Document ID: EPA-HQ-OW-2003-0022-0001
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2003-03-21T05:00Z

EPA
ICR
Number:
1896.03
Disinfectants/
Disinfection
Byproducts,
Chemical,
and
Radionuclides
Information
Collection
Request:
Unregulated
Contaminant
Monitoring
Regulation
List
2
Amendments
January
2002
Prepared
By:

The
Cadmus
Group,
Inc.
135
Beaver
Street
Waltham,
Massachusetts
02452
Prepared
For:

EPA
Contract
No.
68­
C­
99­
206
Work
Assignment
2­
09
Ms.
Phyllis
Branson
Work
Assignment
Manager
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
Office
of
Ground
Water
and
Drinking
Water
Washington,
D.
C.
20460
i
TABLE
OF
CONTENTS
ACRONYMS
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
iv
1
IDENTIFICATION
OF
THE
INFORMATION
COLLECTION
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
1
1(
a)
Title
and
Number
of
the
Information
Collection
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
1
1(
b)
Short
Characterization
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
1
2
NEED
FOR
AND
USE
OF
THE
COLLECTION
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
3
2(
a)
Need/
Authority
for
the
Collection
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
3
2(
b)
Uses/
Users
of
the
Data
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
4
2(
b)(
i)
Uses
of
the
Data
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
4
2(
b)(
ii)
Users
of
the
Data
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
4
3
NON­
DUPLICATION,
CONSULTATIONS,
AND
OTHER
COLLECTION
CRITERIA
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
6
3(
a)
Non­
duplication
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
6
3(
b)
Public
Notice
Required
Prior
to
ICR
Submission
to
OMB
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
6
3(
c)
Consultations
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
6
3(
d)
Effects
of
Less
Frequent
Collection
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
7
3(
e)
General
Guidelines
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
7
3(
f)
Confidentiality
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
8
3(
g)
Sensitive
Questions
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
8
4
RESPONDENTS
AND
INFORMATION
REQUESTED
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
9
4(
a)
Respondents/
NAICS
Codes
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
9
4(
b)
Information
Requested
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
9
4(
b)(
i)
Data
Items
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
9
4(
b)(
ii)
Respondent
Activities
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
10
5
INFORMATION
COLLECTED
 
AGENCY
ACTIVITIES,
COLLECTION
METHODOLOGY,
AND
INFORMATION
MANAGEMENT
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
12
5(
a)
Agency
Activities
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
12
5(
b)
Collection
Methodology
and
Management
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
12
5(
c)
Small
Entity
Flexibility
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
12
5(
d)
Collection
Schedule
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
15
6
ESTIMATING
BURDEN
AND
COST
OF
COLLECTION
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
16
6(
a)
Respondent
Burden
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
16
6(
a)(
i)
Burden
to
Public
Water
Systems
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
16
6(
a)(
ii)
Burden
to
Primacy
Agencies
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
17
6(
b)
Respondent
Costs
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
17
6(
b)(
i)
Cost
to
Public
Water
Systems
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
17
6(
b)(
ii)
Cost
to
Primacy
Agencies
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
18
ii
TABLE
OF
CONTENTS,
continued
6(
c)
Agency
Burden
and
Costs
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
18
6(
d)
Estimating
Respondent
Universe
and
Total
Burden
and
Costs
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
19
6(
e)
Bottom
Line
Burden
Hours
and
Costs
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
19
6(
f)
Reasons
for
Change
in
Burden
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
20
6(
g)
Burden
Statement
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
21
LIST
OF
EXHIBITS
Exhibit
1
 
Number
of
Publicly
and
Privately
Owned
Small
Systems
to
Participate
in
Screening
Survey
Two
for
Aeromonas
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
14
Exhibit
2
 
Annual
PWS
Burden
and
Cost
(
2002­
2004)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
18
Exhibit
3
 
Annual
Agency
Burden
and
Cost
(
2002­
2004)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
19
Exhibit
4
 
Bottom
Line
Annual
Burden
and
Cost
(
2002­
2004)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
20
Exhibit
5
 
Adjustments
to
the
Annual
Burden
Inventory
for
the
DDBP/
Chem/
Rads
ICR
.
.
.
21
iii
ACRONYMS
ATP
Alternative
Test
Procedure
BLS
Bureau
of
Labor
Statistics
CCL
Contaminant
Candidate
List
CDC
Centers
for
Disease
Control
and
Prevention
CFR
Code
of
Federal
Regulations
DDBP/
Chem/
Rads
Disinfectants
and
Disinfection
Byproducts,
Chemical,
and
Radionuclides
EPA
Environmental
Protection
Agency
FR
Federal
Register
FY
Fiscal
Year
ICR
Information
Collection
Request
MCL
Maximum
Contaminant
Level
MCLG
Maximum
Contaminant
Level
Goal
NAICS
North
American
Industry
Classification
System
NCOD
National
Contaminant
Occurrence
Database
NPDWRs
National
Primary
Drinking
Water
Regulations
O&
M
Operation
and
Maintenance
OMB
Office
of
Management
and
Budget
PRA
Paperwork
Reduction
Act
PWS
Public
Water
System
RFA
Regulatory
Flexibility
Analysis
SBREFA
Small
Business
Regulatory
Enforcement
Fairness
Act
SDWA
Safe
Drinking
Water
Act
SDWIS
Safe
Drinking
Water
Information
System
SMF
Standardized
Monitoring
Framework
TCR
Total
Coliform
Rule
UCMR
Unregulated
Contaminant
Monitoring
Rule
USC
United
States
Code
1
1
IDENTIFICATION
OF
THE
INFORMATION
COLLECTION
1(
a)
Title
and
Number
of
the
Information
Collection
Title:
Disinfectants/
Disinfection
Byproducts,
Chemical,
and
Radionuclides
Information
Collection
Request:
Unregulated
Contaminant
Monitoring
Regulation
List
2
Amendments
OMB
Control
Number:
2040­
0204
EPA
Tracking
Number:
1896.03
1(
b)
Short
Characterization
The
Safe
Drinking
Water
Act
(
SDWA),
as
amended
in
1996,
requires
the
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
EPA)
to
establish
criteria
for
a
program
to
monitor
unregulated
contaminants
and
to
publish
a
list
of
contaminants
to
be
monitored.
In
fulfillment
of
this
requirement,
EPA
published
the
Revisions
to
the
Unregulated
Contaminant
Monitoring
Regulation
(
UCMR)
for
public
water
systems
(
PWSs)
on
September
17,
1999
(
64
FR
50556),
that
included
lists
of
contaminants
for
which
monitoring
was
required
or
would
be
required
in
the
future.
These
lists
included:
List
1
for
contaminants
with
analytical
methods;
List
2
for
contaminants
with
methods
that
were
being
refined;
and
List
3
for
contaminants
with
methods
that
were
still
being
developed.
EPA
subsequently
published
supplements
to
the
UCMR
including
analytical
methods
for
conducting
analysis
of
selected
List
1
and
List
2
contaminants
and
requirements
for
Aeromonas
monitoring
as
a
List
2
contaminant
on
March
2,
2000
(
65
FR
11372)
and
January
11,
2001
(
66
FR
2273).
However,
an
analytical
method
was
not
approved
to
support
the
required
monitoring
for
Aeromonas
which
is
scheduled
to
begin
on
January
1,
2003.
This
Information
Collection
Request
(
ICR)
is
associated
with
the
proposed
rule
for
the
analytical
method
and
an
associated
Minimum
Reporting
Level
for
the
analysis
of
Aeromonas.

This
ICR
was
prepared
in
accordance
with
the
February
1999
version
of
EPA's
Guide
to
Writing
Information
Collection
Requests
Under
the
Paperwork
Reduction
Act
(
PRA)
of
1995
(
or
"
ICR
Handbook")
prepared
by
EPA's
Office
of
Environmental
Information,
Office
of
Information
Collection,
Collection
Strategies
Division.
The
ICR
Handbook
provides
the
most
current
instructions
for
ICR
preparation
to
ensure
compliance
with
the
1995
PRA
amendments
and
Office
of
Management
and
Budget's
(
OMB's)
implementing
guidelines.

This
ICR
accounts
for
the
proposed
addition
of
Aeromonas
to
List
2
Screening
Survey
monitoring
under
the
UCMR.
Monitoring
for
List
1
and
for
List
2
chemicals
are
accounted
for
in
the
November
2001
"
Disinfectants/
Disinfection
Byproducts,
Chemical,
and
Radionuclides
Information
Collection
Request"
(
DDBP/
Chem/
Rads
ICR),
(
OMB
Control
Number:
2040­
0204;
EPA
Tracking
Number:
1896.02),
which
this
ICR
amends.
Only
List
2
Aeromonas
monitoring
is
addressed
in
this
ICR.
Although
Aeromonas
is
a
microbiological
contaminant,
the
burden
and
cost
for
this
Proposed
Rule
is
included
here
(
rather
than
in
the
Microbial
ICR
(
OMB
No.
2040­
0205)),
since
the
overall
UCMR
program
is
included
in
the
DDBP/
Chem/
Rads
ICR.
Furthermore,
Aeromonas
sampling
will
only
be
conducted
for
one
year,
(
i.
e.,
it
is
not
a
continuing
DDBP/
Chem/
Rads
ICR:
UCMR
List
2
Amendments
January
2002
2
activity),
and
there
are
coincident
costs
and
burden
linked
to
other
UCMR
activities
that
are
covered
in
the
ICR
being
amended.

For
simplicity,
the
UCMR
List
2
Screening
Survey
for
Aeromonas
is
hereafter
referred
to
as
"
the
Aeromonas
Rule".
This
proposed
ICR
estimates
costs
for
Fiscal
Years
(
FYs)
2002,
2003,
and
2004.
The
Aeromonas
Rule
will
be
implemented
during
2003
by
180
small
PWSs
(
those
serving
10,000
and
fewer),
and
120
large
PWSs
(
those
serving
greater
than
10,000).

Published
with
the
proposed
Aeromonas
Rule
is
the
proposal
to
approve
EPA
Method
515.4
to
support
monitoring
already
required
under
Phase
II/
V
(
40
CFR
141.24),
and
seven
alternative
analytical
methods
previously
tentatively
approved
under
EPA's
Alternate
Test
Procedure
(
ATP)
program
(
§
141.27).
This
part
of
the
proposed
rule
merely
allows
for
the
optional
use
of
additional
standardized
methods,
offering
systems
and
their
laboratories
further
operational
flexibility.
Thus,
EPA
believes
that
there
is
no
cost
or
burden
to
PWSs
associated
with
the
addition
of
these
alternate
methods.
These
alternative
methods
may
even
reduce
costs
for
the
testing
and
analysis
of
contaminants.
However,
these
potential
savings
to
systems
are
not
estimated
here,
since
use
of
these
methods
is
voluntary.
In
addition,
because
State
adoption
of
analytical
methods
under
EPA's
ATP
program
is
voluntary,
no
costs
are
estimated
for
States
related
to
the
optional
analytical
methods
that
are
included
in
today's
proposed
rule.
Moreover,
States
that
do
adopt
additional
ATP
methods
often
adopt
such
federal
regulation
by
reference,
or
may
incorporate
these
voluntary
options
when
the
next
set
of
required
regulatory
revisions
are
being
incorporated.

The
total
annual
burden
associated
with
the
proposed
Aeromonas
Rule
under
this
ICR
is
estimated
to
be
353
hours
per
year,
over
2002­
2004.
The
total
annual
cost
associated
with
this
ICR
is
estimated
to
be
approximately
$
32,000,
over
2002­
2004.
Monitoring
for
Aeromonas
is
being
conducted
during
2003
only.
Thus,
burden
and
cost
associated
with
this
proposed
Rule
are
primarily
incurred
during
2003.
In
addition,
the
burden
and
costs
are
solely
incurred
by
PWSs.
Burden
and
cost
to
States
(
primacy
agencies)
related
to
the
UCMR
are
accounted
for
in
the
DDBP/
Chem/
Rads
ICR,
which
this
ICR
amends.
The
Agency
cost
for
this
proposed
Rule
is
estimated
at
$
50,000
annually,
over
2002­
2004,
attributed
primarily
to
small
system
sampling
costs.
The
total
annual
number
of
respondents
for
this
ICR
is
100,
all
of
which
are
PWSs
that
have
been
selected
for
Screening
Survey
monitoring.
The
total
annual
number
of
responses
for
these
PWS
respondents
is
600
(
1,800
total
responses,
for
monitoring
that
is
conducted
during
2003).
Section
6
provides
details
of
all
burden
and
cost
estimates.
DDBP/
Chem/
Rads
ICR:
UCMR
List
2
Amendments
January
2002
3
2
NEED
FOR
AND
USE
OF
THE
COLLECTION
2(
a)
Need/
Authority
for
the
Collection
This
section
identifies
the
regulatory
or
statutory
authority
for
the
information
collection
activities
covered
in
this
ICR
and
explains
EPA's
need
for
the
information.
Section
4
of
this
ICR
contains
a
summary
of
the
major
types
of
recordkeeping
and
reporting
requirements
for
contaminants
covered
by
this
ICR.

The
information
collected
under
this
Rule
is
required
by
EPA
to
carry
out
its
regulatory
development
responsibilities
under
the
SDWA
Section
1445(
a)(
2),
Monitoring
Program
for
Unregulated
Contaminants.
Without
comprehensive,
up­
to­
date
information
on
drinking
water
contamination,
the
Agency
will
not
be
able
to
meet
the
SDWA
statutory
requirements.

Section
1412(
b)(
4)
of
the
SDWA,
as
amended
in
1996,
requires
EPA
to
promulgate
maximum
contaminant
level
goals
(
MCLGs)
and
National
Primary
Drinking
Water
Regulations
(
NPDWRs)
for
contaminants
that
may
have
adverse
human
health
effects,
are
known
to
or
anticipated
to
occur
in
PWSs,
or,
in
the
opinion
of
the
Administrator,
present
an
opportunity
for
health
risk
reduction.
The
NPDWRs
specify
maximum
contaminant
levels
(
MCLs)
or
treatment
techniques
for
drinking
water
contaminants
(
42
USC
300g­
1).
An
MCL
must
be
set
as
close
to
the
MCLG
as
possible.
NPDWRs
apply
to
PWSs
(
42
USC
300f(
1)(
A)).
Section
1412(
b)(
1)
requires
the
Agency
to
develop
a
list
of
unregulated
contaminants
for
regulatory
consideration
(
i.
e.,
the
Candidate
Contaminant
List
(
CCL)),
to
issue
regulations
which
establish
criteria
for
listing
contaminants,
and
to
carry
out
the
UCMR
Program.
The
Agency
is
required
to
finalize
the
list
of
contaminants
by
August
1999,
and
every
5
years
thereafter.

Section
1445(
a)(
1)
of
the
Act
requires
each
PWS
to
"
establish
and
maintain
such
records,
make
such
reports,
conduct
such
monitoring,
and
provide
such
information
as
the
Administrator
may
reasonably
require
by
regulation
to
assist
him
in
establishing
regulations,
[
or]
...
in
evaluating
the
health
risks
of
unregulated
contaminants
...".
This
section
authorizes
EPA
to
require
systems
to
monitor,
provide
the
Agency
with
these
data,
and
to
maintain
records
of
this
information.

In
addition,
§
1401(
1)(
d)
of
the
SDWA
1996
Amendments
defines
NPDWRs
to
include
"
criteria
and
procedures
to
assure
a
supply
of
drinking
water
which
dependably
complies
with
such
maximum
contaminant
levels;
including
accepted
methods
for
quality
control
and
testing
procedures
...".
This
section
authorizes
EPA
to
require
systems
and
laboratories
to
use
Agency­
approved
methods
and
quality
assurance
criteria
for
collecting
and
analyzing
water
samples.
DDBP/
Chem/
Rads
ICR:
UCMR
List
2
Amendments
January
2002
4
2(
b)
Uses/
Users
of
the
Data
2(
b)(
i)
Uses
of
the
Data
The
unregulated
contaminant
monitoring
data
collected
under
this
proposed
Rule
will
be
used
to
support:
(
1)
the
development
and
interactive
evolution
of
the
CCL;

(
2)
the
Administrator's
determination
of
whether
to
regulate
a
contaminant;
and
(
3)
regulation
development.

In
addition,
if
the
contaminant
has
significant
occurrence
and
health
effects,
EPA
will
use
the
results
as
part
of
an
exposure
assessment
for
establishing
the
baseline
for
health
effects
and
economic
analyses,
for
contaminant
co­
occurrence
analysis,
and
for
treatment
technology
evaluation,
including
contaminant
source
management.
Further,
the
results
may
suggest
that
Aeromonas
has
significant
enough
occurrence
to
initiate
further
research
on
health
effects
and
treatment
technology.
Finally,
the
data
may
guide
future
source
water
protection
efforts.

System
level
records
of
the
analytical
results
of
monitoring
actions
will
be
maintained
by
each
PWS.
Systems
will
report
these
data
directly
to
the
EPA
and,
in
most
cases,
to
their
State/
primacy
agency.
Systems
(
or
the
EPA­
designated
laboratories
for
small
systems)
will
report
these
results
electronically
to
the
Safe
Drinking
Water
Information
System
(
SDWIS)
database,
which
will
be
linked
to
the
National
Contaminant
Occurrence
Database
(
NCOD).
The
Agency
will
use
SDWIS
in
conjunction
with
NCOD
to
assess
the
monitoring
data
that
will
be
generated
as
a
result
of
the
UCMR.
Historically,
reporting
of
analytical
results
to
SDWIS
has
been
limited
to
MCL
exceedances
or
exceedances
of
the
lead
or
copper
action
level.
UCMR
program
reporting
will
include
more
complete
analytical
results
on
contaminant
occurrence.

2(
b)(
ii)
Users
of
the
Data
The
information
collected
by
EPA
is
made
available
to
the
public
upon
request,
as
required
by
the
Freedom
of
Information
Act
(
40
CFR,
Chapter
1,
Part
2).
In
some
cases,
SDWA
requires
that
the
information
be
provided
to
the
public
or
primacy
agency.
Other
agencies
that
utilize
the
data
include:

1.
Staff
from
other
EPA
programs
(
such
as
Superfund,
the
Resource
Conservation
and
Recovery
Act,
and
the
Office
of
Enforcement
and
Compliance
Assurance)
2.
The
Federal
Emergency
Management
Administration
3.
Centers
for
Disease
Control
and
Prevention
(
CDC)
4.
Military
bases
5.
Farmers
Home
Administration
6.
Department
of
Interior
7.
Department
of
Housing
and
Urban
Development
8.
U.
S.
Army
Corps
of
Engineers
9.
White
House
Task
Forces
DDBP/
Chem/
Rads
ICR:
UCMR
List
2
Amendments
January
2002
5
10.
American
Water
Works
Association
11.
Association
of
Metropolitan
Water
Agencies
12.
National
Rural
Water
Association
13.
National
Association
of
Water
Companies
14.
Association
of
State
Drinking
Water
Administrators
15.
Natural
Resources
Defense
Council
16.
Consumers
Federation
of
America
17.
News
Organizations
DDBP/
Chem/
Rads
ICR:
UCMR
List
2
Amendments
January
2002
6
3
NON­
DUPLICATION,
CONSULTATIONS,
AND
OTHER
COLLECTION
CRITERIA
3(
a)
Non­
duplication
EPA
has
made
an
effort
to
ensure
that
the
data
collection
efforts
associated
with
this
ICR
are
not
duplicated.
EPA
has
consulted
State
environmental
programs,
other
Federal
agencies
(
such
as
CDC),
and
regulated
entities
(
such
as
PWSs
and
their
representative
trade
associations).
To
the
best
of
EPA's
knowledge,
data
currently
required
by
the
SDWA
(
and
its
implementing
regulations
codified
at
40
CFR
Parts
141
and
142)
are
not
available
from
any
other
source.

3(
b)
Public
Notice
Required
Prior
to
ICR
Submission
to
OMB
To
comply
with
the
1995
Amendments
to
the
PRA,
EPA
will
solicit
public
comment
on
this
draft
ICR
for
a
60­
day
period
before
it
is
submitted
to
OMB.
Specifically,
EPA
will
request
comment
on
the
estimated
respondent
burden
and
other
aspects
of
this
ICR
in
conjunction
with
publication
of
the
proposed
Aeromonas
Rule
in
the
Federal
Register.
Before
submission
to
OMB,
EPA
will
consider
the
comments
received
and
determine
if
any
adjustments
are
needed
to
the
burden/
cost
calculations
or
to
the
supporting
statement
for
this
ICR.

3(
c)
Consultations
As
a
standard
regulatory
development
practice
to
promote
public
involvement,
EPA
formally
solicits
public
comment
on
proposed
drinking
water
rules.
Before
any
rule
is
finalized,
EPA
logs
and
evaluates
all
written
comments
on
proposed
rules.
Additionally,
EPA
usually
holds
public
meetings
during
which
any
interested
party
may
provide
oral
testimony
for
Agency
consideration.
Such
meetings
are
typically
announced
in
the
Federal
Register
notice
accompanying
the
proposed
rule.

During
the
development
of
the
UCMR,
stakeholders
from
a
wide
range
of
public
and
private
entities
provided
key
perspectives.
Representatives
from
PWSs,
States,
industry,
and
other
organizations
attended
two
stakeholder
meetings
to
discuss
options
directly
related
to
the
UCMR.
An
additional
17
meetings
were
held
with
stakeholders
and
the
public
concerning
issues
related
to
the
UCMR.
In
total,
21
State
health
and
environmental
agencies,
5
water
systems,
6
water
associations,
6
health
associations,
5
industrial
associations,
4
environmental
organizations,
4
community
and
consumer
organizations,
29
companies,
and
7
federal
agency
offices
participated
in
the
development
of
the
regulation.
Further
detail
on
the
consultations,
workshops,
and
meetings
that
were
held
prior
to
the
development
of
the
UCMR
can
be
found
in
the
DDBP/
Chem/
Rads
ICR,
which
this
ICR
updates.
DDBP/
Chem/
Rads
ICR:
UCMR
List
2
Amendments
January
2002
1
SMF
was
originally
promulgated
under
the
Phase
II
Rule
and
revised
under
Phase
IIB
and
Phase
V
regulations
(
§
§
141.23­
141.25).
It
standardizes
monitoring
requirements
within
chemical
contaminant
groups
and
synchronizes
monitoring
schedules
across
chemical
contaminant
groups
into
specific
3­
year
compliance
periods
and
9­
year
compliance
cycles.

7
3(
d)
Effects
of
Less
Frequent
Collection
EPA
has
considered
a
wide
range
of
alternatives
for
frequency
of
data
collection.
EPA
has
chosen
to
require
the
least
frequent
collection
that
remains
consistent
with
the
overall
goal
of
protecting
public
health.
If
data
are
collected
less
frequently,
EPA
and/
or
primacy
agencies
may
not
identify
in
a
timely
fashion
significant
contaminant
concentrations
that
might
threaten
the
health
and
safety
of
drinking
water
consumers.

UCMR
monitoring
frequencies
were
determined
based
on
statutory
requirements,
which
specify
that
monitoring
be
varied
based
on
the
number
of
persons
served
by
a
system,
contaminants
likely
to
be
found,
and
source
of
supply.
The
monitoring
frequency
design
also
considers
that
the
number
of
persons
served
affects
exposure
to
contaminants,
as
well
as
the
resources
available
to
undertake
monitoring
activity.
Monitoring
frequencies
have
been
carefully
devised
based
on
the
following
factors:

°
Data
quality
needed
for
a
representative
sample.
°
Precision
and
accuracy
needed
from
the
representative
sample.
°
Number
of
people
served
by
the
system.
°
Source
of
the
supply
(
e.
g.,
surface
water
or
ground
water).
°
Contaminants
likely
to
be
found.
°
Temporal
variability
in
occurrence.
°
Synchronization
with
the
Standardized
Monitoring
Framework
(
SMF)
for
Phase
II/
V1.

For
the
UCMR,
and
specifically
the
collection
of
Aeromonas
samples,
reduced
data
collection
would
seriously
affect
the
integrity
of
the
data
and
result
in
insufficient
data
to
fulfill
the
needs
envisioned
by
the
1996
SDWA
Amendments.
These
data
will
be
used
for
continued
development
of
the
CCL,
support
of
the
Administrator's
regulatory
determinations,
and
overall
regulation
development.

3(
e)
General
Guidelines
This
ICR
was
prepared
in
accordance
with
the
February
1999
version
of
the
ICR
Handbook
prepared
by
EPA's
Office
of
Environmental
Information,
Office
of
Information
Collection,
Collection
Strategies
Division.
The
ICR
Handbook
provides
the
most
current
instructions
for
ICR
preparation
to
ensure
compliance
with
the
1995
PRA
amendments
and
OMB's
implementing
guidelines.
DDBP/
Chem/
Rads
ICR:
UCMR
List
2
Amendments
January
2002
8
3(
f)
Confidentiality
No
confidential
information
will
be
collected
as
a
result
of
this
ICR.

3(
g)
Sensitive
Questions
No
information
of
a
sensitive
nature
will
be
collected
as
a
result
of
this
ICR.
DDBP/
Chem/
Rads
ICR:
UCMR
List
2
Amendments
January
2002
9
4
RESPONDENTS
AND
INFORMATION
REQUESTED
4(
a)
Respondents/
NAICS
Codes
Respondents
to
the
Aeromonas
Rule
include
the
owners/
operators
of
the
300
PWSs
selected
for
Aeromonas
monitoring.
Because
the
UCMR
is
a
direct
implementation
rule
(
PWSs
report
monitoring
results
electronically
directly
to
EPA),
and
because
today's
proposed
rule
adds
just
one
additional
contaminant
to
the
overall
list
of
UCMR
contaminants
to
be
monitored,
primacy
agencies/
States
and
EPA
Regional
administrators
are
not
considered
as
respondents
to
the
Aeromonas
Rule.
Primacy
agencies/
States
and
EPA
Regional
Administrators
are
considered
respondents
to
the
overall
UCMR
program,
as
their
coordination
and
communications
are
essential
to
the
successful
implementation
of
the
UCMR
program.
Their
activities
are
detailed
in
the
previous
UCMR
discussions
in
the
DDBP/
Chem/
Rads
ICR,
which
this
ICR
amends,
and
the
original
ICR
for
the
UCMR,
dated
September
1999.

The
North
American
Industry
Classification
System
(
NAICS)
code
for
PWSs
is
22131.
The
NAICS
code
for
State
agencies
that
include
drinking
water
programs
are
classified
as
92411
(
Administration
of
Air
and
Water
Resources
and
Solid
Waste
Management
Programs)
or
92312
(
Administration
of
Public
Health
Programs).
Ancillary
systems
(
i.
e.,
those
that
supplement
the
function
of
other
establishments
like
factories,
power
plants,
mobile
home
parks,
etc.)
cannot
be
categorized
in
a
single
NAICS
code.
For
ancillary
systems,
the
NAICS
code
is
that
of
the
primary
establishment
or
industry.

4(
b)
Information
Requested
4(
b)(
i)
Data
Items
The
data
items
that
respondents
will
collect
in
implementing
their
responsibilities
under
the
proposed
Aeromonas
Rule
included
in
this
ICR
are
summarized
below.

The
current
§
141.35
requires
all
regulated
PWSs
to
report
monitoring
results
for
the
unregulated
contaminants
listed
in
§
141.40
to
EPA
and
to
provide
a
copy
to
the
States.
The
proposed
Rule
would
add
Aeromonas
to
this
list
of
contaminants.
The
original
UCMR
established
that
systems
must
report
in
electronic
format
some
additional
data
elements
along
with
their
sampling
results.
The
January
11,
2001,
final
rule
for
List
2
contaminants
(
66
FR
2273)
clarifies
and
slightly
modifies
the
original
data
elements
list.
The
updated
data
elements
for
the
UCMR
Program
are
listed
below.

1.
PWS
Identification
Number
2.
Facility
Identification
Number
 
Sampling
Point
Identification
Number
and
Sampling
Point
Type
Identification
3.
Sample
Collection
Date
4.
Sample
Identification
Number
5.
Contaminant/
Parameter
DDBP/
Chem/
Rads
ICR:
UCMR
List
2
Amendments
January
2002
10
6.
Analytical
Results
 
Sign
7.
Analytical
Result
 
Value
8.
Analytical
Result
 
Unit
of
Measure
9.
Analytical
Method
Number
10.
Sample
Analysis
Type
11.
Sample
Batch
Identification
Number
12.
Minimum
Reporting
Level
13.
Minimum
Reporting
Level
Unit
of
Measure
14.
Analytical
Precision
15.
Analytical
Accuracy
16.
Spiking
Concentration
17.
Presence/
Absence
4(
b)(
ii)
Respondent
Activities
PWSs
and
primacy
agencies
have
different
UCMR­
related
activities,
as
described
in
the
sections
below.

Public
Water
Systems
To
comply
with
the
requirements
in
this
regulation,
systems
must
conduct
the
following
activities
 
Read
Regulations/
State
Letter:
Systems
that
have
been
selected
for
Aeromonas
monitoring
are
assumed
to
read
the
UCMR
Aeromonas
Rule
and/
or
guidance
at
the
beginning
of
their
required
monitoring
year.

Monitoring
or
Monitoring
Assistance:
Under
§
141.40
of
the
proposed
Rule,
selected
small
and
large
systems
would
sample
six
times
during
2003
at
three
locations
in
their
distribution
system.
Monitoring
activities
that
are
considered
in
the
system
cost
and
burden
estimates
include:
receipt
of
sampling
kits
from
the
laboratory,
reading
sampling
instructions,
and
collecting
and
shipping
the
samples.

Reporting
and
Record
Keeping:
All
selected
systems
will
be
responsible
for
submitting
monitoring
data
to
the
EPA
(
§
141.35(
a)).
EPA
will
provide
reporting
for
small
PWSs.
While
large
PWSs
are
responsible
for
appropriate
and
timely
reporting
of
their
UCMR
monitoring
results,
the
rule
allows
for
their
laboratories
to
electronically
enter
the
monitoring
results
for
the
system's
review
and
approval.
Much
of
the
review
and
approval
process
for
the
Aeromonas
monitoring
results
can
be
conducted
at
the
same
time
these
large
systems
are
reviewing
their
UCMR
Assessment
Monitoring
data.
DDBP/
Chem/
Rads
ICR:
UCMR
List
2
Amendments
January
2002
11
Primacy
Agencies
Although
the
UCMR
is
a
"
direct
implementation"
rule,
EPA
accounts
for
State
oversight
and
implementation
activities
related
to
the
UCMR.
As
noted
above,
State
participation
is
considered
essential
to
the
successful
implementation
of
the
UCMR
program.
However,
all
State
cost
and
burden
attributed
to
the
UCMR
for
the
relevant
ICR
period
(
2002­
2004)
are
accounted
for
in
the
DDBP/
Chem/
Rads
ICR,
which
covers
programmatic
UCMR
costs.
In
that
ICR,
each
State
is
assumed
to
undertake
the
following
activities:
EPA
coordination
activities/
Memorandum
of
Agreement;
data
management
and
support;
laboratory
training;
and
program
implementation.
There
are
no
additional
costs
or
burdens
to
States
that
result
from
the
Aeromonas
proposed
Rule.
DDBP/
Chem/
Rads
ICR:
UCMR
List
2
Amendments
January
2002
12
5
INFORMATION
COLLECTED
 
AGENCY
ACTIVITIES,
COLLECTION
METHODOLOGY,
AND
INFORMATION
MANAGEMENT
5(
a)
Agency
Activities
As
specified
in
the
original
UCMR
ICR
(
OMB
No.
2040­
0208)
and
the
DDBP/
Chem/
Rads
ICR
(
OMB
No.
2040­
0204),
EPA
Headquarters
and
Regional
offices
will
be
responsible
for
oversight
of
State
PWS
programs,
and
processing
and
analysis
of
the
UCMR
data.
EPA
implementation
activities
were
categorized,
as
follows,
into
three
major
categories:
regulatory
support
activities;
analytical
cost
for
small
system
testing
program;
and
national
and
regional
oversight
and
data
analysis.
This
ICR
accounts
for
additional
non­
labor
costs
for
Aeromonas
sampling
at
small
systems.
Coordination
and
other
labor­
intensive
Agency
UCMR
activities
are
accounted
for
under
UCMR
burden
and
cost
estimates
in
the
current
DDBP/
Chem/
Rads
ICR.

5(
b)
Collection
Methodology
and
Management
Systems
are
required
to
electronically
transmit
the
UCMR
data
directly
to
EPA
within
30
days
of
the
end
of
the
month
in
which
the
systems
receive
the
results.
The
EPA­
designated
laboratories
are
allowed
to
report
system
data
directly
to
EPA.
Electronic
reporting
is
intended
to
achieve
data
collection
efficiencies,
and
reduce
the
possibility
of
data
input
error.

EPA
plans
to
conduct
ongoing
data
analysis,
including
checks
for
anomalies
in
the
data
that
may
be
related
to
data
entry
or
laboratory
errors.
Data
quality
review
and
analysis
will
include:
continuous
analysis
of
laboratory
results,
use
of
Index
System
results
for
comparison
with
small
system
data,
review
of
all
program
data,
and
NCOD
review.
The
UCMR
data
will
be
maintained
and
analyzed
in
SDWIS
in
conjunction
with
the
NCOD.
Historically,
reporting
of
analytical
results
to
SDWIS
has
been
limited
to
MCL
exceedances
or
exceedances
of
the
lead
or
copper
action
level.
UCMR
marks
the
expansion
of
this
reporting
to
include
more
complete
analytical
results
on
contaminant
occurrence,
as
well
as
related
source
information.
The
data
collected
under
UCMR
will
be
used
for
regulation
development,
to
analyze
the
significance
of
occurrence
and
health
effects,
and
to
support
the
critical
Agency
function
of
program
oversight.
Agency
costs
for
data
management
activities
are
accounted
for
under
UCMR
burden
and
cost
estimates
in
the
current
DDBP/
Chem/
Rads
ICR..

5(
c)
Small
Entity
Flexibility
The
Regulatory
Flexibility
Act
(
RFA),
as
amended
by
the
Small
Business
Regulatory
Enforcement
Fairness
Act
of
1996
(
SBREFA),
5
USC
601
et.
seq.
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.
The
RFA
provides
default
definitions
for
each
type
of
small
entity.
It
also
authorizes
an
DDBP/
Chem/
Rads
ICR:
UCMR
List
2
Amendments
January
2002
13
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
USC
601(
3)
­
(
5)).
In
addition
to
the
above,
to
establish
an
alternative
small
business
definition,
agencies
must
consult
with
SBA's
Chief
Counsel
for
Advocacy.

For
purposes
of
assessing
the
impacts
of
today's
proposed
rule
on
small
entities,
EPA
considered
small
entities
to
be
systems
serving
10,000
or
fewer
customers
because
this
is
the
size
of
system
specified
in
SDWA
as
requiring
special
consideration
with
respect
to
small
system
flexibility.
In
accordance
with
the
RFA
requirements,
EPA
proposed
using
this
alternative
definition
in
the
Federal
Register,
(
63
FR
7605,
February
13,
1998),
requested
public
comment,
consulted
with
SBA,
and
finalized
this
alternative
definition
in
the
Consumer
Confidence
Reports
rulemaking
(
63
FR
44511,
August
19,
1998).
As
stated
in
that
final
rule,
the
alternative
definition
would
be
applied
to
future
drinking
water
rules,
such
as
this
one.

For
the
UCMR,
published
on
September
17,
1999,
EPA
analyzed
separately
the
impact
on
small
privately
and
publicly
owned
water
systems
because
of
the
different
economic
characteristics
of
these
ownership
types.
For
publicly
owned
systems,
EPA
used
the
"
revenue
test,"
which
compares
a
system's
annual
costs
attributed
to
the
rule
with
the
system's
annual
revenues.
EPA
used
a
"
sales
test"
for
privately
owned
systems,
which
involves
the
analogous
comparison
of
UCMR­
related
costs
to
a
privately
owned
system's
sales.
Further
definition
and
description
of
these
quantitative
evaluations
of
small
system
impacts
can
be
found
in
the
"
Revised
Interim
Guidance
for
EPA
Rulewriters:
Regulatory
Flexibility
Act
as
amended
by
the
Small
Business
Regulatory
Enforcement
Fairness
Act",
March
29,
1999.
Because
EPA
does
not
know
the
ownership
types
of
the
systems
selected
for
Aeromonas
monitoring,
the
Agency
assumes
that
the
distribution
of
the
national
representative
sample
of
small
systems
will
reflect
the
proportions
of
publicly
and
privately
owned
systems
in
the
national
inventory
(
as
estimated
by
EPA's
1995
Community
Water
System
Survey,
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
safewater/
cwssvr.
html).
The
estimated
distribution
of
the
sample
for
today's
proposed
rule,
categorized
by
ownership
type,
source
water,
and
system
size,
is
presented
below
in
Exhibit
1.
DDBP/
Chem/
Rads
ICR:
UCMR
List
2
Amendments
January
2002
14
Exhibit
1
 
Number
of
Publicly
and
Privately
Owned
Small
Systems
to
Participate
in
Screening
Survey
Two
for
Aeromonas
Size
Category
Publicly
Owned
Systems
Privately
Owned
Systems
Total
­
All
Systems
GROUND
WATER
SYSTEMS
500
and
under
8
29
37
501
to
3,300
35
16
51
3,301
to
10,000
27
7
34
Subtotal
Ground
Water
Systems
70
52
122
SURFACE
WATER
SYSTEMS
500
and
under
5
13
18
501
to
3,300
10
4
14
3,301
to
10,000
20
6
26
Subtotal
Surface
Water
Systems
35
23
58
TOTAL
105
75
180
The
basis
for
the
UCMR
RFA
certification
for
today's
proposed
rule,
which
approves
Method
1605
for
the
analysis
of
Aeromonas,
is
as
follows:
the
average
annual
compliance
costs
of
the
rule
represent
less
than
1
percent
of
revenues/
sales
for
the
180
small
water
systems
that
will
be
affected.
This
was
determined
by
evaluating
average
annual
costs
as
a
percentage
of
system
revenues/
sales.
In
the
worst­
case­
scenario,
the
smallest
system
size
category
is
estimated
to
have
revenues/
sales
of
approximately
$
16,000
per
year.
The
annual
cost
related
to
Aeromonas
monitoring
for
these
systems
represents
less
than
0.2
percent
of
their
annual
revenue/
sales.
The
Agency
estimates
that
EPA
and
small
system
costs
for
Aeromonas
(
during
2003)
will
be
approximately
$
169,200.
Since
the
Agency
specifically
structured
the
rule
to
avoid
significantly
affecting
small
entities
by
assuming
all
costs
for
laboratory
analyses,
shipping,
and
quality
control
for
small
entities,
EPA
incurs
the
entirety
of
the
non­
labor
costs
associated
with
Aeromonas
monitoring,
or
89
percent
of
all
costs.
Small
systems
only
incur
labor
costs
associated
with
the
collection
of
Aeromonas
samples,
and
for
reading
about
their
sampling
requirements,
with
an
average
annual
labor
cost
per
system
over
the
5
years
of
UCMR
implementation
(
2001­
2005)
of
$
20.30.

After
considering
the
economic
impacts
of
today's
proposed
rule
on
small
entities,
EPA
certifies
that
this
action
will
not
have
a
significant
economic
impact
on
a
substantial
number
of
small
entities.
DDBP/
Chem/
Rads
ICR:
UCMR
List
2
Amendments
January
2002
15
5(
d)
Collection
Schedule
Systems
monitoring
for
Aeromonas
under
Screening
Survey
2
must
sample
six
times
during
2003,
once
per
quarter
during
the
cooler
seasons
and
once
per
month
during
the
warmest
(
vulnerable)
quarter.
This
results
in
one
of
three
sampling
schemes:
(
1)
January,
April,
July,
August,
September,
and
October,
(
2)
February,
May,
July,
August,
September,
and
November,
or
(
3)
March,
June,
July,
August,
September,
and
December,
unless
the
EPA
or
State
designates
a
different
vulnerable
period.
This
sampling
schedule
was
proposed
with
the
UCMR
List
2
rule
in
September
2000
(
65
FR
55362)
and
finalized
in
January
2001
(
66
FR
2273).
DDBP/
Chem/
Rads
ICR:
UCMR
List
2
Amendments
January
2002
16
6
ESTIMATING
BURDEN
AND
COST
OF
COLLECTION
This
section
estimates
the
burden
and
costs
to
PWSs,
primacy
agencies,
and
EPA
for
complying
with
drinking
water
information
requirements
associated
with
the
proposed
Aeromonas
Rule.
It
also
discusses
the
assumptions
used
to
estimate
burden
and
costs
and
describes
the
change
in
annual
burden,
as
compared
with
the
current
OMB
annual
burden
inventory.
This
ICR
updates
the
annual
burdens
and
costs
for
the
DDBP/
Chem/
Rads
ICR
using
the
same
overarching
cost
and
burden
assumptions.
The
ICR
period
is
2002­
2004.
Rule­
specific
assumptions
are
described
below.

6(
a)
Respondent
Burden
6(
a)(
i)
Burden
to
Public
Water
Systems
The
annual
PWS
burden
for
FYs
2002
through
2004
is
estimated
to
be
approximately
353
hours
for
the
300
systems
selected
to
conduct
Aeromonas
sampling
(
180
small
and
120
large
public
water
systems).
PWS
burden
attributed
to
the
Aeromonas
Rule
includes:
time
for
each
regulated
system
to
read
about
their
requirements;
time
for
sample
collection
and
shipment
of
samples
to
specified
laboratories;
and
some
minimal
time
for
large
systems
related
to
data
reporting.

Because
all
systems
that
were
selected
for
Aeromonas
monitoring
are
already
participating
in
the
UCMR,
it
was
assumed
that
only
a
small
amount
of
time
would
be
needed
for
each
system
to
read
about
their
Aeromonas
monitoring
and
reporting
requirements.
EPA
allotted
one
hour
to
each
system
for
reading
of
regulation
or
guidance
related
to
the
Aeromonas
Rule.

The
collection
of
Aeromonas
will
necessitate
some
minimal
additional
labor
burden
for
participating
systems
to
collect
samples.
In
many
cases,
the
Aeromonas
samples
can
be
collected
at
the
same
time
and
place
as
other
required
distribution
system
sampling
(
such
as
that
for
the
Total
Coliform
Rule
(
TCR)).
For
coincident
monitoring,
EPA
assumes
0.25
hours
per
sampling
period
per
system.
For
monitoring
periods
in
which
coincident
sampling
is
not
possible,
EPA
assumes
one
hour
of
labor
per
system
per
period.
And
finally,
for
monitoring
periods
in
which
sampling
can
only
be
partially
coincident
with
other
monitoring
(
such
as
for
systems
that
only
have
to
collect
only
one
TCR
sample
per
month),
EPA
assumes
0.75
hours
of
labor
per
system
per
period.

In
addition,
large
systems
were
assumed
to
incur
a
small
amount
of
labor
burden
associated
with
review
of
monitoring
results,
as
reported
to
EPA's
UCMR
database
by
their
analytical
laboratories.
Small
system
reporting
is
being
handled
through
EPA's
contract
laboratories,
thus,
no
reporting
burden
was
allotted
to
small
systems.
DDBP/
Chem/
Rads
ICR:
UCMR
List
2
Amendments
January
2002
17
6(
a)(
ii)
Burden
to
Primacy
Agencies
There
is
no
additional
burden
that
will
be
incurred
by
States/
primacy
agents
as
a
result
of
the
proposed
Aeromonas
Rule.
States'
UCMR
implementation
activities
are
accounted
for
under
the
UCMR
burden
and
cost
in
the
DDBP/
Chem/
Rads
ICR
(
OMB
No.
2040­
0204).

6(
b)
Respondent
Costs
6(
b)(
i)
Cost
to
Public
Water
Systems
Exhibit
2
shows
the
annual
costs
for
PWSs
over
the
3­
year
ICR
period.
Annual
costs
are
estimated
at
$
6,100
for
the
180
small
systems
selected
for
Aeromonas
monitoring,
all
of
which
is
attributed
to
labor
burden.
Annual
costs
for
the
120
large
systems
selected
for
Aeromonas
monitoring
are
estimated
at
$
26,000,
which
consists
of
$
23,600
in
laboratory
and
shipping
costs
(
operation
and
maintenance
(
O&
M)),
and
$
2,400
in
labor
costs.

Labor
costs
are
based
on
the
number
of
burden
hours
times
the
average
hourly
wage
rate,
including
overhead.
The
average
hourly
wage
rate
is
the
rate
quoted
by
the
Bureau
of
Labor
Statistics
(
BLS)
for
SIC
Code
51­
8031,
"
Local
Government
 
Water
and
Liquid
Waste
Treatment
Plant
and
System
Operators."
The
quoted
rate
was
$
14.69
in
1999
dollars
(
see
http://
stats.
bls.
gov/
oes/
1999/
oesi3_
903.
htm).
For
consistency,
this
rate
has
been
inflated
to
September
2000
dollars
using
the
Employment
Cost
Index.
The
inflated
rate
is
$
15.02.
In
addition,
60
percent
overhead
was
assumed,
bringing
the
loaded
rate
to
$
24.03
in
September
2000
dollars.
(
These
are
the
same
assumptions
as
those
used
in
the
DDBP/
Chem/
Rads
ICR.)

In
addition
to
labor
costs,
large
systems
incur
O&
M
costs
associated
with
the
analytical
fees
and
shipping
of
Aeromonas
samples,
described
below.
Small
systems
do
not
incur
any
nonlabor
costs,
since
EPA
is
paying
for
the
cost
of
sample
analysis
and
shipping
for
these
systems.
Non­
labor
costs
to
the
120
large
systems
that
will
sample
for
Aeromonas
are
solely
attributed
to
the
laboratory
fees
that
will
be
charged
for
analysis
and
to
shipping
charges
for
sending
the
sample
bottles
to
the
appropriate
laboratory.
EPA
estimates
that
the
average
laboratory
fee
for
Method
1605
will
be
$
25.
The
additional
costs
for
this
laboratory
analysis
are
calculated
as
follows:
the
number
of
systems
multiplied
by
3
sampling
points
in
the
distribution
systems,
multiplied
by
the
sampling
frequency
of
6
times
throughout
the
year
2003,
and
then
multiplied
by
the
$
25
cost
of
the
analysis.
In
addition,
EPA
estimates
that
Aeromonas
will
be
detected
in
10
percent
of
samples.
Each
of
these
positive
Aeromonas
samples
would
incur
an
additional
$
25
cost
for
confirmation
tests
at
the
genus
level
(
which
are
part
of
Method
1605).
EPA
estimates
an
average
cost
for
sample
shipping
of
$
16.
DDBP/
Chem/
Rads
ICR:
UCMR
List
2
Amendments
January
2002
18
Exhibit
2
 
Annual
PWS
Burden
and
Cost
(
2002­
2004)

Activity
Annual
Burden
Hours
Cost
Annual
Responses
Annual
Labor
Cost
Annual
O&
M
Cost
Annual
Capital
Cost
Total
Annual
Cost
180
Small
PWSs
(
serving
10,000
or
fewer)
253
$
6,086
$
0
$
0
$
6,086
360
120
Large
PWSs
(
greater
than
10,000)
100
$
2,403
$
23,640
$
0
$
26,043
240
TOTAL
353
$
8,489
$
23,640
$
0
$
32,129
600
6(
b)(
ii)
Cost
to
Primacy
Agencies
There
is
no
additional
cost
that
will
be
incurred
by
States/
primacy
agents
as
a
result
of
today's
action.
States'
UCMR
implementation
activities
are
accounted
for
under
the
UCMR
burden
and
cost
in
the
DDBP/
Chem/
Rads
ICR
(
OMB
No.
2040­
0204).

6(
c)
Agency
Burden
and
Costs
EPA
costs
related
to
general
coordination
and
implementation
of
the
UCMR
program
are
accounted
for
in
the
DDBP/
Chem/
Rads
ICR.
Additional
costs
to
EPA
related
to
implementation
of
the
Aeromonas
Rule
are
attributed
to
laboratory
analytical
fees
and
shipping
costs
for
sampling
at
small
systems.
As
noted
above,
EPA
estimates
that
the
average
laboratory
fee
for
Method
1605
will
be
$
25.
Costs
for
this
laboratory
analysis
are
calculated
as
follows:
the
number
of
systems
multiplied
by
3
sampling
points
in
the
distribution
systems,
multiplied
by
the
sampling
frequency
of
6
times
throughout
the
year
2003,
and
then
multiplied
by
the
$
25
cost
of
the
analysis.
EPA
will
also
pay
for
quality
assurance
sampling
for
10
percent
of
the
small
system
samples.

In
addition,
EPA
estimates
that
Aeromonas
will
be
detected
in
10
percent
of
samples.
Each
of
these
positive
Aeromonas
samples
(
i.
e.,
estimated
as
10
percent
of
all
samples,
including
the
quality
assurance
samples
for
small
systems),
isolated
from
membrane
filters,
would
incur
an
additional
$
25
cost
for
confirmation
tests
at
the
genus
level
(
which
are
part
of
Method
1605).
Where
Aeromonas
has
been
found,
EPA
will
pay
for
further
genotyping
at
an
estimated
$
100
per
sample.
For
the
cost
estimations
presented,
EPA
assumes
it
will
pay
for
genotyping
for
the
estimated
10
percent
of
positive
small
system
samples.
EPA
estimates
an
average
cost
for
sample
shipping
of
$
16.
EPA
cost
and
burden
is
summarized
below
in
Exhibit
3.
DDBP/
Chem/
Rads
ICR:
UCMR
List
2
Amendments
January
2002
19
Exhibit
3
 
Annual
Agency
Burden
and
Cost
(
2002­
2004)

Activity
Annual
Burden
Hours
Cost
Annual
Labor
Cost
Annual
O&
M
Cost
Annual
Capital
Cost
Total
Annual
Cost
Analysis
and
Shipping
0
$
0
$
50,310
$
0
$
50,310
6(
d)
Estimating
Respondent
Universe
and
Total
Burden
and
Costs
Respondents
for
this
ICR
include
120
large
PWSs
(
those
serving
greater
than
10,000
persons),
and
180
small
PWSs
(
those
serving
10,000
or
fewer
persons).
Each
of
these
systems
will
sample
at
three
locations
in
their
distribution
system,
six
times
during
2003.
Because
the
UCMR
is
a
direct
implementation
rule
(
PWSs
report
monitoring
results
electronically
directly
to
EPA),
and
because
the
proposed
Aeromonas
Rule
adds
just
one
additional
contaminant
to
the
overall
list
of
UCMR
contaminants
to
be
monitored,
primacy
agencies/
States
and
EPA
Regional
Administrators
are
not
considered
as
respondents
to
the
Aeromonas
Rule.
Primacy
agencies/
States
and
EPA
Regional
Administrators
are
considered
respondents
to
the
overall
UCMR
program,
as
their
coordination
and
communications
are
essential
to
the
successful
implementation
of
the
UCMR
program.
Their
activities
are
detailed
in
the
UCMR
discussions
in
the
DDBP/
Chem/
Rads
ICR,
which
this
ICR
amends,
and
the
original
ICR
for
the
UCMR
from
September
1999.
Therefore,
the
total
number
of
respondents
is
300,
all
of
which
are
PWSs.

6(
e)
Bottom
Line
Burden
Hours
and
Costs
The
bottom
line
burden
hours
and
costs
appear
in
Exhibit
4.
The
total
annual
respondent
burden
associated
with
this
ICR
is
estimated
to
be
approximately
353
hours,
over
2002­
2004.
The
total
annual
respondent
costs
are
estimated
to
be
$
32,129.
The
total
national
burden,
is
attributed
to
PWSs
only,
since
there
are
not
additional
labor
requirements
for
States
or
EPA
related
to
the
Aeromonas
Rule.
The
total
national
cost,
for
respondents
and
EPA,
is
estimated
to
be
$
82,440
annually,
over
2002­
2004.
DDBP/
Chem/
Rads
ICR:
UCMR
List
2
Amendments
January
2002
20
Exhibit
4
 
Bottom
Line
Annual
Burden
and
Cost
(
2002­
2004)

Annual
Number
of
Respondents
100
=
60
+
40
Small
PWSs
(
serving
10,000
or
fewer)
Large
PWSs
(
serving
greater
than
10,000)

Total
Annual
Responses
600
=
360
+
240
Small
PWS
responses
(
see
Exhibit
2)
Large
PWS
responses
(
see
Exhibit
2)

Number
of
Responses
per
Respondent
6
=
600
/
100
Total
annual
responses
from
above
Total
annual
respondents
from
above
Total
Annual
Respondent
Hours
353
=
253
+
100
Per
small
PWS
Per
large
PWS
Hours
per
Response
0.59
=
353
/
600
Total
annual
respondent
hours
from
above
Total
annual
responses
from
above
Total
Annual
O&
M
and
Capital
Cost1
$
23,640
=
$
0
+
$
23,640
180
small
PWSs
(
see
Exhibit
2)
120
large
PWSs
(
see
Exhibit
2)

Total
Annual
Respondent
Cost
$
32,129
=
$
6,086
+
$
26,043
180
small
PWSs
(
see
Exhibit
2)
120
large
PWSs
(
see
Exhibit
2)

Total
Annual
Hours
(
resp.
plus
Agency)
353
=
353
+
0
Total
annual
respondent
hours
for
PWSs
Total
annual
EPA
hours
Total
Annual
Cost
(
resp.
plus
Agency)
$
82,440
=
$
32,130
+
$
50,310
Total
annual
costs
nationally
Total
annual
respondent
costs
for
PWSs
Total
annual
EPA
costs
1.
This
is
the
cost
requested
on
the
83­
i
form.
Note
that
there
is
no
capital
cost
associated
with
this
proposed
Rule.
Primacy
agencies
do
not
incur
any
costs
associated
with
this
proposed
Rule.

6(
f)
Reasons
for
Change
in
Burden
Exhibit
5
summarizes
how
the
change
in
burden
and
cost
related
to
the
Aeromonas
Rule
will
affect
the
overall
burden
and
cost
inventory
for
the
DDBP/
Chem/
Rads
ICR.
DDBP/
Chem/
Rads
ICR:
UCMR
List
2
Amendments
January
2002
21
Exhibit
5
 
Adjustments
to
the
Annual
Burden
Inventory
and
O&
M/
Capital
Costs
for
the
DDBP/
Chem/
Rads
ICR
Action
Annual
Burden
Hours
Annual
O&
M
and
Capital
Cost
(
thousands)
Brief
Explanation
N/
A
4,337,534
$
148,458
Opening
Inventory
from
2001
DDBP/
Chem/
Rads
ICR
inventory,
annual
burden
and
annual
O&
M/
capital
(
non­
labor)
costs
(
2002­
2004).

Add
353
$
24
This
represents
the
estimated
annual
burden
that
EPA
proposes
to
add
to
the
current
inventory,
as
well
as
the
added
non­
labor
cost,
related
to
implementation
of
the
Aeromonas
Rule.

Total
4,337,887
$
148,482
Proposed
DDBP/
Chem/
Rads
ICR
inventory
(
hours
and
O&
M/
capital
cost,
including
addition
for
Aeromonas
monitoring
under
the
UCMR
program.

6(
g)
Burden
Statement
The
public
reporting
and
recordkeeping
burden
for
this
ICR
is
detailed
above.
The
total
annual
burden
(
3­
year
average
for
2002
through
2004)
imposed
by
these
collections
is
estimated
to
be
353
hours,
all
of
which
are
attributable
to
PWSs.
These
estimates
include
time
for
gathering
information
as
well
as
developing
and
maintaining
records.

Burden
means
the
total
time,
effort,
or
financial
resources
expended
by
people
to
generate,
maintain,
retain,
disclose,
or
provide
information
to
or
for
a
Federal
agency.
This
includes
the
time
needed
to
review
instructions,
adjust
the
existing
ways
to
comply
with
any
previously
applicable
instructions
and
requirements,
train
personnel
to
respond
to
the
information
collection
request,
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
request
for
information
collection
unless
it
displays
a
currently
valid
OMB
control
number.
The
OMB
control
numbers
for
EPA's
regulations
are
listed
in
40
CFR
Part
9
and
48
CFR
Chapter
15.

Please
send
comments
on
the
Agency's
need
for
this
information,
accuracy
of
the
burden
estimates,
and
any
suggested
methods
for
minimizing
respondent
burden,
including
the
use
of
automated
collection
techniques
to
Director,
Office
of
Environmental
Information,
Collection
Strategies
Division,
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
2822),
Ariel
Rios
Building,
1200
Pennsylvania
Ave.,
N.
W.,
Washington,
D.
C.
20460;
and
to
the
Office
of
Information
and
Regulatory
Affairs,
Office
of
Management
and
Budget,
725
17th
Street,
N.
W.,
Washington,
DC
DDBP/
Chem/
Rads
ICR:
UCMR
List
2
Amendments
January
2002
22
20503,
Attention:
Desk
Officer
for
EPA.
Please
include
the
EPA
ICR
number
(
1896.03)
and
OMB
control
number
(
2040­
0204)
in
any
correspondence.