26072 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 85 / Wednesday, May 2, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 141 and 142 

[Docket No. EPA–HQ–OW–2009–0090; FRL– 

9660–4] 

RIN 2040–AF10 

Revisions to the Unregulated 

Contaminant Monitoring Regulation 

(UCMR 3) for Public Water Systems 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The 1996 amendments to the 

Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) 

require that the United States 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA 

or the agency) establish criteria for a 

program to monitor unregulated 

contaminants and publish a list of up to 

30 contaminants to be monitored every 

five years. This final rule meets the 

SDWA requirement by publishing the 

third Unregulated Contaminant 

Monitoring Regulation (i.e., UCMR 3), 

listing the unregulated contaminants to 

be monitored and addressing the 

requirements for such monitoring. This 

final rule describes analytical methods 

to monitor for 28 chemical 

contaminants and describes the 

monitoring for two viruses. UCMR 3 

provides EPA and other interested 

parties with scientifically valid data on 

the occurrence of these contaminants in 

drinking water, permitting the 

assessment of the number of people 

potentially being exposed and the levels 

of that exposure. These data are one of 

the primary sources of occurrence and 

exposure information the agency uses to 

develop regulatory decisions for these 

contaminants. In addition, as part of an 

Expedited Methods Update, this rule 

finalizes amendatory language for a 

drinking water inorganic analysis table 

(‘‘Inorganic chemical sampling and 

analytical requirements’’) in the Code of 

Federal Regulations (CFR). This minor 

editorial correction to the table does not 

affect the UCMR program. 

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

June 1, 2012. For purposes of judicial 

review, this rule is promulgated as of 

1 p.m. Eastern time on May 16, 2012 as 

provided in 40 CFR 23.7. The 

incorporation by reference of certain 

publications listed in this rule is 

approved by the Director of the Federal 

Register as of June 1, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–HQ–OW–2009–0090. All 

documents in the docket are listed in 

the index at www.regulations.gov. 

Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

e.g., confidential business information 

(CBI) or other information, the 

disclosure of which is restricted by 

statute. Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the Internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically at 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Water Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West, 

Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. 

NW., Washington, DC. This Public 

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

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

excluding legal holidays. The telephone 

number for this Public Reading Room is 

(202) 566–1744, and the telephone 

number for the Water Docket is (202) 

566–2426. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Brenda D. Parris, Technical Support 

Center, Standards and Risk Management 

Division, Office of Ground Water and 

Drinking Water, United States 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Office of Water, 26 West Martin Luther 

King Drive (MS 140), Cincinnati, Ohio 

45268; telephone (513) 569–7961; or 

email at parris.brenda@epa.gov. For 

general information, contact the Safe 

Drinking Water Hotline. Callers within 

the United States may reach the Hotline 

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

Monday through Friday, excluding legal 

holidays, from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., 

Eastern time. The Safe Drinking Water 

Hotline may also be found on the 

Internet at http://water.epa.gov/drink/ 

contact.cfm. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

Entities regulated by this action are 

public water systems (PWSs). All large 

community and non-transient noncommunity water systems serving more 

than 10,000 people are required to 

monitor. A community water system 

(CWS) means a PWS, which has at least 

15 service connections used by yearround residents or regularly serves an 

average of at least 25 year-round 

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

means a PWS that is not a CWS and 

regularly serves at least 25 of the same 

people over six months per year. Only 

a nationally representative sample of 

‘‘small’’ community and non-transient 

non-community systems serving 10,000 

or fewer people are required to monitor 

for the chemical analytes (see USEPA, 

2001 for a description of the statistical 

approach for the nationally 

representative sample). EPA will pay for 

the analysis of samples collected by 

these small systems. Transient noncommunity water systems (TNCWS) 

(i.e., systems that do not regularly serve 

at least 25 of the same people over six 

months per year) are not required to 

monitor for the chemical analytes. 

However, transient ground water 

systems serving 1,000 or fewer people 

may be selected for virus monitoring. If 

selected, these systems are required to 

permit EPA to sample and analyze for 

List 3 contaminants and pathogen 

indicators. EPA will pay for all 

sampling and analysis costs associated 

with virus monitoring at these small 

systems. Exhibit 1 summarizes UCMR 3 

applicability by system type and size. 

EXHIBIT 1—APPLICABILITY OF UCMR 3 TO WATER UTILITIES BY SYSTEM TYPE AND SIZE

System type 

System size 1

Serving >10,000 Serving ≤10,000 

UCMR 3 Assessment Monitoring 

CWS & NTNCWS ................ Requires all systems to monitor for List 1 chemicals ..... Requires 800 randomly selected systems to monitor for 

List 1 chemicals. EPA will pay for the analysis of 

samples. 

TNCWS ................................ No requirements .............................................................. No requirements. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 85 / Wednesday, May 2, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 26073 

EXHIBIT 1—APPLICABILITY OF UCMR 3 TO WATER UTILITIES BY SYSTEM TYPE AND SIZE—Continued 

System type 

System size 1

Serving >10,000 Serving ≤10,000 

UCMR 3 Screening Survey 

CWS & NTNCWS ................ Requires all systems serving more than 100,000, and 

320 randomly selected systems serving 10,001 to 

100,000 to monitor for List 2 chemicals.

Requires 480 randomly selected systems to monitor for 

List 2 chemicals. EPA will pay for the analysis of 

samples. 

TNCWS ................................ No requirements .............................................................. No requirements. 

UCMR 3 Pre-Screen Testing 

CWS, TNCWS & NTNCWS No requirements .............................................................. Requires 800 randomly selected systems to permit 

EPA to sample and analyze List 3 microbes. The selected systems will be served by non-disinfecting 

ground water wells in vulnerable areas. EPA will pay 

for the analysis of samples. 

1Based on the retail population, as indicated by SDWIS/Fed on December 31, 2010. 

States, Territories, and Tribes with 

primary enforcement responsibility 

(primacy) to administer the regulatory 

program for PWSs under SDWA may 

participate in the implementation of 

UCMR 3 through Partnership 

Agreements (PAs). These primacy 

agencies may choose to perform the 

required analysis of samples collected 

for UCMR 3; however, the PWS remains 

responsible for compliance with this 

rule. Regulated categories and entities 

are identified in the following exhibit. 

Category Examples of potentially regulated entities NAICSa

State, Local, & Tribal Governments.States, local and Tribal governments that analyze water samples on behalf of public water systems required to conduct such analysis; States, local and Tribal governments that directly operate community, transient and non-transient non-community water systems required to monitor.924110 

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

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

a NAICS = North American Industry Classification System. 

This exhibit is not exhaustive, but 

rather provides a guide for readers 

regarding entities that may be regulated 

by this action. This exhibit lists the 

types of entities that EPA is now aware 

may potentially be regulated by this 

action. Other types of entities not listed 

in the exhibit could also be regulated. 

To determine whether your facility is 

regulated by this action, you should 

carefully examine the definition of PWS 

in § 141.2 of Title 40 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations, and applicability 

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

action. If you have questions regarding 

the applicability of this action to a 

particular entity, consult the persons 

listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT Section. 

B. Copies of This Document and Other 

Related Information 

This document is available for 

download at: www.regulations.gov. For 

other related information, see preceding 

discussion on docket. 

Abbreviations and Acronyms 

mg/L Microgram(s) per Liter 

ASDWA Association of State Drinking 

Water Administrators 

ATSDR Agency for Toxic Substances and 

Disease Registry 

AGI Acute Gastrointestinal Illness 

CCL Contaminant Candidate List 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

CWS Community Water System 

DQO Data Quality Objectives 

DSMRT Distribution System Maximum 

Residence Time 

EO Executive Order 

ELISA Enzyme-linked Immunosorbent 

Assay 

EPA United States Environmental 

Protection Agency 

EPTDS Entry Point to the Distribution 

System 

FR Federal Register 

GC/MS Gas Chromatography/Mass 

Spectrometry 

GWUDI Ground Water Under the Direct 

Influence of Surface Water 

HCF–22 Chlorodifluoromethane 

HPLC/MS/MS High-Performance Liquid 

Chromatography/Tandem Mass 

Spectrometry 

HRL Health Reference Level 

IC/MS Ion Chromatography/Mass 

Spectrometry 

ICR Information Collection Request 

IDC Initial Demonstration of Capability 

IHS Indian Health Service 

LCMRL Lowest Concentration Minimum 

Reporting Level 

LC/MS/MS Liquid Chromatography/ 

Tandem Mass Spectrometry 

LFSM Laboratory Fortified Sample Matrix 

LFSMD Laboratory Fortified Sample Matrix 

Duplicate 

MDL Method Detection Limit 

MRL Minimum Reporting Level 

NAICS North American Industry 

Classification System 

NCOD National Drinking Water 

Contaminant Occurrence Database 

ND Not Detected 

NTNCWS Non-Transient Non-Community 

Water System 

NTTAA National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

NWQL National Water Quality Laboratory 

OMB Office of Management and Budget 

PA Partnership Agreement 

PFBS Perfluorobutanesulfonic Acid 

PFC Perfluorinated Compounds 

PFHpA Perfluoroheptanoic Acid 

PFHxS Perfluorohexanesulfonic Acid 

PFNA Perfluorononanoic Acid 

PFOA Perfluorooctanoic Acid 

PFOS Perfluorooctanesulfonic Acid 

PT Proficiency Testing 

PWS Public Water System 

qPCR Quantitative Polymerase Chain 

Reaction 

RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act 

RfD Reference Dose 

SDWARS Safe Drinking Water Accession 

and Review System 

SM Standard Methods 

SRF State Revolving Fund 

SBA Small Business Administration 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

26074 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 85 / Wednesday, May 2, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act 

SDWIS/Fed Federal Safe Drinking Water 

Information System 

TNCWS Transient Non-Community Water 

System 

TTHM Total Trihalomethanes 

UCMR Unregulated Contaminant 

Monitoring Regulation 

UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 

1995 

VOC Volatile Organic Compound 

Table of Contents 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

B. Copies of This Document and Other 

Related Information 

II. Statutory Authority and Background 

A. What is the statutory authority for 

UCMR? 

B. How does EPA meet these statutory 

requirements? 

III. Summary of This Rule 

A. What are the major changes between the 

proposed and final UCMR 3 rule? 

B. Which Water Systems Must Monitor 

1. Applicability Based on Population 

Served 

2. Applicability for Transient Systems 

C. Where are samples collected? 

1. Entry Point to the Distribution System 

2. Distribution System Maximum 

Residence Time Location 

D. What are the UCMR 3 contaminants and 

associated methods? 

1. List Compilation 

2. Hormones and Related Methods 

3. Metals, Chlorate, and Related Methods 

4. Chromium-6 and Total Chromium, and 

Related Methods 

5. Viruses and Related Methods 

6. Perfluorinated Compounds and Related 

Methods 

E. How are laboratories approved for 

UCMR 3 monitoring? 

1. This Rule 

2. Summary of Major Comments 

F. How were minimum reporting levels 

determined? 

1. This Rule 

2. Summary of Major Comments 

G. What are the UCMR 3 reporting 

requirements? 

1. General Reporting Requirements/ 

SDWARS 

2. Sample Location and Inventory 

Information (Zip Codes) 

3. Disinfectant Type Specifications 

4. Reporting Schedule 

IV. State and Tribal Participation 

A. Partnership Agreements 

1. This Rule 

2. Summary of Major Comments 

B. Governors’ Petition and State-Wide 

Waivers 

1. This Rule 

2. Summary of Major Comments 

V. Cost and Benefits of This Rule 

VI. 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 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

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 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions 

To Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations. 

K. Congressional Review Act 

VII. Public Involvement in Regulation 

Development 

VIII. References 

List of Exhibits 

Exhibit 1: Applicability of UCMR 3 to 

Water Utilities by System Type and Size 

Exhibit 2a: UCMR 3 Final Contaminant 

Lists 

Exhibit 2b: Total Chromium Monitoring3

Exhibit 3: Timeline of UCMR 3 Activities 

Exhibit 4: Changes to UCMR 3 Between 

Proposed and Final Rule 

Exhibit 5a: 29 Unregulated Analytes and 

Associated Methods 

Exhibit 5b: Total Chromium Monitoring 

Exhibit 6: Observed Background Levels 

During MRL Determination 

Exhibit 7: UCMR 3 Per Respondent Burden 

and Cost Summary for the ICR Period 

(2012–2014) 

Exhibit 8: UCMR 3 Annual National Cost 

and Burden (2012–2014) 

Exhibit 9: Number of Publicly- and 

Privately-Owned Small Systems Subject 

to UCMR 3 

Exhibit 10: EPA and Systems Costs for 

Implementation of UCMR 3 at Small 

Systems 

Exhibit 11: UCMR 3 Relative Cost Analysis 

for Small Publicly-Owned Systems 

(2012–2016) 

Exhibit 12: UCMR 3 Relative Cost Analysis 

for Small Privately-Owned Systems 

(2012–2016) 

II. Statutory Authority and Background 

A. What is the statutory authority for 

UCMR? 

Section 1445(a)(2) of SDWA, as 

amended in 1996, requires that once 

every five years, the United States 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

issue a new list of no more than 30 

unregulated contaminants to be 

monitored by public water systems 

(PWSs). It also requires that EPA enter 

the monitoring data into the Agency’s 

National Drinking Water Contaminant 

Occurrence Database (NCOD). EPA must 

ensure that only a nationally 

representative sample of PWSs serving 

10,000 or fewer people is required to 

monitor. EPA must also 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. 

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

amended in 1996, requires that every 

person who is subject to any SDWA 

requirements 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 

authority, EPA is requiring the 

monitoring of total chromium under this 

final rule. 

B. How does EPA meet these statutory 

requirements? 

This final rule fulfills EPA’s 

obligation under SDWA by identifying 

29 unregulated contaminants for 

monitoring during the third UCMR, 

referred to as ‘‘UCMR 3.’’ These 

contaminants include: 27 chemicals 

measured using up to seven analytical 

methods and/or four equivalent 

consensus organization-developed 

methods, and two viruses measured 

using one sample collection and two 

detection methods. In conjunction with 

UCMR 3 Assessment Monitoring, 

monitoring for total chromium is also 

required. Total chromium monitoring is 

required under the authority provided 

in Section 1445(a)(1)(A) of SDWA. EPA 

has developed the contaminant list 

(Exhibit 2a and 2b) and sampling design 

for UCMR 3 (2012–2016) with input 

from both stakeholders and an EPA– 

State working group. 

Exhibit 2a—UCMR 3 Final Contaminant Lists 

List 1, Assessment Monitoring 

1,4-dioxane ............................................................................................... vanadium. 

molybdenum ............................................................................................. strontium. 

cobalt ........................................................................................................ chromium-6 (hexavalent chromium)1. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 85 / Wednesday, May 2, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 26075 

1,2,3-trichloropropane ............................................................................... chlorate. 

1,3-butadiene ............................................................................................ perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS). 

chloromethane (methyl chloride) .............................................................. perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA). 

1,1-dichloroethane .................................................................................... perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA). 

bromochloromethane (Halon 1011) .......................................................... perfluorohexanesulfonic acid (PFHxS). 

bromomethane (methyl bromide) ............................................................. perfluoroheptanoic acid (PFHpA). 

chlorodifluoromethane (HCFC–22) ........................................................... perfluorobutanesulfonic acid (PFBS). 

List 2, Screening Survey 

17-b-estradiol ............................................................................................ estriol. 

17-a-ethynylestradiol (ethinyl estradiol) ................................................... equilin. 

estrone ...................................................................................................... testosterone. 

4-androstene-3,17-dione. 

List 3, Pre-Screen Testing 2

enteroviruses ............................................................................................ noroviruses. 

Exhibit 2b—Total Chromium Monitoring 3

total chromium 

1 Chromium-6 will be measured as soluble chromate (ion). 

2 Monitoring for microbial indicators—in conjunction with UCMR 3 Pre-Screen Testing—is also required. This monitoring includes sampling for 

pathogen indicators (i.e., total coliforms, E. coli, bacteriophage, Enterococci and aerobic spores). It is not subject to the stipulation in Section 

1445(a)(2)(B)(i) of SDWA that restricts UCMR contaminants to not more than 30. List 3 monitoring, including monitoring of microbial indicators, is 

only required at selected small systems. EPA will collect the samples from List 3 sampling locations, and will pay for all sampling and analysis 

costs associated with virus and indicator monitoring at these small systems. 3 Monitoring for total chromium—in conjunction with UCMR 3 Assessment Monitoring—is required under the authority provided in Section 

1445(a)(1)(A) of SDWA. 

This list differs from that provided in 

the March 3, 2011, proposed rule (76 FR 

11713, (USEPA, 2011a)) as follows: 

chromium-6 (hexavalent chromium) and 

total chromium have been added; secbutylbenzene and n-propylbenzene have 

been deleted; and monitoring of 

hormones was moved from Assessment 

Monitoring (List 1) to Screening Survey 

(List 2). 

III. Summary of This Rule 

Public water systems (PWS) or EPA 

will conduct sampling and analysis for 

Assessment Monitoring (List 1), 

Screening Survey (List 2), and PreScreen Testing (List 3) contaminants, as 

applicable, at each PWS subject to this 

rule during a 12 month period within 

the 2013 to 2015 time frame. 

Preparations prior to 2013 include 

coordination of laboratory approval, 

selection of representative samples of 

small systems, development of State 

Monitoring Plans, establishment of 

monitoring schedules, and notification 

of participating PWSs. Exhibit 3 

illustrates the major activities that will 

take place during implementation of 

UCMR 3. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

26076 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 85 / Wednesday, May 2, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

EPA generally divides unregulated 

contaminant monitoring into three types 

of monitoring, or ‘‘lists.’’ ‘‘Assessment 

Monitoring’’ is the largest in scope of 

the three UCMR monitoring lists or 

tiers. Under UCMR 3 Assessment 

Monitoring, 20 ‘‘List 1’’ contaminants 

will be monitored to assess national 

occurrence in drinking water; total 

chromium will be monitored in 

conjunction with Assessment 

Monitoring. These are the contaminants 

for which analytical method 

technologies are well established. 

The second tier of UCMR is referred 

to as ‘‘List 2’’ or ‘‘Screening Survey’’ 

monitoring. List 2 contaminants are 

those with analytical methods that have 

generally been more recently developed 

and employ technologies that are not as 

widely used or laboratory capacity may 

be insufficient to conduct the larger 

scale Assessment Monitoring. Under the 

UCMR 3 Screening Survey, seven ‘‘List 

2’’ contaminants will be monitored by 

certain systems (see Exhibit 3). 

‘‘Pre-Screen Testing,’’ the third tier of 

UCMR monitoring is generally designed 

for ‘‘List 3’’ contaminants with very new 

or specialized analytical methods. 

Under UCMR 3, a selected set of 800 

systems that serve fewer than 1,000 

retail customers and that do not 

disinfect are required to assist EPA in 

sampling their system for two viruses on 

‘‘List 3’’ and the associated pathogen 

indicators (i.e., total coliforms, E. coli, 

bacteriophage, Enterococci and aerobic 

spores). This requirement includes 

community and non-transient, noncommunity water systems and transient 

systems. 

EPA will pay for the sample kit 

preparation, sample shipping fees, and 

analysis costs to minimize the impact of 

the rule on small systems (those serving 

10,000 or fewer people). In addition, no 

small system will be required to monitor 

for more than one ‘‘List’’ of 

contaminants. Large systems (those 

serving more than 10,000 people) will 

pay for the cost of shipping and 

laboratory testing for their List 1 and, as 

applicable, List 2 analyses. 

The data collected through the UCMR 

program are being stored in NCOD to 

facilitate analysis and review of 

contaminant occurrence, guide the 

conduct of the Contaminant Candidate 

List (CCL) process and support the 

Administrator in making regulatory 

decisions for contaminants in the 

interest of protecting public health, as 

required under SDWA Section 

1412(b)(1). Results of UCMR 1 and 2 

monitoring can be viewed by the public 

at EPA’s UCMR Web site: http:// 

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

ucmr/data.cfm. 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2ER02MY12.000</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 85 / Wednesday, May 2, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 26077 

A. What are the major changes between 

the proposed and final UCMR 3 rule? 

EPA published ‘‘Revisions to the 

Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring 

Regulation (UCMR 3) for Public Water 

Systems;’’ Proposed Rule, on March 3, 

2011 (76 FR 11713, (USEPA, 2011a)). 

EPA received input from 53 public 

commenters. After considering the 

comments, EPA added chromium-6 to 

the list of unregulated contaminants to 

be monitored; removed secbutylbenzene and n-propylbenzene; and 

moved monitoring of hormones from 

Assessment Monitoring to the Screening 

Survey. EPA is also requiring PWSs to 

monitor for total chromium concurrent 

with all chromium-6 monitoring. EPA 

revised or clarified requirements 

pertaining to UCMR applicability 

criteria, reporting, monitoring and 

quality control. Exhibit 4 provides a 

summary of these changes and a listing 

of the corresponding preamble section 

that provides a more detailed discussion 

of the revisions and related public 

comments. Sections III.B–G summarize 

the different aspects of this rule and the 

associated major comments received in 

response to the proposed rule. EPA has 

compiled a more detailed document 

containing all public comments and 

EPA’s responses entitled: ‘‘Response to 

Comments Document for the 

Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring 

Regulation (UCMR 3),’’ (USEPA, 2012b), 

which can be obtained by going to 

http://www.regulations.gov, and 

searching for Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OW–2009–0090. 

EXHIBIT 4—CHANGES TO UCMR 3 BETWEEN PROPOSED AND FINAL RULE

Rule section 

Description of change Corresponding preamble section 

Number Title/description 

141.35(c)(1) and (d)(1) .................. Data elements .............................. Revise zip code reporting to include only the zip codes for all 

customers served, rather than 

those associated with each 

sampling point.

III.G.2 Sample location and inventory information (zip codes). 

141.35(c)(6)(ii) and 141.40(a)(5)(vi) Reporting schedule ....................... Change laboratory reporting time 

to 120 days, rather than 60 

days; change PWS reporting 

time to 60 days after laboratory 

posting, rather than 30 days.

III.G.4 Reporting schedule. 

141.40(a)(2)(i)(A) and (a)(2)(ii)(A); 

and 141.40(a)(3) Table 1.

Analytes to be monitored and related specifications.Add chromium-6; remove requirement to monitor for secbutylbenzene and npropylbenzene; require total 

chromium monitoring under 

SDWA Section 1445 (a)(1)(A); 

move hormone monitoring to 

Screening Survey.

III.D.4 Chromium-6 and total 

chromium, and related methods. 

III.D.1 List compilation. 

III.D.2 Hormones and related 

methods. 

141.35(c)(2) ................................... Sample location and inventory information.Large systems must provide sample location and inventory information to EPA by October 1, 

2012.

III.G.4 Reporting schedule. 

141.40(a)(3) Table 1, footnote c 

and 141.40 (a)(4)(i)(C).

Distribution system maximum residence time (DSMRT) sample 

location.

Revise definition of DSMRT sample required for specific List 1 

contaminants.

III.C Where are samples collected? 

III.D.3 Metals, chlorate, and related methods. 

141.35(c)(5)(i) and 141.40 (a)(4)(i) General rescheduling notification Large systems may independently 

change List 1 or List 2 monitoring schedule by October 1, 

2012.

III.G.4 Reporting schedule. 

141.35(c)(3) ................................... Ground water representative sampling locations.Large systems may submit representative sampling plan proposals or changes to existing 

plans by August 1, 2012.

III.C Where are samples collected? 

III.G.4 Reporting schedule. 

141.40(a)(3) Table 1 footnote c ..... Representative intake ................... Systems that purchase water from 

the same wholesaler may sample from a representative intake.

III.C Where are samples collected? 

B. Which Water Systems Must Monitor 

1. Applicability Based on Population 

Served 

a. This Rule 

This rule requires that Assessment 

Monitoring (for List 1 contaminants) be 

conducted by all large community and 

non-transient non-community water 

systems serving more than 10,000 

people, and a nationally representative 

sample of 800 small water systems 

serving 10,000 or fewer people; and that 

the Screening Survey (for List 2 

contaminants) be conducted by all large 

community and non-transient noncommunity water systems serving more 

than 100,000 people, a nationally 

representative sample of 320 large 

systems serving 10,001 to 100,000 

people, and a nationally representative 

sample of 480 small water systems 

serving 10,000 or fewer people (as 

indicated by Federal Safe Drinking 

Water Information System (SDWIS/Fed) 

on December 31, 2010). Transient noncommunity water systems are excluded 

from Assessment Monitoring and the 

Screening Survey. In contrast to 

implementation of UCMR 1 and 2 

monitoring, those systems that purchase 

all of their finished water from another 

system are not excluded from the 

requirements of UCMR 3. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

26078 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 85 / Wednesday, May 2, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

b. Summary of Major Comments 

EPA received six (6) comments 

concerning UCMR monitoring based on 

retail population served. The 

commenters all agreed that applicability 

should be based on retail population, 

although some wanted to exclude those 

who purchase their water from that 

applicability. In UCMR 1 and 2, systems 

that purchased 100% of their water 

were excluded from monitoring, making 

estimates of exposure more difficult 

because many of these purchasing 

systems represented high-population 

areas. For UCMR 3, systems that 

purchase 100% of their water and serve 

greater than 10,000 people are subject to 

this rule. Wholesalers that serve a retail 

population of 10,000 or fewer customers 

are only required to monitor if they are 

selected as part of the nationally 

representative sample of small systems 

for any list of UCMR contaminants. This 

should greatly improve exposure 

estimates for UCMR 3 since exposure 

estimates will be based on the 

monitoring data collected from where 

the water is consumed rather than 

where it is sold. Between the wholesaler 

and the purchasing system, contaminant 

levels may increase (e.g., DBPs or 

metals) or decrease (e.g., through 

blending various sources or 

degradation/chemical reactions). 

Some commenters also expressed 

concern that this applicability change 

could add an estimated 1,250 systems to 

the list of those that need to monitor 

and suggested that this would represent 

a substantial increase in burden to the 

drinking water industry. To help 

mitigate the burden, EPA is allowing 

those systems that purchase water with 

multiple connections from the same 

wholesaler to select a representative 

connection for sampling. See Section 

III.C.1.a for further discussion. In 

addition, EPA notes that approximately 

450 wholesale systems will no longer be 

subject to monitoring; the net increase is 

approximately 800 systems. 

2. Applicability for Transient Systems 

a. This Rule 

Under UCMR 1 and 2, transient noncommunity water systems were 

specifically exempted from monitoring. 

UCMR 3 now requires participation by 

transient systems that are selected for 

Pre-Screen Testing for List 3 

contaminants. Under UCMR 3, EPA is 

conducting Pre-Screen Testing for 

enterovirus and norovirus, as well as 

related pathogen indicators, at selected 

undisinfected ground water systems that 

serve 1,000 or fewer customers. EPA is 

including transient systems among the 

candidate systems—and focusing on 

viruses at those systems—since viruses 

are acute pathogens and exposure 

through a one-time ingestion (e.g., at a 

transient system) is of potential health 

concern. 

Under 141.40(a)(1) and 

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

(including transient systems) is notified 

by EPA or its State that it has been 

selected for Pre-Screen Testing, the 

system must permit EPA (at EPA’s 

expense) to sample and analyze for List 

3 contaminants and pathogen indicators 

(i.e., total coliforms, E. coli, 

bacteriophage, Enterococci and aerobic 

spores). 

b. Summary of Major Comments 

EPA received two (2) comments on 

including transient non-community 

systems for List 3 monitoring. One fully 

supported their inclusion, and the other 

expressed concern that EPA would not 

be able to adequately fund the collection 

and processing of these samples. EPA is 

confident that it has budgeted sufficient 

funds to support these activities. As the 

second commenter noted, transient 

systems represent a substantial number 

of the systems serving less than 1,000 

customers; therefore, the sampling of 

these potentially vulnerable systems for 

these acute pathogens is considered 

important. 

C. Where are samples collected? 

1. Entry Point to the Distribution System 

a. This Rule 

As was the case under UCMR 2, 

UCMR 3 samples will be collected at 

entry points to the distribution system 

(EPTDS). PWSs may perform sampling 

at representative sampling locations in 

two cases: 

• Demonstrating Representative 

Ground Water Sampling Locations: 

Under this rule, large systems that use 

ground water sources and have multiple 

EPTDSs can, with prior approval, 

conduct monitoring at representative 

sampling locations rather than at each 

EPTDS. To monitor at representative 

EPTDSs, large systems must meet the 

criteria specified in § 141.35(c)(3) and 

receive approval from EPA or the State. 

Changes to the rule language clarify that 

when identifying a representative well, 

the well must be representative of the 

highest producing (based on annual 

volume) and most consistently active 

wells. In addition, the representative 

well must be in use at the scheduled 

sampling time. An alternative location 

must be sampled if the representative 

EPTDS is not available at the time of 

scheduled sampling. This rule 

establishes a deadline of August 1, 2012 

for submission of new proposals or 

updates to existing plans. See Section 

III.G.4 for further discussion. 

• Representative Intakes from 

Wholesaler: As specified in 

§ 141.40(a)(3) Table 1, footnote c, 

systems that purchase water with 

multiple connections from the same 

wholesaler may select one 

representative connection from that 

wholesaler for UCMR sampling. If a 

PWS chooses to select a representative 

intake, each representative intake must 

receive water from the same source. 

Additionally, if a PWS chooses to select 

a representative intake, it must choose 

a sampling location that represents the 

highest volume EPTDS connection and 

is in use at the time of scheduled 

sampling. If the connection initially 

selected as the representative EPTDS is 

not available at the time of scheduled 

sampling, an alternate representative 

connection must be sampled. 

b. Summary of Major Comments 

Five (5) commenters expressed 

support for EPA’s proposal regarding 

representative sampling points, and 

representative intakes for PWSs with 

multiple connections from the same 

wholesaler; commenters cited cost 

savings as a benefit of this approach. 

One commenter also suggested that 

EPA’s approach to representative 

sampling locations should provide 

additional flexibility in cases where 

multiple water systems are receiving 

water from the same wholesale 

provider. EPA acknowledges that there 

are many unique situations with the 

purchase and sale of drinking water at 

the wholesale level. In this final rule, 

EPA has provided clarifying language in 

§ 141.40(a)(3) Table 1, footnote c, 

specifying that a PWS may select a 

representative intake from a given 

wholesaler. EPA is available to advise 

PWSs regarding choosing the most 

appropriate sampling site, based on 

their purchasing situation. However, 

EPA is requiring all systems that 

purchase 100% of their water to 

monitor, for the reasons described in 

Section III.B.1 of this preamble. Based 

on the experience of UCMR 1 and 

UCMR 2, EPA believes it is more 

appropriate to measure at each 

purchasing system to more accurately 

assess exposure. This approach relies on 

each purchasing system to monitor, thus 

ensuring the monitoring results reflect 

any potential water quality changes 

between the wholesaler and each 

purchasing system. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 85 / Wednesday, May 2, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 26079 

2. Distribution System Maximum 

Residence Time Location 

a. This Rule 

This rule requires systems that 

participate in Assessment Monitoring to 

also sample for total chromium, 

chromium-6, cobalt, molybdenum, 

strontium, vanadium, and chlorate both 

at EPTDSs and in the distribution 

system. This rule requires systems to 

collect the samples for these analytes at 

their distribution system maximum 

residence time (DSMRT) location(s), 

(§§ 141.40(a)(3) Table 1, footnote c and 

141.40(a)(4)(i)(C)). For clarity, EPA 

deleted the UCMR reference to the 

DSMRT specifications under the Stage 1 

Disinfection Byproducts Rule at 

§ 141.132(b)(1)(i). EPA now defines 

DSMRT under UCMR 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. Systems that are subject to the 

Stage 2 Disinfection By-Products Rule 

should use their total trihalomethanes 

(TTHM) highest concentration sampling 

site(s) as their DSMRT sampling site(s) 

(USEPA, 2003). 

b. Summary of Major Comments 

As described in greater detail in 

Section III.D.3., ‘‘Metals, chlorate, and 

related methods,’’ several commenters 

suggested that EPA had provided 

insufficient rationale for requiring 

DSMRT sampling for cobalt, 

molybdenum, strontium, vanadium, and 

chlorate. As elements that may occur in 

water both naturally, or through 

industrial activities, cobalt, 

molybdenum, strontium, and vanadium 

are expected to be commonly detected 

in drinking water. EPA believes these 

metals may be incorporated into pipe 

deposits and subsequent erosion and/or 

dissolution may result in waterborne 

concentrations that differ between the 

DSMRT and the EPTDS. Regarding 

chlorate, the use of disinfectants, 

including use of hypochlorite, 

chloramines, chlorine dioxide, and 

ozone can result in chlorate formation. 

The presence of residual disinfectant in 

the distribution system and chlorine 

boosters within the distribution system 

may result in increases in chlorate 

concentrations at the DSMRT relative to 

the EPTDS. 

D. What are the UCMR 3 contaminants 

and associated methods? 

1. List Compilation 

a. This Rule 

EPA is maintaining the list of 

unregulated contaminants and methods 

proposed for monitoring with the 

exception of adding chromium-6, and 

removing sec-butylbenzene and 

n-propylbenzene (see Exhibit 5a). EPA 

is also requiring PWSs to monitor for 

total chromium concurrent with all 

chromium-6 monitoring (Exhibit 5b). 

The additional data generated by sideby-side measurements of chromium-6 

and total chromium will provide 

valuable information on relative 

occurrence and the utility of monitoring 

for total chromium as a surrogate for 

chromium-6. 

Exhibit 5a: 29 Unregulated Analytes and Associated Methods 

Assessment Monitoring 

7 Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) using EPA Method 524.3 (GC/MS): 1

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

1,3-butadiene ............................................................................................ bromochloromethane (Halon 1011). 

chloromethane (methyl chloride) .............................................................. chlorodifluoromethane (HCFC–22). 

1,1-dichloroethane. 

Synthetic Organic Compound using EPA Method 522 (GC/MS): 2

1,4-dioxane. 

4 Metals using EPA Method 200.8 (ICP/MS) 3 or alternate SM 4 or ASTM Methods: 5

cobalt ........................................................................................................ strontium. 

molybdenum ............................................................................................. vanadium. 

Oxyhalide Anion using EPA Method 300.1 (IC/Conductivity) 6 or alternate SM 7 or ASTM Methods: 8

chlorate. 

6 Perfluorinated Chemicals using EPA Method 537 (LC/MS/MS): 9

perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) ....................................................... perfluorohexanesulfonic acid (PFHxS).

perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) ................................................................. perfluoroheptanoic acid (PFHpA). 

perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA) ................................................................ perfluorobutanesulfonic acid (PFBS). 

Chromium-6 using EPA Method 218.7 (IC/UV–VIS): 10

chromium-6. 

Screening Survey 

7 Hormones using EPA Method 539 (LC/MS/MS): 11

17-b-estradiol ............................................................................................ estrone. 

17-a-ethynylestradiol (ethinyl estradiol) ................................................... testosterone. 

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

equilin. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

26080 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 85 / Wednesday, May 2, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

Pre-Screen Testing 

2 Viruses (see Section III.D.5 for methods discussion): 12

enterovirus ................................................................................................ norovirus. 

Exhibit 5b—Total Chromium Monitoring 

Total Chromium using EPA Method 200.8 (ICP/MS) 4 or alternate SM 5 or ASTM Methods: 6

total chromium. 

1EPA Method 524.3 (GC/MS) (USEPA, 2009a). 

2EPA Method 522 (GC/MS) (USEPA, 2008). 

3EPA Method 200.8 (ICP/MS) (USEPA, 1994). 

4SM 3125 (SM, 21st Ed., 2005). 

5ASTM D5673–10 (ASTM, 2010). 

6EPA Method 300.1 (IC/Conductivity) (USEPA, 1997). 

7SM 4110D (SM, 21st Ed., 2005). 

8ASTM D6581–08 (ASTM, 2008). 

9EPA Method 537 (LC/MS/MS) (USEPA, 2009b). 

10EPA Method 218.7 (IC/UV–VIS) (USEPA, 2011b). 11EPA Method 539 (LC/MS/MS) (USEPA, 2010e). 12 Monitoring also includes sampling for pathogen indicators (i.e., total coliforms, E. coli, bacteriophage, Enterococci and aerobic spores). EPA 

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

b. Summary of Major Comments 

Commenters who expressed an 

opinion about the proposed UCMR 3 

analytes were generally supportive. 

Several commenters suggested that 

cyanobacterial toxins be added to the 

list of analytes. EPA agrees that 

cyanobacterial toxins are of significant 

interest for future drinking water 

monitoring. However, EPA currently 

does not have an available drinking 

water method for analysis of 

cyanobacterial toxins. While enzymelinked immunosorbent assays (ELISA) 

and high-performance liquid 

chromatography with UV detection 

(HPLC/UV) methods have been 

published (Howard and Boyer, 2007), 

they do not provide the level of 

specificity needed for UCMR 

monitoring. The high-performance 

liquid chromatography/tandem mass 

spectrometry (HPLC/MS/MS) methods 

for cyanobacterial toxins that have been 

published (Oehrle et al., 2010), do not 

provide suitable accuracy and precision. 

EPA has conducted and will continue to 

conduct methods development research 

for cyanobacterial toxins both in-house 

and in cooperation with other 

laboratories. 

2. Hormones and Related Methods 

a. This Rule 

EPA is revising the requirement for 

monitoring of the hormones (17-bestradiol; 17-a-ethynylestradiol; estriol; 

equilin; estrone; testosterone; and, 4- 

androstene-3,17-dione), by moving the 

monitoring from Assessment Monitoring 

to the Screening Survey. 

b. Summary of Major Comments 

Three major issues concerning the 

hormones were raised by commenters. 

The first was a concern that other than 

17-a-ethynylestradiol, the hormones all 

occur naturally. Based on the low 

minimum reporting levels (MRLs) 

specified in this rule, these commenters 

were concerned that there may be issues 

with false positives due to background 

levels of these compounds from 

samplers. 

The ranges of blank results observed 

during the determination of MRLs are 

contained in Exhibit 6. In all cases the 

laboratories easily met the requirement 

that the concentration of the analytes 

observed in the blank must be less than 

one-third of the MRL. In the ‘‘worst 

case’’ the observed blank level equaled 

one-eighth the MRL. EPA is requiring 

the collection of field blank samples for 

UCMR 3 and, to minimize the potential 

issue of field blank and sample 

contamination, will provide instructions 

to both the samplers and the laboratory 

personnel to wear nitrile gloves when 

collecting or handling samples for the 

hormones. These details are specified in 

EPA’s technical manual titled: ‘‘UCMR 

3 Laboratory Approval Requirements 

and Information Document’’ (USEPA, 

2012d). 

EXHIBIT 6—OBSERVED BACKGROUND LEVELS DURING MRL DETERMINATION

Analyte UCMR MRL 

(μg/L) 

Laboratory 1 

(μg/L) 

Laboratory 2 

(μg/L) 

Laboratory 3 

(μg/L) 

17-b-estradiol ............................................ 0.0004 ................................................ ND—0.00006 ND ND—0.00005 

17-a-ethynylestradiol ................................. 0.0009 ................................................ ND—0.00007 ND—0.00008 ND—0.0002 

estriol ......................................................... 0.0008 ................................................ ND—0.00007 ND ND—0.00006 

equilin ........................................................ 0.004 .................................................. ND—0.00002 ND ND—0.0005 

estrone ...................................................... 0.002 .................................................. ND—0.0001 0.00001—0.00003 0.02—0.0002 

testosterone ............................................... 0.0001 ................................................ ND ND ND—0.00001 

4-androstene-3,17-dione ........................... 0.0003 ................................................ ND ND ND—0.000008 

ND = Not Detected. 

EPA also stipulated in the rule that it 

will evaluate the situation after six 

months of monitoring. If at that time, 

the data indicate that excessive 

resampling is occurring, EPA will 

establish alternative MRLs and will 

notify all affected PWSs and 

laboratories. 

The second issue concerned whether 

all of the proposed hormones should be 

monitored (versus a subset of them). 

There was no consensus among the 

commenters as to what the ‘‘subset’’ 

should be. Some commenters suggested 

that monitoring be limited to the five (5) 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 85 / Wednesday, May 2, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 26081 

proposed hormones that are also listed 

on the final CCL 3 (17-b-estradiol, 17-aethynylestradiol, estriol, equilin and 

estrone). EPA believes that monitoring 

for testosterone and 4-androstene-3,17- 

dione is also justified. A number of 

articles have been published that show 

the occurrence of testosterone and 4- 

androstene-3,17-dione in surface waters: 

• National Surface Water 

Reconnaissance (1999–2000): detects of 

testosterone in 2 (2.8%) of 70 samples 

at a median concentration of 0.116 mg/ 

L and a maximum concentration of 

0.214 mg/L (Kolpin et al., 2002). 

• California, Rivers, Irrigation Canals, 

and Tile Drains (2003–2005): detects of 

testosterone in 2 (18%) of 11 river 

samples at a maximum concentration of 

0.0006 mg/L; detects in 4 (27%) of 15 

irrigation canal samples at a maximum 

concentration of 0.0019 mg/L; detects in 

2 (33%) of 6 tile drain samples at a 

maximum concentration of <0.0003 mg/ 

L (Kolodziej et al., 2004). 

• California Surface Waters (2005– 

2006): detects of 4-androstene-3,17- 

dione in 16 (18%) of 89 grazing 

rangeland surface water samples at a 

maximum concentration of 0.044 mg/L 

(Kolodziej and Sedlak, 2007). 

In addition, testosterone and 4- 

androstene-3,17-dione have been shown 

to be relatively resistant to oxidation 

(Mash et al., 2010). 

The third issue concerned the 

potential for insufficient laboratory 

capacity for the monitoring of 

hormones. Since EPA has moved the 

hormone monitoring requirement from 

Assessment Monitoring (List 1) to 

Screening Survey (List 2), this will 

substantially reduce the number of 

PWSs required to monitor for hormones 

and mitigate any concerns regarding 

laboratory capacity. 

3. Metals, Chlorate, and Related 

Methods 

a. This Rule 

This rule requires that samples for the 

metals—chromium-6, total chromium, 

cobalt, molybdenum, strontium, and 

vanadium—as well as chlorate, be 

collected at one distribution system 

sampling point per treatment plant (i.e., 

at the DSMRT) in addition to sampling 

at the EPTDS. DSMRT samples must be 

collected at a location that represents 

the maximum residence time in the 

distribution system (§§ 141.40(a)(3) 

Table 1, footnote c and 

141.40(a)(4)(i)(C)). (As noted in Section 

III.C.2.a of this preamble, EPA clarified 

the DSMRT specifications and deleted 

the direct DSMRT reference under the 

Stage 1 Disinfection Byproducts Rule at 

§ 141.132(b)(1)(i).) 

EPA is requiring that chlorate samples 

be collected at both the EPTDS and 

DSMRT locations to permit the agency 

to evaluate if chlorate occurs as an 

oxyhalide disinfection by-product. 

b. Summary of Major Comments 

Eight (8) commenters suggested that 

further justification was needed to 

support monitoring cobalt, 

molybdenum, strontium, and vanadium 

at the DSMRT. Three commenters also 

made similar comments regarding 

chlorate. Research indicates that 

vanadium can become incorporated in 

the corrosion products in iron pipes 

used for drinking water distribution. As 

a result, vanadium may be released via 

dissolution and/or erosion of the 

mineral deposits that form inside many 

iron distribution pipes. Gerke et al., 

(2010) cite research that indicates that 

relatively minor scouring of these 

deposits can result in water 

concentrations of vanadium in excess of 

15 mg/L. Similar findings were 

published by the Water Research 

Foundation (Friedman et al., 2009). The 

authors reported vanadium in scaling 

from several different distribution 

systems. As a reference point, the 

Agency for Toxic Substances and 

Disease Registry (ATSDR) has 

established an Interim Minimal Risk 

Level of 0.003 mg/kg/day; a 70 kg adult 

drinking two liters of water per day 

would exceed the RfD through water 

consumption alone if the concentration 

in the water was greater than 21 mg/L 

(ATSDR, 2009). 

Molybdenum has been identified as 

being among the heavy metals that can 

be mobilized from reservoir sediments 

containing iron and aluminum oxides 

and hydroxides. Fluctuations in pH of 

approximately 0.2 pH units were 

sufficient to considerably affect the 

release of previously adsorbed 

molybdenum (Friedman et al., 2009). 

Although such findings for cobalt and 

strontium are not available in the 

scientific literature, these two elements 

commonly occur in drinking water. As 

a result, EPA believes that incorporation 

of cobalt and/or strontium into pipe 

deposits within a distribution system 

could result in mobilization of these 

metals into drinking water within the 

distribution system via dissolution and/ 

or erosion. Strontium has been found in 

greatest amounts in calcium-rich 

minerals and sediments due to 

similarities in atomic radii (Fairbridge, 

1972). In addition, Friedman et al., 

(2009) report calcium to be the fourth 

most concentrated element found in 

pipe deposit samples. Thus, erosion 

and/or dissolution of pipe deposits 

within the distribution system may 

affect human exposure levels for cobalt, 

molybdenum, strontium, and vanadium. 

The presence of residual disinfectant 

in the distribution system may result in 

increases in chlorate concentrations at 

the DSMRT relative to the EPTDS. The 

following studies on chlorate formation 

have linked its presence in treated 

drinking water to the use of several 

disinfection processes: 

• The generation of chlorine dioxide 

from chlorite and free chlorine (Gordon 

et al., 1990; Bolyard et al., 1993; 

Gallagher et al., 1994); 

• The generation of chlorine dioxide 

from chlorite and hypochlorite 

(Gallagher et al., 1994); 

• Chlorine dioxide oxidation by 

residual free chlorine (Gordon and 

Tachiyashiki, 1991; Bolyard et al., 

1993); 

• Transition metal-catalyzed free 

chlorine decomposition during 

disinfection (Gordon et al., 1995); 

• Base-catalyzed disproportionation 

of chlorine dioxide (USEPA, 1999a; 

Gallagher et al., 1994); 

• Photodecomposition of chlorine 

dioxide (Rice and Gomez-Taylor, 1986; 

Bolyard et al., 1993; Gallagher et al., 

1994; Bergmann and Koparal, 2005); 

• Use of chlorate-contaminated 

hypochlorite solutions—chlorate can 

come from either the impurity of the 

original stock solution or decomposition 

during storage (Bolyard et al., 1992; 

Bolyard et al., 1993; Gordon et al., 1993; 

Gordon et al., 1995; Gordon et al., 1997; 

USEPA, 1999a; WHO, 2005; Snyder et 

al., 2009; Stanford et al., 2011); 

• Use of ozone with residual chlorine 

(Siddiqui, 1996; von Gunten, 2003); and 

• Use of electrochemical disinfection 

processes (Czarnetzki and Janssen, 1992; 

Bergmann and Koparal, 2005). 

4. Chromium-6 and Total Chromium, 

and Related Methods 

a. This Rule 

While EPA did not include 

chromium-6 in the proposed list of 

chemicals for UCMR 3 monitoring, EPA 

did request comment on whether the 

agency should include it in the final 

rule due to the concerns about its 

potential occurrence in public water 

supplies. EPA also requested comments 

on whether total chromium should be 

measured concurrent with chromium-6. 

Commenters strongly supported 

requiring monitoring for both 

chromium-6 and total chromium. 

EPA agrees with these commenters 

and has added chromium-6 to the list of 

unregulated contaminants to be 

monitored. EPA is also requiring PWSs 

to monitor for total chromium 

concurrent with all chromium-6 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

26082 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 85 / Wednesday, May 2, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

monitoring. EPA completed the 

development and validation of a revised 

analytical method for the determination 

of chromium-6 in drinking water, EPA 

Method 218.7: Determination of 

Hexavalent Chromium in Drinking 

Water by Ion Chromatography with 

Post-Column Derivatization and UVVisible Spectroscopic Detection. This 

revised method has been extensively 

studied both within EPA and ion 

chromatography manufacturers’ 

laboratories as well as through external 

laboratory validation (USEPA, 2011b). 

EPA is using the authority provided 

in SDWA Section 1445(a)(1)(A) to 

require monitoring for total chromium 

in conjunction with the UCMR 3 

monitoring of chromium-6. EPA has 

removed sec-butylbenzene and npropylbenzene from UCMR 3. More 

specifically, the agency has removed 

sec-butylbenzene and n-propylbenzene 

from the UCMR 3 Assessment 

Monitoring list. 

b. Summary of Major Comments 

EPA received 30 comments regarding 

the inclusion of chromium-6 in UCMR 

3. Twenty-eight of the 30 commenters 

supported inclusion. The other two 

suggested that a health risk from 

drinking water exposure had not been 

conclusively established, that regional 

levels of total chromium in drinking 

water are very low and that speciation 

would not be beneficial. The agency 

believes that the ongoing studies of 

chromium-6 toxicity warrant UCMR 

monitoring at this time. EPA believes 

that collecting national occurrence data 

will provide beneficial information to 

the agency regarding how best to protect 

human health. EPA’s second Six-Year 

Review of National Primary Drinking 

Water Regulations (USEPA, 2010d) 

indicated that the levels of total 

chromium warrant further investigation 

of chromium-6 occurrence. Chromium 

can enter the environment from both 

natural and industrial sources; thus the 

distribution of both total chromium and 

chromium-6 may vary based on regional 

geology and regional industrial activity. 

Part of the goal of UCMR is to assess the 

national distribution of the 

contaminants selected. 

Commenters who supported the 

inclusion of chromium-6 cited two 

primary reasons for its inclusion in 

UCMR 3: 

• Generating national occurrence data 

in UCMR 3 will avoid potential delays 

in any possible regulatory action; 

• Monitoring for both total chromium 

and chromium-6 may allow for 

determining a relationship between the 

two species, allowing for possible use of 

total chromium monitoring, which is 

less costly and has better holding time 

requirements, as a surrogate for 

chromium-6 monitoring. 

While generally supporting 

chromium-6 monitoring in UCMR 3, 

some commenters expressed concern 

about the current analytical method. 

The concerns included procedural 

issues (e.g., field filtration, preservation 

and holding time compliance), 

interferences concerns (e.g., sensitivity 

and species interconversion prior to 

sample analysis), the need for roundrobin testing of the method laboratory 

capacity, and the need to determine a 

lowest concentration minimum 

reporting level (LCMRL) and MRL for 

chromium-6. Extensive research by 

EPA, with support from instrument 

manufacturers and commercial 

laboratories, addressed the issues of 

interferences, sensitivity and analyte 

preservation. EPA Method 218.7 has 

undergone peer review, and multilaboratory LCMRL and MRL 

determinations have been completed 

(USEPA, 2011b; USEPA, 2006). 

Because UCMR is limited by statute to 

30 unregulated contaminants, 

commenters offered a variety of 

suggestions for which analyte to remove 

to accommodate chromium-6. 

Suggestions included dropping one of 

the metals, hormones, PFCs, or VOCs. 

Other suggestions included removing 

‘‘the contaminant with the least chance 

of being detected during monitoring.’’ 

EPA selected sec-butylbenzene and npropylbenzene, non-carcinogenic VOCs, 

for removal after considering data 

submitted by States that indicated very 

low occurrence rates. EPA also 

considered the fact that the currently 

available health reference levels, 10.3 

mg/L and 5.83 mg/L, respectively, are 

well above the reported levels of 

occurrence in these data (USEPA, 

2012c). 

5. Viruses and Related Methods 

a. This Rule 

EPA is finalizing the requirement for 

monitoring of the viruses as proposed. 

This rule requires monitoring for 

enterovirus and norovirus in UCMR 3 

via Pre-Screen Testing of selected 

undisinfected ground water systems 

located in karst or fractured bedrock. 

The monitoring will include 800 PWSs 

serving 1,000 or fewer customers, 

including CWSs, and non-transient and 

transient non-community water 

systems. Monitoring will also include 

sampling for pathogen indicators (i.e., 

total coliforms, E. coli, bacteriophage, 

Enterococci and aerobic spores). This 

monitoring will obtain information 

concerning the occurrence of 

enterovirus and norovirus for further 

evaluation and provide EPA with a 

better understanding of the cooccurrence of pathogen indicators and 

viruses. 

Enteroviruses will be monitored using 

one method that has two detection 

assays. The first is a cell culture assay 

also used in the Information Collection 

Rule survey conducted by EPA (61 FR 

24353, May 14, 1996 (USEPA, 1996)), 

with one change; the Virosorb 1–MDS 

filter will be replaced by the 

NanoCeram® filter, which will 

significantly reduce sampling cost. The 

NanoCeram® filter has proven to be as 

effective as Virosorb 1–MDS filter for 

the recovery of enteroviruses (Karim et 

al., 2009) and noroviruses (Gibbons et 

al., 2010). The second assay is 

quantitative polymerase chain reaction 

(qPCR) based, and detects the viral 

nucleic acid. Noroviruses will only be 

monitored using qPCR, as there is no 

cell culture method available. 

Both norovirus and enterovirus qPCR 

will be performed per the protocol in 

Lambertini et al., (2008). The qPCR 

primers and probe for genogroup I 

norovirus will be as referenced in 

Jothikumar et al., (2005), while 

genogroup II Norovirus primers and 

probe will be as referenced in Ando et 

al., (1995). Primers and probe 

referenced in De Leon et al., (1990) and 

Monpoeho et al., (2000) will be used for 

enterovirus qPCR. 

b. Summary of Major Comments 

Several commenters expressed 

concern about using Method 1615 for 

monitoring viruses because it has not 

undergone multi-laboratory validation. 

EPA notes, however, that individual 

elements of the method have been used 

by many researchers worldwide, and the 

culture assay is, with the exception of 

a new filter, identical to the Information 

Collection Rule validated method (FR 

24353, May 14, 1996 (USEPA, 1996)). 

The complete method is published and 

has undergone thorough peer review as 

per protocols established by EPA’s 

National Exposure Research Laboratory 

and consistent with ‘‘The Handbook for 

Preparing ORD Reports’’ (USEPA, 1995). 

The method has undergone validation at 

EPA’s laboratory, has built in quality 

controls for PCR inhibition and has 

positive and negative controls to 

identify false negative and positive 

assays. Results from the analysis of 

initial and ongoing positive and 

negative proficiency testing (PT) 

samples will ensure the ability of 

analysts to perform the method. 

Several commenters questioned EPA’s 

use of Borchardt’s (2008) data as the 

basis for including viruses in UCMR 3, 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 85 / Wednesday, May 2, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 26083 

since that work has not been published 

or undergone peer review. In his study, 

Borchardt sampled wells from 14 

communities in Wisconsin for the 

presence of enteroviruses and 

noroviruses. The initial enteric virus 

RT-qPCR assay results are published in 

a peer reviewed journal (Hunt et al., 

2010). Borchardt’s work showed a 

statistically significant correlation 

between viral qPCR and self-reported 

AGI (acute gastrointestinal illness) in 

the population served. Borchardt’s work 

is also one of the very few studies to 

assess presence of enteric viruses in 

undisinfected ground water systems. 

EPA expects that complete results from 

Borchardt’s work will be published in a 

peer reviewed journal in the near future. 

The study results have also been 

presented at numerous scientific 

conferences as well as in testimony to 

the Wisconsin State Senate. A project 

advisory committee comprised of 

epidemiologists from the University of 

California, Berkeley, Michigan State 

University and the University of 

Washington provided additional peer 

review comments during the study 

planning and data analysis stages. 

A few commenters expressed 

concerns as to whether a survey of 800 

undisinfected ground water systems in 

a sensitive hydrogeology would be 

nationally representative, noting that 

only specific geologic regions within the 

country would be included in the 

survey. While EPA acknowledges that 

the 800 undisinfected ground water 

systems are only a small subset of the 

total number of systems in the country, 

the selection of 800 PWSs was 

statistically derived to be nationally 

representative of those with sensitive 

hydrogeology. 

EPA also received comments 

regarding how the agency would use 

data obtained from a focused and 

limited occurrence survey, at highly 

vulnerable and susceptible systems, to 

provide meaningful data to judge 

nationwide occurrence and to support 

regulatory determination. EPA notes 

that results will provide an 

understanding of the exposure risks in 

populations potentially served by a 

large number of undisinfected systems 

in karst aquifers nationally. Lastly, some 

comments addressed the current 

information on virus-indicator 

correlation, suggesting that the 

correlations are weak. EPA notes that 

most virus-indicator correlation studies 

have been performed in disinfected 

systems, not undisinfected ground water 

systems. EPA also notes that the use of 

multiple indicators in looking at the 

correlation will make this monitoring 

more useful. 

6. Perfluorinated Compounds and 

Related Methods 

a. This Rule 

EPA is finalizing the requirement for 

monitoring the perfluorinated 

compounds (PFCs) as proposed: PFOS, 

PFOA, PFNA, PFHxS, PFHpA, and 

PFBS. 

b. Summary of Major Comments 

EPA received public comments 

related to several issues with EPA 

Method 537, used to measure PFCs. 

These included: The potential for 

laboratory contamination; concerns that 

the MRLs developed for the PFCs may 

be too low or too high; and concerns 

about the media used to extract the 

contaminants. EPA successfully tested 

this method via a multi-laboratory 

validation and conducted a thorough 

peer-review process prior to the UCMR 

3 proposal. Since then, the method has 

also been effectively used at additional 

laboratories. Contamination was not an 

issue at these laboratories, and they 

were able to meet the proposed MRLs. 

While particular laboratories may be 

able to meet MRLs lower than those 

proposed, the selected MRLs reflect 

those achievable by the national array of 

laboratories that support the program. 

Regarding the extraction media, the 

method relies on a very common 

sorbent (styrene divinylbenzene) that is 

available from a number of vendors and 

yields high-quality data. 

E. How are laboratories approved for 

UCMR 3 monitoring? 

1. This Rule 

All laboratories conducting analyses 

for UCMR 3 List 1 and List 2 

contaminants must receive EPA 

approval to perform those analyses. 

Laboratories seeking approval are 

required to provide EPA with data that 

demonstrate their successful completion 

of an initial demonstration of capability 

(IDC) as outlined in each method, verify 

successful method performance at the 

MRLs as specified in this action, and 

successfully participate in an EPA 

Proficiency Testing (PT) program for the 

analytes of interest. On-site audits of 

candidate laboratories may be 

conducted. Details of the EPA laboratory 

approval program are contained in the 

technical manual titled: ‘‘UCMR 3 

Laboratory Approval Requirements and 

Information Document’’ (USEPA, 

2012d). This document will be available 

on the electronic docket at 

www.regulations.gov and will be 

provided to laboratories that register for 

the laboratory approval program. In 

addition, EPA may supply analytical 

reference standards of known 

concentrations for select analytes to 

participating/approved laboratories, 

where such standards are not readily 

available through commercial sources. 

Pre-Screen Testing (List 3) analyses 

for viruses and related pathogen 

indicators (i.e., total coliforms, E. coli, 

bacteriophage, Enterococci, and aerobic 

spores) are organized and paid for by 

EPA through direct contracts with 

microbial laboratories. These 

laboratories are not required to go 

through the same formal laboratory 

approval process as the Assessment 

Monitoring and Screening Survey 

laboratories; however, they are subject 

to an analogous laboratory approval 

process as part of their direct contracts 

with EPA. 

a. Laboratory Approval Process for 

UCMR 3 

The UCMR 3 laboratory approval 

program is similar to the approval 

program under UCMR 1 and 2. It is 

designed to assess and confirm the 

capability of laboratories to perform 

analyses using the methods listed in 

§ 141.40(a)(3), Table 1, of this final rule. 

It will assess whether laboratories meet 

the required equipment, laboratory 

performance and data reporting criteria 

described in this action. This evaluation 

program is voluntary in that it only 

applies to laboratories intending to 

analyze UCMR 3 samples. However, 

EPA requires water systems to use 

UCMR 3 approved laboratories when 

conducting monitoring for those 

analytes listed in Table 1 of 

§ 141.40(a)(3) of this final rule. A list of 

laboratories approved for UCMR 3 

monitoring is posted to EPA’s UCMR 

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

rulesregs/sdwa/ucmr/ucmr3/ 

laboratories.cfm. Laboratories are 

encouraged to apply for UCMR 3 

approvals as early as possible, as 

schedules for large PWS sampling will 

be completed soon after the final rule is 

promulgated. The steps for the 

laboratory approval process are listed in 

the following paragraphs, b through f. 

b. Request To Participate 

Laboratories must contact EPA and 

request to participate in the UCMR 3 

laboratory approval program. 

Laboratories must send their request to: 

UCMR 3 Laboratory Approval 

Coordinator, USEPA, Technical Support 

Center, 26 West Martin Luther King 

Drive (MS 140), Cincinnati, OH 45268; 

or email at: 

UCMR_Sampling_Coordinator@epa.gov. 

EPA began accepting requests for 

registration for the List 1 (Assessment 

Monitoring) and List 2 (Screening 

Survey) methods on March 03, 2011. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

26084 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 85 / Wednesday, May 2, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

The final opportunity for a laboratory to 

request the necessary registration forms 

is August 1, 2012. 

c. Registration 

Each laboratory that wishes to 

participate in UCMR 3 monitoring must 

complete a registration form. 

Registration information includes the 

following: laboratory name, mailing 

address, shipping address, contact 

name, phone number, email address and 

a list of the UCMR 3 methods for which 

the laboratory is seeking approval. The 

registration step provides EPA with the 

necessary contact information and 

ensures that each laboratory receives a 

customized application package of 

materials and instructions for the 

methods that it plans to use. 

d. Application Package 

When EPA receives the registration 

information, a customized application 

package will be emailed to the 

laboratory for completion. Information 

requested in the application includes 

the following: IDC data, including 

precision, accuracy and results of MRL 

studies; information regarding analytical 

equipment; proof of current drinking 

water laboratory certification (for any 

currently regulated chemical); and 

example chromatograms for each 

method under review. 

The laboratory must post UCMR 3 

monitoring results (on behalf of its PWS 

clients) to EPA’s UCMR electronic data 

reporting system as a condition of 

maintaining EPA approval. 

e. EPA Review of Application Package 

EPA will review the application 

package and, if necessary, request 

follow-up information. The laboratory 

must satisfactorily complete this portion 

of the process before they can 

participate in the UCMR 3 PT program. 

f. Proficiency Testing (PT) 

A PT sample is a synthetic sample 

containing a concentration of an analyte 

that is known to EPA, but unknown to 

the laboratory being tested. To complete 

the initial laboratory approval process, a 

laboratory must meet specific 

acceptance criteria for the analysis of a 

UCMR 3 PT sample(s) for each method 

for which the laboratory is seeking 

approval. Initial laboratory approval is 

contingent upon successful completion 

of a PT study. EPA will offer two to four 

opportunities for a laboratory to 

successfully analyze UCMR 3 PT 

samples. Two of these studies were 

conducted prior to the publication of 

this final rule and at least one study will 

be conducted after publication of the 

final rule. Under this approach 

laboratories could complete their 

portion of the laboratory approval 

process prior to publication of this final 

rule, and therefore receive their 

approval immediately following the 

publication of this final rule. 

Alternatively, laboratories could wait 

until this final rule is published before 

completing the required laboratory 

approval analyses. A laboratory must 

pass one of the PT studies for each 

analytical method for which they are 

requesting approval. Laboratories 

applying for UCMR 3 approval and 

laboratories conducting UCMR 3 

analyses may be subject to on-site 

laboratory audits. No PT studies will be 

conducted after the start of monitoring; 

however, laboratory audits will be 

ongoing throughout the entire 

monitoring period of 2013–2015. 

Continued laboratory approval is 

contingent upon successful 

participation in any audits conducted 

by EPA. 

g. Written EPA Approval 

After laboratories successfully 

complete steps ‘‘b’’ through ‘‘f’’ of the 

laboratory approval process, EPA will 

send the laboratory a letter listing the 

method(s) for which approval is 

granted. 

2. Summary of Major Comments 

Three (3) commenters suggested that 

EPA modify the requirements for PT 

samples in UCMR 3 by including a 

round of PT samples during the UCMR 

3 monitoring period in addition to the 

initial round of PT samples conducted 

prior to monitoring. Instead of requiring 

laboratories to conduct ongoing PT 

samples, EPA will conduct ongoing 

laboratory audits similar to the process 

under UCMR 2. Ongoing laboratory 

audits will allow EPA to evaluate each 

laboratory’s analytical processes for all 

aspects of sample receipt, storage, 

processing, analysis and reporting of 

routine samples. This will provide a 

better mechanism, compared to an 

additional PT study, for uncovering any 

potential data issues and ensuring that 

laboratories meet the quality 

requirements. 

F. How were minimum reporting levels 

determined? 

1. This Rule 

Lowest Concentration Minimum 

Reporting Levels (LCMRLs) and 

Minimum Reporting Levels (MRLs) for 

each analyte were determined through 

an EPA LCMRL study assessing the data 

from multiple laboratories prior to 

publication of the UCMR 3 proposal. 

The LCMRL is defined as the lowest 

spiking concentration at which recovery 

of between 50 and 150% is expected 

99% of the time by a single analyst. 

The LCMRL is estimated using 

advanced statistical procedures that 

have been incorporated into an LCMRL 

calculator tool that is available on EPA’s 

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

drinkingwater/labcert/ 

analyticalmethods_ogwdw.cfm). The 

tool estimates a probability distribution 

for spike recovery as a function of 

spiking concentration. 

MRL 

EPA revised the definition of the MRL 

used in UCMR 2 (72 FR 367, January 4, 

2007 (USEPA, 2007)). The revised 

definition reflects improvements in the 

statistical procedures for determining 

the LCMRL and MRL. These 

improvements were implemented by 

EPA to make the models more robust, 

i.e., so that the models can 

accommodate a wider range of observed 

LCMRL data sets (USEPA, 2010f). The 

MRL for an analyte measured by a 

specified analytical method is designed 

to be an estimate of an LCMRL that is 

achievable, with 95% confidence, by a 

capable analyst/laboratory at least 75% 

of the time. Such a demonstration of 

ability to reliably make quality 

measurements at the MRL is intended to 

achieve high quality measurements 

across the nation’s laboratories. 

In UCMR 3, EPA estimated the MRL 

for an analyte/method by obtaining data 

from several laboratories performing 

corresponding LCMRL studies. These 

data were used to construct an 

approximation to the distribution that 

would result from picking at random a 

laboratory/analyst proficient in 

performing the analytical method and 

having them perform an LCMRL study 

and compute an LCMRL estimate. The 

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

distribution for repeated LCMRL 

determinations by the same laboratory/ 

analyst is estimated by generating a 

large number of simulated values. 

Second, these values are combined to 

create an estimated overall distribution. 

If a result from one of the laboratories 

is significantly higher than that of other 

laboratories, this value would be downweighted using a robust weight 

function. The resulting weighted values 

are used to construct a probability 

distribution from which the MRL is 

computed as the 95th percentile. 

2. Summary of Major Comments 

Several commenters remarked on the 

complexity of the procedures for 

determining the LCMRL and the MRL. 

These commenters were concerned 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 85 / Wednesday, May 2, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 26085 

about the amount of time and effort 

needed to calculate LCMRLs and MRLs. 

Some suggested that as an alternative, 

EPA use the procedure developed for 

consideration by the Clean Water Act as 

part of the Federal Advisory Committee 

on Detection and Quantitation. As a 

point of clarification, EPA notes that 

laboratories that participate in UCMR 3 

do not need to use the LCMRL and MRL 

procedures. Instead, laboratories that 

participate in UCMR 3 will be required 

to demonstrate their ability to meet the 

already-established UCMR 3 analyte 

MRLs by analyzing reagent water 

samples spiked at or below the 

established UCMR 3 MRLs. This initial 

demonstration of capability (IDC) 

requirement, as described in EPA’s 

‘‘UCMR 3 Laboratory Approval 

Requirements and Information 

Document,’’ is no more complex than 

determining a Method Detection Limit 

(MDL) (USEPA, 2012d). 

A diverse selection of laboratories 

representing different sizes, experience 

and business status were selected to 

participate in the EPA LCMRL studies 

(as described previously in this section). 

For transparency, EPA will provide 

summary tables showing all LCMRL 

results for UCMR 3 in the docket 

(USEPA, 2012d). 

With regard to comments that the 

MRLs are being set well below health 

reference levels (HRLs) in certain cases, 

EPA believes that this is appropriate 

because new health effects data may 

become available in the future that 

result in lower HRLs. 

G. What are the UCMR 3 reporting 

requirements? 

1. General Reporting Requirements/ 

SDWARS 

a. This Rule 

Under this rule, EPA is committed to 

pre-populating the inventory and 

monitoring data in the reporting system 

(Safe Drinking Water Accession and 

Review System (SDWARS)), using data 

from UCMR 2 and SDWIS/Fed 

information. For PWSs subject to UCMR 

3 that have data in SDWARS from 

UCMR 2, EPA will transfer data to 

‘‘SDWARS 3’’ (i.e., the SDWARS update 

associated with UCMR 3). For water 

systems that are new to UCMR, EPA 

will pull the available information from 

SDWIS/Fed and coordinate with States 

and EPA Regions for their input where 

possible. EPA has loaded the available 

information into SDWARS 3 prior to the 

publication of this final rule. PWSs will 

have until October 1, 2012, to update, 

edit, or change their information or 

monitoring schedule in SDWARS 3 (see 

Section III.G.4 for further discussion of 

reporting deadlines). 

b. Summary of Major Comments 

Several commenters expressed 

concern over possible inefficiencies 

related to data entry into SDWARS, 

including concern over duplication of 

past efforts (e.g., having to re-enter 

information for each sample point for 

each sampling event) and time spent 

identifying representative sampling 

locations at both the EPTDS and 

DSMRT for UCMR 2. Commenters 

further noted it would be very helpful 

if elements that are duplicated for each 

sample would be automatically prefilled in each field once the information 

was entered the first time. As noted, for 

UCMR 3, EPA plans to preload as much 

inventory to SDWARS as possible and is 

taking commenter suggestions into 

consideration in its design updates to 

SDWARS. The pre-loaded data will 

include representative sampling 

locations previously identified as the 

EPTDS and DSMRT locations. PWSs 

will be asked to verify their inventory in 

SDWARS and large systems may be 

required to revise this information once 

their ground water representative 

monitoring plan has been approved, 

depending on the level of their State’s 

involvement. See Section III.G.4 for 

discussion of reporting deadlines. 

2. Sample Location and Inventory 

Information (Zip Codes) 

a. This Rule 

This final rule establishes a 

requirement for reporting zip codes 

associated with all PWS customers. EPA 

had proposed the reporting of sampling 

point U.S. Postal Service Zip Codes and 

the zip codes of all customers served by 

a given sampling point (as part of the 

reporting associated with Data Element 

4—Sampling Point Identification Code). 

Obtaining the zip code of the sampling 

point was intended to assist with future 

vulnerability assessments. Zip codes 

that tie populations served to each 

sampling point were intended to assist 

with future occurrence and exposure 

analyses. However, based on 

stakeholder concerns about the burden 

associated with reporting this 

information and concerns about the 

usefulness of having the zip code of the 

sampling point, EPA revised the rule 

language to establish a requirement of 

only reporting zip codes for customers 

served by the PWS. These reporting 

specifications are now established in 

§§ 141.35(c)(1) and (d)(1) for large and 

small systems, respectively. EPA 

believes that required reporting of 

customer zip codes will provide EPA 

with useful information for future 

occurrence analyses. 

b. Summary of Major Comments 

Eight (8) comments were received 

regarding the proposed zip code 

reporting requirements. Most 

commenters believed that reporting the 

zip code for each sampling point 

location would not provide EPA with 

the information necessary to make 

future correlations between water 

quality and the areas served by the 

water being distributed. After 

considering public comments, EPA has 

revised the reporting requirement to 

only include the zip codes served by the 

PWS. 

3. Disinfectant Type Specifications 

a. This Rule 

EPA is changing Data Element 6, in 

Table 1 of 141.35(e). Under UCMR 2, 

this data element was established to 

provide information on ‘‘Disinfectant 

Residual Type’’ as it related to 

monitoring for nitrosamines (part of 

UCMR 2 Screening Survey monitoring). 

EPA is modifying the definition of this 

data element to account for changes to 

the analyte and monitoring 

specifications between UCMR 2 and 

UCMR 3. This revised definition lists 

additional disinfectant types to provide 

more specific information on the 

sources and types of disinfectant 

schemes that may lead to chlorate 

formation/occurrence in drinking water. 

b. Summary of Major Comments 

While commenters were supportive of 

the collection of these data, several 

commenters noted that the requirement 

for reporting this data element was 

unclear. Some commenters noted that 

PWSs frequently use multiple 

disinfectants and reporting only one of 

those would provide an inaccurate 

assessment of disinfectants being used. 

Others noted that EPA needed to make 

sure that PWSs indicate whether their 

hypochlorite solution was generated on 

or off site (onsite: Essentially no storage 

of stock solution will be needed; offsite: 

The storage of stock solution will be 

needed). 

EPA agrees that the presentation of 

the requirements warranted clarification 

and has revised the list of disinfectants. 

EPA will clearly indicate in the data 

reporting system (SDWARS) that PWSs 

should identify all of the disinfectants 

used to treat the water. 

4. Reporting Schedule 

a. This Rule 

To help ensure that monitoring and 

reporting are conducted as scheduled, 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

26086 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 85 / Wednesday, May 2, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

UCMR 3 specifies several deadlines 

related to initial reporting of inventory 

and scheduling information, as well as 

reporting of monitoring data. Several 

deadlines were newly proposed for 

UCMR 3 (i.e., not used for UCMR 1 or 

UCMR 2) and finalized in this rule, and 

some are revised in this final rule to 

ensure that UCMR 3 is implemented as 

scheduled. These deadlines are being 

established to allow EPA enough time to 

review and process the information, and 

complete the planning process for 

UCMR 3 monitoring to begin on January 

1, 2013. Changes in deadlines only 

affect large systems. There are no 

changes to small system reporting 

schedules. The schedule changes that 

are finalized in this rule include: 

• Inventory and Scheduling: Large 

systems that are subject to UCMR 3 

must report their inventory and 

sampling location information 

(141.35(c)(2)), and any proposed 

changes to their monitoring schedule 

(141.35(c)(5)(i) and 141.40(a)(4)(i)) no 

later than October 1, 2012. As noted, 

EPA has loaded existing information 

into SDWARS 3 prior to the publication 

of this final rule. PWSs will have until 

October 1, 2012, to update, edit or 

change their inventory and sample 

location information or monitoring 

schedule in SDWARS 3. 

• Ground water representative 

monitoring plans: As described in 

141.35(c)(3), large systems that use 

ground water sources and that have 

multiple EPTDSs can, with prior 

approval, conduct monitoring at 

representative sampling locations rather 

than at each EPTDS. For systems that 

have existing approved representative 

monitoring plans, their approved 

sampling location information will be 

pre-loaded into SDWARS and systems 

must review and confirm, or update this 

information by October 1, 2012. This 

rule establishes a deadline of August 1, 

2012, for submitting a new ground water 

representative plan to be reviewed by 

the State or EPA. 

• Monitoring data: This rule reestablishes two deadlines related to 

reporting of monitoring data: Large 

systems must require their laboratories 

to post data to SDWARS within 120 

days of sample collection; and large 

systems must review, approve and 

submit the data to their State and EPA 

within 60 days of when the laboratory 

posts the data. These time frames are 

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

141.40(a)(5)(vi). 

b. Summary of Major Comments 

Five (5) comments were received on 

the reduced laboratory reporting time 

frame. Most commenters did not 

support the 60-day proposed time frame 

for laboratories to post data to SDWARS 

and expressed several concerns: that 

laboratories may see increased workload 

due to additional monitoring; that 

UCMR 3 methods are not in common 

use and are very sensitive, so greater 

validation of results may be required; 

and that field blank analysis may be 

required for some methods, resulting in 

longer turnaround times for sampling 

results. Commenters did not believe that 

the reduced reporting time frame would 

increase compliance with monitoring 

schedules. Seven comments were also 

received regarding the 30-day proposed 

time frame for large PWSs to review and 

approve their data. The majority of the 

commenters requested the time frame be 

returned to the 60-day period used 

under UCMR 1 and 2. Commenters 

believe the shortened time frame would 

not give PWSs sufficient time to 

conduct a full data review and that 

schedule coordination among multiple 

staff would be difficult. After 

considering the public comments, EPA 

returned the laboratory reporting time 

frame to 120 days after sample 

collection (same as earlier UCMRs) and 

returned the PWS reporting time frame 

to 60 days after laboratory posting data 

(same as earlier UCMRs). 

IV. State and Tribal Participation 

A. Partnership Agreements 

1. This Rule 

Under UCMR 3, States may continue 

to have a role in rule implementation 

through Partnership Agreements (PAs). 

Because specific activities for individual 

States are identified and established 

through the PAs, not through rule 

language, this rule does not contain 

reference to PAs. 

2. Summary of Major Comments 

EPA received no comments regarding 

State participation in UCMR 3. 

B. Governors’ Petition and State-Wide 

Waivers 

1. This Rule 

This rule retains the UCMR 1 and 2 

language that, consistent with SDWA, 

allows a minimum of seven State 

Governors to petition EPA to add 

contaminants to the UCMR Contaminant 

list. This rule also retains the UCMR 1 

and 2 language that allows States to 

waive monitoring requirements with 

EPA approval and under very limited 

conditions. 

2. Summary of Major Comments 

EPA received no comments regarding 

the governor’s petition or state-wide 

waiver allowances of UCMR 3. 

V. Cost and Benefits of This Rule 

In this rule, EPA finalizes a new set 

of contaminants for monitoring in the 

third five-year UCMR monitoring 

period. UCMR 3 also incorporates 

modifications to improve the rule 

design. UCMR 3 Assessment Monitoring 

(for List 1 contaminants) will be 

conducted from January 2013 through 

December 2015 by 800 systems serving 

10,000 or fewer people, and by all 

systems serving more than 10,000 

people. The 800 small systems will be 

randomly selected for List 1 monitoring. 

The UCMR 3 Screening Survey (for List 

2 contaminants) will be conducted from 

January 2013 through December 2015 by 

all systems serving a population of 

greater than 100,000 people, a 

nationally representative set of 320 

systems serving between 10,001 and 

100,000 people, and a nationally 

representative set of 480 systems serving 

fewer than 10,000 people. The 

nationally representative sets of 320 and 

480 systems will both be randomly 

selected for List 2 monitoring. The PreScreen Testing for List 3 contaminants 

will also be conducted from January 

2013 through December 2015 in 800 

undisinfected ground water systems 

serving 1,000 or fewer persons. No small 

system will be selected for more than 

one UCMR 3 monitoring list. 

It is assumed for this cost estimate 

that one-third of systems will monitor 

during each of the three monitoring 

years. Labor costs pertain to systems, 

States, and EPA. They include activities 

such as reading the regulation, notifying 

systems selected to participate, training 

water system staff on sample collection 

procedures, sample collection, 

including travel time to collect samples, 

data review, reporting, and record 

keeping. Non-labor costs will be 

incurred primarily by EPA and by large 

PWSs. They include the cost of shipping 

samples to laboratories for testing and 

the cost of the actual laboratory 

analyses. 

In this rule, EPA specifies seven EPAdeveloped analytical methods and four 

equivalent consensus organization 

developed methods to monitor for 27 

unregulated chemical contaminants, 

two viruses, and total chromium. While 

this preamble also describes the 

analytical methods that will be used for 

virus monitoring, the rule does not 

address these methods. Laboratory 

approval for virus monitoring is not 

addressed since all of the analyses for 

the two viruses will be conducted in 

laboratories under EPA contract and at 

EPA’s expense. Estimated system and 

EPA costs are based on the analytical 

costs for all UCMR 3 methods. With the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 85 / Wednesday, May 2, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 26087 

exception of Methods 200.8 and 300.1, 

these methods are comparatively new 

and will not coincide with other 

compliance monitoring (i.e., no cost 

savings for concurrent monitoring can 

be realized). 

Laboratory analysis and shipping of 

samples account for approximately 82% 

of the total national cost for UCMR 3 

implementation. These costs are 

calculated as follows: the number of 

systems, multiplied by the number of 

sampling locations, multiplied by the 

sampling frequency, multiplied by the 

unit cost of laboratory analysis. Under 

UCMR 3, for List 1 Assessment 

Monitoring and List 2 Screening Survey, 

surface water (and ground water under 

the direct influence of surface water 

(GWUDI)) sampling points will be 

monitored four times during the 

applicable year of monitoring, and 

ground water sample points will be 

monitored twice during the applicable 

year of monitoring. Systems will 

monitor for the metals—cobalt, 

molybdenum, vanadium, strontium, 

chromium-6, and total chromium—as 

well as chlorate, at their EPTDS 

sampling locations and at one 

distribution system sampling point per 

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

Pre-Screen Testing systems will monitor 

two times during the three year 

monitoring period (2013 through 2015) 

at their EPTDS. 

Following publication of the proposed 

rule and EPA’s initial cost and burden 

estimates, EPA received several costrelated public comments. Several 

suggested that EPA’s estimates of cost 

and burden (e.g., laboratory and 

estimated labor burden) to PWSs were 

too low. EPA estimates of laboratory 

fees are based on consultations with 

commercial drinking water laboratories 

and a review of the costs of similar 

analytical methods. In response to 

comments, EPA revisited the analytical 

method cost estimates. EPA approached 

four commercial drinking water 

laboratories and requested pricing 

estimates for UCMR 3 methods, 

including the cost of field blanks for 

methods 524.3 (VOCs), 537 (PFCs), and 

539 (hormones). EPA averaged the 

estimates from the four laboratories and 

updated the cost figures, which resulted 

in increased cost estimates for some 

methods. 

With respect to per-system burden 

estimates, EPA notes that all estimates 

represent average burden hours, which 

include surface water systems that may 

have very few sampling points, and thus 

lower sampling burden, as well as those 

systems with higher numbers of 

sampling points that would have greater 

labor burden. Moreover, a system’s 

burden is primarily incurred during its 

one year of required UCMR monitoring 

(between January 2013 and December 

2015). However, in compliance with the 

requirements of the Paperwork 

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

these cost and burden estimates are 

presented as an average over the 

applicable three-year information 

collection request (ICR) period (2012– 

2014). Small systems (those serving 

10,000 or fewer people) will have the 

lowest burden not only because they 

generally have fewer sampling 

locations, but also because these 

systems will receive substantial direct 

assistance from EPA and/or their State. 

The total cost of Assessment 

Monitoring analyses is estimated at 

$1,085 per sample set. The total cost of 

the single Screening Survey method is 

estimated at $418 per sample set. Field 

blank analyses costs are further 

described in ‘‘Information Collection 

Request for the Unregulated 

Contaminant Monitoring Regulation 

(UCMR 3)’’ (USEPA, 2012a). The cost to 

EPA of the Pre-Screen analyses for 

viruses and related pathogen indicators 

(i.e., total coliforms, E. coli, 

bacteriophage, Enterococci, and aerobic 

spores) is estimated at $1,880 per 

sample set. Shipping estimates are 

added to the calculated costs to derive 

the total direct analytical non-labor 

costs. Estimated shipping costs were 

based on the average cost of shipping a 

25-pound package. 

In preparing the UCMR 3 ICR, EPA 

relied on standard assumptions and data 

sources used in the preparation of other 

drinking water program ICRs. These 

include the PWS inventory, number of 

sampling points per system, and labor 

rates. EPA expects that States will incur 

only labor costs associated with 

voluntary assistance with UCMR 3 

implementation. State costs were 

estimated using the relevant modules of 

the State Resource Model that was 

developed by the Association of State 

Drinking Water Administrators 

(ASDWA) in conjunction with EPA 

(ASDWA, 2003) to help States forecast 

resource needs. Model estimates were 

adjusted to account for actual levels of 

State participation under UCMR. 

Because State participation is voluntary, 

level of effort will vary across States and 

depend on their individual agreements 

with EPA. 

Over the UCMR implementation 

period of 2012–2016, EPA estimates that 

nationwide, the annual cost of UCMR 3 

is approximately $17.45 million, of 

which water systems and States will pay 

approximately $13.3 million; and EPA 

will pay $4.14 million (most of which 

is associated with small system 

monitoring). These total estimated 

annual costs (labor and non-labor) are 

incurred as follows: 

Respondent 

Avg. annual cost. all 

respondents (2012– 

2016) 

Small Systems (25–10,000), including labor only, non-labor costs paid for by EPA ......................................................... $0.066 m 

Large Systems (10,001–100,000), including labor and non-labor costs ............................................................................ 9.55 m 

Very Large Systems (100,001 and greater), including labor and non-labor costs ............................................................. 2.94 m 

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

EPA, including labor for implementation, non-labor for small system testing .................................................................... 4.14 m 

Average Annual National Total 1 .................................................................................................................................. 17.45 m 

1Average Annual National Total of $17.45 million is based on rounding. 

Over the period of 2012–2016, EPA 

estimates that nationwide, the total cost 

of UCMR 3 is approximately $87 

million, of which water systems and 

States will pay approximately $66 

million and EPA will pay $21 million. 

Additional details regarding EPA’s 

cost assumptions and estimates can be 

found in the ICR amendment prepared 

for this final rule (Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) number 2040— 

NEW), which presents estimated cost 

and burden for the 2012–2014 period 

(USEPA, 2012a). Estimates of costs over 

the entire five-year UCMR 3 period of 

2012–2016 are attached as an appendix 

to the ICR. Copies of the ICR and its 

amendment may be obtained from the 

EPA public docket for this final rule 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

26088 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 85 / Wednesday, May 2, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

under Docket ID Number EPA–HQ– 

OW–2009–0090. 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993) and Executive 

Order 13563 (76 FR. 3821, January 21, 

2011, this action is a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action.’’ Accordingly, EPA 

submitted this action to the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) for 

review under Executive Orders 12866 

and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 

2011) and any changes made in 

response to OMB recommendations 

have been documented in the docket for 

this action. 

In addition, EPA prepared an analysis 

of the potential costs and benefits 

associated with this action. This 

analysis is contained in the 

‘‘Information Collection Request for the 

Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring 

Regulation (UCMR 3)’’ (USEPA, 2012a). 

A copy of the analysis is available in the 

docket for this action and the analysis 

is briefly summarized in Section V of 

the preamble of this final rule. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

The information collection 

requirements in this rule have been 

submitted for approval to the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) under 

the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 

3501 et seq. The information collection 

requirements are not enforceable until 

OMB approves them. 

The information collected under this 

final rule fulfills the statutory 

requirements of Section 1445(a)(2) of 

SDWA, as amended in 1996. The data 

collected will describe the source of the 

water, location, and test results for 

samples taken from PWSs. The 

concentrations of any identified UCMR 

contaminants will be evaluated in 

conjunction with health effects 

information and will be considered for 

future regulation accordingly. Reporting 

is mandatory. The data are not subject 

to confidentiality protection. 

The annual burden and cost estimates 

described in this section are for the 

implementation assumptions described 

in Section V. Cost and Benefits of the 

Rule. Respondents to the UCMR 3 will 

include 2,080 small water systems (800 

for Assessment Monitoring, 480 for 

Screening Survey, and 800 for PreScreen Testing), the 4,215 large PWSs 

(those serving more than 10,000 people), 

and the 56 States and Primacy agencies 

(6,351 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, it is 

assumed that systems will conduct 

sampling evenly across January 2013 

through December 2015 (i.e., one-third 

of systems in each of the 3 consecutive 

12-month periods). Because the 

applicable ICR period is 2012–2014, the 

third year of monitoring activity (i.e., 

January through December of 2015) is 

not captured in the current ICR 

estimates. 

The burden and cost estimates 

presented in this section represent 

average costs. In some cases, the costs 

are presented as an annual average. 

Average burden or cost per system was 

derived by calculating total costs, and 

dividing by the total number of systems 

expected to monitor during the ICR 

years of 2012–2014. Average annual 

burden or cost per system was derived 

by summing total costs (or burden), 

dividing by the number of systems 

expected to monitor during the ICR 

years of 2012–2014, and then dividing 

by three years. The total costs and the 

annual average costs over the ICR years 

of 2012–2014 are presented in Exhibit 7. 

Total and annual average costs for the 

entire 5-year UCMR 3 period can be 

found in the ICR for UCMR 3, available 

in the docket for this final rule. 

Small systems (those serving 10,000 

or fewer) that are selected for UCMR 3 

monitoring will sample an average of 

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

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

average burden per response for small 

systems is estimated to be 3.8 hours. 

Large systems (those serving 10,001 to 

100,000 people) and very large systems 

(those serving more than 100,000 

people) will sample and report an 

average of 2.7 and 3.7 times per system, 

respectively, across the three-year ICR 

period of 2012–2014. The average 

burden per response for large and very 

large systems is estimated to be 9.2 and 

10.2 hours, respectively. States are 

assumed to have an average of 1.0 

response per year (3.0 responses per 

State across the three-year ICR period of 

2012–2014), related to coordination 

with EPA and systems, with an average 

burden per response of 233 hours. In 

aggregate, during the ICR period of 

2012–2014, the average response (e.g., 

responses from systems and States) is 

associated with a burden of 11.6 hours, 

with a labor plus non-labor cost of 

$4,218 per response. Exhibit 7 presents 

respondent burden and cost estimates 

for the ICR period of 2012–2014. 

EXHIBIT 7—UCMR 3 PER RESPONDENT BURDEN AND COST SUMMARY FOR THE ICR PERIOD

[2012–2014] 

Burden (hours)/cost (dollars) Small systems Large systems Very large 

systems States National average 

Three-Year Total per Respondent 

Total # of Responses per Respondent ............ 1.8 2.7 3.7 3.0 2.5 

Labor Cost per Respondent ............................ $160 $775 $1,437 $41,975 $1,160 

Non-Labor Cost per Respondent ..................... $0 $11,785 $34,181 $0 $9,237 

Total Cost (Labor plus Non-Labor) .................. $160 $12,560 $35,619 $41,975 $10,397 

Total Cost per Response ................................. $89 $4,677 $9,704 $13,992 $4,218 

Total Burden per Respondent (hr) ................... 6.9 24.8 37.5 700.1 28.7 

Total Burden per Response (hr) ...................... 3.8 9.24 10.2 233.4 11.6 

Average Annual per Respondent 

Avg. # of Responses per Respondent ............ 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.0 0.8 

Labor Cost per Respondent ............................ $53 $258 $479 $13,992 $387 

Non-Labor Cost per Respondent ..................... $0 $3,928 $11,394 $0 $3,079 

Avg. Cost (Labor plus Non-Labor) ................... $53 $4,187 $11,873 $13,992 $3,466 

Avg. Cost per Response .................................. $30 $1,559 $3,235 $4,664 $1,406 

Avg. Burden per Respondent (hr) ................... 2.3 8.3 12.5 233.4 9.6 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 85 / Wednesday, May 2, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 26089 

EXHIBIT 7—UCMR 3 PER RESPONDENT BURDEN AND COST SUMMARY FOR THE ICR PERIOD—Continued 

[2012–2014] 

Burden (hours)/cost (dollars) Small systems Large systems Very large 

systems States National average 

Avg. Burden per Response (hr) ....................... 1.3 3.1 3.4 61.3 3.9 

The average per respondent burden 

hours and costs per year for the ICR 

period of 2012–2014 are: small 

systems—2.3 hour burden at $53 for 

labor; large systems—8.3 hours at $258 

for labor, and $3,928 for analytical costs; 

very large systems—12.5 hours at $479 

for labor, and $11,394 for analytical 

costs; and States—233.4 hours at 

$13,992 for labor. Burden is defined at 

5 CFR 1320.3(b). 

Exhibit 8 shows the annual and total 

national cost and burden for UCMR 3 

implementation over the ICR period of 

2012–2014. 

EXHIBIT 8—UCMR 3 ANNUAL NATIONAL COST AND BURDEN

[2012–2014] 

Cost (in millions) 2012 2013 2014 Total 

Small System Costs ......................................... $0 $0.11 $0.11 $0.22 

Large System Costs ......................................... 0 15.92 15.92 31.84 

Very Large System Costs ................................ 0 4.90 4.90 9.81 

State Costs ....................................................... 0.33 1.0 1.0 2.4 

EPA Costs ........................................................ 0.92 6.63 6.57 14.12 

Total Cost .................................................. 1.26 28.55 28.53 58.34 

Total Burden (thousands of hours) for All Responses 2012 2013 2014 Total 

Small Systems ................................................................................. 0 4.8 4.8 9.5 

Large Systems ................................................................................. 0 31.5 31.5 62.9 

Very Large Systems ........................................................................ 0 5.2 5.2 10.3 

States ............................................................................................... 13.3 13.6 12.2 39.2 

EPA .................................................................................................. 5.7 11.4 11.4 28.6 

Total Burden ............................................................................. 19.1 66.5 65.1 150.6 

An agency may not conduct or 

sponsor, and a person is not required to 

respond to, a collection of information 

unless it displays a currently valid OMB 

control number. The OMB control 

numbers for EPA’s regulations in 40 

CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. When 

this ICR is approved by OMB, the 

agency will publish a technical 

amendment to 40 CFR part 9 in the 

Federal Register to display the OMB 

control number for the approved 

information collection requirements 

contained in this final rule. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

generally requires an agency to prepare 

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any 

rule subject to notice and comment 

rulemaking requirements under the 

Administrative Procedure Act or any 

other statute unless the agency certifies 

that the rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. Small entities 

include small businesses, small 

organizations, and small governmental 

jurisdictions. 

The RFA provides default definitions 

for each type of small entity. Small 

entities are defined as: (1) A small 

business as defined by the Small 

Business Administration’s (SBA) 

regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a 

small governmental jurisdiction that is a 

government of a city, county, town, 

school district or special district with a 

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

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

owned and operated and is not 

dominant in its field.’’ However, the 

RFA also authorizes an agency to use 

alternative definitions for each category 

of small entity, ‘‘which are appropriate 

to the activities of the agency’’ after 

proposing the alternative definition(s) in 

the Federal Register and taking 

comment (5 U.S.C. 601(3)–(5)). In 

addition, to establish an alternative 

small business definition, agencies must 

consult with SBA’s Chief Counsel for 

Advocacy. 

For purposes of assessing the impacts 

of this rule on small entities, EPA 

considered small entities to be PWSs 

serving 10,000 or fewer people, because 

this is the system size specified in 

SDWA as requiring special 

consideration with respect to small 

system flexibility. As required by the 

RFA, EPA proposed using this 

alternative definition in the Federal 

Register (63 FR 7606, February 13, 1998 

(USEPA, 1998a)), requested public 

comment, consulted with the SBA, and 

finalized the alternative definition in 

the Consumer Confidence Reports 

rulemaking (63 FR 44512, August 19, 

1998 (USEPA, 1998b)). Consistent with 

that Final Rule, the alternative 

definition has been applied to this 

regulation. 

After considering the economic 

impacts of this rule on small entities, I 

certify that this action will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

The small entities directly regulated by 

this rule are PWSs serving 10,000 or 

fewer people. EPA has determined that 

the small entities subject to the 

requirements of this rule are a subset of 

the small PWSs (those serving 10,000 or 

fewer people). The agency has 

determined that 2,080 small PWSs 

(across Assessment Monitoring, 

Screening Survey, and Pre-Screen 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

26090 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 85 / Wednesday, May 2, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

Testing), or approximately 3% of small 

systems, will experience an impact of 

no more than 0.4% of revenues; the 

remainder of small systems will not be 

impacted. 

Although this final rule will not have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities, 

EPA has tried to reduce the impact of 

this rule on small entities. To ensure 

that this rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities, EPA will 

assume all costs for analyses of the 

samples and for shipping the samples 

from these systems to the laboratories 

contracted by EPA to analyze UCMR 3 

samples. EPA has set aside $2.0 million 

each year from the State Revolving Fund 

(SRF) with its authority to use SRF 

monies for the purposes of 

implementing this provision of SDWA. 

Thus, the costs to these small systems 

will be limited to the labor hours 

associated with 2,080 small systems 

assisting EPA in collecting UCMR 

samples and preparing them for 

shipping. 

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. For both publicly- and 

privately-owned systems, EPA used the 

‘‘revenue test,’’ which compares annual 

system costs attributed to the rule to the 

system’s annual revenues. Median 

revenue data from the 2006 Community 

Water System Survey Volume II: 

Detailed Tables and Survey 

Methodology (http://water.epa.gov/ 

aboutow/ogwdw/upload/ 

cwssreportvolumeII2006.pdf) were used 

for public and private water systems. 

EPA assumes that the distribution of the 

sample of participating small systems 

will reflect the proportions of publiclyand 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 9. 

EXHIBIT 9—NUMBER OF PUBLICLY- AND PRIVATELY-OWNED SMALL SYSTEMS SUBJECT TO UCMR 3 

System size 

(number of people served) Publicly-owned Privatelyowned Total 

Ground Water 

500 and under ............................................................................................................................. 134 402 536 

501 to 3,300 ................................................................................................................................. 548 208 757 

3,301 to 10,000 ............................................................................................................................ 286 66 352 

Subtotal GW ......................................................................................................................... 968 677 1,645 

Surface Water (and GWUDI) 

500 and under ............................................................................................................................. 7 9 16 

501 to 3,300 ................................................................................................................................. 98 35 133 

3,301 to 10,000 ............................................................................................................................ 222 64 286 

Subtotal SW ................................................................................................................................. 327 108 435 

Total of Small Water Systems .............................................................................................. 1,295 785 2,080 

The basis for the UCMR 3 RFA 

certification for this final rule is as 

follows: for the 2,080 small water 

systems that will be affected, the 

average annual costs for complying with 

this rule represent 0.4% of system 

revenues (the highest estimated 

percentage is for ground water systems 

serving 500 or fewer people, at 0.40% of 

its median revenue). Exhibit 10 presents 

the annual costs to small systems and to 

EPA for the small system sampling 

program, along with an illustration of 

system participation for each year of the 

UCMR 3 program. 

EXHIBIT 10—EPA AND SYSTEMS COSTS FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF UCMR 3 AT SMALL SYSTEMS

Cost description 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total 

Costs to EPA for Small System 

Program (including Assessment 

Monitoring, Screening Survey, 

and Pre-Screen Testing).

$0 $5,407,233 ........ $5,407,233 ........ $5,407,233 ........ $0 $16,221,698 

Costs to Small Systems including 

Assessment Monitoring, Screening Survey, and Pre-Screen 

Testing.

0 $110,720 ........... 110,720 ............. 110,720 ............. 0 332,160 

Total Costs to EPA and Small 

Systems for UCMR 3:.

0 $5,517,953 ........ 5,517,953 .......... 5,517,953 .......... 0 16,553,858 

System Monitoring Activity 

Timeline: 1

Assessment Monitoring .......... ........................ 1⁄3 PWSs Sample.

1⁄3 PWSs Sample.1⁄3 PWSs Sample.

........................ 800 

Screening Survey ................... ........................ 1⁄3 PWSs Sample.

1⁄3 PWSs Sample.1⁄3 PWSs Sample.

........................ 480 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 85 / Wednesday, May 2, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 26091 

EXHIBIT 10—EPA AND SYSTEMS COSTS FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF UCMR 3 AT SMALL SYSTEMS—Continued 

Cost description 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total 

Pre-Screen Testing ................ ........................ 1⁄3 PWSs Sample.

1⁄3 PWSs Sample.1⁄3 PWSs Sample.

........................ 800 

1Total number of systems is 2,080. No small system conducts more than one type of monitoring study. 

System costs are attributed to the 

labor required for reading about their 

requirements, training staff on 

requirements, monitoring, including 

travel time needed to collect samples, 

reporting, and record keeping. The 

estimated average annual burden across 

the five-year UCMR 3 implementation 

period of 2012–2016 is estimated to be 

1.4 hours at $32 per small system. 

Average annual cost, in all cases, is less 

than or equal to 0.40% of system 

revenues. As required by SDWA, the 

agency specifically structured the rule 

to avoid significantly affecting small 

entities by assuming all costs for 

laboratory analyses, shipping, and 

quality control for small entities. As a 

result, EPA incurs the entirety of the 

non-labor costs associated with UCMR 3 

small system monitoring, or 98% of 

total small system testing costs. Exhibits 

11 and 12 present the estimated 

economic impacts in the form of a 

revenue test for publicly- and privatelyowned systems. 

EXHIBIT 11—UCMR 3 RELATIVE COST ANALYSIS FOR SMALL PUBLICLY-OWNED SYSTEMS (2012–2016) 

System size 

(number of people served) 

Annual number 

of systems 

impacted 

Average annual 

hours per system 

(2012–2016) 

Average annual 

cost per system 

(2012–2016) 

Revenue test 1

(%) 

Ground Water Systems 

500 and under ........................................................................... 27 1 .14 $24 .16 0 .08 

501 to 3,300 ............................................................................... 110 1 .24 27 .67 0 .02 

3,301 to 10,000 .......................................................................... 57 1 .57 39 .71 0 .01 

Surface Water (and GWUDI) Systems 

500 and under ........................................................................... 1 1 .63 34 .71 0 .06 

501 to 3,300 ............................................................................... 20 1 .69 37 .74 0 .02 

3,301 to 10,000 .......................................................................... 44 1 .79 45 .35 0 .005 

1The ‘‘Revenue Test’’ was used to evaluate the economic impact of an information collection on small government entities (e.g., publiclyowned systems); costs are presented as a percentage of median annual revenue in each size category. 

EXHIBIT 12—UCMR 3 RELATIVE COST ANALYSIS FOR SMALL PRIVATELY-OWNED SYSTEMS (2012–2016) 

System size 

(number of people served) 

Annual number 

of systems 

impacted 

Average annual 

hours per system 

(2012–2016) 

Average annual 

cost per system 

(2012–2016) 

Revenue Test1

(%) 

Ground Water Systems 

500 and under ........................................................................... 80 1 .14 $24 .16 0 .40 

501 to 3,300 ............................................................................... 42 1 .24 27 .67 0 .02 

3,301 to 10,000 .......................................................................... 13 1 .57 39 .74 0 .004 

Surface Water (and GWUDI) Systems 

500 and under ........................................................................... 2 1 .63 34 .71 0 .10 

501 to 3,300 ............................................................................... 7 1 .69 37 .74 0 .01 

3,301 to 10,000 .......................................................................... 13 1 .79 45 .35 0 .005 

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

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

EPA specifically solicited additional 

comment on the proposed action on 

small systems. No comments were 

received. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA) 

This rule does not contain a Federal 

mandate that may result in expenditures 

of $100 million or more for State, local, 

and tribal governments, in the aggregate, 

or the private sector in any one year. 

Total annual costs of this final rule 

(across the implementation period of 

2012–2016), for State, local, and Tribal 

governments and the private sector, are 

estimated to be $17.45 million, of which 

EPA will pay $4.14 million, or 

approximately 24%. Thus, this rule is 

not subject to the requirements of 

Sections 202 or 205 of UMRA. 

This rule is also not subject to the 

requirements of Section 203 of UMRA 

because it contains no regulatory 

requirements that might significantly or 

uniquely affect small governments. As 

noted previously, the agency expects to 

pay for the reasonable costs of sample 

analysis for the small PWSs required to 

monitor for unregulated contaminants 

under this final rule, including those 

owned and operated by small 

governments. The only costs that small 

systems will incur are labor costs 

attributed to collecting the UCMR 

samples and packing them for shipment 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

26092 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 85 / Wednesday, May 2, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

to the laboratory (EPA will pay for 

shipping). These costs are minimal. 

They are not significant or unique. 

Thus, this rule is not subject to the 

requirements of UMRA Section 203. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

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, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132. The cost to State 

and local governments is minimal and 

the rule does not preempt State law. 

Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not 

apply to this action. In the spirit of 

Executive Order 13132, and consistent 

with EPA policy to promote 

communications between EPA and State 

and local governments, EPA specifically 

solicited comment on the proposed 

action from State and local officials. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

Subject to the Executive Order 13175 

(65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000) EPA 

may not issue a regulation that has tribal 

implications, that imposes substantial 

direct compliance costs, and that is not 

required by statute, unless the Federal 

government provides the funds 

necessary to pay the direct compliance 

costs incurred by tribal governments, or 

EPA consults with tribal officials early 

in the process of developing the 

proposed regulation and develops a 

tribal summary impact statement. 

EPA has concluded that this action 

will have tribal implications. However, 

it will neither impose substantial direct 

compliance costs on tribal governments, 

nor preempt Tribal law. As described 

previously, this final rule requires 

monitoring by all large systems (i.e., 

those serving 10,001 to 100,000 people) 

and all very large systems (i.e., those 

serving greater than 100,000 people); 17 

Tribal water systems have been 

identified as large systems based on 

information in the SDWIS/Fed water 

system inventory. EPA estimates the 

average annual cost to each of these 

large systems, over the five-year rule 

period, to be less than $2,512 (total cost 

of about $12,560 per system during the 

five-year rule period). This cost is based 

on a labor component (associated with 

the collection of samples) and a nonlabor component (associated with 

shipping and laboratory fees) and 

represents less than 0.09% of average 

revenue/sales for large systems. UCMR 

also requires monitoring by a nationally 

representative sample of small systems 

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

people). EPA estimates that 

approximately one percent of small 

Tribal systems will be selected as part 

of a nationally representative sample for 

Assessment Monitoring, Screening 

Survey or Pre-Screen Testing. EPA 

estimates the average annual cost to the 

small Tribal systems, over the five year 

rule period to be $32 (total cost of about 

$160 per system over the five-year rule 

period). Such cost is based on the labor 

associated with collecting a sample and 

preparing it for shipping and represents 

0.4% or less of average revenue/sales for 

small systems. All other small system 

expenses (associated with shipping and 

laboratory fees) are paid by EPA. 

EPA consulted with tribal officials 

early in the process of developing 

UCMR to permit them to have 

meaningful and timely input into its 

development. In developing the original 

UCMR rule, EPA held stakeholder 

meetings and prepared background 

information for stakeholder review. EPA 

sent requests for review of stakeholder 

documents to nearly 400 Tribes, Tribal 

organizations, and small systems 

organizations to obtain their input. 

Representatives from the Indian Health 

Service (IHS) Sanitary Deficiency 

System and Tribes were consulted 

regarding decisions on rule design, the 

design for the statistical selection of 

small systems, and potential costs. 

Tribes raised issues concerning the 

selection of the nationally 

representative sample of small systems, 

particularly the manner in which Tribal 

systems would be considered under the 

sample selection process. EPA 

developed the sample frame for Tribal 

systems and Alaska Native water 

systems in response to those concerns. 

EPA worked with the Tribes, Alaska 

Natives, the IHS, and the States to 

determine how to classify each Tribal 

system for consideration in the 

statistically-based selection of the 

nationally representative sample of 

small systems. As a result of those 

discussions, small PWSs located in 

Indian country in each of the EPA 

Regions containing Indian country were 

evaluated as part of a Tribal category 

that receives selection consideration 

comparable to that of small systems 

outside of Indian country. Thus, Tribal 

systems have the same probability of 

being selected as other water systems in 

the stratified selection process that 

weighs systems by water source and size 

class by population served. This final 

rule maintains the basic program design 

of UCMR 1 and 2, and continues to 

build upon the structure of this cyclical 

program. As part of the development of 

this rule, EPA held a public stakeholder 

meeting on April 7, 2010. This meeting 

was announced to the public in a 

Federal Register notice dated February 

23, 2010 (75 FR 8063 (USEPA, 2010a)). 

Prior to the meeting, background 

materials and rule development 

information were sent to specific 

stakeholders, including representatives 

from the IHS and the Native American 

Water Association. 

EPA specifically solicited additional 

comment on the proposed action from 

tribal officials. EPA received no 

comments. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

This action is not subject to EO 13045 

because it is not an economically 

significant regulation pursuant to EO 

12866. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This action is not a ‘‘significant 

energy action’’ as defined in Executive 

Order 13211 (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 

2001)), because it is not likely to have 

a significant adverse effect on the 

supply, distribution, or use of energy. 

None of the final UCMR requirements 

involve actions that use a significant 

amount of energy. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (‘‘NTTAA’’), Public Law 

104–113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) 

directs EPA to use voluntary consensus 

standards in its regulatory activities 

unless to do so would be inconsistent 

with applicable law or otherwise 

impractical. Voluntary consensus 

standards are technical standards (e.g., 

materials specifications, test methods, 

sampling procedures, and business 

practices) that are developed or adopted 

by voluntary consensus standards 

bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provide 

Congress, through OMB, explanations 

when the agency decides not to use 

available and applicable voluntary 

consensus standards. 

This rulemaking involves technical 

standards. EPA has decided to use the 

methods developed by the agency as 

well as voluntary consensus standards 

for the analysis of UCMR 3 

contaminants. The agency conducted a 

search of potentially applicable 

voluntary consensus standards and 

identified two major organizations 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 85 / Wednesday, May 2, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 26093 

whose methods are acceptable for 

determinations under UCMR. These 

organizations are Standard Methods 

(SM) and ASTM International. For many 

of the parameters included in this final 

action, EPA was unable to identify 

methods from voluntary consensus 

method organizations that were 

appropriate for the monitoring required. 

However, EPA identified acceptable 

consensus method organization 

standards for the analysis of total 

chromium, vanadium, molybdenum, 

cobalt, strontium and chlorate. 

Therefore, EPA is approving analytical 

methods published by EPA, SM, and 

ASTM International for these analytes. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 

7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes federal 

executive policy on environmental 

justice. Its main provision directs 

federal agencies, to the greatest extent 

practicable and permitted by law, to 

make environmental justice part of their 

mission by identifying and addressing, 

as appropriate, disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, 

policies, and activities on minority 

populations and low-income 

populations in the United States. 

EPA has determined that this final 

rule will not have disproportionately 

high and adverse human health or 

environmental effects on minority or 

low-income populations. By seeking to 

identify unregulated contaminants that 

may pose health risks via drinking water 

from all PWSs, UCMR furthers the 

protection of public health for all 

citizens, including minority and lowincome populations using public water 

supplies. UCMR uses a statisticallyderived set of systems for the nationally 

representative sample that is 

population-weighted within each 

system size and source water category 

so that any PWS within a category has 

an equivalent likelihood of selection. 

Additionally, EPA is requiring that 

PWSs report all U.S. Postal Service Zip 

Codes in their service area. This 

additional data element will be used in 

the evaluation of UCMR 3 occurrence 

data and could potentially identify areas 

that have disproportionately high and 

adverse human health or environmental 

effects on minority or low-income 

populations. 

K. Congressional Review Act 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

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

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this rule and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A Major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

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

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

will be effective June 1, 2012. 

VII. Public Involvement in Regulation 

Development 

EPA’s Office of Ground Water and 

Drinking Water routinely engages 

stakeholders in its regulatory activities 

for the purpose of providing early input 

to regulation development. When 

designing and developing the UCMR 

program in the late 1990s, EPA held 

meetings for developing the CCL, 

establishing the information 

requirements of the NCOD, and 

selecting priority contaminants for 

UCMR monitoring. During the initial 

development of the UCMR program, 

stakeholders including PWSs, States, 

industry, and other organizations 

attended meetings to discuss the UCMR. 

Seventeen other meetings were held 

specifically concerning UCMR 

development. For a description of 

public involvement activities related to 

the first UCMR (UCMR 1), please see the 

discussion in the September 17, 1999 

UCMR Final Rule Federal Register at 64 

FR 50556 (USEPA, 1999b). 

Specific to the development of UCMR 

3, a stakeholder meeting was held on 

April 7, 2010, in Washington, DC. There 

were 22 attendees, representing State 

agencies, laboratories, PWSs, 

environmental groups, and drinking 

water associations. The topics of 

presentations and discussions included: 

Status of UCMR 2; rationale for 

developing the new list of potential 

contaminants; analytical methods that 

could be used in measuring these 

contaminants; sampling design; 

procedure for determining LCMRLs; 

laboratory approval; and other potential 

revisions based on lessons learned 

during implementation of UCMR 1 and 

UCMR 2 (see USEPA, 2010b for 

presentation materials, and USEPA, 

2010c for meeting notes). 

EPA requested public comment on the 

proposed rule (76 FR 11713, March 3, 

2011 (USEPA, 2011a)), and established 

a public docket, under Docket ID No. 

EPA–HQ–OW–2009–0090. Each set of 

comments received in response to this 

request was assigned an EPA Document 

ID (EPA–HQ–OW–2009–0090+unique 

four digit extension) and posted for 

public access on regulations.gov. To 

view comments, search for the docket ID 

on the regulations.gov homepage, then 

click the link to public submissions. 

EPA received feedback on UCMR 3 

from 53 commenters. Commenters 

included: private citizens; local and 

State governments as well as U.S. 

territories; industry and industry 

groups; drinking water systems and 

organizations; and, non-governmental 

organizations, such as environmental 

and health advocacy groups. An 

overview of key comments received is 

included in Section III of this rule, and 

the complete report of comments and 

full EPA responses can be found in the 

docket on regulations.gov (USEPA, 

2012b). 

VIII. References 

ATSDR. 2009. Draft Toxicological Profile for 

Vanadium. September 2009. Available 

on the Internet at http:// 

www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/ 

tp.asp?id=276&tid=50. 

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

DC Lewis, and R.I. Glass. 1995. Detection 

and differentiation of antigenically 

distinct small round-structured viruses 

(Norwalk-like viruses) by reverse 

transcription-PCR and southern 

hybridization. Journal of Clinical 

Microbiology. 33(1):64–71. 

ASDWA. 2003. Public Health Protection 

Threatened by Inadequate Resources for 

State Drinking Water Programs—An 

Analysis of State Drinking Water 

Programs Resources, Needs, and 

Barriers. April 2003. 

ASTM D5673–10. 2010. Standard Test 

Method for Elements in Water by 

Inductively Coupled Plasma-Mass 

Spectrometry. Available for purchase on 

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

Standards/D5673.htm. 

ASTM D6581–08. 2008. Standard Test 

Methods for Bromate, Bromide, Chlorate, 

and Chlorite in Drinking Water by 

Suppressed Ion Chromatography. 

Available for purchase on the Internet at 

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

D6581.htm. 

Bergmann, H. and S. Koparal. 2005. The 

formation of chlorine dioxide in the 

electrochemical treatment of drinking 

water for disinfection. Electrochimica 

Acta. 50:5218–5228. 

Bolyard, M., P.S. Fair, and D.P. Hautman. 

1992. Occurrence of chlorate in 

hypochlorite solutions used for drinking 

water disinfection. Environmental 

Science and Technology. 26(8):1663– 

1665. 

Bolyard, M., P.S. Fair, and D.P. Hautman. 

1993. Sources of chlorate ion in US 

drinking water. Journal of the American 

Water Works Association. 85(9):81–88. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

26094 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 85 / Wednesday, May 2, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

Borchardt, M.A. 2008. Wisconsin Water And 

Health Trial for Enteric Risks (WAHTER 

Study)—Part 1: Risk of Illness from 

Municipal Groundwater Consumption. 

EPA Office of Water Symposium on 

Groundwater-Borne Infectious Disease, 

Etiologic Agents and Indicators, 

Washington, DC, December 2–4, 2008. 

Czarnetzki, L.R. and J.J. Janssen. 1992. 

Formation of hypochlorite, chlorate, and 

oxygen during NaCl electrolysis from 

alkaline solutions at an RuO2/TiO2

anode. Journal of Applied 

Electrochemistry. 22:315–324. 

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

Sobsey. 1990. Detection of enteroviruses 

and hepatitis A virus in environmental 

samples by gene probes and polymerase 

chain reaction. P. 833–835. In Advances 

of Water Analysis and Treatment 

Proceedings 1989. Water Quality 

Technology Conference, American Water 

Works Association, Denver, CO. 

American Water Works Association, San 

Diego, CA. 

Fairbridge, R.W. 1972. The Encyclopedia of 

Geochemistry and Environmental 

Sciences, IVA Volume. New York: Van 

Nostrand Reinhold Company. 

Friedman, M.J., A.S. Hill, S.H Reiber, R.L. 

Valentine, and G.V. Korshin. 2009. 

Assessment of Inorganics Accumulation 

in Drinking Water System Scales and 

Sediments. Published by WRF. 

Gallagher, D.L, R.C Hoehn, and A.M. 

Dietrich. 1994. Sources, Occurrence, and 

Control of Chlorine Dioxide By-Product 

Residuals in Drinking Water. Published 

by AwwaRF and AWWA. 

Gerke, T.L., K.G. Scheckel, and J.B. Maynard. 

2010. Speciation and distribution of 

vanadium in drinking water iron pipe 

corrosion by-products. Science of the 

Total Environment. 408(23):5845–5853. 

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

and M.D. Sobsey. 2010. Evaluation of 

positively charged alumina nanofibre 

cartridge filters for the primary 

concentration of noroviruses, 

adenoviruses and male-specific 

coliphages from seawater. Journal of 

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

Gordon, G., B. Slootmaekers, S. Tachiyashiki, 

and D.W. Wood III. 1990. Minimizing 

chlorite ion and chlorate ion in water 

treated with chlorine dioxide. Journal of 

the American Water Works Association. 

82(4):160–165. 

Gordon, G. and S. Tachiyashiki. 1991. 

Kinetics and mechanism of formation of 

chlorate ion from the hypochlorous acid/ 

chlorite ion reaction at pH 6–10. 

Environmental Science and Technology. 

25(3):468–474. 

Gordon, G., L.C. Adam, B.P. Bubnis, B. Hoyt, 

A.J. Gillette, and A. Wilczak. 1993. 

Controlling the formation of chlorate ion 

in liquid hypochlorite feedstocks. 

Journal of the American Water Works 

Association. 85(9):89–97. 

Gordon, G., L.C. Adam, and B.P. Bubnis. 

1995. Minimizing Chlorate Ion 

Formation in Drinking Water When 

Hypochlorite Ion is the Chlorinating 

Agent. Published by AwwaRF and 

AWWA. 

Gordon, G., L.C. Adam, B.P. Bubnis, C. Kuo, 

R.S. Cushing, and R.H. Sakaji. 1997. 

Predicting liquid bleach decomposition. 

Journal of the American Water Works 

Association. 89(4):142–149. 

Howard, K.L. and G.L. Boyer. 2007. 

Quantitative analysis of cyanobacterial 

toxins by matrix-assisted laser 

desorption ionization mass spectrometry. 

Analytical Chemistry. 79(15):5980–5986. 

Hunt, R.J., M.A. Borchardt, K.D. Richards, 

and S.K. Spencer. 2010. Assessment of 

sewer source contamination of drinking 

water wells using tracers and human 

enteric viruses. Environmental Science 

and Technology. 44(20):7956–7963. 

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

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

J. Vinje ́. 2005. Rapid and sensitive 

detection of noroviruses by using 

TaqMan-based one-step reverse 

transcription-PCR assays and application 

to naturally contaminated shellfish 

samples. Applied and Environmental 

Microbiology. 71(4):1870–1875. 

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

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

electropositive filter for concentrating 

enteroviruses and noroviruses from large 

volumes of water. Applied and 

Environmental Microbiology. 75(8):2393– 

2399. 

Kolodziej, E.P., T. Harter, and D.L. Sedlak. 

2004. Dairy wastewater, aquaculture, and 

spawning fish as sources of steroid 

hormones in the aquatic environment. 

Environmental Science and Technology. 

38:6377–6384. 

Kolodziej, E.P. and D.L. Sedlak. 2007. 

Rangeland grazing as a source of steroid 

hormones to surface waters. 

Environmental Science and Technology. 

41:3514–3520. 

Kolpin, D.W., E.T. Furlong, M.T. Meyer, E.M. 

Thurman, S.D. Zaugg, L.B. Barber, and 

H.T. Buxton. 2002. Pharmaceuticals, 

hormones, and other organic wastewater 

contaminants in U.S. streams, 1999– 

2000: A national reconnaissance. 

Environmental Science and Technology. 

36:1202–1211. 

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

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

2008. Concentration of enteroviruses, 

adenoviruses, and noroviruses from 

drinking water by use of glass wool 

filters. Applied and Environmental 

Microbiology. 74(10):2990–2996. 

Mash, H., K. Schenck, and L. Rosenblum. 

2010. Hypochlorite oxidation of select 

androgenic steroids. Water Research. 

44:1950–1960. 

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

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

S. Billaudel, and V. Ferre ́. 2000. 

Quantification of enterovirus RNA in 

sludge samples by single tube real-time 

RT–PCR. BioTechniques. 29:88–95. 

Oehrle, S.A., B. Southwell, and J. Westrick. 

2010. Detection of various freshwater 

cyanobacterial toxins using ultraperformance liquid chromatography 

tandem mass spectrometry. Toxicon. 

55:965–972. 

Rice, R.G. and M. Gomez-Taylor. 1986. 

Occurrence of by-products of strong 

oxidants reacting with drinking water 

contaminants-scope of the problem. 

Environmental Health Perspectives. 

69:31–44. 

Siddiqui, M.S. 1996. Chlorine-ozone 

interactions: Formation of chlorate. 

Water Research. 30(8):2160–2170. 

Snyder, S.A., B.D. Stanford, A.N. Pisarenko, 

G. Gordon, and M. Asami. 2009. 

Hypochlorite—An Assessment of Factors 

that Influence the Formation of 

Perchlorate and Other Contaminants. 

Jointly funded by AWWA and WRF. 

Available on the Internet at http:// 

www.awwa.org/files/GovtPublicAffairs/ 

PDF/HypochloriteAssess.pdf. 

SM 3125. 2005. 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 4110D. 2005. Determination of Anions by 

Ion Chromatography, Part D, Ion 

Chromatographic Determination of 

Oxyhalides and Bromide. Standard 

Methods for the Examination of Water & 

Wastewater, 21st edition. American 

Public Health Association, 800 I Street 

NW., Washington, DC 20001–3710. 

Stanford, B.D., A.B. Pisarenko, S.A. Snyder, 

and G. Gordon. 2011. Perchlorate, 

bromate, and chlorate in hypochlorite 

solutions: Guidelines for utilities. 

Journal of the American Water Works 

Association. 103(6):71–83. 

USEPA. 1994. Method 200.8—Determination 

of Trace Elements in Waters and Wastes 

by Inductively Coupled Plasma-Mass 

Spectrometry. Revision 5.4. Available on 

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

USEPA. 1995. Handbook for Preparing Office 

of Research and Development Reports, 

Third Edition. EPA 600–K–95–002. 

August 1995. 

USEPA. 1996. National Primary Drinking 

Water Regulations: Monitoring 

Requirements for Public Drinking Water 

Supplies: Cryptosporidium, Giardia, 

Viruses, Disinfection Byproducts, Water 

Treatment Plant Data and Other 

Information Requirements. Federal 

Register. Vol. 61, No. 94, p. 24353, May 

14, 1996. 

USEPA. 1997. Method 300.1—Determination 

of Inorganic Anions in Drinking Water by 

Ion Chromatography. Revision 1.0. 

Available on the Internet at http:// 

water.epa.gov/scitech/drinkingwater/ 

labcert/analyticalmethods_ogwdw.cfm. 

USEPA. 1998a. 40 CFR Parts 141 and 142 

National Primary Drinking Water 

Regulations: Consumer Confidence; 

Proposed Rule. Federal Register. Vol. 63, 

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

USEPA. 1998b. 40 CFR Parts 141 and 142 

National Primary Drinking Water 

Regulation: Consumer Confidence 

Reports; Final Rule. Federal Register. 

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

1998. 

USEPA. 1999a. Alternative Disinfectants and 

Oxidants Guidance Manual. Office of 

Water. EPA 815–R–99–014. April 1999. 

Available on the Internet at http://water.

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 85 / Wednesday, May 2, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 26095 

epa.gov/lawsregs/rulesregs/sdwa/mdbp/

mdbptg.cfm. 

USEPA. 1999b. Revisions to the Unregulated 

Contaminant Monitoring Regulation for 

Public Water Systems; Final Rule. 

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

50556, September 17, 1999. 

USEPA. 2001. Statistical Design and Sample 

Selection for the Unregulated 

Contaminant Monitoring Regulation 

(1999). EPA 815–R–01–004. August 

2001. 

USEPA. 2003. National Primary Drinking 

Water Regulations: Stage 2 Disinfectants 

and Disinfection Byproducts Rule; 

National Primary and Secondary 

Drinking Water Regulations: Approval of 

Analytical Methods for Chemical 

Contaminants. Federal Register. Vol. 68, 

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

USEPA. 2006. U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency Peer Review Handbook, Third 

Edition. EPA 100–B–06–002. Available 

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

peerreview/pdfs/peer_review_handbook_

2006.pdf. 

USEPA. 2007. Unregulated Contaminant 

Monitoring Regulation (UCMR) for 

Public Water Systems Revisions. Federal 

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

4, 2007. 

USEPA. 2008. Method 522—Determination of 

1,4-Dioxane in Drinking Water by Solid 

Phase Extraction (SPE) and Gas 

Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry 

(GC/MS) with Selected Ion Monitoring 

(SIM). Version 1.0, September 2008. 

EPA/600/R–08/101. Available on the 

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

nerlcwww/ordmeth.htm. 

USEPA. 2009a. Method 524.3—Measurement 

of Purgeable Organic Compounds in 

Water by Capillary Column Gas 

Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry. 

Version 1.0, June 2009. EPA 815–B–09– 

009. Available on the Internet at http:// 

water.epa.gov/scitech/drinkingwater/

labcert/analyticalmethods_ogwdw.cfm. 

USEPA. 2009b. Method 537—Determination 

of Selected Perfluorinated Alkyl Acids in 

Drinking Water by Solid Phase 

Extraction and Liquid Chromatography/ 

Tandem Mass Spectrometry (LC/MS/ 

MS). Version 1.1, September 2009. EPA/ 

600/R–08/092. Available on the Internet 

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

ordmeth.htm. 

USEPA. 2010a. Stakeholder Meeting 

Regarding Revisions to the Unregulated 

Contaminant Monitoring Regulation. 

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

8063, February 23, 2010. 

USEPA. 2010b. Stakeholder Meeting 

Regarding Revisions to the Unregulated 

Contaminant Monitoring Regulation— 

Presentation Materials. April 7, 2010. 

USEPA. 2010c. Stakeholder Meeting 

Regarding Revisions to the Unregulated 

Contaminant Monitoring Regulation— 

Meeting Notes. April 2010. 

USEPA. 2010d. The Analysis of Regulated 

Contaminant Occurrence Data from 

Public Water Systems in Support of the 

Second Six-Year Review of National 

Primary Drinking Water Regulations. 

EPA 815–B–09–006. September 2010. 

Available on the Internet at http://water.

epa.gov/lawsregs/rulesregs/regulating

contaminants/sixyearreview/second_

review/upload/6Yr2OccurrenceReport_

Revised_September2010.pdf. 

USEPA. 2010e. Method 539—Determination 

of Hormones in Drinking Water by Solid 

Phase Extraction (SPE) and Liquid 

Chromatography Electrospray Ionization 

Tandem Mass Spectrometry (LC–ESI– 

MS/MS). Version 1.0, November 2010. 

EPA 815–B–10–001. Available on the 

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

drinkingwater/labcert/analytical

methods_ogwdw.cfm. 

USEPA. 2010f. Technical Basis for the Lowest 

Concentration Minimum Reporting Level 

(LCMRL) Calculator. EPA 815–R–11–001. 

December 2010. 

USEPA. 2011a. Revisions to the Unregulated 

Contaminant Monitoring Regulation 

(UCMR 3) for Public Water Systems; 

Proposed Rule. Federal Register. Vol. 76, 

No. 42, p. 11713, March 3, 2011. 

USEPA. 2011b. Method 218.7— 

Determination of Hexavalent Chromium 

in Drinking Water by Ion 

Chromatography with Post-Column 

Derivatization and UV-Visible 

Spectroscopic Detection. Version 1.0, 

November 2011. EPA 815–R–11–005. 

Available on the Internet at http://water.

epa.gov/scitech/drinkingwater/labcert/

analyticalmethods_ogwdw.cfm. 

USEPA. 2012a. Information Collection 

Request for the Unregulated 

Contaminant Monitoring Regulation 

(UCMR 3). March 2012. 

USEPA. 2012b. Response to Comments 

Document for the Unregulated 

Contaminant Monitoring Regulation 

(UCMR 3). EPA 815–R–11–004. January 

2012. 

USEPA. 2012c. UCMR 3 Contaminants— 

Information Compendium. EPA 815–B– 

11–001. January 2012. 

USEPA. 2012d. UCMR 3 Laboratory Approval 

Requirements and Information 

Document. Version 2.0. EPA 815–R–11– 

003. January 2012. 

von Gunten, U. 2003. Ozonation of drinking 

water: Part II. Disinfection and byproduct formation in presence of 

bromide, iodide or chlorine. Water 

Research. 37:1469–1487. 

World Health Organization (WHO). 2005. 

Chlorite and Chlorate in Drinking-water, 

Background Document for Development 

of WHO Guidelines for Drinking-water 

Quality, WHO/SDE/WSH/05.08/86. 

List of Subjects 

40 CFR Part 141 

Environmental protection, Chemicals, 

Incorporation by reference, Indianlands, Intergovernmental relations, 

Radiation protection, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Water 

supply. 

40 CFR Part 142 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practices and 

procedures, Chemicals, Indian lands, 

Radiation protection, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Water 

supply. 

Dated: April 16, 2012. 

Lisa P. Jackson, 

Administrator. 

For the reasons set out in the 

preamble, Title 40, chapter I of the Code 

of Federal Regulations is amended as 

follows: 

PART 141—NATIONAL PRIMARY 

DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS 

■ 1. The authority citation for Part 141 

continues to read as follows: 

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

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

300j–9, and 300j–11. 

Subpart C—Monitoring and Analytical 

Requirements 

■ 2. Section 141.23 is amended in the 

table to paragraph (k)(1) by revising 

entries 18, 19, and 20; by revising 

footnotes 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 13, 19, and 22; 

and by removing footnote 23. 

The revisions read as follows: 

§ 141.23 Inorganic chemical sampling and 

analytical requirements. 

* * * * * 

(k) * * * 

(1) * * * 

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

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

*******

18. Nitrate .................. Ion Chromatography ............................. 300.0 6, 300.1 19 .. D4327–97, 03 ...... 4110 B ................. 4110 B ................. 4110 B–00 ................. B–1011 8

Automated Cadmium Reduction ........... 353.2 6 ................. D3867–90 A ........ 4500–NO3 F .. 4500–NO3 F .. 4500–NO3 F–00 

Ion Selective Electrode ......................... .............................. .............................. 4500–NO3 D .. 4500–NO3 D .. 4500–NO3 D–00 .. 601 7

Manual Cadmium Reduction ................ .............................. D3867–90 B ........ 4500–NO3 E .. 4500–NO3 E .. 4500–NO3 E–00 

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

19. Nitrite ................... Ion Chromatography ............................. 300.0 6, 300.1 19 .. D4327–97, 03 ...... 4110 B ................. 4110 B ................. 4110 B–00 ................. B–1011 8

Automated Cadmium Reduction ........... 353.2 6 ................. D3867–90 A ........ 4500–NO3 F .. 4500–NO3 F .. 4500–NO3 F–00 

Manual Cadmium Reduction ................ .............................. D3867–90 B ........ 4500–NO3 E .. 4500–NO3 E .. 4500–NO3 E–00 

Spectrophotometric ............................... .............................. .............................. 4500–NO2 B .. 4500–NO2 B .. 4500–NO2 B–00 

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

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

26096 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 85 / Wednesday, May 2, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

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

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

20. Ortho-phosphate Colorimetric, Automated, Ascorbic Acid 365.1 6 ................. .............................. 4500–P F ............. 4500–P F 

Colorimetric, ascorbic acid, single reagent............................... D515–88 A .......... 4500–P E ............ 4500–P E 

Colorimetric Phosphomolybdate; Automated-segmented flow; Automated 

Discrete.

.............................. .............................. .............................. .............................. .................................... I–1601–85 5

I–2601–90 5

I–2598–85 5

Ion Chromatography ............................. 300.0 6, 300.1 19 .. D4327–97, 03 ...... 4110 B ................. 4110 B ................. 4110 B–00 

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

* * * * * * * 

* * * * * 

3 Annual Book of ASTM Standards, ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken, PA 19428, http://www.astm.org.; Annual Book of ASTM Standards 1994, Vols. 11.01 and 

11.02; Annual Book of ASTM Standards 1996, Vols. 11.01 and 11.02; Annual Book of ASTM Standards 1999, Vols. 11.01 and 11.02; Annual Book of ASTM Standards 2003, Vols. 11.01 and 

11.02. 4 Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, American Public Health Association, 800 I Street NW., Washington, DC 20001–3710; Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 18th edition (1992); Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 19th edition (1995); Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and 

Wastewater, 20th edition (1998).The following methods from this edition cannot be used: 3111 B, 3111 D, 3113 B, and 3114 B. 4 Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, American Public Health Association, 800 I Street NW., Washington, DC 20001–3710; Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 18th edition (1992); Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 19th edition (1995); Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and 

Wastewater, 20th edition (1998).The following methods from this edition cannot be used: 3111 B, 3111 D, 3113 B, and 3114 B. 5 U.S. Geological Survey, Federal Center, Box 25286, Denver, CO 80225–0425; Methods for Analysis by the U.S. Geological Survey National Water Quality Laboratory—Determination of Inorganic and Organic Constituents in Water and Fluvial Sediment, Open File Report 93–125, 1993; Techniques of Water Resources Investigation of the U.S. Geological Survey, Book 5, Chapter 

A–1, 3rd edition, 1989. 6 ‘‘Methods for the Determination of Inorganic Substances in Environmental Samples,’’ EPA/600/R–93/100, August 1993. Available as Technical Report PB94–120821 at National Technical Information Service (NTIS), 5301 Shawnee Road, Alexandria, VA 22312. http://www.ntis.gov. 7 The procedure shall be done in accordance with the Technical Bulletin 601 ‘‘Standard Method of Test for Nitrate in Drinking Water,’’ July 1994, PN 221890–001, Analytical Technology, Inc. 

Copies may be obtained from ATI Orion, 529 Main Street, Boston, MA 02129. 8 Method B–1011. ‘‘Waters Test Method for Determination of Nitrite/Nitrate in Water Using Single Column Ion Chromatography,’’ August, 1987. Copies may be obtained from Waters Corporation, Technical Services Division, 34 Maple Street, Milford, MA 01757, Telephone: 508/482–2963, Fax: 508/482–4056. 

* * * * * 

13 Because MDLs reported in EPA Methods 200.7 and 200.9 were determined using a 2x preconcentration step during sample digestion, MDLs determined when samples are analyzed by direct analysis (i.e., no sample digestion) will be higher. For direct analysis of cadmium and arsenic by Method 200.7, and arsenic by Method 3120 B, sample preconcentration using pneumatic 

nebulization may be required to achieve lower detection limits. Preconcentration may also be required for direct analysis of antimony, lead, and thallium by Method 200.9; antimony and lead by 

Method 3113 B; and lead by Method D3559–90D, unless multiple in-furnace depositions are made. 

* * * * * 

19 ‘‘Methods for the Determination of Organic and Inorganic Compounds in Drinking Water,’’ Vol. 1, EPA 815–R–00–014, August 2000. Available as Technical Report PB2000–106981 at National Technical Information Service (NTIS), 5301 Shawnee Road, Alexandria, VA 22312. http://www.ntis.gov. 

* * * * * 

22Standard Methods Online, American Public Health Association, 800 I Street NW., Washington, DC 20001, available at http://www.standardmethods.org. The year in which each method was 

approved by the Standard Methods Committee is designated by the last two digits in the method number. The methods listed are the only online versions that may be used. 

■ 3. Section 141.35 is amended as 

follows: 

■ a. In paragraph (a) by revising the 

third sentence, 

■ b. By revising paragraph (b) 

introductory text, 

■ c. By revising paragraph (b)(1), 

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

first sentence, 

■ e. By revising paragraph (c)(1), 

■ f. By revising paragraph (c)(2), 

■ g. In paragraph (c)(3)(i) by removing 

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

‘‘August 1, 2012,’’ 

■ h. In paragraph (c)(3)(ii) by adding a 

new second and third sentence, 

■ i. In paragraph (c)(4) by removing 

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

‘‘October 1, 2012,’’ 

■ j. By revising paragraph (c)(5)(i), 

■ k. By revising paragraph (c)(6) 

introductory text, 

■ l. By revising paragraph (c)(6)(ii), 

■ m. By revising paragraph (d)(1), 

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

■ o. In the table to paragraph (e) by 

revising entry 6. 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

§ 141.35 Reporting for unregulated 

contaminant monitoring results. 

(a) * * * For the purposes of this 

section, PWS ‘‘population served’’ is the 

retail population served directly by the 

PWS as reported to the Federal Safe 

Drinking Water Information System 

(SDWIS/Fed); wholesale or consecutive 

populations are not included. * * * 

(b) Reporting by all systems. You must 

meet the reporting requirements of this 

paragraph if you meet the applicability 

criteria in § 141.40(a)(1) and (2). 

(1) Where to submit UCMR reporting 

requirement information. Some of your 

reporting requirements are to be 

fulfilled electronically and others by 

mail. Information that must be 

submitted using EPA’s electronic data 

reporting system must be submitted 

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

rulesregs/sdwa/ucmr/ucmr3/ 

reporting.cfm. Documentation that is 

required to be mailed can be submitted 

either: To UCMR Sampling Coordinator, 

USEPA, Technical Support Center, 26 

West Martin Luther King Drive (MS 

140), Cincinnati, OH 45268; or by email 

at 

UCMR_Sampling_Coordinator@epa.gov. 

In addition, you must notify the public 

of the availability of unregulated 

contaminant monitoring data as 

provided in Subpart Q (Public 

Notification) of this part (40 CFR 

141.207). Community Water Systems 

that detect unregulated contaminants 

under this monitoring must also address 

such detections as part of their 

Consumer Confidence Reports, as 

provided in Subpart O of this part 

(40 CFR 141.151). 

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

from EPA concerning your required 

monitoring and your system does not 

meet the applicability criteria for UCMR 

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

a change occurs at your system that may 

affect your requirements under UCMR 

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

you must mail or email a letter to EPA, 

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

section. * * * 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(1) Contact and zip code information. 

You must provide contact information 

by October 1, 2012, and provide updates 

within 30 days if this information 

changes. The contact information must 

be submitted using EPA’s electronic 

data reporting system, as specified in 

paragraph (b)(1) of this section, and 

include the name, affiliation, mailing 

address, phone number, and email 

address for your PWS Technical Contact 

and your PWS Official. In addition, as 

a one-time reporting requirement, you 

must report the U.S. Postal Service Zip 

Code(s) for all areas being served water 

by your PWS. 

(2) Sampling location and inventory 

information. You must provide your 

sampling location and inventory 

information by October 1, 2012, 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): PWS identification 

(PWSID) code; PWS facility 

identification code; water source type, 

sampling point identification code; and 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 85 / Wednesday, May 2, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 26097 

sampling point type code; (as defined in 

Table 1 of paragraph (e) 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. 

* * * * * 

(3) * * * 

(ii) * * * The proposed well must be 

representative of the highest annual 

volume producing and most 

consistently active wells in the 

representative array. If that 

representative well is not in use at the 

scheduled sampling time, you must 

select and sample an alternative 

representative well. * * * 

* * * * * 

(5) * * * 

(i) General rescheduling notification 

requirements. Large systems may 

change their Assessment Monitoring 

(List 1) or Screening Survey (List 2) 

schedules up to October 1, 2012, using 

EPA’s electronic data reporting system, 

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

section. After these dates have passed, 

if your PWS cannot sample according to 

your assigned sampling schedule (e.g., 

because of budget constraints, or if a 

sampling location will be closed during 

the scheduled month of monitoring), 

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 are 

subject to your assigned UCMR 

sampling schedule or the schedule that 

you revised on or before October 1, 

2012, unless and until you receive a 

letter from EPA specifying a new 

schedule. 

* * * * * 

(6) Reporting monitoring results. For 

each sample, you must report all data 

elements specified in Table 1 of 

paragraph (e) of this section, using 

EPA’s electronic data reporting system. 

You also must report any changes, 

relative to what is currently posted, 

made to data elements 1 through 6 to 

EPA, in writing, explaining the nature 

and purpose of the proposed change, as 

specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this 

section. 

* * * * * 

(ii) Reporting schedule. You must 

ensure that your laboratory posts the 

data to EPA’s electronic data reporting 

system within 120 days from the sample 

collection date (sample collection must 

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

have 60 days from when the laboratory 

posts the data in EPA’s electronic data 

reporting system to review, approve, 

and submit the data to the State and 

EPA, at the Web address specified in 

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

do not electronically approve and 

submit the laboratory data to EPA 

within 60 days of the laboratory’s 

posting data to EPA’s electronic 

reporting system, the data will be 

considered approved by you and 

available for State and EPA review. 

* * * * * 

(d) * * * 

(1) Contact and zip code information. 

EPA will send you a notice requesting 

contact information for key individuals 

at your system, including name, 

affiliation, mailing address, phone 

number and email address. These 

individuals include your PWS 

Technical Contact and your PWS 

Official. You are required to provide 

this contact information within 90 days 

of receiving the notice from EPA as 

specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this 

section. If this contact information 

changes, you also must provide updates 

within 30 days of the change, as 

specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this 

section. In addition, as a one-time 

reporting requirement, you must report 

the U.S. Postal Service Zip Code(s) for 

all areas being served water by your 

PWS. 

(2) Reporting sampling information. 

You must record all data elements listed 

in Table 1 of paragraph (e) of this 

section on each sample form and sample 

bottle provided to you by the UCMR 

Sampling Coordinator. You must send 

this information as specified in the 

instructions of your sampling kit, which 

will include the due date and return 

address. You must report any changes 

made in data elements 1 through 6 by 

mailing or emailing an explanation of 

the nature and purpose of the proposed 

change to EPA, as specified in 

paragraph (b)(1) of this section. 

(e) * * * 

TABLE 1—UNREGULATED CONTAMINANT MONITORING REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

Data Element Definition 

*******

6. Disinfectant Type All of the disinfectants that have been added to the water being sampled. To be reported by systems for each sampling 

point, with possible choices being: 

CLGA= Gaseous chlorine. 

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

CLON = Onsite Generated Hypochlorite (no storage). 

CAGC = Chloramine (formed from gaseous chlorine). 

CAOF = Chloramine (formed from offsite hypochlorite). 

CAON = Chloramine (formed from onsite hypochlorite). 

CLDO = Chlorine dioxide. 

OZON = Ozone. 

ULVL = Ultraviolet Light. 

OTHD = All Other Types of Disinfectant. 

NODU = No Disinfectant Used. 

*******

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

26098 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 85 / Wednesday, May 2, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

Subpart E—Special Regulations, 

Including Monitoring Regulations and 

Prohibition on Lead Use 

■ 4. Section 141.40 is amended as 

follows: 

■ a. By revising paragraph (a) 

introductory text, 

■ b. By revising paragraph (a)(1), 

■ c. By revising paragraph (a)(2)(i) 

introductory text, 

■ d. By revising the first sentence of 

paragraph (a)(2)(i)(A), 

■ e. By revising paragraph (a)(2)(ii) 

introductory text, 

■ f. By revising paragraph (a)(2)(ii)(A), 

■ g. By revising paragraph (a)(2)(ii)(C), 

■ h. By revising paragraph (a)(3), 

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

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

adding in its place, ‘‘October 1, 2012’’, 

■ j. By revising paragraph (a)(4)(i)(B), 

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

■ l. In paragraph (a)(4)(i)(D) by 

removing the last sentence, 

■ m. By revising paragraph (a)(4)(ii)(G), 

■ n. In paragraph (a)(5)(ii) by removing 

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

‘‘August 1, 2012’’ and by revising the 

last sentence, 

■ o. By revising paragraph (a)(5)(iii) 

introductory text, 

■ p. By revising paragraph 

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

■ q. By revising paragraph (a)(5)(iv), 

■ r. By revising paragraph (a)(5)(vi), and 

■ s. By adding paragraph (c). 

The revisions and addition read as 

follows: 

§ 141.40 Monitoring requirements for 

unregulated contaminants. 

(a) General applicability. This section 

specifies the monitoring and quality 

control requirements that must be 

followed if you own or operate a public 

water system (PWS) that is subject to the 

Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring 

Regulation (UCMR), as specified in 

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

In addition, this section specifies the 

UCMR requirements for State and Tribal 

participation. For the purposes of this 

section, PWS ‘‘population served,’’ 

‘‘State,’’ ’’ PWS Official,’’ ‘‘PWS 

Technical Contact,’’ and ‘‘finished 

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

The determination of whether a PWS is 

required to monitor under this rule is 

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

community water system, non-transient 

non-community water system, etc.), and 

its retail population, as indicated by 

SDWIS/Fed on December 31, 2010. 

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

operate a transient non-community 

water system, and you are notified by 

your State or EPA, you must permit the 

State, EPA or their contractors to collect 

samples for the contaminants specified 

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

of this section. 

(2) * * * 

(i) Large systems. If you own or 

operate a retail PWS (other than a 

transient non-community system) that 

serves more than 10,000 people, you 

must monitor according to the 

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

If you believe that your applicability 

status is different than EPA has 

specified in the notification letter that 

you received, or if you are subject to 

UCMR requirements and you have not 

been notified by either EPA or your 

State, you must report to EPA, as 

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

(A) * * * You must monitor for the 

unregulated contaminants on List 1 and 

Total Chromium per Table 1, UCMR 

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

this section. * * * 

* * * * * 

(ii) Small systems. Small PWSs, as 

defined in this paragraph, will not be 

selected to monitor for any more than 

one of the three monitoring lists 

provided in Table 1, UCMR 

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

this section. EPA will provide sample 

containers, provide pre-paid air bills for 

shipping the sampling materials, 

conduct the laboratory analysis, and 

report and review monitoring results for 

all small systems selected to conduct 

monitoring under paragraphs 

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

If you own or operate a PWS that serves 

10,000 or fewer people you must 

monitor as follows: 

(A) Assessment Monitoring. You must 

monitor for the unregulated 

contaminants on List 1 and Total 

Chromium 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 

allow EPA or its representative to 

collect samples to support monitoring 

for the unregulated contaminants on 

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

this section, if you are notified by your 

State or EPA that you are part of the 

State Monitoring plan for Pre-Screen 

Testing. In addition, you must permit 

the collection of samples as necessary 

for EPA to perform analysis for total 

coliforms, E. coli, bacteriophage, 

Enterococci and aerobic spores. 

(3) Analytes to be monitored. Lists 1, 

2, and 3 of unregulated contaminants 

and total chromium monitoring are 

provided in the following table: 

TABLE 1—UCMR CONTAMINANT LIST

1-Contaminant 2-CAS 

Registry No. 3-Analytical methods a 4-Minimum reporting level b

5-Sampling 

location c

6-Period during which 

monitoring to be 

completed 

List 1: Assessment Monitoring Chemical Contaminants 

Volatile Organic Compounds 

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

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

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

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

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

chlorodifluoromethane 

(HCFC–22).

75–45–6 EPA 524.3 ........................... 0.08 μg/L .......... EPTDS ................... 1/1/2013–12/31/2015 

bromochloromethane (Halon 

1011).

74–97–5 EPA 524.3 ........................... 0.06 μg/L .......... EPTDS ................... 1/1/2013–12/31/2015 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 85 / Wednesday, May 2, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 26099 

TABLE 1—UCMR CONTAMINANT LIST—Continued 

1-Contaminant 2-CAS 

Registry No. 3-Analytical methods a 4-Minimum 

reporting level b

5-Sampling 

location c

6-Period during which 

monitoring to be 

completed 

Synthetic Organic Compound 

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

Metals 

vanadium ............................. 7440–62–2 EPA 200.8, ASTM D5673– 

10, SM 3125.

0.2 μg/L ............ EPTDS and 

DSMRT.

1/1/2013–12/31/2015 

molybdenum ........................ 7439–98–7 EPA 200.8, ASTM D5673– 

10, SM 3125.

1. μg/L .............. EPTDS and 

DSMRT.

1/1/2013–12/31/2015 

cobalt ................................... 7440–48–4 EPA 200.8, ASTM D5673– 

10, SM 3125.

1. μg/L .............. EPTDS and 

DSMRT.

1/1/2013–12/31/2015 

strontium .............................. 7440–24–6 EPA 200.8, ASTM D5673– 

10, SM 3125.

0.3 μg/L ............ EPTDS and 

DSMRT.

1/1/2013–12/31/2015 

Chromium-6 

chromium-6 d ....................... 18540–29–9 EPA 218.7 ........................... 0.03 μg/L .......... EPTDS and 

DSMRT.

1/1/2013–12/31/2015 

Oxyhalide Anion 

chlorate ................................ 14866–68–3 EPA 300.1, ASTM D 6581– 

08, SM 4110D.

20 μg/L ............. EPTDS and 

DSMRT.

1/1/2013–12/31/2015 

Perfluorinated Compounds 

perfluorooctanesulfonic acid 

(PFOS).

1763–23–1 EPA 537 .............................. 0.04 μg/L .......... EPTDS ................... 1/1/2013–12/31/2015 

perfluorooctanoic acid 

(PFOA).

335–67–1 EPA 537 .............................. 0.02 μg/L .......... EPTDS ................... 1/1/2013–12/31/2015 

perfluorononanoic acid 

(PFNA).

375–95–1 EPA 537 .............................. 0.02 μg/L .......... EPTDS ................... 1/1/2013–12/31/2015 

perfluorohexanesulfonic acid 

(PFHxS).

355–46–4 EPA 537 .............................. 0.03 μg/L .......... EPTDS ................... 1/1/2013–12/31/2015 

perfluoroheptanoic acid 

(PFHpA).

375–85–9 EPA 537 .............................. 0.01 μg/L .......... EPTDS ................... 1/1/2013–12/31/2015 

perfluorobutanesulfonic acid 

(PFBS).

375–73–5 EPA 537 .............................. 0.09 μg/L .......... EPTDS ................... 1/1/2013–12/31/2015 

List 2: Screening Survey 

Hormones 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

List 3: Pre-Screen Testing e

Microbiological Contaminants 

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

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

Total Chromium Monitoring 

total chromium ..................... N/A EPA 200.8, ASTM D5673– 

10, SM 3125.

0.2 μg/L ............ EPTDS and 

DSMRT.

1/1/2013–12/31/2015 

Column headings are: 

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

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

3—Analytical Methods: Method numbers identifying the methods that must be used to test the contaminants. For List 3, analyses will only be 

performed by laboratories under contract to EPA. 

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

the approved analytical methods. If EPA determines, after the first six months of monitoring, that the MRLs specified in UCMR 3 result in excessive resampling, EPA will establish alternate MRLs and will notify affected PWSs and laboratories of the new MRLs. For List 3, minimum reporting level is based on volume of water filtered and PCR amplification level. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

26100 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 85 / Wednesday, May 2, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

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 minimum reporting level (MRL) is the minimum concentration of each analyte that must be reported to EPA. c Sampling must occur at entry points to the distribution system (EPTDSs) after treatment is applied that represent each non-emergency water 

source in routine use over the 12-month period of monitoring. Systems that purchase water with multiple connections from the same wholesaler 

may 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 use of representative ground water 

EPTDSs. Sampling for total chromium, chromium-6, cobalt, molybdenum, strontium, vanadium, and chlorate must be conducted at distribution 

system maximum residence time (DSMRT) sampling locations. 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. d Chromium-6 will be measured as soluble chromate ion (CAS Registry Number 13907–45–4). e EPA will collect the samples from List 3 Pre-Screen Testing sampling locations. 

* * * * * 

(4) * * * 

(i) * * * 

(B) Frequency. You must collect the 

samples within the time frame and 

according to the frequency specified by 

contaminant type and water source type 

for each sampling location, as specified 

in Table 2, in this paragraph. For the 

second or subsequent round of 

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

before and one month after the 

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

possible for you to sample within the 

window specified in Table 2, in this 

paragraph), you must notify EPA as 

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

your sampling. 

TABLE 2—MONITORING FREQUENCY BY CONTAMINANT AND WATER SOURCE TYPES

Contaminant type Water source type Time frame Frequency 

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

influence of surface water (GWUDI) (includes 

all sampling locations for which some or all of 

the water comes from a surface water or 

GWUDI source at any time during the 12 

month monitoring period).

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

Sample events must occur 3 months apart. 

(Example: If first monitoring is in January, the 

second monitoring must occur any time in 

April, the third any time in July and the fourth 

any time in October.) 

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

month period. Sample events must occur 5–7 

months apart. 

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

month period. Sample events must occur 5–7 

months apart. 

(C) Location. You must collect 

samples for each List 1 Assessment 

Monitoring contaminant, and, if 

applicable, for each List 2 Screening 

Survey, or List 3 Pre-Screen Testing 

contaminant, as specified in Table 1, in 

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

must be collected at each sample point 

that is specified in column 5 and 

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

of this section. If you are a ground water 

system with multiple EPTDSs, and you 

request and receive approval from EPA 

or the State for sampling at 

representative EPTDS(s), as specified in 

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

samples from the approved 

representative sampling location(s). 

Systems conducting Assessment 

Monitoring must also sample for total 

chromium, chromium-6, cobalt, 

molybdenum, strontium, vanadium, and 

chlorate at the location that represents 

the maximum residence time in the 

distribution system (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. 

(ii) * * * 

(G) Sampling forms. You must 

completely fill out each of the sampling 

forms and bottles sent to you by the 

UCMR Sampling Coordinator, including 

data elements listed in § 141.35(e) for 

each sample, as specified in 

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

the sampling forms. 

* * * * * 

(5) * * * 

(ii) * * * Correspondence must be 

addressed to: UCMR Laboratory 

Approval Coordinator, USEPA, 

Technical Support Center, 26 West 

Martin Luther King Drive, (MS 140), 

Cincinnati, OH 45268; or emailed to 

EPA at: 

UCMR_Sampling_Coordinator@epa.gov. 

(iii) Minimum Reporting Level. The 

MRL is an estimate of the quantitation 

limit. Assuming good instrumentation 

and experienced analysts, an MRL is 

achievable, with 95% confidence, by 

75% of laboratories nationwide. 

(A) * * * 

(1) All laboratories performing 

analysis under UCMR must demonstrate 

that they are capable of meeting data 

quality objectives at or below the MRL 

listed in Table 1, column 4, in 

paragraph (a)(3) of this section. 

* * * * * 

(iv) Laboratory fortified sample matrix 

and laboratory fortified sample matrix 

duplicate. You must ensure that your 

laboratory prepares and analyzes the 

Laboratory Fortified Sample Matrix 

(LFSM) sample for accuracy and 

Laboratory Fortified Sample Matrix 

Duplicate (LFSMD) samples for 

precision to determine method accuracy 

and precision for all contaminants in 

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

section. LFSM/LFSMD samples must be 

prepared using a sample collected and 

analyzed in accordance with UCMR 

requirements and analyzed at a 

frequency of 5% (or 1 LFSM/LFSMD set 

per every 20 samples) or with each 

sample batch, whichever is more 

frequent. In addition, the LFSM/LFSMD 

fortification concentrations must be 

alternated between a low-level 

fortification and mid-level fortification 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 85 / Wednesday, May 2, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 26101 

approximately 50% of the time. (For 

example: A set of 40 samples will 

require preparation and analysis of 2 

LFSM/LFSMD paired samples. The first 

LFSM/LFSMD paired sample set must 

be fortified at either the low-level or 

mid-level, and the second LFSM/ 

LFSMD paired sample set must be 

fortified with the other standard, either 

the low-level or mid-level, whichever 

was not used for the initial LFSM/ 

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

concentration must be within ±50% of 

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

an MRL of 1 mg/L the acceptable 

fortification levels must be between 0.5 

mg/L and 1.5 mg/L). The mid-level 

LFSM/LFSMD fortification 

concentration must be within ±20% of 

the mid-level calibration standard for 

each contaminant, and is to represent, 

where possible and where the laboratory 

has data from previously analyzed 

samples, an approximate average 

concentration observed in previous 

analyses of that analyte. There are no 

UCMR contaminant recovery acceptance 

criteria specified for LFSM/LFSMD 

analyses. All LFSM/LFSMD data are to 

be reported. 

* * * * * 

(vi) Reporting. You must require your 

laboratory to submit these data 

electronically to the State and EPA 

using EPA’s electronic data reporting 

system, accessible at (http:// 

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

ucmr/ucmr3/reporting.cfm), within 120 

days from the sample collection date. 

You then have 60 days from when the 

laboratory posts the data to review, 

approve and submit the data to the State 

and EPA, via EPA’s electronic data 

reporting system. If you do not 

electronically approve and submit the 

laboratory data to EPA within 60 days 

of the laboratory posting data to EPA’s 

electronic reporting system, the data 

will be considered approved and 

available for State and EPA review. 

* * * * * 

(c) Incorporation by reference. These 

standards are incorporated by reference 

into this section with the approval of 

the Director of the Federal Register 

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

All approved material is available for 

inspection either electronically at 

www.regulations.gov, in hard copy at 

the Water Docket, EPA/DC, and from the 

sources below. 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/ 

code_0f_federal_regulations/ 

ibr_locations.html. 

(1) The following methods 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 200.8 ‘‘Determination 

of Trace Elements in Waters and Wastes 

by Inductively Coupled Plasma—Mass 

Spectrometry,’’ Revision 5.4, 1994, 

available at https://www.NEMI.gov. 

(ii) EPA Method 218.7 ‘‘Determination 

of Hexavalent Chromium in Drinking 

Water by Ion Chromatography with 

Post-Column Derivatization and UVVisible Spectroscopic Detection,’’ 

Version 1.0, November 2011, EPA 815– 

R–11–005, available at http:// 

water.epa.gov/scitech/drinkingwater/ 

labcert/analyticalmethods_ogwdw.cfm. 

(iii) EPA Method 300.1 

‘‘Determination of Inorganic Anions in 

Drinking Water by Ion 

Chromatography,’’ Revision 1.0, 1997, 

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

scitech/drinkingwater/labcert/ 

analyticalmethods_ogwdw.cfm. 

(iv) EPA Method 522 ‘‘Determination 

of 1,4-Dioxane in Drinking Water by 

Solid Phase Extraction (SPE) and Gas 

Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry 

(GC/MS) with Selected Ion Monitoring 

(SIM),’’ Version 1.0, September 2008, 

EPA/600/R–08/101, available at http:// 

www.epa.gov/nerlcwww/ordmeth.htm. 

(v) EPA Method 524.3 ‘‘Measurement 

of Purgeable Organic Compounds in 

Water by Capillary Column Gas 

Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry,’’ 

Version 1.0, June 2009, EPA 815–B–09– 

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

scitech/drinkingwater/labcert/ 

analyticalmethods_ogwdw.cfm. 

(vi) EPA Method 537 ‘‘Determination 

of Selected Perfluorinated Alkyl Acids 

in Drinking Water by Solid Phase 

Extraction and Liquid Chromatography/ 

Tandem Mass Spectrometry (LC/MS/ 

MS),’’ Version 1.1, September 2009, 

EPA/600/R–08/092, available at http:// 

www.epa.gov/nerlcwww/ordmeth.htm. 

(vii) EPA Method 539 ‘‘Determination 

of Hormones in Drinking Water by Solid 

Phase Extraction (SPE) and Liquid 

Chromatography Electrospray Ionization 

Tandem Mass Spectrometry (LC–ESI– 

MS/MS),’’ Version 1.0, November 2010, 

EPA 815–B–10–001, available at http:// 

water.epa.gov/scitech/drinkingwater/ 

labcert/analyticalmethods_ogwdw.cfm. 

(2) The following methods from 

‘‘ASTM International,’’ 100 Barr Harbor 

Drive, West Conshohocken, PA 19428. 

(i) ASTM D5673–10 ‘‘Standard Test 

Method for Elements in Water by 

Inductively Coupled Plasma-Mass 

Spectrometry,’’ approved August 1, 

2010. Available for purchase at http:// 

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

(ii) ASTM D6581–08 ‘‘Standard Test 

Methods for Bromate, Bromide, 

Chlorate, and Chlorite in Drinking 

Water by Suppressed Ion 

Chromatography,’’ approved August 15, 

2008. Available for purchase at http:// 

www.astm.org/Standards/D6581.htm. 

(3) The following methods 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 3125 ‘‘Metals by Inductively 

Coupled Plasma/Mass Spectrometry.’’ 

(ii) SM 4110D ‘‘Determination of 

Anions by Ion Chromatography, Part D, 

Ion Chromatography Determination of 

Oxyhalides and Bromide.’’ 

PART 142—NATIONAL PRIMARY 

DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS 

IMPLEMENTATION 

■ 5. The authority citation for part 142 

continues to read as follows: 

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

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

300j–9, and 300j–11. 

Subpart B—Primary Enforcement 

Responsibility 

■ 6. Section 142.16 is amended as 

follows: 

■ a. In paragraph (j) introductory text by 

removing ‘‘141.40,’’. 

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

first sentence. 

§ 142.16 Special primacy requirements. 

* * * * * 

(j) * * * 

(1) If a State chooses to issue waivers 

from the monitoring requirements in 

§§ 141.23 and 141.24, the State shall 

describe the procedures and criteria, 

that it will use to review waiver 

applications and issue waiver 

determinations. * * * 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2012–9978 Filed 5–1–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2