 

SDWA Amendments (Section 

1445(a)(2)), which states: ‘‘The 

regulations shall require monitoring of 

drinking water supplied by public water 

systems * * *’’ The UCMR program 

was designed to collect data that would 

provide information for human 

exposure study. This is best achieved by 

conducting monitoring at the EPTDS as 

opposed to a pre-treatment sampling 

mstockstill on PROD1PC61 with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 2 / Thursday, January 4, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 379 

site. However, to provide flexibility 

during UCMR 1, systems were allowed 

to collect ‘‘raw source water’’ samples in 

those States where samples for regulated 

contaminants were collected prior to 

treatment. If a system detected any 

contaminants above the MRL (and 

treatment was subsequently applied), 

monitoring at EPTDSs was subsequently 

required. This created substantial 

confusion and errant reporting during 

UCMR 1; many systems did not fully 

understand or comply with the 

requirement to conduct the required 

EPTDS monitoring following a raw 

water detection. EPA anticipates that 

this confusion would be even more 

likely during UCMR 2 if raw water 

monitoring was allowed because of the 

anticipated occurrence rates for some 

UCMR 2 analytes. Moreover, since 

UCMR 2 methods are not used to 

support regulated contaminant 

monitoring, UCMR 2 samples cannot be 

used to meet compliance monitoring 

requirements. 

2. Distribution System Maximum 

Residence Time 

a. This Rule 

This rule requires systems that are 

participating in the Screening Survey to 

collect nitrosamine samples both at 

EPTDSs and in the distribution system 

to capture the occurrence of 

nitrosamines as disinfection byproducts. 

This rule requires systems to collect 

their nitrosamine samples at their 

distribution system maximum residence 

time (DSMRT) location(s) for each 

treatment plant/water source as defined 

in the Stage 1 DBPR. Water systems that 

do not have defined DSMRT sampling 

points in the distribution system (e.g., 

systems that do not apply a chemical 

disinfectant, wholesalers without retail 

customers) will be required to collect 

nitrosamine samples at EPTDSs only. 

b. Summary of Major Comments 

EPA requested comment on whether 

nitrosamines should be collected at both 

EPTDSs and at the DSMRT for each 

treatment plant/water source as defined 

in Stage 1 DBPR. A few commenters 

agreed that this monitoring should 

occur at both sampling locations. Some 

commenters disagreed with sampling 

finished water, saying that EPA will be 

unable to determine whether NDMA 

occurs in the source or is formed as a 

disinfection byproduct (DBP) without 

raw water data or information on the 

disinfection level at the time of sample 

collection. In addition, commenters 

pointed out that treatment can reduce 

the concentration of some contaminants. 

EPA is requiring that nitrosamine 

samples be collected at two locations to 

allow the Agency to evaluate whether 

exposure to nitrosamines is influenced 

by the distribution system. Since the 

nitrosamines may occur as source water 

contaminants and/or DBPs, monitoring 

at both the EPTDSs and DSMRTs will 

provide EPA with the range of human 

exposures to these contaminants in 

drinking water. In addition, if a 

nitrosamine is present as a result of 

reactions with the disinfectant, the 

concentration may increase the longer 

the water is in contact with that 

disinfectant. EPA plans to compare the 

aggregated concentration data from the 

two sample points to determine if there 

is a significant difference in the 

concentrations. This information will 

assist EPA in determining an 

appropriate sampling strategy if a 

decision to regulate nitrosamines is 

made after the UCMR 2 exposure 

information is available. EPA will also 

evaluate differences between systems 

using free chlorine versus chloramines 

to determine if the type of residual 

disinfectant is associated with 

nitrosamine levels. 

EPA agrees that the UCMR 2 data will 

not establish the source of nitrosamines, 

if they are present in finished water. 

However, the Agency does not agree 

that raw water data would necessarily 

establish the source of nitrosamine 

contamination. Some coagulant aid 

polymers used in drinking water 

treatment have been implicated as 

precursors of nitrosamines. The 

inability to identify the source of the 

contaminant is not limited to 

nitrosamines; it extends to all UCMR 2 

contaminants. The UCMR program was 

designed to collect data that would 

provide information for human 

exposure study. This is best achieved by 

conducting monitoring at the EPTDS as 

opposed to a pre-treatment sampling 

site because the treatment process can 

influence the concentration present in 

drinking water. 

Several public comments were 

received regarding the timing of UCMR 

2 monitoring and the completion of 

IDSEs. Commenters were concerned that 

most systems have not begun their 

IDSEs to identify the longest residence 

time in their system, and thus, DSMRT 

locations may not be available for 

nitrosamine occurrence testing. During 

UCMR 2 implementation, disinfecting 

systems will conduct monitoring at the 

Stage 1 DBPR distribution system 

sampling locations. These locations 

reflect the water system’s and Primary 

Agency’s judgment concerning areas in 

the distribution system that have the 

‘‘oldest’’ water (i.e., those locations with 

the greatest distribution system 

maximum residence times or DSMRT). 

Under the Stage 2 DBPR, systems will 

be required to conduct IDSEs to 

determine locations with representative 

high total trihalomethanes (TTHM) and 

haloacetic acids (HAA5) concentrations. 

EPA agrees that new information 

collected during the IDSE study may 

result in the water system no longer 

using the Stage 1 DSMRT sampling 

locations because other areas of the 

distribution system may have higher 

concentrations of TTHM or HAA5. 

However, EPA believes it is still 

appropriate to use the Stage 1 DSMRT 

sample locations for the UCMR 2 

monitoring because it is premature to 

link nitrosamine occurrence levels to 

TTHM and HAA5 levels. In addition, no 

water system is required to conduct 

Stage 2 compliance monitoring until 

2012, long after UCMR 2 monitoring is 

complete. 

I. How Should Samples Be Collected? 

1. This Rule 

This rule includes clarifying language 

that acetanilide parent compounds and 

their degradates must be collected at the 

same time and sampling location 

(§ 141.40(a)(4)(i)(D)). Refer to Section 

III.C.2 for a more detailed discussion of 

comments pertaining to acetanilides. 

This rule also revises system resampling 

requirements related to laboratory errors 

or sampling deviations 

(§ 141.40(a)(4)(i)(G)). Previously, 

systems were required to resample 

within 14 days of becoming aware of a 

sampling or laboratory error. Systems 

will now have 30 days to collect the 

resample. This rule also retains the 

instruction that sample collection and 

shipping take place Monday–Thursday 

to ensure that samples arrive at the 

laboratory at the required temperature. 

2. Summary of Major Comments 

EPA agreed with comments that 

recommended acetanilide parent and 

the degradation products analysis be 

conducted using samples collected in 

the same location, and at the same time, 

to provide data on their relative 

concentrations. The final regulation 

contains revised language to specify that 

acetanilide parent and degradation 

product sampling be conducted at the 

same time and at the same site. 

Several public comments were 

received indicating that a resampling 

period of 14 days is too short. Some 

made recommendations for extending 

the period to within 30 days of receiving 

written notification that a laboratory 

error had occurred or after the system 

determines that a sampling error has 

mstockstill on PROD1PC61 with RULES2

380 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 2 / Thursday, January 4, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

occurred. Others recommended up to 

two months. In response to these 

comments, EPA has included revisions 

to the final regulation requiring 

resampling to occur within 30 days of 

being informed or becoming aware of 

the sampling or laboratory error. 

Extending the resampling period 

beyond 30 days would result in a large 

number of resamples being collected in 

the next quarterly monitoring period. 

J. What Are the UCMR 2 Reporting 

Requirements? 

1. Information Required Prior to 

Monitoring 

a. Contact Information 

This rule finalizes the proposed 

requirement for water systems to report 

contact information (i.e., the name, 

affiliation, mailing address, phone 

number, fax number, and e-mail address 

of the PWS Technical Contact and PWS 

Official) to EPA. Large systems (those 

serving 10,000 or more people) must 

submit this information by April 4, 2007 

using EPA’s electronic data reporting 

system. Small systems, or States (if 

acting on their behalf) must submit this 

information within 90 days of receiving 

a letter from EPA that requests contact 

information. EPA did not receive any 

comments regarding these requirements. 

b. Sampling Location and Inventory 

Information 

i. This Rule 

This rule finalizes the proposed 

requirement for large PWSs to provide 

inventory information for each of their 

required sampling locations by August 

2, 2007 (i.e., within 210 days of final 

rule publication) using EPA’s electronic 

reporting system. For each sampling 

location, or for each approved 

representative sampling location, large 

systems must submit the following: 

public water system identification 

(PWSID) code; PWS facility 

identification code; sampling point 

identification code; sampling point type 

code; and sampling location water type. 

Any changes to these data must be 

reported to EPA’s electronic reporting 

system within 30 days of the change. 

Section III.J.3.b of this action includes a 

more detailed discussion of EPA’s 

electronic reporting system. 

ii. Summary of major comments 

Some commenters recommended that 

existing inventory information from the 

Safe Drinking Water Accession and 

Review System (SDWARS) or other 

databases, such as EPA’s Safe Drinking 

Water Information System (SDWIS), be 

used to pre-populate the database for 

UCMR 2 to reduce some of the burden 

on water systems. EPA will use the large 

system inventory that is currently stored 

in SDWARS 1 as much as possible, and 

supplement that with new entry point 

facilities from SDWIS, as well as new 

information provided by the State. 

PWSs will be responsible for verifying, 

correcting, and updating inventory 

information. PWSs will identify the 

facilities/sample points that are required 

to be sampled (i.e., all EPTDSs or 

approved representative EPTDSs 

sampling points, as well as applicable 

DSMRT sampling points). PWSs that are 

required to monitor in the distribution 

system will have the opportunity in 

SDWARS to associate the distribution 

system sample point with an entry 

point. 

c. Proposals for Representative 

Sampling Locations 

i. This Rule 

Under this action, some large systems 

that have multiple ground water 

EPTDSs can request approval to monitor 

at representative entry point(s) rather 

than at each EPTDS. Large PWSs can 

submit either documentation of 

alternate EPTDS sampling locations that 

were approved by the State or EPA for 

UCMR 1 or Phase II/V monitoring, or a 

proposal for sampling at representative 

EPTDS(s), with supporting 

documentation to demonstrate that any 

EPTDS selected as representative of the 

ground water supplied from multiple 

wells is associated with an individual 

well that draws from the same aquifer 

as the multiple wells (i.e., those being 

represented). 

ii. Summary of Major Comments 

Many commenters agreed with EPA’s 

proposal to allow ground water systems 

to use representative entry points. Some 

indicated that EPA should allow more 

flexibility in the type of data used to 

support the selection of representative 

EPTDSs. In particular, some 

commenters suggested that EPA allow 

any previously approved representative 

monitoring plans used for UCMR 1 

(including those approved by EPA) as 

appropriate documentation. 

Commenters also indicated that some 

systems may need more than 210 days 

after the publication date to prepare a 

representative well proposal and that 

EPA should extend this deadline. 

In response to comments, the final 

regulation contains revised language to 

allow PWSs to submit documentation of 

a representative well plan approved in 

previous UCMR cycles 

(§ 141.35(c)(3)(i)). However, EPA is not 

revising the rule language that lists 

examples of the types of information a 

PWS may submit to demonstrate the 

representativeness of a well 

(§ 141.35(c)(3)(ii)). The situation and 

available data will vary too widely from 

PWS to PWS for EPA to specify the 

exact data that are necessary. Further, 

EPA believes that the time frame for 

submitting representative proposals is 

reasonable and notes that systems were 

made aware of this opportunity shortly 

after the publication of the proposed 

rule. 

d. Reporting/Coordination of 

Monitoring Schedules for Large Systems 

i. This Rule 

Under UCMR 2, EPA will establish 

monitoring schedules for all 

participating systems. Large systems 

have until August 2, 2007 (i.e., 210 days 

from the publication of this final rule) 

to revise their schedule using the EPA 

electronic data reporting system. After 

August 2, 2007, if a large PWS cannot 

sample according to the required 

schedule, the PWS Official must fax, 

mail, or e-mail a request to EPA 

explaining the reason samples cannot be 

taken according to the assigned 

schedule and requesting an alternative 

schedule. This rule also contains 

revised language clarifying that the 

second set of samples from ground 

water sources may be collected any time 

within 5–7 months of the first sampling 

event without the PWS being required 

to notify EPA. 

ii. Summary of Major Comments 

Some commenters recommended that 

the 210-day deadline for submitting a 

revised monitoring schedule be 

removed and systems be allowed to 

conduct monitoring at any time during 

the entire three-year time frame. 

Commenters indicated that the deadline 

would limit a water system’s ability to 

coordinate its monitoring schedule with 

a contract laboratory’s analytical 

capacity, and would result in an 

increased likelihood of monitoring and 

reporting violations due to operational 

failures beyond the water system’s 

control. As discussed in Section III.J.1.d 

of this preamble, EPA will establish a 

defined schedule (month and year) for 

each PWS. During the 210-day period 

following publication of the final 

regulation (i.e., August 2, 2007), a PWS 

can simply revise its schedule using the 

EPA electronic data reporting system. 

Barring a serious problem with large 

numbers of PWSs wanting to change 

their scheduled monitoring to the same 

time frame, EPA will honor all of these 

requests. After August 2, 2007, a PWS 

may request that its schedule be 

changed; however, unlike the first 210- 

day period, the PWS will need to 

mstockstill on PROD1PC61 with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 2 / Thursday, January 4, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 381 

explain its rationale for the requested 

change. Budgetary issues or well 

closings are examples of problems that 

will be considered legitimate reasons for 

schedule changes. A system is subject to 

its original assigned sampling schedule 

or its modified schedule established 

prior to August 2, 2007 via EPA’s 

electronic data reporting system, unless 

and until it receives notification from 

EPA specifying a new schedule. 

To help PWSs with scheduling and to 

provide additional assurance of 

laboratory capacity, the final regulation 

contains revised language that: 

(1)Changes the monitoring period for 

UCMR 2 from July 2007 through June 

2010 to January 2008 through December 

2010; and (2) extends the two-year 

monitoring period for the List 2 

Screening Survey contaminants to three 

years, such that the Screening Survey 

will coincide with the three-year 

Assessment Monitoring period of 

January 2008 through December 2010. 

In addition, because of the logistical 

issues associated with sampling for 

UCMR 2 (e.g., seasonal operation of 

some wells), the final regulation also 

contains revised language that extends 

the time frame for collecting the second 

ground water sample to 5–7 months 

following the collection of the first 

round of samples. This will allow 

systems that have multiple sampling 

points to schedule the second sampling 

event across the 5–7 month window. 

However, for planning purposes, EPA 

will preliminarily schedule these 

sampling events 6 months apart. 

e. Notice regarding applicability or 

inability to meet sampling schedule 

i. This Rule 

This rule includes system reporting 

requirements to ensure communication 

between PWSs and EPA regarding rule 

applicability and compliance. These 

requirements include: reporting changes 

in system status or other factors that 

affect a system’s requirements under the 

rule (e.g., a system believes it does not 

meet the applicability criteria for 

UCMR); notifying EPA if a system 

believes it is subject to UCMR 

requirements but has not been notified 

by either EPA or the State regarding 

requirements; and reporting to EPA if a 

system cannot sample according to its 

assigned schedule. The final regulation 

at § 141.35(c)(5) contains revised 

language to clarify that systems 

collecting samples from ground water 

sources can collect their second set of 

samples within the 5–7 months of the 

first sampling event. 

ii. Summary of Major Comments 

Some commenters suggested that EPA 

develop a list of acceptable reasons for 

not monitoring from a source to 

eliminate the need for systems to notify 

EPA. EPA believes that it is impractical 

to develop an exhaustive list. It is 

important that EPA be notified of any 

reason that a scheduled sampling event 

will be missed to allow for effective 

coordination of compliance assistance 

and enforcement actions. 

2. Reporting of Required Data Elements 

a. This Rule 

This rule specifies 15 data elements in 

§ 141.35(e), Table 1, to be reported with 

UCMR 2 sample test results. In this 

table, EPA is providing clarifying 

language to the following four data 

elements: Water Source Type (data 

element #3); Sampling Point 

Identification Code (data element #4); 

Sampling Point Type Code (data 

element #5); and Disinfectant Residual 

Type (data element #6). EPA received 

comments on Sample Analysis Type 

(data element #11) and Sample Event 

Code (data element #15) but did not 

revise these data elements in this action. 

b. Summary of Major Comments 

Comments were received questioning 

whether systems would be required to 

report source water changes that occur 

throughout the 12-month monitoring 

period or only those that occur between 

sampling events. To simplify UCMR 2 

reporting, the definition of ‘‘Water 

Source Type’’ (data element #3) 

contains revised language specifying 

that if any percentage of the total water 

associated with that sampling point 

originates either from surface water or 

GWUDI source during the 12-month 

monitoring period, then that source 

should be reported as ‘‘SW’’ or ‘‘GU’’ as 

appropriate. If a sampling point is 

served by both a surface water and 

GWUDI source during the 12-month 

monitoring period, then that source 

should be reported as SW (i.e., SW takes 

precedence over GU in the hierarchy of 

source water reporting). The only time 

that a source is to be considered ground 

water is if 100 percent of the water 

associated with that sampling point is 

from a ground water source during the 

entire 12-month monitoring period. By 

defining a sampling point source over 

the entire 12-month monitoring period, 

many instances where a system would 

otherwise need to report a change in its 

source to EPA will be eliminated. 

Some commenters indicated that 

definitions for Sampling Point 

Identification Code (data element #4), 

and Sampling Point Type Identification 

Code (data element #5), seem 

redundant. In response to comments, 

the final regulation contains revised 

language changing the name of data 

element #5 to ‘‘Sampling Point Type 

Code’’ and clarifying the definitions of 

these two data elements. 

Some commenters recommended that 

EPA clarify the definition of 

‘‘Disinfectant Residual Type’’ (data 

element #6) because some systems may 

periodically use an alternate 

disinfectant. EPA’s intent in the 

proposed rule language was that PWSs 

would report the type of disinfectant 

used at the time of each specific 

sampling event. In response to this 

comment, the final rule contains revised 

language to Table 1 of § 141.35(e) to 

clarify this point. 

Some commenters expressed concern 

that EPA will create inconsistencies in 

water system and laboratory databases 

by retaining the name ‘‘Sample 

Analyses Type’’ from UCMR 1 but 

changing the codes associated with it. 

EPA revised the codes associated with 

this data element (#11) to better reflect 

the type of sample collected. The values 

that laboratories used previously proved 

to be problematic, since laboratories did 

not have enough information about the 

PWS’s treatment systems or sample 

locations to assign the correct sample 

analysis type. Instead, EPA proposed 

and is finalizing in this rule codes that 

will provide EPA with QC information 

at the field sample level and with 

information about which UCMR field 

sample was fortified. 

3. Reporting Process 

a. Where to Report 

This rule specifies in § 141.35(b)(1) 

the Web address for information that 

must be submitted electronically as: 

http://www.epa.gov/safewater/ucmr/ 

ucmr2/reporting.html. This paragraph of 

the final rule also specifies that 

supporting documentation can be 

submitted to: UCMR Sampling 

Coordinator, USEPA, Technical Support 

Center, 26 West Martin Luther King 

Drive (MS 140), Cincinnati, OH 45268; 

or by e-mail at 

UCMR_Sampling_Coordinator@epa.gov; 

or by fax at (513) 569–7191. EPA did not 

receive any comments related to this 

aspect of the rule. 

b. Electronic Reporting System 

i. This Rule 

EPA’s electronic data reporting 

system—called SDWARS, which can be 

accessed on the Web at: http:// 

www.epa.gov/safewater/ucmr/ucmr2/ 

reporting.html—is the primary portal for 

PWSs and laboratories to submit contact 

mstockstill on PROD1PC61 with RULES2

382 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 2 / Thursday, January 4, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

and inventory information to EPA. The 

UCMR program requires that all 

monitoring results and associated data 

elements be reported using this system. 

There were no changes between the 

proposed and final rule language 

regarding this data reporting system. 

The data review and approval process is 

discussed in Section III.J.3.c. 

ii. Summary of Major Comments 

EPA received several 

recommendations to provide more 

information and guidance related to 

PWS and laboratory use of its electronic 

data reporting system. In addition, 

several commenters requested that EPA 

pre-populate the UCMR 2 database with 

contact and inventory information that 

was collected under UCMR 1, or that it 

be easily accessible through EPA’s 

SDWIS database. 

EPA is not pre-populating the 

SDWARS 2 database with PWS contact 

information for two reasons. First, the 

data that EPA currently has on file are 

several years old and EPA is aware that 

many changes in contact information 

are necessary. Second, EPA will use a 

PWS’s entry of this information into 

SDWARS to confirm that the system has 

successfully set up its SDWARS 

account. However, EPA will upload all 

inventory information that it has 

available (i.e., PWS identification code; 

PWS facility identification code; 

sampling point identification code; 

sampling point type code; and sampling 

location water type). PWSs will be 

responsible for verifying, correcting, and 

updating inventory information, as 

needed. In addition, EPA is finalizing 

the specific process for the upload of 

monitoring results and will release the 

details of the process and upload files 

as far ahead of the start of monitoring as 

possible. 

Some comments were received 

expressing concern about the stability of 

the UCMR 1/SDWARS 1 database, 

claiming that data was lost which 

caused unnecessary notices of violation 

to be issued. Comments suggested that 

reminder letters/notices for compliance 

assistance would be more effective. 

Other comments were received 

suggesting that, to minimize confusion, 

PWSs have the option to report using 

the process they already use to report to 

their States, and States would then 

report to EPA. 

EPA is not aware of any cases in 

which SDWARS lost data. In general, 

where data appeared to be lost, closer 

review revealed other reasons for the 

problem, including various situations 

that resulted in data that was not 

officially ‘‘approved’’ or data transfer 

errors by laboratories that caused 

SDWARS to reject all or parts of files. 

When developing UCMR 1 and the 

overall UCMR program, EPA was 

concerned about the problem of 

transcription errors in data reporting. 

Therefore, EPA designed SDWARS such 

that the originator (i.e., the laboratory 

that performed the analysis) was 

responsible for entering the data into the 

database. 

c. Data Review and Approval Process/ 

Timeline 

i. This Rule 

This rule requires large systems to 

ensure that their laboratory posts the 

data in EPA’s electronic data reporting 

system (http://www.epa.gov/safewater/ 

ucmr/ucmr2/reporting.html) within 120 

days from the sample collection date. 

Large systems then have 60 days from 

when the laboratory posts the data in 

EPA’s electronic data reporting system 

to review, approve, and submit the data 

to the State and EPA via the EPA 

electronic reporting system. If systems 

do not take action on the data within 60 

days of the laboratory’s posting to the 

electronic reporting system, the data 

will be considered approved by the 

system, and available for EPA review, 

and subsequent public release. 

Because EPA pays for and organizes 

the small system testing program, the 

review and approval steps for small 

systems differ. Small systems are only 

required to record system and sample 

location information on the sampling 

forms and bottles that are sent to them 

by the UCMR Sampling Coordinator. 

Procedures for submitting this 

information will be specified in the 

instructions sent to the system. Small 

systems are not required to review 

monitoring results, although they will 

be given a 60-day opportunity to review 

such results prior to their results being 

posted to the publicly available Web 

site. 

ii. Summary of Major Comments 

Several commenters expressed that 

PWSs could not be held responsible for 

laboratory compliance with the UCMR 2 

reporting requirements. Section 

141.35(c)(6)(ii) specifies that PWSs must 

ensure that their laboratories post the 

required data to the electronic database 

within 120 days of sampling. PWSs 

have the responsibility to require that 

their laboratory meets this reporting 

deadline and PWSs are ultimately 

responsible for ensuring the quality of 

their data. 

Regarding compliance with review 

and approval timelines, commenters 

also were concerned that unnecessary 

enforcement notices were issued during 

UCMR 1 often because PWSs had not 

correctly processed and approved data 

through SDWARS. Several commenters 

recommended that reminder notices 

would help to ensure reporting 

compliance during UCMR 2 and reduce 

the need for enforcement actions. Other 

commenters were concerned about 

laboratory capacity and the ability of a 

limited number of approved laboratories 

to successfully conduct analyses and 

reporting within the required time 

frames. 

EPA is currently in the final stages of 

developing the SDWARS electronic data 

entry system for entry of UCMR 2 

monitoring results and is including an 

automatic e-mail system that will alert 

PWSs that data was entered by the 

laboratory, thereby reminding PWSs 

that they need to review and approve 

their monitoring data. 

4. Cross-Media Reporting and Data 

Availability 

a. Cross-Media Electronic Reporting 

The reporting required under this 

final rule is consistent with the 

requirements of the October 13, 2005, 

regulation, ‘‘Cross-Media Electronic 

Reporting’’ (70 FR 59847, (USEPA, 

2005b)). 

b. Data Availability 

The data collected through the UCMR 

program is being stored in NCOD to 

facilitate analysis and review of 

contaminant occurrence; to guide the 

conduct of the CCL process; and to 

support the Administrator’s 

determination to regulate a contaminant 

in the interest of protecting public 

health, as required under SDWA Section 

1412(b)(1). Results of the UCMR 1 

monitoring can be viewed by the public 

at EPA’s UCMR Web site: http:// 

www.epa.gov/safewater/ucmr/ 

data.html. 

K. What Constitutes a Violation Under 

UCMR 2? 

Under this rule, EPA will finalize the 

definitions for monitoring and reporting 

violations as proposed. A monitoring 

violation under UCMR 2 is defined as: 

‘‘Any failure to monitor in accordance 

with §§ 141.40(a)(3)–(5) is a monitoring 

violation.’’ A reporting violation is 

defined as: ‘‘Any failure to report in 

accordance with § 141.35 is a reporting 

violation.’’ EPA did not receive any 

comments related to these violation 

definitions. 

L. Technical Correction Rule Changes in 

This Rule 

This rule includes two technical 

corrections pertaining to: Aldicarb 

monitoring and State primacy. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC61 with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 2 / Thursday, January 4, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 383 

1. Changes Pertaining to Aldicarb 

Monitoring 

When EPA published ‘‘Revisions to 

the Unregulated Contaminant 

Monitoring Regulation for Public Water 

Systems; Final Rule,’’ on September 17, 

1999 (64 FR 50556, (USEPA, 1999)), two 

references to § 141.40 in § 141.24 

became obsolete, but were not corrected 

in the 1999 rule. EPA is correcting this 

technical error by revising the 

references to requirements for 

monitoring for aldicarb, aldicarb 

sulfone, and aldicarb sulfoxide in 

§ 141.24(h) and § 141.24(h)(7)(v). EPA 

suspended monitoring for these 

regulated contaminants in a 1992 

Federal Register notice (57 FR 22178, 

May 27, 1992 (USEPA, 1992)), and there 

are no monitoring requirements for 

these contaminants under UCMR. 

2. Changes Pertaining to State Primacy 

Section 553 of the Administrative 

Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), 

provides that, when an agency for good 

cause finds that notice and public 

procedure are impracticable, 

unnecessary or contrary to the public 

interest, the agency may issue a rule 

without providing prior notice and an 

opportunity for public comment. In 

today’s final rule, EPA is removing the 

reference to § 141.40 in § 142.16(e), a 

portion in the Code of Federal 

Regulations (CFR) that enumerates the 

sections of the CRF subject to State 

primacy. The reference was first 

removed on September 17, 1999 (64 FR 

50556, (USEPA, 1999)), when EPA 

published ‘‘Revisions to the 

Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring 

Regulation for Public Water Systems; 

Final Rule.’’ However, in EPA’s 

subsequent publication of the ‘‘Arsenic 

and Clarifications to Compliance and 

New Source Contaminants Monitoring 

Final Rule’’ (66 FR 6975, January 22, 

2001, (USEPA, 2001b)), the Agency 

inadvertently reinserted the reference to 

§ 141.40 in § 142.16(e). EPA has 

determined that there is good cause for 

making this rule change final without 

prior proposal and opportunity for 

comment because removal of this 

reference was the product of a prior 

notice-and-comment rulemaking, (see 

64 FR 50556, (USEPA, 1999)) and 

because the reference to UCMR 

monitoring is erroneous and no longer 

has any substantive effect. Thus, notice 

and public procedure are unnecessary. 

EPA finds that this constitutes ‘‘good 

cause’’ under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B). For the 

same reasons, EPA is making this rule 

change effective upon publication. 

IV. State and Tribal Participation 

A. Partnership Agreements 

1. This Rule 

Under UCMR 2, States may continue 

to have a role in rule implementation 

through Partnership Agreements (PAs). 

Because specific activities for individual 

States are identified and established 

through the PAs, not through rule 

language, this rule does not contain 

reference to PAs. 

2. Summary of Major Comments 

Comments received regarding State 

participation in UCMR 2 

included:Recommendations that nonpartnering States have an opportunity to 

review State Monitoring Plans; concerns 

regarding State resources to help 

implement UCMR 2; and the need for 

more guidance from EPA regarding PAs, 

including the need for a template for the 

sampling protocols for States to use as 

the basis for their water system 

notification. EPA sent the draft State 

Monitoring Plans to all States prior to 

the negotiation of PAs. All States that 

agreed to partner with EPA were asked 

to review and provide any needed 

revisions to the draft plan. Each State 

could agree to accept additional 

responsibilities as documented through 

each State’s final PA with EPA. In 

addition, EPA will provide States with 

guidance and templates for small system 

instructions. 

B. Governors’ Petition and State-Wide 

Waivers 

This rule retains the UCMR 1 

language that, consistent with SDWA, 

allows a minimum of seven State 

Governors to petition EPA to add 

contaminants to the UCMR Contaminant 

list. This rule also retains the UCMR 1 

language that allows States to waive 

monitoring requirements with EPA 

approval and under very limited 

conditions. EPA did not receive any 

comments on either of these topics. 

V. Cost and Benefits of This Rule 

In this rule, EPA finalized a new set 

of contaminants for monitoring in the 

second five-year UCMR cycle of 2007—

2011. UCMR 2 Assessment Monitoring 

(for List 1 contaminants) will be 

conducted from January 2008 through 

December 2010 by 800 systems serving 

10,000 or fewer, and by all systems 

serving more than 10,000 people. The 

Screening Survey for List 2 

contaminants will also be conducted 

from January 2008 through December 

2010 by 800 systems serving 100,000 or 

fewer, and all systems serving more 

than 100,000 (approximately 400 

systems). Small systems (those serving 

10,000 or fewer people) will not be 

subject to more than one component of 

UCMR 2 monitoring. For cost estimation 

purposes, EPA assumes that one-third of 

systems will monitor during each of the 

three monitoring years (2008–2010). 

Labor costs pertain to systems, States, 

and EPA. They include activities such 

as reading the regulation, notifying 

systems selected to participate, sample 

collection, data review, reporting, and 

recordkeeping. Non-labor costs will be 

incurred primarily by EPA and by large 

PWSs. They include the cost of shipping 

samples to laboratories for testing and 

the cost of the actual laboratory 

analyses. 

In this rule, EPA specified five 

analytical methods to monitor for 25 

new UCMR contaminants. Estimated 

system and EPA costs are based on the 

projected analytical costs for these 

methods. With the exception of Method 

525.2, these methods are comparatively 

new and will not coincide with other 

compliance monitoring (e.g., no cost 

savings for coincident monitoring can 

be realized). Laboratory analysis and 

shipping of samples account for 

approximately 71 percent of the 

national cost for UCMR 2 

implementation. These costs are 

calculated as follows: The number of 

systems, multiplied by the number of 

sampling locations, multiplied by the 

sampling frequency, multiplied by the 

cost of laboratory analysis. Under 

UCMR 2, surface water (and GWUDI) 

sampling points will be monitored four 

times during the applicable year of 

monitoring, and ground water sampling 

points will be monitored twice during 

the applicable year of monitoring. 

Screening Survey systems that are 

required to monitor for DBPs will be 

required to sample for nitrosamines at 

one distribution system sampling point 

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

as well as their EPTDS sampling 

locations. 

Following publication of the proposed 

rule, and EPA’s initial cost and burden 

estimates, EPA received several costrelated public comments. Several public 

commenters felt that EPA’s estimates of 

cost and burden (e.g., laboratory, 

shipping fees and estimated labor 

burden) to PWSs were too low. 

During the proposed rule and 

Information Collection Requirement 

(ICR) development, EPA estimated 

laboratory fees based on consultations 

with several national drinking water 

laboratories and based on costs of 

similar analytical methods. In response 

to comments, EPA revisited the 

estimates of UCMR 2 method pricing. 

EPA approached three additional 

national drinking water laboratories 

mstockstill on PROD1PC61 with RULES2

384 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 2 / Thursday, January 4, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

(different than those consulted 

previously) and requested pricing 

estimates for UCMR 2 methods. EPA 

averaged the pricing estimates from the 

laboratories that were consulted into the 

cost estimates. EPA also revisited key 

shipping company pricing lists to 

ensure that shipping cost assumptions 

were as accurate as possible. 

With respect to per system burden 

estimates, EPA notes that all burden 

estimates represent average burden 

hours, which include surface water 

systems that may have very few 

sampling points, and thus lower 

sampling burden, as well as those 

systems with higher numbers of 

sampling points that would therefore 

have greater sampling activity labor 

burden. Moreover, a system’s burden is 

primarily incurred during its one year of 

required UCMR monitoring (between 

January 2008 and December 2010). 

However, in compliance with the 

requirements of the Paperwork 

Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), 

these cost and burden estimates are 

presented as an average over the 

applicable three-year ICR period (2007–

2009). Small systems (those serving 

10,000 or fewer people) will have the 

lowest burden not only because of the 

relative smaller size of their 

infrastructure, but also because these 

systems will receive a great deal of 

direct assistance from EPA and/or their 

State. 

EPA estimates of laboratory fees are 

based on the average cost determined 

through consultations with national 

drinking water laboratories, unit costs 

are as follows: 

Assessment Monitoring (List 1): 

EPA Method 527 (for 7 contaminants) ............................ $220 

EPA Method 529 (for 3 contaminants) ............................ 215 

Total List 1 ....................... 435 

Screening Survey (List 2): 

EPA Method 521 (for 6 contaminants) ............................ 310 

EPA Method 535 (for 6 contaminants) ............................ 370 

EPA Method 525.2 (for 3 contaminants) ............................ 190 

Total List 2 ....................... 870 

Shipping is added to the calculated 

costs to derive the total direct analytical 

non-labor costs. Estimated shipping 

costs were based on the average cost of 

shipping a 15-pound package overnight, 

plus a ground shipment cost of the 

empty package which is sent to the 

PWSs prior to their required sampling. 

In preparing the UCMR 2 ICR, EPA 

relied on standard assumptions and data 

sources used in the preparation of other 

drinking water program ICRs. These 

include the PWS inventory, number of 

sampling points per system, and labor 

rates. EPA expects that States will incur 

only labor costs associated with UCMR 

2 implementation. State costs were 

estimated using the relevant modules of 

the State Resource Model that was 

recently developed by the Association 

of State Drinking Water Administrators 

(ASDWA) in conjunction with EPA 

(ASDWA, 2003) to help States forecast 

resource needs. Model estimates were 

adjusted to account for actual levels of 

State participation under UCMR 1. 

Because State participation is 

determined through the PAs, level of 

effort will vary across States and depend 

on their individual agreements with 

EPA. 

Over the UCMR 2 cycle of 2007–2011, 

EPA estimates that nationwide, the 

average annual cost of UCMR 2 is 

approximately $8.87 million. These 

total estimated annual costs and total 

estimated costs (labor and non-labor) are 

incurred as follows: 

Respondent 

Average 

annual cost for 

all respondents 

(2007–2011) 

Total 

estimated 

costs for all respondents 

(2007–2011) 

Small Systems serving 25—10,000, including labor only (non-labor costs are paid for by EPA) ......................... $0.06 m $0.30 

Large Systems serving 10,001—100,000, including labor and non-labor costs .................................................... 3.84 m 19.20 

Large Systems serving 100,001 and greater, including labor and non-labor costs ............................................... 1.91 m 9.55 

States, including labor costs related to implementation coordination ..................................................................... 0.49 m 2.45 

EPA, including labor for implementation coordination and non-labor for small system testing ............................. 2.57 m 12.85 

National Total ................................................................................................................................................... 8.87 m 44.35 

Additional details regarding EPA’s 

cost assumptions and estimates can be 

found in the ICR Number 2192.01 

amendment prepared for the final rule 

(OMB number 2040–0270), which 

presents estimated cost and burden for 

the 2007–2009 monitoring period. 

Estimates of costs over the entire second 

five-year UCMR cycle of 2007–2011 are 

attached as an appendix to the ICR. 

Copies of the ICR and its amendment 

may be obtained from the EPA public 

docket for this rule, which includes this 

ICR, under Docket ID Number OW–

2004–0001. 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

Under Executive Order (EO) 12866 

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

action is a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action.’’ Accordingly, EPA submitted 

this action to the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) for review under EO 

12866 and any changes made in 

response to OMB recommendations 

have been documented in the docket for 

this action. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

OMB has approved the information 

collection requirements contained in 

this rule under the provisions of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 

3501 et seq. and has assigned OMB 

control number 2040–0270. 

The information to be collected under 

this rule fulfills the statutory 

requirements of Section 1445(a)(2) of 

SDWA, as amended in 1996. The data 

to be collected will describe the source 

of the water, location, and test results 

for samples taken from PWSs. The 

concentrations of any identified UCMR 

contaminants will be evaluated with 

respect to health effects and those 

contaminants will be considered for 

future regulation accordingly. Reporting 

is mandatory. The data are not subject 

to confidentiality protection. 

The annual burden and cost estimates 

described below are for the 

implementation assumptions described 

in Section V, Cost and Benefits of the 

Rule, of this action. Respondents to the 

mstockstill on PROD1PC61 with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 2 / Thursday, January 4, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 385 

UCMR 2 will include 1,280 small water 

systems (those serving 10,000 or fewer 

people; 800 for Assessment Monitoring 

and 480 for Screening Survey 

monitoring), the 3,633 large PWSs 

(those serving more than 10,000 people), 

and the 56 States and primacy agencies 

(4,969 total respondents). The frequency 

of response varies across respondents 

and years. System costs (particularly 

laboratory analytical costs) vary 

depending on the number of sampling 

locations. Cost estimates assumes that 

most Assessment Monitoring and 

Screening Survey systems will conduct 

sampling evenly across the January 

2008–December 2010 monitoring period 

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

consecutive 12-month periods). Because 

the applicable ICR period is 2007–2009, 

only two years of core monitoring 

activity are captured in the ICR 

estimates. Some rule preparation, 

including reporting of contact and 

inventory information, will occur 

during 2007. 

Small systems (those serving 10,000 

or fewer) that are selected for UCMR 2 

monitoring will sample an average of 

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

responses per system) across the threeyear ICR period of 2007–2009. The 

average burden per response for small 

systems is estimated to be 3.5 hours. 

Large systems serving 10,001 to 100,000 

people and large systems serving more 

than 100,000 people will sample and 

report an average of 2.0 and 2.4 times 

per system, respectively, across the 

three-year ICR period of 2007–2009. The 

average burdens per response for these 

two categories of large systems are 

estimated to be 9.8 and 15.2 hours, 

respectively. The larger burden per 

response for the largest systems reflects 

the fact that these systems typically 

have more sampling locations. States are 

assumed to have an average of 1.0 

response per year, related to 

coordination with EPA and systems, 

with an average burden per response of 

203.2 hours. In aggregate, during the ICR 

period of 2007–2009, the average 

response (including responses from both 

systems and States) is associated with a 

burden of 12.1 hours, with a labor plus 

non-labor cost of $2,170 per response. 

The annual average per respondent 

burden hours and costs for the ICR 

period of 2007–2009 are: small 

systems—2.1 hour burden at $57 for 

labor; large systems serving 10,001 to 

100,000—6.6 hours at $197 for labor, 

and $1,651 for analytical costs; large 

systems serving more than 100,000—

12.1 hours at $431 for labor, and $4,840 

for analytical costs; and States—203.2 

hours at $11,107 for labor. Annual 

average burden and cost per respondent 

(including both systems and States) is 

estimated to be 8.1 hours, with a labor 

plus non-labor cost of $1,456 per 

respondent. Note that small systems do 

not pay for testing costs, so they only 

incur labor costs. The total annual 

burden for the ICR reporting period of 

2007–2009 is 40,386 hours (with a labor 

cost of $1.51 million); the total annual 

analytical cost is $5.73 million. 

The Agency estimates the annual 

burden to EPA for UCMR program 

activities during the ICR years of 2007–

2009 to be approximately 9,533 hours, 

at an annual labor cost of $0.66 million. 

EPA’s annual non-labor costs are 

estimated to be $2.3 million. EPA’s nonlabor costs are primarily attributed to 

the cost of sample analysis for small 

systems (analysis is just under 90 

percent of non-labor cost). 

Burden means the total time, effort, or 

financial resources expended by persons 

to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose 

or provide information to or for a 

Federal agency. This includes the time 

needed to review instructions; develop, 

acquire, install, and utilize technology 

and systems for the purposes of 

collecting, validating, and verifying 

information, processing and 

maintaining information, and disclosing 

and providing information; adjust the 

existing ways to comply with any 

previously applicable instructions and 

requirements; train personnel to be able 

to respond to a collection of 

information; search data sources; 

complete and review the collection of 

information; and transmit or otherwise 

disclose the information. 

An agency may not conduct or 

sponsor, and a person is not required to 

respond to a collection of information 

unless it displays a currently valid OMB 

control number. The OMB control 

numbers for EPA’s regulations in 40 

CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. In 

addition, EPA is amending the table in 

40 CFR part 9 of currently approved 

OMB control numbers for various 

regulations to list the regulatory 

citations for the information 

requirements contained in this final 

rule. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

generally requires an agency to prepare 

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any 

rule subject to notice and comment 

rulemaking requirements under the 

Administrative Procedure Act or any 

other statute unless the agency certifies 

that the rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. Small entities 

include small businesses, small 

organizations, and small governmental 

jurisdictions. 

The RFA provides default definitions 

for each type of small entity. Small 

entities are defined as: (1) A small 

business as defined by the Small 

Business Administration’s (SBA) 

regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a 

small governmental jurisdiction that is a 

government of a city, county, town, 

school district or special district with a 

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

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

owned and operated and is not 

dominant in its field.’’ However, the 

RFA also authorizes an agency to use 

alternative definitions for each category 

of small entity, ‘‘which are appropriate 

to the activities of the agency’’ after 

proposing the alternative definition(s) in 

the Federal Register and taking 

comment (5 U.S.C. 601(3)–(5)). In 

addition, to establish an alternative 

small business definition, agencies must 

consult with SBA’s Chief Counsel for 

Advocacy. 

For purposes of assessing the impacts 

of this final rule on small entities, EPA 

considered small entities to be PWSs 

serving 10,000 or fewer people, because 

this is the system size specified in 

SDWA as requiring special 

consideration with respect to small 

system flexibility. As required by the 

RFA, EPA proposed using this 

alternative definition in the Federal 

Register (63 FR 7605, February 13, 1998 

(USEPA, 1998a)), requested public 

comment, consulted with the SBA, and 

finalized the alternative definition in 

the Consumer Confidence Reports 

rulemaking (63 FR 44511, August 19, 

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

Final Rule, the alternative definition is 

applied to this regulation as well. 

After considering the economic 

impacts of this final rule on small 

entities, I certify that this action will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

The small entities directly regulated by 

this final rule are a subset of small 

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

fewer people. We have determined that 

the 1,280 small PWSs required to 

participate in either the Assessment 

Monitoring or Screening Survey 

components of UCMR 2 will experience 

an average cost of $43 per year; the 

remainder of small systems are not 

subject to this final rule. 

Although this final rule will not have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities, 

EPA nonetheless has tried to reduce the 

impact of this rule on small entities. As 

required by SDWA, the Agency 

mstockstill on PROD1PC61 with RULES2

386 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 2 / Thursday, January 4, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

specifically structured the rule to avoid 

significantly affecting small entities by 

assuming all costs for laboratory 

analyses, shipping, and QC for small 

entities. As a result, EPA incurs the 

entirety of the non-labor costs 

associated with UCMR 2 small system 

monitoring. With its authority to use 

monies from the Drinking Water State 

Revolving Fund (DWSRF) for the 

purposes of implementing this 

provision of SDWA, EPA has set aside 

$2.0 million each year to apply towards 

these costs. Small system costs are 

limited to the additional labor required 

for reading about their requirements, 

monitoring, reporting, and 

recordkeeping. The estimated average 

annual burden across the five-year 

UCMR 2 cycle of 2007–2011 is 

estimated to be 1.5 hours at $43 per 

small system. These costs for small 

systems are discussed in Section 6(a)(i) 

of the ICR document, available on the 

EPA public docket for this rule, under 

Docket ID Number OW–2004–0001 at 

http://www.regulations.gov. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public 

Law 104–4, establishes requirements for 

Federal agencies to assess the effects of 

their regulatory actions on State, local, 

and Tribal governments and the private 

sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, 

EPA generally must prepare a written 

statement, including a cost-benefit 

analysis, for proposed and final rules 

with ‘‘Federal mandates’’ that may 

result in expenditures to State, local, 

and Tribal governments, in the 

aggregate, or to the private sector, of 

$100 million or more in any one year. 

Before promulgating an EPA rule for 

which a written statement is needed, 

section 205 of the UMRA generally 

requires EPA to identify and consider a 

reasonable number of regulatory 

alternatives and adopt the least costly, 

most cost-effective, or least burdensome 

alternative that achieves the objectives 

of the rule. The provisions of section 

205 do not apply when they are 

inconsistent with applicable law. 

Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to 

adopt an alternative other than the least 

costly, most cost-effective, or least 

burdensome alternative if the 

Administrator publishes with the final 

rule an explanation of why that 

alternative was not adopted. Before EPA 

establishes any regulatory requirements 

that may significantly or uniquely affect 

small governments, including Tribal 

governments, it must have developed 

under section 203 of the UMRA a small 

government agency plan. The plan must 

provide for notifying potentially 

affected small governments, enabling 

officials of affected small governments 

to have meaningful and timely input in 

the development of EPA regulatory 

proposals with significant Federal 

intergovernmental mandates, and 

informing, educating, and advising 

small governments on compliance with 

the regulatory requirements. 

EPA has determined that this rule 

does not contain a Federal mandate that 

may result in expenditures of $100 

million or more for State, local, and 

tribal governments, in the aggregate, or 

the private sector in any one year. Total 

annual costs of this final rule (across the 

UCMR 2 cycle of 2007–2011), for State, 

local, and Tribal governments and the 

private sector, are estimated to be $8.86 

million, of which EPA will pay $2.57 

million, or approximately 29 percent. 

Thus, this rule is not subject to the 

requirements of sections 202 and 205 of 

the UMRA. 

EPA has determined that this rule 

contains no regulatory requirements that 

might significantly or uniquely affect 

small governments. The Agency will 

pay for the reasonable costs of sample 

analysis for the small PWSs required to 

monitor for unregulated contaminants 

under this final rule, including those 

owned and operated by small 

governments. The only costs that small 

systems will incur are those attributed 

to collecting the UCMR samples and 

packing them for shipping to the 

laboratory (EPA will pay for shipping). 

These costs are minimal. They are not 

significant or unique. Thus, this rule is 

not subject to the requirements of 

UMRA section 203. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

Executive Order 13132, entitled 

‘‘Federalism’’ (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999), requires EPA to develop an 

accountable process to ensure 

‘‘meaningful and timely input by State 

and local officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have federalism 

implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have 

federalism implications’’ is defined in 

the Executive Order to include 

regulations that 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.’’

This final rule does not have 

Federalism implications. It will not 

have substantial direct effects on the 

States, on the relationship between the 

national government and the States, or 

on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132. 

The cost to State and local 

governments is minimal, and the rule 

does not preempt State law. Thus, 

Executive Order 13132 does not apply 

to this rule. In the spirit of Executive 

Order 13132, and consistent with EPA 

policy to promote communications 

between EPA and State and local 

governments, EPA specifically solicited 

comment on the proposed rule from 

State and local officials. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

Executive Order 13175, entitled 

‘‘Consultation and Coordination with 

Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR 

67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA 

to develop an accountable process to 

ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by 

tribal officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have tribal 

implications.’’

This final rule does not have Tribal 

implications, as specified in Executive 

Order 13175. It will neither impose 

substantial direct compliance costs on 

Tribal governments, nor preempt Tribal 

law. This final rule also requires 

monitoring by a nationally 

representative sample of small systems 

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

people). EPA estimates that 

approximately one percent of small 

Tribal systems will be selected as part 

of such sample. EPA estimates the 

average annual cost over the five-year 

rule period to be $43, based on the labor 

associated with collecting a sample and 

preparing it for shipping. All other 

small-system expenses (associated with 

shipping and laboratory fees) are paid 

by EPA. 

EPA consulted with Tribal officials 

early in the process of developing the 

UCMR program to permit them to have 

meaningful and timely input into its 

development. In developing the original 

UCMR, EPA held stakeholder meetings 

and prepared background information 

for stakeholder review. EPA sent 

requests for review of stakeholder 

documents to nearly 400 Tribes, Tribal 

organizations, and small systems 

organizations to obtain their input. 

Representatives from the Indian Health 

Service (IHS) Sanitary Deficiency 

System and Tribes were consulted 

regarding decisions on rule design, the 

design for the statistical selection of 

small systems, and potential costs. 

Tribes raised issues concerning the 

selection of the nationally 

representative sample of small systems, 

particularly the manner in which Tribal 

systems would be considered under the 

sample selection process. EPA 

developed the sample frame for Tribal 

mstockstill on PROD1PC61 with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 2 / Thursday, January 4, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 387 

systems and Alaska Native water 

systems in response to those concerns. 

EPA worked with the Tribes, Alaska 

Natives, the IHS, and the States to 

determine how to classify each Tribal 

system for consideration in the 

statistically-based selection of the 

nationally representative sample of 

small systems. As a result of those 

discussions, small PWSs that are located 

in Indian country in each of the EPA 

Regions containing Indian country were 

evaluated as part of a Tribal category 

that receives selection consideration 

comparable to that of small systems 

outside of Indian country. Thus, Tribal 

systems have the same probability of 

being selected as other water systems in 

the stratified selection process that 

weighs systems by water source and size 

class by population served. 

EPA also held a public stakeholder 

meeting on October 23, 2003. This 

meeting was announced to the public in 

a Federal Register notice dated 

September 11, 2003. Prior to the 

meeting, background materials and rule 

development information were sent to 

specific stakeholders, including 

representatives from the IHS and the 

Native American Water Association. 

As described previously, this final 

rule requires monitoring by all large 

systems serving more than 10,000 

people. Ten Tribal water systems have 

been identified as large systems. EPA 

estimates the average annual cost for 

each large system over the five-year rule 

period to be less than $1,200. Such cost 

is based on a labor component 

(associated with the collection of 

samples) and a non-labor component 

(associated with shipping and 

laboratory fees). 

This final rule, addressing the second 

UCMR period, maintains the basic 

program design of the original UCMR, 

building upon the structure established 

by the original rule for this cyclical 

program. The primary changes include: 

(1) Improving the design of the 

Screening Survey for List 2 

contaminants to increase the statistical 

strength of the sampling results; (2) 

updating the lists of contaminants to be 

monitored and the analytical methods 

approved to conduct that monitoring; 

(3) revising the ‘‘data elements’’

required to be reported; and (4) revising 

the implementation of the monitoring 

program to reflect ‘‘lessons learned’’

during UCMR 1. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks 

Executive Order 13045, ‘‘Protection of 

Children from Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, 

April 23, 1997), applies to any rule that: 

(1) is determined to be ‘‘economically 

significant’’ as defined under Executive 

Order 12866, and (2) concerns an 

environmental health or safety risk that 

EPA has reason to believe may have a 

disproportionate effect on children. If 

the regulatory action meets both criteria, 

the Agency must evaluate the 

environmental health or safety effects of 

the planned rule on children, and 

explain why the planned regulation is 

preferable to other potentially effective 

and reasonably feasible alternatives 

considered by the Agency. 

This final rule is not subject to the 

Executive Order because it is not 

economically significant as defined in 

Executive Order 12866, and because the 

Agency does not have reason to believe 

the environmental health or safety risks 

addressed by this action present a 

disproportionate risk to children. 

This final rule is part of the Agency’s 

overall strategy for deciding whether to 

regulate the contaminants identified on 

the CCL (63 FR 10274, March 2, 1998 

(USEPA, 1998b)). The purpose of this 

final rule is to ensure that EPA has data 

on the occurrence of contaminants on 

the CCL where those data are lacking. 

EPA is also taking steps to ensure that 

the Agency will have data on the health 

effects of these contaminants on 

children through its research program. 

The Agency will use these data (both 

contaminant occurrence and health 

effects) to help decide whether or not to 

regulate any of these contaminants. 

However, given EPA’s interest in 

protecting children’s health, as part of 

the original provisions in UCMR 1, 

allowing State Governors to petition 

EPA to add contaminants to the UCMR 

Contaminant List, EPA requests 

Governors to include any information 

that might be available regarding 

disproportional risks to the health or 

safety of children. Such information 

will help inform EPA’s decisionmaking 

regarding the UCMR contaminant list. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This rule is not a ‘‘significant energy 

action’’ as defined in Executive Order 

13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations 

That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355 (May 

22, 2001)) because it is not likely to 

have a significant adverse effect on the 

supply, distribution, or use of energy. 

The frequency of required monitoring 

and testing in this rulemaking does not 

rise to the level of significant cost to 

drinking water utilities. Therefore, we 

have concluded that this rule is not 

likely to have any adverse energy costs. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

As noted in the proposed rule, 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (‘‘NTTAA’’), Public Law No. 

104–113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) 

directs EPA to use voluntary consensus 

standards in its regulatory activities 

unless to do so would be inconsistent 

with applicable law or otherwise 

impractical. Voluntary consensus 

standards are technical standards (e.g., 

materials specifications, test methods, 

sampling procedures, and business 

practices) that are developed or adopted 

by voluntary consensus standards 

bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to 

provide Congress, through OMB, 

explanations when the Agency decides 

not to use available and applicable 

voluntary consensus standards. 

This rulemaking involves technical 

standards. Therefore, the Agency 

conducted a search to identify 

potentially applicable voluntary 

consensus standards. However, we 

identified no such standards, and none 

were brought to our attention in 

comments. Therefore, EPA has decided 

to use the methods development that 

the Agency conducted (described in 

Section III.C), which was necessary to 

establish acceptable methods for the 

determination of these UCMR 2 

parameters. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

Executive Order 12898, ‘‘Federal 

Actions to Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations’’ (February 11, 

1994), focuses Federal attention on the 

environmental and human health 

conditions of minority and low-income 

populations with the goal of achieving 

environmental protection for all 

communities. 

By seeking to identify unregulated 

contaminants that may pose health risks 

via drinking water from all PWSs, 

UCMR furthers the protection of public 

health for all citizens, including 

minority and low-income populations 

using public water supplies. Using a 

statistically-derived set of systems for 

the nationally representative sample 

that is population-weighted within each 

system size category in each State, the 

final rule ensures that no group within 

the population is under-represented. 

K. Congressional Review Act 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

mstockstill on PROD1PC61 with RULES2

388 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 2 / Thursday, January 4, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this rule and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A Major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This rule 

will be effective February 5, 2007. 

VII. Public Involvement in Regulation 

Development 

EPA’s Office of Ground Water and 

Drinking Water has developed a process 

for stakeholder involvement in its 

regulatory activities for the purpose of 

providing early input to regulation 

development. When designing and 

developing the UCMR program in the 

late 1990s, EPA held meetings for 

developing the CCL, establishing the 

information requirements of the NCOD, 

and selecting priority contaminants for 

monitoring. During the initial 

development of the UCMR program, 

stakeholders, including PWSs, States, 

industry, and other organizations 

attended meetings to discuss the UCMR. 

Seventeen other meetings were held 

specifically concerning UCMR 

development. For a description of 

public involvement activities related to 

the UCMR, please see the discussion in 

the September 1999 UCMR Final Rule 

Federal Register at 64 FR 50556 

(USEPA, 1999). 

Specific to the development of UCMR 

2, a stakeholder meeting was held on 

October 29, 2003, in Washington, DC. 

There were 25 attendees, representing 

State agencies, Federal agencies, 

laboratories, PWSs, and drinking water 

associations. The topics of presentations 

and discussions included: Rationale for 

selecting a new list of proposed 

contaminants; analytical methods to be 

used in measuring these contaminants; 

sampling design, particularly for the 

Screening Survey monitoring; procedure 

for determining LCMRLs; validation of 

laboratory performance at or below the 

MRL; revisions to data elements; and 

other proposed revisions based on 

lessons learned during implementation 

of UCMR 1. 

In addition to public involvement 

during program and proposed rule 

development, EPA received comments 

from 36 public commenters. EPA’s 

responses to these comments are 

summarized in Sections III, IV and V of 

this preamble. EPA has compiled a 

document containing all public 

comments and EPA’s responses entitled: 

‘‘UCMR 2 Categorized Public 

Comments,’’ (USEPA, 2006b) which can 

be obtained by going to http:// 

www.regulations.gov and searching for 

Docket ID No. OW–2004–0001 under 

the advanced search tab. 

VIII. References 

Association of State Drinking Water 

Administrators (ASDWA). 2003. Public 

Health Protection Threatened by Inadequate 

Resources for State Drinking Water 

Programs—An Analysis of State Drinking 

Water Programs Resources, Needs, and 

Barriers. April 2003. Available on the 

Internet at: http://www.asdwa.org/. 

Darnerud, P.O., G.S. Erickson, T. 

Johannesson, P.B. Larson, and M. 

Viluksela. 2001. Polybrominated 

Diphenyl Ethers: Occurrence, Dietary 

Exposure, and Toxicology. 

Environmental Health Perspectives 

Supplements. Vol. 109, No. S1. Available 

on the Internet at: http:// 

ehp.niehs.nih.gov/members/2001/suppl1/49–68darnerud/darnerud-full.html. de 

Wit, C.A. February 2002. An overview of 

brominated flame retardants in the 

environment. Chemosphere. 46(5):583–

624. 

Hites, R. 2004. Polybrominated Diphenyl 

Ethers in the Environment and in People: 

A Meta-Analysis of Concentration. 

Environmental Science and Technology. 

Vol. 38, No. 4. pp. 945–956. 

McDonald, T.A. February 2002. A 

perspective on the potential health risks 

of PBDEs. Chemosphere. 46(5):745–55. 

Meerts, I.A., Letcher, R.J., Hoving, S., Marsh, 

G., Bergman, A., Lemmen, J.G., van der 

Burg, B., and A. Brouwer. April 2001. In 

vitro estrogenicity of polybrominated 

diphenyl ethers, hydroxylated PDBEs, 

and polybrominated bisphenol A 

compounds. Environmental Health 

Perspective. 109(4):399–407. 

Stoker, T.E., Cooper, R.L., Lambright, C.S., 

Wilson, V.S., Furr, J., and L.E. Gray. 

August 2005. In vivo and in vitro antiandrogenic effects of DE–71, a 

commercial polybrominated diphenyl 

ether (PBDE) mixture. Toxicology and 

Applied Pharmacology. 207(1):78–88. 

United States Environmental Protection 

Agency (USEPA). 1992. National Primary 

Drinking Water Regulations; Aldicarb, 

Aldicarb Sulfoxide, and Aldicarb 

Sulfone; Notice of postponement of 

certain provisions of final rule. Federal 

Register. Vol. 57, No. 102. p. 22178, May 

27, 1992. 

USEPA. 1995. Method 525.2—Determination 

of Organic Compounds in Drinking 

Water by Liquid-Solid Extraction and 

Capillary Column Gas Chromatography/ 

Mass Spectrometry. Revision 2.0, 1995 is 

available on the Internet at: http:// 

www.NEMI.gov. 

USEPA. 1998a. National Primary Drinking 

Water Regulations: Consumer 

Confidence Reports; Final Rule. Federal 

Register. Vol. 63, No. 30. p. 7605, 

February 13, 1998. 

USEPA. 1998b. Announcement of the 

Drinking Water Contaminant Candidate 

List; Notice. Federal Register. Vol. 63, 

No. 40. p. 10274, March 2, 1998. 

USEPA. 1998c. National Primary Drinking 

Water Regulations: Consumer 

Confidence Reports. Federal Register. 

Vol. 63, No. 160. p. 44511, August 19, 

1998. 

USEPA. 1999. Revisions to the Unregulated 

Contaminant Monitoring Regulation for 

Public Water Systems; Final Rule. 

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

50556, September 17, 1999. 

USEPA. 2000. Unregulated Contaminant 

Monitoring Regulation for Public Water 

Systems: Analytical Methods for 

Perchlorate and Acetochlor; 

Announcement of Laboratory Approval 

and Performance Testing (PT) Program 

for the Analysis of Perchlorate; Final 

Rule and Proposed Rule. Federal 

Register. Vol. 65, No. 42. p. 11372, 

March 2, 2000. 

USEPA. 2001a. Unregulated Contaminant 

Monitoring Regulation for Public Water 

Systems; Analytical Methods for List 2 

Contaminants; Clarifications to the 

Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring 

Regulation. Federal Register. Vol. 66, 

No. 8. p. 2273, January 11, 2001. 

USEPA. 2001b. National Primary Drinking 

Water Regulations; Arsenic and 

Clarifications to Compliance and New 

Source Contaminants Monitoring. 

Federal Register. Vol. 66, No. 14. p. 

6975, January 22, 2001. 

USEPA. 2002a. EPA Method 529—

Determination of Explosives and Related 

Compounds in Drinking Water by Solid 

Phase Extraction and Capillary Column 

Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry 

(GC/MS). Available on the Internet at: 

http://www.epa.gov/nerlcwww/ 

ordmeth.htm. 

USEPA. 2002b. Unregulated Contaminant 

Monitoring Regulation: Approval of 

Analytical Method for Aeromonas; 

National Primary and Secondary 

Drinking Water Regulations: Approval of 

Analytical Methods for Chemical and 

Microbiological Contaminants. Federal 

Register. Vol. 67, No. 209. p. 65888, 

October 29, 2002. 

USEPA. 2004a. EPA Method 521—

Determination of Nitrosamines in 

Drinking Water by Solid Phase 

Extraction and Capillary Column Gas 

Chromatography with Large Volume 

Injection and Chemical Ionization 

Tandem Mass Spectrometry (MS/MS). 

Revision 1.0, April 2005 is available on 

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

nerlcwww/ordmeth.htm. 

USEPA. 2004b. EPA Method 527—

Determination of Selected Pesticides and 

Flame Retardants in Drinking Water by 

Solid Phase Extraction and Capillary 

Column Gas Chromatography/Mass 

Spectrometry (GC/MS). EPA 815–R–05–

005. April 2005. Available on the 

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

safewater/methods/sourcalt.html. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC61 with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 2 / Thursday, January 4, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 389 

USEPA. 2004c. EPA Method 535, 

Measurement of Chloroacetanilide and 

Other Acetamide Herbicide Degradates 

in Drinking Water by Solid Phase 

Extraction and Liquid Chromatography/ 

Tandem Mass Spectrometry (LC/MS/ 

MS). Version 1.1, April 2005 is available 

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

nerlcwww/ordmeth.htm. 

USEPA. 2004d. UCMR 2 Laboratory 

Approval Manual. Available upon 

request as detailed at: http:// 

www.epa.gov/safewater/ucmr/ucmr2/ 

index.html. 

USEPA. 2005a. Unregulated Contaminant 

Monitoring Regulation (UCMR) for 

Public Water Systems Revisions; 

Proposed Rule. Federal Register. Vol. 70, 

No. 161. p. 49093, August 22, 2005. 

USEPA. 2005b. Cross Media Electronic 

Reporting. Federal Register. Vol. 70, No. 

197. p. 59847, October 13, 2005. 

USEPA. 2006a. National Primary Drinking 

Water Regulations: Stage 2 Disinfectants 

and Disinfection Byproducts Rule; Final 

Rule. Federal Register. Vol. 71 No. 2. p. 

388, January 4, 2006. 

USEPA. 2006b. UCMR 2 Categorized Public 

Comments. Available on the Internet at: 

http://www.epa.gov/safewater/ucmr/ 

ucmr2/index.html. 

List of Subjects 

40 CFR Part 9 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

40 CFR Part 141 

Environmental protection, Chemicals, 

Incorporation by reference, Indianslands, Intergovernmental relations, 

Radiation protection, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Water 

supply. 

40 CFR Part 142 

Analytical methods, Chemicals, 

Environmental Protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Chemicals, Indians-lands, Radiation 

Protection, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Water supply. 

Dated: December 20, 2006. 

Stephen L. Johnson, 

Administrator. 

■ For the reasons set out in the 

preamble, title 40, chapter 1 of the Code 

of Federal Regulations is amended as 

follows: 

PART 9—OMB APPROVALS UNDER 

THE PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 9 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 135 et seq., 136–136y; 

15 U.S.C. 2001, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2601–2671; 

21 U.S.C. 331j, 346a, 348; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 33 

U.S.C. 1251 et seq., 1311, 1313d, 1314, 1318, 

1321, 1326, 1330, 1342, 1344, 1345(d) and 

(e); 1361; E.O. 11735, 38 FR 21243, 3 CFR, 

1971–1975 Comp. p. 973; 42 U.S.C. 241, 

242b, 243, 246, 300f, 300g, 300g–1, 300g–2, 

300g–3, 300g–4, 300g–5, 300g–6, 300j–1, 

300j–2, 300j–3, 300j–4, 300j–9, 1857 et seq., 

6901–6992k, 7401–7671q, 7542, 9601–9657, 

11023, 11048. 

■ 2. Section 9.1 is amended by revising 

the entries for ‘‘141.35’’ and ‘‘141.40’’ to 

read as follows: 

§ 9.1 OMB approvals under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act. 

* * * * * 

40 CFR Citation OMB Control 

No. 

* * * * * 

National Primary Drinking Water Regulations 

* * * * * 

141.35 ................................... 2040–0270 

141.40 ................................... 2040–0270 

* * * * * 

PART 141—NATIONAL PRIMARY 

DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS 

■ 3. The authority citation for part 141 

continues to read as follows: 

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

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

300j–9, and 300j–11. 

Subpart C—[Amended] 

■ 4. Section 141.24 is amended by 

revising paragraph (h) introductory text, 

removing footnote 7 of paragraph (h) 

introductory text, and by revising 

paragraph (h)(7)(v) to read as follows: 

§ 141.24 Organic chemicals, sampling and 

analytical requirements. 

* * * * * 

(h) Analysis of the contaminants 

listed in § 141.61(c) for the purposes of 

determining compliance with the 

maximum contaminant level shall be 

conducted as follows, with the 

exception that no monitoring is required 

for aldicarb, aldicarb sulfoxide or 

aldicarb sulfone: 

* * * * * 

(7) * * * 

(v) If the monitoring results in 

detection of one or more of certain 

related contaminants (heptachlor and 

heptachlor epoxide), then subsequent 

monitoring shall analyze for all related 

contaminants. 

* * * * * 

Subpart D—[Amended] 

■ 5. Section 141.35 is revised to read as 

follows: 

§ 141.35 Reporting for unregulated 

contaminant monitoring results. 

(a) General applicability. This section 

applies to any owner or operator of a 

public water system (PWS) required to 

monitor for unregulated contaminants 

under § 141.40(a); such owner or 

operator is referred to as ‘‘you.’’ This 

section specifies the information that 

must be reported to EPA prior to the 

commencement of monitoring and 

describes the process for reporting 

monitoring results to EPA. For the 

purposes of this section, PWS 

‘‘population served’’ includes the sum 

of the retail population served directly 

by the PWS plus the population served 

by any consecutive system(s) receiving 

all or part of its finished water from that 

PWS. For purposes of this section, the 

term ‘‘finished’’ means water that is 

introduced into the distribution system 

of a PWS and is intended for 

distribution and consumption without 

further treatment, except the treatment 

necessary to maintain water quality in 

the distribution system (e.g., booster 

disinfection, addition of corrosion 

control chemicals). For purposes of this 

section, the term ‘‘State’’ refers to the 

State or Tribal government entity that 

has jurisdiction over your PWS even if 

that government does not have primary 

enforcement responsibility for PWSs 

under the Safe Drinking Water Act. For 

purposes of this section, the term ‘‘PWS 

Official’’ refers to the person at your 

PWS who is able to function as the 

official spokesperson for the system’s 

Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring 

Regulation (UCMR) activities; and the 

term ‘‘PWS Technical Contact’’ refers to 

the person at your PWS who is 

responsible for the technical aspects of 

your UCMR activities, such as details 

concerning sampling and reporting. 

(b) Reporting by all systems. You must 

meet the reporting requirements of this 

paragraph if you meet the applicability 

criteria in § 141.40(a)(2). 

(1) Where to submit UCMR reporting 

requirement information. Some of your 

reporting requirements are to be 

fulfilled electronically, and others by 

mail. Information that must be 

submitted using EPA’s electronic data 

reporting system must be submitted 

through: http://www.epa.gov/safewater/ 

ucmr/ucmr2/reporting.html. 

Documentation that is required to be 

mailed can be submitted either: To 

UCMR Sampling Coordinator, USEPA, 

Technical Support Center, 26 West 

Martin Luther King Drive (MS 140), 

Cincinnati, OH 45268; or by e-mail at 

UCMR_Sampling_Coordinator@epa.gov; 

or by fax at (513) 569–7191. In addition, 

you must notify the public of the 

availability of unregulated contaminant 

mstockstill on PROD1PC61 with RULES2

390 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 2 / Thursday, January 4, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

monitoring data as provided in Subpart 

Q (Public Notification) of this part (40 

CFR 141.207). Community Water 

Systems that detect unregulated 

contaminants under this monitoring 

must also address such detections as 

part of their Consumer Confidence 

Reports, as provided in Subpart O of 

this part (40 CFR 141.151). 

(2) Contacting EPA if your system 

does not meet applicability criteria or 

has a status change. If you have 

received a letter from EPA concerning 

your required monitoring and your 

system does not meet the applicability 

criteria for UCMR established in 

§ 141.40(a)(2), or if a change occurs at 

your system that may affect your 

requirements under UCMR as defined in 

§ 141.40(a)(3) through (5), you must fax, 

mail, or e-mail a letter to EPA, as 

specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this 

section. The letter must be from your 

PWS Official and must include an 

explanation as to why the UCMR 

requirements are not applicable to your 

PWS, or have changed for your PWS, 

along with the appropriate contact 

information. EPA will make an 

applicability determination based on 

your letter and in consultation with the 

State when necessary. You are subject to 

UCMR requirements unless and until 

you receive a letter from EPA agreeing 

that you do not meet the applicability 

criteria. 

(c) Reporting by large systems. If you 

serve a population of more than 10,000 

people, and meet the applicability 

criteria in § 141.40(a)(2)(i), you must 

meet the reporting requirements in 

paragraphs (c)(1) through (8) of this 

section. 

(1) Contact information. You must 

provide contact information by April 4, 

2007, and provide updates within 30 

days if this information changes. The 

contact information must be submitted 

using EPA’s electronic data reporting 

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

of this section, and include the name, 

affiliation, mailing address, phone 

number, fax number, and e-mail address 

for your PWS Technical Contact and 

your PWS Official. 

(2) Sampling location and inventory 

information. You must provide your 

sampling location and inventory 

information by August 2, 2007 using 

EPA’s electronic data reporting system. 

You must submit the following 

information for each sampling location, 

or for each approved representative 

sampling location (as specified in 

paragraph (c)(3) of this section regarding 

representative sampling locations): PWS 

identification (PWSID) code; PWS 

facility identification code; water source 

type, sampling point identification 

code; and sampling point type code; ( as 

defined in Table 1, paragraph (e) of this 

section). If this information changes, 

you must report updates to EPA’s 

electronic data reporting system within 

30 days of the change. 

(3) Proposed ground water 

representative sampling locations. Some 

systems that use ground water as a 

source and have multiple entry points to 

the distribution system (EPTDSs) may 

propose monitoring at representative 

entry point(s), rather than monitor at 

every EPTDS, as follows: 

(i) Qualifications. Large PWSs that 

have EPA- or State-approved alternate 

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 their State or EPA 

that approves their alternative sampling 

plan for EPTDSs. PWSs that do not have 

an approved alternative EPTDS 

sampling plan may submit a proposal to 

sample at representative EPTDS(s) 

rather than at each individual EPTDS if: 

They use ground water as a source; all 

of their well sources have either the 

same treatment or no treatment; and 

they have multiple EPTDSs from the 

same source, such as an aquifer. You 

must submit a copy of the existing 

alternate EPTDS sampling plan or your 

representative well proposal, as 

appropriate, by May 4, 2007, as 

specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this 

section. 

(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 

select as representative of the ground 

water you supply from multiple wells is 

associated with a well that draws from 

the same aquifer as the wells it will 

represent. You must submit the 

following information for each proposed 

representative sampling location: 

PWSID Code, PWS Facility 

Identification Code, and Sampling Point 

Identification Code (as defined in Table 

1, paragraph (e) of this section). You 

must also include documentation to 

support your proposal that the specified 

wells are representative of other wells. 

This documentation can include 

system-maintained 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. You must also provide a copy 

of this information to the State, unless 

otherwise directed by the State. 

Information about the actual or potential 

occurrence or non-occurrence of 

contaminants in an individual well, or 

a well’s vulnerability to contamination, 

must not be used as a basis for selecting 

a representative well. 

(iii) Approval. EPA or the State (as 

specified in the Partnership Agreement 

reached between the State and EPA) 

will review your proposal, coordinate 

any necessary changes with you, and 

approve the final list of EPTDSs where 

you will be required to monitor. Your 

plan will not be final until you receive 

written approval from EPA or the State. 

(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 notified by either EPA or your 

State by June 4, 2007, 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 notified by the State or EPA. 

(5) Notifying EPA if your PWS cannot 

sample according to schedule. 

(i) General rescheduling notification 

requirements. Large systems may 

change their Assessment Monitoring 

(List 1) or Screening Survey (List 2) 

schedule up to August 2, 2007 using 

EPA’s electronic data reporting system, 

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

section. After these dates have 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), 

mstockstill on PROD1PC61 with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 2 / Thursday, January 4, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 391 

you must fax, mail, or e-mail 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 the alternative schedule 

you are requesting. You are subject to 

your assigned UCMR sampling schedule 

or the schedule that you revised on or 

before August 2, 2007, unless and until 

you receive a letter from EPA specifying 

a new schedule. 

(ii) Exceptions to the rescheduling 

notification requirements. For ground 

water sampling, if the second round of 

sampling will be completed five to 

seven months after the first sampling 

event, as specified in Table 2 of 

§ 141.40(a)(4)(i)(B), no notification to 

EPA is required. If any ground water 

sampling location will be nonoperational for more than one month 

before and one month after the month 

in which the second sampling event is 

scheduled (i.e., it is not possible for you 

to sample within the five to seven 

month window), you must notify EPA, 

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

section, explaining why the schedule 

cannot be met. You must comply with 

any modified schedule provided by 

EPA. 

(6) Reporting monitoring results. For 

each sample, you must report the 

information specified in Table 1 of 

paragraph (e) of this section, using 

EPA’s electronic data reporting system, 

as follows. If you are conducting 

Assessment Monitoring, you must 

include data elements 1 through 5, and 

7 through 15 in paragraph (e) of this 

section; and if you are conducting 

Screening Survey monitoring, you must 

include elements 1 through 15. You also 

must report any changes made to data 

elements 1 through 6 to EPA, in writing, 

explaining the nature and purpose of 

the proposed change, as specified in 

paragraph (b)(1) of this section. 

(i) Electronic reporting system. You 

are responsible for ensuring that the 

laboratory conducting the analysis of 

your unregulated contaminant 

monitoring samples (your laboratory) 

posts the analytical results to EPA’s 

electronic reporting system. You are 

also responsible for reviewing, 

approving, and submitting those results 

to EPA. 

(ii) Reporting schedule. You must 

ensure that your laboratory posts the 

data to EPA’s electronic data reporting 

system within 120 days from the sample 

collection date (sample collection must 

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

have 60 days from when the laboratory 

posts the data in EPA’s electronic data 

reporting system to review, approve, 

and submit the data to the State and 

EPA, at the Web address specified in 

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

do not take action on the data within 60 

days of the laboratory’s posting to the 

electronic reporting system, the data 

will be considered approved by you, 

and available for EPA and State review. 

(7) Only one set of results accepted. If 

you report more than one set of valid 

results for the same sampling location 

and the same sampling event (for 

example, because you have had more 

than one laboratory analyze replicate 

samples collected under § 141.40(a)(5), 

or because you have collected multiple 

samples during a single monitoring 

event at the same sampling location), 

EPA will use the highest of the reported 

values as the official result. 

(8) No reporting of previously 

collected data. You cannot report 

previously collected data to meet the 

testing and reporting requirements for 

the contaminants listed in 

§ 141.40(a)(3). All analyses must be 

performed by laboratories approved by 

EPA to perform UCMR analyses using 

the analytical methods specified in 

Table 1 of § 141.40(a)(3) and using 

samples collected according to 

§ 141.40(a)(4). Such requirements 

preclude the possibility of 

‘‘grandfathering’’ previously collected 

data. 

(d) Reporting by small systems. If you 

serve a population of 10,000 or fewer 

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 

for information associated with the 

sampling kit. 

(1) Contact information. EPA will 

send you a notice requesting contact 

information for key individuals at your 

system, including name, affiliation, 

mailing address, phone number, fax 

number, and e-mail address. These 

individuals include your PWS 

Technical Contact and your PWS 

Official. You are required to provide 

this information within 90 days of 

receiving the notice from EPA as 

specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this 

section. If this information changes, you 

also must provide updates within 30 

days of the change, as specified in 

paragraph (b)(1) of this section. 

(2) Reporting sampling information. 

You must record data elements listed in 

Table 1 of paragraph (e) of this section 

on each sample form and sample bottle 

provided to you by the UCMR Sampling 

Coordinator, as follows: If you are 

conducting Assessment Monitoring, you 

must include elements 1 through 5, and 

7; if you are conducting Screening 

Survey, you must include elements 1 

through 7. You must send this 

information as specified in the 

instructions of your sampling kit, which 

will include the due date and return 

address. You must report any changes 

made in data elements 1 through 6 by 

mailing or e-mailing an explanation of 

the nature and purpose of the proposed 

change to EPA, as specified in 

paragraph (b)(1) of this section. 

(e) Data elements. Table 1 defines the 

data elements that must be provided 

with UCMR sample results. 

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 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. 

3. 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: 

mstockstill on PROD1PC61 with RULES2

392 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 2 / Thursday, January 4, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 1.—UNREGULATED CONTAMINANT MONITORING REPORTING REQUIREMENTS—Continued 

Data element Definition 

SW = surface water (to be reported for water facilities that are served all or in 

part by a surface water source at any time during the twelve-month period). 

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

a ground water source). 

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. 

4. 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 or distribution system sample at maximum residence time). The same identification code must be used to represent the sampling 

location for all current and future UCMR monitoring. 

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

EP = entry point to the distribution system. 

MR = distribution system sample at maximum residence time. 

6. Disinfectant Residual Type ............................................ The type of disinfectant in use at the time of UCMR sampling to maintain a residual 

in the distribution system for each Screening Survey sampling point. To be reported 

by systems required to conduct Screening Survey monitoring. Systems must report 

using the following codes for each Screening Survey sampling location (i.e., EP, 

MR): 

CL = chlorine 

CA = chloramine 

OT = all other types of disinfectant (e.g., chlorine dioxide) 

ND = no disinfectant used. 

7. Sample Collection Date ................................................. The date the sample is collected, reported as 4-digit year, 2-digit month, and 2-digit 

day. 

8. 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. 

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

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

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

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

LFSM = laboratory fortified sample matrix; a UCMR field sample with a known 

amount of the contaminant of interest added. 

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

fortified sample matrix. 

CF = concentration fortified; reported with sample analysis types LFSM and 

LFSMD, the concentration of a known contaminant added to a field sample. 

12. 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—Value.’’

13. Analytical Result—Value .............................................. The actual numeric value of the analytical results for: field samples; laboratory fortified matrix samples; laboratory fortified sample matrix duplicates; and concentration 

fortified. 

14. 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. 

15. 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 = represents samples collected to meet the UCMR monitoring requirement 

for the first sampling period (all source types). 

SE2 = represents samples collected to meet the UCMR monitoring requirement 

for the second sampling period (all source types). 

SE3 = represents samples collected to meet the UCMR monitoring requirement 

for the third sampling period (surface water and ground water under the direct 

influence of surface water (GWUDI) sources only). 

SE4 = represents samples collected to meet the UCMR monitoring requirement 

for the fourth sampling period (surface water and GWUDI sources only). 

mstockstill on PROD1PC61 with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 2 / Thursday, January 4, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 393 

Subpart E—[Amended] 

■ 4. Section 141.40 is revised to read as 

follows: 

§ 141.40 Monitoring requirements for 

unregulated contaminants. 

(a) General applicability. This section 

specifies the monitoring and quality 

control requirements that must be 

followed if you own or operate a public 

water system (PWS) that is subject to the 

Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring 

Regulation (UCMR), as specified in 

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

In addition, this section specifies the 

UCMR requirements for State and Tribal 

participation. For the purposes of this 

section, PWS ‘‘population served,’’

‘‘State,’’ ‘‘ PWS Official,’’ ‘‘PWS 

Technical Contact,’’ and ‘‘finished 

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

The determination of whether a PWS is 

required to monitor under this rule is 

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

community water system, non-transient 

non-community water system, etc.); 

whether the system purchases all of its 

water, as finished water, from another 

system; and its population served as of 

June 30, 2005. 

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

operate a transient non-community 

water system, you do not have to 

monitor that system for unregulated 

contaminants. 

(2) Applicability to community water 

systems and non-transient noncommunity water systems. 

(i) Large systems. If you own or 

operate a wholesale or retail PWS (other 

than a transient non-community system) 

that serves more than 10,000 people, 

and do not purchase your entire water 

supply as finished water from another 

PWS, you must monitor according to the 

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

If you believe that your applicability 

status is different than EPA has 

specified in the notification letter that 

you received, or if you are subject to 

UCMR requirements and you have not 

been notified by either EPA or your 

State, you must report to EPA, as 

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

(A) Assessment Monitoring. You must 

monitor for the unregulated 

contaminants on List 1 of Table 1, 

UCMR Contaminant List, in paragraph 

(a)(3) of this section. If you serve a 

population of more than 10,000 people, 

you are required to perform this 

monitoring regardless of whether you 

have been notified by the State or EPA. 

(B) Screening Survey. You must 

monitor for the unregulated 

contaminants on List 2 (Screening 

Survey) of Table 1, as specified in 

paragraph (a)(3) of this section, if your 

system serves 10,001 to 100,000 people 

and you are notified by EPA or your 

State that you are part of the State 

Monitoring Plan for Screening Survey 

testing. If your system serves more than 

100,000 people, you are required to 

conduct this Screening Survey testing 

regardless of whether you have been 

notified by the State or EPA. 

(C) Pre-Screen Testing. You must 

monitor for the unregulated 

contaminants on List 3 of Table 1, in 

paragraph (a)(3) of this section, if 

notified by your State or EPA that you 

are part of the Pre-Screen Testing. 

(ii) Small systems. Small PWSs, as 

defined in this paragraph, will not be 

selected to monitor for any more than 

one of the three monitoring lists 

provided in Table 1, UCMR 

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

this section. EPA will provide sample 

containers, provide pre-paid air bills for 

shipping the sampling materials, 

conduct the laboratory analysis, and 

report and review monitoring results for 

all small systems selected to conduct 

monitoring under paragraphs 

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

If you own or operate a PWS (other than 

a transient system) that serves 10,000 or 

fewer people and do not purchase your 

entire water supply from another PWS, 

you must monitor as follows: 

(A) Assessment Monitoring. You must 

monitor for the unregulated 

contaminants on List 1 of Table 1, in 

paragraph (a)(3) of this section, if you 

are notified by your State or EPA that 

you are part of the State Monitoring 

Plan for Assessment Monitoring. 

(B) Screening Survey. You must 

monitor for the unregulated 

contaminants on List 2 of Table 1, in 

paragraph (a)(3) of this section, if 

notified by your State or EPA that you 

are part of the State Monitoring Plan for 

the Screening Survey. 

(C) Pre-Screen Testing. You must 

monitor for the unregulated 

contaminants on List 3 of Table 1, in 

paragraph (a)(3) of this section, if you 

are notified by your State or EPA that 

you are part of the State Monitoring 

plan for Pre-Screen Testing. 

(3) Analytes to be monitored. Lists 1, 

2, and 3 of unregulated contaminants 

are provided in the following table: 

TABLE 1.—UCMR CONTAMINANT LIST

[List 1: Assessment Monitoring Chemical Contaminants] 

1—Contaminant 2—CAS registry number 

3—Analytical methods a

4—Minimum 

reporting 

level b

5—Sampling location c

6—Period during which 

monitoring to be completed 

Dimethoate ............................................. 60–51–5 EPA 527 d ... 0.7 μg/L ...... EPTDS ............................... 1/1/2008–12/31/2010 

Terbufos sulfone ..................................... 56070–16–7 EPA 527 d ... 0.4 μg/L ...... EPTDS ............................... 1/1/2008–12/31/2010 

2,2′,4,4′-tetrabromodiphenyl ether 

(BDE–47).

5436–43–1 EPA 527 d ... 0.3 μg/L ...... EPTDS ............................... 1/1/2008–12/31/2010 

2,2′,4,4′,5-pentabromodiphenyl ether 

(BDE–99).

60348–60–9 EPA 527 d ... 0.9 μg/L ...... EPTDS ............................... 1/1/2008–12/31/2010 

2,2′,4,4′,5,5′-hexabromobiphenyl (HBB) 59080–40–9 EPA 527 d ... 0.7 μg/L ...... EPTDS ............................... 1/1/2008–12/31/2010 

2,2′,4,4′,5,5′-hexabromodiphenyl ether 

(BDE–153).

68631–49–2 EPA 527 d ... 0.8 μg/L ...... EPTDS ............................... 1/1/2008–12/31/2010 

2,2′,4,4′,6-pentabromodiphenyl ether 

(BDE–100).

189084–64–8 EPA 527 d ... 0.5 μg/L ...... EPTDS ............................... 1/1/2008–12/31/2010 

1,3-dinitrobenzene .................................. 99–65–0 EPA 529 e ... 0.8 μg/L ...... EPTDS ............................... 1/1/2008–12/31/2010 

2,4,6-trinitrotoluene (TNT) ...................... 118–96–7 EPA 529 e ... 0.8 μg/L ...... EPTDS ............................... 1/1/2008–12/31/2010 

Hexahydro-1,3,5-trinitro-1,3,5-triazine 

(RDX).

121–82–4 EPA 529 e ... 1 μg/L ......... EPTDS ............................... 1/1/2008–12/31/2010 

mstockstill on PROD1PC61 with RULES2

394 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 2 / Thursday, January 4, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 1.—UCMR CONTAMINANT LIST

[List 2: Screening Survey Chemical Contaminants 

1—Contaminant 2—CAS registry number 

3—Analytical methods a

4—Minimum 

reporting 

level b

5—Sampling location c

6—Period during which 

monitoring to be completed 

Acetanilide Pesticide Degradation Products 

Acetochlor ESA ...................................... 187022–11–3 EPA 535 f ... 1 μg/L ......... EPTDS ............................... 1/1/2008–12/31/2010 

Acetochlor OA ........................................ 184992–44–4 EPA 535 f ... 2 μg/L ......... EPTDS ............................... 1/1/2008–12/31/2010 

Alachlor ESA .......................................... 142363–53–9 EPA 535 f ... 1 μg/L ......... EPTDS ............................... 1/1/2008–12/31/2010 

Alachlor OA ............................................ 171262–17–2 EPA 535 f ... 2 μg/L ......... EPTDS ............................... 1/1/2008–12/31/2010 

Metolachlor ESA ..................................... 171118–09–5 EPA 535 f ... 1 μg/L ......... EPTDS ............................... 1/1/2008–12/31/2010 

Metolachlor OA ....................................... 152019–73–3 EPA 535 f ... 2 μg/L ......... EPTDS ............................... 1/1/2008–12/31/2010 

Acetanilide Pesticide Parent Compounds 

Acetochlor ............................................... 34256–82–1 EPA 525.2 g 2 μg/L ......... EPTDS ............................... 1/1/2008–12/31/2010 

Alachlor ................................................... 15972–60–8 EPA 525.2 g 2 μg/L ......... EPTDS ............................... 1/1/2008–12/31/2010 

Metolachlor ............................................. 51218–45–2 EPA 525.2 g 1 μg/L ......... EPTDS ............................... 1/1/2008–12/31/2010 

Nitrosamines 

N-nitrosodiethylamine (NDEA) ............... 55–18–5 EPA 521 h ... 0.005 μg/L .. DSMRT and EPTDS ......... 1/1/2008–12/31/2010 

N-nitroso-dimethylamine (NDMA) .......... 62–75–9 EPA 521 h ... 0.002 μg/L .. DSMRT and EPTDS ......... 1/1/2008–12/31/2010 

N-nitroso-di-n-butylamine (NDBA) .......... 924–16–3 EPA 521 h ... 0.004 μg/L .. DSMRT and EPTDS ......... 1/1/2008–12/31/2010 

N-nitroso-di-n-propylamine (NDPA) ....... 621–64–7 EPA 521 h ... 0.007 μg/L .. DSMRT and EPTDS ......... 1/1/2008–12/31/2010 

N-nitroso-methylethylamine (NMEA) ...... 10595–95–6 EPA 521 h ... 0.003 μg/L .. DSMRT and EPTDS ......... 1/1/2008–12/31/2010 

N-nitrosopyrrolidine (NPYR) ................... 930–55–2 EPA 521 h ... 0.002 μg/L .. DSMRT and EPTDS ......... 1/1/2008–12/31/2010 

Reserved i ............................................... Reserved i Reserved i ... Reserved i ... Reserved i .......................... Reserved i

Column headings are: 

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

2—CAS (Chemical Abstract Service) Registry Number or Identification Number: A unique number identifying the chemical contaminants. 

3—Analytical Methods: method numbers identifying the methods that must be used to test the contaminants. 

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

the approved analytical methods. 

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

6—Period During Which Monitoring to Be Completed: The dates during which the sampling and testing are to occur for the indicated contaminant. 

The analytical procedures shall be performed in accordance with the documents associated with each method (per the following footnotes). 

The incorporation by reference of the following documents listed in footnotes d—h was approved by the Director of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Information on how to obtain these documents can be provided by the Safe Drinking Water 

Hotline at (800) 426–4791. Documents may be inspected at EPA’s Drinking Water Docket, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., EPA West, Room 

B102, Washington, DC 20460, Telephone: (202) 566–2426; or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on 

availability of this material at NARA, call 202–741–6030, or go to:http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/index.html. aThe version of the EPA methods which you must follow for this Regulation are listed in d—h as follows. bThe Minimum Reporting Level (MRL) was established by EPA by adding the mean of the Lowest Concentration Minimum Reporting Levels 

(LCMRL) determined according to the procedure detailed in ‘‘Statistical Protocol for the Determination of The Single-Laboratory Lowest Concentration Minimum Reporting Level (LCMRL) and Validation of the Minimum Reporting Level (MRL)’’ by the primary and secondary laboratories 

conducting the development and validation of the analytical method to three times the difference of the LCMRLs. If LCMRL data from three or 

more laboratories were available, the MRL was established by EPA by adding three times the standard deviation of the LCMRLs to the mean of 

the LCMRLs. Note that EPA Method 525.2 was developed prior to UCMR 2, hence the LCMRLs were not determined for analytes determined by 

this method. cSampling must occur at 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. See 40 CFR 141.35(c)(3) for an explanation of the requirements related to use of 

representative EPTDSs. Sampling for nitrosamines on List 2 must also occur at the disinfection byproduct distribution system maximum residence time (DSMRT) sampling locations as defined in 40 CFR 141.132(b)(1)(i) and at EPTDS sampling locations. If a treatment plant/water 

source is not subject to the sampling required in 40 CFR 141.132(b)(1), then the samples for nitrosamines must be collected only at the EPTDS 

location(s). dEPA Method 527 ‘‘Determination of Selected Pesticides and Flame Retardants in Drinking Water by Solid Phase Extraction and Capillary 

Column Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry (GC/MS),’’ Revision 1.0, April 2005 is available at http://www.epa.gov/safewater/methods/ 

sourcalt.html. eEPA Method 529 ‘‘Determination of Explosives and Related Compounds in Drinking Water by Solid Phase Extraction and Capillary Column 

Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry (GC/MS),’’ Revision 1.0, September 2002 is available at http://www.epa.gov/nerlcwww/ordmeth.htm. fEPA Method 535 ‘‘ Measurement of Chloroacetanilide and Other Acetamide Herbicide Degradates in Drinking Water by Solid Phase Extraction and Liquid Chromatography/Tandem Mass Spectrometry (LC/MS/MS),’’ Version 1.1, April 2005 is available at http://www.epa.gov/nerlcwww/ 

ordmeth.htm. gEPA Method 525.2 ‘‘Determination of Organic Compounds in Drinking Water by Liquid-Solid Extraction and Capillary Column Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry,’’ Revision 2.0, 1995 is available at http://www.NEMI.gov. hEPA Method 521 ‘‘Determination of Nitrosamines in Drinking Water by Solid Phase Extraction and Capillary Column Gas Chromatography 

with Large Volume Injection and Chemical Ionization Tandem Mass Spectrometry (MS/MS),’’ Version 1.0, September 2004 is available at http:// 

www.epa.gov/nerlcwww/ordmeth.htm. iTo be determined at a later time. 

(4) Sampling requirements. 

(i) Large systems. If you serve more 

than 10,000 people and meet the UCMR 

applicability criteria specified in 

paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section, you 

must comply with the requirements 

specified in paragraphs (a)(4)(i)(A) 

through (I) of this section. Your samples 

must be collected according to the 

mstockstill on PROD1PC61 with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 2 / Thursday, January 4, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 395 

schedule that you are assigned by EPA 

or your State, or the schedule that you 

revised using EPA’s electronic data 

reporting system on or before August 2, 

2007. Your schedule must follow both 

the timing and frequency of monitoring 

specified in Tables 1 and 2 of this 

section. 

(A) Monitoring 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 

conduct monitoring according to your 

schedule. 

(B) Frequency. You must collect the 

samples within the time frame and 

according to the frequency specified by 

contaminant type and water source type 

for each sampling location, as specified 

in Table 2, in this paragraph, with the 

following exception. For the second 

round of ground water sampling, if a 

sample location is non-operational 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 five to seven month 

window specified the Table 2, in this 

paragraph), you must notify EPA as 

specified in § 141.35(c)(5). 

TABLE 2.—MONITORING FREQUENCY BY CONTAMINANT AND WATER SOURCE TYPES

Contaminant type Water source type Time frame Frequency 

Chemical .............................................. Surface water or ground water under the direct 

influence of surface water (GWUDI) (includes 

all sampling locations for which some or all of 

the water comes from a surface water or 

GWUDI source at any time during the 12 

month monitoring period).

12 months ...................... You must monitor for 4 

consecutive quarters. 

Sample events must 

occur 3 months apart. 

Ground water ......................................................... 12 months ...................... You must monitor twice 

in a consecutive 12- 

month period. Sample 

events must occur 5–

7 months apart. 

(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 of Table 1, 

in paragraph (a)(3) of this section. If you 

are a ground water system with multiple 

EPTDSs, and you request and receive 

approval from EPA or the State for 

sampling at representative EPTDS(s), as 

specified in § 141.35(c)(3), you must 

collect your samples from the approved 

representative sampling location(s). 

Systems conducting Screening Survey 

monitoring must also sample for 

nitrosamines at the disinfection 

byproduct distribution system 

maximum residence time (DSMRT) 

sampling location(s) if they are subject 

to sampling requirements in 

§ 141.132(b)(1). 

(D) Sampling instructions. For each 

List 1 Assessment Monitoring 

contaminant, and, if applicable, for each 

List 2 Screening Survey, or List 3 PreScreen Testing contaminant, you must 

follow the sampling procedure for the 

method specified in column 3 of Table 

1, in paragraph (a)(3) of this section. In 

addition, you must not composite (that 

is, combine, mix, or blend) the samples; 

you must collect and preserve each 

sample separately. Samples collected for 

the analysis of Acetanilide ‘‘parent’’

pesticides and their degradation 

products (Methods 525.2 and 535) must 

be collected at the same sampling point, 

at the same time. 

(E) Sample collection and shipping 

time. If you must ship the samples for 

analysis, you must collect the samples 

early enough in the day to allow 

adequate time to send the samples for 

overnight delivery to the laboratory. 

You should not collect samples on 

Friday, Saturday, or Sunday because 

sampling on these days may not allow 

samples to be shipped and received at 

the laboratory at the required 

temperature, unless you have made 

special arrangements with your 

laboratory to receive the samples. 

(F) Analytical methods. For each 

contaminant, you must use the 

respective analytical methods for List 1, 

and, if applicable, for List 2, or List 3 

that are specified in column 3 of Table 

1, in paragraph (a)(3) of this section; 

report values at or above the minimum 

reporting levels for List 1, and, if 

applicable, for List 2 Screening Survey, 

or List 3 Pre-Screen Testing, that are 

specified in column 4 of Table 1, in 

paragraph (a)(3) of this section; and 

conduct the quality control procedures 

specified in paragraph (a)(5) of this 

section. 

(G) Laboratory errors or sampling 

deviations. If the laboratory data do not 

meet the required QC criteria, as 

specified in paragraph (a)(5) of this 

section, or you do not follow the 

required sampling procedures, as 

specified in paragraphs (a)(4) of this 

section, you must resample within 30 

days of being informed or becoming 

aware of these facts. This resampling is 

not for the purpose of confirming 

previous results, but to correct the 

sampling or laboratory error. All 

systems must report the results obtained 

from the first sampling for each 

sampling period, except for cases of 

sampling or laboratory errors. For the 

purposes of this rule, no samples are to 

be recollected for the purposes of 

confirming the results observed in a 

previous sampling. 

(H) Analysis. For the List 1 

contaminants, and, if applicable, List 2 

Screening Survey, or List 3 Pre-Screen 

Testing contaminants, identified in 

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

you must arrange for testing by a 

laboratory that has been approved by 

EPA according to requirements in 

paragraph (a)(5)(ii) of this section. 

(I) Review and reporting of results. 

After you have received the laboratory 

results, you must review, approve, and 

submit the system information, and 

sample collection data and test results. 

You must report the results as provided 

in § 141.35(c)(6). 

(ii) Small systems. If you serve 10,000 

or fewer people and are notified that 

you are part of the State Monitoring 

Plan for Assessment Monitoring, 

Screening Survey or Pre-Screen 

monitoring, you must comply with the 

requirements specified in paragraphs 

(a)(4)(i)(A) through (H) of this section. If 

EPA or the State informs you that they 

mstockstill on PROD1PC61 with RULES2

396 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 2 / Thursday, January 4, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

will be collecting your UCMR samples, 

you must assist them in identifying the 

appropriate sampling locations and in 

collecting the samples. 

(A) Monitoring period 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. 

(B) Location. You must collect 

samples at the locations specified for 

you by the State or EPA. 

(C) Sample kits. You must store and 

maintain the sample collection kits sent 

to you by the UCMR Sampling 

Coordinator in accordance with the kit’s 

instructions. The sample kit will 

include all necessary containers, 

packing materials and cold packs, 

instructions for collecting the sample 

and sample treatment (such as 

dechlorination or preservation), report 

forms for each sample, contact name 

and telephone number for the 

laboratory, and a prepaid return 

shipping docket and return address 

label. If any of the materials listed in the 

kit’s instructions are not included in the 

kit or arrive damaged, you must notify 

the UCMR Sampling Coordinator who 

sent you the sample collection kits. 

(D) Sampling instructions. You must 

comply with the instructions sent to you 

by the State or EPA concerning the use 

of containers, collection (how to fill the 

sample bottle), dechlorination and/or 

preservation, and sealing and 

preparation of sample and shipping 

containers for shipment. You must not 

composite (that is, combine, mix, or 

blend) the samples. You also must 

collect, preserve, and test each sample 

separately. You must also comply with 

the instructions sent to you by the 

UCMR Sampling Coordinator 

concerning the handling of sample 

containers for specific contaminants. 

(E) Sampling deviations. If you do not 

collect a sample according to the 

instructions provided to you for a listed 

contaminant, you must report the 

deviation within 7 days of the 

scheduled monitoring on the sample 

reporting form, as specified in 

§ 141.35(d)(2). You must resample 

following instructions that you will be 

sent from the UCMR Sampling 

Coordinator or State. A copy of the form 

must be sent to the laboratory with the 

recollected samples, and to the UCMR 

Sampling Coordinator. 

(F) Duplicate samples. EPA will select 

a subset of systems in the State 

Monitoring Plan that must collect 

duplicate samples for quality control. If 

your system is selected, you will receive 

two sample kits for an individual 

sampling location that you must use. 

You must use the same sampling 

protocols for both sets of samples, 

following the instructions in the 

duplicate sample kit. 

(G) Sampling forms. You must 

completely fill out each of the sampling 

forms and bottles sent to you by the 

UCMR Sampling Coordinator, including 

data elements listed in § 141.35(e) for 

each sample. If you are conducting 

Assessment Monitoring, you must 

include elements 1 through 5, and 7; 

and if you are conducting Screening 

Survey, you must include elements 1 

through 7. You must sign and date the 

sampling forms. 

(H) Sample collection and shipping. 

You must collect the samples early 

enough in the day to allow adequate 

time to send the samples for overnight 

delivery to the laboratory. You should 

not collect samples on Friday, Saturday, 

or Sunday because sampling on these 

days may not allow samples to be 

shipped and received at the laboratory 

at the required temperature unless you 

have made special arrangements with 

EPA for the laboratory to receive the 

samples. Once you have collected the 

samples and completely filled in the 

sampling forms, you must send the 

samples and the sampling forms to the 

laboratory designated on the air bill. 

(5) Quality control requirements. If 

your system serves more than 10,000 

people, you must ensure that the quality 

control requirements listed below are 

met during your sampling procedures 

and by the laboratory conducting your 

analyses. You must also ensure that all 

method quality control procedures and 

all UCMR quality control procedures are 

followed. 

(i) Sample collection/preservation. 

You must follow the sample collection 

and preservation requirements for the 

specified method for each of the 

contaminants in Table 1, in paragraph 

(a)(3) of this section. These 

requirements specify sample containers, 

collection, dechlorination, preservation, 

storage, sample holding time, and 

extract storage and/or holding time that 

you must assure that the laboratory 

follow. 

(ii) Laboratory approval for Lists 1, 

List 2 and List 3. To be approved to 

conduct UCMR testing, the laboratory 

must be certified under § 141.28 for one 

or more compliance analyses; 

demonstrate for each analytical method 

it plans to use for UCMR testing that it 

can meet the Initial Demonstration of 

Capability (IDC) requirements detailed 

in the analytical methods specified in 

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

of this section; and successfully 

participate in the UCMR Proficiency 

Testing (PT) Program administered by 

EPA for each analytical method it plans 

to use for UCMR testing. UCMR 

laboratory approval decisions will be 

granted on an individual method basis 

for the methods listed in column 3 of 

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

section for List 1, List 2, and List 3 

contaminants. Laboratory approval is 

contingent upon the capability of the 

laboratory to post monitoring data to the 

EPA electronic data reporting system. 

To participate in the UCMR Laboratory 

Approval Program, the laboratory must 

complete and submit the necessary 

registration forms by April 4, 2007. 

Correspondence must be addressed to: 

UCMR 2 Laboratory Approval 

Coordinator, USEPA, Technical Support 

Center, 26 West Martin Luther King 

Drive (MS 140), Cincinnati, OH 45268; 

or e-mailed to EPA at 

UCMR_Sampling_Coordinator@epa.gov. 

(iii) Minimum Reporting Level. The 

MRL is the lowest analyte concentration 

for which future recovery is predicted to 

fall, with high confidence (at least 99%), 

between 50% and 150% recovery. 

(A) Validation of laboratory 

performance. Your laboratory must be 

capable of quantifying each contaminant 

listed in Table 1, at or below the MRL 

specified in column 4 of Table 1, in 

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

must ensure that the laboratory 

completes and has on file and available 

for your inspection, records of two 

distinct procedures. First, your 

laboratory must have conducted an IDC 

involving replicate analyses at or below 

the MRL as described in this paragraph. 

Second, for each day that UCMR 

analyses are conducted by your 

laboratory, a validation of its ability to 

quantify each contaminant, at or below 

the MRL specified in column 4 of Table 

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

following the procedure listed in 

paragraph (a)(5)(iii)(B) of this section, 

must be performed. The procedure for 

initial validation of laboratory 

performance at or below the MRL is as 

follows: 

(1) All laboratories using EPA 

drinking water methods under UCMR 

must demonstrate that they are capable 

of meeting data quality objectives 

(DQOs) at or below the MRL listed in 

Table 1, column 4, in paragraph (a)(3) of 

this section. 

(2) The MRL, or any concentration 

below the MRL, at which performance 

is being evaluated, must be contained 

within the range of calibration. The 

calibration curve regression model and 

the range of calibration levels that are 

used in these performance validation 

steps must be used in all routine sample 

mstockstill on PROD1PC61 with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 2 / Thursday, January 4, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 397 

analyses used to comply with this 

regulation. Only straight line or 

quadratic regression models are 

allowed. The use of either weighted or 

unweighted models is permitted. The 

use of cubic regression models is not 

permitted. 

(3) Replicate analyses of at least seven 

(7) fortified samples in reagent water 

must be performed at or below the MRL 

for each analyte, and must be processed 

through the entire method procedure 

(i.e., including extraction, where 

applicable, and with all preservatives). 

(4) A prediction interval of results 

(PIR), which is based on the estimated 

arithmetic mean of analytical results 

and the estimated sample standard 

deviation of measurement results, must 

be determined by Equation 1: 

Equation 1 PIR = Mean s ±× × + − t

n ( , /) df 1 2 1 1 α

Where: 

t is the Student’s t value with df degrees of 

freedom and confidence level (1–a), 

s is the sample standard deviation of n 

replicate samples fortified at the MRL, 

n is the number of replicates. 

(5) The values needed to calculate the 

PIR using Equation 1 are: Number of 

replicates (n); Student’s t value with a 

two-sided 99% confidence level for n 

number of replicates; the average (mean) 

of at least seven replicates; and the 

sample standard deviation. Factor 1 is 

referred to as the Half Range PIR 

(HRPIR). 

HR = s PIR × ×+ − t

n ( , /) df 1 2 1 1 α

For a certain number of replicates and 

for a certain confidence level in 

Student’s t, this factor 

C = t

n ( , /) df 1 2 1 1 −α × +

is constant, and can be tabulated 

according to replicate number and 

confidence level for the Student’s t. 

Table 3 in this paragraph lists the 

constant factor (C) for replicate sample 

numbers 7 through 10 with a confidence 

level of 99% for Student’s t. 

(6) The HRPIR is calculated by 

Equation 2: 

Equation 2 = s HR C PIR ×

(7) The PIR is calculated by Equation 

3: 

Equation 3 PIR = Mean HR ± PIR

TABLE 3.—THE CONSTANT FACTOR (C) TO BE MULTIPLIED BY THE STANDARD DEVIATION TO DETERMINE THE HALF

RANGE INTERVAL OF THE PIR (STUDENT’S t 99% CONFIDENCE LEVEL) a

Replicates Degrees of freedom 

Constant factor (C) to be multiplied by the 

standard 

deviation 

7 6 3.963 

8 7 3.711 

9 8 3.536 

10 9 3.409 

aThe critical t-value for a two-sided 99% confidence interval is equivalent to the critical t-value for a one-sided 99.5% confidence interval, due 

to the symmetry of the t-distribution. PIR = Prediction Interval of Results. 

(8) The lower and upper result limits 

of the PIR must be converted to percent 

recovery of the concentration being 

tested. To pass criteria at a certain level, 

the PIR lower recovery limits cannot be 

lower than the lower recovery limits of 

the QC interval (50%), and the PIR 

upper recovery limits cannot be greater 

than the upper recovery limits of the QC 

interval (150%). When either of the PIR 

recovery limits falls outside of either 

bound of the QC interval of recovery 

(higher than 150% or less than 50%), 

laboratory performance is not validated 

at the concentration evaluated. If the 

PIR limits are contained within both 

bounds of the QC interval, laboratory 

performance is validated for that 

analyte. 

(B) Quality control requirements for 

validation of laboratory performance at 

or below the MRL. 

(1) You must ensure that the 

calibration curve regression model and 

that the range of calibration levels that 

are used in these performance 

validation steps are used in future 

routine sample analysis. Only straight 

line or quadratic regression models are 

allowed. The use of either weighted or 

unweighted models is permitted. The 

use of cubic regression models is not 

permitted. 

(2) You must ensure, once your 

laboratory has performed an IDC as 

specified in each analytical method 

(demonstrating that DQOs are met at or 

below an MRL), that a daily 

performance check is performed for 

each analyte and method. A single 

laboratory blank, fortified at or below 

the MRL for each analyte, must be 

processed through the entire method 

procedure. The measured concentration 

for each analyte must be converted to a 

percent recovery, and if the recovery is 

within 50%–150% (inclusive), the daily 

performance of the laboratory has been 

validated. The results for any analyte for 

which 50%–150% recovery cannot be 

demonstrated during the daily check are 

not valid. Laboratories may elect to rerun the daily performance check sample 

if the performance for any analyte or 

analytes cannot be validated. If 

performance is validated for these 

analytes, the laboratory performance is 

considered validated. Alternatively, the 

laboratory may re-calibrate and repeat 

the performance validation process for 

all analytes. 

(iv) Laboratory fortified sample matrix 

and laboratory fortified sample matrix 

duplicate. You must ensure that your 

laboratory prepares and analyzes the 

Laboratory Fortified Sample Matrix 


mstockstill on PROD1PC61 with RULES2ER04JA07.000</MATH> ER04JA07.001</MATH> ER04JA07.002</MATH> ER04JA07.003</MATH> ER04JA07.004</MATH>
398 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 2 / Thursday, January 4, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

(LFSM) sample for accuracy and 

Laboratory Fortified Sample Matrix 

Duplicate (LFSMD) samples for 

precision to determine method accuracy 

and precision for all contaminants in 

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

section. LFSM/LFSMD samples must be 

prepared using a sample collected and 

analyzed in accordance with UCMR 2 

requirements and analyzed at a 

frequency of 5% (or 1 LFSM/LFSMD set 

per every 20 samples) or with each 

sample batch, whichever is more 

frequent. In addition, the LFSM/LFSMD 

fortification concentrations must be 

alternated between a low-level 

fortification and mid-level fortification 

approximately 50% of the time. (For 

example: A set of 40 samples will 

require preparation and analysis of 2 

LFSM/LFSMD sets. The first set must be 

fortified at either the low-level or midlevel, and the second set must be 

fortified with the other standard, either 

the low-level or mid-level, whichever 

was not used for the initial LFSM/ 

LFSMD set.) The low-level LFSM/ 

LFSMD fortification concentration must 

be within ±50% of the MRL for each 

contaminant (e.g., for an MRL of 1 μg/ 

L the acceptable fortification levels must 

be between 0.5 μg/L and 1.5 μg/L). The 

mid-level LFSM/LFSMD fortification 

concentration must be within ±20% of 

the mid-level calibration standard for 

each contaminant, and should 

represent, where possible and where the 

laboratory has data from previously 

analyzed samples, an approximate 

average concentration observed in 

previous analyses of that analyte. There 

are no acceptance criteria specified for 

LFSM/LFSMD analyses. All LFSM/ 

LFSMD data are to be reported. 

(v) Method defined quality control. 

You must ensure that your laboratory 

performs Laboratory Fortified Blanks 

and 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 ensure that 

your laboratory reports the analytical 

results and other data, with the required 

data listed in Table 1, in § 141.35(e). 

You must require your laboratory to 

submit these data electronically to the 

State and EPA using EPA’s electronic 

data reporting system, accessible at 

(http://www.epa.gov/safewater/ucmr/ 

ucmr2/reporting.html), within 120 days 

from the sample collection date. You 

then have 60 days from when the 

laboratory posts the data to review, 

approve, and submit the data to the 

State and EPA, via EPA’s electronic data 

reporting system. If you do not 

electronically approve and submit the 

laboratory data to EPA within 60 days 

of the laboratory’s posting to EPA’s 

electronic reporting system, the data 

will be considered approved and final 

for State and EPA review. 

(6) Violation of this rule. 

(i) Monitoring violations. Any failure 

to monitor in accordance with 

§ 141.40(a)(3)–(5) is a monitoring 

violation. 

(ii) Reporting violations. Any failure 

to report in accordance with § 141.35 is 

a reporting violation. 

(b) Petitions and Waivers by States. 

(1) Governors’ petition for additional 

contaminants. The Safe Drinking Water 

Act allows Governors of seven (7) or 

more States to petition the EPA 

Administrator to add one or more 

contaminants to the UCMR Contaminant 

List in paragraph (a)(3) of this section. 

The petition must clearly identify the 

reason(s) for adding the contaminant(s) 

to the monitoring list, including the 

potential risk to public health, 

particularly any information that might 

be available regarding disproportional 

risks to the health and safety of 

children, the expected occurrence 

documented by any available data, any 

analytical methods known or proposed 

to be used to test for the contaminant(s), 

and any other information that could 

assist the Administrator in determining 

which contaminants present the greatest 

public health concern and should, 

therefore, be included on the UCMR 

Contaminant List in paragraph (a)(3) of 

this section. 

(2) State-wide waivers. A State can 

waive monitoring requirements only 

with EPA approval and under very 

limited conditions. Conditions and 

procedures for obtaining a waiver are as 

follows: 

(i) Application. A State may apply to 

EPA for a State-wide waiver from the 

unregulated contaminant monitoring 

requirements for PWSs serving more 

than 10,000 people. To apply for such 

a waiver, the State must submit an 

application to EPA that includes the 

following information: The list of 

contaminants on the UCMR 

Contaminant List for which a waiver is 

requested, along with documentation for 

each contaminant in the request 

demonstrating that the contaminants or 

their parent compounds do not occur 

naturally in the State, and certifying that 

during the past 15 years they have not 

been used, applied, stored, disposed of, 

released, or detected in the source 

waters or distribution systems in the 

State. 

(ii) Approval. EPA will review State 

applications and notify the State 

whether it accepts or rejects the request. 

The State must receive written approval 

from EPA before issuing a State-wide 

waiver. 

PART 142—NATIONAL PRIMARY 

DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS 

IMPLEMENTATION 

■ 6. The authority citation for part 142 

continues to read as follows: 

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

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

300j–9, and 300j–11. 

Subpart B—[Amended] 

■ 7. Section 142.16 is amended by 

revising paragraph (e) introductory text 

to read as follows: 

§ 142.16 Special primacy requirements. 

* * * * * 

(e) An application for approval of a 

State program revision which adopts the 

requirements specified in §§ 141.11, 

141.23, 141.24, 141.32, 141.61, and 

141.62 for a newly regulated 

contaminant must contain the following 

(in addition to the general primacy 

requirements enumerated elsewhere in 

this part, including the requirement that 

State regulations be at least as stringent 

as the Federal requirements): 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. E6–22123 Filed 1–3–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

mstockstill on PROD1PC61 with RULES2