*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Track changes noted from draft to “revised” version

Form for Compliance with E.O. 12866 Docket Requirements

 

Title of Regulation: Revisions to the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation 

(UCMR 3) for Public Water Systems 

 

Contact person: Stephanie Flaharty

 

Phone number: (202) 564-5072 

Page 1 of 93 

Was this regulation reviewed by OMB under Executive Order 12866 - Regulatory 

Planning and Review? 

ΞYes 9 No 

If you checked “no”, you are done with this form. Simply place it in the docket for your 

regulation. If you checked “yes”, please fill out the remainder of the form before placing it in 

the docket. Also docket any relevant documents referenced in the form. 

For regulations that are checked “Yes” above:

This regulation was reviewed by OMB under Executive Order 12866 - Regulatory 

Planning and Review. 

Attached is the draft regulation and any other documents sent to OMB for review, 

such as analyses and assessments. E.O. 12866 requires agencies to make these publicly 

available.

E.O. 12866 also requires agencies to identify the substantive changes between the draft 

regulation sent to OMB for review and the regulation subsequently announced [Please check the 

appropriate box below:] 

 

 _ EPA made substantive changes to this regulation 

(includes changes initiated by EPA or OMB). 

Attached is a document which: (1) identifies all the substantive changes made, 

and (2) notes those changes OMB suggested or recommended. 

 

 X No substantive changes were made to this regulation

Therefore, no further attachments are required..

If you have questions about this regulation, please call the EPA contact person listed 

above. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Track changes noted from draft to “revised” version

Page 2 of 93 

EO12866_UCMR3 Part 141 and 142_2040 AF10_track changes FRN_20101227.docx 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 141 and 142 

[Docket No. OW-2009-0090; FRL- ] 

RIN 2040-AF10 

Revisions to the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation (UCMR 3) for Public 

Water Systems 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed Rule.

_______________________________________________________________________ 

SUMMARY: The 1996 amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) require that the 

United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or the Agency) establish criteria for a 

program to monitor unregulated contaminants and to publish a list of contaminants to be 

monitored every five years. This action meets the SDWA requirement by proposing the design 

for the third UCMR cycle (i.e., UCMR 3). EPA is proposing six EPA-developed analytical 

methods, and four equivalent consensus organization-developed methods to monitor for 28 new 

UCMR chemical contaminants. In addition, EPA proposes monitoring for two viruses, for a total 

of 30 UCMR 3 contaminants. As envisioned, virus analysis (along with related analysis for 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Track changes noted from draft to “revised” version

Page 3 of 93 

pathogen indicators) would be conducted in laboratories under EPA contract. UCMR 3 provides

EPA and other interested parties with scientifically valid data on the occurrence of these 

contaminants in drinking water, permitting the assessment of the number of people potentially 

being exposed and the levels of that exposure. These data are the primary source of occurrence 

and exposure information the Agency uses to determine whether to regulate these contaminants. 

In addition, as part of an Expedited Methods Update, today’s proposed action also presents 

amendatory language for the table in 40 CFR section 141.23(k)(1). This minor editorial 

correction to the table moves methods from the “Other” column to the “ASTM” column, as it 

applies to the inorganic chemical sampling and analytical requirements. The UCMR program is 

not affected by these changes.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before [INSERT DATE 60 DAYS FROM 

PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. OW-2009-0090, by one of 

the following methods: 

• http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments.

• E-mail: OW-Docket@epa.gov. 

• Mail: Send three copies of your comments and any enclosures to: Water Docket, 

United States Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 282211T, 1200 Pennsylvania 

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20460, Attention Docket ID No. OW-2009-0090. Commenters 

should use a separate paragraph for each issue discussed. In addition, please mail a copy of your 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Track changes noted from draft to “revised” version

Page 4 of 93 

comments on the information collection provisions to the Office of Information and Regulatory 

Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Attn: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th St. 

NW, Washington, DC 20503. 

• Hand Delivery: Deliver your comments to Water Docket, EPA Docket Center, 

Environmental Protection Agency, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC, 

Attention Docket ID No. OW-2009-0090. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's 

normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed 

information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-OW-2009-0090. EPA's 

policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and 

may be made available online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information 

provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit 

information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or 

e-mail. The www.regulations.gov Website is an "anonymous access" system, which means EPA 

will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your 

comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through 

www.regulations.gov your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of 

the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit 

an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact

information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Track changes noted from draft to “revised” version

EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special 

characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. 

Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov index. 

Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted 

material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Water Docket, 

EPA/DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC. This Public 

Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal 

holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the Water 

Docket is (202) 566-2426. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David J. Munch, Technical Support Center, 

Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water, United States Environmental Protection Agency, 

Office of Water, 26 West Martin Luther King Drive (MS 140), Cincinnati, OH 45268; telephone 

(513) 569-7843; or e-mail at munch.dave@epa.gov; or Brenda D. Parris, Technical Support 

Center, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water, United States Environmental Protection 

Agency, Office of Water, 26 West Martin Luther King Drive (MS 140), Cincinnati, Ohio 45268; 

telephone (513) 569-7961; or e-mail at parris.brenda@epa.gov. For general information, contact 

the Safe Drinking Water Hotline. Callers within the United States may reach the Hotline at (800) 

426-4791. The Hotline is open Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays, from 10:00 

Page 5 of 93 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Track changes noted from draft to “revised” version

Internet at: http://water.epa.gov/aboutow/ogwdw/hotline/. 

Page 6 of 93 

I. General Information

A. Does This Action Apply to Me? 

Entities regulated by this action are public water systems (PWSs). All large community 

and non-transient non-community water systems serving more than 10,000 people would be 

required to monitor. A community water system (CWS) means a PWS which has at least 15 

service connections used by year-round residents or regularly serves an average of at least 25 

year-round residents. A non-transient non-community water system (NTNCWS) means a PWS 

that is not a CWS and that regularly serves at least 25 of the same people over six months per 

year. Only a nationally representative sample of community and non-transient non-community 

systems serving 10,000 or fewer people would be required to monitor for chemical analytes (see 

USEPA, 2001 for a description of the statistical approach for the nationally representative 

sample). Transient non-community systems (i.e., systems that do not regularly serve at least 25 

of the same people over six months per year) would not be required to monitor for the chemical 

analytes, . Hhowever, they transient ground water systems serving 1,000 or fewer are would be 

subject to possible selection for virus monitoring. If selected, these systems would be required to

permit EPA to sample and analyze for List 3 contaminants and pathogen indicators. EPA would 

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

States, Territories, and Tribes with primary enforcement responsibility (primacy) to administer 

a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Eastern time. The Safe Drinking Water Hotline may also be found on the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Track changes noted from draft to “revised” version

Page 7 of 93 

the regulatory program for PWSs under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) may participate in 

the implementation of UCMR 3 through a Partnership Agreements (PAs) (see discussion of PAs 

in section III.G. of today’s action: “What Is the States’ Role in the UCMR Program?”). These 

primacy agencies may choose to conduct analyses to measure for contaminants in water samples 

collected for the UCMR 3; however, the PWS remains responsible for compliance. Regulated

categories and entities are identified in the following table.

Category Examples of potentially regulated entities NAICSa

State, Local, & Tribal 

Governments

States, local and Tribal governments that analyze water 

samples on behalf of public water systems required to 

conduct such analysis; States, local and Tribal 

governments that directly operate community, transient 

and non-transient non-community water systems 

required to monitor. 

924110 

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

Municipalities Municipal operators of community and non-transient 

non-community water systems required to monitor. 924110 a NAICS = North American Industry Classification System

This table is not exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities 

likely to be regulated by this action. This table lists the types of entities that EPA is now aware 

may potentially be regulated by this action. Other types of entities not listed in the table could 

also be regulated. To determine whether your facility is regulated by this action, you should 

carefully examine the definition of PWS in §141.2 of Title 40 of the Code of Federal

Regulations, and applicability criteria in §141.40(a)(1) and (2) of today's proposed action. If you 

have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the persons 

listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Track changes noted from draft to “revised” version

Page 8 of 93 

B. Copies of This Document and Other Related Information 

This document is available for download at: www.regulations.gov. For other related 

information, see preceding discussion on docket. 

Abbreviations and Acronyms 

μg/L Microgram per liter

ASDWA Association of State Drinking Water Administrators

ASTM American Society for Testing Materials

CBI Confidential Business Information 

CCL Contaminant Candidate List 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

CWS Community water system 

DSMRT Distribution system maximum residence time

EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency

EPTDS Entry point to the distribution system 

FR Federal Register

GC/MS Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry

GWUDI Ground water under the direct influence of surface water

HCFC-22 Chlorodifluoromethane 

IC/MS Ion Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry 

ICR Information collection request 

IHS Indian Health Service

LCMRL Lowest concentration minimum reporting level 
*

T

** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

rack changes noted from draft to “revised” version

LC/MS/MS Liquid Chromatography /Tandem Mass Spectrometry

LFSM Laboratory fortified sample matrix

LFSMD Laboratory fortified sample matrix duplicate

MRL Minimum reporting level

NAICS North American Industry Classification System 

NCOD National Drinking Water Contaminant Occurrence Database 

NPDWR national primary drinking water regulation 

NTNCWS Non-transient non-community water system

NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act 

OMB Office of Management and Budget 

PA Partnership Agreement 

PFBS Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid

PFHpA Perfluoroheptanoic acid 

PFHxS Perfluorohexane sulfonic acid 

PFNA Perfluorononanoic acid 

PFOA Perfluorooctanoic acid 

PFOS Perfluorooctane sulfonic acid 

PT Proficiency testing

PWS Public water system

qPCR Quantitative polymerase chain reaction

RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act

SM Standard Methods 

SRF State Revolving Fund

Page 9 of 93 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Track changes noted from draft to “revised” version

Page 10 of 93 

SBA Small Business Administration

SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act

SDWIS/Fed Federal Safe Drinking Water Information System

UCMR Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation 

UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency

VOC Volatile Organic Compound 

TABLE OF CONTENTS:

I. General Information

A. Does This Action Apply to Me?

B. Copies of This Document and Other Related Information 

II. Statutory Authority and Background 

A. What Is the Statutory Authority for This Action?

B. How Does EPA Meet These Statutory Requirements? 

C. How Are the Contaminant Candidate List, the National Contaminant Occurrence 

Database, and the UCMR Interrelated?

III. Requirements of the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Program 

A. What Are the Changes Being Proposed for UCMR 3?

B. What Priority Contaminants Were Selected for UCMR 3?

1. Twenty Eight Chemicals 

2. Two Viruses 

C. How Were Minimum Reporting Levels Determined?
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Track changes noted from draft to “revised” version

Page 11 of 93 

MRL

D. How Would Laboratories Conduct UCMR Analyses?

Laboratory Approval Process for UCMR 3

E. What Are the New Applicability Considerations?

1. Applicability Based on Population Served 

2. Applicability for Transient Systems

F. UCMR 3 Timeline and Sampling Design Considerations

1. UCMR 3 Reporting Considerations

21. Assessment Monitoring 

32. Pre-Screen Testing

G. What Is the States' Role in the UCMR Program?

IV. Cost of This Proposed Action

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments

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

Safety Risks

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Track changes noted from draft to “revised” version

Page 12 of 93 

Distribution, or Use 

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations 

VI. Public Involvement in Regulation Development 

VII. References

II. Statutory Authority and Background

A. What Is the Statutory Authority for This Action? 

Section 1445(a)(2) of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), as amended in 1996, 

requires that once every five years, beginning in August 1999, the United States Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) issue a new list of no more than 30 unregulated contaminants to be 

monitored by public water systems (PWSs). It also requires that EPA enter the monitoring data 

into the Agency’s National Drinking Water Contaminant Occurrence Database (NCOD). EPA's 

Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation (UCMR) program must ensure that only a 

national representative sample of PWSs serving 10,000 or fewer people would be required to 

monitor. EPA must vary the frequency and schedule for monitoring based on the number of 

persons served, the source of supply, and the contaminants likely to be found. 

B. How Does EPA Meet These Statutory Requirements? 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Track changes noted from draft to “revised” version

Page 13 of 93 

Today's notice proposes 30 contaminants for monitoring during the third five-year cycle, 

referred to as "UCMR 3." These contaminants include: 28 chemicals using six analytical 

methods and/or four equivalent consensus organization-developed methods, and two viruses 

using one analytical method. EPA has developed a proposed contaminant list (Exhibit 1) and 

sampling design for UCMR 3 (20112012-2016) with input from both stakeholders and an EPAState working group. 

Exhibit 1: Proposed Contaminant Lists 

List 1, Assessment Monitoring

17-β-estradiol chlorodifluoromethane (HCFC-22)

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

estriol 1,4-dioxane 

equilin vanadium 

estrone molybdenum 

testosterone cobalt 

4-androstene-3,17-dione strontium 

1,2,3-trichloropropane chlorate 

1,3-butadiene perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS) 

chloromethane (methyl chloride) perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA)

1,1-dichloroethane perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA) 

n-propylbenzene perfluorohexane sulfonic acid (PFHxS) 

bromomethane (methyl bromide) perfluoroheptanoic acid (PFHpA) 

sec-butylbenzene perfluorobutanesulfonic acid (PFBS)

List 3, Pre-Screen Testing

enteroviruses noroviruses
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Track changes noted from draft to “revised” version

Page 14 of 93 

EPA published the first list for the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation 

cycle (i.e., UCMR 1) in the Federal Register on September 17, 1999 (64 FR 505565), and the 

second list (i.e., UCMR 2) on January 4, 2007 (72 FR 367). The monitoring lists that were 

applicable under UCMR 1 and 2 are available at: 

http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/rulesregs/sdwa/ucmr/. 

In UCMR 1, EPA established a three-tiered approach for monitoring contaminants based 

on the availability of analytical methods. Assessment Monitoring for List 1 contaminants 

typically relies on analytical methods that are in common use in drinking water laboratories. 

Screening Survey monitoring for List 2 contaminants relies on newly developed analytical 

methods that are not commonly used in drinking water laboratories. Laboratory capacity to 

perform List 2 analyses is expected to be limited. Finally, UCMR 1 established the option of PreScreen Testing for List 3 contaminants to address contaminants with analytical methods that are 

in an early stage of development. The expectation was that it would be used at a limited number 

of systems determined to be most vulnerable to the targeted contaminants. 

For UCMR 2, EPA built on this established structure, and instituted some changes to the 

rule design. These changes were based upon lessons learned during UCMR 1. All large PWSs, 

serving more than 10,000 people, and a nationally representative selection of 800 small PWSs 

serving 10,000 or fewer people monitored for List 1 contaminants. This monitoring was 

conducted during a continuous 12-month period during the January 2008 to December 2010 

sampling time frame (quarterly for surface water systems, and twice, at 6-month intervals, for 

ground water systems). Systems subject to UCMR 2 included community water systems (CWSs) 

and non-transient non-community water systems (NTNCWSs), except those systems that 

purchase all of their finished water from another PWS. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Track changes noted from draft to “revised” version

Page 15 of 93 

EPA designed the Assessment Monitoring sampling frame to ensure that sample results 

would yield a high level of confidence and a low margin of error. The design for o attain a 

nationally representative sample of small systems called for, the sample was to be stratified by 

water source type (ground or surface water), service size category, and State (where each State is 

allocated a minimum of two systems in its State Monitoring Plan). With monitoring data from all 

large PWSs (a census of all 3,342 large systems) and a statistically representative sample of 800 

small PWSs (for a total of approximately over 4,0004,142 systems), UCMR1 and UCMR 2 

Assessment Monitoring provided sample data suitable to characterize exposure, as would UCMR 

3for national population exposure assessments. Twenty eight chemicals are being proposed for 

Assessment Monitoring under UCMR 3. 

For the UCMR 2 Screening Survey, monitoring for List 2 contaminants was conducted 

by approximately 400 PWSs serving more than 100,000 people (i.e., a census of all systems in 

this largest size category), with a randomly selected sample of 320 PWSs serving between 

10,001 and 100,000 people, and 480 small PWSs serving 10,000 or fewer people (EPA included 

additional PWSs in the Screening Survey design under UCMR 2 -- as compared to UCMR 1-- to 

increase the statistical power of the sample). During UCMR 2, Screening Survey systems were

required to monitor during a continuous 12-month period during the time frame of January 2008 

to December 2010 (quarterly for surface water systems, and twice, at 6-month intervals, for 

ground water systems). With approximately 1,200 systems participating in the Screening Survey, 

sufficient data were generated to provide an overall national estimate of population exposure. No 

List 2 Screening Survey monitoring is being proposed under UCMR 3. 

As under UCMR 1, no Pre-Screen Testing was conducted during the UCMR 2. However, 

in UCMR 3, two viruses are proposed for Pre-Screen monitoring. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Track changes noted from draft to “revised” version

Page 16 of 93 

For UCMR 3, EPA proposes a change in the criteria used to determine which systems 

would be required to monitor. Under both UCMR 1 and UCMR 2, systems that purchased all of 

their water from another PWS were not required to monitor. EPA is proposing to require 

monitoring for the UCMR contaminants based on retail population served. EPA is also proposing 

that UCMR 3 include: Assessment Monitoring for 28 chemicals; no Screening Survey; and, PreScreen Testing for two viruses. Other proposed changes between UCMR 2 and UCMR 3 are 

summarized in section III.A. “What Are the Changes Being Proposed for UCMR 3?”, and 

discussed in further detail throughout today’s proposed rule preamble.

C. How Are the Contaminant Candidate List, the National Contaminant Occurrence Database, 

and the UCMR Interrelated? 

The 1996 amendments to SDWA instituted the Contaminant Candidate List (CCL) and 

UCMR programs to provide information EPA needs to determine which drinking water 

contaminants have the greatest potential to present a meaningful opportunity to reduce health 

risk through a national primary drinking water regulation (NPDWR). The CCL is the primary 

mechanism for the identification of contaminants that may require regulation while UCMR 

provides EPA with the data necessary to determine if a contaminant occurs at a frequency and 

concentration that would be a public health concern. The CCL and UCMR are coordinated parts 

of EPA’s risk management process, and they support each other. The UCMR sampling program 

is limited by statute to 30 contaminants at one time, and was designed to in consideration of the 

technical difficulty and expense of analyzing up to 30 contaminants, as well as their potential to 

occur in treated drinking water at levels of public health concern. The data collected through the 

UCMR program are being stored in the NCOD to: facilitate analysis and review of contaminant 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Track changes noted from draft to “revised” version

occurrence; guide the conduct of the CCL process; and support the Administrator's determination 

whether to regulate a contaminant in the interest of protecting public health, as required under 

SDWA section 1412 (b)(1). Results of the UCMR 1 and 2 monitoring can be viewed by the 

public at EPA's UCMR Web site: http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/rulesregs/sdwa/ucmr/data.cfm. 

III. Requirements of the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Program

A. What Are the Changes Being Proposed for UCMR 3? 

EPA developed, and is proposing in today's action, a slightly revised design for UCMR 3 

based on experience with UCMR 1 and UCMR 2. EPA reviewed various aspects of the UCMR 1 

and 2 programs and identified several critical changes that would improve implementation. 

EPA’s proposed approach and rationale for changes are described in the following sections. Key 

aspects of the UCMR program that would remain the same include direct implementation of the 

rule by EPA, the design of Assessment Monitoring, and EPA funding for the small system 

testing. In addition to requesting comment on the proposed list of contaminants, EPA also 

requests comment on: monitoring based on retail population; revised data elements; and other 

changes between UCMR 2 and UCMR 3 that are outlined in Exhibit 2. Updates to Web

addresses, applicability dates, corrections of minor typographical errors, and other minor clerical 

edits are reflected in rule language, but do not appear in Exhibit 2. 

Exhibit 2: Major Notable Changes Being Proposed for UCMR 3 

Rule Section

Description of Change

Corresponding 

Preamble 

Number Title/Description Section

Page 17 of 93 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Track changes noted from draft to “revised” version

Page 18 of 93 

141.35(a) and 

141.40(a)

Population-based 

applicability and 

related applicability 

date

Base applicability on retail population. Under 

UCMR 1 and 2, systems that purchased all of 

their water were not required to monitor. These 

systems would now be subject to UCMR 

monitoring requirements. The new SDWIS/Fed 

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

which systems are subject to monitoring) is also 

specified.

III.E.

141.35(c)(3)(ii)

Demonstrating 

representative ground 

water sampling 

locations

Clarifies that when identifying a representative 

well, the well must be one of the higher annual 

volume producing and consistently active wells. 

Should this location go off-line, an alternative 

location must be sampled. 

naIII.F.

141.35(c)(6)(ii) and

141.40(a)(5)(vi) Reporting schedule

Reduces time for labs to electronically report 

results (from 120 to 60 days); and for systems to 

review, approve, and report data (from 60 to 30 

days). 

III.F.

141.35(c)(6) and 

141.35(d)(2)

Reporting monitoring 

results

Requires small and large systems to report all data 

elements in Table 1 with each sample. Previously, 

only a subset of the data elements were to be 

reported with each sample.

naIII.F.

141.35(e) Data elements

Revises Table 1 of §141.35 to:

• Add the zip code, optional zip code extension, 

and zip codes served to Data Element 4 – 

Sampling Point Identification Code. 

• Clarify and update the definition of Data 

Element 6 – Disinfectant Type. 

naIII.F. and V.J.

141.40(a)(1) Applicability to 

transient systems 

Removes exemption for transient systems, which 

would now be subject to monitoring for List 3 

contaminants if notified by EPA or State.

III.E.

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

and 

141.40(a)(3)

Pre-Screen Testing

viruses and indicators

Systems participating in List 3 monitoring would

be required to allow EPA to monitor for 

enterovirus and norovirus, and allow for the 

collection of specified pathogen indicators.

III.B. and III.F.

141.40(a)(3) 

Analytes to be 

monitored and related 

specifications

Revises Table 1 of this section to include:

New list of 28 priority contaminants, with 6 EPAdeveloped and 4 consensus organization 

developed analytical methods, as well as new 

monitoring dates of January 2013 through 

December 2015.

III.B. and III.F.

141.40(a)(4)(i)(B) Sampling requirements 

– frequency

Specifies that schedules must be adjusted based 

on sample point availability. Clarifies that 

sampling points within a system may have 

different schedules.

Also, revises Table 2 of this section to include 

monitoring requirements for microbiological 

contaminants for ground water systems at a 

frequency of two times during a consecutive 12-

month period. 

naIII.F.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Track changes noted from draft to “revised” version

Page 19 of 93 

141.40(a)(4)(i)(C) Location

Requires systems conducting Assessment 

Monitoring to collect metal and chlorate samples 

at distribution system maximum residence time

(DSMRT) sampling locations. If these locations 

are not defined, requires PWS to collect samples 

at locations that best represents the maximum 

residence time in the distribution system.

III.F na

141.40(a)(5)(iii)

Minimum Reporting 

Level (MRL) 

definition

Revises the definition of the MRL. III.C.

142.16(j)(1) Outdated reference to 

141.40

Removes reference to 141.40 that is no longer 

applicable. na

141.23(k)(1)

Inorganic chemical 

sampling and 

analytical requirements

Moves method from “Other” column of table to 

“ASTM” column. Minor editorial correction. na

B. What Priority Contaminants Were Selected for UCMR 3? 

EPA used a stepwise prioritization process to identify potential UCMR 3 contaminants. 

As a first step, the Agency reviewed the recently promulgated CCL 3 list and the “pre-CCL” 

contaminants considered in the development of CCL 3. Under the CCL 3 process, the Agency 

considered the best available data and information on health effects and occurrence to evaluate 

7,500 unregulated contaminants. The final CCL 3 is comprised of 104 chemicals or chemical 

groups and 12 microbiological contaminants that were selected through a data-driven process 

that considered adverse health effects (potency and severity) and occurrence (prevalence and 

magnitude). The list includes pesticides, biological toxins, disinfection byproducts, chemicals 

used in commerce, and waterborne pathogens (74 FR 51850, October 8, 2009 (USEPA, 2009c)).

EPA used CCL 3, along with additional sources of information about other emerging 

contaminants of potential concern, to establish an initial list of approximately 150 potential 

UCMR 3 contaminants. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Track changes noted from draft to “revised” version

Page 20 of 93 

The proposed contaminant list for UCMR 3 was further pared down as follows: (1) 

contaminants with no currently available methods, or methods that would not be ready in time 

for UCMR 3 monitoring were eliminated; and, (2) those contaminants included in UCMR 1 or 

UCMR 2 monitoring were also eliminated from inclusion. This narrowed list of fewer than 35 

analytes was further considered by an EPA and State working group, and prioritized using health 

effects data and other critical endpoints, to arrive at a final proposed list of 30 analytes listed in 

Exhibit 3. Further information on this prioritization process, and on the health effects and 

occurrence data EPA used to select the chemical analytes proposed for UCMR 3 are contained in 

“Possible Contaminants for Inclusion on UCMR 3 – Information Compendium” (USEPA, 

2010d).

EPA compiled background information for each of the 28 chemicals being proposed for 

monitoring, including: source and use; health effects; production and release; occurrence in 

water; and persistence and mobility (USEPA, 2010d). Health effects, occurrence in water, 

transmission and treatment information were considered for the two viruses. The primary source 

of this information is CCL 3 (74 FR 51850, October 8, 2009 (USEPA, 2009c)). Where newer or 

additional information was available and for those proposed UCMR 3 contaminants that were 

not part of CCL 3, references are provided separately. In addition, preliminary occurrence data 

are included that were collected as part of EPA’s second Six-Year Review of NPDWRs (75 FR 

15500, March 29, 2010 (USEPA, 2010b)). 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Track changes noted from draft to “revised” version

Page 21 of 93 

Exhibit 3: 30 Proposed UCMR 3 Analytes 

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

17-β-estradiol estrone

17-α-ethynylestradiol (ethinyl estradiol) testosterone

estriol (16-α-hydroxy-17-β-estradiol) 4-androstene-3,17-dione

equilin

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

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

1,3-butadiene sec-butylbenzene

chloromethane (methyl chloride) chlorodifluoromethane (HCFC-22)

1,1-dichloroethane bromochloromethane (halon 1011)

n-propylbenzene

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

1,4-dioxane

4 Metals using EPA Method 200.8 (IC/MS)4 or alternate SM5 or ASTM Methods6:

cobalt strontium

molybdenum vanadium

Oxyhalide Anion using EPA Method 300.1 (IC/Conductivity)7 or alternate SM8 or ASTM Methods9:

chlorate

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

perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) perfluorohexane sulfonic acid (PFHxS)

perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) perfluoroheptanoic acid (PFHpA)

perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA) perfluorobutane sulfonic acid (PFBS)

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

11

enterovirus norovirus 

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

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

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

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

5. SM 3125 (SM, 1997)

6. ASTM D5673-10 (ASTM, 2010)

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

6. ASTM D5673-05 (ASTM, 2005)

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

8. SM 4110D (SM, 1997)

9. ASTM D6581-08 (ASTM, 2008)

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

11. Monitoring also includes sampling for pathogen indicators 

such as total coliforms, E.coli, bacteriophage, Enterococci and 

aerobic spores. EPA would pay for all sampling and analysis 

costs associated with virus monitoring at these small systems.

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

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

systems.

Formatted: Superscript
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Track changes noted from draft to “revised” version

Page 22 of 93 

1. Twenty Eight Chemicals

EPA proposes monitoring for 28 chemicals in UCMR 3. Details of the health effects and 

occurrence data EPA used to make these selections are contained in "Possible Contaminants for 

Inclusion on UCMR 3 – Information Compendium" (USEPA, 2010d), available at Docket ID 

No. OW-2009-0090. 

2. Two Viruses 

a. Enterovirus and Norovirus 

EPA proposes to monitor for enterovirus and norovirus in UCMR 3. Both enterovirus and 

norovirus (a group of viruses in the Caliciviruses family) are listed on CCL3. They are proposed 

for UCMR 3 monitoring because very limited data are available (Francy et al., 2004) on their 

occurrence in undisinfected PWSs located in sensitive hydrogeological areas. Of particular 

concern are PWSs in areas with , such as karst or fractured bedrock, as well as in noncommunity water systems. Recent data indicate that undisinfected ground water systems with 

low total coliform occurrence (and no Total Coliform Rule violations) had significant viral 

presence and disease manifestation (Borchardt et al., 200810, submitted for publication). This 

draft study showed a statistically significant correlation between viral qPCR (quantitative 

polymerase chain reaction) and self-reported acute gastrointestinal illness. This indicates that 

qPCR can be used as an indicator of relative vulnerability and potential disease incidence. 

Borchardt’s work showed a viral occurrence of 9% for enterovirus and 4% for norovirus in 

CWSs, almost all of which were in aquifers not considered sensitive. By targeting undisinfected, 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Track changes noted from draft to “revised” version

Page 23 of 93 

sensitive and non-community water systems, EPA expects higher viral occurrence than observed 

in Borchardt’s study.

EPA proposes to perform this monitoring as a Pre-Screen Testing of targeted 

undisinfected ground water systems located in karst or fractured bedrock. The monitoring would 

include CWSs, as well as non-transient and transient non-community water systems. Monitoring 

would also include sampling for pathogen indicators such as total coliforms, E.coli, 

bacteriophage, Enterococci and aerobic spores. 

The objectives of this monitoring are to obtain occurrence information concerning the 

occurrence of enterovirus and norovirus for further evaluation, and to gain a better understanding 

of the co-occurrence of pathogen indicators and viruses. to support regulatory determinations 

concerning enterovirus and norovirus, and to gain a better understanding of pathogen indicator 

and viral co-occurrence.

Enterovirus would be monitored using one method that has two detection assays. The 

first is a tissue culture assay also used in the Information Collection Rule survey conducted by 

EPA (USEPA, 1996), with one change; the 1 MDS filter would be replaced with the 

NanoCeram® filter, to significantly reduce sampling cost. The NanoCeram® filter has proven to 

be as effective as 1 MDS filter for the recovery of enteroviruses (Karim et al., 2009) and 

norovirus (Gibbons et al., 2010). The second assay is the qPCR, which detects the viral nucleic 

acid. 

Norovirus would only be monitored using qPCR, as there is no tissue culture method 

available. Both norovirus and enterovirus qPCR would be performed as per the protocol in 

Lambertini et al. (2008). The qPCR primers and probe for GI Norovirus would be as referenced 

in Jothikumar et al. (2005), while GII Norovirus primers and probe would be as referenced in 
, 

*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Track changes noted from draft to “revised” version

Page 24 of 93 

Ando et al. (1995). Primers and probe referenced in De Leon et al. (1990) and Monpoeho et al. 

(2000) would be used for enterovirus qPCR.

A technical presentation describing Borchardt’s work, and supporting EPA’s rationale for

including these viruses in UCMR 3, is available through the docket. EPA welcomes comments 

on the Borchardt data and on the merits of the proposed UCMR 3 monitoring. EPA anticipates 

that a peer-reviewed journal article describing the Borchardt work will be published in advance 

of the publication of the UCMR 3 final rule, and is committed to conducting appropriate peer 

review of the UCMR 3 virus data before any final regulatory determination by the Agency.

C. How Were Minimum Reporting Levels Determined? 

The quality of measurement definition is based on a standard tool of analytical chemistry

percent recovery of a known amount of analyte added to a reagent water sample (spiked blank). 

The lowest concentration minimum reporting level (LCMRL) is defined as the lowest spiking 

concentration at which recovery of between 50 and 150% is expected 99% of the time by a 

single analyst. 

The LCMRL is estimated using sophisticated statistical procedures that have been 

incorporated into an LCMRL calculator tool that is available on EPA’s Website

(http://water.epa.gov/scitech/drinkingwater/labcert/analyticalmethods_ogwdw.cfm). The 

statistical tool estimates a probability distribution for spike recovery as a function of spiking 

concentration. This requires regression modeling that estimates expected value and expected 

variance for repeated measurements as functions of spiking concentration. Often this variance is 

an increasing function of spiking level. In this case, ordinary least squares regression is not 

appropriate to estimate the expected value function. Weighted least squares is used with weights 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Track changes noted from draft to “revised” version

Page 25 of 93 

proportional to the reciprocal of the expected variance, multiplied by a weight (Tukey's biweight) 

that gives robustness against outliers. The variance model is estimated using a Generalized 

Linear Model. To estimate these regressions, an experimental design with replicate spiking at 

multiple concentrations is required. If the LCMRL estimate is below the lowest non-blank 

spiking concentration or above the highest spiking concentration, another set of blanks must be 

spiked so that the LCMRL is bracketed by the lowest and highest spike concentrations when the 

LCMRL is re-estimated. The spiked concentrations must be contained within the instrument 

calibration curve that is routinely used for each analyte. The combined procedure provides a 

robust estimator of the LCMRL and a sophisticated and useful measure of method capability. 

MRL

In today’s action, EPA is proposing revisions to the definition of the minimum reporting 

level (MRL). The proposed definition of the MRL reflects improvements in the statistical 

procedures for determining the LCMRL and MRL. These improvements were implemented by 

EPA to make the models more robust, i.e., so that the models can accommodate a wider range of 

observed LCMRL data sets. The MRL The minimum reporting level (MRL) for an analyte 

measured by a specified analytical method is designed to be an estimate of an LCMRL that is 

achievable, with 95% confidence, by a competent capable analyst/laboratory at least 75% of the 

time. Such a demonstration of ability to reliably make quality measurements at the MRL is 

intended to achieve high quality across the nation's laboratories while preserving national 

laboratory system capacity. 

In UCMR 2, the MRL was established by EPA by adding the mean of the LCMRL 

determined according to the procedure detailed in “Statistical Protocol for the Determination of 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Track changes noted from draft to “revised” version

Page 26 of 93 

The Single-Laboratory Lowest Concentration Minimum Reporting Level (LCMRL) and 

Validation of the Minimum Reporting Level (MRL)” (USEPA, 2004), 

(http://www.epa.gov/ogwdw/methods/pdfs/methods/methods_lcmrl.pdf) by the primary and 

secondary laboratories conducting the development and validation of the analytical method to 

three times the difference of the LCMRLs. If LCMRL data from three or more laboratories were 

available, the MRL was established by EPA by adding three times the standard deviation of the 

LCMRLs to the mean of the LCMRLs. 

In UCMR 3, EPA To estimated the MRL for an analyte/method, by obtaining data are 

obtained from several laboratories performing corresponding LCMRL studies. These data are 

used to construct an approximation to the distribution that would result from picking at random a 

laboratory/analyst proficient in performing the analytical method, and having them perform an 

LCMRL study and compute an LCMRL estimate. The strategy for computing the MRL is twofold. First, for each LCMRL data set, a distribution for repeated LCMRL determinations by the 

same laboratory/analyst is estimated by generating a large number of simulated values using a 

Bayesian bootstrap approach. Second, these values are combined to create an estimated overall 

distribution. If a result from one of the laboratories is significantly higher than that of other 

laboratories, this value would be down-weighted using a robust weight function. The resulting 

weighted values are used to construct a probability distribution from which the MRL is 

computed as the 95th percentile. EPA requests comments regarding the proposed definition of 

the MRL.

D. How Would Laboratories Conduct UCMR Analyses? 
e 

n 

s 

e 

*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Track changes noted from draft to “revised” version

Page 27 of 93 

As proposed, all laboratories conducting analyses for UCMR 3 List 1 contaminants 

would need to receive EPA approval to perform those analyses. Laboratories seeking approval

would be required to provide EPA with data that demonstrate their successful completion of an

initial demonstration of capability as outlined in each method, verification of successful 

performance at the MRLs as specified in today's action, and successful participation in an EPA 

Proficiency testing (PT) program for the analytes of interest. On-site audits of selected candidat

laboratories may be conducted. Details of the EPA laboratory approval program are contained i

the technical manual titled: "UCMR 3 Laboratory Approval Requirements and Information 

Document" (USEPA, 2010e). This document will be available on the electronic docket at: 

http://www.regulations.gov and will be provided to laboratories that register for the laboratory 

approval program. In addition, EPA may supply analytical reference standards of known 

concentrations for selected analytes to participating/approved laboratories, where such standard

are not readily available through commercial sources. 

Laboratory Approval Process for UCMR 3 

The proposed UCMR 3 laboratory approval program is similar tothe same as that 

employed in previous UCMR cycles. It is designed to assess and confirm the capability of 

laboratories to perform analyses using the methods listed in §141.40(a)(3), Table 1, of today's 

proposed rule. The UCMR 3 laboratory approval process is designed to assess whether 

laboratories meet the required equipment, laboratory performance, and data reporting criteria 

described in today's action. This evaluation program is voluntary in that it only applies to 

laboratories intending to analyze UCMR 3 samples. However, EPA would require systems to us

UCMR 3 approved laboratories when conducting monitoring for those analytes listed in Table 1
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Track changes noted from draft to “revised” version

Page 28 of 93 

of §141.40(a)(3) of this proposed rule. A list of laboratories approved for UCMR 3 would be 

posted to EPA's UCMR Web site:

http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/rulesregs/sdwa/ucmr/ucmr3/labs.cfmXXXXX. Laboratories are 

encouraged to apply for UCMR 3 approvals as early as possible, as schedules for large PWS 

sampling would be completed soon after the final rule is promulgated. The steps for the 

laboratory approval process are listed in the following paragraphs, a through f. 

a. Request to Participate. 

To request participation in the UCMR 3 laboratory approval process, the laboratory must 

contact EPA. Laboratories must send this request to: UCMR 3 Laboratory Approval Coordinator,

USEPA, Technical Support Center, 26 West Martin Luther King Drive (MS 140), Cincinnati, 

OH 45268; or e-mail at: EPA plans to begin accepting 

requests for registration forms for the List 1 (Assessment Monitoring) methods beginning 

[INSERT DATE OF PROPOSED RULE PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL

REGISTER]. EPA anticipates that the final opportunity for a laboratory to request the necessary 

registration forms would

 UCMR_Sampling_Coordinator@epa.gov. 

ill be 90 days after final rule publication, though laboratories are 

encouraged to apply as early as is practical after the publication of today’s proposed rule. 

b. Registration. 

Each laboratory that wishes to participate in UCMR 3 monitoring would be required to 

complete a registration form. EPA expects this registration information to include: laboratory 

name; mailing address; shipping address; contact name; phone number; fax number; e-mail 

address; and a list of the UCMR 3 methods for which the laboratory is seeking approval. The 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Track changes noted from draft to “revised” version

Page 29 of 93 

purpose of the registration step is to provide EPA with the necessary contact information, and 

ensure that each laboratory receives a customized application package of materials and 

instructions for the methods that it plans to use.

c. Application Package. 

When EPA receives the registration information, a customized application package 

would be sent to the laboratory for completion. Information requested in the application would 

include the following; initial demonstration of capability data, including precision, accuracy, and 

results of MRL studies, information regarding analytical equipment, proof of current drinking 

water laboratory certification, and example chromatograms for each method under review. 

The laboratory would be required to confirm that it will post UCMR 3 monitoring results 

(on behalf of its PWS clients) to EPA's UCMR electronic data reporting system. 

d. EPA Review of Application Package. 

EPA would review the application package and, if necessary, request follow-up 

information. Satisfactory completion of this portion of the process would be required for the 

laboratory to participate in the UCMR 3 Proficiency Testing (PT) program. 

e. Proficiency Testing. 

A PT sample is a synthetic sample containing a concentration of an analyte that is known 

to EPA, but unknown to the laboratory being tested. To complete the initial laboratory approval 

process, a laboratory would be expected to meet specific acceptance criteria for the analysis of 

asuccessfully analyze UCMR 3 PT sample(s) for each method for which the laboratory is 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Track changes noted from draft to “revised” version

Page 30 of 93 

seeking approval. EPA intends to offer up to four opportunities for a laboratory to successfully 

analyze the UCMR 3 PT samples. Up to three of these studies would be conducted prior to the 

publication of the final rule, but at least one study would be conducted after publication of the 

final rule. This would allow laboratories to complete their portion of the laboratory approval 

process prior to publication of the final rule, and therefore, receive their approval, immediately 

following the publication of the final rule, or to wait until the final rule is published before 

completing the required laboratory approval analyses. A laboratory only needs to pass one of the 

PT studies for each analytical method for which they are requesting approval. When a laboratory 

passes a PT for one of the UCMR 3 methods, EPA would not send that laboratory a PT sample 

for that method in later PT studies. Laboratories applying for UCMR 3 approval, and laboratories 

conducting UCMR 3 analyses, may be subject to on-site laboratory audits. No PT studies would 

be conducted after the start of monitoring; however, laboratory audits would be ongoing 

throughout the entire monitoring period of 2013-2015. Initial Laboratory laboratory approval 

would be contingent upon successful completion of a PT study. Continued laboratory approval is 

contingent upon successful completion of audits.

f. Written EPA Approval. 

After steps “a” through “e” of the PT approval process have been successfully completed, 

EPA would send the laboratory a letter listing the methods for which approval is pending (if the 

PT study and laboratory evaluation is conducted prior to promulgation of the final rule) or 

approval is granted (after promulgation of the final rule). Laboratories receiving a pending 

approval may then be approved without further action, following promulgation of the final rule, 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Track changes noted from draft to “revised” version

Page 31 of 93 

or they may need to take additional action, contingent upon what changes are applied to the rule 

between this proposal and promulgation of the final rule. 

E. What Are the New Applicability Considerations?

In section 141.40(a) of today’s proposed rule changes, EPA is proposing a new 

applicability date for information in the SDWIS/Fed system inventory. As proposed, the 

determination of whether a PWS is required to monitor under UCMR 3 would be based on the 

type of system (e.g., community water system, non-transient non-community water system, etc.), 

and its retail population served, as indicated by SDWIS/Fed on December 31, 2010.

In addition, EPA is proposing two changes to the applicability of UCMR 3 to PWSs. 

First, EPA proposes that applicability be based on retail population served. Whereas under 

UCMR 1 and 2 systems that purchased all of their water were not required to monitor; these 

systems would now be subject to UCMR monitoring requirements. Second, under UCMR 1 and 

2, transient systems were exempt from monitoring. EPA’s proposed changes would include make 

it possible for transient systems in the universe from which EPA may select small PWSs for List 

3 monitoring. Such systems would onlyto be included in UCMR 3 List 3 monitoring if they are 

notified by EPA that they have been selected for List 3 monitoring, and this monitoring would be 

done by EPA or its contractor. All other applicability criteria for UCMR 3 remain the same as 

those under UCMR 2. 

1. Applicability Based on Population Served 

Under UCMR 1, large PWSs were defined as those systems that served a population of 

more than 10,000 people and small PWSs were those that served 10,000 or fewer people. While 

this included the sum of the population served by the combined distribution system, this 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Track changes noted from draft to “revised” version

Page 32 of 93 

requirement was occasionally misunderstood. For UCMR 2, EPA clarified the population 

definition to include the sum of the retail population served directly by the PWS plus the 

population served by any consecutive system(s), receiving all or part of its finished water from 

that PWS. As established in the Stage 2 Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule (68 FR 

49548, August 18, 2003 (USEPA, 2003)), EPA defines a "consecutive system" as a PWS that 

buys or otherwise receives some or all of its finished water from one or more wholesale 

system(s). Under the population definition of UCMR 2, systems that purchased all of their water 

from other systems were not required to monitor. EPA is proposing a change in the definition of 

system population to include only a system's retail population. UCMR 3 requirements for 

systems would be based on their retail population served as reported to SDWIS/Fed as 

“Population Served” (i.e., wholesale or consecutive populations are not included).

EPA is proposing that PWSs be required to monitor for UCMR 3 contaminants, 

regardless of whether they purchase any or all of their water from another system. The 

population definitions used for the previous UCMRs created an inconsistency for PWSs 

purchasing their water. If a PWS purchased all of their water, they were not required to monitor 

at all, and systems that had no retail connections did have to monitor. If a PWS purchased some 

of their water, they were required to monitor from their own sources as well as their purchased 

source. The new proposed definition would eliminate this inconsistency. It would also eliminate 

the requirements for systems with no retail connections to monitor. EPA is aware that PWSs that 

purchase water evaluate their supply needs and associated costs, and may make adjustments 

during the UCMR monitoring period. They have been known to change wholesale suppliers or 

switch sources that they can directly access and treat for their retail customers. The dynamic 

nature of wholesale water supply is prompting EPA to propose and solicit stakeholder comment 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Track changes noted from draft to “revised” version

Page 33 of 93 

on establishing retail population as a clearer measure for determining applicability of the UCMR 

3 requirements. Retail population is a consistent factor for applicability determination and 

evaluating the direct sources (all entry points including wholesale connections) would improve 

data quality by directly assessing the drinking water served to the respective retail population. 

The new proposed definition would eliminate this inconsistency. It is also difficult to accurately 

determine the total population served by each source of water. For example, if PWS “A” buys all 

of its water from three different PWSs (“B, C, D”), it is unclear how to divide PWS A's retail 

population among the three PWSs to determine the wholesale populations for systems B, C, and 

D. Under the previous UCMR specifications, the total population of all systems was added 

together, which could lead to overestimating the population served by each source of water. 

Moreover, a system's population is used to determine exposure estimates. Because the 

retail population comprises all of the people exposed to water from a particular system, EPA will 

would have a clearer understanding of the number of people exposed to a detected contaminant. 

The proposed change to the definition of population would allow EPA to better estimate the total 

population served by a water system and ensures that exposure calculations are more accurate. 

PWSs are required to report their retail population to the Safe Drinking Water 

Information System-Federal (SDWIS/Fed), so this population is readily accessible to EPA when 

determining which systems are required to monitor for the UCMR 3. Using a system's retail 

population would also make the list of PWSs subject to UCMR more stable over the UCMR 3 

monitoring period, and eliminate another inconsistency in previous UCMRs. In past UCMRs, if a 

PWS began purchasing all of their water after the applicability date, the PWS would still have to 

monitor under UCMR. If, however, a system began using its own water sources after the UCMR 

applicability date, the system would not be required to begin monitoring under UCMR. Using a 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Track changes noted from draft to “revised” version

Page 34 of 93 

system's retail population to determine whether a system is subject to UCMR requirements 

would eliminate this disparity. 

Note that systems that purchase water with multiple connections from the same 

wholesaler would be permitted to propose one representative connection from that wholesaler. 

PWSs would choose a sampling location from among the higher annual volume EPTDS 

connections. If the connection selected as the representative EPTDS was not available for 

sampling, an alternate representative connection would need to be sampled. 

2. Applicability for Transient Systems

Under UCMR 1 and 2, Section 141.40(a)(1), transient non-community water systems 

were specifically exempted from UCMR monitoring. EPA is proposing revisions that would 

allow for certain transient systems to be selected for Pre-Screen Testing for List 3 contaminants. 

Under UCMR 3, EPA is proposing to conduct Pre-Screen Testing for enterovirus and norovirus

and related pathogen indicators at targeted undisinfected ground water systems that serve 1,000 

or fewer customers. EPA is proposing to include transient systems among the possible targeted 

systems – and to focus on viruses and not chemicals at those systems – since viruses are acute 

pathogens and exposure through a one-time ingestion (e.g., at a transient system) is of potential 

health concern. EPA requests comments regarding the inclusion of transient systems in UCMR 3 

Pre-Screen Testing.

As proposed under 141.40(a)(1) and 141.40(a)(2)(ii)(C), if any system (including 

transient systems) is notified by EPA or their state that they have been selected for Pre-Screen 

Testing the system must permit EPA (at EPA’s expense) to sample and analyze for List 3 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Track changes noted from draft to “revised” version

Page 35 of 93 

contaminants, and pathogen indicators, such as total coliform, E. coli, bacteriophage, 

Enterococci, and aerobic spores.

F. UCMR 3 Timeline and Sampling Design and Reporting Considerations 

As proposed, PWSs and EPA would conduct sampling and analysis for List 1 and List 3 

contaminants at each PWS during a 12 month period within the 2013 to 2015 timeframe. 

Preparation would begin prior to 2013 and would include coordination of laboratory approval, 

selection of representative samples of small systems, development of State Monitoring Plans, 

establishment of monitoring schedules, and notification of participating PWSs. As proposed, 

UCMR 3 would not include a Screening Survey for List 2 contaminants. Exhibit 4 illustrates the 

major activities that would take place in preparation for and during implementation of UCMR 3. 

Exhibit 4: Proposed Timeline of UCMR 3 Activities

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 

After proposed 

rule publication:

EPA lab approval 

program begins

After final rule 

publication: (1) 

EPA/State 

primacy 

authorities (PAs) 

and State 

monitoring plans 

developed 

(including 

national 

representative

sample, and 

Complete 

reporting and 

Assessment Monitoring analysis of data

List 1 Contaminants 

All systems serving more than 10,000; 800 systems 

serving 10,000 or fewer 

Pre-Screen Testing

List 3 Contaminants 

800 non-disinfecting ground water wells from 

systems serving 1,000 or fewer 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Track changes noted from draft to “revised” version

Page 36 of 93 

gGround wWater 

systems for List 

3);

(2) Inform PWSs/ 

establish 

monitoring plans

To minimize the impact of the rule on small systems (those serving 10,000 or fewer 

people), EPA would pay for the sample kit preparation, sample shipping fees, and analysis costs 

for these systems. In addition, no small system would be required to monitor for both List 1 and 

List 3 contaminants. Large systems (those serving more than 10,000 people) would pay for the 

cost of shipping and laboratory testing. 

1. UCMR 3 Reporting Considerations

EPA is proposing a few notable changes to reporting requirements based on lessons 

learned from UCMR 1 and UCMR 2, as well as some necessary changes related to new UCMR 3 

analytes. 

Demonstrating Representative Ground Water Sampling Locations: As established under 

UCMR 2, large systems that use ground water sources and have multiple EPTDSs can, with prior 

approval, conduct monitoring at representative entry point(s) rather than at each EPTDS. To 

monitor at representative EPTDSs, large systems must meet the reporting criteria specified in 

§141.35(c)(3)(ii), and receive approval from EPA or the State. Today’s proposed changes to the 

rule language clarify that when identifying a representative well, the well must be one of the 

higher annual volume producing and consistently active wells. In addition, should this location 

Formatted: None, Space Before: 3 pt, After:

6 pt, Don't keep with next
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Track changes noted from draft to “revised” version

Page 37 of 93 

go off-line, an alternative location must be sampled.

Reporting Schedule: As under previous UCMR cycles, lLarge systems would be 

responsible for reviewing, approving, and submitting (i.e., "reporting") monitoring results to 

EPA. To help ensure that monitoring and reporting is conducted as scheduled, EPA is proposing 

that systems must require their laboratories to post data to the EPA's electronic data reporting 

system – Safe Drinking Water Accession and Review System – within 60 days of sample 

collection; and that large systems must review, approve, and submit the data to the State and 

EPA within 30 days of when the laboratory posts the data. These time frames are specified in 

141.35(c)(6)(ii) and 141.40(a)(5)(vi) and compare to 120 days, and 60 days, (respectively) that 

were allowed under UCMR 1 and 2. With the previous turn-around times, it was sometimes 

difficult to ensure compliance with established monitoring schedules; these new turnaround 

times would reduce the chance of scheduled monitoring being missed or delayed. If systems do 

not electronically approve the laboratory data within 30 days of the laboratory's posting to EPA's 

electronic reporting system, the data would be considered approved for EPA and State review. 

EPA and the State would conduct its quality control reviews of the data after the system reports 

the data. States would also be given at least 60 days for their quality control review. After the 

EPA and State quality control review, EPA would place the data in the NCOD at the time of the 

next database update, typically three to four times per year. EPA requests comment on these 

shortened reporting timeframes.

Changes to Data Elements and their Reporting: EPA is proposing two changes to the 

data elements listed in Table 1 of 141.35(e). In addition, EPA is proposing a related change that 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Track changes noted from draft to “revised” version

Page 38 of 93 

would require systems to report all data elements with each sample. 

• Adding zip code, optional zip code extension, and zip codes served to Data Element 4 –

Sampling Point Identification Code: This additional location information is being requested 

related to sampling points because current information identifying the location of sampling 

points is limited. Zip code of the sampling point would assist with future vulnerability 

assessments. Zip codes tying the populations served to each sampling point would assist 

with future occurrence and exposure analyses.

• Clarifying and updating the definition of Data Element 6 – Disinfectant Type: Under

UCMR 2, Data Element 6 was established to provide information on “Disinfectant 

Residual Type” as it related to distribution system monitoring for nitrosamines (part of 

Screening Survey monitoring). EPA is proposing modification to the definition of this data 

element to account for changes to the analyte and monitoring specifications between 

UCMR 2 and UCMR 3. This revised definition lists additional disinfectant types to 

accommodate recent advances and changes to disinfectant technologies being used by 

water systems, and it provides that this data element be reported with all sample results.

• Reporting all data elements with each sample: Under UCMR 2 Assessment Monitoring, 

systems were required to report data elements 1 through 5 and 7 through 15. Data Element 

6 (Disinfectant Residual Type) was only reported as required by systems subject to the List 

2 Screening Survey monitoring of nitrosamines in distribution systems. EPA is proposing 

revisions to UCMR that would require systems to report all data elements with each sample 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Track changes noted from draft to “revised” version

Page 39 of 93 

(including Data Element 6 (Disinfectant Type)) since Assessment Monitoring within the 

distribution system is proposed and since the information on disinfectant type would be 

useful in the Agency’s evaluation of results for chlorate and the metals on List 1-

Assessment Monitoring and confirming no disinfection is applied at systems subject to List 

3 – Pre-Screen Testing.

21. Assessment Monitoring 

As proposed, Assessment Monitoring for List 1 contaminants would be conducted from 

January 1, 2013 through December 31, 2015 by all large systems (those systems serving more 

than 10,000 people), and by a nationally representative sample of 800 small systems (those 

serving 10,000 people or fewer). Other than these new monitoring dates, there are no other 

changes to the schedule and frequency of Assessment Monitoring between UCMR 2 and UCMR 

3. Small systems would be selected using the same type of stratified, random selection process as 

used in previous UCMRs. Samples would be collected from the entry point to the distribution 

systems (EPTDSs). Large ground water systems with multiple EPTDSs would be permitted to 

sample at representative sampling locations for each ground water source if those sites have been 

approved by EPA or the State. In addition to EPTDS monitoring, the four metals – cobalt, 

molybdenum, vanadium, and strontium – as well as chlorate, would be sampled at one 

distribution system sampling point per treatment plant (i.e., at the distribution system maximum 

residence time (DSMRT)). If the system’s treatment plant/water source is subject to sampling 

requirements under §141.132(b)(1) (the Stage 2 Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts 

Rule), samples for the metals and chlorate must be collected at the DSMRT sampling location(s) 

identified for that rule. If a treatment plant/water source is not subject to the sampling required in 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Track changes noted from draft to “revised” version

Page 40 of 93 

40 CFR 141.132(b)(1), then the distribution system samples must be collected at a location that, 

in the judgment of the PWS, represents the maximum residence time in the distribution system. 

Chlorate is being monitored at both the EPTDS and the DSMRT to determine the 

magnitude of chorate increases in the distribution system. The metals are monitored at both 

locations to assess any potential contribution from the distribution system. EPA is requesting 

comment on DSMRT sampling for the metals and chlorate.

As under previous UCMR cycles, sSamples at ground water locations would be collected 

twice during a designated consecutive 12-month period. Samples at locations that are fed in 

whole or part by a surface water or ground water under the direct influence of surface water 

(GWUDI) source would be collected quarterly during a designated consecutive 12-month period. 

Large system schedules (year and months of monitoring) would initially be determined by EPA 

in conjunction with the States (as described in section III.G. of today's action) and these systems 

would have an opportunity to modify this schedule. In today’s proposed action, EPA has 

incorporated clarifying revisions in 141.40(a)(4)(i)(B) to specify that large system monitoring 

schedules must be adjusted based on sample point availability. If it is not possible for a system to 

meet its specified sampling schedule (if, for instance, a particular sampling point is inactive 

during the scheduled sampling timeframe), the system must notify EPA to reschedule their 

sampling. As under previous UCMR cycles, tThe Agency would continue to schedule and 

coordinate small system monitoring, working closely with partnering States. State mMonitoring 

pPlans would provide a venue for States to review and revise the initial sampling schedules that 

EPA proposes (see discussion of state monitoring plans in section III.G. of today’s action: “What 

is the States’ Role in the UCMR Program?”). The 28 proposed List 1 contaminants to be 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Track changes noted from draft to “revised” version

Page 41 of 93 

monitored under Assessment Monitoring are listed in Exhibit 3, in section III.B of today’s 

action.

32. Pre-Screen Testing

As proposed, sampling under the Pre-Screen Testing for List 3 contaminants would be 

conducted from January 1, 2013 through December 31, 2015 by a targeted sample of 800 PWSs 

serving 1,000 or fewer people. Sampling would occur twice during a designated consecutive 12-

month period at each PWS. 

EPA proposes to monitor for enterovirus and norovirus (as well as associated pathogen 

indicators) in UCMR 3. Both enterovirus and norovirus are listed on CCL3. EPA proposes to 

perform this monitoring under Pre-Screen Testing at 800 targeted undisinfected ground water

wells from systems serving less than 1,000 or fewer customers that include CWSs, NTNCWSs 

and transient non-community water systems. This monitoring is proposed for systems that serve 

1,000 or fewer customers because these smaller systems are the least likely to be disinfected, and 

therefore, would be most vulnerable to contamination with viruses. The wells would be selected 

from vulnerable areas of such as karst or fractured bedrock. Monitoring would also include 

sampling for pathogen indicators such as total coliforms, E.coli, bacteriophage, Enterococci and 

aerobic spores. The objectives of this monitoring are: 1) to obtain occurrence information to 

support regulatory determinations of for enterovirus and norovirus; 2) to gain a better 

understanding of pathogen indicator and viral co-occurrence; and, 3) to gain more 

exposure/health risk information on viruses and indicators. 

A summary of the estimated number of systems to monitor under each UCMR 3 

component is listed in Exhibit 5. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Track changes noted from draft to “revised” version

Page 42 of 93 

Exhibit 5: Systems to Participate in UCMR 3 Monitoring 

System Size

(# of people 

served)

Assessment Monitoring for

28 List 1 Chemicals 

Pre-Screen

Testing for

Two List 3 

Microbials1

TOTAL2

National Sample 

Small Systems

25 – 10,000 800 randomly selected systems

800 selected 

undisinfected 

ground water 

wells from 

systems serving 

1,000 or fewer 

1,600 

Large Systems3

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

TOTAL 5,000 800 5,800 

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

serving 1,000 or fewer customers. Monitoring also includes sampling for pathogen indicators: total coliforms, E.coli, bacteriophage, 

Enterococci and aerobic spores. EPA would pay for all sampling and analysis costs associated with virus and pathogen indicator

monitoring at these small systems.

2 Total for small systems is additive because these systems would only be selected for one component of UCMR 3 sampling. 

Number is approximate.

3 Large system counts are approximate.

G. What Is the States' Role in the UCMR Program? 

Under UCMR 1 and UCMR 2, EPA described implementation and oversight activities 

that States could agree to through a Partnership Agreement (PA) process. Because the UCMR is 

a direct implementation rule, State participation is voluntary. Under UCMR 1, specific activities 

for individual States were identified in the rule language. Beginning with UCMR 2, specific 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Track changes noted from draft to “revised” version

Page 43 of 93 

activities for individual States are identified and established exclusively through the PAs, not 

through rule language. UCMR 3 would maintain this previously established process for UCMR 

2. 

In compliance with SDWA section 1445(a)(2)(C)(i), the UCMR program provides a role 

for States in developing a representative monitoring plan for small systems. This is important 

because States/primacy agencies most often have the best information about PWSs in their State.

Through PAs, States can help EPA implement the UCMR program and help ensure that the 

UCMR data used for future regulatory determinations are of the highest quality possible. EPA 

would continue to use the previously established PA structure during implementation of UCMR 

3 to address the following:, specifically addressing the process for review and revision of the 

sState monitoring plans; replacing and updating system information; modifying timing for 

monitoring, review and approval of proposed representative EPTDS; notification and 

instructions for systems; and compliance assistance. 

As established under UCMR 1 and 2, state monitoring plans include tabular listings of 

the systems that EPA selected to conduct monitoring and the EPA proposed date on which they 

are to be sampled. Initial state monitoring plans also include instructions to States for revising 

and/or correcting the state monitoring plans, including modifications to sampling schedules for 

small systems. EPA incorporates revisions from States, and returns the final state monitoring 

plans to each State.

IV. Cost of This Proposed Action 

In today's action, EPA proposes a new set of contaminants for monitoring in the third 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Track changes noted from draft to “revised” version

Page 44 of 93 

five-year UCMR monitoring cycle. In addition, UCMR 3 incorporates modifications to improve 

the rule design. UCMR 3 Assessment Monitoring (for List 1 contaminants) would be conducted 

from January 2013 through December 2015 by 800 systems serving 10,000 or fewer people, and 

by all systems serving more than 10,000 people. Eight hundred small systems would be 

randomly selected for List 1 monitoring. The Pre-Screen Testing for List 3 contaminants would 

also be conducted from January 2013 through December 2015 in 800 undisinfected ground water 

wells from systems serving 1,000 or fewer persons. It is assumed for this cost estimation that 

one-third of systems would monitor during each of the three monitoring years. 

Labor costs pertain to systems, States, and EPA. They include activities such as reading 

the regulation, notifying systems selected to participate, sample collection, data review, 

reporting, and record keeping. Non-labor costs would be incurred primarily by EPA and by large 

PWSs. They include the cost of shipping samples to laboratories for testing and the cost of the 

actual laboratory analyses. 

In today's action, EPA proposes six EPA developed analytical methods and four 

equivalent consensus organization developed methods to monitor for 28 new UCMR 3 chemical 

contaminants. While the preamble to this proposed rule also describes the analytical methods that 

would be used for the proposed virus monitoring, the proposal does not address these methods. 

Laboratory approval for virus monitoring is not expected to be necessary since all of the analyses 

for the two viruses are expected to be conducted in laboratories under EPA contract and at EPA’s 

expense. However, estimated system and EPA costs are based on the analytical costs for all 

UCMR 3 methods. With the exception of Methods 200.8 and 300.1, these methods are 

comparatively new and would not coincide with other compliance monitoring (i.e., no cost 

savings for coincident monitoring can be realized). Laboratory analysis and shipping of samples 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Track changes noted from draft to “revised” version

Page 45 of 93 

account for approximately 86% of the total national cost for UCMR 3 implementation. These 

costs are calculated as follows: the number of systems, multiplied by the number of sampling 

locations, multiplied by the sampling frequency, multiplied by the unit cost of laboratory 

analysis. Under UCMR 3, for List 1 Assessment Monitoring, surface water (and GWUDI) 

sampling points would be monitored four times during the applicable year of monitoring, and 

ground water sample points would be monitored twice during the applicable year of monitoring. 

Systems would monitor for the four metals – cobalt, molybdenum, vanadium, and strontium – as 

well as chlorate, at their EPTDS sampling locations and at one distribution system sampling 

point per treatment plant (i.e., at the DSMRT). Pre-Screen Testing systems would monitor two 

times during the three year monitoring period (2013 through 2015) at their EPTDSs. EPA 

estimates of laboratory fees are based on consultations with national drinking water laboratories 

and a review of the costs of analytical methods similar to those proposed in today's action. The 

cost of the six Assessment Monitoring methods analysis for the UCMR 3 chemicals is estimated 

at $1,320 per sample set (at the EPTDS); the cost of the Pre-Screen analyses Testing for viruses 

and related pathogen indicators (e.gi.e., total coliform, E. coli, bacteriophage, Enterococci, and 

aerobic spores) is estimated at $1,650 per sample set. Shipping estimates are added to the 

calculated costs to derive the total direct analytical non-labor costs. Estimated shipping costs 

were based on the average cost of shipping a 25-pound package. 

In preparing the UCMR 3 information collection request (ICR), EPA relied on standard 

assumptions and data sources used in the preparation of other drinking water program ICRs. 

These include the PWS inventory, number of sampling points per system, and labor rates. EPA 

expects that States would incur only labor costs associated with voluntary assistance with UCMR 

3 implementation. State costs were estimated using the relevant modules of the State Resource 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Track changes noted from draft to “revised” version

Page 46 of 93 

Model that was developed by the Association of State Drinking Water Administrators (ASDWA) 

in conjunction with EPA (ASDWA, 2003) to help States forecast resource needs. Model 

estimates were adjusted to account for actual levels of State participation under UCMR 2. 

Because State participation would be voluntary, level of effort would vary across States and 

depend on their individual agreements with EPA. 

Over the UCMR implementation period of 2012-2016, EPA estimates that nationwide, 

the average annual cost of UCMR 3 is approximately $14.9 million. These total estimated annual 

costs (labor and non-labor) are incurred as follows:

Respondent Avg. Annual Cost. All 

Respondents (2012-16)

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

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

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

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

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

AVERAGE ANNUAL NATIONAL TOTAL $14.949 m 

Additional details regarding EPA's cost assumptions and estimates can be found in the 

ICR Number 2192.01 amendment prepared for this proposed rule (Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) number xxxx-xxxx), which presents estimated cost and burden for the 2012-2014 

period. Estimates of costs over the entire third five-year UCMR cycle of 2012-2016 are attached

as an appendix to the ICR. Copies of the ICR and its amendment may be obtained from the EPA 

public docket for this proposed rule, which includes this ICR, under Docket ID Number 

OW-2004-0001. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Track changes noted from draft to “revised” version

Page 47 of 93 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review 

Under Executive Order (EO) 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is a 

"significant regulatory action.” Accordingly, EPA submitted this action to the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) for review under EO 12866 and any changes made in response 

to OMB recommendations have been documented in the docket for this action. 

In addition, EPA prepared an analysis of the potential costs associated with this action. 

This analysis is briefly summarized in section IV of the preamble of this proposed rule.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

The information collection requirements in this proposed rule have been submitted for 

approval to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 

44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The Information Collection Request (ICR) document prepared by EPA 

has been assigned EPA ICR number 2192.04. 

The information to be collected under today's proposed rule fulfills the statutory 

requirements of section 1445(a)(2) of SDWA, as amended in 1996. The data to be collected 

would describe the source of the water, location, and test results for samples taken from PWSs. 

The concentrations of any identified UCMR contaminants would be evaluated regarding health 

effects and would be considered for future regulation accordingly. Reporting is mandatory. The 

data are not subject to confidentiality protection. 

The annual burden and cost estimates described in this section are for the implementation 

assumptions described in section IV. Cost and Benefits of the Rule, in today's proposed action. 

Respondents to the UCMR 3 would include 1,600 small water systems (800 for Assessment 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Track changes noted from draft to “revised” version

Page 48 of 93 

Monitoring, and 800 wells for Pre-Screen Testing), the 4,191 large PWSs, and the 56 States and 

Primacy agencies (5,047 total respondents). The frequency of response varies across respondents 

and years. System costs (particularly laboratory analytical costs) vary depending on the number 

of sampling locations. For cost estimations, it is assumed that systems would conduct sampling 

evenly across January 2013 through December 2015 (i.e., one-third of systems in each of the 3 

consecutive 12-month periods). Because the applicable ICR period is 2012-2014, there is one 

year of monitoring activity (i.e., January through December of 2015) that is not captured in the 

ICR estimates. 

Small systems (those serving 10,000 or fewer) that are selected for UCMR 3 monitoring 

would sample an average of 1.5 times per system (i.e., number of responses per system) across 

the three-year ICR period of 2012-2014. The average burden per response for small systems is 

estimated to be 3.0 hours. Large systems (those serving 10,001 to 100,000 people) and very large 

systems (those serving more than 100,000 people) would sample and report an average of 2.7 

and 3.7 times per system, respectively, across the three-year ICR period of 2012-2014. The 

average burden per response for large and very large systems is estimated to be 6.1 and 6.3 

hours, respectively. States are assumed to have an average of 1.0 response per year, related to 

coordination with EPA and systems, with an average burden per response of 184 hours. In 

aggregate, during the ICR period of 2012-2014, the average response (e.g., responses from 

systems and States) is associated with a burden of 8.3 hours, with a labor plus non-labor cost of 

$2,714 per response. 

The annual average per respondent burden hours and costs for the ICR period of 2012-

2014 are: small systems – 1.5 hour burden at $34 for labor; large systems – 5.5 hours at $170 for 

labor, and $2,381 for analytical costs; very large systems – 7.7 hours at $295 for labor, and 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Track changes noted from draft to “revised” version

Page 49 of 93 

$5,460 for analytical costs; and States – 233.4 hours at $13,992 for labor. Annual average burden 

and cost per respondent (including both systems and States) is estimated to be 8.3 hours, with a 

labor plus non-labor cost of $1,985 per respondent (note that small systems do not pay for testing 

costs, and thus only incur labor costs). Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). 

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a 

collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB 

control numbers for EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. 

To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided 

burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, EPA has 

established a public docket for this rule, which includes this ICR, under Docket ID number EPAHQ-OW-2009-0090. Submit any comments related to the ICR to EPA and OMB. See 

ADDRESSES section at the beginning of this notice for where to submit comments to EPA. 

Send comments to OMB at the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of 

Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Office 

for EPA. Since OMB is required to make a decision concerning the ICR between 30 and 60 days 

after [INSERT DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER.], a comment to 

OMB is best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it by [INSERT DATE 30 DAYS 

AFTER PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER.]. The final rule will respond to 

any OMB or public comments on the information collection requirements contained in this 

proposal. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Track changes noted from draft to “revised” version

Page 50 of 93 

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-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and 

operated and is not dominant in its field.” However, the RFA also authorizes an agency to use 

alternative definitions for each category of small entity, “which are appropriate to the activities 

of the agency” after proposing the alternative definition(s) in the Federal Register and taking 

comment (5 U.S.C. 601(3) - (5)). In addition, to establish an alternative small business definition, 

agencies must consult with SBA's Chief Counsel for Advocacy. 

For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's proposed rule on small entities, EPA 

considered small entities to be PWSs serving 10,000 or fewer people, because this is the system 

size specified in SDWA as requiring special consideration with respect to small system 

flexibility. As required by the RFA, EPA proposed using this alternative definition in the Federal

Register, (63 FR 7606, February 13, 1998 (USEPA, 1998a)), requested public comment, 

consulted with the SBA, and finalized the alternative definition in the Consumer Confidence 

Reports rulemaking, (63 FR 44512, August 19, 1998 (USEPA, 1998cb)). As stated in that Final 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Track changes noted from draft to “revised” version

Page 51 of 93 

Rule, the alternative definition would be applied to future drinking water regulations, including 

this regulation as well. 

After considering the economic impacts of today's proposed rule on small entities, I 

certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of 

small entities. The small entities directly regulated by this proposed rule are PWSs serving 

10,000 or fewer people. EPA has determined that the small entities subject to the requirements of 

this proposed rule are a subset of the small PWSs (those serving 10,000 or fewer people). The 

Agency has determined that 1,600 small PWSs (across Assessment Monitoring and Pre-Screen 

Testing), or approximately 3% of small systems, would experience an impact of less than 0.4% 

of revenues; the remainder of small systems would not be impacted. 

Although this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities, EPA nonetheless has tried to reduce the impact of this rule on small 

entities. To ensure that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities, EPA will assume all costs for analyses of the samples and 

for shipping the samples from these systems to the laboratories contracted by EPA to analyze 

UCMR 3 samples. EPA has set aside $2.0 million each year from the State Revolving Fund 

(SRF) with its authority to use SRF monies for the purposes of implementing this provision of 

SDWA. Thus, the costs to these small systems will be limited to the labor hours associated with 

collecting a sample and preparing it for shipping. 

The Agency continues to be interested in the potential impacts of the proposed rule on 

small entities and welcomes comments on issues related to such impacts.

The evaluation of the overall impact on small systems, summarized in the preceding 

discussion, is further described as follows. EPA analyzed the impacts for privately-owned and 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Track changes noted from draft to “revised” version

Page 52 of 93 

publicly-owned water systems separately, due to the different economic characteristics of these 

ownership types, such as different rate structures and profit goals. However, for both publiclyand privately-owned systems, EPA used the “revenue test,” which compares annual system costs 

attributed to the rule to the system’s annual revenues. Median revenue data from the not yet 

published 2006 Community Water System Survey were used for public and private water 

systems. EPA assumes that the distribution of the sample of participating small systems will 

reflect the proportions of publicly- and privately-owned systems in the national inventory. The 

estimated distribution of the representative sample, categorized by ownership type, source water, 

and system size, is presented in Exhibit 6. 

Exhibit 6: Number of Publicly- and Privately-Owned Small Systems Subject to UCMR 3

System Size

(# of people served) Publicly-Owned Privately-Owned Total

Ground Water

500 and under 126 378 504 

501 to 3,300 477 182 659 

3,301 to 10,000 207 48 255 

Subtotal GW 810 608 1,418 

Surface Water (and GWUDI)

500 and under 2 3 5 

501 to 3,300 35 13 48 

3,301 to 10,000 100 29 129 

Subtotal SW 137 45 182 

Total of Small Water 

Systems 947 653 1,600 

The basis for the UCMR 3 RFA certification for this proposed rule is as follows: for the 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Track changes noted from draft to “revised” version

Page 53 of 93 

1,600 small water systems that would be affected, the average annual costs for complying with 

this rule represent less than 0.4% of system revenues (the highest estimated percentage is for 

ground water systems serving 500 or fewer people, at 0.38% of its median revenue). Exhibit 7 

presents the yearly costs to small systems, and to EPA for the small system sampling program, 

along with an illustration of system participation for each year of the UCMR 3 program. 

Exhibit 7: EPA and Systems Costs for Implementation of UCMR 3 at Small Systems

Cost 

Description 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total 

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

Testing)

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

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

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

Total Costs to EPA and Small Systems for UCMR 2:

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

System Monitoring Activity Timeline:1

Assessment 

Monitoring

1/3 PWSs 

Sample

1/3 PWSs

Sample

1/3 PWSs 

Sample 800 

Pre-Screen 

Testing

1/3 PWSs 

Sample

1/3 PWSs 

Sample

1/3 PWSs 

Sample 800 

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

System costs are attributed to the labor required for reading about their requirements, 

monitoring, reporting, and record keeping. The estimated average annual burden across the fiveyear UCMR 3 implementation period of 2012-2016 is estimated to be 1.3 hours at $31 per small 

system. Average annual cost, in all cases, is less than 0.4% of system revenues. As required by 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Track changes noted from draft to “revised” version

Page 54 of 93 

the SDWA, the Agency specifically structured the rule to avoid significantly affecting small 

entities by assuming all costs for laboratory analyses, shipping, and quality control for small 

entities. As a result, EPA incurs the entirety of the non-labor costs associated with UCMR 3 

small system monitoring, or 98% of total small system testing costs. Exhibits 8 and 9 present the 

estimated economic impacts in the form of a revenue test for publicly- and privately-owned 

systems. 

Exhibit 8: UCMR 3 Relative Cost Analysis for Small Publicly-Owned Systems (2012-2016) 

System Size

(# of people 

served)

Annual Number 

of Systems 

Impacted 

Average Annual 

Hours per 

System (2012-

2016)

Average Annual 

Cost per System 

(2012-2016)

Revenue Test 1

Ground Water Systems

500 and under 25 1.1 $22.63 0.07% 

501 to 3,300 96 1.2 $26.84 0.02% 

3,301 to 10,000 41 1.7 $43.71 0.01% 

Surface Water (and GWUDI) Systems

500 and under 1 1.8 $38.06 0.07% 

501 to 3,300 7 1.9 $41.99 0.02% 

3,301 to 10,000 20 2.0 $51.02 0.005% 

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

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

Exhibit 9: UCMR 3 Relative Cost Analysis for Small Privately-Owned Systems (2012-2016) 

System Size

(# of people 

served)

Annual Number 

of Systems 

Impacted

Average Annual 

Hours per System 

(2012-2016)

Average Annual 

Cost per System 

(2012-2016)

Revenue Test 1

Ground Water Systems

500 and under 76 1.1 $22.63 0.38% 

501 to 3,300 36 1.2 $26.84 0.02% 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Track changes noted from draft to “revised” version

Page 55 of 93 

3,301 to 10,000 10 1.7 $43.71 0.004% 

Surface Water (and GWUDI) Systems

500 and under 1 1.8 $38.06 0.11% 

501 to 3,300 3 1.9 $41.99 0.02% 

3,301 to 10,000 6 2.0 $51.02 0.005% 

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

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

The Agency continues to be interested in the potential impacts of the proposed rule on 

small entities and welcomes comments on issues related to such impacts.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

This rule does not contain a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 

million or more for State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in 

any one year. Total annual costs of today's proposed rule (across the implementation period of 

2012-2016), for State, local, and Tribal governments and the private sector, are estimated to be 

$14.9 million, of which EPA would pay $3.3 million, or approximately 22%. Thus, this rule is 

not subject to the requirements of sections 202 or 205 of UMRA. 

This rule is also not subject to the requirements of section 203 of UMRA because it 

contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. 

The Agency expects to pay for the reasonable costs of sample analysis for the small PWSs 

required to monitor for unregulated contaminants under this proposed rule, including those owned 

and operated by small governments. The only costs that small systems would incur are those 

attributed to collecting the UCMR samples and packing them for shipping to the laboratory (EPA 

would pay for shipping). These costs are minimal. They are not significant or unique. Thus, today's 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Track changes noted from draft to “revised” version

Page 56 of 93 

rule is not subject to the requirements of UMRA section 203.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

This proposed rule does not have Federalism implications. It will not have substantial 

direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, 

or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as 

specified in Executive Order 13132. The cost to State and local governments is minimal, and the 

rule does not preempt State law. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this action.

In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA policy to promote 

communications between EPA and State and local governments, EPA specifically solicits 

comment on the proposed rule from State and local officials. 

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

Subject to the Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000) EPA may not 

issue a regulation that has Tribal implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance costs, 

and that is not required by statute, unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary to 

pay the direct compliance costs incurred by Tribal governments, or EPA consults with Tribal 

officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation and develops a Tribal 

summary impact statement. 

EPA has concluded that this action will have Tribal implications. However, it will neither 

impose substantial direct compliance costs on Tribal governments, nor preempt Tribal law. As 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Track changes noted from draft to “revised” version

Page 57 of 93 

described previously, this proposed rule requires monitoring by all large systems (i.e., those 

serving more than 10,000 people); 17 Tribal water systems have been identified as large systems

based on information in the SDWIS/Fed water system inventory. EPA estimates the average 

annual cost to each of these large systems, over the five-year rule period, to be less than $2,381. 

This cost is based on a labor component (associated with the collection of samples) and a nonlabor component (associated with shipping and laboratory fees) and represents less than 0.126% 

of average revenue/sales for large systems. UCMR also requires monitoring by a nationally 

representative sample of small systems (i.e., those serving 10,000 or fewer people). EPA 

estimates that approximately one percent of small Tribal systems will be selected as a nationally 

representative sample for Assessment Monitoring. EPA estimates the average annual cost over 

the five-year rule period to be $34. Such cost is based on the labor associated with collecting a 

sample and preparing it for shipping and represents less than 0.4% of average revenue/sales for 

small systems. All other small-system expenses (associated with shipping and laboratory fees) 

are paid by EPA.

EPA consulted with Tribal officials early in the process of developing the UCMR 

program to permit them to have meaningful and timely input into its development. In developing 

the original UCMR rule, EPA held stakeholder meetings and prepared background information 

for stakeholder review. EPA sent requests for review of stakeholder documents to nearly 400 

Tribes, Tribal organizations, and small systems organizations to obtain their input. 

Representatives from the Indian Health Service (IHS) Sanitary Deficiency System and Tribes 

were consulted regarding decisions on rule design, the design for the statistical selection of small 

systems, and potential costs. Tribes raised issues concerning the selection of the nationally 

representative sample of small systems, particularly the manner in which Tribal systems would 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Track changes noted from draft to “revised” version

Page 58 of 93 

be considered under the sample selection process. EPA developed the sample frame for Tribal 

systems and Alaska Native water systems in response to those concerns. EPA worked with the 

Tribes, Alaska Natives, the IHS, and the States to determine how to classify each Tribal system 

for consideration in the statistically-based selection of the nationally representative sample of 

small systems. As a result of those discussions, small PWSs located in Indian country in each of 

the EPA Regions containing Indian country were evaluated as part of a Tribal category that 

receives selection consideration comparable to that of small systems outside of Indian country. 

Thus, Tribal systems have the same probability of being selected as other water systems in the 

stratified selection process that weighs systems by water source and size class by population 

served. Today's proposed rule, addressing the third UCMR period, maintains the basic program 

design of UCMR 1 and 2, and continues to build upon the structure of this cyclical program. As 

part of the development of this proposed rule, EPA held a public stakeholder meeting on April 7, 

2010. This meeting was announced to the public in a Federal Register notice dated February 23, 

2010 (75 FR 8063 (USEPA, 2010a)). Prior to the meeting, background materials and rule 

development information were sent to specific stakeholders, including representatives from the 

Indian Health Service and the Native American Water Association.

EPA specifically solicits additional comment on this proposed action from tribal officials.

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

EPA interprets EO 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as applying only to those 

regulatory actions that concern health or safety risks, such that the analysis required under 

section 5-501 of the EO has the potential to influence the regulation. This action is not subject to 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Track changes noted from draft to “revised” version

Page 59 of 93 

EO 13045 because it does not establish an environmental standard intended to mitigate health or 

safety risks and it is not an economically significant regulation pursuant to EO 12866. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use 

This action is not a “significant energy action” as defined in Executive Order 13211 (66 

FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)), because it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the 

supply, distribution, or use of energy because it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect 

on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. None of the proposed UCMR requirements involve 

actions that use a measurable amount of energy.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act 

Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 

(“NTTAA”), Public Law No. 104-113 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary 

consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with 

applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards 

(e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business practices) that are 

developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provide 

Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and 

applicable voluntary consensus standards. 

This proposed rulemaking involves technical standards. EPA proposes to use the methods 

developed by the Agency for the determination analysis of these UCMR 3 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Track changes noted from draft to “revised” version

Page 60 of 93 

parameterscontaminants. The Agency conducted a search of potentially applicable voluntary 

consensus standards and identified three major voluntary consensus method organizations whose 

methods might be acceptable for determinations under Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring. 

These organizations are Standard Methods, Association of Analytical Communities 

International, and American Society for Testing and Materials. For the majority of the 

parameters included in this proposed action, EPA was unable to identify methods from either 

EPA or voluntary consensus method organizations that were applicable to the monitoring 

required. However, EPA identified acceptable consensus method organization standards for the 

analysis of vanadium, molybdenum, cobalt, strontium and chlorate. Therefore, EPA is proposing 

analytical methods published by EPA, Standard Methods, and American Society for Testing and 

Materials for these analytes. 

EPA welcomes comments on this aspect of the proposed rulemaking and, specifically, 

invites the public to identify potentially-applicable voluntary consensus standards and to explain 

why such standards should be used in this regulation. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority 

Populations and Low-Income Populations 

Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes Federal executive 

policy on environmental justice. Its main provision directs Federal agencies, to the greatest 

extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by 

identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Track changes noted from draft to “revised” version

Page 61 of 93 

income populations in the United States. 

EPA has determined that this proposed rule will not have disproportionately high and 

adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income populations because it 

increases the level of environmental protection for all affected populations without having any 

disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on any population, 

including any minority or low-income population. By seeking to identify unregulated 

contaminants that may pose health risks via drinking water from all PWSs, UCMR furthers the 

protection of public health for all citizens, including minority and low-income populations using 

public water supplies. UCMR uses a statistically-derived set of systems for the nationally 

representative sample that is population-weighted within each system size and source water 

category so that any PWS within a category has an equivalent likelihood of selection. 

Additionally, EPA is proposing to require additional reporting elements that include U.S. Ppostal 

Service Zzip Ccodes for both the finished water entry point(s) and the PWS’s service area. EPA 

is soliciting comment on additional actions the Agency could take to further address 

environmental justice within the UCMR program. EPA requests stakeholder input on additional 

reporting elements to consider to support the Agency’s assessment of the monitoring results. 

EPA also requests comments regarding sampling and/or modeling approaches, and the feasibility 

and utility of applying these approaches, to determine disproportionate impacts on drinking 

water quality at PWSs serving minority and low-income populations. 

VI. Public Involvement in Regulation Development
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Track changes noted from draft to “revised” version

Page 62 of 93 

EPA's Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water has developed a process for 

stakeholder involvement in its regulatory activities for the purpose of providing early input to 

regulation development. When designing and developing the UCMR program, in the late 1990s, 

EPA held meetings for developing the CCL, establishing the information requirements of the 

NCOD, and selecting priority contaminants for monitoring. During the initial development of the 

UCMR program, stakeholders, including PWSs, States, industry, and other organizations 

attended meetings to discuss the UCMR. Seventeen other meetings were held specifically 

concerning UCMR development. For a description of public involvement activities related to the

first UCMR (UCMR 1), please see the discussion in the September 17, 1999 UCMR Final Rule 

Federal Register at 64 FR 50556 (USEPA, 1999c). 

Specific to the development of UCMR 3, a stakeholder meeting was held on April 7, 

2010, in Washington, DC. There were 22 attendees, representing State agencies, laboratories, 

PWSs, environmental groups, and drinking water associations. The topics of presentations and 

discussions included: status of UCMR 2; rationale for developing a new list of potential 

contaminants; analytical methods that could be used in measuring these contaminants; sampling 

design; procedure for determining LCMRLs; laboratory approval; and other potential revisions 

based on lessons learned during implementation of UCMR 1 and UCMR 2 (see USEPA, 2010f 

for presentation materials, and 2010g for meeting notes). 

EPA has established a public docket for this rule, under Docket ID No. OW-2009-0090. 

EPA is soliciting comments on this proposed regulation. Please see the summary section at the 

beginning of this notice for instructions on submitting comments. 

VII. References
- 

*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Track changes noted from draft to “revised” version

Page 63 of 93 

Ando, T., S.S. Monroe, J.R. Gentsch, Q. Jin, D.C. Lewis, and R.I. Glass. 1995. Detection and 

differentiation of antigenically distinct small round-structured viruses (Norwalk-like 

viruses) by reverse transcription-PCR and southern hybridization. Journal of Clinical 

Microbiology. 33(1):64–71. 

Association of State Drinking Water Administrators (ASDWA). 2003. Public Health Protection 

Threatened by Inadequate Resources for State Drinking Water Programs–An Analysis of

State Drinking Water Programs Resources, Needs, and Barriers. April 2003. 

ASTM D5673-0510. 20052010. Standard Test Method for Elements in Water by Inductively 

Coupled Plasma-Mass Spectrometry. Available for purchase on the Internet at 

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

ASTM D6581-08. 2008. Standard Test Methods for Bromate, Bromide, Chlorate, and Chlorite 

in Drinking Water by Suppressed Ion Chromatography. Available for purchase on the 

Internet at http://www.astm.org/Standards/D6581.htm. 

Borchardt, M.A., S.K. Spencer, B.A. Kieke Jr., E. Lambertini, and F.J. Loge. Human viruses in 

groundwater: association with community rates of acute gastrointestinal illness. 

Submitted. 2008. Wisconsin Water And Health Trial for Enteric Risks (WAHTER Study) 

Part 1:Risk of Illness from Municipal Groundwater Consumption. EPA Office of Water 

Symposium on Groundwater-Borne Infectious Disease, Etiologic Agents and Indicators, 

Washington, DC, December 2-4, 2008.

De Leon, R., C. Shieh, R.S. Baric, and M.D. Sobsey. 1990. Detection of enteroviruses and 

hepatitis A virus in environmental samples by gene probes and polymerase chain 

reaction. P. 833-835. In Advances of Water Analysis and Treatment Proceedings 1989. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Track changes noted from draft to “revised” version

Page 64 of 93 

Water Quality Technology Conference, American Water Works Association, Denver, 

CO. American Water Works Association, San Diego, CA. 

Francy, D.S., R.N. Bushon, J. Stopar, E.J. Luzano, and G.S. Fout. 2004. Environmental Factors 

and Chemical and Microbiological Water-Quality Constituents Related to the Presence 

of Enteric Viruses in Ground Water From Small Public Water Supplies in Southeastern 

Michigan. US Geological Survey Science Investigations Report 2004-5219. 

Gibbons, C.D., R.A. Rodriguez., L. Tallon, M.D. Sobsey. 2010. Evaluation of positively charged 

alumina nanofibre cartridge filters for the primary concentration of noroviruses, 

adenoviruses and male-specific coliphages from seawater. Journal of Applied 

Microbiology. February 2010.109(2):635-641.

Jothikumar, N., J.A. Lowther, K. Henshilwood, D.N. Lees, V.R. Hill, and J. Vinje ́. 2005. Rapid 

and sensitive detection of noroviruses by using TaqMan-based one-step reverse 

transcription-PCR assays and application to naturally contaminated shellfish samples. 

Applied and Environmental Microbiology. 71(4):1870–1875. 

Karim, M.R., E.R. Rhodes, N. Brinkman, L. Wymer, and G.S. Fout. 2009. New electropositive 

filter for concentrating enteroviruses and noroviruses from large volumes of water. 

Applied and Environmental Microbiology. 75(8):2393–2399. 

Lambertini, E., S.K. Spencer, P.D. Bertz, F.J. Loge, B.A. Kieke, and M.A. Borchardt. 2008. 

Concentration of enteroviruses, adenoviruses, and noroviruses from drinking water by 

use of glass wool filters. Applied and Environmental Microbiology. 74(10):2990–2996. 

Monpoeho, S., A. Dehée, B. Mignotte, L. Schwartzbrod, V. Marechal, J.C. Nicolas, S. Billaudel, 

and V. Ferré. 2000. Quantification of enterovirus RNA in sludge samples by single tube 

real-time RT-PCR. BioTechniques. 29:88-95. 
f 

, 

l

*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Track changes noted from draft to “revised” version

Page 65 of 93 

SM 3125. 1997. Metals by Inductively Coupled Plasma/Mass Spectrometry. Available for 

purchase on the Internet at 

http://www.standardmethods.org/store/ProductView.cfm?ProductID=211. 

SM 4110D. 2000. Determination of Anions by Ion Chromatography, Part D, IC determination o

oxyhalides and bromide. Available for purchase on the Internet at 

http://www.standardmethods.org/store/ProductView.cfm?ProductID=31. 

USEPA. 1989. National Primary Drinking Water Regulations; Filtration, Disinfection; Turbidity

Giardia Lamblia, Viruses, Legionella, and Heterotrophic Bacteria; Final Rule. Federal

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

USEPA. 1994. Method 200.8 - Determination of Trace Elements in Waters and Wastes by 

Inductively Coupled Plasma-Mass Spectrometry. Revision 5.4. Available on the Internet

at http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/methods/methods_index.cfm

https://www.nemi.gov/. 

USEPA. 1996. Information Collection Rule Microbial Laboratory Manual. Office of Research 

and Development. April 1996. EPA/600/R-95/178. Available on the Internet at 

http://www.epa.gov/nerlcwww/online/html#icrhttp://www.epa.gov/microbes/online.htm

#icr. 

USEPA. 1997. Method 300.1 - Determination of Inorganic Anions in Drinking Water by Ion 

Chromatography. Revision 1.0. Available on the Internet at

http://water.epa.gov/scitech/drinkingwater/labcert/analyticalmethods_ogwdw.cfmhttp://w

ater.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/methods/methods_index.cfm. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Track changes noted from draft to “revised” version

Page 66 of 93 

USEPA. 1998a. 40 CFR Parts 141 and 142 National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: 

Consumer Confidence; Proposed Rule. Federal Register. Vol. 63, No. 30, p. 7606, 

February 13, 1998.

USEPA. 1998b. 40 CFR Parts 141 and 142 National Primary Drinking Water Regulation: 

Consumer Confidence Reports; Final Rule. Federal Register. Vol. 63, No. 160, p. 44512, 

August 19, 1998.

USEPA. 1999. Revisions to the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation for Public 

Water Systems; Final Rule. Federal Register. Vol. 64, No. 180, p. 50556, September 17, 

1999.

USEPA. 2001. Statistical Design and Sample Selection for the Unregulated Contaminant 

Monitoring Regulation (1999). EPA 815-R-01-004. August 2001.

USEPA. 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. 

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. Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation for Public Water Systems; 

Analytical Methods of List 2 Contaminants; Clarifications to the Unregulated 

Contaminant Monitoring Regulation. Federal Register. Vol. 66, No. 95, p. 27215, May 

16, 2001.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Track changes noted from draft to “revised” version

Page 67 of 93 

USEPA. 2001c. Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation for Public Water Systems; 

Amendment to the List 2 Rule and Partial Delay of Reporting of Monitoring Results. 

Federal Register. Vol. 66, No. 171, p. 46221, September 4, 2001.

USEPA. 2002a. Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation for Public Water Systems; 

Establishment of Reporting Date. Federal Register. Vol. 67, No. 48, p. 11043, March 12, 

2002.

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. 2003. National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Stage 2 Disinfectants and 

Disinfection Byproducts Rule; National Primary and Secondary Drinking Water 

Regulations: Approval of Analytical Methods for Chemical Contaminants. Federal 

Register. Vol. 68, No. 159, p. 49547, August 18, 2003.

USEPA. 2004. Statistical Protocol for the Determination of the Single-Laboratory Lowest 

Concentration Minimum Reporting Level (LCMRL) and Validation of Laboratory 

Performance at or Below the Minimum Reporting Level (MRL). EPA 815-R-05-006. 

November 2004.

USEPA. 2006a. National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface 

Water Treatment Rule. Federal Register. Vol. 71, No. 3, p. 654, January 5, 2006. 

USEPA. 2006b. National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Ground Water Rule. Federal

Register. Vol. 71, No. 216, p. 65574, November 8, 2006.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Track changes noted from draft to “revised” version

Page 68 of 93 

USEPA. 2007. Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation (UCMR) for Public Water 

Systems Revisions. Federal Register. Vol. 72, No. 2, p. 367, January 4, 2007. 

USEPA. 2008. Method 522 - Determination of 1,4-Dioxane in Drinking Water by Solid Phase 

Extraction (SPE) and Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry (GC/MS) with Selected 

Ion Monitoring (SIM). EPA/600/R-08/101. Version 1.0, September 2008. Available on 

the Internet at http://www.epa.gov/nerlcwww/ordmeth.htm. 

USEPA. 2009a. Method 524.3 - Measurement of Purgeable Organic Compounds in Water by 

Capillary Column Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry. EPA/815/B-09/009. 

Version 1.0, June 2009. Available on the Internet at 

http://water.epa.gov/scitech/drinkingwater/labcert/analyticalmethods_ogwdw.cfm. 

USEPA. 2009b. Method 537 - Determination of Selected Perfluorinated Alkyl Acids in Drinking 

Water by Solid Phase Extraction and Liquid Chromatography/Tandem Mass 

Spectrometry (LC/MS/MS). EPA/600/R-08/092. Version 1.1, September 2009. Available 

on the Internet at http://www.epa.gov/nerlcwww/ordmeth.htm. 

USEPA. 2009c. Drinking Water Contaminant Candidate List 3–Final. Federal Register. Vol. 74, 

No. 194, p. 51850, October 8, 2009. 

USEPA. 2010a. Stakeholder Meeting Regarding Revisions to the Unregulated Contaminant 

Monitoring Regulation. Federal Register. Vol. 75, No. 35, p. 8063, February 23, 2010. 

USEPA. 2010b. National Primary Drinking Water Regulations; Announcement of the Results of 

EPA’s Review of Existing Drinking Water Standards and Request for Public Comment 

and/or Information on Related Issues; Notice. Federal Register. Vol. 75, No. 59, p. 

15500, March 29, 2010. 
w

t 

Comment [aws1]: For final version will finalize 

page “x of y” with track change removed. This 

header will go at top of signature page, preceding 

anything that falls on the page with the signature 

[e.g., references, list of subjects, etc.].

*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Track changes noted from draft to “revised” version

Page 69 of 93 

USEPA. 2010c. Method 539 - Determination of Hormones in Drinking Water by Solid Phase 

Extraction (SPE) and Liquid Chromatography Electrospray Ionization Tandem Mass 

Spectrometry (LC-ESI-MS/MS). Available on the Internet at 

http://water.epa.gov/scitech/drinkingwater/labcert/analyticalmethods_ogwdw.cfmhttp://

ww.epa.gov/nerlcwww/ordmeth.htm. Draft in process. 

USEPA. 2010d. Possible Contaminants for Inclusion on UCMR 3 – Information Compendium.

EPA 815-B-10-002Draft in process. 

USEPA. 2010e. UCMR 3 Laboratory Approval Requirements and Information Document. Draf

in process. 

USEPA. 2010f. Stakeholder Meeting Regarding Revisions to the Unregulated Contaminant 

Monitoring Regulation – Presentation Materials. April 7, 2010.

USEPA. 2010g. Stakeholder Meeting Regarding Revisions to the Unregulated Contaminant 

Monitoring Regulation – Meeting Notes. April 2010.

[Title: Revisions to the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation (UCMR 3) for 

Public Water Systems; page 61 of 84] 

List of Subjects 

40 CFR Part 141 

Environmental protection, Chemicals, Indians-lands, Intergovernmental relations, 

Radiation protection, Reporting and record keeping requirements, Water supply.

40 CFR Part 142 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Track changes noted from draft to “revised” version

Page 70 of 93 

Environmental protection, Administrative practices and procedures, Chemicals, Indian 

lands, Radiation protection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Water supply. 

Dated:

Lisa P. Jackson,

Administrator.

For the reasons set out in the preamble, Title 40, chapter 1 of the Code of Federal

Regulations is proposed to be amended as follows: 

PART 141 - NATIONAL PRIMARY DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS

1. The Authority citation for Part 141 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 300f, 300g-1, 300g-2, 300g-3, 300g-4, 300g-5, 300g-6, 300j-4, 

300j-9, and 300j-11. 

Subpart C – Monitoring and Analytical Requirements

2. Section 141.23 is amended in the table to paragraph (k)(1) by revising entries 18, 19, and 20; 

and by removing footnote 23 to read as follows:

§141.23 Inorganic chemical sampling and analytical requirements.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Track changes noted from draft to “revised” version

Page 71 of 93 

* * * * *

(k) Inorganic analysis: 

* * * * *

Contaminant Methodology13 EPA Method ASTM3 SM4 (18th, 

19th ed.) 

SM4 (20th

ed.) 

SM 

Online22 Other

* * * * *** 

18. Nitrate Ion 

Chromatography

300.06

300.119

D4327-97, 

03 

4110 B 4110 B 4110 B00 B-10118 

Automated 

Cadmium 

Reduction 

353.26 D3867-90 

A 

4500-NO3

-

F 

4500-NO3

-

F 

4500-

NO3

-

 F00 

Ion Selective 

Electrode

......................... .................. 4500-NO3

-

D 

4500-NO3

-

D 

4500-

NO3

-

 D00 

6017 

Manual Cadmium 

Reduction 

......................... D3867-90 

B 

4500-NO3

-

E 

4500-NO3

-

E 

4500-

NO3

-

 E00 

Capillary Ion 

Electrophoresis 

......................... D6508-00. ................. ................. .............. 

19. Nitrite Ion 

Chromatography

300.06

300.119

D4327-97, 

03 

4110 B.... 4110 B.... 4110 B00 B-10118

Automated 

Cadmium 

Reduction 

353.26 D3867-90 

A 

4500-NO3

-

F 

4500-NO3

-

F 

4500-

NO3

-

 F00 

Manual Cadmium 

Reduction 

......................... D3867-90 

B 

4500-NO3

-

E 

4500-NO3

-

E 

4500-

NO3

-

 E00 

Spectrophotometric ......................... .................. 4500-NO2

-

B 

4500-NO2

-

B 

4500-

NO2

-

 B00 

Capillary Ion 

Electrophoresis 

......................... D6508-00 ................. ................. ............... 

20. Orthophosphate Colorimetric, 

Automated, 

Ascorbic Acid

365.16 .................. 4500-P F 4500-P F ............... 

Colorimetric, 

ascorbic acid, 

single reagent

......................... D515-88 A 4500-P E 4500-P E ............... 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Track changes noted from draft to “revised” version

Page 72 of 93 

Contaminant Methodology13 EPA Method ASTM3 SM4 (18th, 

19th ed.) 

SM4 (20th

ed.) 

SM 

Online22 Other

Colorimetric 

Phosphomolybdate; 

Automatedsegmented flow; 

Automated 

Discrete

......................... 

......................... 

......................... 

.................. 

.................. 

.................. 

................. 

................. 

................. 

................. 

................. 

................. 

............... 

...............

............... 

I-1601-

855

I-2601-

905

I-2598-

855 

Ion 

Chromatography

300.06

300.119

D4327-97, 

03 

4110 B 4110 B 4110 B00 

Capillary Ion 

Electrophoresis 

......................... D6508-00 ................. ................. ............... 

* * * * *** 

* * * * * 

3 Annual Book of ASTM Standards, 1994, 1996, 1999, or 2003, Vols. 11.01 and 11.02, 

ASTM International; any year containing the cited version of the method may be used. 

The previous versions of D1688-95A, D1688-95C (copper), D3559-95D (lead), D1293-

95 (pH), D1125-91A (conductivity) and D859-94 (silica) are also approved. These 

previous versions D1688-90A, C; D3559-90D, D1293-84, D1125-91A and D859-88, 

respectively are located in the Annual Book of ASTM Standards, 1994, Vol. 11.01. Copies 

may be obtained from ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken, 

PA 19428. 

4 Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 18th edition (1992), 

19th edition (1995) or 20th edition (1998). American Public Health Association, 800 I 

Street, NW, Washington, DC 20001-3710. The cited methods published in any of these 

three editions may be used, except that the versions of 3111 B, 3111 D, 3113 B and 3114 

B in the 20th edition may not be used. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Track changes noted from draft to “revised” version

Page 73 of 93 

5

 Method I-2601-90, Methods for Analysis by the U.S. Geological Survey National Water 

Quality Laboratory – Determination of Inorganic and Organic Constituents in Water and 

Fluvial Sediment, Open File Report 93-125, 1993; For Methods I-1030-85; I-1601-85; I1700-85; I-2598-85; I-2700-85; and I-3300-85. See Techniques of Water Resources 

Investigation of the U.S. Geological Survey, Book 5, Chapter A-1, 3rd edition, 1989; 

Available from Information Services, U.S. Geological Survey, Federal Center, Box 

25286, Denver, CO 80225-0425. 

6

 “Methods for the Determination of Inorganic Substances in Environmental Samples,” 

EPA/600/R-93/100, August 1993. Available at NTIS, PB94-120821. 

7

 The procedure shall be done in accordance with the Technical Bulletin 601 “Standard 

Method of Test for Nitrate in Drinking Water,” July 1994, PN 221890-001, Analytical 

Technology, Inc. Copies may be obtained from ATI Orion, 529 Main Street, Boston, MA 

02129. 

8

 Method B-1011. “Waters Test Method for Determination of Nitrite/Nitrate in Water 

Using Single Column Ion Chromatography,” August, 1987. Copies may be obtained from 

Waters Corporation, Technical Services Division, 34 Maple Street, Milford, MA 01757, 

Telephone: 508/482-2963, Fax: 508/482-4056. 

* * * **
n 

*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Track changes noted from draft to “revised” version

Page 74 of 93 

13 Because MDLs reported in EPA Methods 200.7 and 200.9 were determined using a 2x

preconcentration step during sample digestion, MDLs determined when samples are 

analyzed by direct analysis (i.e., no sample digestion) will be higher. For direct analysis 

of cadmium and arsenic by Method 200.7, and arsenic by Method 3120 B, sample 

preconcentration using pneumatic nebulization may be required to achieve lower 

detection limits. Preconcentration may also be required for direct analysis of antimony, 

lead, and thallium by Method 200.9; antimony and lead by Method 3113 B; and lead by 

Method D3559-90D, unless multiple in-furnace depositions are made.

* * * **

19 “Methods for the Determination of Organic and Inorganic Compounds in Drinking 

Water,” Vol. 1, EPA 815-R-00-014, August 2000. Available at NTIS, PB2000-106981. 

* * * **

22 Standard Methods Online are available at http://www.standardmethods.org. The year i

which each method was approved by the Standard Methods Committee is designated by 

the last two digits in the method number. The methods listed are the only online versions

that may be used.

3. Section 141.35 is amended to read as follows:
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Track changes noted from draft to “revised” version

Page 75 of 93 

a. In paragraph (a) by revising the third sentence, 

b. By revising paragraph (b) introductory text, 

c. In paragraph (b)(1) by revising the third sentence, 

d. In paragraph (b)(2) by revising the second sentence, 

e. In paragraph (c)(1) by removing "April 4, 2007" and adding in its place, "[INSERT 

DATE 90 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION IN OF THE FINAL RULE],"

f. In paragraph (c)(2) by removing "August 2, 2007" and adding in its place,

"[INSERT DATE 240 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION IN OF THE 

FINAL RULE],"

g. In paragraph (c)(2) by revising the last sentence, 

h. In paragraph (c)(3)(i) by removing "May 4, 2007" and adding in its place, 

"[INSERT DATE 120 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION IN OF THE 

FINAL RULE],"

i. In paragraph (c)(3)(ii) by adding a second and third sentence, 

j. In paragraph (c)(4) by removing "June 4, 2007" and adding in its place, "[INSERT 

DATE 150 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION IN OF THE FINAL 

RULE],"

k. In paragraph (c)(5)(i) by removing the two instances of the date "August 2, 2007" and 

add in their place, "[INSERT DATE 240 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION 

IN OF THE FINAL RULE],"

l. By revising paragraph (c)(6) introductory text, 

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

ul

*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Track changes noted from draft to “revised” version

Page 76 of 93 

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

o. In the table to paragraph (e) by revising entries 4 and 6. 

§141.35 Reporting for unregulated contaminant monitoring results.

(a) * * * For the purposes of this section, PWS "population served" is the retail 

population served directly by the PWS as reported to the Federal Safe Drinking Water 

Information System (SDWIS/Fed).***

(b) Reporting by all systems. You must meet the reporting requirements of this paragrap

if you meet the applicability criteria in §141.40(a)(1) and (2).

* * * * *

(1) * * * Information that must be submitted using EPA’s electronic data reporting 

system must be submitted through: 

http://water.epa.gov/scitech/datait/databases/drink/ucmr/http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/r

esregs/sdwa/ucmr/ucmr3/reporting.cfm.***

 

(2) * * * If you have received a letter from EPA concerning your required monitoring 

and your system does not meet the applicability criteria for UCMR established in 

§141.40(a)(1) or (2), or if a change occurs at your system that may affect your 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Track changes noted from draft to “revised” version

Page 77 of 93 

requirements under UCMR as defined in §141.40(a)(3) through (5), you must fax, mail, 

or e-mail a letter to EPA, as specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this section. ***

* * * * *: 

(c) * * * 

(2) * * * If this information changes, you must report updates, including new sources and 

sampling locations which are put in use before or during the PWS’ UCMR sampling 

period, to EPA's electronic data reporting system within 30 days of the change. 

* * * * *

(3) * * * 

(ii) * * * The proposed representative well must be one of the higher annual volume 

producing and more consistently active wells in the representative array. If that 

representative well is not in use at the scheduled sampling time, an alternative 

representative well must be sampled. * * *

* * * * * 

(6) Reporting monitoring results. For each sample, you must report all data elements 

specified in Table 1 of paragraph (e) of this section, using EPA's electronic data reporting 

system. You also must report any changes, relative to what is currently posted, made to 

data elements 1 through 6 to EPA, in writing, explaining the nature and purpose of the 

proposed change, as specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this section. 

* * * * * 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Track changes noted from draft to “revised” version

Page 78 of 93 

(ii) Reporting schedule. You must ensure that your laboratory posts the data to EPA's 

electronic data reporting system within 60 days from the sample collection date (sample 

collection must occur as specified in §141.40(a)(4)). You have 30 days from when the 

laboratory posts the data in EPA's electronic data reporting system to review, approve, 

and submit the data to the State and EPA, at the Web address specified in paragraph 

(b)(1) of this section. If you do not electronically approve and submit the laboratory data 

to EPA within 30 days of the laboratory’s posting to EPA’s electronic reporting system, 

the data will be considered approved by you and available for State and EPA review. 

* * * * *

(d) * * *

(2) Reporting sampling information. You must record all data elements listed in Table 1 

of paragraph (e) of this section on each sample form and sample bottle provided to you 

by the UCMR Sampling Coordinator. You must send this information as specified in the 

instructions of your sampling kit, which will include the due date and return address. You 

must report any changes made in data elements 1 through 6 by mailing or e-mailing an 

explanation of the nature and purpose of the proposed change to EPA, as specified in 

paragraph (b)(1) of this section. 

(e) ***

Table 1. Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Reporting Requirements 

Data Element Definition

* * * * * * *

4. (a) Sampling Point 

Identification Code, 

(b) Sampling Point Zip Code, 

(c) Optional Zip Code 

Extension, and 

(d) Zip Codes Served

(a) An identification code established by the State, or at the State's discretion, by 

the PWS, that uniquely identifies each sampling point. Each sampling code 

must be unique within each applicable facility, for each applicable sampling 

location (i.e., entry point to the distribution system or distribution system 

sample at maximum residence time). The same identification code must be used 

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

(b) The U.S. Postal Service (USPS) ZIP code in which the sampling point is 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Track changes noted from draft to “revised” version

Page 79 of 93 

located, with format: ZZZZZ. 

(c) The optional Zip Code Extension in which the sampling point is located, 

with format: EEEE. 

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

format: ZZZZZ. 

* * * * * * * 

6. 

Disinfectant Type 

The disinfectant in use at the time of UCMR monitoring. To be reported by 

systems for each sampling point, with possible values including:

CLG = gaseous chlorine

CLS = Sodium hypochlorite solution

CLP = Potassium hypochlorite solution 

CAG = chloramine (gaseous chlorine)

CAS = chloramine (sodium hypochlorite solution)

CAP = chloramine (potassium hypochlorite solution)

CLD = chlorine dioxide

GOS = Hypochlorite generated off site

GIH = Hypochlorite generated at DW facility

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

NOD = no disinfectant used

* * * * * * *

Subpart E – Special Regulations, Including Monitoring Regulations and Prohibition on 

Lead Use

4. Section 141.40 is amended as follows:

a. By revising paragraph (a) introductory text, 

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

c. By revising paragraph (a)(2)(i) introductory text, 

d. By revising paragraph (a)(2)(ii) introductory text, 

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

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

g. In paragraph (a)(4)(i) introductory text by removing "August 2, 2007" and adding in 

its place, "[INSERT DATE 240 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION IN 

OF THE FINAL RULE],"
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Track changes noted from draft to “revised” version

Page 80 of 93 

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

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

j. In paragraph (a)(4)(i)(D) by removing the last sentence, 

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

l. In paragraph (a)(5)(ii) introductory text by removing "April 4, 2007" and adding in its 

place, "[INSERT DATE 90 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION IN OF

THE FINAL RULE]" and by revising the last sentence, 

m. By revising paragraph (a)(5)(iii) introductory text, 

n. By revising paragraph (a)(5)(iii)(A)(1), 

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

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

§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.), and its retail population, as 

indicated by SDWIS/Fed on December 31, 2010. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Track changes noted from draft to “revised” version

Page 81 of 93 

(1) Applicability to transient non-community systems. If you own or operate a transient 

non-community water system, you will have to monitor for the contaminants specified on 

List 3 of Table 1, in paragraph (a)(3) of this section if you are notified by your State or 

EPA.

(2) * * *

(i) Large systems. If you own or operate a retail PWS (other than a transient noncommunity system) that serves more than 10,000 people, you must monitor according to 

the specifications in this paragraph (a)(2)(i). If you believe that your applicability status is 

different than EPA has specified in the notification letter that you received, or if you are 

subject to UCMR requirements and you have not been notified by either EPA or your 

State, you must report to EPA, as specified in §141.35(b)(2) or (c)(4). 

* * * * *

(ii) Small systems. Small PWSs, as defined in this paragraph, will not be selected to 

monitor for any more than one of the three monitoring lists provided in Table 1, UCMR 

Contaminant List, in paragraph (a)(3) of this section. EPA will provide sample 

containers, provide pre-paid air bills for shipping the sampling materials, conduct the 

laboratory analysis, and report and review monitoring results for all small systems 

selected to conduct monitoring under paragraphs (a)(2)(ii)(A) through (C) of this section. 

If you own or operate a PWS that serves 10,000 or fewer people you must monitor as 

follows:

* * * * *
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Track changes noted from draft to “revised” version

Page 82 of 93 

(C) Pre-Screen Testing. You must allow EPA or its representative to collect samples to 

support monitoring for the unregulated contaminants on List 3 of Table 1, in paragraph 

(a)(3) of this section, if you are notified by your State or EPA that you are part of the 

State Monitoring plan for Pre-Screen Testing. In addition, you must permit the collection 

of samples as necessary for EPA to perform analysis for total coliform, E. coli, 

bacteriophage, Enterococci and aerobic spores. 

(3) Analytes to be monitored. Lists 1, 2, and 3 of unregulated contaminants are provided 

in the following table: 

Table 1. UCMR Contaminant List

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

Hormones 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Volatile Organic Compounds 

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

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

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

1,1-dichloroethane 75-34-3 EPA 524.3 e 0.03 μg/L EPTDS 1/1/2013 - 12/31/2015
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Track changes noted from draft to “revised” version

Page 83 of 93 

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

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

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

chlorodifluoromethane (HCFC22)75-45-6 EPA 524.3 e 0.08 μg/L EPTDS 1/1/2013 - 12/31/2015

bromochloromethane (halon 

1011)

74-97-5 EPA 524.3 e 0.06 μg/L EPTDS 1/1/2013 - 12/31/2015

Synthetic Organic Compound

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

Metals

vanadium 7440-62-2 EPA 200.8

ASTM 

D5673-0510

SM 3125 g

0.2 μg/L EPTDS and 

DSMRT

1/1/2013 - 12/31/2015

molybdenum 7439-98-7 EPA 200.8

ASTM 

D5673-0510

SM 3125 g

1. μg/L EPTDS and

DSMRT

1/1/2013 - 12/31/2015

cobalt 7440-48-4 EPA 200.8

ASTM 

D5673-0510

SM 3125 g

1. μg/L EPTDS and 

DSMRT

1/1/2013 - 12/31/2015

strontium 7440-24-6 EPA 200.8

ASTM 

D5673-0510

SM 3125 g

0.3 μg/L EPTDS and 

DSMRT

1/1/2013 - 12/31/2015

Oxyhalide Anion 

Chlorate 14866-68-3 EPA 300.1

ASTM D 

6581-08

SM 4110D h

20 μg/L EPTDS and 

DSMRT

1/1/2013 - 12/31/2015

Perfluorinated Compounds

perfluorooctane sulfonic acid 

(PFOS)

1763-23-1 EPA 537 i 0.04 μg/L EPTDS 1/1/2013 - 12/31/2015

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

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

perfluorohexane sulfonic acid 

(PFHxS)

355-46-4 EPA 537 i 0.03 μg/L EPTDS 1/1/2013 - 12/31/2015
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Track changes noted from draft to “revised” version

Page 84 of 93 

Table 1. UCMR Contaminant List

(continued)

List 2: Screening Survey

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

Reserved Reserved Reserved Reserved Reserved Reserved

Table 1. UCMR Contaminant List

(continued)

List 3: Pre-Screen Testing

Microbiological 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

enteroviruses N/A N/A N/A EPTDS 1/1/2013-12/31/2015

noroviruses N/A N/A N/A EPTDS 1/1/2013 - 

12/31/2015

Column headings are:

1-Contaminant: the name of the contaminant to be analyzed. 

2-CAS (Chemical Abstract Service) Registry Number or Identification Number: a unique 

number identifying the chemical contaminants.

perfluoroheptanoic acid 

(PFHpA)

375-85-9 EPA 537 i 0.01 μg/L EPTDS 1/1/2013 - 12/31/2015

perfluorobutanesulfonic acid 

(PFBS)

375-73-5 EPA 537 i 0.09 μg/L EPTDS 1/1/2013 - 12/31/2015
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Track changes noted from draft to “revised” version

Page 85 of 93 

3-Analytical Methods: method numbers identifying the methods that must be used to test 

the contaminants. For List 3, analysis will only be performed by laboratories under 

contract to EPA.

4-Minimum Reporting Level: the value and unit of measure at or above which the 

concentration of the contaminant must be measured using the approved analytical 

methods. For List 3, minimum reporting level is based on volume of water filtered and 

PCR amplification level.

5-Sampling Location: the locations within a PWS at which samples must be collected.

6-Period During Which Monitoring to be Completed: the time period during which the 

sampling and testing are to occur for the indicated contaminant. 

a 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-i was approved by the Director

of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. 

Information on how to obtain these documents can be provided by the Safe Drinking 

Water Hotline at (800) 426-4791. Documents may be inspected at EPA's Drinking Water 

Docket, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW, EPA West, Room 3334, Washington, DC 

20460, Telephone: (202) 566-2426; or at the National Archives and Records 

Administration (NARA). For information on availability of this material at NARA, call 

202-741-6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/Federal-register/cfr/index.html. The 

version of the EPA methods which you must follow for this Regulation are listed in 

footnotes d through i as follows:
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Track changes noted from draft to “revised” version

Page 86 of 93 

b The minimum reporting level (MRL) is the minimum concentration of each analyte that 

must be reported to EPA. 

c

 Sampling 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. Systems that purchase water with multiple connections from

the same wholesaler may propose one representative connection from that wholesaler. 

This representative EPTDS sampling location must be one of the higher annual volume 

connections. If the connection selected as the representative EPTDS is not available for 

sampling, an alternate representative connection must be sampled. See 40 CFR 

141.35(c)(3) for an explanation of the requirements related to use of representative 

ground water EPTDSs. Sampling for metals and chlorate on at List 1 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). If a treatment plant/water 

source is not subject to the sampling required in 40 CFR 141.132(b)(1), then the 

distribution system samples for metals must be collected at a location that the system 

determines represents the maximum residence time in the distribution system. 

d

 EPA Method 539 “Determination of Hormones in Drinking Water Using Liquid 

Chromatography Tandem Mass Spectrometry,” is available at 

http://water.epa.gov/scitech/drinkingwater/labcert/analyticalmethods_ogwdw.cfm. 

e

 EPA Method 524.3 “Measurement of Purgeable Organic Compounds in Water by 

Capillary Column Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry,” Version 1.0, June 2009 is 

available at 

http://water.epa.gov/scitech/drinkingwater/labcert/analyticalmethods_ogwdw.cfm. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Track changes noted from draft to “revised” version

Page 87 of 93 

f

 EPA Method 522 “Determination of 1,4-Dioxane in Drinking Water by Solid Phase 

Extraction (SPE) and Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry (GC/MS) with Selective

Ion Monitoring (SIM),” Version 1.0, September 2008 is available at 

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

g

 EPA Method 200.8 “Determination of Trace Elements in Waters and Wastes by 

Inductively Coupled Plasma - Mass Spectrometry,” Version 5.4, 1994 is available at 

http://www.NEMI.gov. 

ASTM D5673-0510. Standard Test Method for Elements in Water by Inductively 

Coupled Plasma-Mass Spectrometry. Available for purchase on the Internet at 

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

SM 3125. Metals by Inductively Coupled Plasma/Mass Spectrometry (1997). Available 

for purchase on the Internet at 

http://www.standardmethods.org/store/ProductView.cfm?ProductID=211. 

h

 EPA Method 300.1 “Determination of Inorganic Anions in Drinking Water by Ion 

Chromatography,” Revision 1.0, 1997 is available at 

http://water.epa.gov/scitech/drinkingwater/labcert/analyticalmethods_ogwdw.cfm. 

ASTM D6581-08. Standard Test Methods for Bromate, Bromide, Chlorate, and Chlorite

in Drinking Water by Suppressed Ion Chromatography. Available for purchase on the 

Internet at http://www.astm.org/Standards/D6581.htm. 

SM 4110D. Determination of Anions by Ion Chromatography, Part D, Ion 

Chromatography Determination of Oxyhalides and Bromide. Available for purchase on 

the Internet at http://www.standardmethods.org/store/ProductView.cfm?ProductID=31. 
f 

e 

in 

s. 

*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Track changes noted from draft to “revised” version

Page 88 of 93 

i

 EPA Method 537 “Determination of Selected Perfluorinated Alkyl Acids in Drinking 

Water by Solid Phase Extraction and Liquid Chromatography/Tandem Mass 

Spectrometry,” Version 1.1, September 2009 is available at 

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

* * * * *

(4) * * *

(i) * * *

(B) Frequency. You must collect the samples within the time frame and according to the

frequency specified by contaminant type and water source type for each sampling 

location, as specified in Table 2, in this paragraph. For the second or subsequent round o

sampling, if a sample location is non-operational for more than one month before and on

month after the scheduled sampling month (i.e., it is not possible for you to sample with

the window specified in Table 2, in this paragraph), you must notify EPA as specified in

§141.35(c)(5) to reschedule your sampling. 

Table 2. Monitoring Frequency by Contaminant and Water Source Types

Contaminant Type Water Source Type Time Frame Frequency 

Chemical Surface water or

ground water under the direct 

influence of surface water 

(GWUDI) (includes all sampling 

locations for which some or all of 

the water comes from a surface 

water or GWUDI source at any 

time during the 12 month 

monitoring period) 

12 months You must monitor for

4 consecutive quarter

Sample events must 

occur 3 months apart.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Track changes noted from draft to “revised” version

Page 89 of 93 

Ground water 12 months You must monitor 

twice in a consecutive 

12-month period. 

Sample events must 

occur 5 - 7 months 

apart.

Microbiological Ground water 12 months You must monitor 

twice in a consecutive 

12-month period. 

Sample events must 

occur 5 - 7 months 

apart.

(C) Location. You must collect samples for each List 1 Assessment Monitoring 

contaminant, and, if applicable, for each List 2 Screening Survey, or List 3 Pre-Screen 

Testing contaminant, as specified in Table 1, in paragraph (a)(3) of this section. Samples 

must be collected at each sample point that is specified in column 5 and footnote c of 

Table 1, in paragraph (a)(3) of this section. If you are a ground water system with 

multiple EPTDSs, and you request and receive approval from EPA or the State for 

sampling at representative EPTDS(s), as specified in §141.35(c)(3), you must collect 

your samples from the approved representative sampling location(s). Systems conducting 

Assessment Monitoring must also sample for metals and chlorate at the disinfection 

byproduct distribution system maximum residence time (DSMRT) sampling location(s) if 

they are subject to sampling requirements in §141.132(b)(1). If a treatment plant/water 

source is not subject to the sampling required in 40 CFR 141.132(b)(1), then the 

distribution system samples must be collected at a location that the system determines 

represents the maximum residence time in the distribution system. 

(ii) * * *

* * * * * 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Track changes noted from draft to “revised” version

Page 90 of 93 

(G) Sampling forms. You must completely fill out each of the sampling forms and bottles 

sent to you by the UCMR Sampling Coordinator, including data elements listed in 

§141.35(e) for each sample, as specified in §141.35(d)(2). You must sign and date the 

sampling forms.

* * * * *

(5) * * *

* * * * *

(ii) * * * Correspondence must be addressed to: UCMR Laboratory Approval 

Coordinator, USEPA, Technical Support Center, 26 West Martin Luther King Drive, 

(MS 140), Cincinnati, OH 45268; or e-mailed to EPA at: UCMR_Sampling 

_Coordinator@epa,gov. 

(iii) Minimum Reporting Level. The MRL is an estimate of the quantitation limit that, 

with 95% confidence, is achievable by a capable analyst/laboratory at least 75% of the 

time. Assuming good instrumentation and experienced analysts, with 95% confidence, an 

MRL is achievable by 75% of laboratories nationwide.

* * * * *

(A) * * * 

(1) All laboratories performing analysis under UCMR must demonstrate that they are 

capable of meeting data quality objectives (DQOs) at or below the MRL listed in Table 1, 

column 4, in paragraph (a)(3) of this section. 

* * * * *
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Track changes noted from draft to “revised” version

Page 91 of 93 

(iv) Laboratory fortified sample matrix and laboratory fortified sample matrix duplicate.

You must ensure that your laboratory prepares and analyzes the Laboratory Fortified 

Sample Matrix (LFSM) sample for accuracy and Laboratory Fortified Sample Matrix 

Duplicate (LFSMD) samples for precision to determine method accuracy and precision 

for all contaminants in Table 1, in paragraph (a)(3) of this section. LFSM/LFSMD

samples must be prepared using a sample collected and analyzed in accordance with 

UCMR requirements and analyzed at a frequency of 5% (or 1 LFSM/LFSMD set per 

every 20 samples) or with each sample batch, whichever is more frequent. In addition, 

the LFSM/LFSMD fortification concentrations must be alternated between a low-level 

fortification and mid-level fortification approximately 50% of the time. (For example: a 

set of 40 samples will require preparation and analysis of 2 LFSM/LFSMD sets paired 

samples. The first LFSM/LFSMD paired sample set must be fortified at either the lowlevel or mid-level, and the second LFSM/LFSMD paired sample set must be fortified 

with the other standard, either the low-level or mid-level, whichever was not used for the 

initial LFSM/LFSMD paired sample 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 midlevel calibration standard for each contaminant, and should represent, where possible and 

where the laboratory has data from previously analyzed samples, an approximate average 

concentration observed in previous analyses of that analyte. There are no UCMR 

contaminant recovery acceptance criteria specified for LFSM/LFSMD analyses. All 
e 

u

. 

e 

*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Track changes noted from draft to “revised” version

Page 92 of 93 

LFSM/LFSMD data are to be reported.

* * * * *

(vi) Reporting You must require your laboratory to submit these data electronically to th

State and EPA using EPA's electronic data reporting system, accessible at 

(http://water.epa.gov/scitech/datait/databases/drink/ucmr/http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/r

lesregs/sdwa/ucmr/ucmr3/reporting.cfm), within 60 days from the sample collection date

You then have 30 days from when the laboratory posts the data to review, approve and 

submit the data to the State and EPA, via EPA’s electronic data reporting system. If you 

do not electronically approve and submit the laboratory data to EPA within 30 days of th

laboratories posting to EPA’s electronic reporting system, the data will be considered 

approved and available for State and EPA review.

* * * * * 

PART 142 - NATIONAL PRIMARY DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS

IMPLEMENTATION

5. The authority citation for part 142 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 300f, 300g-1, 300g-2, 300g-3, 300g-4, 300g-5, 300g-6, 300j-4, 

300j-9, and 300j-11. 

Subpart B – Primary Enforcement Responsibility

6. Section 142.16 is amended as follows:
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Track changes noted from draft to “revised” version

Page 93 of 93 

a. In paragraph (j) introductory text by removing the citation for 141.40. 

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

§142.16 Special primacy requirements. 

* * * * *

(j) * * *

(1) If a State chooses to issue waivers from the monitoring requirements in §§141.23 and

141.24, the State shall describe the procedures and criteria which it will use to review 

waiver applications and issue wavier determinations. * * *

* * * * *

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P