Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 238 / Friday, December 11, 2015 / Proposed Rules 76897 

(6) Testing, monitoring, reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements for the 

designated facilities; 

(7) Records of the public hearing on 

the State SSI plan; and, 

(8) Provisions for annual state 

progress reports to EPA on 

implementation of the State plan. 

The EPA proposes to determine that 

Puerto Rico’s State SSI plan for existing 

SSI units includes all the required State 

plan elements described in section 

60.5015 of the EG. 

B. What approval criteria did the EPA 

use to evaluate Puerto Rico’s State SSI 

plan? 

The EPA reviewed Puerto Rico’s State 

SSI plan for approval against the 

following criteria: 40 CFR 60.23 through 

60.26, ‘‘Subpart B—Adoption and 

Submittal of State Plans for Designated 

Facilities;’’ and 40 CFR 60.5000 through 

60.5250, ‘‘Subpart MMMM—Emission 

Guidelines and Compliance Times for 

Existing Sewage Sludge Incineration 

Units;’’ and 40 CFR 62, subpart A, 

‘‘General Provisions’’ for ‘‘Approval and 

Promulgation of State Plans for 

Designated Facilities and Pollutants.’’ 

IV. What is the EPA’s Conclusion? 

The EPA has determined that Puerto 

Rico’s State SSI plan meets all the 

applicable approval criteria as discussed 

above and, therefore, the EPA is 

proposing to approve Puerto Rico’s 

sections 111(d) and 129 State plan for 

existing sewage sludge incineration 

units. As explained above, at the request 

of Puerto Rico, the EPA is proposing to 

not take any action on the affirmative 

defense provisions in Puerto Rico’s 

State SSI plan. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a 111(d)/129 plan 

submission that complies with the 

provisions of the Act and applicable 

Federal regulations. 40 CFR 62.04. Thus, 

in reviewing 111(d)/129 plan 

submissions, EPA’s role is to approve 

state choices, provided that they meet 

the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, 

this action merely approves state law as 

meeting Federal requirements and does 

not impose additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by state law. For 

that reason, this action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

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

• is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

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

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; 

and 

• does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

The 111(d)/129 plan is not approved 

to apply on any Indian reservation land 

or in any other area where EPA or an 

Indian tribe has demonstrated that a 

tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of 

Indian Nation Land, the rule does not 

have tribal implications and will not 

impose substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law as 

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 62 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Air pollution control, Aluminum, 

Fertilizers, Fluoride, Intergovernmental 

relations, Paper and paper products 

industry, Phosphate, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur 

oxides, Sulfur acid plants, waste 

treatment and disposal. 

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

Dated: November 30, 2015. 

Judith A. Enck, 

Regional Administrator, Region 2. 

[FR Doc. 2015–31182 Filed 12–10–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 141 

[EPA–HQ–OW–2015–0218; FRL–9935–74– 

OW] 

RIN 2040–AF10 

Revisions to the Unregulated 

Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR 

4) for Public Water Systems and 

Announcement of a Public Meeting 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule and notice of 

public meeting. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing a 

Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) rule 

that requires public water systems to 

collect occurrence data for contaminants 

that may be present in tap water but are 

not yet subject to EPA’s drinking water 

standards set under SDWA. This rule, 

revised every five years as required by 

SDWA, benefits public health by 

providing EPA and other interested 

parties with scientifically valid data on 

the national occurrence of selected 

contaminants in drinking water, such as 

cyanotoxins associated with harmful 

algal blooms. This data set is one of the 

primary sources of information on 

occurrence, levels of exposure and 

population exposure the Agency uses to 

develop regulatory decisions for 

emerging contaminants in the public 

drinking water supply. This proposal 

identifies eleven analytical methods to 

support water system monitoring for a 

total of 30 chemical contaminants/

groups, consisting of ten cyanotoxins/

groups; two metals; eight pesticides plus 

one pesticide manufacturing byproduct 

(hereinafter collectively referred to as 

‘‘pesticides’’); three brominated 

haloacetic acid groups of disinfection 

byproducts; three alcohols; and three 

semivolatile organic chemicals. EPA is 

also announcing a public webinar to 

discuss this proposal of the fourth 

Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring 

Rule. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before February 9, 2016. Under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 

comments on the information collection 

provisions are best assured of 

consideration if the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) 

receives a copy of your comments on or 

before January 11, 2016. The public 

webinar will be held on January 13, 

2016, from 1:00 p.m.. to 4:30 p.m., 

eastern time. Persons wishing to 

participate in the webinar must register 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
76898 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 238 / Friday, December 11, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

by January 10, 2016, as described in 

section II.M. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OW–2015–0218, at http://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Once submitted, comments cannot be 

edited or removed from Regulations.gov. 

The EPA may publish any comment 

received to its public docket. Do not 

submit electronically any information 

you consider to be Confidential 

Business Information (CBI) or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Multimedia 

submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be 

accompanied by a written comment. 

The written comment is considered the 

official comment and should include 

discussion of all points you wish to 

make. The EPA will generally not 

consider comments or comment 

contents located outside of the primary 

submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or 

other file sharing system). For 

additional submission methods, the full 

EPA public comment policy, 

information about CBI or multimedia 

submissions, and general guidance on 

making effective comments, please visit 

http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/

commenting-epa-dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Brenda D. Parris, Standards and Risk 

Management Division (SRMD), Office of 

Ground Water and Drinking Water 

(OGWDW) (MS 140), Environmental 

Protection Agency, 26 West Martin 

Luther King Drive, Cincinnati, OH 

45268; telephone number: (513) 569– 

7961; or email address: parris.brenda@

epa.gov; or Melissa Simic, SRMD, 

OGWDW (MS 140), Environmental 

Protection Agency, 26 West Martin 

Luther King Drive, Cincinnati, Ohio 

45268; telephone number: (513) 569– 

7864; or email address: simic.melissa@

epa.gov. For general information, 

contact the Safe Drinking Water Hotline. 

Callers within the United States can 

reach the Hotline at (800) 426–4791. 

The Hotline is open Monday through 

Friday, excluding federal holidays, from 

10 a.m. to 4 p.m., eastern time. The Safe 

Drinking Water Hotline can also be 

found on the Internet at: http://

water.epa.gov/drink/hotline/. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

B. What action is the Agency taking and 

why? 

C. What is the Agency’s authority for 

taking this action? 

D. What is the estimated cost of this 

proposed action? 

II. Background 

A. How has EPA implemented the 

Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring 

Program? 

B. How are the Contaminant Candidate List 

(CCL), the UCMR program, the 

Regulatory Determination process and 

the NCOD interrelated? 

C. What notable changes are being 

proposed for UCMR 4? 

D. How did EPA prioritize candidate 

contaminants and what contaminants are 

proposed for UCMR 4? 

E. What is the proposed applicability date? 

F. What are the proposed UCMR 4 

sampling design and timeline of 

activities? 

1. Sampling Frequency, Timing 

2. Sampling Locations 

3. Phased Sample Analysis for 

Microcystins 

4. Representative Sampling 

5. Summary 

G. What are reporting requirements for 

UCMR 4? 

1. Data Elements 

2. Duplicate Samples 

H. What are Minimum Reporting Levels 

(MRLs) and how were they determined? 

I. How do laboratories become approved to 

conduct UCMR 4 analyses? 

1. Request to Participate 

2. Registration 

3. Application Package 

4. EPA’s Review of Application Package 

5. Proficiency Testing 

6. Written EPA Approval 

J. What documents are being incorporated 

by reference? 

1. Methods From the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency 

2. Methods From ‘‘ASTM International’’ 

3. Methods From ‘‘Standard Methods for 

the Examination of Water & Wastewater’’ 

4. Methods From ‘‘Standard Methods 

Online’’ 

5. Method From ‘‘Ohio EPA’’ 

K. What is the states’ role in the UCMR 

program? 

L. What stakeholder meetings have been 

held in preparation for UCMR 4? 

M. How do I participate in the upcoming 

stakeholder meeting? 

1. Webinar Participation 

2. Webinar Materials 

N. How did EPA consider Children’s 

Environmental Health? 

O. How did EPA address Environmental 

Justice? 

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA) 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution or Use 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act and 1 CFR Part 51 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions 

To Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations 

IV. References 

Abbreviations and Acronyms 

mg/L Microgram per liter 

ADDA (2S, 3S, 8S, 9S, 4E, 6E)-3-amino-9- 

methoxy-2,6,8-trimethyl-10-phenyl-4, 6- 

decadienoic acid 

ASDWA Association of State Drinking 

Water Administrators 

ASTM ASTM International 

CAS Chemical Abstract Service 

CBI Confidential Business Information 

CCC Continuing Calibration Check 

CCL Contaminant Candidate List 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

CLDA Chlorine Dioxide Applied After SR 

Sample Location 

CLDB Chlorine Dioxide Applied Before SR 

Sample Location 

CWS Community Water System 

DBPR Disinfectants and Disinfection 

Byproducts Rule 

DSMRT Distribution System Maximum 

Residence Time 

ELISA Enzyme-linked Immunosorbent 

Assay 

EPA United States Environmental 

Protection Agency 

EPTDS Entry Point to the Distribution 

System 

FR Federal Register 

GC Gas Chromatography 

GC/ECD Gas Chromatography/Electron 

Capture Detection 

GC/MS Gas Chromatography/Mass 

Spectrometry 

GW Ground Water 

GWUDI Ground Water Under the Direct 

Influence of Surface Water 

HAAs Haloacetic Acids 

HAA5 Dibromoacetic Acid, Dichloroacetic 

Acid, Monobromoacetic Acid, 

Monochloroacetic Acid, Trichloroacetic 

Acid 

HAA6Br Bromochloroacetic Acid, 

Bromodichloroacetic Acid, Dibromoacetic 

Acid, Dibromochloroacetic Acid, 

Monobromoacetic Acid, Tribromoacetic 

Acid 

HAA9 Bromochloroacetic Acid, 

Bromodichloroacetic Acid, 

Chlorodibromoacetic Acid, Dibromoacetic 

Acid, Dichloroacetic Acid, 

Monobromoacetic Acid, Monochloroacetic 

Acid, Tribromoacetic Acid, Trichloroacetic 

Acid 

HPXA Hydrogen Peroxide Applied After 

Source Water Sample Location 

HPXB Hydrogen Peroxide Applied Before 

Source Water Sample Location 

IC–MS/MS Ion Chromatography/Tandem 

Mass Spectrometry 

ICP–MS Inductively Coupled Plasma Mass 

Spectrometry 

ICR Information Collection Request 

IDC Initial Demonstration of Capability 

IS Internal Standard 

LFB Laboratory Fortified Blank 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 238 / Friday, December 11, 2015 / Proposed Rules 76899 

LRB Laboratory Reagent Blank 

LCMRL Lowest Concentration Minimum 

Reporting Level 

LC/ECI–MS/MS Liquid Chromatography/

Electrospray Ionization/Tandem Mass 

Spectrometry 

LC/MS/MS Liquid Chromatography/

Tandem Mass Spectrometry 

LT2 Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water 

Treatment Rule 

M Million 

MRL Minimum Reporting Level 

NAICS North American Industry 

Classification System 

NCOD National Drinking Water 

Contaminant Occurrence Database 

NPDWRs National Primary Drinking Water 

Regulations 

NTNCWS Non-transient Non-community 

Water System 

OGWDW Office of Ground Water and 

Drinking Water 

OMB Office of Management and Budget 

PA Partnership Agreement 

PEMA Permanganate Applied After Source 

Water Sample Location 

PEMB Permanganate Applied Before Source 

Water Sample Location 

PRA Paperwork Reduction Act 

PT Proficiency Testing 

PWS Public Water System 

QCS Quality Control Sample 

QH Quality HAA Sample 

RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act 

SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act 

SDWARS Safe Drinking Water Accession 

and Review System 

SDWIS/Fed Federal Safe Drinking Water 

Information System 

SM Standard Methods 

SMP State Monitoring Plan 

SOP Standard Operating Procedure 

SPE Solid Phase Extraction 

SR Source Water 

SRF Drinking Water State Revolving Fund 

SRMD Standards and Risk Management 

Division 

SUR Surrogate Standard 

SVOCs Semivolatile Organic Chemicals 

SW Surface Water 

TNCWS Transient Non-Community Water 

System 

TOC Total Organic Carbon 

UCMR Unregulated Contaminant 

Monitoring Rule 

UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 

1995 

USEPA United States Environmental 

Protection Agency 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

Public water systems (PWSs) would 

be regulated by this proposed, fourth 

Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring 

Rule (UCMR 4). PWSs are systems that 

provide water for human consumption 

through pipes, or other constructed 

conveyances, to at least 15 service 

connections or that regularly serve an 

average of at least 25 individuals daily 

at least 60 days out of the year. Under 

this proposal, all large community and 

non-transient non-community water 

systems (NTNCWSs) serving more than 

10,000 people would be required to 

monitor. A community water system 

(CWS) means a PWS that has at least 15 

service connections used by year-round 

residents or regularly serves at least 25 

year-round residents. A 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. A 

nationally representative sample of 

CWSs and NTNCWSs serving 10,000 or 

fewer people would also be required to 

monitor (see ‘‘Statistical Design and 

Sample Selection for the Unregulated 

Contaminant Monitoring Regulation’’ 

(USEPA, 2001b) for a description of the 

statistical approach for the nationally 

representative sample). As is generally 

the case for UCMR monitoring, transient 

non-community water systems 

(TNCWSs) (i.e., non-community water 

systems that do not regularly serve at 

least 25 of the same people over six 

months per year) would not be required 

to monitor under UCMR 4. States, 

territories and tribes, with primary 

enforcement responsibility (primacy) to 

administer the regulatory program for 

PWSs under SDWA, can participate in 

the implementation of UCMR 4 through 

Partnership Agreements (PAs) (see 

discussion of PAs in section II.K). 

Primacy agencies with PAs can choose 

to be involved in various aspects of the 

UCMR 4 monitoring for PWSs they 

oversee; however, the PWS remains 

responsible for compliance. Potentially 

regulated categories and entities are 

identified in the following table. 

Category Examples of potentially regulated entities NAICSa

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

PWSs required to conduct such analysis; states, local and tribal governments 

that directly operate CWSs and NTNCWSs required to monitor.

924110 

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

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

a NAICS = North American Industry Classification System. 

This table is not intended to be 

exhaustive, but rather provides a guide 

for readers regarding entities likely to be 

regulated by this action. This table 

summarizes the types of entities that 

EPA is aware could potentially be 

regulated by this action. If you are 

uncertain whether your entity is 

regulated by this action after carefully 

examining the definition of PWS found 

in §§ 141.2 and 141.3, and the 

applicability criteria found in 

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

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), 

please consult the contacts listed in the 

preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section. 

B. What action is the Agency taking and 

why? 

EPA is proposing a rule to require 

PWSs to analyze drinking water samples 

for unregulated contaminants that do 

not have health based standards set 

under SDWA and to report their results 

to EPA. This will be the fourth national 

monitoring effort under the UCMR 

program (see section II.D). The 

monitoring provides data to inform 

future regulatory actions to protect 

public health. 

The public will benefit from 

information about whether or not 

unregulated contaminants are present in 

their drinking water. If contaminants are 

not found, consumer confidence in their 

drinking water will improve. If 

contaminants are found, illnesses may 

be avoided when subsequent actions, 

such as regulations, reduce or eliminate 

those contaminants. 

C. What is the Agency’s authority for 

taking this action? 

As part of its responsibilities under 

SDWA, EPA implements section 

1445(a)(2), Monitoring Program for 

Unregulated Contaminants. This 

section, as amended in 1996, requires 

that once every five years, beginning in 

August 1999, EPA issue a list of no more 

than 30 unregulated contaminants to be 

monitored by PWSs. SDWA requires 

that EPA enter the monitoring data into 

the Agency’s publically available 

National Contaminant Occurrence 

Database (NCOD). EPA’s UCMR program 

must ensure that systems serving a 

population larger than 10,000 people, as 

well as a nationally representative 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
76900 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 238 / Friday, December 11, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

sample of PWSs serving 10,000 or fewer 

people, are 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. 

EPA is using this authority as the basis 

for monitoring 29 of the 30 

contaminants/groups proposed under 

this rule. 

Section 1445(a)(1)(A) of SDWA, as 

amended in 1996, requires that every 

person who is subject to any SDWA 

requirement establish and maintain 

such records, make such reports, 

conduct such monitoring and provide 

such information as the Administrator 

may reasonably require by regulation to 

assist the Administrator in establishing 

SDWA regulations. Pursuant to this 

provision, EPA can also require the 

monitoring of contaminants already 

subject to EPA’s drinking water 

standards. EPA is using this authority as 

the basis for monitoring one of the 

chemical groups (Haloacetic Acids 5 

(HAA5)) proposed under this rule. 

Sample collection and analysis for 

HAA5 can be done concurrent with the 

unregulated HAA monitoring described 

in section II.F (resulting in no 

substantive additional burden) and 

would allow EPA to better understand 

co-occurrence between regulated and 

unregulated disinfection byproducts. 

Hereinafter, all 30 proposed 

contaminants/groups are collectively 

referred to as ‘‘contaminants.’’ 

D. What is the estimated cost of this 

proposed action? 

EPA estimates the total average 

national cost of this proposed action 

will be $25.3 million per year from 

2017–2021. EPA has documented the 

assumptions and data sources used in 

the preparation of this estimate in the 

Information Collection Request (ICR) 

(USEPA, 2015a). EPA proposes using 

eleven analytical methods (eight EPAdeveloped analytical methods, one 

state-developed methodology and two 

alternate equivalent consensus 

organization-developed methods) to 

analyze samples for 30 UCMR 4 

chemical contaminants. EPA’s estimate 

of the analytical cost for the UCMR 4 

contaminants and related indicators is 

$2,562 per sample set. EPA calculated 

these costs by summing the laboratory 

unit cost of each method. Exhibit 1 

presents a breakdown of EPA estimated 

annual average national costs. Estimated 

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

costs reflect the analytical cost (i.e., nonlabor) for all UCMR 4 methods. EPA 

pays for the analytical costs for all 

systems serving a population of 10,000 

or fewer people. Laboratory analysis and 

sample shipping account for 

approximately 80% of the total national 

cost for UCMR 4 implementation. EPA 

estimated laboratory unit costs based on 

consultations with multiple commercial 

drinking water laboratories and, in the 

case of new methods, a review of the 

costs of analytical methods similar to 

those proposed in this action. The cost 

of the laboratory methods includes 

shipping as part of the cost for the 

analysis. 

EPA expects that states would incur 

labor costs associated with voluntary 

assistance with UCMR 4 

implementation. EPA estimated state 

costs using the relevant assumptions 

from the State Resource Model that was 

developed by the Association of State 

Drinking Water Administrators 

(ASDWA) (ASDWA, 2013) to help states 

forecast resource needs. Model 

estimates were adjusted to account for 

actual levels of state participation under 

UCMR 3. State participation is 

voluntary; thus, the level of effort is 

expected to vary among states and 

would depend on their individual 

agreements with EPA. 

EPA assumes that one-third of the 

systems would monitor during each of 

the three monitoring years from January 

2018 through December 2020. The total 

estimated annual costs (labor and nonlabor) would be incurred as follows: 

EXHIBIT 1—ESTIMATED AVERAGE ANNUAL COSTS OF UCMR 4 

Respondent 

Avg. annual cost 

all respondents 

(2017–2021) 1

Small Systems (25–10,000), including labor 2 only (non-labor costs 3 paid for by EPA) ............................................................. $0.16 m 

Large Systems (10,001–100,000), including labor and non-labor costs ...................................................................................... $15.7 m 

Very Large Systems (100,001 and greater), including labor and non-labor costs ....................................................................... $4.3 m 

States, including labor costs related to implementation coordination ........................................................................................... $0.50 m 

EPA, including labor for implementation, non-labor for small system testing .............................................................................. $4.7 m 

AVERAGE ANNUAL NATIONAL TOTAL ............................................................................................................................. $25.3 m 

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

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

sample collection, data review, reporting and record keeping. 3 Non-labor costs would be incurred primarily by EPA and by very large and large PWSs. They include the cost of shipping samples to laboratories for testing and the cost of the laboratory analyses. 

Additional details regarding EPA’s 

cost assumptions and estimates can be 

found in the ‘‘DRAFT Information 

Collection Request for the Unregulated 

Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR 

4)’’ (USEPA, 2015a) ICR Number 

2192.07, which presents estimated cost 

and burden for the 2017–2019 period, 

consistent with the 3-year time frame for 

ICRs. Estimates of costs over the entire 

5-year UCMR 4 sequence of 2017–2021 

are attached as an appendix to the ICR. 

Copies of the ICR and its appendix may 

be obtained from the EPA public docket 

for this proposed rule, under Docket ID 

No. EPA–HQ–OW–2015–0218. 

II. Background 

A. How has EPA implemented the 

unregulated contaminant monitoring 

program? 

EPA published the list of 

contaminants for the first UCMR (UCMR 

1) in the Federal Register (FR) on 

September 17, 1999 (64 FR 50556, 

(USEPA, 1999)), the second UCMR 

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

368, (USEPA, 2007)) and the third 

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

26072, (USEPA, 2012c)). EPA 

established a three-tiered approach for 

monitoring contaminants under the 

UCMR program that takes into account 

the availability of analytical methods, 

the source of water supply and the 

contaminants likely to be found. 

Assessment Monitoring for ‘‘List 1’’ 

contaminants typically relies on 

analytical methods, techniques or 

technologies that are in common use by 

drinking water laboratories. Screening 

Survey monitoring for ‘‘List 2’’ 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 238 / Friday, December 11, 2015 / Proposed Rules 76901 

contaminants typically relies on newer 

analytical methods that are not as 

commonly used, such that laboratory 

capacity to perform List 2 analyses may 

be limited. Finally, Pre-Screen Testing 

for ‘‘List 3’’ contaminants is often 

associated with analytical methods that 

are very recently developed and/or are 

particularly complex. In addition to 

method complexity and laboratory 

capacity, EPA considers sampling 

frequency and/or the relevant universe 

of PWSs when deciding which of the 

three tiers is appropriate for a 

contaminant. 

EPA designed the Assessment 

Monitoring sampling approach (USEPA, 

2001b) to ensure that sample results 

would yield a high level of confidence 

and a low margin of error. The design 

for a nationally representative sample of 

small systems called for the sample to 

be stratified by water source type 

(ground water (GW) or surface water 

(SW)), service size category and state 

(where each state is allocated a 

minimum of two systems in its state 

monitoring plan (SMP)). 

This action proposes 30 contaminants 

for List 1, Assessment Monitoring from 

2018–2020, with pre-monitoring activity 

in 2017 and post-monitoring activity in 

2021. EPA developed this proposal after 

considering input from an EPA-state 

workgroup as well as other 

stakeholders. 

B. How are the Contaminant Candidate 

List (CCL), the UCMR program, the 

Regulatory Determination process and 

the NCOD interrelated? 

Under the 1996 amendments to 

SDWA, Congress established a stepwise, 

risk-based approach for determining 

which contaminants would become 

subject to drinking water standards. 

Under the first step, EPA is required to 

publish, every five years, a list of 

contaminants that are not yet regulated 

but which are known or anticipated to 

occur in PWSs; this is the Contaminant 

Candidate List (CCL). Under the second 

step, EPA must require, every five years, 

monitoring of up to 30 unregulated 

contaminants to determine their 

occurrence in drinking water systems; 

this is the UCMR program. Under the 

third step, EPA is required to determine, 

every five years, whether or not at least 

five contaminants from the CCL warrant 

regulation, based in part on the UCMR 

occurrence information; this is known 

as a Regulatory Determination where the 

following questions are evaluated: 

(1) Which contaminants may have an 

adverse effect on human health? 

(2) Which contaminants are known to 

occur or are likely to occur in drinking 

water with a frequency and at levels of 

public health concern? 

(3) Does regulation of such 

contaminants present a meaningful 

opportunity for risk reduction? Finally, 

SDWA requires EPA to issue national 

primary drinking water regulations 

(NPDWRs) for contaminants the Agency 

determines should be regulated. 

The CCL process identifies 

contaminants that may require 

regulation, while the UCMR program 

helps provide the data necessary for the 

Regulatory Determination process 

outlined above. The data collected 

through the UCMR program are stored 

in the NCOD to facilitate analysis and 

review of contaminant occurrence, and 

support the Administrator’s 

determination on whether regulation of 

a contaminant is in the public health 

interest, as required under SDWA 

section 1412(b)(1). UCMR results can be 

viewed by the public at: http://

www2.epa.gov/dwucmr. 

C. What notable changes are being 

proposed for UCMR 4? 

This proposed action refines the 

existing UCMR, as reflected in the Code 

of Federal Regulations, to address the 

contaminants proposed for UCMR 4 

monitoring and to reflect lessons 

learned through prior experience 

implementing UCMRs. 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, and are outside 

the scope of today’s proposal, include 

direct implementation of the rule by 

EPA; the number and types of systems 

included in Assessment Monitoring for 

the majority of the proposed 

contaminants; and EPA funding for the 

small system testing. Proposed changes 

include the list of UCMR 4 

contaminants, the analytical methods, 

monitoring time frame, sampling 

locations, the revised data elements 

outlined in Exhibit 2 and conforming 

and editorial changes, such as those 

necessary to remove requirements solely 

related to UCMR 3. A track-changes 

version of the rule language comparing 

UCMR 3 to the proposed changes for 

UCMR 4 is included in the public 

docket (Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OW 

2015–0218) for this proposed rule 

(USEPA, 2015h). 

EXHIBIT 2—NOTABLE CHANGES PROPOSED FOR UCMR 4 

CFR Rule section 

Description of rule change Corresponding 

preamble section Number Title/Description 

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

and related specifications.

Revises Table 1 to include a new list of contaminants 

and associated analytical methods.

II.D 

§§ 141.35(a) and 141.40(a) ................ Applicability ....................... Revises the Federal Safe Drinking Water Information 

System (SDWIS/Fed) applicability date (i.e., the 

date used to determine which systems are subject 

to monitoring) to December 31, 2015.

Revises the monitoring dates to January 2018 

through December 2020.

II.E 

II.F 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
76902 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 238 / Friday, December 11, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

EXHIBIT 2—NOTABLE CHANGES PROPOSED FOR UCMR 4—Continued 

CFR Rule section 

Description of rule change Corresponding 

preamble section Number Title/Description 

§ 141.40(a)(4) ...................................... Sampling design requirements—Frequency.Updates Table 2 to change the sample collection time 

frame to March—November, and excludes December—February. Additionally, updates the frequency 

such that, with the exception of cyanotoxins, monitoring would occur every two months (bi-monthly) 

for SW or ground water under the direct influence 

of surface water (GWUDI) systems and every six 

months for GW systems.

Updates Table 2 to include monitoring requirements 

for cyanotoxins for PWSs with SW and GWUDI 

sources at a frequency of twice a month for four 

consecutive months (for a total of eight cyanotoxin 

sampling events).

II.F 

§ 141.40(a)(4) ...................................... Sampling design requirements—Location.Specifies revised sampling locations for Assessment 

Monitoring, including HAA5 Stage 2 compliance 

and/or distribution system maximum residence time 

(DSMRT) locations for the brominated haloacetic 

acids (HAAs), and source water intake locations for 

total organic carbon (TOC), total microcystins (i.e. 

the sum of congeners as measured by ADDA– 

ELISA), pH and temperature.

II.F 

§ 141.35(e) .......................................... Reporting requirements— 

Data elements.

Updates, revises, adds and removes data elements to 

account for the contaminants being proposed, and 

requires the reporting of quality control data by all 

laboratories.

II.G.1 

§ 141.40(a)(4)(ii)(F) ............................. Small systems sampling 

requirements—Duplicate 

samples.

Removes the requirement for small system duplicate 

quality control samples, although EPA may in the 

future select a subset of systems to collect duplicate samples if the Agency becomes aware of a 

need to include this type of quality control.

II.G.2 

D. How did EPA prioritize candidate 

contaminants and what contaminants 

are proposed for UCMR 4? 

In establishing the proposed list of 

contaminants for UCMR 4, EPA started 

with a priority set of contaminants from 

the draft fourth Contaminant Candidate 

List (CCL 4), which includes 100 

chemicals or chemical groups and 12 

microbes (80 FR 6076, February 4, 2015 

(USEPA, 2015b)). The evaluation and 

selection process that led to the draft 

CCL 4 carried forward the final list of 

CCL 3 contaminants (except for those 

with regulatory determinations), 

requested and evaluated contaminant 

nominations from the public and 

evaluated any new data from previous 

negative regulatory determinations for 

potential inclusion on CCL 4 (77 FR 

27057, May 8, 2012 (USEPA, 2012b)). 

EPA selected the proposed UCMR 4 

contaminants using a stepwise 

prioritization process. The first step 

included identifying contaminants that: 

(1) Were not monitored under UCMR 2 

or UCMR 3; (2) are anticipated to have 

significant occurrence nationally; and 

(3) are expected to have a completed, 

validated drinking water method in time 

for rule proposal. This resulted in a set 

of 45 draft CCL 4 contaminants and 

another set of related non-CCL analytes 

with potential health effects of concern 

that can be measured concurrently using 

the analytical methods for the CCL 

contaminants. Including related nonCCL analytes creates a more costeffective design and reduces the 

likelihood of needing to include them in 

a subsequent UCMR. 

The next step was to select 

contaminants associated with one or 

more of the following considerations: an 

available health assessment to facilitate 

regulatory determinations; high public 

concern; critical health endpoints (e.g., 

likely or suggestive carcinogen); active 

use (e.g., pesticides); and an occurrence 

data gap. This step identified 31 CCL 

contaminants, and 18 related non-CCL 

analytes that can be measured using the 

analytical methods for the CCL 

contaminants. 

During the final step, EPA considered 

workgroup and stakeholder input; 

looked at cost-effectiveness of the 

method/contaminant groups; considered 

implementation factors (e.g., laboratory 

capacity); and further evaluated health, 

occurrence, and persistence/mobility 

data to identify a proposed list of 30 

UCMR 4 contaminants. 

Further information on this 

prioritization process, as well as 

contaminant-specific information 

(source, use, production, release, 

persistence, mobility, health effects and 

occurrence), that EPA used to select the 

proposed analyte list, is contained in 

‘‘UCMR 4 Candidate Contaminants— 

Information Compendium’’ (USEPA, 

2015i). Copies of the Compendium may 

be obtained from the EPA public docket 

for this proposed rule, under Docket ID 

No. EPA–HQ–OW–2015–0218. 

EPA invites comment on the proposed 

UCMR 4 contaminants and their 

associated analytical methods identified 

in Exhibit 3, as well as any other 

priority contaminants commenters wish 

to recommend. In particular, the Agency 

welcomes comments on the following 

contaminants that were considered by 

the workgroup, but not included in the 

proposed list because they were deemed 

a lower UCMR 4 priority than the 

contaminants identified in Exhibit 3: 

Legionella pneumophila and 

Mycobacterium avium (both are part of 

the draft CCL 4); ammonia (considered 

as an indicator of distribution system 

nitrification potential); and the 

pesticides vinclozolin, hexazinone and 

disulfoton (additional analytes in EPA 

Method 525.3). More specific 

information on why these contaminants 

were not included on the proposed list 

can be found in the Information 

Compendium (USEPA, 2015i) cited 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 238 / Friday, December 11, 2015 / Proposed Rules 76903 

above. In your comments, please 

identify the following: Any new 

contaminant(s) that you think the 

Agency should include in UCMR 4 

monitoring; any contaminant(s) in 

Exhibit 3 that you think represent a 

lower priority than your new 

recommendation(s) or that should 

otherwise be removed from the list; the 

recommended analytical method(s) for 

any new contaminant(s) that you 

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

reporting level, sampling location and 

sampling frequency). Comments that 

provide supporting data or rationale are 

especially helpful to the Agency. 

EXHIBIT 3—30 PROPOSED UCMR 4 ANALYTES

List 1 Analytes 

One Cyanotoxin Group Using ELISA 1

total microcystins 

Seven Cyanotoxins Using EPA Method 544 (SPE LC/MS/MS) 2

microcystin-LA microcystin-RR 

microcystin-LF microcystin-YR 

microcystin-LR Nodularin 

microcystin-LY 

Two Cyanotoxins Using EPA Method 545 (LC/ECI–MS/MS) 3

anatoxin-a Cylindrospermopsin 

Two Metals Using EPA Method 200.8 (ICP–MS) 4 or Alternate SM 5 or ASTM 6

Germanium Manganese 

Nine Pesticides Using EPA Method 525.3 (SPE GC/MS) 7

alpha-hexachlorocyclohexane Profenofos 

chlorpyrifos Tebuconazole 

Dimethipin total permethrin (cis- & trans-) 

Ethoprop Tribufos 

Oxyfluorfen 

Three Brominated HAA Groups Using EPA Method 552.3 (GC/ECD) or 557 (IC/ECI–MS/MS) 8 9 10

HAA5 HAA9 

HAA6Br 

Three Alcohols Using EPA Method 541 (GC/MS) 11

1-butanol 2-propen-1-ol 

2-methoxyethanol 

Three Semivolatile Organic Chemicals (SVOCs) Using EPA Method 530 (GC/MS) 12

butylated hydroxyanisole quinolone 

o-toluidine 

1 ELISA Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) (Ohio EPA, 2015). EPA anticipates having an EPA ELISA method available by the publication 

of the final rule and anticipates that this method will be similar to the Ohio EPA methodology. Monitoring includes measuring for pH using one of 

the following methods: EPA Method 150.1 and 150.2 (USEPA, 1983a and 1983b), ASTM D1293–12 (ASTM, 2012a), SM 4500–H+ B (SM, 

2005c), SM 4500–H+ B–00 (SM Online, 2000a). Monitoring also includes measuring for water temperature using one of the following methods: 

SM 2550 (SM, 2005a) or SM 2550–10 (SM Online, 2010). 2 EPA Method 544 (Solid Phase Extraction (SPE) Liquid chromatography/tandem mass spectrometry (LC/MS/MS)) (USEPA, 2015f). This 

method would only be used if analyses by ELISA (for ‘‘total microcystins’’) yielded results above reporting limits. 3 EPA Method 545 (Liquid chromatography/electrospray ionization/tandem mass spectrometry (LC/ESI–MS/MS)) (USEPA, 2015g). 4 EPA Method 200.8 (Inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (ICP–MS)) (USEPA, 1994). 5 Standard Methods (SM) 3125 (SM, 2005b) or SM 3125–09 (SM Online, 2009). 6 ASTM International (ASTM) D5673–10 (ASTM, 2010). 7 EPA Method 525.3 (SPE Gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (GC/MS)) (USEPA, 2012a). 8 EPA Method 552.3 (GC/Electron capture detection (ECD)) (USEPA, 2003) and EPA Method 557 (Ion chromatography-electrospray ionization-tandem mass spectrometry (IC–ESI–MS/MS)) (USEPA, 2009b). HAA5 includes: dibromoacetic acid, dichloroacetic acid, monobromoacetic 

acid, monochloroacetic acid, trichloroacetic acid. HAA6Br includes: bromochloroacetic acid, bromodichloroacetic acid, dibromoacetic acid, 

dibromochloroacetic acid, monobromoacetic acid, tribromoacetic acid. HAA9 includes: bromochloroacetic acid, bromodichloroacetic acid, 

chlorodibromoacetic acid, dibromoacetic acid, dichloroacetic acid, monobromoacetic acid, monochloroacetic acid, tribromoacetic acid, 

trichloroacetic acid. 9 Regulated HAAs (HAA5) are included in the proposed monitoring program to gain a better understanding of co-occurrence with currently unregulated disinfection byproducts. 10 Brominated HAA monitoring also includes sampling for indicators TOC and bromide using methods approved for compliance monitoring. 

TOC methods include: SM 5310B, SM 5310C, SM 5310D (SM, 2005d, 2005e, 2005f), or SM 5310B–00, SM 5310C–00, SM 5310D–00 (SM Online, 2000b, 2000c, 2000d), EPA Method 415.3 (Rev. 1.1 or 1.2) (USEPA, 2005, 2009a). Bromide methods include: EPA Methods 300.0 (Rev. 

2.1), 300.1 (Rev. 1.0), 317.0 (Rev. 2.0), 326.0 (Rev. 1.0) (USEPA, 1993, 1997, 2001a, 2002) or ASTM D 6581–12 (ASTM, 2012b). 11 EPA Method 541 (GC/MS) (USEPA, 2015e). 12 EPA Method 530 (GC/MS) (USEPA, 2015d). 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
76904 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 238 / Friday, December 11, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

E. What is the proposed applicability 

date? 

EPA proposes (in § 141.40(a)) a new 

applicability date of December 31, 2015. 

That is, the determination of whether a 

PWS is required to monitor under 

UCMR 4 is based on the type of system 

(e.g., CWS, NTNCWS, etc.) and its retail 

population served, as indicated by the 

SDWIS/Fed inventory on December 31, 

2015. If a PWS believes its retail 

population served in SDWIS/Fed is 

inaccurate, the system should contact its 

state to verify its population as of the 

applicability date and request a 

correction if necessary. The 5-year 

UCMR 4 program would take place from 

January 2017 through December 2021. 

F. What are the proposed UCMR 4 

sampling design and timeline of 

activities? 

The proposed rule identifies sampling 

and analysis for List 1 contaminants 

within the 2018 to 2020 time frame. 

Preparations prior to 2018 are expected 

to include coordination of laboratory 

approval, selection of representative 

small systems, development of SMPs 

and establishment of monitoring 

schedules. EPA anticipates that there is 

enough laboratory capacity to meet the 

needs of Assessment Monitoring. 

Exhibit 4 illustrates the major activities 

that we expect will take place in 

preparation for and during the 

implementation of UCMR 4. 

EXHIBIT 4—PROPOSED TIMELINE OF UCMR 4 ACTIVITIES

2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 

After proposed rule publication: EPA ← Assessment Monitoring → Complete reporting and analysis of 

laboratory approval program begins. List 1 Contaminants data. 

After final rule publication: EPA/state All large systems serving more than 10,000 people; 

primacy authorities (1) develop SMPs 800 small systems serving 10,000 or fewer people 

(including the nationally representa- for cyanotoxins; 

tive sample); and (2) inform PWSs/ 800 small systems serving 10,000 or fewer people 

establish monitoring plans. for the 20 additional chemicals. 

To minimize the impact of the rule on 

small systems (those serving 10,000 or 

fewer people), EPA pays 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 

cyanotoxins and the 20 additional 

UCMR chemicals. Consistent with prior 

UCMRs, large systems (those serving 

more than 10,000 people) pay for all 

costs associated with their monitoring. 

A summary of the estimated number of 

systems subject to monitoring is shown 

in Exhibit 5. 

EXHIBIT 5—SYSTEMS TO PARTICIPATE IN UCMR 4 MONITORING

System size 

(number of people 

served) 

National sample assessment monitoring Total number of 

systems per 

10 List 1 cyanotoxins 20 Additional List 1 chemicals size category 

Small Systems: 1

25–10,000 .............. 800 randomly selected SW or GWUDI systems 800 randomly selected SW, GWUDI and GW 

systems.

1,600 

Large Systems: 2

10,001 and over ..... All SW or GWUDI systems (1,987) ................... All SW, GWUDI and GW systems (4,292) ........ 4,292 

Total ................ 2,787 .................................................................. 5,092 .................................................................. 5,892 

1Total for small systems is additive because these systems would only be selected for one component of UCMR 4 sampling (10 cyanotoxins 

or 20 additional chemicals). EPA would pay for all analytical costs associated with monitoring at small systems. 2 Large system counts are approximate. The number of large systems is not additive. All SW and GWUDI systems would monitor for 

cyanotoxins; those same systems would also monitor for the 20 additional List 1 chemicals, as would the large GW systems. 

1. Sampling Frequency, Timing 

The number of samples for SW, 

GWUDI and GW systems would 

generally be consistent with those 

during prior UCMR cycles, with the 

exceptions noted for the monitoring of 

cyanotoxins. Water systems would be 

required to collect samples during the 

monitoring time frame of March through 

November (excluding December, 

January and February). With the 

exception of cyanotoxin monitoring, 

sampling would take place every two 

months for SW and GWUDI systems (a 

total of four sampling events), and at 6- 

month intervals for GW systems (a total 

of two sampling events). For cyanotoxin 

monitoring, SW and GWUDI systems 

would collect samples twice a month for 

four consecutive months (total of eight 

sampling events). GW systems would be 

excluded from cyanotoxin monitoring. 

The Assessment Monitoring sampling 

time frame would take place during the 

compressed period of March through 

November to better reflect the times of 

year when contaminants are more likely 

to occur in drinking water. Populations 

of cyanobacteria generally peak when 

water temperature is highest (Graham et 

al., 2008). Seasonality of pesticide 

occurrence in surface waters has been 

well documented, and generally relates 

to the timing of pesticide applications in 

the watershed, rainfall or irrigation 

patterns and watershed size (USGS, 

2014; Ryberg and Gilliom, 2015). Based 

on this information, EPA anticipates 

that sampling in the December through 

February time period would not 

accurately reflect occurrence for some of 

the contaminants, particularly 

cyanotoxins and pesticides. Industry 

and laboratory stakeholders have also 

observed that the traditional UCMR 

approach has the potential to 

underestimate exposure for some 

contaminants because of seasonal 

occurrence (Roberson and Eaton, 2014). 

Therefore, EPA is proposing that no 

sampling take place during those winter 

months, except for resampling purposes. 

EPA welcomes comments on this 

approach. 

Large system schedules (year and 

months of monitoring) would initially 

be determined by EPA in conjunction 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 238 / Friday, December 11, 2015 / Proposed Rules 76905 

with the states (as described in section 

II.K) and these PWSs would have an 

opportunity to modify this schedule for 

planning purposes or other reasons (e.g., 

to conduct monitoring during the 

months the system or the state believes 

are most vulnerable, spread costs over 

multiple years, a sampling location will 

be closed during the scheduled month 

of monitoring, etc.). PWSs would not be 

permitted to reschedule monitoring 

specifically to avoid sample collection 

during a suspected vulnerable period. 

EPA proposes to schedule and 

coordinate small system monitoring by 

working closely with partnering states. 

SMPs provide an opportunity for states 

to review and revise the initial sampling 

schedules that EPA proposes (see 

discussion of SMPs in section II.K). 

2. Sampling Locations 

Sample collection for the UCMR 4 

contaminants would take place at the 

entry point to the distribution system 

(EPTDS), with the following exceptions/ 

additions. Sampling for ‘‘total 

microcystins’’ (i.e., the sum of 

congeners as measured by ADDA– 

ELISA) would also take place at the 

source water intake (concurrent with the 

collection of cyanotoxin samples at the 

EPTDS) unless the PWS purchases 100 

percent of their water. ‘‘Consecutive 

systems’’ would only sample for 

cyanotoxins at their EPTDS. 

Measurements for temperature and pH 

would take place at the source water 

intake (concurrent with total 

microcystin sampling). HAA sampling 

would take place in the distribution 

system. Sampling for TOC and bromide 

would take place at a single source 

water intake (concurrent with HAA 

sampling in the distribution system). 

The indicator data, along with the 

disinfectant type and water treatment 

information, would aid in the 

understanding of brominated HAA and 

cyanotoxin occurrence and treatment 

efficacy. 

For purposes of total microcystin 

sampling, temperature and pH 

measurement, and TOC and bromide 

sampling, EPA defines source water 

under UCMR as untreated water 

entering the water treatment plant (i.e., 

at a location prior to any treatment). 

Systems that are subject to the Long 

Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water 

Treatment Rule (LT2) would use their 

source water sampling site(s) that have 

been identified under that rule (71 FR 

654, January 5, 2006 (USEPA, 2006a)). 

Systems subject to the Stage 1 

Disinfectants and Disinfection 

Byproducts Rule (DBPR) would use 

their TOC source water sampling site(s) 

(63 FR 69390, December 16, 1998 

(USEPA, 1998c)). TOC source water 

sampling site(s) were set under Stage 1 

DBPR and remain unchanged under 

Stage 2 DBPR. If a system has two 

different source water sampling 

locations for LT2 and Stage 1 DBPR, the 

system would be permitted to select the 

sample point that best represents the 

definition of source water sample 

location(s) for UCMR. 

EPA proposes that PWSs monitor for 

HAAs only in the distribution system. If 

the system’s treatment plant/water 

source is subject to sampling 

requirements under § 141.622 

(monitoring requirements for Stage 2 

DBPR), the water systems must collect 

samples for the HAAs at the sampling 

locations identified under that rule (71 

FR 388, January 4, 2006 (USEPA, 

2006b)). If a treatment plant/water 

source is not subject to Stage 2 DBPR 

monitoring, then the water system must 

collect HAA distribution system 

samples at a location that represents the 

DSMRT. UCMR 4 HAA samples and 

HAA5 Stage 2 DBPR compliance 

monitoring samples may be collected by 

the PWS at the same time. However, in 

such cases, PWSs would be required to 

arrange for UCMR 4 HAA samples to be 

analyzed by a UCMR 4 approved 

laboratory using EPA Method 552.3 or 

557 (compliance methods used for 

analysis of Stage 2 DBPR samples). 

3. Phased Sample Analysis for 

Microcystins 

EPA is proposing a phased sample 

analysis approach for microcystins to 

reduce analytical costs (i.e., PWSs must 

collect all required samples for each 

sampling event but not all samples may 

need to be analyzed). Two samples 

would be collected for ADDA ELISA 

(one source water intake sample and 

one EPTDS), and one sample would be 

collected for EPA Method 544 at the 

EPTDS. Initially, source water intake 

samples (collected by ‘‘nonconsecutive’’ SW and GWUDI PWSs) 

would be analyzed for total 

microcystins as defined by an ADDA 

specific ELISA methodology. ADDA 

ELISA is a widely used screening assay 

that allows for the aggregate detection of 

numerous microcystin congeners; it 

does not allow for measurement of the 

individual congeners (USEPA, 2015c; 

Fischer et al., 2001; McElhiney and 

Lawton, 2005; Zeck et al., 2001). If the 

source water intake ELISA result is less 

than 0.3 micrograms per liter (mg/L) (i.e., 

the reporting limit for total 

microcystins), then the other collected 

samples (from the EPTDS) would not be 

analyzed for that sample event and only 

the source water result would be 

reported to EPA. If the ELISA result 

from the source water intake is greater 

than or equal to 0.3 mg/L, the result 

would be reported to EPA and the 

sample from the EPTDS would then also 

be analyzed for total microcystins by 

ELISA. ELISA analysis of the EPTDS 

sample would be the first step for 

consecutive systems. If the EPTDS 

ELISA result is less than 0.3 mg/L, then 

no additional analyses would be 

required for that particular sample event 

and the result would be reported to 

EPA. If the EPTDS ELISA result is 

greater than or equal to 0.3 mg/L, then 

that result would be reported to EPA 

and the other microcystin sample 

collected at the EPTDS would be 

analyzed using EPA Method 544 to 

identify and quantify six particular 

microcystin congeners and a related 

toxin, nodularin. Method 544 uses 

liquid chromatography with tandem 

mass spectrometry (LC/MS/MS) to 

quantify and speciate microcystin 

congeners at low concentrations. Using 

Method 544 to analyze EPTDS samples 

that tested positive for microcystins by 

ELISA is expected to help EPA and the 

states to establish the degree to which 

particular congener occurrence 

compares with total microcystin 

occurrence as measured by ADDA 

ELISA (USEPA, 2015c). 

This phased sample analysis 

approach for microcystins has the 

potential to achieve significant cost 

savings. A similar approach is not 

practical for cylindrospermopsin and 

anatoxin-a samples. Therefore, EPA 

proposes that cylindrospermopsin and 

anatoxin-a sampling be conducted 

simultaneously with the microcystins, 

twice a month for four consecutive 

months only at the EPTDS, and that the 

samples be analyzed using EPA Method 

545. 

4. Representative Sampling 

As during past UCMRs and as 

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

rule would allow large GW systems that 

have multiple EPTDSs, with prior 

approval, to sample at representative 

sampling locations rather than at each 

EPTDS. Representative sampling plans 

approved under prior UCMRs will be 

recognized as valid for UCMR 4 and 

these systems must submit a copy of 

documentation from their state or EPA 

that approves their alternative sampling 

plan. Any new GW representative 

monitoring plans must be submitted to 

be reviewed by the state or EPA within 

120 days from publication of the final 

rule. Once approved, these 

representative EPTDS locations, along 

with previously approved EPTDS 

locations from prior UCMRs, must be 

loaded into the Safe Drinking Water 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
76906 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 238 / Friday, December 11, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

Accession and Review System 

(SDWARS) by December 31, 2017. 

5. Summary 

With the exception of the increased 

sample frequency, phased sample 

analysis for microcystins, revised 

sampling locations and the compressed 

monitoring schedule, the approach to 

UCMR 4 Assessment Monitoring 

remains consistent with that established 

for UCMR 3. 

EPA invites comments regarding the 

cyanotoxin monitoring approach and 

the usefulness of collecting temperature 

and pH data (concurrently with the 

ELISA sample) at the source water 

intake, as well as designating source 

water type (e.g., lakes/reservoirs or 

flowing streams), as potential indicators 

of cyanotoxin occurrence. EPA also 

invites comments on the 

appropriateness of other potential 

cyanotoxin indicators, recognizing that 

the cost of any additional indicator 

monitoring would need to be weighed 

with consideration given to the 

likelihood of any other parameters 

serving as effective indicators. 

Finally, EPA recognizes the trade-off 

between PWS burden and occurrencedata representativeness, and has 

attempted to strike a reasonable balance 

in selecting the affected PWSs and 

establishing the monitoring frequency. 

The Agency welcomes comment on this 

particular point, including input 

regarding the appropriateness of 

collecting occurrence data from fewer 

PWSs. This could include employing 

the Screening Survey approach used in 

UCMR 3 or an alternative design. EPA 

requests that commenters suggesting 

alternatives describe how their 

proposed approach would be nationally 

representative of the frequency and 

level of contaminant occurrence. 

G. What are reporting requirements for 

UCMR 4? 

1. Data Elements 

EPA proposes the following changes 

to the reporting requirements listed in 

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

UCMR 4 contaminants being proposed 

and the associated indicators. 

Additionally, EPA proposes to collect 

quality control information related to 

sample analysis. This information 

would further ensure that methods are 

followed as written, and would provide 

continuous quality assurance of data 

reported. EPA collected this information 

for small systems in previous UCMRs 

and found that doing so helps ensure 

that laboratories consistently follow the 

methods. 

• Add Public Water System Name. 

New data element to be assigned once 

by the PWS. 

• Add Public Water System Facility 

Name. New data element to be assigned 

once by the PWS for every facility 

identification code. 

• Add Public Water System Facility 

Type. New data element to be assigned 

once by the PWS for every facility. 

• Update Sampling Point 

Identification Code. Added ‘‘source 

water’’ as an example of applicable 

sampling locations. 

• Add Sampling Point Name. New 

data element to be assigned once by the 

PWS for every sampling point 

identification code. 

• Update Sample Point Type Code. 

Add source water (SR) to account for 

brominated HAA indicators and 

microcystin monitoring at the intake to 

the treatment plant. 

• Update Disinfectant Type. Adding 

the following primary disinfectant/

oxidation practices: Permanganate 

applied before SR sample location 

(PEMB) and after (PEMA), hydrogen 

peroxide applied before SR sample 

location (HPXB) and after (HPXA), and 

chlorine dioxide applied before SR 

sample location (CLDB) and after 

(CLDA). 

• Add Treatment Information. New 

data element to capture treatment 

associated with the water being 

sampled. 

• Add Disinfectant Residual Type. 

New data element to capture 

disinfectant residual type information 

associated with the water being 

sampled. 

• Add Extraction Batch Identification 

Code. New data element to allow 

evaluation of quality control elements 

associated with extraction of samples in 

methods where extraction is required. 

• Add Extraction Date. New data 

element identifying the date of sample 

extraction. 

• Add Analysis Batch Identification 

Code. New data element to allow 

evaluation of quality control elements 

associated with analyzing samples. 

• Add Analysis Date. New data 

element identifying the start date of 

sample analysis. 

• Update Sample Analysis Type. The 

following elements are proposed as 

quality assurance measures: 

Æ Continuing calibration check (CCC), 

an element that verifies the accuracy of 

method calibration; 

Æ Internal standard (IS), an element 

that measures the relative response of 

contaminants; 

Æ Laboratory fortified blank (LFB), an 

element that verifies method 

performance in the absence of a sample 

matrix; 

Æ Laboratory reagent blank (LRB), an 

element that verifies the absence of 

interferences in the reagents and 

equipment; 

Æ Quality control sample (QCS), an 

element that verifies the accuracy of the 

calibration standards; 

Æ Quality HAA (QH), HAA sample 

collected and submitted for quality 

control; and, 

Æ Surrogate standard (SUR), an 

element that assesses method 

performance for each extraction. 

• Update Analytical Result—Value. 

Update to ‘‘Analytical Result— 

Measured Value.’’ The measured value 

is the analytical result for the 

contaminant. 

• Add Additional Value. This 

element is used for quality control 

samples and is the amount of 

contaminant added to a QCS. 

• Update Sample Event Code. Revise 

sample event codes to uniquely identify 

sampling events with specific codes for 

cyanotoxin and additional chemical 

monitoring. 

2. Duplicate Samples 

Currently, § 141.40(a)(4)(ii)(F), 

requires EPA to randomly select a small 

percentage of small water systems to 

collect duplicate water samples for 

quality control purposes. Based on 

experience from previous UCMRs, this 

requirement did not provide significant 

useful information and EPA proposes to 

remove the requirement for the 

collection of duplicate samples from 

UCMR 4. 

H. What are Minimum Reporting Levels 

(MRLs) and how were they determined? 

The analyte minimum reporting level 

(MRL) is a quantitation level designed to 

be an estimate of the reporting level that 

is achievable, with 95% confidence, by 

a capable analyst/laboratory at least 

75% of the time, using the prescribed 

method. Demonstration of the ability to 

reliably make quality measurements at 

or below the MRL is intended to ensure 

that high quality results are being 

reported by participating laboratories. 

MRLs are generally established as low 

as is reasonable (and are typically lower 

than the current health reference levels 

and health advisories), so that the 

occurrence data reported to EPA will 

support sound decision making, 

including those cases where new 

information might lead to lower health 

reference levels. EPA established the 

proposed MRL for each analyte/method 

by obtaining data from several 

laboratories performing ‘‘lowest 

concentration minimum reporting 

level’’ (LCMRL) studies. For further 

information on the LCMRL and MRL 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 238 / Friday, December 11, 2015 / Proposed Rules 76907 

process, see ‘‘Technical Basis for the 

Lowest Concentration Minimum 

Reporting Level (LCMRL) Calculator’’ 

(USEPA, 2010), available on the Internet 

at (http://www2.epa.gov/

dwanalyticalmethods/approveddrinking-water-analytical-methods). 

EPA will consider raising MRLs if the 

Agency becomes aware of evidence that 

a proposed MRL is unattainable or 

impractical. 

I. How do laboratories become approved 

to conduct UCMR 4 analyses? 

The proposed rule would require EPA 

approval for all laboratories conducting 

analyses for UCMR 4. EPA anticipates 

following the traditional Agency 

approach to approving UCMR 

laboratories, which would require 

laboratories seeking approval to: (1) 

Provide EPA with data that demonstrate 

a successful completion of an initial 

demonstration of capability (IDC) as 

outlined in each method; (2) verify 

successful performance at or below the 

MRLs as specified in this action; (3) 

provide information about laboratory 

operating procedures; and (4) 

successfully participate in an EPA 

proficiency testing (PT) program for the 

analytes of interest. Audits of 

laboratories may be conducted by EPA 

prior to and/or following approval. The 

‘‘UCMR 4 Laboratory Approval 

Requirements and Information 

Document’’ (USEPA, 2015j) will provide 

guidance on the EPA laboratory 

approval program and the specific 

method acceptance criteria. 

EPA may supply analytical reference 

standards for select analytes to 

participating/approved laboratories 

when reliable standards are not readily 

available through commercial sources. 

The structure of the proposed UCMR 

4 laboratory approval program is the 

same as that employed in previous 

UCMRs, and would provide an 

assessment of the ability of laboratories 

to perform analyses using the methods 

listed in § 141.40(a)(3), Table 1. The 

UCMR 4 laboratory approval process is 

designed to assess whether laboratories 

possess the required equipment and can 

meet laboratory-performance and datareporting criteria described in this 

action. Laboratory participation in the 

UCMR laboratory approval program is 

voluntary. However, as in previous 

UCMRs and as proposed for UCMR 4, 

EPA would require PWSs to exclusively 

use laboratories that have been 

approved under the program. EPA 

expects to post a list of approved UCMR 

4 laboratories to: http://www2.epa.gov/

dwucmr. Laboratories are encouraged to 

apply for UCMR 4 approval as early as 

possible, as EPA anticipates that large 

PWSs scheduled for monitoring in the 

first year will be making arrangements 

for sample analyses soon after the final 

rule is published. The anticipated steps 

and requirements for the laboratory 

approval process are listed in the 

following paragraphs, steps 1 through 6. 

1. Request To Participate 

Laboratories interested in the UCMR 4 

laboratory approval program would first 

email EPA at: UCMR_Sampling_

Coordinator@epa.gov to request 

registration materials. EPA expects to 

accept such requests beginning 

December 11, 2015. EPA anticipates that 

the final opportunity for a laboratory to 

complete and submit the necessary 

registration information will be 60 days 

after final rule publication. 

2. Registration 

Laboratory applicants provide 

registration information that includes: 

laboratory name, mailing address, 

shipping address, contact name, phone 

number, email address and a list of the 

UCMR 4 methods for which the 

laboratory is seeking approval. This 

registration step provides EPA with the 

necessary contact information, and 

ensures that each laboratory receives a 

customized application package. 

3. Application Package 

Laboratories that wish to participate 

complete and return a customized 

application package that includes the 

following: IDC data, including 

precision, accuracy and results of MRL 

studies; information regarding analytical 

equipment and other materials; proof of 

current drinking water laboratory 

certification (for select compliance 

monitoring methods); and example 

chromatograms for each method under 

review. 

As a condition of receiving and 

maintaining approval, the laboratory is 

expected to confirm that it will post 

UCMR 4 monitoring results and quality 

control data that meet method criteria 

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

UCMR electronic data reporting system, 

SDWARS. 

4. EPA’s Review of Application Package 

EPA will review the application 

packages and, if necessary, request 

follow-up information. Laboratories that 

successfully complete the application 

process become eligible to participate in 

the UCMR 4 PT program. 

5. Proficiency Testing 

A PT sample is a synthetic sample 

containing a concentration of an analyte 

or mixture of analytes that is known to 

EPA, but unknown to the laboratory. To 

be approved, a laboratory is expected to 

meet specific acceptance criteria for the 

analysis of a UCMR 4 PT sample(s) for 

each analyte in each method, for which 

the laboratory is seeking approval. EPA 

intends to offer up to four opportunities 

for a laboratory to successfully analyze 

UCMR 4 PT samples. Up to three of 

these studies will be conducted prior to 

the publication of the final rule, and at 

least one study will be conducted after 

publication of the final rule. This allows 

laboratories to complete their portion of 

the laboratory approval process prior to 

publication of the final rule and receive 

their approval immediately following 

the publication of the final rule. A 

laboratory is expected to pass one of the 

PT studies for each analytical method 

for which it is requesting approval, and 

will not be required to pass a PT study 

for a method it already passed in a 

previous UCMR 4 PT study. EPA does 

not expect to conduct additional PT 

studies after the start of system 

monitoring; however, laboratory audits 

will likely be ongoing throughout 

UCMR 4 implementation. Initial 

laboratory approval is expected to be 

contingent on successful completion of 

a PT study. Continued laboratory 

approval is contingent on successful 

completion of the audit process and 

satisfactorily meeting all the other stated 

conditions. 

6. Written EPA Approval 

After successfully completing the 

preceding steps 1 through 5, EPA 

expects to send each laboratory a letter 

listing the methods for which approval 

is pending (i.e., pending promulgation 

of the final rule if the PT studies have 

been conducted prior to that time), or 

for which approval is granted (if after 

promulgation of the final rule). 

Laboratories receiving pending approval 

are expected to be granted approval 

without further action following 

promulgation of the final rule if no 

changes have been made to the rule that 

impact the laboratory approval program. 

EPA expects to contact the laboratory if 

changes are made between the proposed 

and final rules that warrant additional 

action by the laboratory. 

J. What documents are being 

incorporated by reference? 

The following methods are being 

incorporated by reference into this 

section for UCMR 4 monitoring. All 

approved material except for the 

Standard Method Online, is available 

for inspection electronically at http://

www.regulations.gov (Docket ID No. 

OW–2015–0218), or from the sources 

listed for each method. EPA has worked 

to make these methods and documents 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
76908 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 238 / Friday, December 11, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

reasonably available to interested 

parties. The versions of the EPA and 

non-EPA methods that may be used to 

support monitoring under this rule are 

as follows: 

1. Methods From the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency 

The following methods are from the 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Water Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West, 

Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue 

NW., Washington, DC 20004. 

(i) EPA Method 150.1 ‘‘pH 

Electrometric, in Methods for Chemical 

Analysis of Water and Wastes,’’ 1983, 

EPA/600/4–79/020. Available on the 

Internet at http://www.nemi.gov. This is 

an EPA method for measuring pH in 

water samples using a meter with a glass 

electrode and reference electrode or a 

combination electrode. The proposal 

includes measurement of pH as a 

potential indicator for cyanotoxins. 

(ii) EPA Method 150.2 ‘‘pH, 

Continuous Monitoring (Electrometric), 

in Methods for Chemical Analysis of 

Water and Wastes,’’ 1983, EPA/600/4– 

79/020. Available on the Internet at 

http://www.nemi.gov. This is an EPA 

method for measuring pH of in-line 

water samples using a continuous flow 

meter with a glass electrode and 

reference electrode or a combination 

electrode. 

(iii) EPA Method 200.8 

‘‘Determination of Trace Elements in 

Waters and Wastes by Inductively 

Coupled Plasma—Mass Spectrometry,’’ 

Revision 5.4, 1994. Available on the 

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

is an EPA method for the analysis of 

elements in water by ICP–MS and is 

proposed to measure germanium and 

manganese. 

(iv) EPA Method 300.0 

‘‘Determination of Inorganic Anions by 

Ion Chromatography Samples,’’ 

Revision 2.1, 1993. Available on the 

Internet at http://www.nemi.gov. This is 

an EPA method for the analysis of 

inorganic anions in water samples using 

ion chromatography (IC) with 

conductivity detection. The proposal 

includes measurement of bromide as a 

potential indicator for HAAs. 

(v) EPA Method 300.1 ‘‘Determination 

of Inorganic Anions in Drinking Water 

by Ion Chromatography,’’ Revision 1.0, 

1997. Available on the Internet at 

http://www2.epa.gov/

dwanalyticalmethods/approveddrinking-water-analytical-methods. This 

is an EPA method for the analysis of 

inorganic anions in water samples using 

IC with conductivity detection. 

(vi) EPA Method 317.0 

‘‘Determination of Inorganic Oxyhalide 

Disinfection By-Products in Drinking 

Water Using Ion Chromatography with 

the Addition of a Postcolumn Reagent 

for Trace Bromate Analysis,’’ Revision 

2.0, 2001, EPA 815–B–01–001. 

Available on the Internet at http://

www2.epa.gov/dwanalyticalmethods/

approved-drinking-water-analyticalmethods. This is an EPA method for the 

analysis of inorganic anions in water 

samples using IC with conductivity 

detection. 

(vii) EPA Method 326.0 

‘‘Determination of Inorganic Oxyhalide 

Disinfection By-Products in Drinking 

Water Using Ion Chromatography 

Incorporating the Addition of a 

Suppressor Acidified Postcolumn 

Reagent for Trace Bromate Analysis,’’ 

Revision 1.0, 2002, EPA 815–R–03–007. 

Available on the Internet at http://

www2.epa.gov/dwanalyticalmethods/

approved-drinking-water-analyticalmethods. This is an EPA method for the 

analysis of inorganic anions in water 

samples using IC with conductivity 

detection. 

(viii) EPA Method 415.3 

‘‘Determination of Total Organic Carbon 

and Specific UV Absorbance at 254 nm 

in Source Water and Drinking Water,’’ 

Revision 1.1, 2005, EPA/600/R–05/055. 

Available on the Internet at http://

www2.epa.gov/water-research/epadrinking-water-research-methods. This 

is an EPA method for the analysis of 

TOC in water samples using a 

conductivity detector or a nondispersive 

infrared detector. 

(ix) EPA Method 415.3 

‘‘Determination of Total Organic Carbon 

and Specific UV Absorbance at 254 nm 

in Source Water and Drinking Water,’’ 

Revision 1.2, 2009, EPA/600/R–09/

122.Available on the Internet at http:// 

www2.epa.gov/water-research/epadrinking-water-research-methods. This 

is an EPA method for the analysis of 

TOC in water samples using a 

conductivity detector or a nondispersive 

infrared detector. 

(x) EPA Method 525.3 ‘‘Determination 

of Semivolatile Organic Chemicals in 

Drinking Water by Solid Phase 

Extraction and Capillary Column Gas 

Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry 

(GC/MS),’’ Version 1.0, February 2012, 

EPA/600/R–12/010. Available on the 

Internet at http://www2.epa.gov/waterresearch/epa-drinking-water-researchmethods. This is an EPA method for the 

analysis of semivolatile organic 

chemicals in drinking water using SPE 

and GC/MS and is proposed to measure 

nine pesticides (alphahexachlorocyclohexane, chlorpyrifos, 

dimethipin, ethoprop, oxyfluorfen, 

profenofos, tebuconazole, total cis- and 

trans- permethrin, and tribufos). 

(xi) EPA Method 530 ‘‘Determination 

of Select Semivolatile Organic 

Chemicals in Drinking Water by Solid 

Phase Extraction and Gas 

Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry 

(GC/MS),’’ Version 1.0, January 2015, 

EPA/600/R–14/442. Available on the 

Internet at http://www2.epa.gov/waterresearch/epa-drinking-water-researchmethods. This is an EPA method for the 

analysis of semivolatile organic 

chemicals in drinking water using SPE 

and GC/MS and is proposed to measure 

butylated hydroxyanisole, o-toluidine, 

and quinoline. 

(xii) EPA Method 541 ‘‘Determination 

of 1-Butanol, 1,4-Dioxane, 2- 

Methoxyethanol and 2-Propen-1-ol in 

Drinking Water by Solid Phase 

Extraction and Gas Chromatography/

Mass Spectrometry,’’ November 2015, 

EPA 815–R–15–011. Available on the 

Internet at http://www2.epa.gov/

dwanalyticalmethods/approveddrinking-water-analytical-methods. This 

is an EPA method for the analysis of 

selected alcohols and 1,4-dioxane in 

drinking water using SPE and GC/MS 

and is proposed to measure 1-butanol, 

2-methoxyethanol and 2-propen-1-ol. 

(xiii) EPA Method 544 

‘‘Determination of Microcystins and 

Nodularin in Drinking Water by Solid 

Phase Extraction and Liquid 

Chromatography/Tandem Mass 

Spectrometry (LC/MS/MS),’’ Version 

1.0, February 2015, EPA/600/R–14/474. 

Available on the Internet at http://

www2.epa.gov/water-research/epadrinking-water-research-methods. This 

is an EPA method for the analysis of 

selected cyanotoxins in drinking water 

using SPE and LC–MS/MS with 

electrospray ionization (ESI) and is 

proposed to measure six microcystins 

(microcystin-LA, microcystin-LF, 

microcystin-LR, microcystin-LY, 

microcystin-RR, and microcystin-YR) 

and nodularin. 

(xiv) EPA Method 545 ‘‘Determination 

of Cylindrospermopsin and Anatoxin-a 

in Drinking Water by Liquid 

Chromatography Electrospray Ionization 

Tandem Mass Spectrometry (LC/ESI– 

MS/MS),’’ April 2015, EPA 815–R–15– 

009. Available on the Internet at 

http://www2.epa.gov/

dwanalyticalmethods/approveddrinking-water-analytical-methods. This 

is an EPA method for the analysis of 

selected cyanotoxins in drinking water 

using LC–MS/MS with electrospray 

ionization (ESI) and is proposed to 

measure cylindrospermopsin and 

anatoxin-a. 

(xv) EPA Method 552.3 

‘‘Determination of Haloacetic Acids and 

Dalapon in Drinking Water by LiquidLiquid Microextraction, Derivatization, 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 238 / Friday, December 11, 2015 / Proposed Rules 76909 

and Gas Chromatography with Electron 

Capture Detection,’’ Revision 1.0, July 

2003, EPA 815–B–03–002. Available on 

the Internet at http://www2.epa.gov/

dwanalyticalmethods/approveddrinking-water-analytical-methods. This 

is an EPA method for the analysis of 

haloacetic acids and dalapon in 

drinking water using liquid-liquid 

microextraction, derivatization, and GC 

with electron capture detection (ECD) 

and is proposed to measure three HAA 

groups (HAA5, HAA6Br and HAA9). 

(xvi) EPA Method 557 ‘‘Determination 

of Haloacetic Acids, Bromate, and 

Dalapon in Drinking Water by Ion 

Chromatography Electrospray Ionization 

Tandem Mass Spectrometry (IC–ESI– 

MS/MS),’’ Version 1.0, September 2009, 

EPA 815–B–09–012. Available on the 

Internet at http://www2.epa.gov/

dwanalyticalmethods/approveddrinking-water-analytical-methods. This 

is an EPA method for the analysis of 

haloacetic acids, bromate, and dalapon 

in drinking water using IC–MS/MS with 

electrospray ionization (ESI) and is 

proposed to measure three HAA groups 

(HAA5, HAA6Br and HAA9). 

2. Methods From ‘‘ASTM International’’ 

The following methods are from 

‘‘ASTM International’’, 100 Barr Harbor 

Drive, West Conshohocken, PA 19428– 

2959. 

(i) ASTM D1293–12 ‘‘Standard Test 

Methods for pH of Water.’’ Available for 

purchase on the Internet at http://

www.astm.org/Standards/D1293.htm. 

This is an ASTM method for measuring 

pH in water samples using a meter and 

associated electrodes. 

(ii) ASTM D5673–10 ‘‘Standard Test 

Method for Elements in Water by 

Inductively Coupled Plasma-Mass 

Spectrometry,’’ approved August 1, 

2010. Available for purchase on the 

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

Standards/D5673.htm. This is an ASTM 

method for the analysis of elements in 

water by ICP–MS and is proposed to 

measure germanium and manganese. 

(iii) ASTM D6581–12 ‘‘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. 

This is an ASTM method for the 

analysis of inorganic anions in water 

samples using IC with conductivity 

detection. The proposal includes 

measurement of bromide as a potential 

indicator for HAAs. 

3. Methods From ‘‘Standard Methods for 

the Examination of Water & 

Wastewater’’ 

The following methods are from 

‘‘Standard Methods for the Examination 

of Water & Wastewater’’, 21st edition 

(2005), American Public Health 

Association, 800 I Street NW., 

Washington, DC 20001–3710. 

(i) SM 2550 ‘‘Temperature.’’ This is a 

Standard Method for temperature 

measurements using a thermometer 

(mercury). The proposal includes 

measurement of temperature as a 

potential indicator for cyanotoxins. 

(ii) SM 3125 ‘‘Metals by Inductively 

Coupled Plasma/Mass Spectrometry.’’ 

This is a Standard Method for the 

analysis of metals and metalloids in 

water by ICP–MS and is proposed for 

the analysis of germanium and 

manganese. 

(iii) SM 4500–H+ B ‘‘pH Value in 

Water by Potentiometry Using a 

Standard Hydrogen Electrode.’’ This is a 

Standard Method for measuring pH of 

water samples using a meter, standard 

hydrogen electrode, and reference 

electrode. 

(iv) SM 5310B ‘‘The Determination of 

Total Organic Carbon by HighTemperature Combustion Method.’’ 

This is a Standard Method for the 

analysis of TOC in water samples using 

a a conductivity detector or a 

nondispersive infrared detector. 

(v) SM 5310C ‘‘Total organic carbon 

by Persulfate-UV or Heated-Persulfate 

Oxidation Method.’’ This is a Standard 

Method for the analysis of TOC in water 

samples using conductivity detector or 

a nondispersive infrared detector. 

(vi) SM 5310D ‘‘Total organic carbon 

by Wet-Oxidation Method.’’ This is a 

Standard Method for the analysis of 

TOC in water samples using a 

conductivity detector or a nondispersive 

infrared detector. 

4. Methods From ‘‘Standard Methods 

Online’’ 

The following methods are from 

‘‘Standard Methods Online,’’ available 

for purchase on the Internet at http://

www.standardmethods.org. 

(i) SM 2550–10 ‘‘Temperature.’’ This 

is a Standard Method for temperature 

measurements using a thermometer 

(fluid filled or electronic). 

(ii) SM 3125–09 ‘‘Metals by 

Inductively Coupled Plasma/Mass 

Spectrometry (Editorial revisions, 

2011).’’ This is a Standard Method for 

the analysis of metals and metalloids in 

water by ICP–MS and is proposed to 

measure germanium and manganese. 

(iii) SM 4500–H+ B–00 ‘‘pH Value in 

Water by Potentiometry Using a 

Standard Hydrogen Electrode.’’ This is a 

Standard Method for measuring pH in 

water samples using a meter, standard 

hydrogen electrode, and reference 

electrode. 

(iv) SM 5310B–00 ‘‘The 

Determination of Total Organic Carbon 

by High-Temperature Combustion 

Method.’’ This is a Standard Method for 

the analysis of TOC in water samples 

using a conductivity detector or a 

nondispersive infrared detector. 

(v) SM 5310C–00 ‘‘Total organic 

carbon by Persulfate-UV or HeatedPersulfate Oxidation Method.’’ This is a 

Standard Method for the analysis of 

TOC in water samples using a 

conductivity detector or a nondispersive 

infrared detector. 

(vi) SM 5310D–00 ‘‘Total organic 

carbon by Wet-Oxidation Method.’’ This 

is a Standard Method for the analysis of 

TOC in water samples using a 

conductivity detector or a nondispersive 

infrared detector. 

5. Method From ‘‘Ohio EPA’’ 

The following methodology is from 

Ohio EPA, Columbus, OH. 

(i) ELISA SOP ‘‘Ohio EPA Total 

(Extracellular and Intracellular) 

Microcystins—ADDA by ELISA 

Analytical Methodology,’’ Version 2.0. 

January 2015, available on the Internet 

at http://www.epa.ohio.gov/Portals/28/

documents/habs/HAB_Analytical_

Methodology.pdf. This is an Ohio EPA 

method for the analysis of cyanotoxins 

(microcystins and nodularin) in 

drinking water using an ELISA 

technique. The proposal includes 

measurement of ‘‘total microcystins’’ 

using this technique. 

K. What is the states’ role in the UCMR 

program? 

UCMR is a direct implementation rule 

(i.e., EPA has primary responsibility for 

its implementation) and state 

participation is voluntary. Under 

previous UCMRs, specific activities that 

individual states, tribes and territories 

agreed to carry out or assist with were 

identified and established exclusively 

through Partnership Agreements (PAs). 

Through PAs, states, tribes and 

territories can help EPA implement the 

UCMR program and help ensure that the 

UCMR data are of the highest quality 

possible to best support Agency 

decision making. Under UCMR 4, EPA 

expects to continue to use the PA 

process to determine and document the 

following: The process for review and 

revision of the SMPs; replacing and 

updating system information; review 

and approval of proposed ground water 

representative monitoring plans; 

notification and instructions for 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
76910 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 238 / Friday, December 11, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

systems; and compliance assistance. 

EPA recognizes that states/primacy 

agencies often have the best information 

about PWSs in their state and 

encourages states to partner. 

SMPs include tabular listings of the 

systems that EPA selected and the 

proposed schedule for their monitoring. 

Initial SMPs also typically include 

instructions to states for revising and/or 

correcting system information in the 

SMPs, including modifying the 

sampling schedules for small systems. 

EPA expects to incorporate revisions 

from states, resolve any outstanding 

questions and return the final SMPs to 

each state. 

L. What stakeholder meetings have been 

held in preparation for UCMR 4? 

EPA incorporates stakeholder 

involvement into each UCMR cycle. 

Specific to the development of UCMR 4, 

EPA held two public stakeholder 

meetings and is announcing a third in 

this proposal (see sections II.L and II.M). 

EPA held a meeting focused on drinking 

water methods for CCL contaminants on 

May 15, 2013, in Cincinnati, Ohio. 

Participants included representatives of 

state agencies, laboratories, PWSs, 

environmental organizations and 

drinking water associations. Meeting 

topics included an overview of the 

regulatory process (CCL, UCMR and 

Regulatory Determination) and drinking 

water methods under development, 

primarily for CCL contaminants (see 

USEPA, 2013 for presentation 

materials). EPA held a second 

stakeholder meeting on June 25, 2014, 

in Washington, DC. Attendees 

representing state agencies, tribes, 

laboratories, PWSs, environmental 

organizations and drinking water 

associations participated in the meeting 

via webinar and in person. Meeting 

topics included a status update on 

UCMR 3; UCMR 4 potential sampling 

design changes relative to UCMR 3; 

UCMR 4 candidate analytes and 

rationale; and the laboratory approval 

process (see USEPA, 2014 for meeting 

materials). 

M. How do I participate in the upcoming 

stakeholder meeting? 

EPA will hold the third public 

stakeholder meeting (via webinar) on 

January 13, 2016. Topics will include 

the proposed UCMR 4 monitoring 

requirements, analyte selection and 

rationale, analytical methods, the 

laboratory approval process and ground 

water representative monitoring plans. 

1. Webinar Participation 

Those who wish to participate in the 

public webinar must register in advance 

no later than 5:00 p.m., eastern time on 

January 10, 2016, https://

attendee.gotowebinar.com/register/

7326881974233959170. To ensure 

adequate time for public statements, 

individuals or organizations interested 

in making a statement should identify 

their interest when they register. We ask 

that only one person present on behalf 

of a group or organization, and that the 

presentation be limited to ten minutes. 

Any additional statements from 

attendees will be taken during the 

webinar if time permits; alternatively, 

official comments can be submitted to 

the docket. The number of webinar 

connections available for the meeting is 

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

about registration and participation in 

the webinar can be found on EPA’s 

Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring 

Program Meetings and Materials Web 

page at http://www2.epa.gov/dwucmr/

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

2. Webinar Materials 

Meeting materials are expected to be 

sent by email to all registered attendees 

prior to the public webinar. EPA will 

post the materials on the Agency’s Web 

site for persons who are unable to attend 

the webinar. Please note, these materials 

could be posted after the webinar. 

N. How did EPA consider Children’s 

Environmental Health? 

Executive Order 13045 does not apply 

to UCMR 4, however, EPA’s Policy on 

Evaluating Health Risks to Children is 

applicable (See III.G. Executive Order 

13045). By monitoring for unregulated 

contaminants that may pose health risks 

via drinking water, UCMR furthers the 

protection of public health for all 

citizens, including children. EPA 

considered children’s health risks 

during the proposed rule development 

process for UCMR 4, including the 

decision-making process for prioritizing 

candidate contaminants, and included a 

representative from EPA’s Office of 

Children’s Health Protection as a 

participant on the UCMR 4 workgroup. 

The objective of UCMR 4 is to collect 

nationally representative drinking water 

data on a set of unregulated 

contaminants. Wherever feasible, EPA 

collects occurrence data for 

contaminants at levels below current 

‘‘reference concentrations’’ (e.g., health 

advisories and health reference levels). 

By setting reporting levels as low as we 

reasonably can, the Agency positions 

itself to better address updated risk 

information in the future, including that 

associated with unique risks to children. 

EPA requests comments regarding any 

further steps that may be taken to 

evaluate and address health risks to 

children within the scope of UCMR 4. 

O. How did EPA address Environmental 

Justice? 

EPA did not identify any 

disproportionately high or adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

on minority, low-income or indigenous 

populations in the process of 

developing the proposed rule for UCMR 

4 (See III.J. Executive Order 12898). By 

seeking to identify unregulated 

contaminants that may pose health risks 

via drinking water from all PWSs, 

UCMR furthers the protection of public 

health for all citizens. EPA recognizes 

that unregulated contaminants in 

drinking water are of interest to all 

populations and structured the 

rulemaking process and implementation 

of the proposed UCMR 4 rule to allow 

for meaningful involvement and 

transparency. EPA organized public 

meetings/webinars to share information 

regarding the development of UCMR 4; 

coordinated with tribal governments; 

and convened a workgroup with 

representatives from the EPA Regions, 

EPA Program Offices, EPA’s Office of 

Research and Development and several 

states. 

EPA proposes to continue to collect 

U.S. Postal Service Zip Codes for each 

PWS’s service area, as collected under 

UCMR 3, to support an assessment of 

whether or not minority, low-income 

and/or indigenous-population 

communities are uniquely impacted by 

particular drinking water contaminants. 

EPA solicits comment on additional 

actions the Agency could take to further 

address environmental justice within 

the UCMR program. EPA welcomes, for 

example, comments regarding sampling 

and/or modeling approaches, and the 

feasibility and utility of applying these 

approaches to determine 

disproportionate impacts. 

III. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

This action is not a significant 

regulatory action and was therefore not 

submitted to OMB. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 

The information collection activities 

in this proposed rule have been 

submitted for approval to OMB under 

the PRA. The ICR document that the 

EPA prepared has been assigned EPA 

ICR number 2192.07. You can find a 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 238 / Friday, December 11, 2015 / Proposed Rules 76911 

copy of the ICR in the docket for this 

rule, and it is briefly summarized here. 

The information that EPA proposes to 

collect under this rule fulfills the 

statutory requirements of section 

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

1996. The data will describe the source 

of the water, location and test results for 

samples taken from PWSs. The 

information collected will support 

Agency decisions as to whether or not 

to regulate particular contaminants 

under SDWA. Reporting is mandatory. 

The data are not subject to 

confidentiality protection. 

The annual burden and cost estimates 

described in this section are based on 

the implementation assumptions 

described in section II.F. Respondents to 

UCMR 4 include 1,600 small PWSs (800 

for cyanotoxin monitoring and a 

different set of 800 for monitoring the 

additional 20 chemicals), the ∼4,292 

large PWSs and the 56 states and 

primacy agencies (∼5,948 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 

estimates, EPA assumed that systems 

would conduct sampling evenly across 

March 2018 through November 2020, 

excluding December, January or 

February of each year, except for 

resampling purposes (i.e., one-third of 

the systems in each year of monitoring). 

Because the applicable ICR period is 

2017–2019, one year of monitoring 

activity (i.e., 2020) is not captured in the 

ICR estimates; this will be addressed in 

a subsequent ICR renewal for UCMR 4. 

Small PWSs that are selected for 

UCMR 4 monitoring would sample an 

average of 6.7 times per PWS (i.e., 

number of responses per PWS) across 

the 3-year ICR period. The average 

burden per response for small PWSs is 

estimated to be 2.8 hours. Large PWSs 

(those serving 10,001 to 100,000 people) 

and very large PWSs (those serving 

more than 100,000 people) would 

sample and report an average of 11.4 

and 14.1 times per PWS, respectively, 

across the 3-year ICR period. The 

average burden per response for large 

and very large PWSs is estimated at 6.1 

and 9.9 hours, respectively. States are 

assumed to have an annual average 

burden of 366.5 hours related to 

coordination with EPA and PWSs. In 

aggregate, during the ICR period, the 

average response (e.g., responses from 

PWSs and states) is associated with a 

burden of 6.9 hours, with a labor plus 

non-labor cost of $1,705 per response. 

The annual average per-respondent 

burden hours and costs for the ICR 

period are: Small PWSs—6.2 hours, or 

$171, for labor; large PWSs—23.3 hours, 

or $682, for labor, and $6,047 for 

analytical costs; very large PWSs—46.5 

hours, or $1,248, for labor, and $16,298 

for analytical costs; and states—244.3 

hours, or $11,598, for labor. Annual 

average burden and cost per respondent 

(including both systems and states) is 

estimated to be 23.4 hours, with a labor 

plus non-labor cost of $3,470 per 

respondent. 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 rules in 40 CFR are 

listed in 40 CFR part 9. 

To comment on the Agency’s need for 

this information, accuracy of the burden 

estimates or to provide suggested 

methods for minimizing respondent 

burden, reference the public docket for 

this rule, which includes the ICR. 

Submit any comments related to the ICR 

to EPA and OMB. See the ADDRESSES

section at the beginning of this notice 

for where to submit comments to EPA 

and OMB. OMB is required to make a 

decision concerning the ICR between 30 

and 60 days after December 11, 2015. 

Comments should be sent to OMB by 

January 11, 2016 for the comment to be 

appropriately considered. The final rule 

will contain responses to any OMB or 

public comments on the information 

collection requirements contained in 

this proposal. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

For purposes of assessing the impacts 

of this 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 FR, (63 FR 

7606, February 13, 1998 (USEPA, 

1998b)), requested public comment, 

consulted with the Small Business 

Administration and finalized the 

alternative definition in the Consumer 

Confidence Reports rulemaking, (63 FR 

44512, August 19, 1998 (USEPA, 

1998a)). As stated in that Final Rule, the 

alternative definition would be applied 

to future drinking water rules, including 

this rule. 

The evaluation of the overall impact 

on small systems, summarized in the 

preceding discussion, is further 

described as follows. EPA analyzed the 

impacts for privately-owned and 

publicly-owned water systems 

separately, due to the different 

economic characteristics of these 

ownership types, such as different rate 

structures and profit goals. However, for 

both publicly- and privately-owned 

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

which compares annual system costs 

attributed to the rule to the system’s 

annual revenues. EPA used median 

revenue data from the 2006 CWS Survey 

for public and private water systems. 

The revenue figures were updated to 

2014 dollars, and to account for 3 

percent inflation. 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 4 

System size 

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

Ground Water 

500 and under ............................................................................................................................. 21 64 85 

501 to 3,300 ................................................................................................................................. 161 62 223 

3,301 to 10,000 ............................................................................................................................ 179 41 220 

Subtotal GW ......................................................................................................................... 361 167 528 

Surface Water (and GWUDI) 

500 and under ............................................................................................................................. 18 21 39 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
76912 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 238 / Friday, December 11, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

EXHIBIT 6—NUMBER OF PUBLICLY- AND PRIVATELY-OWNED SMALL SYSTEMS SUBJECT TO UCMR 4—Continued 

System size 

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

501 to 3,300 ................................................................................................................................. 241 86 327 

3,301 to 10,000 ............................................................................................................................ 548 158 706 

Subtotal SW .......................................................................................................................... 807 265 1,072 

Total of Small Water Systems ...................................................................................... 1,168 432 1,600 

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

The basis for the proposed UCMR 4 

RFA certification is as follows: For the 

1,600 small water systems that would be 

affected, the average annual cost for 

complying with this rule represents no 

more than 0.8% of system revenues (the 

highest estimated percentage is for GW 

systems serving 500 or fewer people, at 

0.8% of its median revenue). Exhibit 7 

presents the yearly cost to small systems 

and to EPA for the small system 

sampling program, along with an 

illustration of system participation for 

each year of UCMR 4. 

EXHIBIT 7—IMPLEMENTATION OF UCMR 4 AT SMALL SYSTEMS

Cost description 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Total 1

Costs to EPA for Small System Program (Assessment Monitoring) 

$0 $5,971,948 ................... $5,971,948 ................... $5,971,948 ................... $0 $17,915,845 

Costs to Small Systems (Assessment Monitoring) 

0 $273,210 ...................... $273,210 ...................... $273,210 ...................... 0 $819,631 

Total Costs to EPA and Small Systems for UCMR 4 

0 $6,245,159 ................... $6,245,159 ................... $6,245,159 ................... 0 $18,735,476 

System Monitoring Activity Timeline 2

Assessment Monitoring: 

Cyanotoxins.

................ 1/3 PWSs Sample ....... 1/3 PWSs Sample ....... 1/3 PWSs Sample ....... ................ 800 

Assessment Monitoring: 

20 Additional Chemicals.

................ 1/3 PWSs Sample ....... 1/3 PWSs Sample ....... 1/3 PWSs Sample ....... ................ 800 

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

2Total number of systems is 1,600. No small system conducts Assessment Monitoring for both cyanotoxins and the 20 additional chemicals. 

PWS costs are attributed to the labor 

required for reading about UCMR 4 

requirements, monitoring, reporting and 

record keeping. The estimated average 

annual burden across the 5-year UCMR 

4 implementation period of 2017–2021 

is 2.8 hours at $103 per small system. 

Average annual cost, in all cases, is less 

than 0.8% of system revenues. By 

assuming all costs for laboratory 

analyses, shipping and quality control 

for small entities, EPA incurs the 

entirety of the non-labor costs 

associated with UCMR 4 small system 

monitoring, or 96% of total small 

system testing costs. Exhibit 8 and 

Exhibit 9 present the estimated 

economic impacts in the form of a 

revenue test for publicly- and privatelyowned systems. 

EXHIBIT 8—UCMR 4 RELATIVE COST ANALYSIS FOR SMALL PUBLICLY-OWNED SYSTEMS

[2017–2021] 

System size 

(number of people served) 

Annual 

number of 

systems 

impacted 1

Average 

annual hours 

per system 

(2017–2021) 

Average 

annual cost 

per system 

(2017–2021) 

Revenue test 2

(%) 

Ground Water Systems 

500 and under ............................................................................................... 4 1.6 $59 0.16 

501 to 3,300 ................................................................................................... 32 1.7 63 0.04 

3,301 to 10,000 .............................................................................................. 36 1.9 67 0.01 

Surface Water (and GWUDI) Systems 

500 and under ............................................................................................... 4 3.3 118 0.17 

501 to 3,300 ................................................................................................... 48 3.3 118 0.04 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 238 / Friday, December 11, 2015 / Proposed Rules 76913 

EXHIBIT 8—UCMR 4 RELATIVE COST ANALYSIS FOR SMALL PUBLICLY-OWNED SYSTEMS—Continued 

[2017–2021] 

System size 

(number of people served) 

Annual 

number of 

systems 

impacted 1

Average 

annual hours 

per system 

(2017–2021) 

Average 

annual cost 

per system 

(2017–2021) 

Revenue test 2

(%) 

3,301 to 10,000 .............................................................................................. 109 3.4 123 0.01 

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

2The 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 4 RELATIVE COST ANALYSIS FOR SMALL PRIVATELY-OWNED SYSTEMS

[2017–2021] 

System size 

(number of people served) 

Annual 

number of 

systems 

impacted 1

Average 

annual hours 

per system 

(2017–2021) 

Average 

annual cost 

per system 

(2017–2021) 

Revenue test 2

(%) 

Ground Water Systems 

500 and under ............................................................................................... 13 1.6 $59 0.81 

501 to 3,300 ................................................................................................... 12 1.7 63 0.05 

3,301 to 10,000 .............................................................................................. 8 1.9 67 0.01 

Surface Water (and GWUDI) Systems 

500 and under ............................................................................................... 4 3.3 118 0.29 

501 to 3,300 ................................................................................................... 17 3.3 118 0.04 

3,301 to 10,000 .............................................................................................. 32 3.4 123 0.01 

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

2The Revenue Test was used to evaluate the economic impact of an information collection on small government entities (e.g., privately-owned 

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

The Agency has determined that 

1,600 small PWSs (for Assessment 

Monitoring), or approximately 4.2% of 

all small systems, would experience an 

impact of no more than 0.8% 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 has attempted to reduce this 

impact by assuming all costs for 

analyses of the samples and for shipping 

the samples from small systems to 

laboratories contracted by EPA to 

analyze UCMR 4 samples (the cost of 

shipping is now included in the cost of 

each analytical method). EPA has set 

aside $2.0 million each year from the 

Drinking Water 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 associated 

with collecting a sample and preparing 

it for shipping. 

I certify that this action will not have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the RFA. In making this 

determination, the impact of concern is 

any significant adverse economic 

impact on small entities. Although EPA 

has concluded that this action will have 

no significant net regulatory burden for 

directly regulated small entities, 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 

(UMRA) 

This action does not contain an 

annual unfunded mandate of $100 

million or more as described in UMRA, 

2 U.S.C. 1531–1538, and does not 

significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

This action does not have federalism 

implications. It will not have substantial 

direct effects on the states, on the 

relationship between the national 

government and the states, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. 

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 

This action will neither impose 

substantial direct compliance costs on 

federally recognized tribal governments, 

nor preempt tribal law. As described 

previously, this proposed rule requires 

monitoring by all large PWSs. 

Information in the SDWIS/Fed water 

system inventory indicates there are 

approximately 17 large tribal PWSs 

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

customers). EPA estimates the average 

annual cost to each of these large PWSs, 

over the 5-year rule period, to be $4,037. 

This cost is based on a labor component 

(associated with the collection of 

samples), and a non-labor component 

(associated with shipping and 

laboratory fees), and represents less than 

1.2% of average revenue/sales for large 

PWSs. UCMR also requires monitoring 

by a nationally representative sample of 

small PWSs. EPA estimates that less 

than 2% of small tribal systems will be 

selected as a nationally representative 

sample for Assessment Monitoring. EPA 

estimates the average annual cost to 

small tribal systems over the 5-year rule 

period to be $103. Such cost is based on 

the labor associated with collecting a 

sample and preparing it for shipping 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
76914 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 238 / Friday, December 11, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

and represents less than 0.8% of average 

revenue/sales for small PWSs. All other 

small-PWS expenses (associated with 

shipping and laboratory fees) are paid 

by EPA. 

EPA consulted with tribal officials 

under the EPA Policy on Consultation 

and Coordination with Indian Tribes 

early in the process of developing this 

proposed rule to permit them to have 

meaningful and timely input into its 

development. A summary of that 

consultation is provided in the 

electronic docket listed in the 

ADDRESSES section at the beginning of 

this notice. EPA specifically solicits 

additional comment on this proposed 

rule from tribal officials. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

This action is not subject to Executive 

Order 13045 because it is not 

economically significant as defined in 

Executive Order 12866, and because 

EPA does not think the environmental 

health or safety risks addressed by this 

action present a disproportionate risk to 

children. This action’s health and risk 

assessments are addressed in section 

II.N of the preamble. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution or Use 

This action is not subject to Executive 

Order 13211, because it is not a 

significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act and 1 CFR Part 51 

This action involves technical 

standards. EPA proposes to use methods 

developed by the Agency, three major 

voluntary consensus method 

organizations and the Ohio EPA to 

support UCMR 4 monitoring. The 

voluntary consensus method 

organizations are Standard Methods, 

Association of Analytical Communities 

International and ASTM International. 

EPA identified acceptable consensus 

method organization standards for the 

analysis of manganese and germanium. 

Additionally, EPA identified an Ohio 

EPA method for the analysis of total 

microcystins using ADDA by ELISA. 

EPA therefore proposes using a 

collection of analytical methods 

published by these parties for the UCMR 

4 analytes. In addition, there are several 

consensus standards that are approved 

for compliance monitoring that will be 

available for use in the analysis of TOC 

and bromide, and for the measurement 

of temperature and pH. A summary of 

each method along with how the 

method specifically applies to UCMR 4 

can be found in section II.J of the 

preamble. 

All of these standards are reasonably 

available for public use. The Agency 

methods are free for download on EPA’s 

Web site. The methods in the Standard 

Method 21st edition are consensus 

standards, available for purchase from 

the publisher, and are commonly used 

by the drinking water community. The 

methods in the Standard Method Online 

are consensus standards, available for 

purchase from the publisher’s Web site, 

and are commonly used by the drinking 

water community. The methods from 

ASTM International are consensus 

standards, are free for download from 

the publisher’s Web site, and are 

commonly used by the drinking water 

community. The Ohio EPA method is 

free for download on their Web site and 

is increasingly being used by the 

drinking water community. 

EPA welcomes comments on this 

aspect of the proposed rulemaking; the 

Agency specifically invites the public to 

identify potentially-applicable 

voluntary consensus standards and 

explain why such standards should be 

used in this rule. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

The EPA believes the human health or 

environmental risk addressed by this 

action will not have potential 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

on minority, low-income or indigenous 

populations. The results of this 

evaluation are contained in section II.O 

of this preamble and an additional 

supporting document has been placed 

in the docket. 

IV. References 

ASDWA. 2013. Insufficient Resources for 

State Drinking Water Programs Threaten 

Public Health: An Analysis of State 

Drinking Water Programs’ Resources and 

Needs. December 2013. 

ASTM. 2010. ASTM D5673–10—Standard 

Test Method for Elements in Water by 

Inductively Coupled Plasma-Mass 

Spectrometry. Approved August 1, 2010. 

Available for purchase on the Internet at 

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

D5673.htm. 

ASTM. 2012a. ASTM D1293–12—Standard 

Test Methods for pH of Water. Available 

for purchase on the Internet at http://

www.astm.org/Standards/D1293.htm. 

ASTM. 2012b. ASTM D6581–12—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. 

Fischer, W.J., Garthwaite, I., Miles, C.O., 

Ross, K.M., Aggen, J.B., Chamberlin, 

A.R., Towers, N.R., Dietrich, D.R. 2001. 

Congener-Independent Immunoassay for 

Microcystins and Nodularins. 

Environmental Science & Technology, 35 

(24), pp 4849–4856. Available for 

purchase on the Internet at http://

dx.doi.org/10.1021/es011182f. 

Graham, J.L., Loftin, K.A., Ziegler, A.C., and 

Meyer, M.T. 2008. Guidelines for Design 

and Sampling for Cyanobacterial Toxin 

and Taste-and-Odor Studies in Lakes 

and Reservoirs: U.S. Geological Survey 

Scientific Investigations Report 2008– 

5038. Available on the Internet at 

http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2008/5038/. 

McElhiney, J., and Lawton, L.A. 2005. 

Detection of the Cyanobacterial 

Hepatotoxins Microcystins. Toxicology 

and Applied Pharmacology, 203 (3): 

219–230. Available for purchase on the 

Internet at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/

j.taap.2004.06.002. 

Ohio EPA. 2015. Ohio EPA Total 

(Extracellular and Intracellular) 

Microcystins—ADDA by ELISA 

Analytical Methodology. Version 2.0. 

January 2015. Available on the Internet 

at http://www.epa.ohio.gov/Portals/28/

documents/habs/HAB_Analytical_

Methodology.pdf. 

Roberson, J.A., and Eaton, A. 2014. 

Retrospective Analysis of Mandated 

National Occurrence Monitoring and 

Regulatory Decisions. Journal of the 

American Water Works Association, 106 

(3): E116–E128. Available on the Internet 

at http://dx.doi.org/10.5942/

jawwa.2014.106.0040. 

Ryberg, K.R., and Gilliom, R.J. 2015. Trends 

in Pesticide Concentrations and Use for 

Major Rivers of the United States. 

Science of the Total Environment, 538: 

431–444. Available for purchase on the 

Internet at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/

j.scitotenv.2015.06.095. 

SM Online. 2000a. SM 4500–H+ B–00—pH 

Value in Water by Potentiometry Using 

a Standard Hydrogen Electrode. 

Standard Methods Online. Available for 

purchase on the Internet at http://

www.standardmethods.org. 

SM Online. 2000b. SM 5310B–00—The 

Determination of Total Organic Carbon 

by High-Temperature Combustion 

Method. Standard Methods Online. 

Available for purchase on the Internet at 

http://www.standardmethods.org. 

SM Online. 2000c. SM 5310C–00—Total 

organic carbon by Persulfate-UV or 

Heated-Persulfate Oxidation Method. 

Standard Methods Online. Available for 

purchase on the Internet at http://

www.standardmethods.org. 

SM Online. 2000d. SM 5310D–00—Total 

organic carbon by Wet-Oxidation 

Method. Standard Methods Online. 

Available for purchase on the Internet at 

http://www.standardmethods.org. 

SM Online. 2009. SM 3125–09—Metals by 

Inductively Coupled Plasma/Mass 

Spectrometry (Editorial revisions, 2011). 

Standard Methods Online. Available for 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 238 / Friday, December 11, 2015 / Proposed Rules 76915 

purchase on the Internet at http://

www.standardmethods.org. 

SM Online. 2010. SM 2550–10— 

Temperature. Standard Methods Online. 

Available for purchase on the Internet at 

http://www.standardmethods.org. 

SM. 2005a. SM 2550—Temperature. 

Standard Methods for the Examination 

of Water & Wastewater, 21st edition. 

American Public Health Association, 800 

I Street NW., Washington, DC 20001– 

3710. 

SM. 2005b. SM 3125—Metals by Inductively 

Coupled Plasma/Mass Spectrometry. 

Standard Methods for the Examination 

of Water & Wastewater, 21st edition. 

American Public Health Association, 800 

I Street NW., Washington, DC 20001– 

3710. 

SM. 2005c. SM 4500–H+ B—pH Value in 

Water by Potentiometry Using a 

Standard Hydrogen Electrode. Standard 

Methods for the Examination of Water & 

Wastewater, 21st edition. American 

Public Health Association, 800 I Street 

NW., Washington, DC 20001–3710. 

SM. 2005d. SM 5310B—The Determination 

of Total Organic Carbon by HighTemperature Combustion Method. 

Standard Methods for the Examination 

of Water & Wastewater, 21st edition. 

American Public Health Association, 800 

I Street NW., Washington, DC 20001– 

3710. 

SM. 2005e. SM 5310C–00—Total Organic 

Carbon by Persulfate-UV or HeatedPersulfate Oxidation Method. Standard 

Methods for the Examination of Water & 

Wastewater, 21st edition. American 

Public Health Association, 800 I Street 

NW., Washington, DC 20001–3710. 

SM. 2005f. SM 5310D—Total Organic Carbon 

by Wet-Oxidation Method. Standard 

Methods for the Examination of Water & 

Wastewater, 21st edition. American 

Public Health Association, 800 I Street 

NW., Washington, DC 20001–3710. 

USEPA. 1983a. EPA Method 150.1—pH 

Electrometric, in Methods for Chemical 

Analysis of Water and Wastes. EPA/600/ 

4–79/020. Available on the Internet at 

http://www.nemi.gov. 

USEPA. 1983b. EPA Method 150.2—pH, 

Continuous Monitoring (Electrometric), 

in Methods for Chemical Analysis of 

Water and Wastes. EPA/600/4–79/020. 

Available on the Internet at http://

www.nemi.gov. 

USEPA. 1993. EPA Method 300.0— 

Determination of Inorganic Anions by 

Ion Chromatography Samples. Revision 

2.1. Available on the Internet at http:// 

www.nemi.gov. 

USEPA. 1994. EPA 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 

https://www.nemi.gov/. 

USEPA. 1997. EPA Method 300.1— 

Determination of Inorganic Anions in 

Drinking Water by Ion Chromatography. 

Revision 1.0. 1997. Available on the 

Internet at http://www2.epa.gov/

dwanalyticalmethods/approveddrinking-water-analytical-methods. 

USEPA. 1998a. National Primary Drinking 

Water Regulation: Consumer Confidence 

Reports; Final Rule. Federal Register. 

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

1998. 

USEPA. 1998b. National Primary Drinking 

Water Regulations: Consumer 

Confidence Reports; Proposed Rule. 

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

7606, February 13, 1998. 

USEPA. 1998c. National Primary Drinking 

Water Regulations: Disinfectants and 

Disinfection Byproducts; Final Rule. 

Federal Register. Vol. 63, No. 241, p. 

69390, December 16, 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. 2001a. EPA Method 317.0— 

Determination of Inorganic Oxyhalide 

Disinfection By-Products in Drinking 

Water Using Ion Chromatography with 

the Addition of a Postcolumn Reagent 

for Trace Bromate Analysis. Revision 

2.0. EPA 815–B–01–001. Available on 

the Internet at http://www2.epa.gov/

dwanalyticalmethods/approveddrinking-water-analytical-methods. 

USEPA. 2001b. Statistical Design and 

Sample Selection for the Unregulated 

Contaminant Monitoring Regulation 

(1999). EPA 815–R–01–004, August 

2001. 

USEPA. 2002. EPA Method 326.0— 

Determination of Inorganic Oxyhalide 

Disinfection By-Products in Drinking 

Water Using Ion Chromatography 

Incorporating the Addition of a 

Suppressor Acidified Postcolumn 

Reagent for Trace Bromate Analysis. 

Revision 1.0. EPA 815–R–03–007. 

Available on the Internet at http://

www2.epa.gov/dwanalyticalmethods/

approved-drinking-water-analyticalmethods. 

USEPA. 2003. EPA Method 552.3— 

Determination of Haloacetic Acids and 

Dalapon in Drinking Water by LiquidLiquid Microextraction, Derivatization, 

and Gas Chromatography with Electron 

Capture Detection. Revision 1.0. EPA 

815–B–03–002, July 2003. Available on 

the Internet at http://www2.epa.gov/

dwanalyticalmethods/approveddrinking-water-analytical-methods. 

USEPA. 2005. EPA Method 415.3— 

Determination of Total Organic Carbon 

and Specific UV Absorbance at 254 nm 

in Source Water and Drinking Water. 

Revision 1.1. EPA/600/R–05/055, 

February 2005. Available on the Internet 

at http://www2.epa.gov/water-research/

epa-drinking-water-research-methods. 

USEPA. 2006a. National Primary Drinking 

Water Regulations: Long Term 2 

Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule; 

Final Rule. Federal Register. Vol. 71, No. 

3, p. 654, January 5, 2006. 

USEPA. 2006b. National Primary Drinking 

Water Regulations: Stage 2 Disinfectants 

and Disinfection Byproducts Rule; Final 

Rule. Federal Register. Vol. 71, No. 3, p. 

388, January 4, 2006. 

USEPA. 2007. Unregulated Contaminant 

Monitoring Regulation (UCMR) for 

Public Water Systems Revisions. Federal 

Register. Vol. 72, No. 2, p. 368, January 

4, 2007. 

USEPA. 2009a. EPA Method 415.3— 

Determination of Total Organic Carbon 

and Specific UV Absorbance at 254 nm 

in Source Water and Drinking Water. 

Revision 1.2. EPA/600/R–09/122, 

September 2009. Available on the 

Internet at http://www2.epa.gov/waterresearch/epa-drinking-water-researchmethods. 

USEPA. 2009b. EPA Method 557— 

Determination of Haloacetic Acids, 

Bromate, and Dalapon in Drinking Water 

by Ion Chromatography Electrospray 

Ionization Tandem Mass Spectrometry 

(IC–ESI–MS/MS). Version 1.0. EPA 815– 

B–09–012, September 2009. Available on 

the Internet at http://www2.epa.gov/

dwanalyticalmethods/approveddrinking-water-analytical-methods. 

USEPA. 2010. Technical Basis for the Lowest 

Concentration Minimum Reporting Level 

(LCMRL) Calculator. EPA 815–R–11– 

001, December 2010. Available on the 

Internet at http://www2.epa.gov/

dwanalyticalmethods/approveddrinking-water-analytical-methods. 

USEPA. 2012a. EPA Method 525.3— 

Determination of Semivolatile Organic 

Chemicals in Drinking Water by Solid 

Phase Extraction and Capillary Column 

Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry 

(GC/MS). Version 1.0. EPA/600/R–12/

010, February 2012. Available on the 

Internet at http://www2.epa.gov/waterresearch/epa-drinking-water-researchmethods. 

USEPA. 2012b. Request for Nominations of 

Drinking Water Contaminants for the 

Fourth Contaminant Candidate List. 

Federal Register. Vol. 77, No. 89, p. 

27057, May 8, 2012. 

USEPA. 2012c. Revisions to the Unregulated 

Contaminant Monitoring Regulation 

(UCMR 3) for Public Water Systems; 

Final Rule. Federal Register. Vol. 77, No. 

85, p. 26071, May 2, 2012. 

USEPA. 2013. Meetings and Materials for the 

Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring 

Program. Available on the Internet at 

http://www2.epa.gov/dwucmr/

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

USEPA. 2014. Stakeholder Meeting Slides 

Regarding Revisions to the Unregulated 

Contaminant Monitoring Regulation. 

USEPA. 2015a. DRAFT Information 

Collection Request for the Unregulated 

Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR 4). 

October 2015. EPA 815–B–15–003. 

USEPA. 2015b. Drinking Water Contaminant 

Candidate List 4—Draft. Federal 

Register, Vol. 80, No. 23, p. 6076, 

February 4, 2015. 

USEPA. 2015c. Drinking Water Health 

Advisory for the Cyanobacterial 

Microcystin Toxins. EPA 820–R–15–100, 

June 2015. Available on the Internet at 

http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/

files/2015-06/documents/microcystinsreport-2015.pdf. 

USEPA. 2015d. EPA Method 530— 

Determination of Select Semivolatile 

Organic Chemicals in Drinking Water by 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
76916 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 238 / Friday, December 11, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

Solid Phase Extraction and Gas 

Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry 

(GC/MS). Version 1.0. EPA/600/R–14/

442, January 2015. Available on the 

Internet at http://www2.epa.gov/waterresearch/epa-drinking-water-researchmethods. 

USEPA. 2015e. EPA Method 541— 

Determination of 1-Butanol, 1,4-Dioxane, 

2-Methoxyethanol and 2-Propen-1-ol in 

Drinking Water by Solid Phase 

Extraction and Gas Chromatography/

Mass Spectrometry. EPA 815–R–15–011, 

November 2015. Available on the 

Internet at http://www2.epa.gov/

dwanalyticalmethods/approveddrinking-water-analytical-methods. 

USEPA. 2015f. EPA Method 544— 

Determination of Microcystins and 

Nodularin in Drinking Water by Solid 

Phase Extraction and Liquid 

Chromatography/Tandem Mass 

Spectrometry (LC/MS/MS). Version 1.0. 

EPA–600–R–14/474, February 2015. 

Available on the Internet at http://

www2.epa.gov/water-research/epadrinking-water-research-methods. 

USEPA. 2015g. EPA Method 545— 

Determination of Cylindrospermopsin 

and Anatoxin-a in Drinking Water by 

Liquid Chromatography Electrospray 

Ionization Tandem Mass Spectrometry 

(LC/ESI–MS/MS). EPA 815–R–15–009, 

April 2015. Available on the Internet at 

http://www2.epa.gov/

dwanalyticalmethods/approveddrinking-water-analytical-methods. 

USEPA. 2015h. Proposed Revisions to CFR 

parts 141.35 and 141.40. EPA 815–B–15– 

006, November 2015. Available in EPA 

public docket (under Docket ID No. 

EPA–HQ–OW–2015–0218) on the 

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

USEPA. 2015i. UCMR 4 Candidate 

Contaminants—Information 

Compendium. EPA 815–B–15–005, 

November 2015. 

USEPA. 2015j. UCMR 4 Laboratory Approval 

Requirements and Information 

Document. EPA 815–B–15–004, 

November 2015. 

USGS. 2014. Pesticides in Surface Waters: 

Seasonality of Pesticides in Surface 

Waters. U.S. Geological Survey Fact 

Sheet FS–039–97. Available on the 

Internet at http://water.usgs.gov/nawqa/

pnsp/pubs/fs97039/sw5.html. 

Zeck, A., Weller, M.G., Bursill, D., Niessner, 

R. 2001. Generic Microcystin 

Immunoassay Based on Monoclonal 

Antibodies Against Adda. Analyst, 126: 

2002–2007. Available for purchase on 

the Internet at http://dx.doi.org/10.1039/ 

B105064H. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 141 

Environmental protection, Chemicals, 

Incorporation by reference, Indianlands, Intergovernmental relations, 

Radiation protection, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Water 

supply. 

Dated: November 30, 2015. 

Gina McCarthy, 

Administrator. 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, EPA proposes to amend 40 

CFR part 141 as follows: 

PART 141—NATIONAL PRIMARY 

DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 141 

continues to read as follows: 

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

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

300j–9, and 300j–11. 

Subpart D—Reporting and 

Recordkeeping 

■ 2. In § 141.35: 

■ a. Revise the third sentence in 

paragraph (b)(1). 

■ b. Revise the second and third 

sentences in paragraph (b)(2). 

■ c. Remove ‘‘October 1, 2012,’’ and add 

in its place ‘‘December 31, 2017,’’ in 

paragraph (c)(1). 

■ d. Revise the second and third 

sentences in paragraph (c)(2). 

■ e. Revise the last sentence in 

paragraph (c)(3)(i). 

■ f. Revise the fifth sentence in 

paragraph (c)(3)(ii). 

■ g. Remove ‘‘October 1, 2012,’’ and add 

in its place ‘‘[WITHIN 120 DAYS FROM 

PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE],’’ 

in paragraph (c)(4). 

■ h. Revise paragraphs (c)(5)(i), (c)(6) 

introductory text, (d)(2), and (e). 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

§ 141.35 Reporting for unregulated 

contaminant monitoring results. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(1) * * * Information that must be 

submitted using EPA’s electronic data 

reporting system must be submitted 

through: http://www2.epa.gov/dwucmr. 

* * * 

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

from EPA or your State concerning your 

required monitoring and your system 

does not meet the applicability criteria 

for UCMR established in § 141.40(a)(1) 

or (2), or if a change occurs at your 

system that may affect your 

requirements under UCMR as defined in 

§ 141.40(a)(3) through (5), you must 

mail or email a letter to EPA, as 

specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this 

section. The letter must be from your 

PWS Official and must include your 

PWS Identification (PWSID) Code along 

with an explanation as to why the 

UCMR requirements are not applicable 

to your PWS, or have changed for your 

PWS, along with the appropriate contact 

information. * * * 

(c) * * * 

(2) * * * You must provide your 

sampling location(s) and associate each 

source water location with its entry 

point location(s) by December 31, 2017, 

using EPA’s electronic data reporting 

system. You must submit, verify or 

update the following information for 

each sampling location, or for each 

approved representative sampling 

location (as specified in paragraph (c)(3) 

of this section regarding representative 

sampling locations): PWSID Code; PWS 

Name; PWS Facility Identification Code; 

PWS Facility Name; PWS Facility Type; 

Water Source Type; Sampling Point 

Identification Code; Sampling Point 

Name; and Sampling Point Type Code; 

(as defined in Table 1 of paragraph (e) 

of this section). 

(3) * * * 

(i) * * * You must submit a copy of 

the existing alternate EPTDS sampling 

plan or your representative well 

proposal, as appropriate, [DATE 120 

DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE 

FINAL RULE], as specified in paragraph 

(b)(1) of this section. 

(ii) * * * You must submit the 

following information for each proposed 

representative sampling location: 

PWSID Code; PWS Name; PWS Facility 

Identification Code; PWS Facility Name; 

PWS Facility Type; Sampling Point 

Identification Code; and Sampling Point 

Name (as defined in Table 1, paragraph 

(e) of this section). * * * 

* * * * * 

(5) * * * 

(i) General rescheduling notification 

requirements. Large systems may 

change their monitoring schedules up to 

December 31, 2017, using EPA’s 

electronic data reporting system, as 

specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this 

section. After this date has passed, if 

your PWS cannot sample according to 

your assigned sampling schedule (e.g., 

because of budget constraints, or if a 

sampling location will be closed during 

the scheduled month of monitoring), 

you must mail or email a letter to EPA, 

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

section, prior to the scheduled sampling 

date. You must include an explanation 

of why the samples cannot be taken 

according to the assigned schedule, and 

you must provide the alternative 

schedule you are requesting. You must 

not reschedule monitoring specifically 

to avoid sample collection during a 

suspected vulnerable period. You are 

subject to your assigned UCMR 

sampling schedule or the schedule that 

you revised on or before December 31, 

2017, unless and until you receive a 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 238 / Friday, December 11, 2015 / Proposed Rules 76917 

letter from EPA specifying a new 

schedule. 

* * * * * 

(6) Reporting monitoring results. For 

UCMR samples, 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 9 to 

EPA, in writing, explaining the nature 

and purpose of the proposed change, as 

specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this 

section. 

* * * * * 

(d) * * * 

(2) Reporting sampling information. 

You must provide your sampling 

location(s) and associate each source 

water location with its entry point 

location(s) by December 31, 2017, using 

EPA’s electronic data reporting system, 

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

section. If this information changes, you 

must report updates, including new 

sources and sampling locations that are 

put in use before or during the PWS’ 

UCMR sampling period, to EPA’s 

electronic data reporting system within 

30 days of the change, as specified in 

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

must record all data elements listed in 

Table 1 of paragraph (e) of this section 

on each sample form and sample bottle, 

as appropriate, 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 9 by 

mailing or emailing an explanation of 

the nature and purpose of the proposed 

change to EPA, as specified in 

paragraph (b)(1) of this section. 

(e) Data elements. Table 1 defines the 

data elements that must be provided for 

UCMR monitoring. 

TABLE 1—UNREGULATED CONTAMINANT MONITORING REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

Data element Definition 

1. Public Water System 

Identification (PWSID) 

Code.

The code used to identify each PWS. The code begins with the standard 2-character postal State abbreviation or 

Region code; the remaining 7 numbers are unique to each PWS in the State. The same identification code 

must be used to represent the PWS identification for all current and future UCMR monitoring. 

2. Public Water System 

Name.

Unique name, assigned once by the PWS. 

3. Public Water System Facility Identification Code.An identification code established by the State or, at the State’s discretion, by the PWS, following the format of a 

5-digit number unique within each PWS for each applicable facility (i.e., for each source of water, treatment 

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

4. Public Water System Facility Name.Unique name, assigned once by the PWS, for every facility ID (e.g., Treatment Plant). 

5. Public Water System Facility Type.That code that identifies that type of facility as either: 

CC = consecutive connection 

DS = distribution system 

IN = source water intake 

SS = sampling station 

TP = treatment plant 

OT = other 

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

each sampling location: 

SW = surface water (to be reported for water facilities that are served all or in part by a surface water source at 

any time during the twelve-month period). 

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

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

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

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

7. Sampling Point Identification Code.An identification code established by the State, or at the State’s discretion, by the PWS, that uniquely identifies 

each sampling point. Each sampling code must be unique within each applicable facility, for each applicable 

sampling location (i.e., entry point to the distribution system, source water intake 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. 

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

9. Sampling Point Type 

Code.

A code that identifies the location of the sampling point as either: 

SR = source water taken from plant intake; untreated water entering the water treatment plant (i.e., a location 

prior to any treatment). 

EP = entry point to the distribution system. 

MR = distribution system sample at maximum residence time. 

10. Disinfectant Type ........... All of the primary disinfectants/oxidants that have been added in the treatment plant to the water being sampled. 

To be reported by systems for each sampling point. 

PEMB = Permanganate (applied before SR sample location) 

PEMA = Permanganate (applied after SR sample location) 

HPXB = Hydrogen peroxide (applied before SR sample location) 

HPXA = Hydrogen peroxide (applied after SR sample location) 

CLGA = Gaseous chlorine 

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

CLON = Onsite Generated Hypochlorite 

CAGC = Chloramine (formed from gaseous chlorine) 

CAOF = Chloramine (formed from offsite hypochlorite) 

CAON = Chloramine (formed from onsite hypochlorite) 

CLDB = Chlorine dioxide (applied before SR sample location) 

CLDA = Chlorine dioxide (applied after SR sample location) 

OZON = Ozone 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
76918 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 238 / Friday, December 11, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 1—UNREGULATED CONTAMINANT MONITORING REPORTING REQUIREMENTS—Continued 

Data element Definition 

ULVL = Ultraviolet light 

OTHD = All other types of disinfectant/oxidant 

NODU = No disinfectant/oxidant used 

11. Treatment Information .... Treatment information associated with the water being sampled. 

CON = Conventional (non-softening) 

SCO = Softening conventional 

RBF = River bank filtration 

PSD = Pre-sedimentation 

INF = In-line filtration 

DFL = Direct filtration 

PCF = Precoat filtration 

SSF = Slow sand filtration 

BIO = Biological filtration 

REC = Reactor clarification (e.g. solids contact clarification, slurry recirculation clarification, Aciflo®) 

SBC = Sludge blanket clarification (e.g. Pulsator®, Super Pulsator®, contact adsorption clarifiers, floc-blanket 

clarifiers) 

ADC = Adsorption clarification (contact adsorption clarification) 

UTR = Unfiltered treatment 

PAC = Application of powder activated carbon 

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

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

POB = Pre-oxidation/disinfection with chlorine (applied before SR sample location) 

POA = Pre-oxidation/disinfection with chlorine (applied after SR sample location) 

MFL = Membrane filtration 

IEX = Ionic exchange 

UVT = Ultraviolet light 

AOX = Advanced oxidation (ultraviolet light with hydrogen peroxide and/or ozone) 

DAF = Dissolved air floatation 

CWL = Clear well/finished water storage without aeration 

CWA = Clear well/finished water storage with aeration 

ADS = Aeration in distribution system (localized treatment) 

OTH = All other types of treatment 

NTU = No treatment used 

12. Disinfectant Residual 

Type.

Secondary disinfectant type added in the distribution system for each finished water sample. 

CL2 = Chlorine (i.e., originating from addition of free chlorine only) 

CLM = Chloramines (originating from with addition of chlorine and ammonia or pre-formed chloramines) 

CAC = Chlorine and chloramines (if being mixed from chlorinated and chloraminated water) 

NOD = No disinfectant residual 

13. Sample Collection Date The date the sample is collected, reported as 4-digit year, 2-digit month, and 2-digit day (YYYY/MM/DD). 

14. Sample Identification 

Code.

An alphanumeric value up to 30 characters assigned by the laboratory to uniquely identify containers, or groups 

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

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

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

17. Extraction Batch Identification Code.Laboratory assigned extraction batch ID. Must be unique for each extraction batch within the laboratory for each 

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

without an extraction batch, leave this field null. 

18. Extraction Date .............. Date for the start of the extraction batch (YYYY/MM/DD). For methods without an extraction batch, leave this field 

null. 

19. Analysis Batch Identification Code.Laboratory assigned analysis batch ID. Must be unique for each analysis batch within the laboratory for each 

method. 

20. Analysis Date ................. Date for the start of the analysis batch (YYYY/MM/DD). 

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

CF = concentration fortified; the concentration of a known contaminant added to a field sample reported with 

sample analysis types LFSM, LFSMD, LFB, CCC and QCS. 

CCC = continuing calibration check; a calibration standard containing the contaminant, the internal standard, and 

surrogate analyzed to verify the existing calibration for those contaminants. 

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

IS = internal standard; a standard that measures the relative response of contaminants. 

LFB = laboratory fortified blank; an aliquot of reagent water fortified with known quantities of the contaminants 

and all preservation compounds. 

LRB = laboratory reagent blank; an aliquot of reagent water treated exactly as a field sample, including the addition of preservatives, internal standards, and surrogates to determine if interferences are present in the laboratory, reagents, or other equipment. 

LFSM = laboratory fortified sample matrix; a UCMR field sample with a known amount of the contaminant of interest and all preservation compounds added. 

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

QCS = quality control sample; a sample prepared with a source external to the one used for initial calibration and 

CCC. The QCS is used to check calibration standard integrity. 

QH = quality HAA; HAA sample collected and submitted for quality control purposes. 

SUR = surrogate standard; a standard that assesses method performance for each extraction. 

22. Analytical Results—Sign A value indicating whether the sample analysis result was: 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 238 / Friday, December 11, 2015 / Proposed Rules 76919 

TABLE 1—UNREGULATED CONTAMINANT MONITORING REPORTING REQUIREMENTS—Continued 

Data element Definition 

(<) ‘‘less than’’ means the contaminant was not detected, or was detected at a level below the Minimum Reporting Level. 

(=) ‘‘equal to’’ means the contaminant was detected at the level reported in ‘‘Analytical Result— Measured 

Value.’’ 

23. Analytical Result—Measured Value.The actual numeric value of the analytical results for: field samples; laboratory fortified matrix samples; laboratory 

fortified sample matrix duplicates; and concentration fortified. 

24. Additional Value ............. Represents the true value or the fortified concentration for spiked samples for QC Sample Analysis Types (CCC, 

EQC, LFB, LFSM and LFSMD). For Sample Analysis Type FS and LRB and for IS and surrogate QC Contaminants, leave this field null. 

25. Laboratory Identification 

Code.

The code, assigned by EPA, used to identify each laboratory. The code begins with the standard two-character 

State postal abbreviation; the remaining five numbers are unique to each laboratory in the State. 

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

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

SEC1, SEC2, SEC3, SEC4, SEC5, SEC6, SEC7 and SEC8—represent samples collected to meet UCMR Assessment Monitoring requirements for cyanotoxins; where ‘‘SEC1’’ represents the first sampling period, ‘‘SEC2’’ 

the second period and so forth, for all eight sampling events. 

SEA1, SEA2, SEA3 and SEA4—represent samples collected to meet UCMR Assessment Monitoring requirements for the additional chemicals; where ‘‘SEA1’’ and ‘‘SEA2’’ represent the first and second sampling period 

for all water types; and ‘‘SEA3’’ and ‘‘SEA4’’ represent the third and fourth sampling period for SW and GU 

sources only. 

Subpart E—Special Regulations, 

Including Monitoring Regulations and 

Prohibition on Lead Use 

■ 3. In § 141.40: 

■ a. Remove ‘‘December 31, 2010’’ and 

add in its place ‘‘December 31, 2015’’ in 

paragraph (a) introductory text. 

■ b. Revise paragraphs (a)(1), 

(a)(2)(i)(A), (a)(2)(ii)(A) and (C), (a)(3), 

and (a)(4)(i)(B) and (C). 

■ c. Remove ‘‘October 1, 2012.’’ and add 

in its place ‘‘December 31, 2017.’’ in 

paragraph (a)(4)(i). 

■ d. Revise paragraph (a)(4)(ii) 

introductory text. 

■ e. Remove and reserve paragraph 

(a)(4)(ii)(F). 

■ f. Add paragraph (a)(4)(iii). 

■ g. Remove ‘‘August 1, 2012.’’ and add 

in its place ‘‘[DATE 60 DAYS AFTER 

PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE], 

and necessary application material 

[DATE 120 DAYS AFTER 

PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE].’’ 

in paragraph (a)(5)(ii). 

■ h. Revise paragraph (a)(5)(v), the 

second sentence in paragraph (a)(5)(vi), 

and paragraph (c). 

The revisions and addition read as 

follows: 

§ 141.40 Monitoring requirements for 

unregulated contaminants. 

(a) * * * 

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

operate a transient non-community 

water system, you are not subject to 

monitoring requirements in this section. 

(2) * * * 

(i) * * * 

(A) Assessment monitoring. You must 

monitor for the contaminants on List 1, 

per Table 1, UCMR Contaminant List, in 

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

serve a retail population of more than 

10,000 people, you are required to 

perform this monitoring regardless of 

whether you have been notified by the 

State or EPA. 

* * * * * 

(ii) * * * 

(A) Assessment monitoring. You must 

monitor for the contaminants on List 1: 

Assessment Monitoring Cyanotoxin 

Chemical Contaminants, or List 1: 

Assessment Monitoring Additional 

Chemical Contaminants, per Table 1, in 

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

are notified by your State or EPA that 

you are part of the State Monitoring 

Plan for Assessment Monitoring. 

* * * * * 

(C) Pre-screen testing. You must 

monitor for the unregulated 

contaminants on List 3 of Table 1, in 

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

are notified by your State or EPA that 

you are part of the State Monitoring 

Plan for Pre-Screen Testing. 

(3) Analytes to be monitored. Lists 1, 

2, and 3 contaminants are provided in 

the following table: 

TABLE 1—UCMR CONTAMINANT LIST

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 

List 1: Assessment Monitoring Cyanotoxin Chemical Contaminants e

total microcystin ......... N/A ............................ ELISA ........................ 0.3 μg/L ..................... EPTDS and SR ......... 3/1/2018–11/30/2020 

anatoxin-a ................... 64285–06–9 .............. EPA 545 .................... 0.03 μg/L ................... EPTDS ...................... 3/1/2018–11/30/2020 

cylindrospermopsin .... 143545–90–8 ............ EPA 545 .................... 0.09 μg/L ................... EPTDS ...................... 3/1/2018–11/30/2020 

microcystin-LA ............ 96180–79–9 .............. EPA 544 .................... 0.008 μg/L ................. EPTDS ...................... 3/1/2018–11/30/2020 

microcystin-LF ............ 154037–70–4 ............ EPA 544 .................... 0.006 μg/L ................. EPTDS ...................... 3/1/2018–11/30/2020 

microcystin-LR ............ 101043–37–2 ............ EPA 544 .................... 0.02 μg/L ................... EPTDS ...................... 3/1/2018–11/30/2020 

microcystin-LY ............ 123304–10–9 ............ EPA 544 .................... 0.009 μg/L ................. EPTDS ...................... 3/1/2018–11/30/2020 

microcystin-RR ........... 111755–37–4 ............ EPA 544 .................... 0.006 μg/L ................. EPTDS ...................... 3/1/2018–11/30/2020 

microcystin-YR ........... 101064–48–6 ............ EPA 544 .................... 0.02 μg/L ................... EPTDS ...................... 3/1/2018–11/30/2020 

nodularin ..................... 118399–22–7 ............ EPA 544 .................... 0.005 μg/L ................. EPTDS ...................... 3/1/2018–11/30/2020 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
76920 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 238 / Friday, December 11, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 1—UCMR CONTAMINANT LIST—Continued 

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 

List 1: Assessment Monitoring Additional Chemical Contaminants 

Metals 

germanium ................. 7440–56–4 ................ EPA 200.8, ................

ASTM D5673–10, SM 

3125.

0.3 μg/L ..................... EPTDS ...................... 3/1/2018–11/30/2020 

manganese ................. 7439–96–5 ................ EPA 200.8, ................

ASTM D5673–10, SM 

3125.

0.4 μg/L ..................... EPTDS ...................... 3/1/2018–11/30/2020 

Pesticides and a Pesticide Manufacturing Byproduct 

alpha-hexachlorocyclohexane.319–84–6 .................. EPA 525.3 ................. 0.01 μg/L ................... EPTDS ...................... 3/1/2018–11/30/2020 

chlorpyrifos ................. 2921–88–2 ................ EPA 525.3 ................. 0.03 μg/L ................... EPTDS ...................... 3/1/2018–11/30/2020 

dimethipin ................... 55290–64–7 .............. EPA 525.3 ................. 0.2 μg/L ..................... EPTDS ...................... 3/1/2018–11/30/2020 

ethoprop ..................... 13194–48–4 .............. EPA 525.3 ................. 0.03 μg/L ................... EPTDS ...................... 3/1/2018–11/30/2020 

oxyfluorfen .................. 42874–03–3 .............. EPA 525.3 ................. 0.05 μg/L ................... EPTDS ...................... 3/1/2018–11/30/2020 

profenofos .................. 41198–08–7 .............. EPA 525.3 ................. 0.3 μg/L ..................... EPTDS ...................... 3/1/2018–11/30/2020 

tebuconazole .............. 107534–96–3 ............ EPA 525.3 ................. 0.2 μg/L ..................... EPTDS ...................... 3/1/2018–11/30/2020 

total permethrin (cis- & 

trans-).

52645–53–1 .............. EPA 525.3 ................. 0.04 μg/L ................... EPTDS ...................... 3/1/2018–11/30/2020 

.

tribufos ........................ 78–48–8 .................... EPA 525.3 ................. 0.07 μg/L ................... EPTDS ...................... 3/1/2018–11/30/2020 

Brominated Haloacetic Acid (HAA) Groups d

HAA5 .......................... N/A ............................ EPA 552.3 or EPA 

557.

N/A ............................ Stage 2 DBPR and/or 

DSMRT.

3/1/2018–11/30/2020 

HAA6Br ...................... N/A ............................ EPA 552.3 or EPA 

557.

N/A ............................ Stage 2 DBPR and/or 

DSMRT.

3/1/2018–11/30/2020 

HAA9 .......................... N/A ............................ EPA 552.3 or EPA 

557.

N/A ............................ Stage 2 DBPR and/or 

DSMRT.

3/1/2018–11/30/2020 

Alcohols 

1-butanol .................... 71–36–3 .................... EPA 541 .................... 2.0 μg/L ..................... EPTDS ...................... 3/1/2018–11/30/2020 

2-methoxyethanol ....... 109–86–4 .................. EPA 541 .................... 0.4 μg/L ..................... EPTDS ...................... 3/1/2018–11/30/2020 

2-propen-1-ol .............. 107–18–6 .................. EPA 541 .................... 0.5 μg/L ..................... EPTDS ...................... 3/1/2018–11/30/2020 

Other Semivolatile Chemicals 

butylated 

hydroxanisole.

25013–16–5 .............. EPA 530 .................... 0.03 μg/L ................... EPTDS ...................... 3/1/2018–11/30/2020 

o-toluidine ................... 95–53–4 .................... EPA 530 .................... 0.007 μg/L ................. EPTDS ...................... 3/1/2018–11/30/2020 

quinoline ..................... 91–22–5 .................... EPA 530 .................... 0.02 μg/L ................... EPTDS ...................... 3/1/2018–11/30/2020 

List 2: Screening Survey 

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

List 3: Pre-Screen Testing 

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

Column headings are: 

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

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

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

4—Minimum Reporting Level (MRL): The value and unit of measure at or above which the concentration of the contaminant must be measured using the approved analytical methods. If EPA determines, after the first six months of monitoring that the specified MRLs result in excessive resampling, EPA will establish alternate MRLs and will notify affected PWSs and laboratories of the new MRLs. N/A is defined as non-applicable. 

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

6—Period During Which Monitoring to be Completed: The time period during which the sampling and testing will occur for the indicated contaminant. a The analytical procedures shall be performed in accordance with the documents associated with each method, see paragraph (c) of this section. b The MRL is the minimum concentration of each analyte that must be reported to EPA. 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 238 / Friday, December 11, 2015 / Proposed Rules 76921 

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 select one representative connection from that wholesaler. This EPTDS sampling location must be representative of the highest 

annual volume connections. If the connection selected as the representative EPTDS is not available for sampling, an alternate highest volume 

representative connection must be sampled. See 40 CFR 141.35(c)(3) for an explanation of the requirements related to the use of representative 

ground water EPTDSs. Sampling for brominated HAA groups must be conducted at the Stage 2 Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproduct Rule 

(DBPR) sampling locations (40 CFR 141.622). If these locations are not defined, the PWS is required to collect samples at locations that best 

represent the distribution system maximum residence time (DSMRT). DSMRT is defined as an active point (i.e., a location that currently provides 

water to customers) in the distribution system where the water has been in the system the longest relative to the EPTDS. Sampling must occur 

at source water (SR) intake locations defined by EPA under the UCMR as untreated water entering the water treatment plant (i.e., a location 

prior to any treatment). Systems subject to the Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (LT2) should use their source water sampling site(s) from 40 CFR 141.703. Systems subject to the Stage 1 DBPR should use their TOC source water sampling site(s) from 40 CFR 

141.132. TOC source water sampling site(s) were set under Stage 1 DBPR and remain unchanged under Stage 2 DBPR. If a system has two 

different sampling locations for LT2 and Stage 1 DBPR, the system should select the sample point the best represents the definition of source 

water sample location(s) for UCMR. For each EPTDS there should be one source water sample point associated with that EPTDS. It is possible 

that different EPTDSs share the same source water. PWSs that purchase 100 percent of their water; ‘‘consecutive systems’’ are not required to 

collect source water samples. d TOC and bromide must be collected at the same time as HAA samples. These indicator samples must be collected at a single source water 

intake (as defined in footnote c, above) using methods already approved for compliance monitoring. TOC methods include: SM 5310 B, SM 5310 

C, SM 5310 D (21st edition), or SM 5310 B–00, SM 5310 C–00, SM 5310 D–00 (SM Online), EPA Method 415.3 (Rev. 1.1 or 1.2). Bromide 

methods include: EPA Methods 300.0 (Rev. 2.1), 300.1 (Rev. 1.0), 317.0 (Rev. 2.0), 326.0 (Rev. 1.0) or ASTM D 6581–12. The MRLs for the individual HAAs are discussed in paragraph (a)(5)(v) of this section. e Temperature and pH must be measured at the same time as cyanotoxin samples at the source water intake as described in footnote c, 

above. pH methods include: EPA Method 150.1 and 150.2, ASTM D1293–12, SM 4500–H+ B (21st edition) or SM 4500–H+ B–00 (SM Online). 

Temperature methods include: SM 2550 (21st edition), or SM 2550–10 (SM Online). 

(4) * * * 

(i) * * * 

(B) Frequency. You must collect the 

samples within the time frame and 

according to the frequency specified by 

contaminant type and water source type 

for each sampling location, as specified 

in Table 2, in this paragraph. For the 

second or subsequent round of 

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

before and one month after the 

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

possible for you to sample within the 

window specified in Table 2, in this 

paragraph), you must notify EPA as 

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

your sampling. 

TABLE 2—MONITORING FREQUENCY BY CONTAMINANT AND WATER SOURCE TYPES

Contaminant type Water source type Time frame 1 Frequency 2

List 1 Cyanotoxins 

Chemicals.

Surface water or Ground water under the direct influence of surface water (GWUDI).March–November ....... You must monitor twice a month for four consecutive months (total of eight sampling 

events). Sample events must occur two 

week apart. 

List 1 Contaminants— 

Additional Chemicals.

Surface water or GWUDI ................................ March–November ....... You must monitor four times during your 12- 

month monitoring period. Sample events 

must occur two months apart. (Example: If 

your first sampling event is in March, the 

second monitoring must occur during May, 

the third during July, and the fourth during 

September). 

Ground water .................................................. March–November ....... You must monitor two times during your 12- 

month monitoring period. Sample events 

must occur six months apart. (Example: If 

your first monitoring is in March, the second monitoring must occur during September. If your first monitoring is in November, the second monitoring must occur in 

May). 

1 No sampling will take place during the months of December, January or February, except for resampling purposes. 2 Systems must assign a sample event code for each contaminant listed in Table 1. Sample event codes must be assigned by the PWS for 

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

(C) Location. You must collect 

samples for each List 1 Assessment 

Monitoring contaminant, and, if 

applicable, for each List 2 Screening 

Survey, or List 3 Pre-Screen Testing 

contaminant, as specified in Table 1, in 

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

must be collected at each sample point 

that is specified in column 5 and 

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

of this section. PWSs conducting List 1 

monitoring for the brominated HAA 

groups must collect TOC and bromide 

samples as specified in footnote d of 

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

section. PWSs conducting List 1 

monitoring for cyanotoxins must 

measure temperature and pH as 

specified in footnote e 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). 

* * * * * 

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

or fewer people and are notified that 

you are part of the State Monitoring 

Plan for Assessment Monitoring, 

Screening Survey or Pre-Screen 

monitoring, you must comply with the 

requirements specified in paragraphs 

(a)(4)(ii)(A) through (H) of this section. 

If EPA or the State informs you that they 

will be collecting your UCMR samples, 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
76922 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 238 / Friday, December 11, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

you must assist them in identifying the 

appropriate sampling locations and in 

collecting the samples. 

* * * * * 

(iii) Phased sample analysis for 

microcystins. You must collect the three 

required samples (one at the source 

water intake and two at the EPTDS) for 

each sampling event, but not all samples 

may need to be analyzed. PWSs that 

purchase 100 percent of their water; 

‘‘consecutive systems’’ only sample at 

their EPTDS. If the ELISA result from 

the source water intake is less than 0.3 

mg/L, report that result and do not 

analyze the additional EPTDS samples 

for that sample event. If the ELISA 

result from the source water intake is 

greater than or equal to 0.3 mg/L, report 

that value and analyze the EPTDS 

ELISA sample. If the EPTDS ELISA 

result is less than 0.3 mg/L, report that 

result and do not analyze the additional 

EPTDS samples for that sample event. If 

the EPTDS ELISA result is greater than 

or equal to 0.3 mg/L, report the value 

and analyze the other microcystin 

samples collected at the EPTDS using 

EPA Method 544. 

* * * * * 

(5) * * * 

(v) Method defined quality control. 

You must ensure that your laboratory 

analyzes Laboratory Fortified Blanks 

and conducts Laboratory Performance 

Checks, as appropriate to the method’s 

requirements, for those methods listed 

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

of this section. Each method specifies 

acceptance criteria for these QC checks. 

The following HAA results must be 

reported using EPA’s electronic data 

reporting system for quality control 

purposes. 

TABLE 4—HAA QC RESULTS

1—Contaminant 2—CAS 

Registry No. 3—Analytical methods a

4—Minimum 

reporting 

level b

5—HAA6Br 

group 

6—HAA9 

group 

7—HAA5 

group 

Brominated Haloacetic Acid (HAA) Groups 

Bromochloroacetic acid (BCAA) ........ 5589–96–8 .... EPA 552.3 or EPA 557 ......... 0.3 μg/L ........ HAA6Br .... HAA9.

Bromodichloroacetic acid (BDCAA) .. 71133–14–7 .. EPA 552.3 or EPA 557 ......... 0.5 μg/L.

Chlorodibromoacetic acid (CDBAA) .. 5278–95–5 .... EPA 552.3 or EPA 557 ......... 0.3 μg/L.

Tribromoacetic acid (TBAA) .............. 75–96–7 ........ EPA 552.3 or EPA 557 ......... 2.0 μg/L.

Monobromoacetic acid (MBAA) ........ 79–08–3 ........ EPA 552.3 or EPA 557 ......... 0.3 μg/L ........ ................... ................... HAA5. 

Dibromoacetic acid (DBAA) .............. 631–64–1 ...... EPA 552.3 or EPA 557 ......... 0.3 μg/L.

Dichloroacetic acid (DCAA) ............... 79–43–6 ........ EPA 552.3 or EPA 557 ......... 0.2 μg/L.

Monochloroacetic acid (MCAA) ......... 79–11–8 ........ EPA 552.3 or EPA 557 ......... 2.0 μg/L.

Trichloroacetic acid (TCAA) .............. 76–03–9 ........ EPA 552.3 or EPA 557 ......... 0.5 μg/L.

Column headings are: 

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

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

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

4—Minimum Reporting Level (MRL): The value and unit of measure at or above which the concentration of the contaminant must be measured using the approved analytical methods. If EPA determines, after the first six months of monitoring that the specified MRLs result in excessive resampling, EPA will establish alternate MRLs and will notify affected PWSs and laboratories of the new MRLs. 

5–7—HAA groups identified in paragraph (a)(3) of this section to be monitored as UCMR contaminants. 

a The analytical procedures shall be performed in accordance with the documents associated with each method, see paragraph (c) of this section, and must meet all quality control requirements outlined paragraph (a)(5) of this section. b The MRL is the minimum concentration of each analyte that must be reported to EPA. 

(vi) * * * You must require your 

laboratory to submit these data 

electronically to the State and EPA 

using EPA’s electronic data reporting 

system, accessible at http://

www2.epa.gov/dwucmr, within 120 

days from the sample collection date. 

* * * 

* * * * * 

(c) Incorporation by reference. These 

standards are incorporated by reference 

into this section with the approval of 

the Director of the Federal Register 

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

All approved material is available for 

inspection either electronically at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, in hard copy at 

the Water Docket, EPA/DC, and from the 

sources as follows. The Public Reading 

Room (EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 

Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, 

DC) is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., 

Monday through Friday, excluding legal 

holidays. The telephone number for this 

Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, 

and the telephone number for the Water 

Docket is (202) 566–2426. The material 

is also available for inspection at the 

National Archives and Records 

Administration (NARA). For 

information on the availability of this 

material at NARA, call (202) 741–6030 

or go to http://www.archives.gov/

federal-register/cfr/about.html. 

(1) The following methods are from 

the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Water Docket, EPA/DC, EPA 

West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution 

Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20004. 

(i) EPA Method 150.1 ‘‘pH 

Electrometric, in Methods for Chemical 

Analysis of Water and Wastes,’’ 1983, 

EPA/600/4–79/020. Available on the 

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

(ii) EPA Method 150.2 ‘‘pH, 

Continuous Monitoring (Electrometric), 

in Methods for Chemical Analysis of 

Water and Wastes,’’ 1983, EPA/600/4– 

79/020. Available on the Internet at 

http://www.nemi.gov. 

(iii) EPA Method 200.8 

‘‘Determination of Trace Elements in 

Waters and Wastes by Inductively 

Coupled Plasma—Mass Spectrometry,’’ 

Revision 5.4, 1994. Available on the 

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

(iv) EPA Method 300.0 

‘‘Determination of Inorganic Anions by 

Ion Chromatography Samples,’’ 

Revision 2.1, 1993. Available on the 

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

(v) EPA Method 300.1 ‘‘Determination 

of Inorganic Anions in Drinking Water 

by Ion Chromatography,’’ Revision 1.0, 

1997. Available on the Internet at http:// 

www2.epa.gov/dwanalyticalmethods/

approved-drinking-water-analyticalmethods. 

(vi) EPA Method 317.0 

‘‘Determination of Inorganic Oxyhalide 

Disinfection By-Products in Drinking 

Water Using Ion Chromatography with 

the Addition of a Postcolumn Reagent 

for Trace Bromate Analysis,’’ Revision 

2.0, 2001, EPA 815–B–01–001. 

Available on the Internet at http://

www2.epa.gov/dwanalyticalmethods/


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 238 / Friday, December 11, 2015 / Proposed Rules 76923 

approved-drinking-water-analyticalmethods. 

(vii) EPA Method 326.0 

‘‘Determination of Inorganic Oxyhalide 

Disinfection By-Products in Drinking 

Water Using Ion Chromatography 

Incorporating the Addition of a 

Suppressor Acidified Postcolumn 

Reagent for Trace Bromate Analysis,’’ 

Revision 1.0, 2002, EPA 815–R–03–007. 

Available on the Internet at http://

www2.epa.gov/dwanalyticalmethods/

approved-drinking-water-analyticalmethods. 

(viii) EPA Method 415.3 

‘‘Determination of Total Organic Carbon 

and Specific UV Absorbance at 254 nm 

in Source Water and Drinking Water,’’ 

Revision 1.1, 2005, EPA/600/R–05/055. 

Available on the Internet at http://

www2.epa.gov/water-research/epadrinking-water-research-methods. 

(ix) EPA Method 415.3 

‘‘Determination of Total Organic Carbon 

and Specific UV Absorbance at 254 nm 

in Source Water and Drinking Water,’’ 

Revision 1.2, 2009, EPA/600/R–09/122. 

Available on the Internet at http://

www2.epa.gov/water-research/epadrinking-water-research-methods. 

(x) EPA Method 525.3 ‘‘Determination 

of Semivolatile Organic Chemicals in 

Drinking Water by Solid Phase 

Extraction and Capillary Column Gas 

Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry 

(GC/MS),’’ Version 1.0, February 2012, 

EPA/600/R–12/010. Available on the 

Internet at http://www2.epa.gov/waterresearch/epa-drinking-water-researchmethods. 

(xi) EPA Method 530 ‘‘Determination 

of Select Semivolatile Organic 

Chemicals in Drinking Water by Solid 

Phase Extraction and Gas 

Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry 

(GC/MS),’’ Version 1.0, January 2015, 

EPA/600/R–14/442. Available on the 

Internet at http://www2.epa.gov/waterresearch/epa-drinking-water-researchmethods. 

(xii) EPA Method 541 ‘‘Determination 

of 1-Butanol, 1,4-Dioxane, 2- 

Methoxyethanol and 2-Propen-1-ol in 

Drinking Water by Solid Phase 

Extraction and Gas Chromatography/

Mass Spectrometry,’’ November 2015, 

EPA 815–R–15–011. Available on the 

Internet at http://www2.epa.gov/waterresearch/epa-drinking-water-researchmethods. 

(xiii) EPA Method 544 

‘‘Determination of Microcystins and 

Nodularin in Drinking Water by Solid 

Phase Extraction and Liquid 

Chromatography/Tandem Mass 

Spectrometry (LC/MS/MS),’’ Version 

1.0, February 2015, EPA 600–R–14/474. 

Available on the Internet at http://

www2.epa.gov/water-research/epadrinking-water-research-methods. 

(xiv) EPA Method 545 ‘‘Determination 

of Cylindrospermopsin and Anatoxin-a 

in Drinking Water by Liquid 

Chromatography Electrospray Ionization 

Tandem Mass Spectrometry (LC/ESI– 

MS/MS),’’ April 2015, EPA 815–R–15– 

009. Available on the Internet at http:// 

www2.epa.gov/dwanalyticalmethods/

approved-drinking-water-analyticalmethods. 

(xv) EPA Method 552.3 

‘‘Determination of Haloacetic Acids and 

Dalapon in Drinking Water by LiquidLiquid Microextraction, Derivatization, 

and Gas Chromatography with Electron 

Capture Detection,’’ Revision 1.0, July 

2003, EPA 815–B–03–002. Available on 

the Internet at http://www2.epa.gov/

dwanalyticalmethods/approveddrinking-water-analytical-methods. 

(xvi) EPA Method 557 ‘‘Determination 

of Haloacetic Acids, Bromate, and 

Dalapon in Drinking Water by Ion 

Chromatography Electrospray Ionization 

Tandem Mass Spectrometry (IC–ESI– 

MS/MS),’’ Version 1.0, September 2009, 

EPA 815–B–09–012. Available on the 

Internet at http://www2.epa.gov/

dwanalyticalmethods/approveddrinking-water-analytical-methods. 

(2) The following methods are from 

‘‘ASTM International,’’ 100 Barr Harbor 

Drive, West Conshohocken, PA 19428– 

2959. 

(i) ASTM D1293–12 ‘‘Standard Test 

Methods for pH of Water.’’ Available for 

purchase on the Internet at http://

www.astm.org/Standards/D1293.htm. 

(ii) ASTM D5673–10 ‘‘Standard Test 

Method for Elements in Water by 

Inductively Coupled Plasma-Mass 

Spectrometry,’’ approved August 1, 

2010. Available for purchase on the 

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

Standards/D5673.htm. 

(iii) ASTM D6581–12 ‘‘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. 

(3) The following methods are from 

‘‘Standard Methods for the Examination 

of Water & Wastewater,’’ 21st edition 

(2005), American Public Health 

Association, 800 I Street NW., 

Washington, DC 20001–3710. 

(i) SM 2550. ‘‘Temperature.’’ 

(ii) SM 3125 ‘‘Metals by Inductively 

Coupled Plasma/Mass Spectrometry.’’ 

(iii) SM 4500–H+ B ‘‘pH Value in 

Water by Potentiometry Using a 

Standard Hydrogen Electrode.’’ 

(iv) SM 5310B ‘‘The Determination of 

Total Organic Carbon by HighTemperature Combustion Method.’’ 

(v) SM 5310C ‘‘Total Organic Carbon 

by Persulfate-UV or Heated-Persulfate 

Oxidation Method.’’ 

(vi) SM 5310D ‘‘Total Organic Carbon 

by Wet-Oxidation Method.’’ 

(4) The following methods are from 

‘‘Standard Methods Online.’’ Available 

for purchase on the Internet at http://

www.standardmethods.org. 

(i) SM 2550–10 ‘‘Temperature.’’ 

(ii) SM 3125–09 ‘‘Metals by 

Inductively Coupled Plasma/Mass 

Spectrometry (Editorial revisions, 

2011).’’ 

(iii) SM 4500–H+ B–00 ‘‘pH Value in 

Water by Potentiometry Using a 

Standard Hydrogen Electrode.’’ 

(iv) SM 5310B–00 ‘‘The 

Determination of Total Organic Carbon 

by High-Temperature Combustion 

Method.’’ 

(v) SM 5310C–00 ‘‘Total Organic 

Carbon by Persulfate-UV or HeatedPersulfate Oxidation Method.’’ 

(vi) SM 5310D–00 ‘‘Total Organic 

Carbon by Wet-Oxidation Method.’’ 

(5) The following methodology is 

from Ohio EPA, Columbus, OH. 

(i) ELISA SOP. ‘‘Ohio EPA Total 

(Extracellular and Intracellular) 

Microcystins—ADDA by ELISA 

Analytical Methodology,’’ Version 2.0, 

January 2015. Available on the Internet 

at http://www.epa.ohio.gov/Portals/28/

documents/habs/HAB_Analytical_

Methodology.pdf. 

(ii) [Reserved] 

[FR Doc. 2015–30824 Filed 12–10–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 63 

[GN Docket No. 13–5, WC Docket No. 05– 

25; Report No. 3035] 

Petition for Reconsideration of Action 

in a Rulemaking Proceeding 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Petition for reconsideration. 

SUMMARY: In this document, a Petition 

for Reconsideration (Petition) has been 

filed in the Commission’s Rulemaking 

Proceeding by Tamar E. Finn, on behalf 

of U.S. TelePacific Corp. 

DATES: Oppositions to the Petition must 

be filed on or before December 28, 2015. 

Replies to an opposition must be filed 

on or before January 5, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications 

Commission, 445 12th Street SW., 

Washington DC 20554. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Michele Levy Berlove, Wireline 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS