[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 2 (Thursday, January 4, 2007)]

[Rules and Regulations]

[Pages 368‐398]

From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]

[FR Doc No: E6‐22123]

[[Page 367]]

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

Part II

Environmental Protection Agency

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

40 CFR Parts 9, 141, and 142

Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation (UCMR) for Public Water

Systems Revisions; Final Rule

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

and Regulations

[[Page 368]]

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 9, 141 and 142

[Docket No. OW‐2004‐0001; FRL‐8261‐7]

RIN 2040‐AD93

Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation (UCMR) for Public

Water Systems Revisions

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Final rule.

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

SUMMARY: The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), as amended in 1996,

requires the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to

establish criteria for a program to monitor unregulated contaminants

and to publish a list of contaminants to be monitored every five years.

EPA published the first set of contaminants in 1999. This final

regulation meets the SDWA requirement by publishing the next set of

unregulated contaminants to be monitored and the requirements for such

monitoring.

This final rule describes the design for the second Unregulated

Contaminant Monitoring Regulation (UCMR) cycle (i.e., UCMR 2) of 2007‐

2011. EPA is requiring monitoring of 25 chemicals using 5 different

analytical methods. UCMR 2 monitoring will occur during 2008‐2010.

Implementation of this final rule will benefit the environment by

providing EPA and other interested parties with scientifically valid

data on the occurrence of these contaminants in drinking water, thereby

permitting the assessment of the population potentially being exposed

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

occurrence and exposure data for the Agency to determine whether to

regulate these contaminants.

DATES: This final rule is effective on February 5, 2007. For purposes

of judicial review, this rule is promulgated as of 1 p.m. eastern time

on January 4, 2007 as provided in 40 CFR 23.7. The incorporation by

reference of certain publications listed in this rule is approved by

the Director of the Federal Register as of February 5, 2007.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID

No. OW‐2004‐0001. All documents in the docket are listed in the index

at www.regulations.gov. Although listed in the index, some information

is not publicly available, e.g., confidential business information or

other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain

other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the

Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form.

Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically

at http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Water Docket, EPA/

DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC.
This Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday

through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for this

Public Reading Room is (202) 566‐1744, and the telephone number for the

Water Docket is (202) 566‐2426.

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

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

Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, 26 West Martin Luther

King Drive (MS 140), Cincinnati, OH 45268, telephone (513) 569‐7843; e‐

mail address munch.dave@epa.gov. For general information, contact the

Safe Drinking Water Hotline. Callers within the United States may reach

the Hotline at (800) 426‐4791. The Hotline is open Monday through

Friday, excluding legal holidays, from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m., eastern time.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

Does This Action Apply to Me?

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

All large community and non‐transient non‐community water systems

serving more than 10,000 people will be required to monitor. A

community water system means a PWS which serves at least 15 service

connections used by year‐round residents or regularly serves at least

25 year‐round residents. Non‐transient non‐community water system means

a PWS that is not a community water system and that regularly serves at

least 25 of the same people over 6 months per year. Only a nationally

representative sample of community and non‐transient non‐community

systems serving 10,000 or fewer people will be required to monitor.

Transient non‐community systems (i.e., systems that do not regularly

serve at least 25 of the same people over 6 months per year) will not

be required to monitor. States, Territories, and Tribes that qualify

for treatment as a State for purposes of this program, may participate

in the implementation of the second cycle of the Unregulated

Contaminant Monitoring Regulation (i.e., UCMR 2) through a Partnership

Agreement. These agencies may choose to conduct analyses to measure for

contaminants in water samples collected for the UCMR 2, in which case

they will be regulated by this action.

Regulated categories and entities are identified in the following

table.

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

Examples of potentially

Category regulated entities NAICS\a\

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

State, local, & tribal States, local and tribal 924110

Governments. governments that

analyze water samples

on behalf of PWSs

required to conduct

such analysis; States,

local and tribal

governments that

directly operate

community and non‐

transient non‐community

water systems required

to monitor.

Industry......................... Private operators of 221310

community and non‐

transient non‐community

water systems required

to monitor.

Municipalities................... Municipal operators of 924110

community and non‐

transient non‐community

water systems required

to monitor.

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

\a\ NAICS = North American Industry Classification System.

This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a

guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this

action. This table lists the types of entities that EPA is now aware

could potentially be regulated by this action. Other types of entities

not listed in the table could also be regulated. To determine whether

your facility is regulated by this action, you should carefully examine

the definition of PWS in Sec. 141.2 of title 40 of the Code of Federal

Regulations, and applicability criteria in Sec. 141.40(a)(1) and (2)

of this final action. If you have questions regarding the applicability

of this action to a particular entity, consult the person

[[Page 369]]

listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

Abbreviations and Acronyms

HBB 2,2',4,4',5,5'‐hexabromobiphenyl

[mu]g/L Microgram per liter

ASDWA Association of State Drinking Water Administrators

BDE‐47 2,2',4,4'‐tetrabromodiphenyl ether

BDE‐99 2,2',4,4',5‐pentabromodiphenyl ether

BDE‐100 2,2',4,4',6‐pentabromodiphenyl ether

BDE‐153 2,2',4,4',5,5'‐hexabromodiphenyl ether
CCL Contaminant Candidate List

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

DBP Disinfection Byproduct

DBPR Stage 1 or Stage 2 Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule

DSMRT Distribution system maximum residence time

DQO Data quality objective

DWSRF Drinking Water State Revolving Fund

EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency

EPTDS Entry point to the distribution system

ESA Ethane sulfonic acid

FR Federal Register

GC Gas chromatography

GWUDI Ground water under the direct influence of surface water

HAA5 Haloacetic acid 5 (5 HAAs currently regulated)

HPLC High performance liquid chromatography

HRPIR Half range prediction interval of results

ICR Information collection request

IDC Initial demonstration of capability

IDSE Initial distribution system evaluation

IHS Indian Health Service

LC Liquid chromatography

LCMRL Lowest concentration minimum reporting level

LFSM Laboratory fortified sample matrix

LFSMD Laboratory fortified sample matrix duplicate

MCL Maximum contaminant level

MRL Minimum reporting level

MS Mass spectrometry

NAICS National American Industry Classification System

NCOD National Drinking Water Contaminant Occurrence Database

NDBA N‐nitroso‐di‐n‐butylamine

NDEA N‐nitrosodiethylamine

NDMA N‐nitrosodimethylamine

NDPA N‐nitroso‐di‐n‐propylamine

NMEA N‐nitrosomethylethylamine

NPDWR National Primary Drinking Water Regulation

NPYR N‐nitrosopyrrolidine

NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

OA Oxanilic acid

OMB Office of Management and Budget

PA Partnership agreement

PIR Prediction interval of results

PT Proficiency testing

PWS Public water system

PWSID Public water system identification

QA Quality assurance

QC Quality control

RDX Hexahydro‐1,3,5‐trinitro‐1,3,5‐triazine

RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act

RSD Relative standard deviation

SBA Small Business Administration

SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act

SDWARS Safe Drinking Water Accession and Review System

SDWIS Safe Drinking Water Information System

SPE Solid phase extraction

TNT 2,4,6‐trinitrotoluene

TTHM Total trihalomethanes

UCMR Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation

UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency

Table of Contents

I. General Information

Does This Action Apply to Me?

II. Statutory Authority and Background

A. What Is the Statutory Authority for UCMR?

B. How Does EPA Meet These Statutory Requirements?

III. Summary of This Rule

A. What Are the Major Changes between the Proposed and Final

Rule?

Exhibit 1: Changes to UCMR 2 between Proposed and Final Rule

B. Which Water Systems Must Monitor?

1. This Rule

2. Summary of Major Comments

C. What Are the UCMR 2 Priority Contaminants and Associated

Methods?

1. List Compilation

Exhibit 2: Analytical Methods Approved for UCMR 2 Monitoring

2. Acetanilide Pesticides, Degradation Products, and Related

Methods

3. Explosives and Related Methods

4. Perchlorate and Related Methods

5. Nitrosamines/NDMA and Related Methods

6. Flame Retardants, Other Priority Contaminants, and Related

Methods

7. Triazines Chlorodegradates and Parent Compounds

8. Other Compounds That Were Considered

D. How Are Laboratories Approved for UCMR 2 Monitoring?

1. This Rule

2. Summary of Major Comments

E. What Is A System's Responsibility Regarding the Use of

Laboratories?

1. This Rule

2. Summary of Major Comments

F. What Specific Quality Control Requirements Must Be Followed?

1. Method Development Approach and Method Defined Quality
Control

2. Minimum Reporting Level

3. Lowest Concentration Minimum Reporting Level

4. Laboratory Fortified Sample Matrix and Laboratory Fortified

Sample Matrix Duplicate

G. When Are Samples Collected?

1. This Rule

2. Summary of Major Comments

H. Where Are Samples Collected?

1. Entry Points to the Distribution System

2. Distribution System Maximum Residence Time

I. How Should Samples Be Collected?

1. This Rule

2. Summary of Major Comments

J. What Are the UCMR 2 Reporting Requirements?

1. Information Required Prior to Monitoring

2. Reporting of Required Data Elements

3. Reporting Process

4. Cross‐Media Reporting and Data Availability

K. What Constitutes a Violation Under UCMR 2?

L. Technical Correction Rule Changes in This Rule

1. Changes Pertaining to Aldicarb Monitoring

2. Changes Pertaining to State Primacy

IV. State and Tribal Participation

A. Partnership Agreements

1. This Rule

2. Summary of Major Comments

B. Governors' Petition and State‐Wide Waivers

V. Cost and Benefits of This Rule

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With

Indian Tribal Governments

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From

Environmental Health and Safety Risks

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address

Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low‐Income

Populations

K. Congressional Review Act

VII. Public Involvement in Regulation Development

VIII. References

List of Exhibits

Exhibit 1: Changes to UCMR 2 between Proposed and Final Rule

Exhibit 2: Analytical Methods Approved for UCMR 2 Monitoring

[[Page 370]]

II. Statutory Authority and Background

A. What Is the Statutory Authority for UCMR?

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

amended in 1996, requires that once every five years, beginning in

August 1999, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

shall issue a list of no more than 30 unregulated contaminants to be

monitored by public water systems (PWSs), and that EPA enter the

monitoring data into the National Drinking Water Contaminant Occurrence

Database (NCOD). EPA's UCMR program must ensure that only a nationally

representative sample of PWSs serving 10,000 or fewer people will be

required to monitor; however, there are no such restrictions on the

number of systems serving more than 10,000 people. EPA must vary the

frequency and schedule for monitoring based on the number of people a

system serves, the source of supply, and the contaminants likely to be

found.

B. How Does EPA Meet These Statutory Requirements?

To fulfill the initial SDWA requirements, EPA published ``Revisions

to the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation for Public Water

Systems; Final Rule,'' on September 17, 1999 (64 FR 50556, (USEPA,

1999)). Several supplemental rules were published to establish

analytical methods and to provide clarifications and refinements to the

initial rule: 65 FR 11372, March 2, 2000 (USEPA, 2000); 66 FR 2273,

January 11, 2001 (USEPA, 2001a); and 67 FR 65888, October 29, 2002

(USEPA, 2002b). SDWA, as amended in 1996, requires that at least once

every five years EPA identify a list of no more than 30 unregulated

contaminants to be monitored. This final action fulfills this statutory

obligation, identifying 25 priority contaminants for monitoring using

five analytical methods. EPA has developed a contaminant list (Exhibit

2, in Section III.C.1) and sampling design for UCMR 2 (2007‐2011) with

input from both stakeholders and an EPA working group. This list is the

same as was presented in the proposed rule, with one exception:

perchlorate has been removed from the UCMR 2 monitoring requirements

(see Section III.C. 4 for further discussion).

III. Summary of This Rule
A. What Are the Major Changes Between the Proposed and Final Rule?

EPA published ``Revisions to the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring

Regulation for Public Water Systems; Proposed Rule,'' on August 22,

2005 (70 FR 49094, (USEPA, 2005a)). EPA received comments from 36

public commenters.

In response to comments received and further consideration, EPA

removed perchlorate from the list of contaminants to be monitored for

under UCMR 2, and revised or clarified requirements pertaining to

system applicability criteria, reporting, monitoring, and quality

control. In addition, to accommodate PWS preparation for rule

implementation and to provide additional assurance of sufficient

laboratory capacity, this rule contains revised language that changes

the start of monitoring from July 2007 to January 2008, such that the

effective monitoring period is now January 2008 through December 2010.

Exhibit 1 provides a summary of these changes, and a listing of the

corresponding preamble section, which provides a more detailed

discussion of the revisions and related public comments. Sections

III.B‐K summarize the different aspects of this rule and the associated

major comments received in response to the August 2005 proposed rule

and their impact, if any, on this rule.

This summary focuses on the changes between the proposed and final

rule, and requirements with deadlines that are triggered by the

publication date of this final rule. EPA has compiled a document

containing all public comments and EPA's responses entitled ``UCMR 2

Categorized Public Comments,'' which can be obtained by going to http:/

/www.regulations.gov, and searching for Docket ID No. OW‐2004‐0001

under the advanced search tab.

Exhibit 1.‐‐Changes to UCMR 2 between Proposed and Final Rule

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

Rule section

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Description of change Corresponding preamble

Number Title/description section

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

141.35(a)............................ General applicability.. Defines ``finished III.B.

water'' to clarify the

definition of

``population served''.

141.35(c)(3)(i)...................... Documenting ground Clarifies that approved III.J.1.c.

water representative representative well

sampling locations. plans from previous

UCMR cycles can be

submitted to identify

representative entry

point(s).

141.35(c)(5)......................... PWS notification of EPA Provides exception to III.J.1.d.

if sampling schedule notification

cannot be met. requirement for PWS

with ground water

sampling location that

can collect second

sample sets within 5‐7

months of the first

sample set.

141.35(e)............................ Data Elements.......... Revises Table 1 of Sec. III.J.2.

141.35 to:

1. Clarify the

definition of ``Water

Source Type'' for a

sampling point..

2. Change the name of

``Sampling Point Type

Identification Code''

to ``Sampling Point

Type Code'' and

distinguish this data

element from

``Sampling Point

Identification Code''..

3. Clarify the

definition for

``Disinfectant

Residual Type''..

141.40(a)(3)......................... Analytes to be Revises Table 1 of III.G.

monitored and 141.40 to: III.C.4.

monitoring period. 1. Change monitoring III.F.2.

begin date to January

2008, and Screening

Survey monitoring

period to coincide

with Assessment

Monitoring..

2. Delete perchlorate

from table and

associated footnotes..

3. Revise minimum

reporting levels to

one significant

figure..

[[Page 371]]

141.40(a)(4)(i)(A)................... Monitoring schedules... Clarifies that EPA or III.G. and III.J.1.d.

the State will
determine PWS

monitoring schedules.

141.40(a)(4)(i)(B)................... Frequency.............. 1. Requires PWSs with III.G.

ground water sampling

locations that cannot

collect their second

samples within 5‐7

months of the first

samples to contact EPA.

2. Changes Table 2 to

indicate that ground

water sample events

must occur 5‐7 months

apart..

141.40(a)(4)(i)(D)................... Sampling Instructions.. 1. Clarifies that III.C.2; III.F.1; and

acetanilide parent and III.C.4.

degradates must be

sampled at the same

time and location.

2. Deletes reference to

collection methods for

perchlorate samples.

141.40(a)(4)(i)(G)................... Laboratory errors or Changes resampling III. I.

sampling deviations. deadline from within

14 days to within 30

days.

141.40(a)(5)(i)...................... Sample collection Deletes reference to III.C.4.

preservation. preservation methods

for perchlorate

samples.

141.40(a)(5)(iii)(B)(2).............. Quality control Deletes additional III.C.4.

requirements. quality control

requirements for

perchlorate methods.

141.40(a)(5)(iv)..................... Laboratory accuracy and Changes method III.F.4.

precision. requirement to fortify

the matrix at the

minimum reporting

level (MRL)

concentration to

within ;+/‐50% vs. +/‐

20%.

141.40(a)(5)(v)...................... Detection confirmation Deletes requirements in III.C.4 and III.F.1.

for perchlorate. this section; and

renumbers subsequent

paragraphs accordingly.

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

B. Which Water Systems Must Monitor?

1. This Rule

This rule requires that Assessment Monitoring 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. Transient non‐

community water systems and those systems that purchase all of their

finished water from another system are excluded from the requirements

of UCMR 2. Assessment Monitoring is the largest in scope of the three

UCMR 2 monitoring components (or tiers). Under Assessment Monitoring,

``List 1'' contaminants, for which standard analytical methods are

available, are monitored to assess national occurrence in drinking

water. These are the priority contaminants for which analytical method

technologies are well established.

The second tier of UCMR 2 is referred to as ``List 2'' or Screening

Survey monitoring. List 2 contaminants are those for which analytical

methods have been recently developed, and for which the technologies

are not widely used; laboratory capacity, therefore, may be

insufficient to conduct the larger scale Assessment Monitoring. The

Screening Survey will be conducted by approximately 400 PWSs serving

more than 100,000 people (all systems in this largest size category),

by a randomly selected sample of 320 PWSs serving between 10,001 and

100,000 people, and by 480 small PWSs.

Pre‐Screen Testing, the third tier of UCMR monitoring that is

designed for priority ``List 3'' contaminants, whose methods are very

new or specialized, is not required in this action, although EPA is

retaining the regulatory language that supports Pre‐Screen Testing

authority as part of the three‐tiered UCMR framework. If EPA ultimately

decides to include Pre‐Screen Testing as part of this or a future UCMR,

EPA will initiate a rulemaking action to propose List 3 contaminants

(and their associated analytical methods) and to solicit public

comments.

This rule also defines ``population served'' as ``the number of

people served directly by the PWS'' plus those served ``by any

consecutive system receiving all or part of its finished water from

that PWS.'' To help clarify the definition of population served, the

final regulation will also include the definition of ``finished water''

that was recently finalized as part of the ``Stage 2 Disinfectants and

Disinfection Byproducts Rule'' (71 FR 388, January 4, 2006 (USEPA,

2006a)) as follows: ``Finished water is water that is introduced into

the distribution system of a public water system and is intended for

distribution and consumption without further treatment, except the

treatment necessary to maintain water quality in the distribution

system (e.g., booster disinfection, addition of corrosion control

chemicals).'' This final regulation also specifies the PWS system's

water source and population served, as of June 30, 2005, as the basis

for establishing a defined list of PWSs that are subject to the rule
requirements.

2. Summary of Major Comments

Comments included a recommendation for EPA to define the term

``finished water'' in EPA's definition of ``population served,'' and

support for the designation of the June 30, 2005, applicability date

because it would eliminate some of the confusion that occurred under

UCMR 1 and avoid extra effort to keep monitoring plans accurate and

current. In response to these comments, this final regulation contains

the definition of ``finished water'' that was recently finalized as

part of the Stage 2 Disinfection Byproducts Rule and retains the

proposed applicability date. EPA agrees that the specific applicability

date of June 30, 2005, will help to streamline the implementation

process.

Other comments included recommendations to publish the list of

systems that are subject to UCMR 2. Such a list, including preliminary

schedules, is posted on the UCMR Web page: http://www.epa.gov/

safewater/ucmr/ucmr2.

C. What Are the UCMR 2 Priority Contaminants and Associated Methods?

1. List Compilation

a. This Rule

This rule specifies 25 contaminants for monitoring, along with five

EPA

[[Page 372]]

Methods for analysis as listed in Exhibit 2. EPA began with a list of

over 200 contaminants, compiled from a variety of different sources,

including: UCMR 1 reserved contaminants; Candidate Contaminant List 1

(CCL 1) ``deferred pesticides''; CCL 1 suspected endocrine disruptors;

and other emerging contaminants. The CCL is a list of contaminants that

are not subject to any proposed or promulgated National Primary

Drinking Water Regulation (NPDWR), are known or anticipated to occur at

PWSs, and may require regulation under SDWA. The first CCL, published

in March 1998 (referred to as ``CCL 1''), identified 60 contaminants or

contaminant groups (63 FR 10274, March 2, 1998 (USEPA, 1998b)) that

were divided into categories to represent research and data needs for

each of the following: (1) Regulatory determination priorities; (2)

health effects research priorities; (3) treatment research priorities;

(4) analytical methods research priorities; and (5) occurrence

priorities. Through a multi‐stepped review and prioritization process

(with relative health effects the top priority), the UCMR analyte list

was narrowed and prioritized, as described in the August 2005 proposed

rule, and 26 contaminants were identified. However, based on public

comment and further consideration, EPA has removed the requirement for

monitoring perchlorate under the UCMR 2 program (see Section III.C.4).

Exhibit 2.‐‐Analytical Methods Approved for UCMR 2 Monitoring

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

Analytical method \1\ Contaminant UCMR 2 ``List''

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

EPA Method 527 (SPE/GC/MS).... 2,2',4,4'‐ List 1,

tetrabromodiphenyl Assessment

ether (BDE‐47). Monitoring: 7

contaminants.

2,2',4,4',5‐

pentabromodiphenyl

ether (BDE‐99).

2,2',4,4',5,5'‐

hexabromobiphenyl

(HBB).

2,2',4,4',5,5'‐

hexabromodiphenyl

ether (BDE‐153).

2,2',4,4',6‐

pentabromodiphenyl

ether (BDE‐100).

Dimethoate............

Terbufos sulfone......

EPA Method 529 (SPE/GC/MS).... 1,3‐dinitrobenzene.... List 1,

Assessment

Monitoring: 3

contaminants.

2,4,6‐trinitrotoluene

(TNT).

Hexahydro‐1,3,5‐

trinitro‐1,3,5‐

triazine (RDX).

EPA Method 521 (SPE/GC/CI/MS/ N‐nitrosodiethylamine List 2,

MS). (NDEA). Screening

Survey: 6

contaminants.

N‐nitrosodimethylamine

(NDMA).

N‐nitroso‐di‐n‐

butylamine (NDBA).

N‐nitroso‐di‐n‐

propylamine (NDPA).

N‐

nitrosomethylethylami

ne (NMEA).

N‐nitrosopyrrolidine

(NPYR).

EPA Method 535 (SPE/LC/MS/MS). Acetochlor ethane List 2,

sulfonic acid (ESA). Screening
Survey: 6

contaminants.

Acetochlor oxanilic

acid (OA).

Alachlor ESA..........

Alachlor OA...........

Metolachlor ESA.......

Metolachlor OA........

EPA Method 525.2 (SPE/GC/MS).. Acetochlor............ List 2,

Screening

Survey: 3

contaminants.

Alachlor..............

Metolachlor...........

Total of 25 UCMR 2

contaminants .

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

\1\ EPA Method 521: Determination of Nitrosamines in Drinking Water by

Solid Phase Extraction and Capillary Column Gas Chromatography with

Large Volume Injection and Chemical Ionization Tandem Mass

Spectrometry (MS/MS) (USEPA, 2004a).

EPA Method 525.2: Determination of Organic Compounds in Drinking Water

by Liquid‐Solid Extraction and Capillary Column Gas Chromatography/

Mass Spectrometry (USEPA, 1995).

EPA Method 527: Determination of Selected Pesticides and Flame

Retardants in Drinking Water by Solid Phase Extraction and Capillary

Column Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry (GC/MS) (USEPA, 2004b).

EPA Method 529: Determination of Explosives and Related Compounds in

Drinking Water by Solid Phase Extraction and Capillary Column Gas

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

EPA Method 535, Revision 1.1: Measurement of Chloroacetanilide and Other

Acetamide Herbicide Degradates in Drinking Water by Solid Phase

Extraction and Liquid Chromatography/Tandem Mass Spectrometry (LC/MS/

MS) (USEPA, 2004c).

b. Summary of Major Comments

Some commenters supported the contaminant selection process in

general, but disagreed with EPA's criterion that pesticides must be

currently registered to be considered for UCMR 2 because pesticides can

persist even after they are no longer in use. EPA agrees that the issue

of pesticides and their degradates is an important one and will

consider, in future contaminant selection processes, the commenters'

concern about the requirement that pesticides be registered. EPA did

not receive comments on its health effects prioritization process.

Comments were received recommending that EPA substantially increase

the number of UCMR 2 contaminants because of the large number of

contaminants that are manufactured and sold in the United States.

Section 1445(a)(2)(B)(i) of SDWA specifically limits the number of

unregulated contaminants to 30 in each UCMR five‐year cycle. The UCMR 2

list represents what EPA believes to be the highest priority drinking

water contaminants for which monitoring information is needed and

obtainable.

Further comments indicated that EPA needs to clarify the process

for prioritization of both UCMR and CCL contaminants. In general,

concern was expressed that EPA did not sufficiently explain the status

of CCL research

[[Page 373]]

priorities, especially with respect to the UCMR contaminant selection

process.

In the August 2005 preamble to the proposed rule, as well as in

other past Federal Register notifications, EPA has explained in detail

the connections between the CCL and the UCMR programs (http://

www.epa.gov/safewater/ucmr). The preamble to the proposed UCMR 2

regulation presented the logic behind the consideration of potential

analytes for the UCMR. Section III ``Requirements of the Unregulated

Contaminant Monitoring Program'' detailed all aspects of how EPA

selected the contaminants proposed in this regulation with subsections

describing what priority contaminants were selected for UCMR 2; a

compilation of the initial list of potential UCMR 2 candidates; how EPA

established priorities for UCMR 2; EPA's health effects prioritization

approach; and the specific information and considerations that went

into EPA's decisions on each analyte selected.

EPA has also been engaged in a multi‐year process designed to

create an improved CCL process. This process began after the first CCL

was published in 1998 and EPA expects the next CCL (CCL 3) to reflect

substantial progress in implementing this new process. Because the new

CCL process was underway but not yet completed in 2005, CCL 2 carried

over the previous list and did not reflect the changes EPA is expecting

to make in identifying contaminants for possible regulation. EPA

expects that CCL 3 will reflect a more robust, transparent, and

systematic process to identify priority contaminants in drinking water

that will form the primary basis for future UCMR lists.

Before EPA can list a chemical compound or microbiological

parameter on UCMR, adequate analytical methods must be available. For

some of the chemicals (i.e., organotins, triazines and algal toxins)

and for all the microbiological parameters listed on the CCL, adequate

analytical methods have not yet been developed. EPA is actively engaged

in analytical method development research for these parameters both in‐

house and through its various contracts and grant mechanisms. EPA

regularly publishes journal articles and other reports on the progress

of all of these research activities that are available for the public

to review.

2. Acetanilide Pesticides, Degradation Products, and Related Methods

a. This Rule
Under this rule, the three highest‐use parent acetanilide

compounds, acetochlor, alachlor, and metolachlor, and their ESA and OA

degradation products are specified as List 2, Screening Survey

contaminants. The final rule also specifies EPA Method 525.2 for

analysis of the parent compounds and EPA Method 535 for analysis of the

acetanilide degradates. There were no changes between the proposed and

final rule language regarding these priority contaminants and their

associated methods. However, this rule contains revised language to

clarify that acetanilide parent and degradation product sampling must

be conducted at the same time and same location.

b. Summary of Major Comments

Some commenters did not agree with EPA's proposal to monitor the

three parent acetanilide compounds because some water systems include

these as part of their regulated volatile organic compound analyses

using EPA Method 525.2. Another recommendation was that no special

certification for Method 525.2 be required, since many laboratories are

already approved to conduct this analysis for regulated contaminants.

EPA is requiring monitoring of these three parent pesticides because it

is essential that the acetanilide parent and the degradation products

analysis be conducted using samples collected in the same location and

at the same time to provide data on their relative concentrations

(i.e., to establish relationships, if any, between the two). In

addition, because UCMR requires only a sample of PWSs to conduct

monitoring, and the resulting occurrence data is used to support EPA

decisions about whether to regulate a contaminant to protect public

health, the quality of data collected, at minimum reporting levels that

are considerably lower than those used for compliance monitoring, is

very important. Therefore, the analyses must meet even more stringent

quality control procedures than those used for other national drinking

water analyses, and special approval of laboratories is warranted for

both EPA Method 535 and 525.2. These analyses are required as part of

the Screening Survey, and therefore analytical costs to PWSs are

limited to approximately 720 large systems (EPA is paying for the

analytical costs of small system monitoring).

EPA agreed with recommendations in public comment to require

monitoring for acetanilide parents and their degradation products at

the same location and time to provide data on their relative

concentrations. The final regulation contains revised language to

include this requirement.

Finally, concern was expressed in public comments that EPA may

develop a single maximum contaminant level (MCL) for the parents plus

their degradates; commenters specifically pointed out that different

toxicity endpoints may exist for parents and degradates, and that a

single MCL could conflict with some state standards. EPA has made no

decision regarding whether or how to regulate these compounds. Such

decisions are beyond the scope of this rule.

3. Explosives and Related Methods

a. This Rule

Under this rule, EPA is requiring that three explosives: Hexahydro‐

1,3,5‐trinitro‐1,3,5‐triazine (RDX), 1,3‐dinitrobenzene, and, 2,4,6‐

trinitrotoluene (TNT) be monitored as part of List 1, Assessment

Monitoring. The final rule also specifies EPA Method 529 for analysis

of these compounds. There were no changes between the proposed and

final rule language regarding these priority contaminants and their

associated method.

b. Summary of Major Comments

Some commenters thought that other contaminants may be more

widespread and should take priority over explosives for testing.

However, if monitoring for explosives was required, the commenters

recommended that it be limited to areas near munitions facilities. The

explosives have not yet undergone a sufficiently widespread occurrence

study for EPA to be confident that these contaminants are only a

concern near munitions facilities. The decision to monitor for these

contaminants, versus others considered, was driven by their potential

health effects through the process described previously.

4. Perchlorate and Related Methods

a. This Rule

Under this rule, EPA has removed the requirement for monitoring

perchlorate under the UCMR 2 program. All references to perchlorate,

its associated methods, and specific quality control requirements have

been removed from the final rule. As a result, the requirements of

Sec. 141.40(a)(5)(v), Detection Confirmation, were deleted, and all

subsequent sections have been renumbered accordingly. The other rule

sections that were impacted by this decision (with reference to

perchlorate or relevant analytical methods being removed) are: Sec.

141.40(a)(3)‐‐Analytes

[[Page 374]]

to be monitored; Sec. 141.40(a)(4)(i)(D)‐‐Sampling Instructions; Sec.

141.40(a)(5)(i)‐‐Sample collection/preservation; and Sec.

141.40(a)(5)(iii)(B)(2)‐‐Quality control requirements for validation of

laboratory performance at or below the MRL.

b. Summary of Major Comments

Approximately 75 percent of commenters submitted comments on the

topic of perchlorate. The majority of the commenters did not support an

additional round of perchlorate monitoring, the most common reason

being the added cost of monitoring, without the perceived potential for

gaining sufficient, new information.

Monitoring for perchlorate was conducted during UCMR 1 in over

3,800 PWSs, with a minimum reporting level of 4.0 micrograms per liter

([mu]g/L). The data collected during this survey represents a

statistically valid set of high quality data that will inform EPA on

the occurrence and potential exposure to perchlorate from public

drinking water supplies. EPA will continue to evaluate these exposure

data along with other available information (e.g., health effects) as
the Agency makes its regulatory determination. Until that evaluation is

complete, EPA agrees with the commenters that it is not clear that the

Agency needs additional information on the occurrence of perchlorate in

drinking water. As a result, imposing additional perchlorate monitoring

costs on water systems is not warranted at this time. Therefore, EPA

has removed the requirement for monitoring perchlorate under the UCMR 2

program. If EPA later decides that additional perchlorate monitoring is

warranted, the Agency will undertake an appropriate rulemaking action.

5. Nitrosamines/NDMA and Related Methods

a. This Rule

This rule requires systems to monitor for six nitrosamines as part

of the List 2, Screening Survey. The final rule also specifies EPA

Method 521 for analysis of these compounds. There were no changes

between the proposed and final rule language regarding these priority

contaminants and their associated method.

b. Summary of Major Comments

Some commenters thought that nitrosamine sampling would be more

appropriately conducted as part of the Stage 1 and Stage 2 DBPRs. EPA

disagrees with these comments for several reasons. While in fact, to

date, the scientific literature identifies only N‐nitroso‐dimethylamine

(NDMA) and N‐nitrosodiethylamine (NDEA) as disinfection byproducts, the

Screening Survey for nitrosamines is designed to aid in understanding

the proportion of nitrosamines, particularly NDMA, that results from

source water contamination versus that which results from disinfection.

Also, the nitrosamines in this regulation are all compounds projected

to have significant adverse health effects. All of these compounds are

probable human carcinogens with 10

‐\6\ cancer risk levels

that are in the low nanogram per liter range. These compounds would be

high priorities for monitoring whether their occurrence is the result

of source water contamination or disinfection.

Several commenters disagreed with the use of Method 521, mostly

because of questions on the scope and extent of interlaboratory testing

and validation. Commenters thought that methods that are already being

used by laboratories should be allowed under UCMR. Several commenters

gave specific suggestions as to which methods were commonly in use that

could be used for UCMR monitoring.

The methods developed by EPA, for this and other chemical methods

needs for the analysis of drinking water, were subjected to a rigorous

process that included a series of testing, validation studies and peer

review, which went beyond the proficiency testing or round robin study

of the alternative draft unpublished methods suggested by the

commenters. Each individual procedure of every method proposed by EPA

was subjected to rigorous testing for a minimum of two years using

scientifically sound procedures. EPA's review of the suggested

alternative draft methods also identified technical deficiencies that

preclude their approval for monitoring under UCMR 2.

6. Flame Retardants, Other Priority Contaminants, and Related Methods

a. This Rule

Under this rule, EPA is requiring monitoring for five flame

retardants, as well as terbufos sulfone and dimethoate, as part of List

1, Assessment Monitoring. The final rule also specifies EPA Method 527

for analysis of these compounds. There were no changes between the

proposed and final rule language regarding these priority contaminants

and their associated method.

b. Summary of Major Comments

Concern was raised through public comment that only one citation

was provided in the proposed rule preamble supporting the rationale for

choosing this group of contaminants. Public comment suggestions were

made that there may be other groups of contaminants, such as endocrine

disruptors, that would be a better choice than the flame retardants.

EPA notes that both Darnerud, 2001 and Hites, 2004 were cited in the

preamble of the proposed regulation as sources of the statements

concerning flame retardants. There are however, many additional

articles in the scientific literature which could have also been cited.

In an article entitled ``An overview of brominated flame retardants in

the environment'' by Cynthia A. deWit, which was published in

Chemosphere, 46 (2002), the author cites over 180 published articles on

flame retardants. In addition, three published articles; T.E. Stoker,

``Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology'', 207 (2005); T.A. McDonald,

``Chemosphere'', 46 (2002); and I.A.T.M. Meerts, ``Environmental Health

Perspectives'', 109 Vol. 4 (2001) concern tests that have been

performed which support that the flame retardants specified for

monitoring in UCMR 2 are endocrine disruptors.

7. Triazines Chlorodegradates and Parent Compounds

a. This Rule

In the proposed rule preamble, EPA solicited public comment

regarding three triazine chlorodegradates and three of their parent

compounds because the Agency is conducting a cumulative risk assessment

for the chlorodegradates as a group with atrazine, simazine, and

propazine. While atrazine and simazine are already regulated under

NPDWRs, EPA was considering UCMR monitoring for these parent compounds

concurrent with the collection of UCMR data for their degradation

products to determine the degree of correlation between the occurrence

of the parents and their degrades. Though public comment was requested,

triazines were not officially proposed for inclusion under UCMR 2

monitoring. There were no changes between the proposed and final rule

language, and thus, the triazines are not part of the UCMR 2 monitoring

requirements.

b. Summary of Major Comments

Commenter opinion varied regarding inclusion of triazines in UCMR 2

monitoring. For those that supported their inclusion, the primary

reason was health effects. One of these commenters also recommended

that cyanizine be included in this contaminant group. Of those who

opposed including this group, the following reasons were given:

[[Page 375]]
concern about laboratory capacity if two similar analyses using liquid

chromatography/tandem mass spectrometry (LC/MS/MS) were required to be

conducted in the same time frame; concern regarding the status of

method development; the belief that the manufacturer should pay for

occurrence testing; and the fact that information on the parent

compounds is already available.

Although validation of a new triazine method has been completed,

EPA agrees that requiring the use of two LC/MS/MS methods in the same

UCMR cycle could present a laboratory capacity problem. Due to these

concerns, EPA has concluded that triazine monitoring should be

postponed until a future cycle of the UCMR.

8. Other Compounds That Were Considered

a. This Rule

In identifying the target contaminants for this rule, EPA began

with a list of over 200 contaminants, compiled from a variety of

different sources, including: UCMR 1 reserved contaminants; CCL 1

deferred pesticides; CCL 1 suspected endocrine disruptors; and other

emerging contaminants. Through a multi‐stepped review and

prioritization process, the list was narrowed and prioritized. EPA's

final prioritization was based on the available relative health effects

information for each compound.

b. Summary of Major Comments

EPA received comment encouraging the Agency to include some

endocrine disruptors on the UCMR 2 contaminant list. The initial list

that EPA compiled included several contaminants that were identified as

suspected endocrine disruptors during CCL 1 development, as well as

others that are widely suspected to be endocrine disruptors. EPA used a

multi‐stepped review and prioritization process to select 25

contaminants for monitoring from the broader pool of 200 contaminants.

Several different health effects criteria were used to prioritize

contaminants in addition to endocrine disruption, such as cancer

classification and toxicity. Although some contaminants that are

considered endocrine disruptors are not part of the final monitoring

list, all five flame retardants that are part of UCMR 2 are suspected

endocrine disruptors. In addition, EPA will consider these other

contaminants for monitoring in future rounds of UCMR monitoring.

D. How Are Laboratories Approved for UCMR 2 Monitoring?

1. This Rule

The UCMR 2 laboratory approval process is designed to assess

whether laboratories meet the required equipment, laboratory

performance, and data reporting criteria. Laboratories wishing to

participate in UCMR 2 must contact EPA to be considered. This rule

requires laboratories to complete and submit their registration to EPA

by April 4, 2007 (i.e., within 90 days of final rule publication). To

be approved to conduct UCMR testing, this rule requires that the

laboratory be certified under Sec. 141.28 for one or more compliance

analyses; demonstrate, for each analytical method it plans to use for

UCMR testing, that it can meet the Initial Demonstration of Capability

(IDC) requirements and successfully participate in the UCMR Proficiency

Testing (PT) Program; and has the capability to post monitoring data to

EPA's electronic reporting system. Laboratories are encouraged to apply

for UCMR 2 approval as early as possible. The steps for the laboratory

approval process are as follows:

a. Request To Participate

The laboratory must contact EPA requesting to participate in the

UCMR 2 laboratory approval process. Laboratories must send this request

to: UCMR 2 Laboratory Approval Coordinator, USEPA, Technical Support

Center, 26 West Martin Luther King Drive (MS 140), Cincinnati, OH

45268; or e‐mail at: UCMR‐‐Sampling‐‐Coordinator@epa.gov. EPA began

accepting participation requests for the methods associated with UCMR 2

(including List 1, Assessment Monitoring, and List 2, Screening Survey)

following publication of the proposed rule on August 22, 2005. The

laboratory must complete and submit the necessary registration by April

4, 2007.

b. Registration

EPA will send each laboratory that requests a registration package

a list of information that EPA will need to process that application.

This registration information will provide EPA with the basic

information about the candidate laboratory including: Laboratory name;

mailing address; shipping address; contact name; phone number; fax

number; e‐mail address; and UCMR 2 methods for which the laboratory is

seeking approval. Thus, the purpose of the registration step is to

ensure that EPA has all of the necessary contact information and that

each laboratory receives a customized application package, which will

include materials and instructions for the methods that it plans to

use.

c. Application Package

When EPA receives the registration information, an application

package will be sent to the laboratory for completion. This application

package will be customized to address only those EPA methods selected

in the laboratory's registration. EPA may provide analytical standards

to be used when conducting monitoring; however, laboratories will be

required to procure their own standards, where commercially available,

to be used to complete the application process. Information requested

in the application will include:

IDC data, including precision, accuracy, and MRL studies;

Information regarding analytical equipment;

Proof of current drinking water laboratory certification;

and

Example chromatograms for each method under review.

The laboratory must also confirm that it will post UCMR 2

monitoring results (on behalf of its PWS clients) to EPA's UCMR

electronic data reporting system.
d. EPA Review of Application Package

EPA will review the application package and, if necessary, request

follow‐up information. Satisfactory completion of this portion of the

process will allow the laboratory to participate in the UCMR 2 PT

program.

e. Proficiency Testing

A PT sample is a synthetic sample containing a concentration of an

analyte that is known to EPA, but unknown to the laboratory being

tested. To complete the initial laboratory approval process, a

laboratory must successfully analyze UCMR 2 PT sample(s) for each

method for which the laboratory is seeking approval. A laboratory must

pass only one PT for each of the UCMR 2 methods. Laboratories applying

for UCMR 2 approval, and laboratories conducting UCMR 2 analyses, may

be subject to on‐site laboratory audits. No PT studies will be

conducted after the start of monitoring. Laboratories will not be

approved if they did not successfully complete a PT study.

f. Written EPA Approval

After the first five steps (a‐e, above) have been successfully

completed, EPA will send the laboratory a letter listing the methods

for which approval is granted. These letters will also include a

reminder that the laboratory may be subject to on‐site audits. A list

of

[[Page 376]]

laboratories approved for UCMR 2 will be posted to EPA's UCMR Web site:

http://www.epa.gov/safewater/ucmr/ucmr2/labs.html.

2. Summary of Major Comments

Several comments recommended that EPA continue to oversee the

laboratory approval process and offer PTs throughout the UCMR 2 period

to ensure that approved laboratories are maintaining data quality. EPA

notes that the laboratory approval process is meant to establish a list

of laboratories that have demonstrated their ability to perform the

Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) requirements for UCMR 2

methods. EPA and its supporting contractor will be assisting candidate

laboratories to achieve the required proficiency during the laboratory

approval process. Once the approvals are completed, EPA does not intend

to invest the resources to maintain an ongoing laboratory monitoring

program. However, EPA will continue to provide technical assistance to

laboratories that request it. In addition, EPA will conduct a limited

number of on‐site laboratory audits. PWSs also have a role to play in

data quality. In selecting a laboratory for conducting UCMR 2 analyses,

the PWS should consider the laboratory's commitment to data quality. As

a partner in the commitment to quality data, the PWS should request and

review the QC data associated with their UCMR 2 occurrence samples.

Public comments also expressed concern that there may not be

adequate time for laboratories to receive certification, resulting in

reduced laboratory capacity at the onset of monitoring. Recommendations

included: Adjusting monitoring schedules in instances of inadequate

laboratory capacity; conducting the laboratory approval process prior

to rule promulgation; and extending the deadline for laboratories to

report monitoring results. EPA began offering the first round of

preliminary laboratory PTs in mid‐2006. Additional rounds were

conducted before and are scheduled to be conducted after promulgation

of the final regulation. EPA is confident that sufficient laboratory

capacity will be available, but will also closely evaluate the results

of these preliminary PTs.

In addition, this rule contains language that revises the Screening

Survey and Assessment Monitoring time frame to January 2008 through

December 2010. This revision extends the start date of UCMR 2

monitoring by 6 months from the proposed July 2007 start date and

allows the Screening Survey to be conducted across three years as

opposed to the two‐year time frame that was proposed. This will allow

PWSs more time for UCMR 2 planning and budgeting and provide additional

assurance of sufficient laboratory capacity.

E. What Is A System's Responsibility Regarding the Use of Laboratories?

1. This Rule

Under this rule, systems selected to participate in monitoring will

be required to use laboratories that are approved by EPA for UCMR 2

monitoring (see Section III.D, above). Large systems must ensure that

the laboratories conducting their analyses meet UCMR 2 QC requirements

and post the data in EPA's electronic data reporting system within 120

days of the sample collection date.

2. Summary of Major Comments

Several comments were received regarding PWSs' responsibility for

laboratory compliance with QC and reporting requirements, indicating

that EPA should be responsible for ensuring laboratory compliance, as a

condition of certification.

PWSs have always been responsible for the quality of the results

produced by the laboratory they employ, whether that monitoring was

conducted in support of UCMR 1 or compliance monitoring under SDWA.

Large PWSs (serving greater than 10,000 people) must ensure that their

laboratories have received appropriate EPA approvals to conduct UCMR 2

methods and must ensure that laboratories follow the specific UCMR 2 QC

requirements. EPA recommends that laboratory requirements be addressed

in the contractual language between the PWS and laboratory. EPA's UCMR

Web site at: http://www.epa.gov/safewater/ucmr/ucmr2 provides

informational materials that PWSs can use to help them evaluate their

data. These materials include: a laboratory approval manual, the

analytical methods (each of which contain a table summarizing QC

requirements of that method), and a general reference guide designed to

help PWSs develop laboratory contracts.

F. What Specific Quality Control Requirements Must Be Followed?
1. Method Development Approach and Method Defined Quality Control

a. This Rule

Under this rule, UCMR 2 analyses will be conducted using five EPA

methods. This final rule revises several aspects of the methods QC

requirements compared to those that were established under UCMR 1,

including: revising the definition of and procedures for MRL detection

limits (see Section III.F.2. for more detail); and no longer requiring

QC samples because standards are generally not available. The final

rule language also contains other revisions to QC requirements that

were necessary because of the removal of perchlorate from the final

UCMR 2 monitoring list. See Section III.C.4 for a listing of those

changes.

b. Summary of Major Comments

A few commenters were concerned that the methods have not been

properly validated, potentially increasing costs if repeat sampling is

needed. These commenters also believe that laboratory capacity would be

insufficient to conduct all required monitoring.

As noted elsewhere, EPA is confident that the analytical method

validation procedures that it has followed provide the appropriate

evaluation of analytical methods and that the design of the Assessment

Monitoring and Screening Surveys ensures that adequate laboratory

capacity will be available. Moreover, as noted elsewhere, the final

rule extends the time frame for Screening Survey monitoring from two

years (as originally proposed) to three years, coinciding with

Assessment Monitoring. This extended timeframe will further enable

approved laboratories to handle the analyses associated with UCMR 2

monitoring.

EPA received comments disagreeing with its proposal to no longer

require QC samples, arguing that this will diminish the quality of the

analyses, and that companies that manufacture QC standards will have

them available in 2006. A quality control sample, in this context, is a

primary dilution standard of methods analytes that is obtained from a

source external to the laboratory and different from the source of

calibration standards. Although EPA agrees that the periodic

measurement of a QC sample is an important element of standard

laboratory quality control, it is not feasible to require the use of QC

samples that do not currently exist and may or may not exist in the

future. In addition, all laboratories will be required to pass an EPA

performance study, which will help to assure the quality of the

calibration standards being used. However, EPA is strongly encouraging

all UCMR laboratories to analyze an independently prepared quantitative

standard on a quarterly basis. If commercially prepared QC standards

are available, they should be used. If not, laboratories should have a

second analyst prepare a separate set of quantitative standards to

serve as

[[Page 377]]

independent quality control checks of the calibration standards being

used by the laboratory. EPA will continue to require that UCMR

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

samples, laboratory fortified reagent and matrix samples, etc.)

designed to assess the quality of their analyses, as specified in each

analytical method and in the ``UCMR 2 Laboratory Approval Manual''

(USEPA, 2004d).

2. Minimum Reporting Level

a. This Rule

Under this rule, all laboratories certified to conduct UCMR

analysis must be able to demonstrate their ability to detect each UCMR

contaminant at the specified MRL. MRLs represent an estimate of the

lowest concentration of a compound that can be quantitatively measured

by a group of experienced drinking water laboratories. Previously, MRLs

had been determined by analytical laboratories using expert

professional judgment, but standard criteria for MRL determinations had

not been established. For this rule, EPA has revised the process for

developing MRLs as follows. The MRLs are now based on Lowest

Concentration Minimum Reporting Levels (LCMRLs) which were determined

by each laboratory that developed or subsequently tested the methods.

LCMRLs represent the lowest concentration of a compound that can be

quantitatively determined in each individual laboratory. In the

interest of greater consistency, EPA has developed a statistical

protocol for single‐laboratory determinations of LCMRLs, using linear

regression and prediction intervals.

b. Summary of Major Comments

Several comments were received regarding the number of significant

figures associated with the MRLs. These commenters wanted the number of

significant figures reduced. In considering public comments, EPA agrees

that the MRLs should be reported to one significant figure. The final

regulation contains revised language reflecting that MRLs are rounded

to one significant figure.

Commenters also thought that having a different MRL for each

analyte may lead to calibration errors. They suggested revising the

MRLs within each method to achieve some proportional relationship among

the MRLs. EPA does not agree with this comment. The MRLs are based upon

a statistical analysis of the quantitation levels achieved at multiple

laboratories. To adjust those to some proportional level would be

arbitrary.

3. Lowest Concentration Minimum Reporting Level

a. This Rule

EPA has developed a protocol for developing MRLs based on LCMRLs

determined by each laboratory that developed or subsequently tested the

methods listed in this action. For UCMR 1, EPA specified MRLs and a

requirement for recovery at the MRL so that data quality was documented

daily. In the interest of greater consistency, EPA developed a

statistical protocol for single‐laboratory determinations of LCMRLs
using linear regression and prediction intervals. This approach has

been evaluated through expert peer review conducted in accordance with

the Agency's formal peer review process and through the performance of

a pilot‐scale interlaboratory study. A free tool for calculating the

LCMRL was developed and is available for download on the Web: http://

www.epa.gov/safewater/methods/sourcalt.html#Mlcmrl.

b. Summary of Major Comments

Some public commenters disagreed with the 50‐150 percent acceptance

criteria for MRLs, arguing that it exceeds routinely accepted criteria,

and suggested instead to use 10‐20 percent. EPA believes

that these commenters are referring to 10‐20% relative

standard deviation (RSD) and notes that the MRL verification

requirement is based on the three sigma prediction interval being

within 50‐150 percent. EPA believes that the 50‐150 percent criteria is

in fact, a very stringent requirement comparable to that advocated by

the commenters. As an example, to meet the 50‐150 percent criteria for

the 99 percent prediction interval, as specified in Sec.

141.40(a)(5)(iii), and assuming 100 percent accuracy, would require an

RSD of 13.5 percent. Since both precision and accuracy are measured by

this criterion, any errors in accuracy would serve to reduce the

required RSD even further, and make the precision criteria more

stringent.

Other comments expressed concern that acceptance criteria were not

consistently applied, possibly leading to inconsistencies in the

precision and accuracy of reported values. EPA agrees that the LCMRL

process, as specified in the proposed regulation, does not apply

consistent acceptance criteria over the analytical range of the test

method. EPA has always recognized that precision and accuracy of

analytical methods are a function of concentration, and has generally

published differing acceptance criteria for its methods in recognition

of this fact. These concentration‐based criteria do not in any way

represent a change in policy, rather, recognition of the reality of

analytical measurements.

4. Laboratory Fortified Sample Matrix and Laboratory Fortified Sample

Matrix Duplicate

a. This Rule

Under this rule, all participating laboratories will be required to

analyze Laboratory Fortified Sample Matrix (LFSM) samples for accuracy,

and Laboratory Fortified Sample Matrix Duplicate (LFSMD) samples for

precision, for all UCMR 2 contaminants. LFSM/LFSMD samples must be

prepared using a sample collected and analyzed in accordance with UCMR

2 requirements and analyzed at a frequency of 5 percent (or one LFSM/

LFSMD set per every 20 samples) or with each sample batch, whichever is

more frequent. In addition, the LFSM/LFSMD fortification concentrations

must be alternated between a low‐level fortification and mid‐level

fortification approximately 50 percent of the time. The low‐level LFSM/

LFSMD fortification concentration must be within 50

percent of the MRL for each contaminant, and the mid‐level LFSM/LFSMD

fortification concentration must be within 20 percent of

the mid‐level calibration standard for each contaminant. The low‐level

method fortification level requirement of 50 percent

represents a revision to the proposed rule language based on public

comments that 20 percent was too restrictive.

b. Summary of Major Comments

Some commenters expressed concerned about the added expense of

extra bottles and the time needed to coordinate with laboratories and

other utilities to ensure that the proper number of LFSM/LFSMD samples

will be submitted. Although EPA has changed the way that QC data will

be tracked, EPA has not changed the number of sample bottles which need

to be collected. The requirement to fortify at least one UCMR field

sample per analytical batch, and to report these data to EPA, has not

changed from UCMR 1. The only change compared to UCMR 1 is in how the

data are to be reported. Previously, laboratories were required to

report the percent recoveries of each analyte in the fortified field

samples; in UCMR 2 they are required to report the analytical result

and EPA will compute the recoveries.

Other commenters suggested using the same sample for duplicates

instead of a second sample and using more

[[Page 378]]

laboratory blanks to decrease cost. EPA notes that data from laboratory

blanks and fortified matrix samples provide very different information.

Data from fortified reagent water samples help the data user understand

how well the laboratory is performing the analysis. Fortified matrix

samples are used to determine if there are interfering compounds in the

matrix that preclude accurate analysis and to assess the precision and

accuracy of the database of field results. Since fortified reagent

water samples are not subject to the same type of matrix interferences

that field samples are, data from reagent water samples are not a

scientifically valid way to determine the precision and accuracy of

field data.

G. When Are Samples Collected?

1. This Rule

To accommodate PWS preparation for rule implementation and to

provide additional assurance of sufficient laboratory capacity, this

rule contains revised language that changes the start of monitoring

from July 2007 to January 2008, such that the effective monitoring

period is now January 2008 through December 2010. This rule also

contains language that revises the Screening Survey time frame to match

that of Assessment Monitoring. Thus, Screening Survey systems will be

scheduled to monitor during a continuous 12‐month period during January

2008 through December 2010.

In addition, as under UCMR 1, ground water sampling points must be
monitored twice in a consecutive 12‐month period. However, to provide

PWSs with more flexibility, the final rule contains revised language to

allow the second sampling event for ground water sampling points to

occur within 5‐7 months of the first sampling event instead of within 6

months, as proposed. EPA will establish schedules for all systems to

ensure adequate laboratory capacity for the analysis of UCMR

contaminants and to improve the oversight of monitoring and data

reporting. EPA will use the State Monitoring Plans to identify all

systems that will participate in the UCMR 2 program, and to identify

the monitoring schedule for each system.

This action also contains language that clarifies the definition of

a sampling location's source type. The final rule language specifies

that if any percentage of the total water associated with a sampling

point originates either from surface water or ground water under the

direct influence of surface water (GWUDI) during the 12‐month

monitoring period, then that source should be reported as ``SW'' or

``GU'' as appropriate. These sampling points must be monitored for four

consecutive quarters, with sample events occurring three months apart

(e.g., a system could conduct monitoring in either: (1) January, April,

July, October; (2) February, May, August, November; or (3) March, June,

September, December).

2. Summary of Major Comments

Many commenters did not support EPA's proposal to designate each

PWS's month and year of monitoring, expressing concern for budget and

scheduling, and some specific concerns that the assigned schedule could

conflict with the Initial Distribution System Evaluation (IDSE) that is

required under the Stage 2 DBPR. Alternatives recommended by commenters

included: setting a ``window'' in which monitoring must be completed;

allowing systems to conduct monitoring over the entire monitoring

period; and allowing systems to set their own schedules. Some

commenters recommended that EPA change the Screening Survey time frame

to match that of Assessment Monitoring; others recommended delaying the

start of the Screening Survey by one year. Based on its experience with

UCMR 1, EPA has determined that establishing a defined schedule (month

and year) for each PWS is necessary. Under UCMR 1, EPA did not

establish Assessment Monitoring schedules for large systems. This

resulted in delayed or incomplete monitoring for a number of large

systems, leading to enforcement actions that may have been avoided had

schedules been established. To help PWSs with scheduling and to provide

additional assurance of laboratory capacity, the final regulation

contains revised language that: (1) Changes the monitoring period for

UCMR 2 from July 2007 through June 2010 to January 2008 through

December 2010; and (2) extends the two‐year monitoring period for the

List 2 Screening Survey contaminants to three years, such that the

Screening Survey will coincide with the three‐year Assessment

Monitoring period of January 2008 through December 2010. In addition,

systems will have the opportunity to change their sampling schedules

either through EPA's electronic data reporting system by August 2,

2007, or after this date by fax, mail, or e‐mail request to EPA.

Some commenters indicated that wells may not be operating

continually and therefore, some systems with ground water sources will

be unable to meet EPA's schedule. Some recommended that EPA allow

systems to conduct the second sampling event within 5‐7 months of the

first sample, as was done under UCMR 1. In response to this

recommendation, the final regulation contains revised language that

extends the time frame for collecting the second ground water sample to

5‐7 months following the collection of the first round of samples. For

planning purposes, EPA will initially schedule these sampling events 6

months apart. However, systems will have the flexibility to sample

within a 5‐7 month window. Systems will be required to notify EPA if

they cannot monitor within this 3‐month window. Refer to Section

III.J.1.c for more detail on the requirement for a water system to

notify EPA if it is unable to monitor according to its assigned

schedule.

H. Where Are Samples Collected?

1. Entry Points to the Distribution System

a. This Rule

This rule establishes that all UCMR 2 samples will be collected at

entry points to the distribution system (EPTDSs), and for nitrosamines,

within the distribution system, and eliminates the option of source

water monitoring (except for source water that leaves the EPTDS

untreated).

b. Summary of Major Comments

Several commenters disagreed with EPA's proposal to eliminate

monitoring from ``raw source water'' samples. Several reasons were

given, including: Cost savings through coordination with compliance

monitoring; raw water samples would provide useful information for

determining which water treatment technologies are needed and potential

human exposure; and EPA allowed systems the option of sampling raw

water or EPTDS locations under UCMR 1. Other alternatives suggested

were to allow systems with multiple source water sampling locations to

collect a sample from the highest risk source based on their Source

Water Assessments, and to require a portion of large systems with

surface water sources to conduct raw water sampling under Assessment

Monitoring.

In response to these comments, EPA notes that the UCMR design was

established in fulfillment of the 1996 SDWA Amendments (Section

1445(a)(2)), which states: ``The regulations shall require monitoring

of drinking water supplied by public water systems * * *'' The UCMR

program was designed to collect data that would provide information for

human exposure study. This is best achieved by conducting monitoring at

the EPTDS as opposed to a pre‐treatment sampling

[[Page 379]]
site. However, to provide flexibility during UCMR 1, systems were

allowed to collect ``raw source water'' samples in those States where

samples for regulated contaminants were collected prior to treatment.

If a system detected any contaminants above the MRL (and treatment was

subsequently applied), monitoring at EPTDSs was subsequently required.

This created substantial confusion and errant reporting during UCMR 1;

many systems did not fully understand or comply with the requirement to

conduct the required EPTDS monitoring following a raw water detection.

EPA anticipates that this confusion would be even more likely during

UCMR 2 if raw water monitoring was allowed because of the anticipated

occurrence rates for some UCMR 2 analytes. Moreover, since UCMR 2

methods are not used to support regulated contaminant monitoring, UCMR

2 samples cannot be used to meet compliance monitoring requirements.

2. Distribution System Maximum Residence Time

a. This Rule

This rule requires systems that are participating in the Screening

Survey to collect nitrosamine samples both at EPTDSs and in the

distribution system to capture the occurrence of nitrosamines as

disinfection byproducts. This rule requires systems to collect their

nitrosamine samples at their distribution system maximum residence time

(DSMRT) location(s) for each treatment plant/water source as defined in

the Stage 1 DBPR. Water systems that do not have defined DSMRT sampling

points in the distribution system (e.g., systems that do not apply a

chemical disinfectant, wholesalers without retail customers) will be

required to collect nitrosamine samples at EPTDSs only.

b. Summary of Major Comments

EPA requested comment on whether nitrosamines should be collected

at both EPTDSs and at the DSMRT for each treatment plant/water source

as defined in Stage 1 DBPR. A few commenters agreed that this

monitoring should occur at both sampling locations. Some commenters

disagreed with sampling finished water, saying that EPA will be unable

to determine whether NDMA occurs in the source or is formed as a

disinfection byproduct (DBP) without raw water data or information on

the disinfection level at the time of sample collection. In addition,

commenters pointed out that treatment can reduce the concentration of

some contaminants.

EPA is requiring that nitrosamine samples be collected at two

locations to allow the Agency to evaluate whether exposure to

nitrosamines is influenced by the distribution system. Since the

nitrosamines may occur as source water contaminants and/or DBPs,

monitoring at both the EPTDSs and DSMRTs will provide EPA with the

range of human exposures to these contaminants in drinking water. In

addition, if a nitrosamine is present as a result of reactions with the

disinfectant, the concentration may increase the longer the water is in

contact with that disinfectant. EPA plans to compare the aggregated

concentration data from the two sample points to determine if there is

a significant difference in the concentrations. This information will

assist EPA in determining an appropriate sampling strategy if a

decision to regulate nitrosamines is made after the UCMR 2 exposure

information is available. EPA will also evaluate differences between

systems using free chlorine versus chloramines to determine if the type

of residual disinfectant is associated with nitrosamine levels.

EPA agrees that the UCMR 2 data will not establish the source of

nitrosamines, if they are present in finished water. However, the

Agency does not agree that raw water data would necessarily establish

the source of nitrosamine contamination. Some coagulant aid polymers

used in drinking water treatment have been implicated as precursors of

nitrosamines. The inability to identify the source of the contaminant

is not limited to nitrosamines; it extends to all UCMR 2 contaminants.

The UCMR program was designed to collect data that would provide

information for human exposure study. This is best achieved by

conducting monitoring at the EPTDS as opposed to a pre‐treatment

sampling site because the treatment process can influence the

concentration present in drinking water.

Several public comments were received regarding the timing of UCMR

2 monitoring and the completion of IDSEs. Commenters were concerned

that most systems have not begun their IDSEs to identify the longest

residence time in their system, and thus, DSMRT locations may not be

available for nitrosamine occurrence testing. During UCMR 2

implementation, disinfecting systems will conduct monitoring at the

Stage 1 DBPR distribution system sampling locations. These locations

reflect the water system's and Primary Agency's judgment concerning

areas in the distribution system that have the ``oldest'' water (i.e.,

those locations with the greatest distribution system maximum residence

times or DSMRT). Under the Stage 2 DBPR, systems will be required to

conduct IDSEs to determine locations with representative high total

trihalomethanes (TTHM) and haloacetic acids (HAA5) concentrations. EPA

agrees that new information collected during the IDSE study may result

in the water system no longer using the Stage 1 DSMRT sampling

locations because other areas of the distribution system may have

higher concentrations of TTHM or HAA5. However, EPA believes it is

still appropriate to use the Stage 1 DSMRT sample locations for the

UCMR 2 monitoring because it is premature to link nitrosamine

occurrence levels to TTHM and HAA5 levels. In addition, no water system

is required to conduct Stage 2 compliance monitoring until 2012, long

after UCMR 2 monitoring is complete.

I. How Should Samples Be Collected?

1. This Rule

This rule includes clarifying language that acetanilide parent

compounds and their degradates must be collected at the same time and

sampling location (Sec. 141.40(a)(4)(i)(D)). Refer to Section III.C.2

for a more detailed discussion of comments pertaining to acetanilides.

This rule also revises system resampling requirements related to
laboratory errors or sampling deviations (Sec. 141.40(a)(4)(i)(G)).

Previously, systems were required to resample within 14 days of

becoming aware of a sampling or laboratory error. Systems will now have

30 days to collect the resample. This rule also retains the instruction

that sample collection and shipping take place Monday‐Thursday to

ensure that samples arrive at the laboratory at the required

temperature.

2. Summary of Major Comments

EPA agreed with comments that recommended acetanilide parent and

the degradation products analysis be conducted using samples collected

in the same location, and at the same time, to provide data on their

relative concentrations. The final regulation contains revised language

to specify that acetanilide parent and degradation product sampling be

conducted at the same time and at the same site.

Several public comments were received indicating that a resampling

period of 14 days is too short. Some made recommendations for extending

the period to within 30 days of receiving written notification that a

laboratory error had occurred or after the system determines that a

sampling error has

[[Page 380]]

occurred. Others recommended up to two months. In response to these

comments, EPA has included revisions to the final regulation requiring

resampling to occur within 30 days of being informed or becoming aware

of the sampling or laboratory error. Extending the resampling period

beyond 30 days would result in a large number of resamples being

collected in the next quarterly monitoring period.

J. What Are the UCMR 2 Reporting Requirements?

1. Information Required Prior to Monitoring

a. Contact Information

This rule finalizes the proposed requirement for water systems to

report contact information (i.e., the name, affiliation, mailing

address, phone number, fax number, and e‐mail address of the PWS

Technical Contact and PWS Official) to EPA. Large systems (those

serving 10,000 or more people) must submit this information by April 4,

2007 using EPA's electronic data reporting system. Small systems, or

States (if acting on their behalf) must submit this information within

90 days of receiving a letter from EPA that requests contact

information. EPA did not receive any comments regarding these

requirements.

b. Sampling Location and Inventory Information

i. This Rule

This rule finalizes the proposed requirement for large PWSs to

provide inventory information for each of their required sampling

locations by August 2, 2007 (i.e., within 210 days of final rule

publication) using EPA's electronic reporting system. For each sampling

location, or for each approved representative sampling location, large

systems must submit the following: public water system identification

(PWSID) code; PWS facility identification code; sampling point

identification code; sampling point type code; and sampling location

water type. Any changes to these data must be reported to EPA's

electronic reporting system within 30 days of the change. Section

III.J.3.b of this action includes a more detailed discussion of EPA's

electronic reporting system.

ii. Summary of major comments

Some commenters recommended that existing inventory information

from the Safe Drinking Water Accession and Review System (SDWARS) or

other databases, such as EPA's Safe Drinking Water Information System

(SDWIS), be used to pre‐populate the database for UCMR 2 to reduce some

of the burden on water systems. EPA will use the large system inventory

that is currently stored in SDWARS 1 as much as possible, and

supplement that with new entry point facilities from SDWIS, as well as

new information provided by the State. PWSs will be responsible for

verifying, correcting, and updating inventory information. PWSs will

identify the facilities/sample points that are required to be sampled

(i.e., all EPTDSs or approved representative EPTDSs sampling points, as

well as applicable DSMRT sampling points). PWSs that are required to

monitor in the distribution system will have the opportunity in SDWARS

to associate the distribution system sample point with an entry point.

c. Proposals for Representative Sampling Locations

i. This Rule

Under this action, some large systems that have multiple ground

water EPTDSs can request approval to monitor at representative entry

point(s) rather than at each EPTDS. Large PWSs can submit either

documentation of alternate EPTDS sampling locations that were approved

by the State or EPA for UCMR 1 or Phase II/V monitoring, or a proposal

for sampling at representative EPTDS(s), with supporting documentation

to demonstrate that any EPTDS selected as representative of the ground

water supplied from multiple wells is associated with an individual

well that draws from the same aquifer as the multiple wells (i.e.,

those being represented).

ii. Summary of Major Comments

Many commenters agreed with EPA's proposal to allow ground water

systems to use representative entry points. Some indicated that EPA

should allow more flexibility in the type of data used to support the

selection of representative EPTDSs. In particular, some commenters

suggested that EPA allow any previously approved representative

monitoring plans used for UCMR 1 (including those approved by EPA) as

appropriate documentation. Commenters also indicated that some systems

may need more than 210 days after the publication date to prepare a

representative well proposal and that EPA should extend this deadline.

In response to comments, the final regulation contains revised

language to allow PWSs to submit documentation of a representative well
plan approved in previous UCMR cycles (Sec. 141.35(c)(3)(i)). However,

EPA is not revising the rule language that lists examples of the types

of information a PWS may submit to demonstrate the representativeness

of a well (Sec. 141.35(c)(3)(ii)). The situation and available data

will vary too widely from PWS to PWS for EPA to specify the exact data

that are necessary. Further, EPA believes that the time frame for

submitting representative proposals is reasonable and notes that

systems were made aware of this opportunity shortly after the

publication of the proposed rule.

d. Reporting/Coordination of Monitoring Schedules for Large Systems

i. This Rule

Under UCMR 2, EPA will establish monitoring schedules for all

participating systems. Large systems have until August 2, 2007 (i.e.,

210 days from the publication of this final rule) to revise their

schedule using the EPA electronic data reporting system. After August

2, 2007, if a large PWS cannot sample according to the required

schedule, the PWS Official must fax, mail, or e‐mail a request to EPA

explaining the reason samples cannot be taken according to the assigned

schedule and requesting an alternative schedule. This rule also

contains revised language clarifying that the second set of samples

from ground water sources may be collected any time within 5‐7 months

of the first sampling event without the PWS being required to notify

EPA.

ii. Summary of Major Comments

Some commenters recommended that the 210‐day deadline for

submitting a revised monitoring schedule be removed and systems be

allowed to conduct monitoring at any time during the entire three‐year

time frame. Commenters indicated that the deadline would limit a water

system's ability to coordinate its monitoring schedule with a contract

laboratory's analytical capacity, and would result in an increased

likelihood of monitoring and reporting violations due to operational

failures beyond the water system's control. As discussed in Section

III.J.1.d of this preamble, EPA will establish a defined schedule

(month and year) for each PWS. During the 210‐day period following

publication of the final regulation (i.e., August 2, 2007), a PWS can

simply revise its schedule using the EPA electronic data reporting

system. Barring a serious problem with large numbers of PWSs wanting to

change their scheduled monitoring to the same time frame, EPA will

honor all of these requests. After August 2, 2007, a PWS may request

that its schedule be changed; however, unlike the first 210‐day period,

the PWS will need to

[[Page 381]]

explain its rationale for the requested change. Budgetary issues or

well closings are examples of problems that will be considered

legitimate reasons for schedule changes. A system is subject to its

original assigned sampling schedule or its modified schedule

established prior to August 2, 2007 via EPA's electronic data reporting

system, unless and until it receives notification from EPA specifying a

new schedule.

To help PWSs with scheduling and to provide additional assurance of

laboratory capacity, the final regulation contains revised language

that: (1)Changes the monitoring period for UCMR 2 from July 2007

through June 2010 to January 2008 through December 2010; and (2)

extends the two‐year monitoring period for the List 2 Screening Survey

contaminants to three years, such that the Screening Survey will

coincide with the three‐year Assessment Monitoring period of January

2008 through December 2010. In addition, because of the logistical

issues associated with sampling for UCMR 2 (e.g., seasonal operation of

some wells), the final regulation also contains revised language that

extends the time frame for collecting the second ground water sample to

5‐7 months following the collection of the first round of samples. This

will allow systems that have multiple sampling points to schedule the

second sampling event across the 5‐7 month window. However, for

planning purposes, EPA will preliminarily schedule these sampling

events 6 months apart.

e. Notice regarding applicability or inability to meet sampling

schedule

i. This Rule

This rule includes system reporting requirements to ensure

communication between PWSs and EPA regarding rule applicability and

compliance. These requirements include: reporting changes in system

status or other factors that affect a system's requirements under the

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

criteria for UCMR); notifying EPA if a system believes it is subject to

UCMR requirements but has not been notified by either EPA or the State

regarding requirements; and reporting to EPA if a system cannot sample

according to its assigned schedule. The final regulation at Sec.

141.35(c)(5) contains revised language to clarify that systems

collecting samples from ground water sources can collect their second

set of samples within the 5‐7 months of the first sampling event.

ii. Summary of Major Comments

Some commenters suggested that EPA develop a list of acceptable

reasons for not monitoring from a source to eliminate the need for

systems to notify EPA. EPA believes that it is impractical to develop

an exhaustive list. It is important that EPA be notified of any reason

that a scheduled sampling event will be missed to allow for effective

coordination of compliance assistance and enforcement actions.

2. Reporting of Required Data Elements

a. This Rule

This rule specifies 15 data elements in Sec. 141.35(e), Table 1,

to be reported with UCMR 2 sample test results. In this table, EPA is

providing clarifying language to the following four data elements:

Water Source Type (data element 3); Sampling Point

Identification Code (data element 4); Sampling Point Type Code
(data element 5); and Disinfectant Residual Type (data element

6). EPA received comments on Sample Analysis Type (data

element 11) and Sample Event Code (data element 15)

but did not revise these data elements in this action.

b. Summary of Major Comments

Comments were received questioning whether systems would be

required to report source water changes that occur throughout the 12‐

month monitoring period or only those that occur between sampling

events. To simplify UCMR 2 reporting, the definition of ``Water Source

Type'' (data element 3) contains revised language specifying

that if any percentage of the total water associated with that sampling

point originates either from surface water or GWUDI source during the

12‐month monitoring period, then that source should be reported as

``SW'' or ``GU'' as appropriate. If a sampling point is served by both

a surface water and GWUDI source during the 12‐month monitoring period,

then that source should be reported as SW (i.e., SW takes precedence

over GU in the hierarchy of source water reporting). The only time that

a source is to be considered ground water is if 100 percent of the

water associated with that sampling point is from a ground water source

during the entire 12‐month monitoring period. By defining a sampling

point source over the entire 12‐month monitoring period, many instances

where a system would otherwise need to report a change in its source to

EPA will be eliminated.

Some commenters indicated that definitions for Sampling Point

Identification Code (data element 4), and Sampling Point Type

Identification Code (data element 5), seem redundant. In

response to comments, the final regulation contains revised language

changing the name of data element 5 to ``Sampling Point Type

Code'' and clarifying the definitions of these two data elements.

Some commenters recommended that EPA clarify the definition of

``Disinfectant Residual Type'' (data element 6) because some

systems may periodically use an alternate disinfectant. EPA's intent in

the proposed rule language was that PWSs would report the type of

disinfectant used at the time of each specific sampling event. In

response to this comment, the final rule contains revised language to

Table 1 of Sec. 141.35(e) to clarify this point.

Some commenters expressed concern that EPA will create

inconsistencies in water system and laboratory databases by retaining

the name ``Sample Analyses Type'' from UCMR 1 but changing the codes

associated with it. EPA revised the codes associated with this data

element (11) to better reflect the type of sample collected.

The values that laboratories used previously proved to be problematic,

since laboratories did not have enough information about the PWS's

treatment systems or sample locations to assign the correct sample

analysis type. Instead, EPA proposed and is finalizing in this rule

codes that will provide EPA with QC information at the field sample

level and with information about which UCMR field sample was fortified.

3. Reporting Process

a. Where to Report

This rule specifies in Sec. 141.35(b)(1) the Web address for

information that must be submitted electronically as: http://

www.epa.gov/safewater/ucmr/ucmr2/reporting.html. This paragraph of the

final rule also specifies that supporting documentation can be

submitted to: UCMR Sampling Coordinator, USEPA, Technical Support

Center, 26 West Martin Luther King Drive (MS 140), Cincinnati, OH

45268; or by e‐mail at UCMR‐‐Sampling‐‐Coordinator@epa.gov; or by fax

at (513) 569‐7191. EPA did not receive any comments related to this

aspect of the rule.

b. Electronic Reporting System

i. This Rule

EPA's electronic data reporting system‐‐called SDWARS, which can be

accessed on the Web at: http://www.epa.gov/safewater/ucmr/ucmr2/

reporting.html_is the primary portal for PWSs and laboratories to

submit contact

[[Page 382]]

and inventory information to EPA. The UCMR program requires that all

monitoring results and associated data elements be reported using this

system. There were no changes between the proposed and final rule

language regarding this data reporting system. The data review and

approval process is discussed in Section III.J.3.c.

ii. Summary of Major Comments

EPA received several recommendations to provide more information

and guidance related to PWS and laboratory use of its electronic data

reporting system. In addition, several commenters requested that EPA

pre‐populate the UCMR 2 database with contact and inventory information

that was collected under UCMR 1, or that it be easily accessible

through EPA's SDWIS database.

EPA is not pre‐populating the SDWARS 2 database with PWS contact

information for two reasons. First, the data that EPA currently has on

file are several years old and EPA is aware that many changes in

contact information are necessary. Second, EPA will use a PWS's entry

of this information into SDWARS to confirm that the system has

successfully set up its SDWARS account. However, EPA will upload all

inventory information that it has available (i.e., PWS identification

code; PWS facility identification code; sampling point identification

code; sampling point type code; and sampling location water type). PWSs

will be responsible for verifying, correcting, and updating inventory

information, as needed. In addition, EPA is finalizing the specific

process for the upload of monitoring results and will release the

details of the process and upload files as far ahead of the start of

monitoring as possible.

Some comments were received expressing concern about the stability

of the UCMR 1/SDWARS 1 database, claiming that data was lost which

caused unnecessary notices of violation to be issued. Comments
suggested that reminder letters/notices for compliance assistance would

be more effective. Other comments were received suggesting that, to

minimize confusion, PWSs have the option to report using the process

they already use to report to their States, and States would then

report to EPA.

EPA is not aware of any cases in which SDWARS lost data. In

general, where data appeared to be lost, closer review revealed other

reasons for the problem, including various situations that resulted in

data that was not officially ``approved'' or data transfer errors by

laboratories that caused SDWARS to reject all or parts of files. When

developing UCMR 1 and the overall UCMR program, EPA was concerned about

the problem of transcription errors in data reporting. Therefore, EPA

designed SDWARS such that the originator (i.e., the laboratory that

performed the analysis) was responsible for entering the data into the

database.

c. Data Review and Approval Process/Timeline

i. This Rule

This rule requires large systems to ensure that their laboratory

posts the data in EPA's electronic data reporting system (http://

www.epa.gov/safewater/ucmr/ucmr2/reporting.html) within 120 days from

the sample collection date. Large systems then have 60 days from when

the laboratory posts the data in EPA's electronic data reporting system

to review, approve, and submit the data to the State and EPA via the

EPA electronic reporting system. If systems do not take action on the

data within 60 days of the laboratory's posting to the electronic

reporting system, the data will be considered approved by the system,

and available for EPA review, and subsequent public release.

Because EPA pays for and organizes the small system testing

program, the review and approval steps for small systems differ. Small

systems are only required to record system and sample location

information on the sampling forms and bottles that are sent to them by

the UCMR Sampling Coordinator. Procedures for submitting this

information will be specified in the instructions sent to the system.

Small systems are not required to review monitoring results, although

they will be given a 60‐day opportunity to review such results prior to

their results being posted to the publicly available Web site.

ii. Summary of Major Comments

Several commenters expressed that PWSs could not be held

responsible for laboratory compliance with the UCMR 2 reporting

requirements. Section 141.35(c)(6)(ii) specifies that PWSs must ensure

that their laboratories post the required data to the electronic

database within 120 days of sampling. PWSs have the responsibility to

require that their laboratory meets this reporting deadline and PWSs

are ultimately responsible for ensuring the quality of their data.

Regarding compliance with review and approval timelines, commenters

also were concerned that unnecessary enforcement notices were issued

during UCMR 1 often because PWSs had not correctly processed and

approved data through SDWARS. Several commenters recommended that

reminder notices would help to ensure reporting compliance during UCMR

2 and reduce the need for enforcement actions. Other commenters were

concerned about laboratory capacity and the ability of a limited number

of approved laboratories to successfully conduct analyses and reporting

within the required time frames.

EPA is currently in the final stages of developing the SDWARS

electronic data entry system for entry of UCMR 2 monitoring results and

is including an automatic e‐mail system that will alert PWSs that data

was entered by the laboratory, thereby reminding PWSs that they need to

review and approve their monitoring data.

4. Cross‐Media Reporting and Data Availability

a. Cross‐Media Electronic Reporting

The reporting required under this final rule is consistent with the

requirements of the October 13, 2005, regulation, ``Cross‐Media

Electronic Reporting'' (70 FR 59847, (USEPA, 2005b)).

b. Data Availability

The data collected through the UCMR program is being stored in NCOD

to facilitate analysis and review of contaminant occurrence; to guide

the conduct of the CCL process; and to support the Administrator's

determination to regulate a contaminant in the interest of protecting

public health, as required under SDWA Section 1412(b)(1). Results of

the UCMR 1 monitoring can be viewed by the public at EPA's UCMR Web

site: http://www.epa.gov/safewater/ucmr/data.html.

K. What Constitutes a Violation Under UCMR 2?

Under this rule, EPA will finalize the definitions for monitoring

and reporting violations as proposed. A monitoring violation under UCMR

2 is defined as: ``Any failure to monitor in accordance with Sec. Sec.

141.40(a)(3)‐(5) is a monitoring violation.'' A reporting violation is

defined as: ``Any failure to report in accordance with Sec. 141.35 is

a reporting violation.'' EPA did not receive any comments related to

these violation definitions.

L. Technical Correction Rule Changes in This Rule

This rule includes two technical corrections pertaining to:

Aldicarb monitoring and State primacy.

[[Page 383]]

1. Changes Pertaining to Aldicarb Monitoring

When EPA published ``Revisions to the Unregulated Contaminant

Monitoring Regulation for Public Water Systems; Final Rule,'' on

September 17, 1999 (64 FR 50556, (USEPA, 1999)), two references to

Sec. 141.40 in Sec. 141.24 became obsolete, but were not corrected in

the 1999 rule. EPA is correcting this technical error by revising the

references to requirements for monitoring for aldicarb, aldicarb
sulfone, and aldicarb sulfoxide in Sec. 141.24(h) and Sec.

141.24(h)(7)(v). EPA suspended monitoring for these regulated

contaminants in a 1992 Federal Register notice (57 FR 22178, May 27,

1992 (USEPA, 1992)), and there are no monitoring requirements for these

contaminants under UCMR.

2. Changes Pertaining to State Primacy

Section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C.

553(b)(B), provides that, when an agency for good cause finds that

notice and public procedure are impracticable, unnecessary or contrary

to the public interest, the agency may issue a rule without providing

prior notice and an opportunity for public comment. In today's final

rule, EPA is removing the reference to Sec. 141.40 in Sec. 142.16(e),

a portion in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) that enumerates the

sections of the CRF subject to State primacy. The reference was first

removed on September 17, 1999 (64 FR 50556, (USEPA, 1999)), when EPA

published ``Revisions to the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring

Regulation for Public Water Systems; Final Rule.'' However, in EPA's

subsequent publication of the ``Arsenic and Clarifications to

Compliance and New Source Contaminants Monitoring Final Rule'' (66 FR

6975, January 22, 2001, (USEPA, 2001b)), the Agency inadvertently

reinserted the reference to Sec. 141.40 in Sec. 142.16(e). EPA has

determined that there is good cause for making this rule change final

without prior proposal and opportunity for comment because removal of

this reference was the product of a prior notice‐and‐comment

rulemaking, (see 64 FR 50556, (USEPA, 1999)) and because the reference

to UCMR monitoring is erroneous and no longer has any substantive

effect. Thus, notice and public procedure are unnecessary. EPA finds

that this constitutes ``good cause'' under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B). For the

same reasons, EPA is making this rule change effective upon

publication.

IV. State and Tribal Participation

A. Partnership Agreements

1. This Rule

Under UCMR 2, States may continue to have a role in rule

implementation through Partnership Agreements (PAs). Because specific

activities for individual States are identified and established through

the PAs, not through rule language, this rule does not contain

reference to PAs.

2. Summary of Major Comments

Comments received regarding State participation in UCMR 2

included:Recommendations that non‐partnering States have an opportunity

to review State Monitoring Plans; concerns regarding State resources to

help implement UCMR 2; and the need for more guidance from EPA

regarding PAs, including the need for a template for the sampling

protocols for States to use as the basis for their water system

notification. EPA sent the draft State Monitoring Plans to all States

prior to the negotiation of PAs. All States that agreed to partner with

EPA were asked to review and provide any needed revisions to the draft

plan. Each State could agree to accept additional responsibilities as

documented through each State's final PA with EPA. In addition, EPA

will provide States with guidance and templates for small system

instructions.

B. Governors' Petition and State‐Wide Waivers

This rule retains the UCMR 1 language that, consistent with SDWA,

allows a minimum of seven State Governors to petition EPA to add

contaminants to the UCMR Contaminant list. This rule also retains the

UCMR 1 language that allows States to waive monitoring requirements

with EPA approval and under very limited conditions. EPA did not

receive any comments on either of these topics.

V. Cost and Benefits of This Rule

In this rule, EPA finalized a new set of contaminants for

monitoring in the second five‐year UCMR cycle of 2007‐‐2011. UCMR 2

Assessment Monitoring (for List 1 contaminants) will be conducted from

January 2008 through December 2010 by 800 systems serving 10,000 or

fewer, and by all systems serving more than 10,000 people. The

Screening Survey for List 2 contaminants will also be conducted from

January 2008 through December 2010 by 800 systems serving 100,000 or

fewer, and all systems serving more than 100,000 (approximately 400

systems). Small systems (those serving 10,000 or fewer people) will not

be subject to more than one component of UCMR 2 monitoring. For cost

estimation purposes, EPA assumes that one‐third of systems will monitor

during each of the three monitoring years (2008‐2010).

Labor costs pertain to systems, States, and EPA. They include

activities such as reading the regulation, notifying systems selected

to participate, sample collection, data review, reporting, and

recordkeeping. Non‐labor costs will be incurred primarily by EPA and by

large PWSs. They include the cost of shipping samples to laboratories

for testing and the cost of the actual laboratory analyses.

In this rule, EPA specified five analytical methods to monitor for

25 new UCMR contaminants. Estimated system and EPA costs are based on

the projected analytical costs for these methods. With the exception of

Method 525.2, these methods are comparatively new and will not coincide

with other compliance monitoring (e.g., no cost savings for coincident

monitoring can be realized). Laboratory analysis and shipping of

samples account for approximately 71 percent of the national cost for

UCMR 2 implementation. These costs are calculated as follows: The

number of systems, multiplied by the number of sampling locations,

multiplied by the sampling frequency, multiplied by the cost of

laboratory analysis. Under UCMR 2, surface water (and GWUDI) sampling
points will be monitored four times during the applicable year of

monitoring, and ground water sampling points will be monitored twice

during the applicable year of monitoring. Screening Survey systems that

are required to monitor for DBPs will be required to sample for

nitrosamines at one distribution system sampling point per treatment

plant (i.e., at the DSMRT), as well as their EPTDS sampling locations.

Following publication of the proposed rule, and EPA's initial cost

and burden estimates, EPA received several cost‐related public

comments. Several public commenters felt that EPA's estimates of cost

and burden (e.g., laboratory, shipping fees and estimated labor burden)

to PWSs were too low.

During the proposed rule and Information Collection Requirement

(ICR) development, EPA estimated laboratory fees based on consultations

with several national drinking water laboratories and based on costs of

similar analytical methods. In response to comments, EPA revisited the

estimates of UCMR 2 method pricing. EPA approached three additional

national drinking water laboratories

[[Page 384]]

(different than those consulted previously) and requested pricing

estimates for UCMR 2 methods. EPA averaged the pricing estimates from

the laboratories that were consulted into the cost estimates. EPA also

revisited key shipping company pricing lists to ensure that shipping

cost assumptions were as accurate as possible.

With respect to per system burden estimates, EPA notes that all

burden estimates represent average burden hours, which include surface

water systems that may have very few sampling points, and thus lower

sampling burden, as well as those systems with higher numbers of

sampling points that would therefore have greater sampling activity

labor burden. Moreover, a system's burden is primarily incurred during

its one year of required UCMR monitoring (between January 2008 and

December 2010). However, in compliance with the requirements of the

Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), these cost and burden

estimates are presented as an average over the applicable three‐year

ICR period (2007‐2009). Small systems (those serving 10,000 or fewer

people) will have the lowest burden not only because of the relative

smaller size of their infrastructure, but also because these systems

will receive a great deal of direct assistance from EPA and/or their

State.

EPA estimates of laboratory fees are based on the average cost

determined through consultations with national drinking water

laboratories, unit costs are as follows:

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

Assessment Monitoring (List 1):

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

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

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

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

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

Screening Survey (List 2):

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

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

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

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

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

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

Shipping is added to the calculated costs to derive the total

direct analytical non‐labor costs. Estimated shipping costs were based

on the average cost of shipping a 15‐pound package overnight, plus a

ground shipment cost of the empty package which is sent to the PWSs

prior to their required sampling.

In preparing the UCMR 2 ICR, EPA relied on standard assumptions and

data sources used in the preparation of other drinking water program

ICRs. These include the PWS inventory, number of sampling points per

system, and labor rates. EPA expects that States will incur only labor

costs associated with UCMR 2 implementation. State costs were estimated

using the relevant modules of the State Resource Model that was

recently developed by the Association of State Drinking Water

Administrators (ASDWA) in conjunction with EPA (ASDWA, 2003) to help

States forecast resource needs. Model estimates were adjusted to

account for actual levels of State participation under UCMR 1. Because

State participation is determined through the PAs, level of effort will

vary across States and depend on their individual agreements with EPA.

Over the UCMR 2 cycle of 2007‐2011, EPA estimates that nationwide,

the average annual cost of UCMR 2 is approximately $8.87 million. These

total estimated annual costs and total estimated costs (labor and non‐

labor) are incurred as follows:

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

Average Total

annual cost estimated

Respondent for all costs for all

respondents respondents

(2007‐2011) (2007‐2011)

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

Small Systems serving 25‐‐10,000, $0.06 m $0.30

including labor only (non‐labor costs

are paid for by EPA)...................

Large Systems serving 10,001‐‐100,000, 3.84 m 19.20

including labor and non‐labor costs....

Large Systems serving 100,001 and 1.91 m 9.55
greater, including labor and non‐labor

costs..................................

States, including labor costs related to 0.49 m 2.45

implementation coordination............

EPA, including labor for implementation 2.57 m 12.85

coordination and non‐labor for small

system testing.........................

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

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

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

Additional details regarding EPA's cost assumptions and estimates

can be found in the ICR Number 2192.01 amendment prepared for the final

rule (OMB number 2040‐0270), which presents estimated cost and burden

for the 2007‐2009 monitoring period. Estimates of costs over the entire

second five‐year UCMR cycle of 2007‐2011 are attached as an appendix to

the ICR. Copies of the ICR and its amendment may be obtained from the

EPA public docket for this rule, which includes this ICR, under Docket

ID Number OW‐2004‐0001.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

Under Executive Order (EO) 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993),

this action is a ``significant regulatory action.'' Accordingly, EPA

submitted this action to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for

review under EO 12866 and any changes made in response to OMB

recommendations have been documented in the docket for this action.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

OMB has approved the information collection requirements contained

in this rule under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44

U.S.C. 3501 et seq. and has assigned OMB control number 2040‐0270.

The information to be collected under this rule fulfills the

statutory requirements of Section 1445(a)(2) of SDWA, as amended in

1996. The data to be collected will describe the source of the water,

location, and test results for samples taken from PWSs. The

concentrations of any identified UCMR contaminants will be evaluated

with respect to health effects and those contaminants will be

considered for future regulation accordingly. Reporting is mandatory.

The data are not subject to confidentiality protection.

The annual burden and cost estimates described below are for the

implementation assumptions described in Section V, Cost and Benefits of

the Rule, of this action. Respondents to the

[[Page 385]]

UCMR 2 will include 1,280 small water systems (those serving 10,000 or

fewer people; 800 for Assessment Monitoring and 480 for Screening

Survey monitoring), the 3,633 large PWSs (those serving more than

10,000 people), and the 56 States and primacy agencies (4,969 total

respondents). The frequency of response varies across respondents and

years. System costs (particularly laboratory analytical costs) vary

depending on the number of sampling locations. Cost estimates assumes

that most Assessment Monitoring and Screening Survey systems will

conduct sampling evenly across the January 2008‐December 2010

monitoring period (i.e., one‐third in each of the three consecutive 12‐

month periods). Because the applicable ICR period is 2007‐2009, only

two years of core monitoring activity are captured in the ICR

estimates. Some rule preparation, including reporting of contact and

inventory information, will occur during 2007.

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

UCMR 2 monitoring will sample an average of 1.8 times per system (i.e.,

number of responses per system) across the three‐year ICR period of

2007‐2009. The average burden per response for small systems is

estimated to be 3.5 hours. Large systems serving 10,001 to 100,000

people and large systems serving more than 100,000 people will sample

and report an average of 2.0 and 2.4 times per system, respectively,

across the three‐year ICR period of 2007‐2009. The average burdens per

response for these two categories of large systems are estimated to be

9.8 and 15.2 hours, respectively. The larger burden per response for

the largest systems reflects the fact that these systems typically have

more sampling locations. States are assumed to have an average of 1.0

response per year, related to coordination with EPA and systems, with

an average burden per response of 203.2 hours. In aggregate, during the

ICR period of 2007‐2009, the average response (including responses from

both systems and States) is associated with a burden of 12.1 hours,

with a labor plus non‐labor cost of $2,170 per response.

The annual average per respondent burden hours and costs for the

ICR period of 2007‐2009 are: small systems‐‐2.1 hour burden at $57 for

labor; large systems serving 10,001 to 100,000‐‐6.6 hours at $197 for

labor, and $1,651 for analytical costs; large systems serving more than

100,000‐‐12.1 hours at $431 for labor, and $4,840 for analytical costs;

and States‐‐203.2 hours at $11,107 for labor. Annual average burden and

cost per respondent (including both systems and States) is estimated to

be 8.1 hours, with a labor plus non‐labor cost of $1,456 per

respondent. Note that small systems do not pay for testing costs, so

they only incur labor costs. The total annual burden for the ICR

reporting period of 2007‐2009 is 40,386 hours (with a labor cost of

$1.51 million); the total annual analytical cost is $5.73 million.

The Agency estimates the annual burden to EPA for UCMR program

activities during the ICR years of 2007‐2009 to be approximately 9,533

hours, at an annual labor cost of $0.66 million. EPA's annual non‐labor

costs are estimated to be $2.3 million. EPA's non‐labor costs are
primarily attributed to the cost of sample analysis for small systems

(analysis is just under 90 percent of non‐labor cost).

Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources

expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or

provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time

needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize

technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and

verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and

disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to

comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements;

train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information;

search data sources; complete and review the collection of information;

and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

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

to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a

currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's

regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. In addition, EPA is

amending the table in 40 CFR part 9 of currently approved OMB control

numbers for various regulations to list the regulatory citations for

the information requirements contained in this final rule.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency

to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to

notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative

Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the

rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses,

small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.

The RFA provides default definitions for each type of small entity.

Small entities are defined as: (1) A small business as defined by the

Small Business Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13 CFR 121.201;

(2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city,

county, town, school district or special district with a population of

less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any ``not‐for‐

profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not

dominant in its field.'' However, the RFA also authorizes an agency to

use alternative definitions for each category of small entity, ``which

are appropriate to the activities of the agency'' after proposing the

alternative definition(s) in the Federal Register and taking comment (5

U.S.C. 601(3)‐(5)). In addition, to establish an alternative small

business definition, agencies must consult with SBA's Chief Counsel for

Advocacy.

For purposes of assessing the impacts of this final rule on small

entities, EPA considered small entities to be PWSs serving 10,000 or

fewer people, because this is the system size specified in SDWA as

requiring special consideration with respect to small system

flexibility. As required by the RFA, EPA proposed using this

alternative definition in the Federal Register (63 FR 7605, February

13, 1998 (USEPA, 1998a)), requested public comment, consulted with the

SBA, and finalized the alternative definition in the Consumer

Confidence Reports rulemaking (63 FR 44511, August 19, 1998 (USEPA,

1998c)). As stated in that Final Rule, the alternative definition is

applied to this regulation as well.

After considering the economic impacts of this final rule on small

entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The small

entities directly regulated by this final rule are a subset of small

community and non‐transient non‐community PWSs serving 10,000 or fewer

people. We have determined that the 1,280 small PWSs required to

participate in either the Assessment Monitoring or Screening Survey

components of UCMR 2 will experience an average cost of $43 per year;

the remainder of small systems are not subject to this final rule.

Although this final rule will not have a significant economic

impact on a substantial number of small entities, EPA nonetheless has

tried to reduce the impact of this rule on small entities. As required

by SDWA, the Agency

[[Page 386]]

specifically structured the rule to avoid significantly affecting small

entities by assuming all costs for laboratory analyses, shipping, and

QC for small entities. As a result, EPA incurs the entirety of the non‐

labor costs associated with UCMR 2 small system monitoring. With its

authority to use monies from the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund

(DWSRF) for the purposes of implementing this provision of SDWA, EPA

has set aside $2.0 million each year to apply towards these costs.

Small system costs are limited to the additional labor required for

reading about their requirements, monitoring, reporting, and

recordkeeping. The estimated average annual burden across the five‐year

UCMR 2 cycle of 2007‐2011 is estimated to be 1.5 hours at $43 per small

system. These costs for small systems are discussed in Section 6(a)(i)

of the ICR document, available on the EPA public docket for this rule,

under Docket ID Number OW‐2004‐0001 at http://www.regulations.gov.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public

Law 104‐4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the

effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal

governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA

generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost‐benefit

analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that

may result in expenditures to State, local, and Tribal governments, in

the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any
one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement

is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify

and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt

the least costly, most cost‐effective, or least burdensome alternative

that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205

do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover,

section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least

costly, most cost‐effective, or least burdensome alternative if the

Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation of why that

alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory

requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small

governments, including Tribal governments, it must have developed under

section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must

provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling

officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely

input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant

Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and

advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory

requirements.

EPA has determined that this rule does not contain a Federal

mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for

State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private

sector in any one year. Total annual costs of this final rule (across

the UCMR 2 cycle of 2007‐2011), for State, local, and Tribal

governments and the private sector, are estimated to be $8.86 million,

of which EPA will pay $2.57 million, or approximately 29 percent. Thus,

this rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of

the UMRA.

EPA has determined that this rule contains no regulatory

requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small

governments. The Agency will pay for the reasonable costs of sample

analysis for the small PWSs required to monitor for unregulated

contaminants under this final rule, including those owned and operated

by small governments. The only costs that small systems will incur are

those attributed to collecting the UCMR samples and packing them for

shipping to the laboratory (EPA will pay for shipping). These costs are

minimal. They are not significant or unique. Thus, this rule is not

subject to the requirements of UMRA section 203.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August

10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure

``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the

development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.''

``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the

Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct

effects on the States, on the relationship between the national

government and the States, or on the distribution of power and

responsibilities among the various levels of government.''

This final rule does not have Federalism implications. It will not

have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship

between the national government and the States, or on the distribution

of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government,

as specified in Executive Order 13132.

The cost to State and local governments is minimal, and the rule

does not preempt State law. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply

to this rule. In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent

with EPA policy to promote communications between EPA and State and

local governments, EPA specifically solicited comment on the proposed

rule from State and local officials.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian

Tribal Governments

Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination

with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),

requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful

and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory

policies that have tribal implications.''

This final rule does not have Tribal implications, as specified in

Executive Order 13175. It will neither impose substantial direct

compliance costs on Tribal governments, nor preempt Tribal law. This

final rule also requires monitoring by a nationally representative

sample of small systems (i.e., those serving 10,000 or fewer people).

EPA estimates that approximately one percent of small Tribal systems

will be selected as part of such sample. EPA estimates the average

annual cost over the five‐year rule period to be $43, based on the

labor associated with collecting a sample and preparing it for

shipping. All other small‐system expenses (associated with shipping and

laboratory fees) are paid by EPA.

EPA consulted with Tribal officials early in the process of

developing the UCMR program to permit them to have meaningful and

timely input into its development. In developing the original UCMR, EPA

held stakeholder meetings and prepared background information for

stakeholder review. EPA sent requests for review of stakeholder

documents to nearly 400 Tribes, Tribal organizations, and small systems

organizations to obtain their input. Representatives from the Indian

Health Service (IHS) Sanitary Deficiency System and Tribes were

consulted regarding decisions on rule design, the design for the

statistical selection of small systems, and potential costs.

Tribes raised issues concerning the selection of the nationally

representative sample of small systems, particularly the manner in

which Tribal systems would be considered under the sample selection

process. EPA developed the sample frame for Tribal
[[Page 387]]

systems and Alaska Native water systems in response to those concerns.

EPA worked with the Tribes, Alaska Natives, the IHS, and the States to

determine how to classify each Tribal system for consideration in the

statistically‐based selection of the nationally representative sample

of small systems. As a result of those discussions, small PWSs that are

located in Indian country in each of the EPA Regions containing Indian

country were evaluated as part of a Tribal category that receives

selection consideration comparable to that of small systems outside of

Indian country. Thus, Tribal systems have the same probability of being

selected as other water systems in the stratified selection process

that weighs systems by water source and size class by population

served.

EPA also held a public stakeholder meeting on October 23, 2003.

This meeting was announced to the public in a Federal Register notice

dated September 11, 2003. Prior to the meeting, background materials

and rule development information were sent to specific stakeholders,

including representatives from the IHS and the Native American Water

Association.

As described previously, this final rule requires monitoring by all

large systems serving more than 10,000 people. Ten Tribal water systems

have been identified as large systems. EPA estimates the average annual

cost for each large system over the five‐year rule period to be less

than $1,200. Such cost is based on a labor component (associated with

the collection of samples) and a non‐labor component (associated with

shipping and laboratory fees).

This final rule, addressing the second UCMR period, maintains the

basic program design of the original UCMR, building upon the structure

established by the original rule for this cyclical program. The primary

changes include: (1) Improving the design of the Screening Survey for

List 2 contaminants to increase the statistical strength of the

sampling results; (2) updating the lists of contaminants to be

monitored and the analytical methods approved to conduct that

monitoring; (3) revising the ``data elements'' required to be reported;

and (4) revising the implementation of the monitoring program to

reflect ``lessons learned'' during UCMR 1.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental

Health and Safety Risks

Executive Order 13045, ``Protection of Children from Environmental

Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), applies

to any rule that: (1) is determined to be ``economically significant''

as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an

environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may

have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action

meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health

or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the

planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and

reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.

This final rule is not subject to the Executive Order because it is

not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and

because the Agency does not have reason to believe the environmental

health or safety risks addressed by this action present a

disproportionate risk to children.

This final rule is part of the Agency's overall strategy for

deciding whether to regulate the contaminants identified on the CCL (63

FR 10274, March 2, 1998 (USEPA, 1998b)). The purpose of this final rule

is to ensure that EPA has data on the occurrence of contaminants on the

CCL where those data are lacking. EPA is also taking steps to ensure

that the Agency will have data on the health effects of these

contaminants on children through its research program. The Agency will

use these data (both contaminant occurrence and health effects) to help

decide whether or not to regulate any of these contaminants.

However, given EPA's interest in protecting children's health, as

part of the original provisions in UCMR 1, allowing State Governors to

petition EPA to add contaminants to the UCMR Contaminant List, EPA

requests Governors to include any information that might be available

regarding disproportional risks to the health or safety of children.

Such information will help inform EPA's decisionmaking regarding the

UCMR contaminant list.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy

Supply, Distribution, or Use

This rule is not a ``significant energy action'' as defined in

Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355

(May 22, 2001)) because it is not likely to have a significant adverse

effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The frequency of

required monitoring and testing in this rulemaking does not rise to the

level of significant cost to drinking water utilities. Therefore, we

have concluded that this rule is not likely to have any adverse energy

costs.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

As noted in the proposed rule, Section 12(d) of the National

Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law

No. 104‐113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary

consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would

be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary

consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials

specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business

practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through

OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and

applicable voluntary consensus standards.

This rulemaking involves technical standards. Therefore, the Agency

conducted a search to identify potentially applicable voluntary

consensus standards. However, we identified no such standards, and none

were brought to our attention in comments. Therefore, EPA has decided

to use the methods development that the Agency conducted (described in

Section III.C), which was necessary to establish acceptable methods for

the determination of these UCMR 2 parameters.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental

Justice in Minority Populations and Low‐Income Populations

Executive Order 12898, ``Federal Actions to Address Environmental

Justice in Minority Populations and Low‐Income Populations'' (February

11, 1994), focuses Federal attention on the environmental and human

health conditions of minority and low‐income populations with the goal

of achieving environmental protection for all communities.

By seeking to identify unregulated contaminants that may pose

health risks via drinking water from all PWSs, UCMR furthers the

protection of public health for all citizens, including minority and

low‐income populations using public water supplies. Using a

statistically‐derived set of systems for the nationally representative

sample that is population‐weighted within each system size category in

each State, the final rule ensures that no group within the population

is under‐represented.

K. Congressional Review Act

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the

Small

[[Page 388]]

Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally

provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating

the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,

to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the

United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other

required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of

Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior

to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A Major rule cannot

take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal

Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.

804(2). This rule will be effective February 5, 2007.

VII. Public Involvement in Regulation Development

EPA's Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water has developed a

process for stakeholder involvement in its regulatory activities for

the purpose of providing early input to regulation development. When

designing and developing the UCMR program in the late 1990s, EPA held

meetings for developing the CCL, establishing the information

requirements of the NCOD, and selecting priority contaminants for

monitoring. During the initial development of the UCMR program,

stakeholders, including PWSs, States, industry, and other organizations

attended meetings to discuss the UCMR. Seventeen other meetings were

held specifically concerning UCMR development. For a description of

public involvement activities related to the UCMR, please see the

discussion in the September 1999 UCMR Final Rule Federal Register at 64

FR 50556 (USEPA, 1999).

Specific to the development of UCMR 2, a stakeholder meeting was

held on October 29, 2003, in Washington, DC. There were 25 attendees,

representing State agencies, Federal agencies, laboratories, PWSs, and

drinking water associations. The topics of presentations and

discussions included: Rationale for selecting a new list of proposed

contaminants; analytical methods to be used in measuring these

contaminants; sampling design, particularly for the Screening Survey

monitoring; procedure for determining LCMRLs; validation of laboratory

performance at or below the MRL; revisions to data elements; and other

proposed revisions based on lessons learned during implementation of

UCMR 1.

In addition to public involvement during program and proposed rule

development, EPA received comments from 36 public commenters. EPA's

responses to these comments are summarized in Sections III, IV and V of

this preamble. EPA has compiled a document containing all public

comments and EPA's responses entitled: ``UCMR 2 Categorized Public

Comments,'' (USEPA, 2006b) which can be obtained by going to http://

www.regulations.gov and searching for Docket ID No. OW‐2004‐0001 under

the advanced search tab.

VIII. References

Association of State Drinking Water Administrators (ASDWA).

2003. Public Health Protection Threatened by Inadequate Resources

for State Drinking Water Programs‐‐An Analysis of State Drinking

Water Programs Resources, Needs, and Barriers. April 2003. Available

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

Darnerud, P.O., G.S. Erickson, T. Johannesson, P.B. Larson, and M.

Viluksela. 2001. Polybrominated Diphenyl Ethers: Occurrence, Dietary

Exposure, and Toxicology. Environmental Health Perspectives

Supplements. Vol. 109, No. S1. Available on the Internet at: http://

ehp.niehs.nih.gov/members/2001/suppl‐1/49‐68darnerud/darnerud‐

full.html. de Wit, C.A. February 2002. An overview of brominated
flame retardants in the environment. Chemosphere. 46(5):583‐624.

Hites, R. 2004. Polybrominated Diphenyl Ethers in the Environment

and in People: A Meta‐Analysis of Concentration. Environmental

Science and Technology. Vol. 38, No. 4. pp. 945‐956.

McDonald, T.A. February 2002. A perspective on the potential health

risks of PBDEs. Chemosphere. 46(5):745‐55.

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

Lemmen, J.G., van der Burg, B., and A. Brouwer. April 2001. In vitro

estrogenicity of polybrominated diphenyl ethers, hydroxylated PDBEs,

and polybrominated bisphenol A compounds. Environmental Health

Perspective. 109(4):399‐407.

Stoker, T.E., Cooper, R.L., Lambright, C.S., Wilson, V.S., Furr, J.,

and L.E. Gray. August 2005. In vivo and in vitro anti‐androgenic

effects of DE‐71, a commercial polybrominated diphenyl ether (PBDE)

mixture. Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology. 207(1):78‐88.

United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1992.

National Primary Drinking Water Regulations; Aldicarb, Aldicarb

Sulfoxide, and Aldicarb Sulfone; Notice of postponement of certain

provisions of final rule. Federal Register. Vol. 57, No. 102. p.

22178, May 27, 1992.

USEPA. 1995. Method 525.2‐‐Determination of Organic Compounds in

Drinking Water by Liquid‐Solid Extraction and Capillary Column Gas

Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry. Revision 2.0, 1995 is available on

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

USEPA. 1998a. National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Consumer

Confidence Reports; Final Rule. Federal Register. Vol. 63, No. 30.

p. 7605, February 13, 1998.

USEPA. 1998b. Announcement of the Drinking Water Contaminant

Candidate List; Notice. Federal Register. Vol. 63, No. 40. p. 10274,

March 2, 1998.

USEPA. 1998c. National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Consumer

Confidence Reports. Federal Register. Vol. 63, No. 160. p. 44511,

August 19, 1998.

USEPA. 1999. Revisions to the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring

Regulation for Public Water Systems; Final Rule. Federal Register.

Vol. 64, No. 180. p. 50556, September 17, 1999.

USEPA. 2000. Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation for

Public Water Systems: Analytical Methods for Perchlorate and

Acetochlor; Announcement of Laboratory Approval and Performance

Testing (PT) Program for the Analysis of Perchlorate; Final Rule and

Proposed Rule. Federal Register. Vol. 65, No. 42. p. 11372, March 2,

2000.

USEPA. 2001a. Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation for

Public Water Systems; Analytical Methods for List 2 Contaminants;

Clarifications to the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation.

Federal Register. Vol. 66, No. 8. p. 2273, January 11, 2001.

USEPA. 2001b. National Primary Drinking Water Regulations; Arsenic

and Clarifications to Compliance and New Source Contaminants

Monitoring. Federal Register. Vol. 66, No. 14. p. 6975, January 22,

2001.

USEPA. 2002a. EPA Method 529‐‐Determination of Explosives and

Related Compounds in Drinking Water by Solid Phase Extraction and

Capillary Column Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry (GC/MS).

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

ordmeth.htm.

USEPA. 2002b. Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation:

Approval of Analytical Method for Aeromonas; National Primary and

Secondary Drinking Water Regulations: Approval of Analytical Methods

for Chemical and Microbiological Contaminants. Federal Register.

Vol. 67, No. 209. p. 65888, October 29, 2002.

USEPA. 2004a. EPA Method 521‐‐Determination of Nitrosamines in

Drinking Water by Solid Phase Extraction and Capillary Column Gas

Chromatography with Large Volume Injection and Chemical Ionization

Tandem Mass Spectrometry (MS/MS). Revision 1.0, April 2005 is

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

ordmeth.htm.

USEPA. 2004b. EPA Method 527‐‐Determination of Selected Pesticides

and Flame Retardants in Drinking Water by Solid Phase Extraction and

Capillary Column Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry (GC/MS). EPA

815‐R‐05‐005. April 2005. Available on the Internet at: http://

www.epa.gov/safewater/methods/sourcalt.html.

[[Page 389]]

USEPA. 2004c. EPA Method 535, Measurement of Chloroacetanilide and

Other Acetamide Herbicide Degradates in Drinking Water by Solid

Phase Extraction and Liquid Chromatography/Tandem Mass Spectrometry

(LC/MS/MS). Version 1.1, April 2005 is available on the Internet at:

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

USEPA. 2004d. UCMR 2 Laboratory Approval Manual. Available upon

request as detailed at: http://www.epa.gov/safewater/ucmr/ucmr2/

index.html.

USEPA. 2005a. Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation (UCMR)

for Public Water Systems Revisions; Proposed Rule. Federal Register.

Vol. 70, No. 161. p. 49093, August 22, 2005.

USEPA. 2005b. Cross Media Electronic Reporting. Federal Register.

Vol. 70, No. 197. p. 59847, October 13, 2005.

USEPA. 2006a. National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Stage 2

Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule; Final Rule. Federal

Register. Vol. 71 No. 2. p. 388, January 4, 2006.

USEPA. 2006b. UCMR 2 Categorized Public Comments. Available on the

Internet at: http://www.epa.gov/safewater/ucmr/ucmr2/index.html.

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 9
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

40 CFR Part 141

Environmental protection, Chemicals, Incorporation by reference,

Indians‐lands, Intergovernmental relations, Radiation protection,

Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Water supply.

40 CFR Part 142

Analytical methods, Chemicals, Environmental Protection,

Administrative practice and procedure, Chemicals, Indians‐lands,

Radiation Protection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Water

supply.

Dated: December 20, 2006.

Stephen L. Johnson,

Administrator.

0

For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter 1 of the

Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 9‐‐OMB APPROVALS UNDER THE PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT

0

1. The authority citation for part 9 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 135 et seq., 136‐136y; 15 U.S.C. 2001, 2003,

2005, 2006, 2601‐2671; 21 U.S.C. 331j, 346a, 348; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 33

U.S.C. 1251 et seq., 1311, 1313d, 1314, 1318, 1321, 1326, 1330,

1342, 1344, 1345(d) and (e); 1361; E.O. 11735, 38 FR 21243, 3 CFR,

1971‐1975 Comp. p. 973; 42 U.S.C. 241, 242b, 243, 246, 300f, 300g,

300g‐1, 300g‐2, 300g‐3, 300g‐4, 300g‐5, 300g‐6, 300j‐1, 300j‐2,

300j‐3, 300j‐4, 300j‐9, 1857 et seq., 6901‐6992k, 7401‐7671q, 7542,

9601‐9657, 11023, 11048.

0

2. Section 9.1 is amended by revising the entries for ``141.35'' and

``141.40'' to read as follows:

Sec. 9.1 OMB approvals under the Paperwork Reduction Act.

* * * * *

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

OMB Control

40 CFR Citation No.

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

* * * * *

National Primary Drinking Water Regulations

* * * * *

141.35.................................................. 2040‐0270

141.40.................................................. 2040‐0270

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

* * * * *

PART 141‐‐NATIONAL PRIMARY DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS

0

3. The authority citation for part 141 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 300f, 300g‐1, 300g‐2, 300g‐3, 300g‐4, 300g‐

5, 300g‐6, 300j‐4, 300j‐9, and 300j‐11.

Subpart C‐‐[Amended]

0

4. Section 141.24 is amended by revising paragraph (h) introductory

text, removing footnote 7 of paragraph (h) introductory text, and by

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

Sec. 141.24 Organic chemicals, sampling and analytical requirements.

* * * * *

(h) Analysis of the contaminants listed in Sec. 141.61(c) for the

purposes of determining compliance with the maximum contaminant level

shall be conducted as follows, with the exception that no monitoring is

required for aldicarb, aldicarb sulfoxide or aldicarb sulfone:

* * * * *

(7) * * *

(v) If the monitoring results in detection of one or more of

certain related contaminants (heptachlor and heptachlor epoxide), then

subsequent monitoring shall analyze for all related contaminants.

* * * * *

Subpart D‐‐[Amended]
0

5. Section 141.35 is revised to read as follows:

Sec. 141.35 Reporting for unregulated contaminant monitoring results.

(a) General applicability. This section applies to any owner or

operator of a public water system (PWS) required to monitor for

unregulated contaminants under Sec. 141.40(a); such owner or operator

is referred to as ``you.'' This section specifies the information that

must be reported to EPA prior to the commencement of monitoring and

describes the process for reporting monitoring results to EPA. For the

purposes of this section, PWS ``population served'' includes the sum of

the retail population served directly by the PWS plus the population

served by any consecutive system(s) receiving all or part of its

finished water from that PWS. For purposes of this section, the term

``finished'' means water that is introduced into the distribution

system of a PWS and is intended for distribution and consumption

without further treatment, except the treatment necessary to maintain

water quality in the distribution system (e.g., booster disinfection,

addition of corrosion control chemicals). For purposes of this section,

the term ``State'' refers to the State or Tribal government entity that

has jurisdiction over your PWS even if that government does not have

primary enforcement responsibility for PWSs under the Safe Drinking

Water Act. For purposes of this section, the term ``PWS Official''

refers to the person at your PWS who is able to function as the

official spokesperson for the system's Unregulated Contaminant

Monitoring Regulation (UCMR) activities; and the term ``PWS Technical

Contact'' refers to the person at your PWS who is responsible for the

technical aspects of your UCMR activities, such as details concerning

sampling and reporting.

(b) Reporting by all systems. You must meet the reporting

requirements of this paragraph if you meet the applicability criteria

in Sec. 141.40(a)(2).

(1) Where to submit UCMR reporting requirement information. Some of

your reporting requirements are to be fulfilled electronically, and

others by mail. Information that must be submitted using EPA's

electronic data reporting system must be submitted through: http://

www.epa.gov/safewater/ucmr/ucmr2/reporting.html. Documentation that is

required to be mailed can be submitted either: To UCMR Sampling

Coordinator, USEPA, Technical Support Center, 26 West Martin Luther

King Drive (MS 140), Cincinnati, OH 45268; or by e‐mail at UCMR‐‐

Sampling‐‐Coordinator@epa.gov; or by fax at (513) 569‐7191. In

addition, you must notify the public of the availability of unregulated

contaminant

[[Page 390]]

monitoring data as provided in Subpart Q (Public Notification) of this

part (40 CFR 141.207). Community Water Systems that detect unregulated

contaminants under this monitoring must also address such detections as

part of their Consumer Confidence Reports, as provided in Subpart O of

this part (40 CFR 141.151).

(2) Contacting EPA if your system does not meet applicability

criteria or has a status change. If you have received a letter from EPA

concerning your required monitoring and your system does not meet the

applicability criteria for UCMR established in Sec. 141.40(a)(2), or

if a change occurs at your system that may affect your requirements

under UCMR as defined in Sec. 141.40(a)(3) through (5), you must fax,

mail, or e‐mail a letter to EPA, as specified in paragraph (b)(1) of

this section. The letter must be from your PWS Official and must

include an explanation as to why the UCMR requirements are not

applicable to your PWS, or have changed for your PWS, along with the

appropriate contact information. EPA will make an applicability

determination based on your letter and in consultation with the State

when necessary. You are subject to UCMR requirements unless and until

you receive a letter from EPA agreeing that you do not meet the

applicability criteria.

(c) Reporting by large systems. If you serve a population of more

than 10,000 people, and meet the applicability criteria in Sec.

141.40(a)(2)(i), you must meet the reporting requirements in paragraphs

(c)(1) through (8) of this section.

(1) Contact information. You must provide contact information by

April 4, 2007, and provide updates within 30 days if this information

changes. The contact information must be submitted using EPA's

electronic data reporting system, as specified in paragraph (b)(1) of

this section, and include the name, affiliation, mailing address, phone

number, fax number, and e‐mail address for your PWS Technical Contact

and your PWS Official.

(2) Sampling location and inventory information. You must provide

your sampling location and inventory information by August 2, 2007

using EPA's electronic data reporting system. You must submit the

following information for each sampling location, or for each approved

representative sampling location (as specified in paragraph (c)(3) of

this section regarding representative sampling locations): PWS

identification (PWSID) code; PWS facility identification code; water

source type, sampling point identification code; and sampling point

type code; ( as defined in Table 1, paragraph (e) of this section). If

this information changes, you must report updates to EPA's electronic

data reporting system within 30 days of the change.

(3) Proposed ground water representative sampling locations. Some

systems that use ground water as a source and have multiple entry

points to the distribution system (EPTDSs) may propose monitoring at

representative entry point(s), rather than monitor at every EPTDS, as

follows:

(i) Qualifications. Large PWSs that have EPA‐ or State‐approved
alternate EPTDS sampling locations from a previous UCMR cycle, or as

provided for under Sec. Sec. 141.23(a)(1), 141.24(f)(1), or

141.24(h)(1), may submit a copy of documentation from their State or

EPA that approves their alternative sampling plan for EPTDSs. PWSs that

do not have an approved alternative EPTDS sampling plan may submit a

proposal to sample at representative EPTDS(s) rather than at each

individual EPTDS if: They use ground water as a source; all of their

well sources have either the same treatment or no treatment; and they

have multiple EPTDSs from the same source, such as an aquifer. You must

submit a copy of the existing alternate EPTDS sampling plan or your

representative well proposal, as appropriate, by May 4, 2007, as

specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this section.

(ii) Demonstration. If you are submitting a proposal to sample at

representative EPTDS(s) rather than at each individual EPTDS, you must

demonstrate that any EPTDS that you select as representative of the

ground water you supply from multiple wells is associated with a well

that draws from the same aquifer as the wells it will represent. You

must submit the following information for each proposed representative

sampling location: PWSID Code, PWS Facility Identification Code, and

Sampling Point Identification Code (as defined in Table 1, paragraph

(e) of this section). You must also include documentation to support

your proposal that the specified wells are representative of other

wells. This documentation can include system‐maintained well logs or

construction drawings indicating that the representative well(s) is/are

at a representative depth, and details of well casings and grouting;

data demonstrating relative homogeneity of water quality constituents

(e.g., pH, dissolved oxygen, conductivity, iron, manganese) in samples

drawn from each well; and data showing that your wells are located in a

limited geographic area (e.g., all wells within a 0.5 mile radius) and/

or, if available, the hydrogeologic data indicating the time of travel

separating the representative well from each of the individual wells it

represents (e.g., all wells within a five‐year time of travel

delineation). Your proposal must be sent in writing to EPA, as

specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this section. You must also provide a

copy of this information to the State, unless otherwise directed by the

State. Information about the actual or potential occurrence or non‐

occurrence of contaminants in an individual well, or a well's

vulnerability to contamination, must not be used as a basis for

selecting a representative well.

(iii) Approval. EPA or the State (as specified in the Partnership

Agreement reached between the State and EPA) will review your proposal,

coordinate any necessary changes with you, and approve the final list

of EPTDSs where you will be required to monitor. Your plan will not be

final until you receive written approval from EPA or the State.

(4) Contacting EPA if your PWS has not been notified of

requirements. If you believe you are subject to UCMR requirements, as

defined in Sec. 141.40(a)(1) and (2)(i), and you have not been

notified by either EPA or your State by June 4, 2007, you must send a

letter to EPA, as specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this section. The

letter must be from your PWS Official and must include an explanation

as to why the UCMR requirements are applicable to your system along

with the appropriate contact information. A copy of the letter must

also be submitted to the State, as directed by the State. EPA will make

an applicability determination based on your letter, and in

consultation with the State when necessary, and will notify you

regarding your applicability status and required sampling schedule.

However, if your PWS meets the applicability criteria specified in

Sec. 141.40(a)(2)(i), you are subject to the UCMR monitoring and

reporting requirements, regardless of whether you have been notified by

the State or EPA.

(5) Notifying EPA if your PWS cannot sample according to schedule.

(i) General rescheduling notification requirements. Large systems

may change their Assessment Monitoring (List 1) or Screening Survey

(List 2) schedule up to August 2, 2007 using EPA's electronic data

reporting system, as specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this section.

After these dates have passed, if your PWS cannot sample according to

your assigned sampling schedule (e.g., because of budget constraints,

or if a sampling location will be closed during the scheduled month of

monitoring),

[[Page 391]]

you must fax, mail, or e‐mail a letter to EPA, as specified in

paragraph (b)(1) of this section, prior to the scheduled sampling date.

You must include an explanation of why the samples cannot be taken

according to the assigned schedule and the alternative schedule you are

requesting. You are subject to your assigned UCMR sampling schedule or

the schedule that you revised on or before August 2, 2007, unless and

until you receive a letter from EPA specifying a new schedule.

(ii) Exceptions to the rescheduling notification requirements. For

ground water sampling, if the second round of sampling will be

completed five to seven months after the first sampling event, as

specified in Table 2 of Sec. 141.40(a)(4)(i)(B), no notification to

EPA is required. If any ground water sampling location will be non‐

operational for more than one month before and one month after the

month in which the second sampling event is scheduled (i.e., it is not

possible for you to sample within the five to seven month window), you

must notify EPA, as specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this section,

explaining why the schedule cannot be met. You must comply with any

modified schedule provided by EPA.

(6) Reporting monitoring results. For each sample, you must report

the information specified in Table 1 of paragraph (e) of this section,

using EPA's electronic data reporting system, as follows. If you are

conducting Assessment Monitoring, you must include data elements 1

through 5, and 7 through 15 in paragraph (e) of this section; and if

you are conducting Screening Survey monitoring, you must include
elements 1 through 15. You also must report any changes made to data

elements 1 through 6 to EPA, in writing, explaining the nature and

purpose of the proposed change, as specified in paragraph (b)(1) of

this section.

(i) Electronic reporting system. You are responsible for ensuring

that the laboratory conducting the analysis of your unregulated

contaminant monitoring samples (your laboratory) posts the analytical

results to EPA's electronic reporting system. You are also responsible

for reviewing, approving, and submitting those results to EPA.

(ii) Reporting schedule. You must ensure that your laboratory posts

the data to EPA's electronic data reporting system within 120 days from

the sample collection date (sample collection must occur as specified

in Sec. 141.40(a)(4)). You have 60 days from when the laboratory posts

the data in EPA's electronic data reporting system to review, approve,

and submit the data to the State and EPA, at the Web address specified

in paragraph (b)(1) of this section. If you do not take action on the

data within 60 days of the laboratory's posting to the electronic

reporting system, the data will be considered approved by you, and

available for EPA and State review.

(7) Only one set of results accepted. If you report more than one

set of valid results for the same sampling location and the same

sampling event (for example, because you have had more than one

laboratory analyze replicate samples collected under Sec.

141.40(a)(5), or because you have collected multiple samples during a

single monitoring event at the same sampling location), EPA will use

the highest of the reported values as the official result.

(8) No reporting of previously collected data. You cannot report

previously collected data to meet the testing and reporting

requirements for the contaminants listed in Sec. 141.40(a)(3). All

analyses must be performed by laboratories approved by EPA to perform

UCMR analyses using the analytical methods specified in Table 1 of

Sec. 141.40(a)(3) and using samples collected according to Sec.

141.40(a)(4). Such requirements preclude the possibility of

``grandfathering'' previously collected data.

(d) Reporting by small systems. If you serve a population of 10,000

or fewer people, and you are notified that you have been selected for

UCMR monitoring, your reporting requirements will be specified within

the materials that EPA sends you, including a request for contact

information, and a request for information associated with the sampling

kit.

(1) Contact information. EPA will send you a notice requesting

contact information for key individuals at your system, including name,

affiliation, mailing address, phone number, fax number, and e‐mail

address. These individuals include your PWS Technical Contact and your

PWS Official. You are required to provide this information within 90

days of receiving the notice from EPA as specified in paragraph (b)(1)

of this section. If this information changes, you also must provide

updates within 30 days of the change, as specified in paragraph (b)(1)

of this section.

(2) Reporting sampling information. You must record data elements

listed in Table 1 of paragraph (e) of this section on each sample form

and sample bottle provided to you by the UCMR Sampling Coordinator, as

follows: If you are conducting Assessment Monitoring, you must include

elements 1 through 5, and 7; if you are conducting Screening Survey,

you must include elements 1 through 7. You must send this information

as specified in the instructions of your sampling kit, which will

include the due date and return address. You must report any changes

made in data elements 1 through 6 by mailing or e‐mailing an

explanation of the nature and purpose of the proposed change to EPA, as

specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this section.

(e) Data elements. Table 1 defines the data elements that must be

provided with UCMR sample results.

Table 1.‐‐Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Reporting Requirements

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

Data element Definition

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

1. Public Water System The code used to identify each PWS.

Identification (PWSID) Code. The code begins with the standard 2‐

character postal State abbreviation

or Region code; the remaining 7

numbers are unique to each PWS in

the State. The same identification

code must be used to represent the

PWS identification for all current

and future UCMR monitoring.

2. Public Water System Facility An identification code established

Identification Code. by the State or, at the State's

discretion, by the PWS, following

the format of a 5‐digit number

unique within each PWS for each

applicable facility (i.e., for each

source of water, treatment plant,

distribution system, or any other

facility associated with water

treatment or delivery). The same

identification code must be used to

represent the facility for all

current and future UCMR monitoring.

3. Water Source Type.............. The type of source water that

supplies a water system facility.

Systems must report one of the

following codes for each sampling

location:

[[Page 392]]
SW = surface water (to be

reported for water facilities

that are served all or in part

by a surface water source at any

time during the twelve‐month

period).

GW = ground water (to be reported

for water facilities that are

served entirely by a ground

water source).

GU = ground water under the

direct influence of surface

water (to be reported for water

facilities that are served all

or in part by ground water under

the direct influence of surface

water at any time during the

twelve‐month sampling period),

and are not served at all by

surface water during this

period.

4. Sampling Point Identification An identification code established

Code. by the State, or at the State's

discretion, by the PWS, that

uniquely identifies each sampling

point. Each sampling code must be

unique within each applicable

facility, for each applicable

sampling location (i.e., entry

point to the distribution system or

distribution system sample at

maximum residence time). The same

identification code must be used to

represent the sampling location for

all current and future UCMR

monitoring.

5. Sampling Point Type Code....... A code that identifies the location

of the sampling point as either:

EP = entry point to the

distribution system.

MR = distribution system sample

at maximum residence time.

6. Disinfectant Residual Type..... The type of disinfectant in use at

the time of UCMR sampling to

maintain a residual in the

distribution system for each

Screening Survey sampling point. To

be reported by systems required to

conduct Screening Survey

monitoring. Systems must report

using the following codes for each

Screening Survey sampling location

(i.e., EP, MR):

CL = chlorine

CA = chloramine

OT = all other types of

disinfectant (e.g., chlorine

dioxide)

ND = no disinfectant used.

7. Sample Collection Date......... The date the sample is collected,

reported as 4‐digit year, 2‐digit

month, and 2‐digit day.

8. Sample Identification Code..... An alphanumeric value up to 30

characters assigned by the

laboratory to uniquely identify

containers, or groups of

containers, containing water

samples collected at the same

sampling location for the same

sampling date.

9. Contaminant.................... The unregulated contaminant for

which the sample is being analyzed.

10. Analytical Method Code........ The identification code of the

analytical method used.

11. Sample Analysis Type.......... The type of sample collected and/or

prepared, as well as the

fortification level. Permitted

values include:

FS = field sample; sample

collected and submitted for

analysis under this rule.

LFSM = laboratory fortified

sample matrix; a UCMR field

sample with a known amount of

the contaminant of interest

added.

LFSMD = laboratory fortified

sample matrix duplicate;

duplicate of the laboratory

fortified sample matrix.

CF = concentration fortified;

reported with sample analysis

types LFSM and LFSMD, the

concentration of a known
contaminant added to a field

sample.

12. Analytical Results‐‐Sign...... A value indicating whether the

sample analysis result was:

(<) ``less than'' means the

contaminant was not detected, or

was detected at a level below

the Minimum Reporting Level.

(=) ``equal to'' means the

contaminant was detected at the

level reported in ``Analytical

Result‐‐Value.''

13. Analytical Result‐‐Value...... The actual numeric value of the

analytical results for: field

samples; laboratory fortified

matrix samples; laboratory

fortified sample matrix duplicates;

and concentration fortified.

14. Laboratory Identification Code The code, assigned by EPA, used to

identify each laboratory. The code

begins with the standard two‐

character State postal

abbreviation; the remaining five

numbers are unique to each

laboratory in the State.

15. Sample Event Code............. A code assigned by the PWS for each

sample event. This will associate

samples with the PWS monitoring

plan to allow EPA to track

compliance and completeness.

Systems must assign the following

codes:

SE1 = represents samples

collected to meet the UCMR

monitoring requirement for the

first sampling period (all

source types).

SE2 = represents samples

collected to meet the UCMR

monitoring requirement for the

second sampling period (all

source types).

SE3 = represents samples

collected to meet the UCMR

monitoring requirement for the

third sampling period (surface

water and ground water under the

direct influence of surface

water (GWUDI) sources only).

SE4 = represents samples

collected to meet the UCMR

monitoring requirement for the

fourth sampling period (surface

water and GWUDI sources only).

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

[[Page 393]]

Subpart E‐‐[Amended]

0

4. Section 141.40 is revised to read as follows:

Sec. 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 Sec. 141.35(a). The determination of whether a PWS is

required to monitor under this rule is based on the type of system

(e.g., community water system, non‐transient non‐community water

system, etc.); whether the system purchases all of its water, as

finished water, from another system; and its population served as of

June 30, 2005.

(1) Applicability to transient non‐community systems. If you own or

operate a transient non‐community water system, you do not have to

monitor that system for unregulated contaminants.

(2) Applicability to community water systems and non‐transient non‐

community water systems.

(i) Large systems. If you own or operate a wholesale or retail PWS

(other than a transient non‐community system) that serves more than

10,000 people, and do not purchase your entire water supply as finished

water from another PWS, you must monitor according to the

specifications in this paragraph (a)(2)(i). If you believe that your

applicability status is different than EPA has specified in the

notification letter that you received, or if you are subject to UCMR

requirements and you have not been notified by either EPA or your

State, you must report to EPA, as specified in Sec. 141.35(b)(2) or

(c)(4).
(A) Assessment Monitoring. You must monitor for the unregulated

contaminants on List 1 of Table 1, UCMR Contaminant List, in paragraph

(a)(3) of this section. If you serve a population of more than 10,000

people, you are required to perform this monitoring regardless of

whether you have been notified by the State or EPA.

(B) Screening Survey. You must monitor for the unregulated

contaminants on List 2 (Screening Survey) of Table 1, as specified in

paragraph (a)(3) of this section, if your system serves 10,001 to

100,000 people and you are notified by EPA or your State that you are

part of the State Monitoring Plan for Screening Survey testing. If your

system serves more than 100,000 people, you are required to conduct

this Screening Survey testing regardless of whether you have been

notified by the State or EPA.

(C) Pre‐Screen Testing. You must monitor for the unregulated

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

if notified by your State or EPA that you are part of the Pre‐Screen

Testing.

(ii) Small systems. Small PWSs, as defined in this paragraph, will

not be selected to monitor for any more than one of the three

monitoring lists provided in Table 1, UCMR Contaminant List, in

paragraph (a)(3) of this section. EPA will provide sample containers,

provide pre‐paid air bills for shipping the sampling materials, conduct

the laboratory analysis, and report and review monitoring results for

all small systems selected to conduct monitoring under paragraphs

(a)(2)(ii)(A) through (C) of this section. If you own or operate a PWS

(other than a transient system) that serves 10,000 or fewer people and

do not purchase your entire water supply from another PWS, you must

monitor as follows:

(A) Assessment Monitoring. You must monitor for the unregulated

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

if you are notified by your State or EPA that you are part of the State

Monitoring Plan for Assessment Monitoring.

(B) Screening Survey. You must monitor for the unregulated

contaminants on List 2 of Table 1, in paragraph (a)(3) of this section,

if notified by your State or EPA that you are part of the State

Monitoring Plan for the Screening Survey.

(C) Pre‐Screen Testing. You must monitor for the unregulated

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

if you are notified by your State or EPA that you are part of the State

Monitoring plan for Pre‐Screen Testing.

(3) Analytes to be monitored. Lists 1, 2, and 3 of unregulated

contaminants are provided in the following table:

Table 1.‐‐UCMR Contaminant List

[List 1: Assessment Monitoring Chemical Contaminants]

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

2‐‐CAS 6‐‐Period during which

1‐‐Contaminant registry 3‐‐Analytical methods 4‐‐Minimum reporting 5‐‐Sampling location monitoring to be

number \a\ level \b\ \c\ completed

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

Dimethoate.......................... 60‐51‐5 EPA 527 \d\............ 0.7 [mu]g/L............ EPTDS.................. 1/1/2008‐12/31/2010

Terbufos sulfone.................... 56070‐16‐7 EPA 527 \d\............ 0.4 [mu]g/L............ EPTDS.................. 1/1/2008‐12/31/2010

2,2',4,4'‐tetrabromodiphenyl ether 5436‐43‐1 EPA 527 \d\............ 0.3 [mu]g/L............ EPTDS.................. 1/1/2008‐12/31/2010

(BDE‐47).

2,2',4,4',5‐pentabromodiphenyl ether 60348‐60‐9 EPA 527 \d\............ 0.9 [mu]g/L............ EPTDS.................. 1/1/2008‐12/31/2010

(BDE‐99).

2,2',4,4',5,5'‐hexabromobiphenyl 59080‐40‐9 EPA 527 \d\............ 0.7 [mu]g/L............ EPTDS.................. 1/1/2008‐12/31/2010

(HBB).

2,2',4,4',5,5'‐hexabromodiphenyl 68631‐49‐2 EPA 527 \d\............ 0.8 [mu]g/L............ EPTDS.................. 1/1/2008‐12/31/2010

ether (BDE‐153).

2,2',4,4',6‐pentabromodiphenyl ether 189084‐64‐8 EPA 527 \d\............ 0.5 [mu]g/L............ EPTDS.................. 1/1/2008‐12/31/2010

(BDE‐100).

1,3‐dinitrobenzene.................. 99‐65‐0 EPA 529 \e\............ 0.8 [mu]g/L............ EPTDS.................. 1/1/2008‐12/31/2010

2,4,6‐trinitrotoluene (TNT)......... 118‐96‐7 EPA 529 \e\............ 0.8 [mu]g/L............ EPTDS.................. 1/1/2008‐12/31/2010

Hexahydro‐1,3,5‐trinitro‐1,3,5‐ 121‐82‐4 EPA 529 \e\............ 1 [mu]g/L.............. EPTDS.................. 1/1/2008‐12/31/2010

triazine (RDX).

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

[[Page 394]]

Table 1.‐‐UCMR Contaminant List

[List 2: Screening Survey Chemical Contaminants

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

2‐‐CAS 6‐‐Period during which

1‐‐Contaminant registry 3‐‐Analytical methods 4‐‐Minimum reporting 5‐‐Sampling location monitoring to be

number \a\ level \b\ \c\ completed

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

Acetanilide Pesticide Degradation Products

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

Acetochlor ESA...................... 187022‐11‐3 EPA 535 \f\............ 1 [mu]g/L.............. EPTDS.................. 1/1/2008‐12/31/2010

Acetochlor OA....................... 184992‐44‐4 EPA 535 \f\............ 2 [mu]g/L.............. EPTDS.................. 1/1/2008‐12/31/2010

Alachlor ESA........................ 142363‐53‐9 EPA 535 \f\............ 1 [mu]g/L.............. EPTDS.................. 1/1/2008‐12/31/2010

Alachlor OA......................... 171262‐17‐2 EPA 535 \f\............ 2 [mu]g/L.............. EPTDS.................. 1/1/2008‐12/31/2010

Metolachlor ESA..................... 171118‐09‐5 EPA 535 \f\............ 1 [mu]g/L.............. EPTDS.................. 1/1/2008‐12/31/2010

Metolachlor OA...................... 152019‐73‐3 EPA 535 \f\............ 2 [mu]g/L.............. EPTDS.................. 1/1/2008‐12/31/2010

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

Acetanilide Pesticide Parent Compounds

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

Acetochlor.......................... 34256‐82‐1 EPA 525.2 \g\.......... 2 [mu]g/L.............. EPTDS.................. 1/1/2008‐12/31/2010

Alachlor............................ 15972‐60‐8 EPA 525.2 \g\.......... 2 [mu]g/L.............. EPTDS.................. 1/1/2008‐12/31/2010

Metolachlor......................... 51218‐45‐2 EPA 525.2 \g\.......... 1 [mu]g/L.............. EPTDS.................. 1/1/2008‐12/31/2010

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

Nitrosamines

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
N‐nitrosodiethylamine (NDEA)........ 55‐18‐5 EPA 521 \h\............ 0.005 [mu]g/L.......... DSMRT and EPTDS........ 1/1/2008‐12/31/2010

N‐nitroso‐dimethylamine (NDMA)...... 62‐75‐9 EPA 521 \h\............ 0.002 [mu]g/L.......... DSMRT and EPTDS........ 1/1/2008‐12/31/2010

N‐nitroso‐di‐n‐butylamine (NDBA).... 924‐16‐3 EPA 521 \h\............ 0.004 [mu]g/L.......... DSMRT and EPTDS........ 1/1/2008‐12/31/2010

N‐nitroso‐di‐n‐propylamine (NDPA)... 621‐64‐7 EPA 521 \h\............ 0.007 [mu]g/L.......... DSMRT and EPTDS........ 1/1/2008‐12/31/2010

N‐nitroso‐methylethylamine (NMEA)... 10595‐95‐6 EPA 521 \h\............ 0.003 [mu]g/L.......... DSMRT and EPTDS........ 1/1/2008‐12/31/2010

N‐nitrosopyrrolidine (NPYR)......... 930‐55‐2 EPA 521 \h\............ 0.002 [mu]g/L.......... DSMRT and EPTDS........ 1/1/2008‐12/31/2010

Reserved \i\........................ Reserved \i\ Reserved \i\........... Reserved \i\........... Reserved \i\........... Reserved \i\

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

Column headings are:

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

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

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

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

analytical methods.

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

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

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

incorporation by reference of the following documents listed in footnotes d‐‐h was approved by the Director of the Federal Register in accordance with

5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Information on how to obtain these documents can be provided by the Safe Drinking Water Hotline at (800) 426‐4791.

Documents may be inspected at EPA's Drinking Water Docket, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., EPA West, Room B102, Washington, DC 20460, Telephone: (202)

566‐2426; or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on availability of this material at NARA, call 202‐741‐6030,

or go to:http://www.archives.gov/federal‐register/index.html.

\a\ The version of the EPA methods which you must follow for this Regulation are listed in d‐‐h as follows.

\b\ The Minimum Reporting Level (MRL) was established by EPA by adding the mean of the Lowest Concentration Minimum Reporting Levels (LCMRL) determined

according to the procedure detailed in ``Statistical Protocol for the Determination of The Single‐Laboratory Lowest Concentration Minimum Reporting

Level (LCMRL) and Validation of the Minimum Reporting Level (MRL)'' by the primary and secondary laboratories conducting the development and

validation of the analytical method to three times the difference of the LCMRLs. If LCMRL data from three or more laboratories were available, the MRL

was established by EPA by adding three times the standard deviation of the LCMRLs to the mean of the LCMRLs. Note that EPA Method 525.2 was developed

prior to UCMR 2, hence the LCMRLs were not determined for analytes determined by this method.

\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. See 40 CFR 141.35(c)(3) for an explanation of the requirements related to use of representative

EPTDSs. Sampling for nitrosamines on List 2 must also occur at the disinfection byproduct distribution system maximum residence time (DSMRT) sampling

locations as defined in 40 CFR 141.132(b)(1)(i) and at EPTDS sampling locations. If a treatment plant/water source is not subject to the sampling

required in 40 CFR 141.132(b)(1), then the samples for nitrosamines must be collected only at the EPTDS location(s).

\d\ EPA Method 527 ``Determination of Selected Pesticides and Flame Retardants in Drinking Water by Solid Phase Extraction and Capillary Column Gas

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

\e\ EPA Method 529 ``Determination of Explosives and Related Compounds in Drinking Water by Solid Phase Extraction and Capillary Column Gas

Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry (GC/MS),'' Revision 1.0, September 2002 is available at http://www.epa.gov/nerlcwww/ordmeth.htm.

\f\ EPA Method 535 `` Measurement of Chloroacetanilide and Other Acetamide Herbicide Degradates in Drinking Water by Solid Phase Extraction and Liquid

Chromatography/Tandem Mass Spectrometry (LC/MS/MS),'' Version 1.1, April 2005 is available at http://www.epa.gov/nerlcwww/ordmeth.htm.

\g\ EPA Method 525.2 ``Determination of Organic Compounds in Drinking Water by Liquid‐Solid Extraction and Capillary Column Gas Chromatography/Mass

Spectrometry,'' Revision 2.0, 1995 is available at http://www.NEMI.gov.

\h\ EPA Method 521 ``Determination of Nitrosamines in Drinking Water by Solid Phase Extraction and Capillary Column Gas Chromatography with Large Volume

Injection and Chemical Ionization Tandem Mass Spectrometry (MS/MS),'' Version 1.0, September 2004 is available at http://www.epa.gov/nerlcwww/

ordmeth.htm.

\i\ To be determined at a later time.

(4) Sampling requirements.

(i) Large systems. If you serve more than 10,000 people and meet

the UCMR applicability criteria specified in paragraph (a)(2)(i) of

this section, you must comply with the requirements specified in

paragraphs (a)(4)(i)(A) through (I) of this section. Your samples must

be collected according to the

[[Page 395]]

schedule that you are assigned by EPA or your State, or the schedule

that you revised using EPA's electronic data reporting system on or

before August 2, 2007. Your schedule must follow both the timing and

frequency of monitoring specified in Tables 1 and 2 of this section.

(A) Monitoring period. You must collect the samples in one

continuous 12‐month period for List 1 Assessment Monitoring, and, if

applicable, for List 2 Screening Survey, or List 3 Pre‐Screen Testing,

during the time frame indicated in column 6 of Table 1, in paragraph

(a)(3) of this section. EPA or your State will specify the month(s) and

year(s) in which your monitoring must occur. As specified in Sec.

141.35(c)(5), you must contact EPA if you believe you cannot conduct

monitoring according to your schedule.

(B) Frequency. You must collect the samples within the time frame

and according to the frequency specified by contaminant type and water

source type for each sampling location, as specified in Table 2, in

this paragraph, with the following exception. For the second round of

ground water sampling, if a sample location is non‐operational for more

than one month before and one month after the scheduled sampling month

(i.e., it is not possible for you to sample within the five to seven

month window specified the Table 2, in this paragraph), you must notify

EPA as specified in Sec. 141.35(c)(5).

Table 2.‐‐Monitoring Frequency by Contaminant and Water Source Types

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

Contaminant type Water source type Time frame Frequency

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

Chemical........................... Surface water or ground 12 months............. You must monitor for 4

water under the direct consecutive quarters.

influence of surface water Sample events must

(GWUDI) (includes all occur 3 months apart.

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).

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

in a consecutive 12‐

month period. Sample
events must occur 5‐7

months apart.

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

(C) Location. You must collect samples for each List 1 Assessment

Monitoring contaminant, and, if applicable, for each List 2 Screening

Survey, or List 3 Pre‐Screen Testing contaminant, as specified in Table

1, in paragraph (a)(3) of this section. Samples must be collected at

each sample point that is specified in column 5 of Table 1, in

paragraph (a)(3) of this section. If you are a ground water system with

multiple EPTDSs, and you request and receive approval from EPA or the

State for sampling at representative EPTDS(s), as specified in Sec.

141.35(c)(3), you must collect your samples from the approved

representative sampling location(s). Systems conducting Screening

Survey monitoring must also sample for nitrosamines at the disinfection

byproduct distribution system maximum residence time (DSMRT) sampling

location(s) if they are subject to sampling requirements in Sec.

141.132(b)(1).

(D) Sampling instructions. For each List 1 Assessment Monitoring

contaminant, and, if applicable, for each List 2 Screening Survey, or

List 3 Pre‐Screen Testing contaminant, you must follow the sampling

procedure for the method specified in column 3 of Table 1, in paragraph

(a)(3) of this section. In addition, you must not composite (that is,

combine, mix, or blend) the samples; you must collect and preserve each

sample separately. Samples collected for the analysis of Acetanilide

``parent'' pesticides and their degradation products (Methods 525.2 and

535) must be collected at the same sampling point, at the same time.

(E) Sample collection and shipping time. If you must ship the

samples for analysis, you must collect the samples early enough in the

day to allow adequate time to send the samples for overnight delivery

to the laboratory. You should not collect samples on Friday, Saturday,

or Sunday because sampling on these days may not allow samples to be

shipped and received at the laboratory at the required temperature,

unless you have made special arrangements with your laboratory to

receive the samples.

(F) Analytical methods. For each contaminant, you must use the

respective analytical methods for List 1, and, if applicable, for List

2, or List 3 that are specified in column 3 of Table 1, in paragraph

(a)(3) of this section; report values at or above the minimum reporting

levels for List 1, and, if applicable, for List 2 Screening Survey, or

List 3 Pre‐Screen Testing, that are specified in column 4 of Table 1,

in paragraph (a)(3) of this section; and conduct the quality control

procedures specified in paragraph (a)(5) of this section.

(G) Laboratory errors or sampling deviations. If the laboratory

data do not meet the required QC criteria, as specified in paragraph

(a)(5) of this section, or you do not follow the required sampling

procedures, as specified in paragraphs (a)(4) of this section, you must

resample within 30 days of being informed or becoming aware of these

facts. This resampling is not for the purpose of confirming previous

results, but to correct the sampling or laboratory error. All systems

must report the results obtained from the first sampling for each

sampling period, except for cases of sampling or laboratory errors. For

the purposes of this rule, no samples are to be recollected for the

purposes of confirming the results observed in a previous sampling.

(H) Analysis. For the List 1 contaminants, and, if applicable, List

2 Screening Survey, or List 3 Pre‐Screen Testing contaminants,

identified in Table 1, paragraph (a)(3) of this section, you must

arrange for testing by a laboratory that has been approved by EPA

according to requirements in paragraph (a)(5)(ii) of this section.

(I) Review and reporting of results. After you have received the

laboratory results, you must review, approve, and submit the system

information, and sample collection data and test results. You must

report the results as provided in Sec. 141.35(c)(6).

(ii) Small systems. If you serve 10,000 or fewer people and are

notified that you are part of the State Monitoring Plan for Assessment

Monitoring, Screening Survey or Pre‐Screen monitoring, you must comply

with the requirements specified in paragraphs (a)(4)(i)(A) through (H)

of this section. If EPA or the State informs you that they

[[Page 396]]

will be collecting your UCMR samples, you must assist them in

identifying the appropriate sampling locations and in collecting the

samples.

(A) Monitoring period and frequency. You must collect samples at

the times specified for you by the State or EPA. Your schedule must

follow both the timing of monitoring specified in Table 1, List 1, and,

if applicable, List 2, or List 3, and the frequency of monitoring in

Table 2 of this section.

(B) Location. You must collect samples at the locations specified

for you by the State or EPA.

(C) Sample kits. You must store and maintain the sample collection

kits sent to you by the UCMR Sampling Coordinator in accordance with

the kit's instructions. The sample kit will include all necessary

containers, packing materials and cold packs, instructions for

collecting the sample and sample treatment (such as dechlorination or

preservation), report forms for each sample, contact name and telephone

number for the laboratory, and a prepaid return shipping docket and

return address label. If any of the materials listed in the kit's

instructions are not included in the kit or arrive damaged, you must

notify the UCMR Sampling Coordinator who sent you the sample collection

kits.

(D) Sampling instructions. You must comply with the instructions

sent to you by the State or EPA concerning the use of containers,

collection (how to fill the sample bottle), dechlorination and/or

preservation, and sealing and preparation of sample and shipping
containers for shipment. You must not composite (that is, combine, mix,

or blend) the samples. You also must collect, preserve, and test each

sample separately. You must also comply with the instructions sent to

you by the UCMR Sampling Coordinator concerning the handling of sample

containers for specific contaminants.

(E) Sampling deviations. If you do not collect a sample according

to the instructions provided to you for a listed contaminant, you must

report the deviation within 7 days of the scheduled monitoring on the

sample reporting form, as specified in Sec. 141.35(d)(2). You must

resample following instructions that you will be sent from the UCMR

Sampling Coordinator or State. A copy of the form must be sent to the

laboratory with the recollected samples, and to the UCMR Sampling

Coordinator.

(F) Duplicate samples. EPA will select a subset of systems in the

State Monitoring Plan that must collect duplicate samples for quality

control. If your system is selected, you will receive two sample kits

for an individual sampling location that you must use. You must use the

same sampling protocols for both sets of samples, following the

instructions in the duplicate sample kit.

(G) Sampling forms. You must completely fill out each of the

sampling forms and bottles sent to you by the UCMR Sampling

Coordinator, including data elements listed in Sec. 141.35(e) for each

sample. If you are conducting Assessment Monitoring, you must include

elements 1 through 5, and 7; and if you are conducting Screening

Survey, you must include elements 1 through 7. You must sign and date

the sampling forms.

(H) Sample collection and shipping. You must collect the samples

early enough in the day to allow adequate time to send the samples for

overnight delivery to the laboratory. You should not collect samples on

Friday, Saturday, or Sunday because sampling on these days may not

allow samples to be shipped and received at the laboratory at the

required temperature unless you have made special arrangements with EPA

for the laboratory to receive the samples. Once you have collected the

samples and completely filled in the sampling forms, you must send the

samples and the sampling forms to the laboratory designated on the air

bill.

(5) Quality control requirements. If your system serves more than

10,000 people, you must ensure that the quality control requirements

listed below are met during your sampling procedures and by the

laboratory conducting your analyses. You must also ensure that all

method quality control procedures and all UCMR quality control

procedures are followed.

(i) Sample collection/preservation. You must follow the sample

collection and preservation requirements for the specified method for

each of the contaminants in Table 1, in paragraph (a)(3) of this

section. These requirements specify sample containers, collection,

dechlorination, preservation, storage, sample holding time, and extract

storage and/or holding time that you must assure that the laboratory

follow.

(ii) Laboratory approval for Lists 1, List 2 and List 3. To be

approved to conduct UCMR testing, the laboratory must be certified

under Sec. 141.28 for one or more compliance analyses; demonstrate for

each analytical method it plans to use for UCMR testing that it can

meet the Initial Demonstration of Capability (IDC) requirements

detailed in the analytical methods specified in column 3 of Table 1, in

paragraph (a)(3) of this section; and successfully participate in the

UCMR Proficiency Testing (PT) Program administered by EPA for each

analytical method it plans to use for UCMR testing. UCMR laboratory

approval decisions will be granted on an individual method basis for

the methods listed in column 3 of Table 1 in paragraph (a)(3) of this

section for List 1, List 2, and List 3 contaminants. Laboratory

approval is contingent upon the capability of the laboratory to post

monitoring data to the EPA electronic data reporting system. To

participate in the UCMR Laboratory Approval Program, the laboratory

must complete and submit the necessary registration forms by April 4,

2007. Correspondence must be addressed to: UCMR 2 Laboratory Approval

Coordinator, USEPA, Technical Support Center, 26 West Martin Luther

King Drive (MS 140), Cincinnati, OH 45268; or e‐mailed to EPA at UCMR‐‐

Sampling‐‐Coordinator@epa.gov.

(iii) Minimum Reporting Level. The MRL is the lowest analyte

concentration for which future recovery is predicted to fall, with high

confidence (at least 99%), between 50% and 150% recovery.

(A) Validation of laboratory performance. Your laboratory must be

capable of quantifying each contaminant listed in Table 1, at or below

the MRL specified in column 4 of Table 1, in paragraph (a)(3) of this

section. You must ensure that the laboratory completes and has on file

and available for your inspection, records of two distinct procedures.

First, your laboratory must have conducted an IDC involving replicate

analyses at or below the MRL as described in this paragraph. Second,

for each day that UCMR analyses are conducted by your laboratory, a

validation of its ability to quantify each contaminant, at or below the

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

section, following the procedure listed in paragraph (a)(5)(iii)(B) of

this section, must be performed. The procedure for initial validation

of laboratory performance at or below the MRL is as follows:

(1) All laboratories using EPA drinking water methods under UCMR

must demonstrate that they are capable of meeting data quality

objectives (DQOs) at or below the MRL listed in Table 1, column 4, in

paragraph (a)(3) of this section.

(2) The MRL, or any concentration below the MRL, at which

performance is being evaluated, must be contained within the range of

calibration. The calibration curve regression model and the range of

calibration levels that are used in these performance validation steps

must be used in all routine sample

[[Page 397]]
analyses used to comply with this regulation. Only straight line or

quadratic regression models are allowed. The use of either weighted or

unweighted models is permitted. The use of cubic regression models is

not permitted.

(3) Replicate analyses of at least seven (7) fortified samples in

reagent water must be performed at or below the MRL for each analyte,

and must be processed through the entire method procedure (i.e.,

including extraction, where applicable, and with all preservatives).

(4) A prediction interval of results (PIR), which is based on the

estimated arithmetic mean of analytical results and the estimated

sample standard deviation of measurement results, must be determined by

Equation 1:

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR04JA07.000

Where:

t is the Student's t value with df degrees of freedom and confidence

level (1‐[alpha]),

s is the sample standard deviation of n replicate samples fortified

at the MRL,

n is the number of replicates.

(5) The values needed to calculate the PIR using Equation 1 are:

Number of replicates (n); Student's t value with a two‐sided 99%

confidence level for n number of replicates; the average (mean) of at

least seven replicates; and the sample standard deviation. Factor 1 is

referred to as the Half Range PIR (HRPIR).

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR04JA07.001

For a certain number of replicates and for a certain confidence level

in Student's t, this factor

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR04JA07.002

is constant, and can be tabulated according to replicate number and

confidence level for the Student's t. Table 3 in this paragraph lists

the constant factor (C) for replicate sample numbers 7 through 10 with

a confidence level of 99% for Student's t.

(6) The HRPIR is calculated by Equation 2:

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR04JA07.003

(7) The PIR is calculated by Equation 3:

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR04JA07.004

Table 3.‐‐The Constant Factor (C) to be Multiplied by the Standard Deviation to Determine the Half Range

Interval of the PIR (Student's t 99% Confidence Level) \a\

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

Constant factor (C) to be multiplied

Replicates Degrees of freedom by the standard deviation

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

7 6 3.963

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

8 7 3.711

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

9 8 3.536

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

10 9 3.409

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

\a\ The critical t‐value for a two‐sided 99% confidence interval is equivalent to the critical t‐value for a one‐

sided 99.5% confidence interval, due to the symmetry of the t‐distribution. PIR = Prediction Interval of

Results.

(8) The lower and upper result limits of the PIR must be converted

to percent recovery of the concentration being tested. To pass criteria

at a certain level, the PIR lower recovery limits cannot be lower than

the lower recovery limits of the QC interval (50%), and the PIR upper

recovery limits cannot be greater than the upper recovery limits of the

QC interval (150%). When either of the PIR recovery limits falls

outside of either bound of the QC interval of recovery (higher than

150% or less than 50%), laboratory performance is not validated at the

concentration evaluated. If the PIR limits are contained within both

bounds of the QC interval, laboratory performance is validated for that

analyte.

(B) Quality control requirements for validation of laboratory

performance at or below the MRL.

(1) You must ensure that the calibration curve regression model and

that the range of calibration levels that are used in these performance

validation steps are used in future routine sample analysis. Only

straight line or quadratic regression models are allowed. The use of

either weighted or unweighted models is permitted. The use of cubic

regression models is not permitted.

(2) You must ensure, once your laboratory has performed an IDC as

specified in each analytical method (demonstrating that DQOs are met at

or below an MRL), that a daily performance check is performed for each

analyte and method. A single laboratory blank, fortified at or below

the MRL for each analyte, must be processed through the entire method

procedure. The measured concentration for each analyte must be

converted to a percent recovery, and if the recovery is within 50%‐150%

(inclusive), the daily performance of the laboratory has been

validated. The results for any analyte for which 50%‐150% recovery

cannot be demonstrated during the daily check are not valid.

Laboratories may elect to re‐run the daily performance check sample if
the performance for any analyte or analytes cannot be validated. If

performance is validated for these analytes, the laboratory performance

is considered validated. Alternatively, the laboratory may re‐calibrate

and repeat the performance validation process for all analytes.

(iv) Laboratory fortified sample matrix and laboratory fortified

sample matrix duplicate. You must ensure that your laboratory prepares

and analyzes the Laboratory Fortified Sample Matrix

[[Page 398]]

(LFSM) sample for accuracy and Laboratory Fortified Sample Matrix

Duplicate (LFSMD) samples for precision to determine method accuracy

and precision for all contaminants in Table 1, in paragraph (a)(3) of

this section. LFSM/LFSMD samples must be prepared using a sample

collected and analyzed in accordance with UCMR 2 requirements and

analyzed at a frequency of 5% (or 1 LFSM/LFSMD set per every 20

samples) or with each sample batch, whichever is more frequent. In

addition, the LFSM/LFSMD fortification concentrations must be

alternated between a low‐level fortification and mid‐level

fortification approximately 50% of the time. (For example: A set of 40

samples will require preparation and analysis of 2 LFSM/LFSMD sets. The

first set must be fortified at either the low‐level or mid‐level, and

the second set must be fortified with the other standard, either the

low‐level or mid‐level, whichever was not used for the initial LFSM/

LFSMD set.) The low‐level LFSM/LFSMD fortification concentration must

be within 50% of the MRL for each contaminant (e.g., for an

MRL of 1 [mu]g/L the acceptable fortification levels must be between

0.5 [mu]g/L and 1.5 [mu]g/L). The mid‐level LFSM/LFSMD fortification

concentration must be within 20% of the mid‐level

calibration standard for each contaminant, and should represent, where

possible and where the laboratory has data from previously analyzed

samples, an approximate average concentration observed in previous

analyses of that analyte. There are no acceptance criteria specified

for LFSM/LFSMD analyses. All LFSM/LFSMD data are to be reported.

(v) Method defined quality control. You must ensure that your

laboratory performs Laboratory Fortified Blanks and Laboratory

Performance Checks, as appropriate to the method's requirements, for

those methods listed in Table 1, column 3, in paragraph (a)(3) of this

section. Each method specifies acceptance criteria for these QC checks.

(vi) Reporting. You must ensure that your laboratory reports the

analytical results and other data, with the required data listed in

Table 1, in Sec. 141.35(e). You must require your laboratory to submit

these data electronically to the State and EPA using EPA's electronic

data reporting system, accessible at (http://www.epa.gov/safewater/

ucmr/ucmr2/reporting.html), within 120 days from the sample collection

date. You then have 60 days from when the laboratory posts the data to

review, approve, and submit the data to the State and EPA, via EPA's

electronic data reporting system. If you do not electronically approve

and submit the laboratory data to EPA within 60 days of the

laboratory's posting to EPA's electronic reporting system, the data

will be considered approved and final for State and EPA review.

(6) Violation of this rule.

(i) Monitoring violations. Any failure to monitor in accordance

with Sec. 141.40(a)(3)‐(5) is a monitoring violation.

(ii) Reporting violations. Any failure to report in accordance with

Sec. 141.35 is a reporting violation.

(b) Petitions and Waivers by States. (1) Governors' petition for

additional contaminants. The Safe Drinking Water Act allows Governors

of seven (7) or more States to petition the EPA Administrator to add

one or more contaminants to the UCMR Contaminant List in paragraph

(a)(3) of this section. The petition must clearly identify the

reason(s) for adding the contaminant(s) to the monitoring list,

including the potential risk to public health, particularly any

information that might be available regarding disproportional risks to

the health and safety of children, the expected occurrence documented

by any available data, any analytical methods known or proposed to be

used to test for the contaminant(s), and any other information that

could assist the Administrator in determining which contaminants

present the greatest public health concern and should, therefore, be

included on the UCMR Contaminant List in paragraph (a)(3) of this

section.

(2) State‐wide waivers. A State can waive monitoring requirements

only with EPA approval and under very limited conditions. Conditions

and procedures for obtaining a waiver are as follows:

(i) Application. A State may apply to EPA for a State‐wide waiver

from the unregulated contaminant monitoring requirements for PWSs

serving more than 10,000 people. To apply for such a waiver, the State

must submit an application to EPA that includes the following

information: The list of contaminants on the UCMR Contaminant List for

which a waiver is requested, along with documentation for each

contaminant in the request demonstrating that the contaminants or their

parent compounds do not occur naturally in the State, and certifying

that during the past 15 years they have not been used, applied, stored,

disposed of, released, or detected in the source waters or distribution

systems in the State.

(ii) Approval. EPA will review State applications and notify the

State whether it accepts or rejects the request. The State must receive

written approval from EPA before issuing a State‐wide waiver.

PART 142‐‐NATIONAL PRIMARY DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS

IMPLEMENTATION

0

6. The authority citation for part 142 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 300f, 300g‐1, 300g‐2, 300g‐3, 300g‐4, 300g‐
5, 300g‐6, 300j‐4, 300j‐9, and 300j‐11.

Subpart B‐‐[Amended]

0

7. Section 142.16 is amended by revising paragraph (e) introductory

text to read as follows:

Sec. 142.16 Special primacy requirements.

* * * * *

(e) An application for approval of a State program revision which

adopts the requirements specified in Sec. Sec. 141.11, 141.23, 141.24,

141.32, 141.61, and 141.62 for a newly regulated contaminant must

contain the following (in addition to the general primacy requirements

enumerated elsewhere in this part, including the requirement that State

regulations be at least as stringent as the Federal requirements):

* * * * *

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

BILLING CODE 6560‐50‐P