[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 180 (Friday, September 17, 1999)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 50556-50620]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-23030]



[[Page 50555]]

_______________________________________________________________________

Part II





Environmental Protection Agency





_______________________________________________________________________



40 CFR Parts 9, 141 and 142



Revisions to the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation for 
Public Water Systems; Final Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 180 / Friday, September 17, 1999 / 
Rules and Regulations  

[[Page 50556]]



ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 9, 141 and 142

[FRL-6433-1]
RIN 2040-AD15


Revisions to the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation 
for Public Water Systems

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: 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, by 
August 6, 1999, to publish a list of contaminants to be monitored. To 
conform to the Amendments, today EPA is promulgating the Unregulated 
Contaminant Monitoring Regulation (UCMR) for Public Water Systems 
(PWSs), which revises substantially the existing regulations for 
unregulated contaminant monitoring.
    This final rule includes a list of contaminants to be monitored, 
procedures for selecting a representative nationwide sample of small 
PWSs that will be required to monitor, the frequency and schedule for 
monitoring, the sampling points, the approved analytical methods to be 
used, and procedures for entering the monitoring data in the National 
Drinking Water Contaminant Occurrence Database (NCOD), as required 
under section 1445 of SDWA, as amended. The data in the database will 
be used to identify contaminants on the Drinking Water Contaminant 
Candidate List (CCL), to support the Administrator's determination of 
whether or not to develop drinking water standards for a particular 
contaminant, and to develop standards for the contaminants that the 
Administrator selects.

DATES: Effective Date: The final rule is effective January 1, 2001.
    For purposes of judicial review, this final rule is promulgated as 
on 1 p.m. Eastern time on October 1, 1999 as provided in 40 CFR 23.7.
    The incorporation by reference of the publications listed in 
today's rule is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of 
January 1, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Documents relevant to this action are available for 
inspection from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. Monday through Friday, excluding legal 
holidays, at the Water Docket, East Tower Basement, U.S. EPA, 401 M 
Street, SW, Washington DC. For access to docket (Docket No. W-98-02) 
materials, please call (202) 260-3027 between 9 a.m. and 3:30 p.m, 
Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, to schedule an appointment. A 
reasonable fee may be charged for copying.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Charles Job, Standards and Risk 
Management Division, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water (MC-
4607), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW, 
Washington, D.C. 20460, (202) 260-7084. General information may also be 
obtained from the EPA 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 federal holidays, from 9:00 a.m. 
to 5:30 p.m. Eastern Time.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regional Contacts

I. Jane Downing, JFK Federal Bldg., Room 2203, Boston, MA 02203. 
Phone: 617-918-1571.
II. Bruce Kiselica, 290 Broadway, Room 2432, New York, NY 10007-
1866. Phone: 212-637-3879.
III. Michelle Hoover, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029. 
Phone: 215-814-5258.
IV. Janine Morris, 345 Courtland Street, NE, Atlanta, GA 30365. 
Phone: 404-562-9480.
V. Thomas Poleck, 77 West Jackson Blvd., Chicago, IL 60604-3507. 
Phone: 312-886-2407.
VI. Larry Wright, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, TX 75202. Phone: 214-
665-7150.
VII. Stan Calow, 726 Minnesota Ave., Kansas City, KS 66101. Phone: 
913-551-7410.
VIII. Rod Glebe, One Denver Place, 999 18th Street, Suite 500, 
Denver, CO 80202. Phone: 303-312-6627.
IX. Bruce Macler, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105. 
Phone: 415-744-1884.
X. Gene Taylor, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101. Phone: 206-
553-1389.

Abbreviations and Acronyms Used in the Preamble and Final Rule

2,4-DNT--2,4-dinitrotoluene
2,6-DNT--2,6-dinitrotoluene
4,4'-DDE--4,4'-dichloro dichlorophenyl ethylene, a degradation 
product of DDT
Alachlor ESA--alachlor ethanesulfonic acid, a degradation product of 
alachlor
AOAC--Association of Official Analytical Chemists
APHA--American Public Health Association
ASDWA--Association of State Drinking Water Administrators
ASTM--American Society for Testing and Materials
BGM--Buffalo Green Monkey cells, a specific cell line used to grow 
viruses
CAS--Chemical Abstract Service
CASRN--Chemical Abstract Service Registry Number
CCL--Contaminant Candidate List
CCR--Consumer Confidence Reports
CERCLA--Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation & 
Liability Act
CFR--Code of Federal Regulations
CFU--colony forming unit
CFU/mL--colony forming units per milliliter
CWS--community water system
DCPA--dimethyl tetrachloroterephthalate, chemical name of the 
herbicide dacthal
DCPA mono- and di-acid degradates--degradation products of DCPA
DDE--dichloro dichlorophenyl ethylene, a degradation product of DDT
DDT--dichloro diphenyl trichloroethane, a general insecticide
DNA--deoxyribonucleic acid
EDL--estimated detection limit
EPA--Environmental Protection Agency
EPTC--s-ethyl-dipropylthiocarbamate, an herbicide
EPTDS--Entry Point to the Distribution System
ESA--ethanesulfonic acid, a degradation product of alachlor
FACA--Federal Advisory Committee Act
FTE--full-time equivalent
GC--gas chromatography, a laboratory method
GLI method--Great Lakes Instruments method
GW--ground water
GWUDI--ground water under the direct influence (of surface water)
HPLC--high performance liquid chromatography, a laboratory method
ICR--Information Collection Request/Rule
IRFA--initial regulatory flexibility analysis
IMS--immunomagnetic separation
IRIS--Integrated Risk Information System
IS--internal standard
LLE--liquid/liquid extraction, a laboratory method
MAC--Mycobacterium avium complex
MOA--Memorandum of Agreement
MCL--maximum contaminant level
MDL--method detection limit
MRL--minimum reporting level
MS--mass spectrometry, a laboratory method
MSD--sample matrix spike duplicate
MTBE--methyl-tertiary-butyl-ether, a gasoline additive
NAWQA--National Water Quality Assessment Program
NCOD--National Drinking Water Contaminant Occurrence Database
NDWAC--National Drinking Water Advisory Council
NERL--National Environmental Research Laboratory
NPS--National Pesticide Survey
NTIS--National Technical Information Service
NTNCWS--non-transient non-community water system
NTTAA--National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
OGWDW--Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water
OMB--Office of Management and Budget
PAH--Poly-aromatic hydrocarbon
PB--particle beam
PBMS--Performance-Based Measurement System
pCi/L--picocuries per liter
PCR--polymerase chain reaction

[[Page 50557]]

210Pb--Lead-210 (also Pb-210), a lead isotope and 
radionuclide; part of the uranium decay series
210Po--Polonium-210 (also Po-210), a polonium isotope and 
radionuclide; part of the uranium decay series
PWS--Public Water System
PWSF--Public Water System Facility
QA--quality assurance
QC--quality control
RDX--royal demolition explosive, hexahydro-1,3,5-trinitro-1,3,5-
triazine
RFA--Regulatory Flexibility Act
RPD--relative percent difference
RSD--relative standard deviation
SBREFA--Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
SD--standard deviation
SDWA--Safe Drinking Water Act
SDWIS--Safe Drinking Water Information System
SDWIS FED--the Federal Safe Drinking Water Information System
SM--Standard Methods
SMF--Standard Compliance Monitoring Framework
SMS--sample matrix spike
SOC--synthetic organic compound
SPE--solid phase extraction, a laboratory method
SRF--State Revolving Fund
STORET--Storage and Retrieval System
SW--surface water
TBD--to be determined
TNCWS--transient non-community water system
UCMR--Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation/Rule
UCM--Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring
UMRA--Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
USEPA--United States Environmental Protection Agency
UV--ultraviolet
VOC--volatile organic compound
g/L--micrograms per liter

Preamble Outline

I. Statutory Authority
II. Major Program Revisions
III. Regulatory Background
IV. Process of Preparing the Final Rule
V. Concise Description of Today's Action
    A. Which Systems Must Monitor
    B. System Monitoring Requirements
    C. System Reporting Requirements
    D. State and Tribal Participation
VI. Final Changes in the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Program
    A. Revised List of Unregulated Contaminants to be Monitored
    1. Criteria for Selecting Contaminants for the UCMR
    (a) Revising the UCMR (1999) List
    (b) Regulatory Approach for the UCMR (1999) List
    (c) Analytical Methods Applicable to the UCMR (1999) List
    (i) Chemical Analytical Methods
    (ii) Microbiological Analytical Methods
    2. List of Contaminants To Be Monitored
    (a) Final UCMR (1999) List
    (b) Number of Contaminants on the UCMR (1999) List
    B. Public Water Systems Subject to the UCMR
    C. Type of Monitoring Required of Public Water Systems Based on 
Listing Group
    1. Assessment Monitoring
    2. Screening Survey
    3. Pre-Screen Testing
    D. Monitoring Requirements Under the Final UCMR
    1. Monitoring Frequency
    (a) Systems Serving More Than 10,000 Persons
    (i) Chemical Contaminants.
    (ii) Microbiological Contaminants.
    (b) Systems Serving 10,000 or Fewer Persons
    2. Monitoring Time for Vulnerable Period
    3. Monitoring Location
    (a) Chemical Contaminants
    (b) Microbiological Contaminants
    4. Quality Control Procedures for Sampling and Testing
    5. Monitoring of Routinely Tested Water Quality Parameters
    6. Relation to Compliance Monitoring Requirements
    7. Previous Monitoring of the Contaminants on the Final UCMR 
(1999) List
    E. Waivers
    1. Waivers for Systems Serving More than 10,000 Persons
    2. Waivers for Small Systems in State Plans
    F. Representative Sample of Systems Serving 10,000 or Fewer 
Persons
    1. System Size
    2. System Type
    (a) Public Water System Monitoring
    (b) Nontransient Non-Community Water Systems
    (c) Transient Non-Community Systems
    3. Geographic Location
    4. Likelihood of Finding Contaminants
    5. State Plans for the Representative Sample
    (a) Representative State Plans
    (b) Systems Selected for Pre-Screen Testing
    (c) Tribal Water Systems
    (d) ``Index'' Systems
    (e) Other State Data
    G. Reporting of Monitoring Results
    1. Reporting Requirements (Data Elements)
    2. Reporting to the Primacy Agency
    3. Timing of Reporting
    4. Method of Reporting
    5. Public Notification of Availability of Results
VII. Section-by-Section Analysis of Public Comment and EPA Response
    A. Section 141.35--Reporting of Unregulated Contaminant 
Monitoring Results
    1. Does this reporting apply to me?
    2. To whom must I report?
    3. When do I report monitoring results?
    4. What information must I report?
    5. How must I report this information?
    6. Can the laboratory to which I send samples report the results 
for me?
    7. Can I report previously collected data to meet the testing 
and reporting requirements for the contaminants in 
Sec. 141.40(a)(3)?
    B. Sec. 141.40--Monitoring Requirements for Unregulated 
Contaminants
    1. Requirements for Owners and Operators of Public Water Systems
    (a) Do I have to monitor for unregulated contaminants?
    (b) How would I be selected for the monitoring under the State 
Monitoring Plan, the screening survey, or the pre-screen testing?
    (c) For which contaminants must I monitor?
    (d) What general monitoring requirements must I follow for List 
1 monitoring?
    (e) What specific sampling and quality control requirements must 
I follow for monitoring of List 1 contaminants?
    (i) All systems
    (ii) Large systems
    (A) Timeframe
    (B) Frequency
    (C) Location
    (D) Sampling instructions
    (E) Testing and analytical methods
    (F) Sampling deviations
    (G) Testing
    (iii) Small systems that are part of the State Monitoring Plan
    (A) Frequency
    (B) Location
    (C) Sampling deviations
    (D) Sample kits
    (E) Sampling instructions
    (F) Duplicate samples
    (G) Sampling forms
    (H) Sample submission
    (f) What additional requirements must I follow if my system is 
selected as an Index system?
    (g) What must I do if my system is selected for the Screening 
Survey or Pre-Screen Testing?
    (h) What is a violation of this rule?
    2. Requirements for State and Tribal Participation
    (a) How can I as the director of a State or Tribal drinking 
water program participate in unregulated contaminant monitoring, 
including the State Monitoring Plan for small systems, and the 
Screening Survey and Pre-Screen Testing of all systems?
    (b) What if I decide not to enter into an MOA?
    (c) Can I add contaminants to the Unregulated Contaminant 
Monitoring List?
    (d) Can I waive monitoring requirements?
    C. Appendix A--Quality Control Requirements for Testing All 
Samples Collected
    D. Sec. 142.15--Reports by States
    E. Sec. 142.16--Special primacy requirements
VIII. General Issues From Public Comment and EPA Response
    A. Data Quality
    B. EPA Funding for Small System Testing
    C. Lab Certification
    D. Research
    E. Regulation Format
    F. Voluntary Data Submittal
IX. Other Changes Related to the Regulation
    A. Implementation of the Rule
    1. Setting an Effective Date.
    2. Analytical Methods for the Testing Program.
    3. Testing Program for Large Systems.
    4. Testing Program for Small Systems.
    5. Continued Development of Analytical Methods.
    6. Determining the Representative National Sample and State 
Monitoring Plans.

[[Page 50558]]

    7. Specifying the Vulnerable Monitoring Period.
    8. Conducting the Sampling.
    9. Establishing Sampling Points.
    10. Large Systems.
    11. Systems in State Monitoring Plans.
    12. Screening Survey.
    13. Pre-Screen Testing.
    14. Testing.
    15. Reporting Requirements.
    16. Record Keeping.
    17. Previously Collected Data.
    18. Modifying the Monitoring List.
    B. Implementation in Indian Country
    C. Performance-based Measurement System
X. Guidance Manuals
XI Costs and Benefits of the Rule
    A. Program Cost Estimates
    1. Assumptions: Assessment Monitoring
    2. Estimated Average Annual Cost for 5-Year Program: Assessment 
Monitoring Only
    B. Estimated Net Costs
    C. Benefits
XII. Administrative Requirements
    A. Executive Order 12866--Regulatory Planning and Review
    B. Executive Order 13045--Protection of Children From 
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
    C. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    D. Paperwork Reduction Act
    E. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    1. Full Assessment Monitoring Implementation Scenario
    2. Limited Implementation Scenario
    F. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
    G. Executive Order 12898--Federal Actions to Address 
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 
Populations
    H. Federalism Executive Orders
    I. Executive Order 13084--Consultation and Coordination with 
Indian Tribal Governments
    J. Congressional Review Act
XIII. Public Involvement in Regulation Development
XIV. References

Potentially Regulated Entities

    The regulated entities are public water systems. All large 
community and non-transient non-community water systems serving more 
than 10,000 persons are required to monitor. A community water system 
(CWS) means a public water system 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 
(NTNCWS) means a public water system that is not a community water 
system and that regularly serves at least 25 of the same persons over 6 
months per year. Only a national representative sample of community and 
non-transient non-community systems serving 10,000 or fewer persons 
would be required to monitor. Transient non-community systems (i.e., 
systems that do not regularly serve at least 25 of the same persons 
over six months per year) would not be required to monitor. States, 
Territories, and Tribes, with primacy to administer the regulatory 
program for public water systems under the Safe Drinking Water Act 
sometimes conduct analyses to measure for contaminants in water samples 
and are regulated by this action. Categories and entities potentially 
regulated by this action include the following:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Category                         Examples of potentially regulated entities            SIC
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State, Territorial and Tribal Governments..  States, Territories, and Tribes that analyze water             9511
                                              samples on behalf of public water systems required to
                                              conduct such analysis; States, Territories, and
                                              Tribes that themselves operate community and non-
                                              transient non-community water systems required to
                                              monitor.
Industry...................................  Private operators of community and non-transient non-          4941
                                              community water systems required to monitor.
Municipalities.............................  Municipal operators of community and non-transient non-        9511
                                              community water systems required to monitor.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 of 
that could potentially be regulated by this action. Other types of 
entities not listed in the table could also be regulated. If you have 
questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular 
entity, consult the person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT section.

I. Statutory Authority

    SDWA section 1445(a)(2), as amended in 1996, requires EPA to 
establish criteria for a program to monitor unregulated contaminants 
and to publish, by August 6, 1999, a list of contaminants to be 
monitored. To meet these requirements, today's rule EPA substantially 
revises the existing Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring (UCM) Program, 
which is codified at 40 CFR 141.40. This final rule revises the 
regulations at 40 CFR 9.1, 141.35, 141.40, 142.16 and deletes and 
reserves 142.15(c)(3). The rule covers: (1) the frequency and schedule 
for monitoring, based on PWS size, water source, and likelihood of 
finding contaminants; (2) a new, shorter list of contaminants for which 
systems will monitor; (3) procedures for selecting and monitoring a 
nationally representative sample of small PWSs (those serving 10,000 or 
fewer persons), and; (4) procedures for entering the monitoring data in 
the National Drinking Water Contaminant Occurrence Data Base (NCOD), as 
required under section 1445.

II. Major Program Revisions

    Since its inception in 1988, the UCM Program has collected 
occurrence data to help EPA determine which contaminants EPA should 
regulate based on contaminant concentrations in PWSs and the 
contaminants' adverse health effects levels. Today's rule is designed 
to improve and enhance this program in several important ways:
    (1) A statistical approach to select only 800 representative 
systems for monitoring from the national total of 65,600 small systems 
reduces the monitoring burden of the water supply industry; the burden 
on small systems is significantly further reduced in that EPA will pay 
for virtually all of the costs associated with monitoring for the small 
systems that are part of the representative sample;
    (2) A smaller number of contaminants to be monitored also reduces 
the testing and reporting burden of the water industry overall;
    (3) The required information to be reported about each contaminant 
has been refined to improve the data quality for regulatory decisions; 
and
    (4) Direct reporting of data for regulatory determination and 
development from systems to EPA reduces State reporting burden, and the 
opportunity for electronic reporting reduces the potential for data 
entry and submission.
    A three-tier monitoring approach allows monitoring to start 
promptly for contaminants with approved analytical methods, while 
accommodating the need to delay implementation for contaminants needing 
further methods development. The rule also allows use of a State-EPA 
Memorandum of

[[Page 50559]]

Agreement, providing direct implementation in each State rather than 
implementation through primacy revisions, to address the three-tiered 
approach of the UCMR.
    This program is a cornerstone of the ``sound science'' approach to 
future drinking water regulations, which is a goal of the 1996 SDWA 
Amendments. Data generated by this final rule will be used to: (1) 
evaluate and prioritize contaminants on the Contaminant Candidate List 
(CCL) and refine the CCL; (2) support the Administrator's determination 
of whether to regulate a contaminant under the drinking water program; 
and, (3) support the development of drinking water regulations.
    In a related, cost-savings action, EPA published a Direct Final 
Rule (64 FR 1494) on January 8, 1999, suspending the monitoring 
requirements in effect for small systems serving 10,000 or fewer 
persons. The third round of monitoring by small systems under the 
existing list of unregulated contaminants would have overlapped with 
the monitoring required under this final rule. The Direct Final Rule 
saved small systems and States the cost of unnecessary monitoring. EPA 
believes it obtained sufficient data from the previous monitoring 
rounds to make decisions concerning the occurrence of the unregulated 
contaminants on its prior monitoring list for these systems. Large 
systems were not included in this Direct Final Rule since they had 
already begun the third round of monitoring in January 1998. This large 
system monitoring will provide confirming information on the occurrence 
of those contaminants. However, this final regulation cancels further 
monitoring by large systems for the existing list of contaminants 
effective January 1, 2001. Until that date, large systems must continue 
to monitor for the 48 contaminants listed in 40 CFR 141.40 (and also 
listed in Table 1 of ``Revisions to the Unregulated Contaminant 
Monitoring Regulation for Public Water Systems,'' Federal Register, 
vol. 64, no. 83, April 30, 1999, p. 23401 (64 FR 23401)).

III. Regulatory Background

    The requirements for unregulated contaminant monitoring were first 
established by the 1986 SDWA Amendments. Under this law, EPA 
implemented the drinking water standards in phases, with each phase 
having a set of contaminants for which maximum contaminant levels in 
drinking water were established. The phases also included unregulated 
contaminants for which more information was needed before decisions 
could be made regarding regulation of the contaminants. EPA included 
unregulated contaminant monitoring requirements in the Phase I chemical 
regulation, under 40 CFR 141.40(a)-(e). The Phase II regulation later 
superceded the Phase I rule, and some of the Phase I unregulated 
contaminants became regulated under Phase II. Additional contaminants 
were also added to the list of unregulated contaminants. The Phase V 
chemical regulation further modified the list of contaminants, as 
additional unregulated contaminants became regulated.
    The basic monitoring and reporting requirements for unregulated 
contaminants were the same under the Phase I, Phase II, and Phase V 
regulations. PWSs were required to report their monitoring results to 
the primacy agencies (either the State or EPA), with States, in turn, 
reporting to EPA. Only systems serving fewer than 150 service 
connections were exempt from monitoring--provided they made their 
facilities available for monitoring by the States. Repeat monitoring 
was required every 5 years.
    Section 125 of the 1996 SDWA Amendments substantially revised 
unregulated contaminant monitoring program. The new program includes: 
(1) a new list of contaminants (i.e., the Unregulated Contaminant 
Monitoring Regulation (UCMR) (1999) List; (2) a representative sample 
of PWSs serving 10,000 or fewer persons to monitor; (3) placement of 
the monitoring data in the NCOD, and; (4) notification of consumers 
that the monitoring results are available.
    The 1996 amendments limit the number of contaminants to be 
monitored on the UCMR list to a maximum of 30. The amendments specify 
that only a representative sample of small systems are required to 
monitor, and that EPA must pay the reasonable costs of analyzing the 
samples taken by those systems. EPA will use the data generated by this 
monitoring effort in the development of future drinking water 
regulations.
    Today's final rule will completely replace the requirements of the 
existing rule on the final rule's effective date of January 1, 2001. 
The existing requirements of 40 CFR 141.35 and 141.40 still apply to 
large systems serving more than 10,000 persons, (since their third 
round of monitoring had begun in January 1998) until January 1, 2001, 
as noted above in II. Major Program Revisions.

IV. Process of Preparing the Final Rule

    EPA has been developing the final revisions to the Unregulated 
Contaminant Monitoring Regulation (UCMR) for public water systems since 
1997. In December, 1997, EPA's UCMR development workgroup held a 
stakeholders meeting to obtain input from the public on major issues 
and options affecting the program and emanating from the Safe Drinking 
Water Act, as amended in 1996. EPA held a second stakeholders meeting 
in May 1998, on options under serious consideration for the UCMR. EPA 
engaged eleven external expert reviewers from March 1 through April 22, 
1999 to examine and comment on the technical aspects of the proposed 
rule. These technical reviewers evaluated and commented on the chemical 
and microbiological contaminant analytical methods and reporting 
requirements, the statistical approach for the representative sample of 
small systems, and the sampling and monitoring approach. The comments 
of the technical reviewers were available to the public through the 
official docket and on the Internet through EPA's Office of Ground 
Water and Drinking Water electronic homepage.
    EPA published the proposed rule in the Federal Register on April 
30, 1999, for public comment. The comment period closed on June 14, 
with submissions from 39 commenters meeting the deadline and addressing 
all major aspects of the proposed regulation. EPA received one hundred 
sixteen comments after the public comment period closed, principally 
concerning the inclusion of perchlorate on the UCMR monitoring list. 
EPA considered and addressed all comments in the process of developing 
this final regulation.

V. Concise Description of Today's Action

A. Which Systems Must Monitor

    Owners and operators of community and non-transient noncommunity 
water systems must monitor for unregulated contaminants if they serve 
more than 10,000 persons or if they are part of the representative 
sample of small systems serving 10,000 or fewer persons that will be 
randomly selected to monitor for these contaminants. Transient systems 
are not required to monitor for unregulated contaminants. Only 
purchased water systems that are identified by EPA or the State to 
sample at locations of low disinfectant residual or longest residence 
time are required to monitor for distribution system contaminants.

[[Page 50560]]

B. System Monitoring Requirements

    The contaminants included in this action are: 2,4-dinitrotoluene, 
2,6-dinitrotoluene, DCPA mono acid degradate, DCPA di acid degradate, 
4,4'-DDE, EPTC, molinate, MTBE, nitrobenzene, terbacil, acetochlor, and 
perchlorate. Systems must also analyze for water quality parameters 
including, for chemical contaminants: pH; and for microbiological 
contaminants: pH, temperature, turbidity, free disinfectant residual 
and total disinfectant residual. Surface water systems must monitor 
during four consecutive quarters. Ground water systems must monitor two 
times five to seven months apart. One sampling event for surface and 
ground water systems must be during the vulnerable time of May 1 to 
July 31, or during an alternate vulnerable time selected by the State. 
Monitoring must be conducted at the entry point to the distribution 
system, or at other sampling locations previously specified by the 
State for compliance monitoring, for sampling points representative of 
each principal, non-emergency water source in use over the one year of 
monitoring. Large and small systems must monitor according to the 
quality control procedures described. Laboratories that are certified 
to use the indicated methods for the contaminants listed are 
automatically certified to analyze for unregulated contaminants. Small 
systems that are part of the representative sample which become part of 
State Monitoring Plans must follow instructions given them for 
unregulated contaminant sampling and shipment to the designated 
laboratory.

C. System Reporting Requirements

    After testing for the contaminants on the monitoring list, the 
systems must report the results electronically to, or in an alternate 
format previously arranged with, EPA within 30 days following the month 
they receive the results. EPA will report the results for the small 
systems that are selected to be part of the State Monitoring Plans. EPA 
will hold the data for 60 days to allow for quality control review by 
systems and States before placing the data in the National Drinking 
Water Contaminant Occurrence Database.
    Data required to be reported include: Public Water System (PWS) 
Identification Number; Sample Identification Number; Sample Collection 
Date; Contaminant/Parameter; Analytical Results--Sign; Analytical 
Result--Value; Analytical Result--Unit of Measure; Analytical Method 
Number; Public Water System Facility Identification Number--Source, 
Treatment Plant and Sampling Point; Sample Analysis Type; Detection 
Level; Detection Level Unit of Measure; Batch Identification Number; 
Spiking Concentration; Analytical Precision; Analytical Accuracy; 
Presence/Absence.
    A system can have a laboratory report the results for it, but the 
system retains the responsibility for reporting. A system can report 
previously collected data as long as the data meet the requirements 
specified in 40 CFR 141.40(a) (3), (4), (5) and Appendix A and include 
the applicable water quality parameters and data listed previously that 
are required to be reported.

D. State and Tribal Participation

    States and Tribes can enter into a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) 
with the EPA concerning the implementation of the monitoring program. 
The MOA must address the following: accepting or modifying the State 
Monitoring Plan for small systems, determining an alternate vulnerable 
time, modifying the timing of monitoring, identifying sampling points 
for small systems, notifying small and large systems of their 
monitoring responsibilities, and providing instructions to systems. A 
State can remove a system from the State Monitoring Plan, after EPA 
review, as long as removal is not based on prior information on the 
occurrence or non-occurrence of contaminants at the system or the 
vulnerability of the system to the contaminants. States can decide not 
to participate in an MOA, in which case the EPA will establish a State 
Monitoring Plan. The governors of seven or more States can petition EPA 
to add contaminants to the monitoring list. States can apply to EPA to 
waive monitoring for large systems if they can demonstrate that the 
contaminants for which a monitoring waiver is sought have not occurred 
in the State in the past 15 years.

VI. Final Changes in the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Program

A. Revised List of Unregulated Contaminants To Be Monitored

1. Criteria for Selecting Contaminants for the UCMR
(a) Revising the UCMR (1999) List
    Section 1445(a)(2)(B) requires EPA to list not more than 30 
unregulated contaminants to be monitored by public water systems. EPA 
used the 1998 Contaminant Candidate List (CCL), established under 
section 1412(b)(1)(B) of SDWA, as the primary basis for selecting 
contaminants for future monitoring under the UCMR. Development of the 
CCL is discussed in the preamble to the proposed rule at 64 FR 23402. 
EPA believes, and nearly all public commenters addressing the use of 
the CCL as the basis for the UCMR List indicated, that the CCL process 
already uses the best available information on contaminants of concern 
and emerging contaminants that may need regulation. SDWA section 1445 
(a)(2)(B)(ii) provides for the governors of seven or more States to 
petition the Agency to add contaminants to the UCMR List. This petition 
process allows for the flexibility to include contaminants that are 
emerging as concerns between the five-year listing cycles.
    The CCL lists 26 chemical and 8 microbiological contaminants as 
occurrence priorities because additional data on their occurrence in 
drinking water are needed to help decide whether they should be 
regulated. The proposed rule did not address the two contaminants 
identified in the preparation of the CCL as highly localized in 
occurrence: perchlorate and RDX (hexahydro-1,3,5-trinitro-1,3,5-
triazine). EPA now has information indicating that the occurrence of 
these contaminants is more widespread than originally thought. In 
response to this information, some of which was provided in public 
comments, EPA has added perchlorate and RDX to the final UCMR (1999) 
List. Perchlorate was added to the UCMR (1999) List because EPA feels 
that there is enough information on its occurrence in public water 
systems to warrant its inclusion in a national monitoring program. 
Since it was not included on the proposed UCMR (1999) List, EPA did not 
take comment on its analytical method, minimum reporting level, or 
sampling location. EPA is currently engaged in final validation of an 
analytical method for perchlorate. This validation is important because 
earlier analytical methods did not make adjustments for interferences 
from sulfate and chloride, thus reducing or eliminating detected 
concentrations. EPA feels that with this validation, the analytical 
method should be sufficiently ready for monitoring, and thus EPA has 
included perchlorate on the UCMR List 1. EPA plans to publish, for 
public comment, the analytical method, minimum reporting level, and 
sampling location for perchlorate shortly after the promulgation of 
this final rule. RDX now appears on UCMR (1999) List 2, indicating that 
additional information is available, and initial monitoring of 
occurrence in public water systems should occur but that its method 
needs further refinement.

[[Page 50561]]

    Additionally, based on technical peer review and public comments, 
EPA moved Aeromonas from UCMR (1999) List 1 to UCMR (1999) List 2 in 
Table 1, because its analytical method is not expected to be validated 
until 2000 or 2001. Also, in response to public comments that the 
Agency include as many contaminants that could be tested under the same 
multi-analyte method as possible in Assessment Monitoring, EPA moved 
acetochlor to List 1 from List 2. This action is based on information 
that only minor refinements are needed in the method and those can be 
resolved before the effective date of today's rule. As a result, the 
analytical method is reserved until the details of the method are 
resolved. EPA plans to publish a revision to this final rule to approve 
an analytical method for acetochlor shortly after this rule's 
promulgation. EPA will likely publish a joint request for public 
comment on the analytical methods for perchlorate and acetochlor. EPA 
intends to approve and publish the methods as early as possible to 
allow monitoring to begin on January 1, 2001, and to allow for the 
reporting of any data obtained prior to January 1, 2001 to meet the 
requirements of this final Rule.
    For the remaining contaminants on the CCL Occurrence Priorities 
List, EPA has evaluated the availability of analytical methods 
published by EPA or voluntary consensus standards organizations, such 
as the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) and Standard 
Methods (SM). In addition, EPA prioritized analytical methods 
development activities for those compounds and microorganisms for which 
suitable analytical methods are not currently available. As listed in 
List 1 of Table 1, EPA identified 10 of the 12 listed chemical 
contaminants for which analytical methods are now available. UCMR 
(1999) List 1 contaminants are those for which monitoring is required 
under today's Rule, with the added note that analytical methods have 
yet to be approved for perchlorate and acetochlor. UCMR (1999) List 2 
of Table 1 lists 16 contaminants for which analytical methods are being 
refined: 14 chemical contaminants, Aeromonas (a microorganism), and 
polonium-210 (discussed in Table 1). UCMR (1999) List 3 of Table 1 
identifies seven microbiological contaminants and lead-210 for which 
analytical methods are being researched. Monitoring for contaminants on 
UCMR (1999) Lists 2 and 3 is not required until EPA promulgates 
revisions to this rule to specify analytical methods and related 
sampling requirements for them.
    EPA requested comment on the addition to the UCMR (1999) List of 
two naturally occurring radionuclides with health concerns at low 
levels, lead-210 (pb-210), and polonium-210 (po-210). Both nuclides are 
in the uranium decay series, which also includes radium-226 and radon-
222. Lead-210, with a half-life of 22 years, and one of its degradates, 
polonium-210, with a half-life of 138 days, have been found in drinking 
water. EPA is aware of the occurrence of these contaminants in shallow 
aquifers in Florida (Harada, et al., 1989; Upchurch, 1991), and in at 
least two other States. Because of potential occurrence, consequent 
health risks, and in response to public comments, EPA has added 
polonium-210 and lead-210 to the UCMR (1999) List and has placed them 
on Lists 2 and 3 respectively.
(b) Regulatory Approach for the UCMR (1999) List
    EPA establishes in Sec. 141.40(a)(3) that the contaminants listed 
in Lists 1-3 comprise the UCMR (1999) List, categorized based on the 
availability of analytical methods. UCMR (1999) List 1 is the basis for 
Assessment Monitoring. Assessment Monitoring will occur at all 2,774 
large community and non-transient non-community public water systems 
serving more than 10,000 persons and at a representative sample of 
approximately 800 systems serving 10,000 or fewer persons identified in 
State Monitoring Plans. UCMR (1999) List 2 will be the basis for two 
Screening Surveys of approximately 300 systems each, statistically 
selected from those systems required to conduct Assessment Monitoring. 
UCMR (1999) List 3 will be used for Pre-Screen Testing at up to 200 
systems selected because of their potential vulnerability to the 
specific contaminants. This monitoring approach is described in detail 
under Section VI.C, ``Type of Monitoring Required of Public Water 
Systems Based on Listing Group.'' Assessment Monitoring (and associated 
``Index system'' monitoring) is the only monitoring that would be 
required by today's action. This includes contaminants for which EPA 
expects to have developed analytical methods before implementation: 
perchlorate and acetochlor.
    For contaminants on UCMR (1999) List 2 for which analytical methods 
are developed by the time of initial monitoring in 2001, EPA will amend 
this rule to require the first Screening Survey to be conducted at 
selected systems. For those contaminants on List 2 and List 3 that do 
not have well developed methods by the time of initial monitoring in 
2001, EPA will issue a revision to this regulation to activate 
monitoring for them at the time when the methods are considered 
implementable, up to the limit of 30 contaminants to be monitored 
within the five-year contaminant listing cycle. Monitoring for those 
contaminants will then begin at a date specified in that prospective 
regulation. Therefore, monitoring of contaminants on UCMR (1999) Lists 
2 and 3 is not required by today's action. Monitoring of these 
contaminants will only occur when EPA publishes a revision to this 
regulation specifying the analytical methods to be used and the period 
during which monitoring is to be completed.
(c) Analytical Methods Applicable to the UCMR (1999) List
    The UCMR (1999) List development process focuses primarily on the 
availability of analytical methods for the listed contaminants and the 
level of information available for them at the time of its development. 
The discussion below highlights analytical method considerations in 
listing the contaminants for monitoring. Only the contaminants 
identified on UCMR (1999) List 1, will be monitored as a result of 
today's action, with the exceptions of perchlorate and acetochlor, for 
which analytical methods have yet to be approved. Contaminants on UCMR 
(1999) Lists 2 and 3 are included on the final UCMR (1999) List, but 
will not be activated for monitoring until EPA proposes and promulgates 
analytical methods that can be used to reliably measure their 
occurrence in drinking water. At that time, EPA will propose 
regulations for the monitoring of UCMR (1999) List 2 and 3 
contaminants.
(i) Chemical Analytical Methods
    The ability to correctly identify a chemical contaminant is 
directly related to the type of chemical and the analytical method 
used. Compounds such as disinfection byproducts are far less likely to 
be misidentified than pesticides because they are typically present at 
relatively high concentrations in disinfected waters, while pesticides 
are much less likely to occur, or occur at lower concentrations. The 
analytical method selected will determine the accuracy of the 
qualitative identification. In general, the most reliable qualitative 
identifications will come from methods that use mass spectral data for 
contaminant identification. However, these methods are typically less 
sensitive than methods that rely on less selective detectors.

[[Page 50562]]

    Before EPA establishes a Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL), the 
Agency relies on an analytical method suitable for routine monitoring. 
It is likely that analytical methods in general use by laboratories 
performing drinking water analyses may not exist for some of the final 
compounds to be measured in the UCMR program. Complex analytical 
methods or methods requiring special handling often require more 
experienced laboratories than the laboratories performing routine 
compliance monitoring. Even when analytical methods that are in general 
use by analytical laboratories are available, limiting the analyses to 
a small number of laboratories operating under strict quality control 
requirements improves the precision and accuracy of the analyses, 
thereby increasing the usefulness of the data.
    The option favored by many stakeholders for conducting the chemical 
laboratory analyses and made final today by EPA is the following:
    For PWSs serving more than 10,000 people, the PWS is responsible 
for sample collection and analyses for Assessment Monitoring. This 
monitoring may be conducted at the same time as the required compliance 
monitoring, to the extent possible. For Assessment Monitoring, however, 
EPA requires in Sec. 141.40(a)(3) and Sec. 141.40 Appendix A, quality 
control procedures for both sampling and testing to ensure that the 
data collected under this regulation are of sufficient quality to meet 
the requirements of the related regulatory decisions. Thus, today's 
action specifies the analytical methods and procedures to be used in 
obtaining these data. The sampling and associated quality control 
requirements cover time frame, frequency, sample collection and 
submission, and review and reporting of results. The laboratory 
analytical quality control requirements address the use of a certified 
laboratory, sample collection/preservation, analytical methods, method 
detection limits, calibration, quality control samples, method 
performance tests, detection confirmation, and reporting. PWSs serving 
10,000 or fewer persons must send their Assessment Monitoring samples 
to laboratories designated by EPA, since the Agency must pay for the 
reasonable costs of testing.
    The purpose of the quality control requirements is to ensure that, 
since EPA will only be able to obtain results from 3,574 systems (2,774 
large systems and a representative sample of 800 systems from 65,600 
systems serving 10,000 or fewer persons), the Agency obtains the most 
reliable data possible. EPA is specifying the use of certain analytical 
methods that are currently available for monitoring (see Table 3, UCMR 
(1999) List, column 3). While these methods are routinely used by 
commercial and public water system laboratories (including some that 
are currently used for compliance monitoring), they have not been 
routinely used for the contaminants on the UCMR (1999) List. Note that, 
as shown in Sec. 141.40(a)(3), Table 1, methods other than those that 
EPA has developed may be approved for use, but quality control 
procedures must also be followed, as specified in Sec. 141.40(a)(3), 
(4) and (5), and Appendix A.
    For the compounds included in this regulation, the following 
summary, Table 1, Status of Analytical Methods for Chemical 
Contaminants on the UCMR (1999) List, presents a brief overview of 
methods availability for each chemical contaminant.

            Table 1.--Status of Analytical Methods for Chemical Contaminants on the UCMR (1999) List
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    CAS No.       Analytical methods             Status of availability
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                    UCMR (1999) List 1--Chemical Contaminant
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2,4-dinitrotoluene............        121-14-2  EPA 525.2............  Method is adequate for monitoring.
2,6-dinitrotoluene............        606-20-2  EPA 525.2............  Method is adequate for monitoring.
4,4'-DDE......................         72-55-9  EPA 508..............  Methods are adequate for monitoring.
                                                EPA 508.1............
                                                EPA 525.2............
                                                D5812-96.............
                                                AOAC 990.06..........
Acetochlor....................      34256-82-1  In validation process  EPA anticipates that this compound can be
                                                                        added to the scope of EPA Method 525.2.
DCPA di acid degradate........       2136-79-0  EPA 515.1............  No method is available to measure the
                                                EPA 515.2............   mono and di acid forms separately. All
                                                D5317-93.............   of the approved methods identify total
                                                AOAC 992.32..........   mono and di acid forms.
DCPA mono acid degradate......        887-54-7  EPA 515.1............  No method is available to measure the
                                                EPA 515.2............   mono and di acid forms separately. All
                                                D5317-93.............   of the approved methods identify total
                                                AOAC 992.32..........   mono and di acid forms.
EPTC..........................        759-94-4  EPA 507..............  Methods are adequate for monitoring.
                                                EPA 525.2............
                                                D5475-93.............
                                                AOAC 991.07..........
Molinate......................       2212-67-1  EPA 507..............  Methods are adequate for monitoring.
                                                EPA 525.2............
                                                D5475-93.............
                                                AOAC 991.07..........
MTBE..........................       1634-04-4  EPA 524.2............  Methods are adequate for monitoring.
                                                D5790-95.............
                                                SM6210D..............
                                                SM6200B..............
Nitrobenzene..................         98-95-3  EPA 524.2............  Methods are adequate for monitoring.
                                                D5790-95.............
                                                SM6210D..............
                                                SM6200B..............

[[Page 50563]]

 
Perchlorate...................      14797-73-0  In validation process  EPA is currently conducting analytical
                                                                        methods development to support the
                                                                        analyses of perchlorate. This new method
                                                                        will be based on the currently available
                                                                        ion chromatography methods, but will
                                                                        include a criteria detailing when a
                                                                        laboratory must perform a sample clean-
                                                                        up procedure to minimize the impact of
                                                                        elevated concentrations of chloride,
                                                                        sulfate or other dissolved solids.
Terbacil......................       5902-51-2  EPA 507..............  Methods are adequate for monitoring.
                                                EPA 525.2............
                                                D5475-93.............
                                                AOAC 991.07..........
 UCMR (1999) List 2--Chemical
          Contaminant
1,2-diphenylhydrazine.........        122-66-7  In development.......  Some methods evaluated but inadequate for
                                                                        monitoring. Priority for analytical
                                                                        method development. EPA anticipates that
                                                                        contaminant will be added to the scope
                                                                        of EPA Method 525.2.
2,4,6-trichlorophenol.........         88-06-2  In development.......  EPA Method 552 evaluated but subject to
                                                                        false positives from interferences of
                                                                        the derivitized byproduct of the
                                                                        contaminant. EPA anticipates that
                                                                        contaminant will be included in a new
                                                                        SPE/GC/MS method currently under
                                                                        development.
2,4-dichlorophenol............        120-83-2  In development.......  EPA Method 552 evaluated but subject to
                                                                        quantitative uncertainty due to
                                                                        inadequate derivatization of the
                                                                        contaminant. EPA anticipates that
                                                                        contaminant will be included in a new
                                                                        SPE/GC/MS method currently under
                                                                        development.
2,4-dinitrophenol.............         51-28-5  In development.......  Some methods evaluated but inadequate for
                                                                        monitoring. EPA anticipates that
                                                                        contaminant will be included in a new
                                                                        SPE/GC/MS method currently under
                                                                        development.
2-methylphenol................         95-48-7  In development.......  Some methods evaluated but inadequate for
                                                                        monitoring. EPA anticipates that
                                                                        contaminant will be included in a new
                                                                        SPE/GC/MS method currently under
                                                                        development.
Alachlor ESA and degradation    ..............  To be determined.....  EPA is evaluating which specific
 byproducts of acetanilide                                              contaminants will be included within
 pesticides.                                                            this group of compounds. Analytical
                                                                        methods will be determined for the
                                                                        targeted contaminants.
Diazinon......................        333-41-5  In development.......  Diazinon is listed as a contaminant in
                                                                        several EPA and voluntary consensus
                                                                        standard organization methods but it is
                                                                        subject to rapid aqueous degradation.
                                                                        Preservation research currently being
                                                                        conducted to develop a preservation
                                                                        technique that would permit adding this
                                                                        compound to EPA Method 525.2.
Disulfoton....................        298-04-4  In development.......  Disulfoton is listed as a contaminant in
                                                                        several EPA and voluntary consensus
                                                                        standard organization methods but it is
                                                                        subject to rapid aqueous degradation.
                                                                        Preservation research currently being
                                                                        conducted to develop a preservation
                                                                        technique that would permit adding this
                                                                        compound to EPA Method 525.2.
Diuron........................        330-54-1  In development.......  While this compound is included in the
                                                                        scope of NPS Method 4 (LLE/HLPC/UV) and
                                                                        EPA Method 553 (SPE/HPLC/MS), these
                                                                        methods are not adequate for this
                                                                        monitoring. EPA anticipates that this
                                                                        compound can be included in a new SPE/
                                                                        HPLC/UV method currently being
                                                                        developed.
Fonofos.......................        944-22-9  In development.......  Fonofos is listed as a contaminant in
                                                                        several EPA and voluntary consensus
                                                                        standard organization methods but it is
                                                                        subject to rapid aqueous degradation.
                                                                        Preservation research is currently being
                                                                        conducted to develop a preservation
                                                                        technique that would permit adding this
                                                                        compound to EPA Method 525.2.
Linuron.......................        330-55-2  In development.......  While this compound is included in the
                                                                        scope of NPS Method 4 (LLE/HLPC/UV) and
                                                                        EPA Method 553 (SPE/HPLC/MS), these
                                                                        methods are not adequate for this
                                                                        monitoring. EPA anticipates that this
                                                                        compound can be included in a new SPE/
                                                                        HPLC/UV method currently being
                                                                        developed.
Polonium-210 (210Po)..........      13981-52-7  In development.......  Radiochemistry laboratory capacity is
                                                                        limited.

[[Page 50564]]

 
Prometon......................       1610-18-0  In development.......  Prometon is listed as a contaminant in
                                                                        several EPA and voluntary consensus
                                                                        standard organization methods but it is
                                                                        subject to rapid aqueous degradation in
                                                                        non-acidified samples and is not readily
                                                                        extracted in acidified samples.
                                                                        Preservation research is currently being
                                                                        conducted to add neutralizing the pH of
                                                                        acidified samples just prior to
                                                                        extraction. This would permit adding
                                                                        this compound to EPA Method 525.2.
RDX...........................        121-82-4  In development.......  No EPA or consensus methods organization
                                                                        analytical methods for the analysis of
                                                                        RDX in water are currently available.
Terbufos......................      13071-79-9  In development.......  Terbufos is listed as a contaminant in
                                                                        several EPA and voluntary consensus
                                                                        standard organization methods but it is
                                                                        subject to rapid aqueous degradation.
                                                                        Preservation research is currently being
                                                                        conducted to develop a preservation
                                                                        technique that would permit adding this
                                                                        compound to EPA Method 525.2.
 UCMR (1999) List 3--Chemical
          Contaminant
Lead-210 (210Pb)..............      14255-04-0  In development.......  Method is time-consuming and expensive.
                                                                        Radiochemistry laboratory capacity is
                                                                        limited.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(ii) Microbiological Analytical Methods
    The discussion of data quality for chemical analytical methods also 
applies to microbiological testing when analytical methods are 
developed for CCL microorganisms. When microorganisms were proposed for 
the CCL, EPA recognized that analytical methods were not well developed 
for the majority of them. Because of the lack of available analytical 
methods, some of the CCL microorganisms were grouped either into one 
category where information was available about methodologies indicating 
a need to further refine them, or another category where more research, 
including research on detection methods and occurrence, was needed. At 
the present time, and based on technical peer review and public 
comment, Aeromonas is the only one of the microorganisms for which more 
occurrence data are needed that also has an analytical method likely to 
be sufficiently developed for monitoring in time for implementation of 
the Screening Surveys. Three other microorganisms have methods 
available, but are in need of further methods development. These 
microorganisms (Cyanobacteria, Echoviruses, and Coxsackieviruses) may 
be candidates for the Screening Surveys if methods development proceeds 
expeditiously (Sec. 141.40(a)(3), Table 1, List 2), but are currently 
identified for Pre-Screen Testing (Table 1, List 3). The remaining four 
microorganisms currently lack satisfactory methods and will be 
evaluated for Pre-Screen Testing.
    Several microorganisms on the CCL are actually groups of 
microorganism taxa. In some cases, the taxa have so many members that, 
given the limited resources available for UCMR monitoring, EPA may have 
to prioritize which strains, species, or serotypes are the most 
important to consider and target those for monitoring or further study. 
Decisions will have to be made on the basis of health risk, 
disinfection resistance, occurrence in water, and other factors. To 
address the need to prioritize which microorganisms should be targeted 
for monitoring, EPA's Office of Research and Development is assisting 
the Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water in establishing a 
research program for health effects, treatment, and analytical methods.

         Table 2.--Status of Analytical Methods for Microbiological Contaminants on the UCMR (1999) List
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Availability of analytical
                                                method                        Status of availability
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
List 2--Microbiological Contaminant
Aeromonas..........................  Analytical method likely to  Current modification and evaluation of a
                                      be available for             published membrane filtration method
                                      monitoring.                  (Havelaar et al., 1987) indicates that this
                                                                   method will be suitable for the monitoring
                                                                   program.
List 3--Microbiological Contaminant
Cyanobacteria (blue-green algae,     Methods available but not    Methods are available for counting
 other freshwater algae and their     standardized.                cyanobacteria but new, standardized methods
 toxins).                                                          are needed for direct counts of targeted
                                                                   species with filtration methods or a counting
                                                                   chamber. Standardized analytical methods are
                                                                   also needed to detect the more important
                                                                   cyanobacterial toxins.
Echoviruses........................  Methods available but not    Echoviruses can be cultured on BGM cells and
                                      standardized.                detected by the ICR method but require
                                                                   supplemental methods such as serological
                                                                   typing to distinguish echoviruses from other
                                                                   viruses. Cost of cell culture assays plus
                                                                   serotyping can be high. RT/PCR methods are
                                                                   subject to interferences and do not
                                                                   demonstrate infectivity. Combined cell
                                                                   culture and PCR, which demonstrates
                                                                   infectivity, may be considered.

[[Page 50565]]

 
Coxsackieviruses...................  Methods available but not    Group B coxsackieviruses are easy to grow in
                                      standardized.                tissue culture but group A coxsackievirus
                                                                   detection in cell culture is variable.
                                                                   Culturable coxsackieviruses can be detected
                                                                   with the ICR method but serological typing is
                                                                   needed to distinguish coxsackieviruses from
                                                                   other viruses. RT/PCR methods are subject to
                                                                   interferences and do not demonstrate
                                                                   infectivity. New, standardized methods are
                                                                   needed. Combined cell culture and PCR methods
                                                                   may be considered.
Helicobacter pylori................  No suitable method           Helicobacter pylori is difficult to cultivate
                                      currently available.         because of its slow growth rate and the need
                                                                   for a low oxygen environment. No selective
                                                                   medium exists that will discriminate H.
                                                                   pylori from background bacteria. A culture-
                                                                   based method that demonstrates viability is
                                                                   preferred. Methods are needed for selective
                                                                   growth and identification. IMS has been used
                                                                   to concentrate Helicobacter pylori. Methods
                                                                   using PCR alone have been used but have not
                                                                   been validated by EPA. In general, PCR
                                                                   methods are not preferred due to
                                                                   interferences and their inability to
                                                                   demonstrate viability. A combined cultural
                                                                   and molecular method may be considered.
Microsporidia......................  No suitable method           No methods are available for the monitoring of
                                      currently available.         the two species of human microsporidia which
                                                                   may have a waterborne route of transmission
                                                                   [Enterocytozoon bienuesi and Encephalitozoon
                                                                   (formerly Septata) intestinalis]. Spores
                                                                   could possibly be detected by methods similar
                                                                   to those being developed for Cryptosporidium
                                                                   parvum. Potential methods may utilize water
                                                                   filtration, clean-up with IMS, and detection
                                                                   using microscopy with either fluorescent
                                                                   antibody or gene probe procedures. Provided
                                                                   that procedures are validated by EPA, reverse-
                                                                   transcriptase (RT)--PCR techniques may be
                                                                   considered for monitoring, although PCR
                                                                   methods in general are not preferred at this
                                                                   time due to interferences and their inability
                                                                   to demonstrate viability. Due to the small
                                                                   size of microsporidia, problems could be
                                                                   encountered during filtration.
Adenoviruses.......................  No suitable method           Adenoviruses serotypes 1 to 39 and 42 to 47
                                      currently available.         can be grown in tissue culture but enteric
                                                                   adenoviruses 40 to 41 are difficult to grow.
                                                                   Several selective tissue culture methods and
                                                                   detection methods have been reported. A
                                                                   selective, standardized method is needed for
                                                                   monitoring. PCR methods are not preferred, as
                                                                   they are subject to interferences and do not
                                                                   demonstrate infectivity. A combined cell
                                                                   culture and PCR method may be considered.
Caliciviruses......................  No suitable method           No tissue culture methods exist for the two
                                      currently available.         genogroups of caliciviruses on the CCL (the
                                                                   Norwalk-like and the Snow Mountain-like
                                                                   agents). No sensitive or fully developed
                                                                   detection methods exist. PCR methods are not
                                                                   preferred, as they are subject to
                                                                   interferences and do not demonstrate
                                                                   infectivity. A combined cell culture and PCR
                                                                   method may be considered if a suitable cell
                                                                   line is found.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. List of Contaminants To Be Monitored
(a) Final UCMR (1999) List
    Section 141.40 (a)(3) Table 1, Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring 
Regulation (1999) List, presents EPA's list of unregulated contaminants 
for monitoring under Section 1445(a)(2)(B)(i) of the 1996 Amendments 
for the first five-year listing cycle. The monitoring program for these 
contaminants is a three-tiered approach based on the availability of 
information about each contaminant and the availability of analytical 
methods for each contaminant. This approach is described in Section C., 
Type of Monitoring Required of Public Water Systems Based on Listing 
Group. The final monitoring program divides the listed unregulated 
contaminants into three lists: List 1, for which Assessment Monitoring 
will be required, List 2, designated for the Screening Surveys; and 
List 3, designated for Pre-Screen Testing. Today's final regulation 
only requires Assessment Monitoring for UCMR (1999) List 1 contaminants 
beginning on January 1, 2001, with the exceptions of perchlorate and 
acetochlor, for which analytical methods have not yet been approved 
(but are planned to have monitoring begin on that date, also, after 
rulemaking to specify their analytical methods). The monitoring for 
contaminants on Lists 2 and 3 will only be required after EPA 
promulgates further rules.
    Technical peer review and public comments strongly supported the 
three-tier approach of the UCMR program. As a result, EPA requires in 
today's action Assessment Monitoring for the contaminants on UCMR 
(1999) List 1, because analytical methods for these contaminants 
currently exist or will shortly be validated. EPA will shortly publish 
a request for public comment on a revision to this final rule to 
implement the analytical methods and other sampling requirements for 
perchlorate and acetochlor. Also, by future rulemaking, EPA plans to 
implement the Screening Survey (List 2) monitoring in groups of 
contaminants, rather than one contaminant at a time, to minimize 
sampling and testing costs since some of the contaminants may be tested 
by the

[[Page 50566]]

same method. EPA intends to take a similar approach with the 
contaminants on List 3, the Pre-Screen Testing. EPA plans to require, 
through future rulemaking, Pre-Screen Testing for contaminants for 
which EPA determines that new analytical methods can measure their 
existence in locations where they are most likely to be found. All 
analytical methods for contaminants on Lists 2 and 3 would be peer 
reviewed, following EPA's policy for peer review, before the Agency 
proposes regulations which would require public water systems to 
monitor for them.
    In Sec. 141.40 (a)(3), Table 1, UCMR (1999) List 1 contaminants, 
for Assessment Monitoring, are chemical contaminants for which 
analytical methods capable of generating the quantity and quality of 
data required under the UCMR are currently available, or expected to be 
available shortly after today's final rule. Monitoring for these 
contaminants is required under today's final UCMR, with the exceptions 
of perchlorate and acetochlor, as noted.
    UCMR (1999) List 2 contaminants (14 organic chemicals, one 
radiochemical and one microorganism), for the Screening Surveys, are 
those for which EPA is currently refining analytical methods. 
Development of these methods should be sufficient for Screening Surveys 
to be conducted in the first three years of the listing cycle, but may 
occur in the later years of the cycle. These contaminants are 
characterized in today's final rule at Sec. 141.40(a)(3), Table 1, 
Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation (1999) List, List 2.
    UCMR (1999) List 3 contaminants (seven microbiological contaminants 
or contaminant groups and one inorganic chemical), for Pre-Screen 
Testing, are those for which EPA has begun or shortly will begin 
analytical methods development, but completion of those efforts is not 
expected prior to the Assessment Monitoring required under 
implementation of this regulation. Instead, these contaminants will be 
tested for in Pre-Screen Testing. These contaminants are listed in 
today's final rule at Sec. 141.40(a)(3) as Table 1, Unregulated 
Contaminant Monitoring List, List 3.
    Tables 3 and 4, in IV.A.1.(c), Analytical Methods Applicable to the 
UCMR (1999) List, present a summary of the status of the methods for 
all the contaminants on this list.
    EPA believes that this three-tiered approach to the UCMR, which was 
recommended by stakeholders, reflects a balance between the 
implementability of current analytical methods and the need to obtain 
data in time frames that are useful for responding to concerns about 
the contaminants identified.
(b) Number of Contaminants on the UCMR (1999) List
    Thirty-six contaminants are on today's final UCMR (1999) List. SDWA 
Section 1445 (a)(2)(B)(i) states that in August 1999 and every five 
years thereafter ``the Administrator shall issue a list of * * * not 
more than 30 unregulated contaminants to be monitored by public water 
systems and to be included in the national drinking water occurrence 
data base * * *'' EPA interprets this to mean that the UCMR list may 
contain more than 30 contaminants, as long as monitoring is not 
required for more than 30 contaminants during a five-year listing 
cycle. Public comments were split on whether the monitoring list should 
have more than 30 contaminants. EPA believes that maintaining a 
monitoring list with more than 30 contaminants, while requiring 
monitoring for no more than 30, is responsive to public concerns about 
contaminants in drinking water. This interpretation and approach also 
supports EPA's efforts to respond to and encourage analytical methods 
development for emerging contaminants.
    Any PWS may voluntarily submit data to EPA, including data for 
contaminants that a PWS may monitor that are on the UCMR (1999) List of 
36 contaminants, but that are not on the final list of 30 contaminants 
actually required for UCMR monitoring. EPA is preparing a guidance 
document specifying the procedures for future voluntary submission of 
such data to the National Drinking Water Contaminant Occurrence 
Database (NCOD).

B. Public Water Systems Subject to the UCMR

    The monitoring in this final rule focuses ultimately on 
determination of, on a national basis, the occurrence or likely 
occurrence of contaminants in drinking water delivered by community 
water systems (CWS) and non-transient non-community water systems 
(NTNCWS). For regulatory purposes, public water systems are categorized 
as ``community water systems,'' or ``non-community water systems.'' 
Community water systems (CWSs) are specifically defined as ``public 
water systems which serve at least 15 service connections used by year-
round residents or regularly serve at least 25 year-round residents.'' 
(40 CFR 141.2) A ``non-community water system'' means any other public 
water system. Non-community water systems include nontranisent non-
community water systems (NTNCWSs) and transient non-community water 
systems. Non-community water systems are available to serve the public, 
but are not used on a year-round basis in most cases. Non-transient 
systems regularly serve at least 25 of the same persons over six months 
per year (e.g., schools). Transient systems do not regularly serve at 
least 25 of the same persons over six months per year. Additionally, 
some community water systems purchase all or part of their water supply 
from other water systems. Purchased water systems may be at the end of 
a distribution system from the water system selling the water.
    One of the factors considered in establishing the UCMR program is 
the number of persons served by a system. With respect to size, about 
2,774 large systems (each serving more than 10,000 persons) provide 
drinking water to about 80 percent of the U.S. population served by 
public water systems. Under today's final regulation, all large systems 
will be required to monitor the unregulated contaminants specified in 
Sec. 141.40(a)(3), List 1 of Table 1, UCMR (1999) List, with the 
exception of perchlorate and acetochlor for which analytical methods 
have not been promulgated. In response to public comment on purchased 
water systems representing the end of a distribution system, purchased 
water systems are also included in this monitoring requirement for 
microbiological contaminants that occur primarily in distribution 
systems with maximum residence times or low disinfectant residuals 
which may allow microorganisms that have human health effects to 
survive and reproduce.
    Section 1445(a)(2)(A) requires that the UCMR ensure that only a 
representative sample of systems serving 10,000 or fewer persons (small 
systems) monitor for unregulated contaminants. Small community water 
systems and small non-transient, non-community water systems total 
65,636 systems. From this total number of small systems, EPA will 
select a national representative sample of 800 small systems. EPA is 
excluding transient non-community systems from UCMR requirements. The 
variation in the 97,000 transient systems would be difficult to reflect 
in a national representative sample and would be very costly to 
monitor. Furthermore, projecting contaminant exposure results from such 
systems would be complex and inconclusive because of the transient 
nature of the population that uses them. The results from the very 
small community and non-transient non-community systems (NTNCWS) can be 
extrapolated to the transient non-community systems. Public comments

[[Page 50567]]

supported not including these systems in the representative sample. One 
commenter suggested that transient systems be the subject of a special 
survey since they may be a pathway of exposure for a specific segment 
of the population. At this time, EPA is not planning any special 
surveys of transient systems because they are such a large and diffuse 
category and it is difficult to compile and evaluate population 
exposure information for this category of water systems.
    EPA will pay for the reasonable costs of monitoring by the small 
systems selected for the representative sample, as long as the systems 
are part of a State Monitoring Plan. The EPA will select systems to 
monitor through the use of a random number generator according to a 
national representative sample selection plan developed primarily on 
the basis of population served by PWSs in each State. This detailed 
selection plan is necessary to ensure that the sample is statistically 
valid and representative of all small water systems nationally. This 
plan is also necessary because EPA typically has the least information 
about these systems and needs a consistent base of data for regulation 
development. EPA will use a national sample of approximately 800 
systems serving 10,000 or fewer persons which the EPA will 
statistically draw from all small CWSs and NTNCWSs nationally. Section 
F, ``Representative Sample of Systems Serving 10,000 or Fewer 
Persons,'' provides the details of the sample selection plan, including 
the sample size. The number of systems selected within each size 
category of systems will be based on the proportion of population 
served by that size category. System selection will be further 
allocated across water source type and distributed across all states.
    The State-based component of this national representative sample, 
called a State Monitoring Plan (or State Plan), will include the list 
of systems statistically selected for UCMR monitoring. Other state 
responsibilities will be defined in the Memorandum of Agreement issued 
between the States and EPA. The State can review, and modify if 
necessary, the list of systems in the State Plan. The resulting State 
Plans will then be part of a national sample framework, providing the 
representative national sample requisite to drawing national 
conclusions for contaminant exposure.
    To provide a more capable understanding of contaminants and 
conditions affecting small systems, and to provide additional quality 
assurance, EPA will randomly select up to 30 small public water systems 
from the systems in State Monitoring Plans as ``Index'' systems. Index 
systems must monitor every year during the five year UCMR listing 
cycle. These systems will also be required to report information on 
system operating conditions (such as water source, pumping rates, and 
environmental setting). This information will assist EPA in more fully 
evaluating small system operations and future regulations of small 
systems. EPA will conduct the sampling and testing for Index systems. 
At the time of sampling, EPA will also gather other system information 
to characterize the environmental setting affecting the system 
including precipitation, land and water resource use, and environmental 
factors (such as soil type and geology).
    Also, up to 150 additional small systems might be selected for the 
Pre-Screen Testing. The systems for the Pre-Screen Testing will be 
selected on the basis of their representativeness of systems most 
vulnerable to the particular UCMR (1999) List 3 contaminants for which 
methods have been refined. The statistical selection of the 800 systems 
for the national representative sample may not include the systems 
determined to be most vulnerable to these contaminants, hence; the 
States and EPA may need to select additional systems for this targeted 
testing.
    External expert peer review and public comments supported the 
statistical approach described to select small systems for the national 
representative sample and State Monitoring Plans.

C. Type of Monitoring Required of Public Water Systems Based on Listing 
Group

    At the UCMR Stakeholders Meeting on June 3-4, 1998, a diverse group 
of stakeholders suggested that the UCMR Program be developed through a 
progression of monitoring levels based on contaminant group 
characteristics. These characteristics reflect current information 
about both the occurrence of and method availability for the 
contaminants. Occurrence information and methods availability will 
determine which phase, or tier, of monitoring the contaminants will be 
placed. Both EPA and stakeholders are also concerned about contaminants 
that may be ``emerging'' as contaminants of concern. These emerging 
contaminants have not been monitored before, but have the potential to 
be found near or in drinking water supplies or recently have been 
identified as potential health problems. It is not likely that there 
exists approved EPA analytical methods for the ``emerging contaminants 
of concern''. Typically, ``research'' analytical methods are used to 
detect such emerging contaminants and may be expensive. EPA will have 
to either develop an approved method for inclusion in a regulatory 
approach, or perhaps substitute a regulatory approach with a study 
using a single laboratory and a ``research'' analytical method. The 
resources needed to develop an approved analytical method will face 
competing resource demands for other contaminants on the CCL that also 
require analytical method development. In recognition of these 
considerations, as described above, the final rule incorporates an 
approach with three monitoring levels, or tiers, referred to as 
``Assessment Monitoring,'' ``Screening Survey,'' and ``Pre-Screen 
Testing''.
1. Assessment Monitoring
    The first type of monitoring in the three-tiered monitoring program 
of today's rule pertains to the group of contaminants for which 
analytical methods are currently available and are specified in 
Sec. 141.40(a)(3), Table 1, UCMR (1999) List 1, Assessment Monitoring 
Importantly, these contaminants are ones for which initial data for 
PWSs indicate that the contaminants occur in at least two States or ten 
public water systems and should be monitored to assess national 
occurrence through the UCMR. Based on today's rule, all contaminants in 
Sec. 141.40(a)(3), Table 1, List 1 must be monitored in the Assessment 
Monitoring tier of the UCMR Program, except perchlorate and acetochlor, 
for which analytical methods are soon to be finalized.
    In Sec. 141.40, EPA indicates that each system must conduct UCMR 
``Assessment Monitoring'' of List 1 contaminants for a twelve-month 
period in the first three years (i.e., 2001 through 2003) of a five-
year UCMR contaminant listing cycle (i.e., 2001 through 2005). Large 
systems must complete this monitoring in any twelve-month period within 
the years 2001 to 2003. Small systems in State Monitoring Plans must 
complete the monitoring according to the scheduled monitoring 
identified in those plans within the period of 2001 to 2003. Section F, 
``Representative Sample of Systems Serving 10,000 or fewer persons,'' 
describes in detail the selection of the subset of small systems 
required to monitor. The State could specify in the State Monitoring 
Plans a schedule that would correlate with compliance monitoring. This 
arrangement should enable systems to complete UCMR

[[Page 50568]]

sampling coincident with their compliance monitoring for regulated 
contaminants during one of the years when compliance monitoring is 
required. However, EPA recognizes that some large systems may not be 
required to monitor for any regulated contaminants during the five-year 
UCMR listing cycle. In that case, such large systems could monitor for 
the unregulated contaminants during any twelve-month period within the 
three years they choose. This approach, as originally proposed, is 
responsive to public comments that UCMR monitoring be able to be 
conducted in conjunction with compliance monitoring.
    EPA is requiring that surface water systems monitor for four 
consecutive quarters in the designated, or, in the case of large 
systems, selected, monitoring year, and that ground water systems 
monitor two times approximately five to seven months apart in their 
monitoring year. Under Assessment Monitoring, systems serving more than 
10,000 persons must conduct and pay for their own sample collection and 
testing. Small systems included in State Monitoring Plans must collect 
the samples with EPA-supplied equipment and send the samples to EPA-
specified laboratories. EPA will pay for the testing and reporting. 
Although the laboratory may report the information directly to EPA and 
provide a copy to the State, the system still has final reporting 
responsibility to ensure that results are reported to EPA and copied to 
the State. Frequency and location of monitoring are discussed in 
section D, ``Monitoring Requirements under the Final UCMR.''
2. Screening Surveys
    The contaminants that EPA is considering for the Screening Survey 
are listed in Sec. 141.40(a)(3), Table 1, List 2. These contaminants 
are those for which analytical methods are under development and for 
which EPA has less occurrence data than for the contaminants on List 1. 
The purpose of the Screening Survey is to analyze for contaminants 
where the use of newly developed, non-routine analytical methods are 
required. To do this and still maintain adequate quality of the 
occurrence data, EPA will use only a select, controlled group of 
laboratories. In addition, the Screening Survey approach might allow 
EPA to maximize scientifically-defensible occurrence data for emerging 
contaminants of concern more quickly than could be obtained through a 
more standard unregulated contaminant monitoring effort. The Screening 
Survey could, for example, be useful where questions concerning whether 
a contaminant of concern is in fact occurring in drinking water and the 
range of concentration of that occurrence. The Screening Survey is also 
intended to allow EPA to screen contaminants to see if they occur at 
high frequencies or concentrations that justify inclusion in future 
unregulated contaminant Assessment Monitoring or at sufficiently low 
frequencies that do not require further monitoring, but allow the 
Agency to evaluate standard development.
    The contaminants in UCMR (1999) List 2 will be monitored by a 
smaller, statistically selected sample from all (large and small) 
community and non-transient non-community water systems (about 300 
systems total). These systems will be selected through a random number 
generator. Systems will not have to initiate Screening Surveys until 
after EPA promulgates requirements for Screening Surveys. The sample 
size needed for estimating frequencies of contaminant occurrence are 
smaller if the actual occurrence frequencies are close to 0 or to 100 
percent. When a contaminant is consistently present or consistently 
absent it requires fewer samples to determine its frequency with 
adequate statistical confidence than if it occurs about half the time. 
Only 300 PWSs are needed to determine if a contaminant is present 5 
percent of the time or less frequently, at a 99 percent confidence 
level and with a 3 percent margin of error. (The same criteria require 
1,844 samples when the frequency could be any number.) If the 
contaminant occurrence findings are above the thresholds established 
for the Screening Survey, EPA will include the contaminant in the next 
Assessment Monitoring round (projected to begin in 2006) of the UCMR 
Program. The statistical threshold for positive results from this 
monitoring to determine if further monitoring is warranted might be 1 
to 2 percent of systems with detections. If the contaminant occurrence 
were under the threshold, then no further testing would be required, 
and the contaminant may be removed from the list in a future UCM 
rulemaking. EPA requested public comment on whether the statistical 
threshold of 1 to 2 percent of systems is adequate to make a 
determination that further Assessment Monitoring should be conducted to 
determine the extent of contaminant occurrence, and, if not, what 
percent should be used as the threshold for such a determination. One 
commenter suggested that EPA should use a threshold of 3 to 5 percent, 
but did not provide any rationale. EPA believes that 1 to 2 percent is 
consistent with the approach that this monitoring is a Screening Survey 
to determine whether the contaminant(s) are occurring in any public 
water system. One to 2 percent occurrence is equal to 3 to 6 systems 
for the sample, but statistically this can be extrapolated to 600 to 
1,200 systems out of all small systems that may have an occurrence of 
the contaminants. For a sample size of 300, occurrence of a contaminant 
on the monitoring list in any system would indicate that the 
contaminant occurs at a frequency greater than 0 (zero). Therefore, EPA 
should give further consideration to the occurrence and concentration 
of such a contaminant and may evaluate the extent of its occurrence 
nationally. EPA considers this extent of occurrence to be significant 
and to warrant more extensive monitoring, perhaps even through 
Assessment Monitoring. Another commenter indicated that EPA should 
evaluate other factors and not just the extent of occurrence before 
deciding to regulate a contaminant. EPA agrees with this comment and 
will continue to evaluate other factors.
    The anticipated analytical methods that might be used for Screening 
Surveys are identified in Sec. 141.40(a)(3), Table 1, List 2, as 
``Analytical Methods.'' These methods are being refined for the 
particular contaminants on List 2 and are not expected to be ready for 
use in an Assessment Monitoring program. Therefore, as analytical 
methods are developed for groups of contaminants on List 2, EPA will 
propose a rule modification for public comment and will promulgate 
analytical methods, minimum reporting levels and the location and 
timeframe for sampling for each contaminant.
    Additionally, EPA requested public comment on two potential 
outcomes from the Screening Survey: (1) if the contaminant is observed 
at very few or no PWSs (i.e., less than the threshold of 1 to 2 percent 
of systems), then the contaminant may be dropped from the UCMR (1999) 
List 2 and no further monitoring for it will occur; and, (2) if the 
contaminant is observed extensively (i.e., in a higher percentage of 
PWSs, such as 5 to 10 percent) and EPA has health effects data for the 
contaminant that indicate a significant concern, then that specific 
contaminant may move directly to the regulation development stage. In 
these cases, there may be no Assessment Monitoring tier of monitoring 
activity to provide additional occurrence data for that contaminant. 
One commenter expressed concern that EPA would move directly to 
regulation development after obtaining results from Screening Surveys 
for a contaminant and stated

[[Page 50569]]

that EPA should move the contaminant up to Assessment Monitoring before 
taking any action. EPA believes that an occurrence of a contaminant in 
5 or 10 percent of systems, for example, in the screening survey may be 
sufficient to determine whether or not to initiate regulation 
development. EPA may decide that it needs more information, in which 
case, EPA could move the contaminant to Assessment Monitoring (List 1) 
for more extensive monitoring to inform the regulatory process, but 
this may not always be necessary.
    With respect to funding the Screening Survey, EPA will pay for the 
testing and reporting (as described in Preamble section V.G., Reporting 
of Monitoring Results) for systems serving 10,000 or fewer persons. 
Systems serving 10,000 or fewer persons will be responsible for sample 
collection and preparing the samples for shipment. EPA will pay for the 
shipment of these samples to an EPA-designated laboratory for testing 
and for reporting of monitoring results to EPA, with a copy to the 
State.
    For large systems serving more than 10,000 persons, EPA requested 
public comment on whether it should set performance standards and allow 
systems to conduct their own laboratory analyses in compliance with the 
standards, or should approve a limited but sufficient number of 
laboratories to do lab analyses for large systems, providing for 
quality control across a manageable number of laboratories while 
allowing competitive pricing of services. Most commenters, including 
water system operators, favored EPA approval of a limited number of 
laboratories, but noted that a sufficient number of laboratories were 
needed so that competitive pricing would be available.
    EPA expects the Screening Surveys will occur one or two times 
during the five-year listing cycle of 2001 through 2005. EPA expects 
that this Screening Survey monitoring will occur for groups of 
contaminants, rather than for one contaminant at a time, depending on 
when the different methods are promulgated and the timing of their 
promulgation. Systems selected for the Screening Surveys will monitor 
at the same frequency as for contaminants under Assessment Monitoring. 
Should approval and implementation of the analytical method for a 
particular contaminant become delayed, the contaminant might be moved 
into the category of Pre-Screen Testing, described next.
3. Pre-Screen Testing
    The third tier of the final monitoring program is ``Pre-Screen 
Testing'', which will be conducted for contaminants with analytical 
methods that are in an early stage of development and at systems that 
are determined to be most vulnerable to the occurrence of contaminants 
on the Pre-Screen Testing list. Pre-Screen Testing means sampling, 
testing, and reporting of the listed contaminants that have newly 
emerged as drinking water concerns and, in most cases, for which 
methods are in an early stage of development. Pre-Screen Testing will 
be performed to determine whether a listed contaminant occurs in 
sufficient frequency in the most vulnerable systems or sampling 
locations to warrant its being included in future Assessment Monitoring 
or Screening Surveys. Pre-Screen Testing will only be required after 
additional rulemaking.
    EPA will select a limited number of systems (up to 200) to conduct 
Pre-Screen Testing, possibly using a random number generator, selected 
from up to 25 of the most vulnerable systems identified by each State, 
or by EPA if a State decides not to participate in the Pre-Screen 
Testing system selection process. Up to 200 systems, a smaller sample 
size than under the Screening Survey or Assessment Monitoring, are 
considered sufficient for this type of monitoring because monitoring 
will occur at systems determined to be vulnerable to occurrence of the 
contaminants, based on the characteristics of the contaminants, system 
operation, climatic conditions, and land and water resource use. This 
monitoring is to determine whether the contaminant can be found in any 
public water system under most likely occurrence conditions specific to 
the contaminant. This tier of monitoring is not designed to determine 
the extent of occurrence. A portion (e.g., 100 to 150) of these 200 
systems may be a different subset of small systems serving 10,000 or 
fewer persons than those selected for the national representative 
sample. The reason for this different subset is that States should 
identify the systems that are representative of the most vulnerable 
conditions for the contaminants specified for Pre-Screen Testing. These 
most vulnerable systems may not be those conducting Assessment 
Monitoring or the Screening Survey. It is possible, though, that some 
overlap of systems doing Assessment Monitoring and those selected for 
Pre-Screen Testing could occur.
    Under Pre-Screen Testing, EPA will designate or approve a 
laboratory or laboratories to conduct sample analysis. The reason for 
this testing approach is that the analytical methods expected to be 
used will be emerging from research development, and most laboratories 
will not have any experience with them. For these laboratories to 
utilize the new methods could involve extensive investment in equipment 
and training. Rather than requiring this investment for contaminants 
which have uncertain occurrence in public water systems, EPA will 
develop and promulgate appropriate methods. EPA will also require that 
these methods be used by designated or approved laboratories. Pre-
Screen Testing analysis is conducted at systems most likely to have the 
contaminants to determine whether further action is warranted and 
additional method development is needed.
    Under this approach, once EPA has developed methods and promulgated 
the rule to test for List 3 contaminants, it will request States to 
identify at least 5 and not more than 25 systems (based on the 
population served by PWSs in each State) most vulnerable to the listed 
contaminants. States will select these systems from all community and 
non-transient non-community systems of all sizes. Selection criteria 
for these systems include States' determination of systems most 
vulnerable to the specified contaminants and numbers of systems per 
State based on the population served in each size category of system. 
The States will send the list of systems, any modification of their 
State Monitoring Plans, and the reasons for their list and 
modifications (considering the characteristics of the contaminants, 
precipitation, system operation, and environmental conditions) to the 
EPA. EPA will select up to 200 PWSs nationwide, from the pool of State-
identified vulnerable systems, that must submit samples of the 
specified contaminants. Some small systems selected may not be part of 
the national representative sample of 800 small systems selected for 
Assessment Monitoring. Hence, some small systems may only be required 
to sample for Pre-Screen Testing. States or EPA will provide 
instructions to the systems for the necessary sampling and subsequent 
shipping to the EPA laboratory. At this time, EPA believes that the 
contaminants for which Pre-Screen Testing will likely be required are 
those listed in the final rule at Sec. 141.40(a)(3) Table 1, List 3. 
Sampling and testing done for Pre-Screen Testing will most likely be 
required in the later years of the five-year UCMR listing cycle. This 
approach will assist EPA in refining the methods for these 
contaminants. If EPA finds any substantial frequency of occurrence of 
Pre-Screen Testing contaminants, the contaminants could

[[Page 50570]]

become part of either the Screening Survey or part of Assessment 
Monitoring in future UCMR lists. Since the methods for these 
contaminants will have to be applied under highly controlled analytical 
conditions, EPA will pay for the shipping and analyses of these samples 
for small systems selected to participate. Large systems will pay for 
the shipping and testing of samples at EPA approved laboratories.
    Public comments requested that EPA provide guidance on the 
selection of ``most vulnerable'' systems and on reporting requirements 
for Pre-Screen Testing. EPA plans to provide this guidance during the 
years 2001 and 2002, and obtain public comment before the guidance is 
final.

D. Monitoring Requirements Under the Final UCMR

1. Monitoring Frequency
(a) Systems Serving More Than 10,000 Persons
(i) Chemical Contaminants.
    The number of persons served affects exposure to contaminants and 
resources necessary to monitor. The final UCMR program requires large 
systems serving more than 10,000 persons to monitor at each entry point 
to the distribution system, or other representative compliance 
monitoring location specified by the State, whether or not the system 
applies treatment. If a system applies treatment, then it must monitor 
after treatment. In response to public comment, EPA modified the rule 
to allow alternative sampling points to be used: sampling points 
identified by the State for compliance monitoring under 40 CFR 
141.24(f)(1), (2), and (3), and/or source (raw) water sampling points, 
if the State uses source water monitoring as a more stringent 
monitoring requirement. If monitoring at source (raw) water sampling 
points indicates detection of any of the contaminants on the monitoring 
list, then the system in most cases will be required to shift its 
unregulated contaminant monitoring to the entry point to the 
distribution system. These flexibilities in the sampling location 
should enable systems and States to coordinate compliance and 
unregulated contaminant monitoring more extensively.
    The law requires EPA to consider the source of water relative to 
unregulated contaminant monitoring requirements (SDWA Section 
1445(a)(2)(A)). Over the twelve-month period of monitoring, the 
regulation requires that systems sample from all entry points to the 
distribution system, or other sampling points specified, representing 
all principal, non-emergency sources of water used over the monitoring 
period. Surface water-supplied systems will monitor each of these 
points every three months for a twelve-month period and ground water-
supplied systems will monitor each of these points two times five to 
seven months apart within a twelve-month period. Today's final 
monitoring frequency for surface water systems is the same as in the 
previous program. For ground water systems, the two sampling events 
must be approximately six months apart, increasing the frequency from 
one sample in five years under the previous program to two. The reasons 
for this increase are that while ground water typically moves slowly, 
one sample is insufficient to characterize water quality at any 
particular location and will not provide evidence of any changes over a 
longer period of time. Furthermore, some ground water environments 
transmit water more rapidly, potentially resulting in changes in water 
quality over shorter timeframes. From a statistical standpoint, one 
sample is not representative and will not allow the data to be used for 
exposure assessment which uses an average annual value. This frequency 
applied to the average of 6.2 entry points to the distribution system 
for systems serving more than 10,000 persons will provide sufficient 
data for an adequate statistical analysis of the varied conditions in 
which these systems are located.
    One of the monitoring events for both surface water and ground 
water systems must occur at the most vulnerable time of year for the 
PWS. The rationale for this approach is that it provides data 
representing potential variation in contaminant concentration over the 
course of a year. This potential variation in concentration is 
necessary to evaluate exposure related to contaminant occurrence. Some 
systems perform compliance monitoring on a quarterly basis and can 
collect UCMR samples coincident with their compliance samples, and 
therefore provide data on the range of variation. Other systems may 
only conduct compliance monitoring once every third year and will 
therefore have to collect additional samples under the UCMR. While one 
UCMR sample could be collected coincident with this compliance sample, 
EPA is requiring for ground water-supplied systems to take a second 
sample five to seven months later. This requirement will provide the 
necessary data on seasonal variation over a year to allow consistent 
exposure assessments to be done with a range of concentrations. 
Stakeholders supported this option. EPA originally proposed that the 
second sample be collected exactly six months later. State commenters 
indicated a need to provide flexibility to accommodate changes in 
monitoring schedules. Therefore, EPA modified the regulation to allow 
monitoring five to seven months before or after the initial vulnerable 
period sampling event.
(ii) Microbiological Contaminants
    For microbiological contaminants, the sampling frequency will be 
two times within one year, with samples collected each time at two 
different locations after treatment in the distribution system: a site 
representative of water in the distribution system received by the 
general population that the system serves and a site in the 
distribution system representing the maximum residence time or lowest 
disinfectant residual, depending on the contaminant. The frequency 
should capture the most vulnerable time as well as a time five to seven 
months later to provide an average exposure. Furthermore, precipitation 
patterns may be a major factor in contaminant occurrence. Thus, 
frequency of sampling should be tailored to the most vulnerable times 
because increased seasonal precipitation may carry these contaminants 
at higher concentrations than other times during the year.
(b) Systems Serving 10,000 or Fewer Persons
    The final rule states that approximately one third of the small 
systems (serving 10,000 or fewer persons) selected through the 
representative sample, be sampled each year over a three-year period at 
the frequencies indicated in Section D, ``Monitoring Requirements Under 
the Final UCMR'' (1)(a) above. This allows a relatively even submission 
of samples to be managed and tested by the EPA laboratory. EPA will pay 
for the reasonable costs of monitoring (i.e., containers, shipping, 
testing and reporting) for this representative sample of systems, 
including Assessment Monitoring, Screening Survey, and Pre-Screen 
Testing, and will conduct the analyses at its designated laboratories. 
EPA, therefore will need to be able to manage the number of samples 
being received at any time to closely correspond to the analytical 
capacity of its laboratories. Some public commenters suggested that 
sampling for microbiological contaminants not occur at the maximum 
residence time in the distribution system, but at the point of lowest 
disinfectant residual, since the

[[Page 50571]]

monitoring of concern is for effectiveness of treatment and booster 
disinfection stations that may be in use in long distribution lines. In 
response, EPA added another sampling point at the ``lowest disinfectant 
residual'' in the distribution system. However, EPA maintained the 
original sampling point location of ``maximum residence time'' because, 
given potential chemical degradation over long periods of time in a 
distribution system, such as for disinfection byproducts, the location 
of maximum residence time can often be the location of lowest 
disinfectant residual and, therefore, highest likelihood of 
microbiological contaminants.
    Public comments also addressed the flexibility in monitoring 
schedules to allow for unforeseen events or factors in field sampling. 
Specifically, States asked that system sampling schedules allow for 
sampling over a month within a quarter, rather than exactly three 
months later. EPA modified the final rule to allow sampling by small 
and large surface water systems to occur within the same month in each 
quarter and for small and large ground water systems, to occur any time 
five to seven months before or after the initially selected month 
within the vulnerable time.
2. Monitoring Time for Vulnerable Period
    Water quality studies and monitoring throughout the United States 
have clearly shown that contaminant occurrence and/or concentration 
vary over time, both seasonally as well as from year to year. The 
seasonality of occurrence, or period of peak concentration of 
contaminants, commonly varies with seasonal changes in the hydrologic 
cycle in relation to the source of contaminants and their fate and 
transport characteristics. Particularly for land-applied or land-
disposed contaminants, the increased flux of water mobilizes the 
contaminants and moves them into surface or ground water flow systems. 
For the most vulnerable of water systems, such as surface waters, 
unconfined shallow ground water and karst flow systems, for example, 
higher levels of contaminant concentrations typically occur during 
annual runoff and recharge periods. For much of the United States, east 
of the Rocky Mountains, many studies have shown that the season of 
greatest vulnerability for contaminant occurrence is the late-spring, 
early-summer runoff-recharge period, particularly for contaminants such 
as pesticides and nitrate (e.g., Larson et al., 1997; Barbash and 
Resek, 1996; Hallberg, 1989a,b). For deeper, more confined ground water 
systems, defining vulnerable periods is much more difficult. The exact 
flow path and time of travel are much greater and more complex and are 
dependent upon many factors unique to a particular well and aquifer 
setting (e.g., Hallberg and Keeney, 1993). There is no generality that 
can be applied to these latter settings.
    Because occurrence may vary seasonally, it is important to try to 
capture these vulnerable periods in a one-time survey of contaminant 
occurrence such as the UCMR. Statistical studies of sampling strategies 
in surface water (e.g., Battaglin and Hay, 1996) have shown that 
incorporating sampling during spring and early summer runoff periods 
provides a more accurate representation of annual occurrence than 
random quarterly sampling (that can avoid these months). Ground water 
studies (e.g., Pinsky et al., 1997) suggest that the more vulnerable 
ground water settings also show peaks during these periods. The default 
vulnerable period for sampling for the UCMR has been designated to 
coincide with this period of peak vulnerability for much of the United 
States: one sample must be collected during May, June, or July, unless 
the State has better information to designate another period. Also, for 
surface waters, three additional samples will be collected throughout 
the year, and for ground water systems, one additional sample will be 
collected five to seven months before or after the vulnerable time. 
This additional sampling will also capture the winter recharge and 
runoff period that may be more vulnerable in the western coastal 
regions or warmer southern climates for some contaminants. In the case 
of some deeper ground water systems, States or systems may have 
additional knowledge of seasonal vulnerability patterns, in which case 
the State can designate an alternative period for sampling.
    Public comments generally supported monitoring in a vulnerable 
time, but desired flexibility in establishing the time and frequency. 
The rule already provided flexibility in selecting a time within the 
May to July period for a sampling event. However, because the 
statistical approach requires consistency, today's rule enables a State 
to determine the alternate vulnerable time for monitoring, rather than 
each system using its own criteria for choosing a vulnerable time. With 
respect to frequency, the statistical approach requires that systems 
monitor with the same frequency so that a national frequency 
distribution can be developed. This precludes the State or a system 
from establishing its own monitoring frequency.
    Two commenters indicated that pumping rate and not hydrologic 
factors accounted for variations in contaminant concentration, with 
higher pumping rates coinciding with higher concentrations. No specific 
data were offered in support of these comments. EPA believes that many 
factors may account for higher contaminant concentrations during 
certain seasons. While pumping rate may be a factor, hydrologic factors 
are documented as having a significant influence in concentrations of 
pesticides and other contaminants, as noted previously. A State may use 
pumping rates as a basis for designating an alternative vulnerable time 
if determined appropriate.
3. Monitoring Location
    In Sec. 141.40(a)(3), today's action identifies entry points to the 
distribution system (EPTDS) after any treatment, or the sampling points 
specified by the State for compliance monitoring under 40 CFR 
141.24(f)(1), (2), and (3), representative of each principal, non-
emergency water source in use over the twelve-month period of 
Assessment Monitoring, as the sampling locations for List 1 
contaminants. Also, two sites in the distribution system (a site 
representative of water in the distribution system received by the 
general population that the system serves and a site in the 
distribution system representing the maximum residence time or the 
lowest disinfectant residual) are designated for microbiological or 
distribution system contaminants. Sampling at entry points to the 
distribution system after any treatment follows the existing regulatory 
approach for currently regulated contaminants and provides data for 
exposure assessment.
(a) Chemical Contaminants
    The chemicals in this final rule (UCMR (1999) List 1) are all 
compounds that can enter a public water supply from the external 
environment (in contrast to disinfection byproducts, for example). The 
monitoring location is at the entry point to the distribution system 
after treatment, representative of each principal non-emergency source 
of water in use over the twelve-month monitoring period, which will 
ensure a nationally consistent data set and will provide consistent 
data for exposure assessment. In response to State and water system 
commenters, EPA also provided flexibility in the final rule to allow 
sampling of source (raw) water sampling points. However, if a listed 
contaminant is detected through source

[[Page 50572]]

water sampling and testing, then the monitoring location must be 
shifted to the entry point to the distribution system (unless there is 
no treatment) and follow the monitoring frequency specified in the rule 
for the contaminant and water source type.
(b) Microbiological Contaminants
    The sampling locations for microbiological contaminants are 
different from those for chemical contaminants because the most likely 
locations with microbiological contaminants may be in the distribution 
system, or, for some systems, in source water. Two sampling locations 
were considered in the development of this regulation and are included 
in the reporting requirements under 40 CFR 141.35(d). No 
microbiological contaminant is on List 1 for Assessment Monitoring so 
the two sampling points are not now required. When microbiological 
contaminant monitoring is required, one of the samples will be at the 
site below a representative entry point to the distribution system that 
is used for taking total coliform samples; this sample will represent 
general exposure. The second sample will be in the distribution system 
that has the maximum residence time or lowest disinfectant residual, 
representing the extreme exposure of the population at this point in 
the distribution system. These sampling points were suggested by 
stakeholders. EPA will consider activating these sampling points for 
microbiological contaminants when their analytical methods are 
determined to be ready for Assessment Monitoring, Screening Survey or 
Pre-Screen Testing through separate rulemaking. Over the twelve-month 
period of monitoring, systems would sample at locations representing 
each principal, non-emergency source of water used over the monitoring 
period, to the extent possible. One commenter suggested that 
distribution system samples be taken at sites used for sampling total 
trihalomethanes (TTHMs). EPA will consider TTHM sites when it proposes 
methods for microbiological contaminants or other contaminants likely 
to occur in distribution systems.
    Currently, it is not possible to assess whether or not all of the 
microbiological contaminants (including those on List 3) are likely to 
be found at any one sampling location, or that one sampling location is 
best to potentially identify all microbiological contaminants. The 
occurrence data needs may differ for different contaminants. Different 
portions of the water supply and distribution system may be more likely 
locations of particular microbiological contaminants/occurrences. 
Therefore, the sampling location for each microbiological contaminant 
may need to be contaminant-specific and related to the likelihood of 
occurrence.
    As a result, for the microbiological contaminants on Lists 2 and 3 
of the rule today, EPA has not identified a sampling location or 
locations. For some of the microbiological contaminants, source water 
may be the most appropriate sampling location. EPA will specify 
sampling locations at the time public comment is requested on the 
specific monitoring requirements for microbiological contaminants.
4. Quality Control Procedures for Sampling and Testing
    To assure that the data collected under this final regulation are 
of sufficient quality to meet the requirements of its intended uses, 
EPA is requiring the use of the analytical methods and procedures in 
Sec. 141.40(a)(3), (4), and (5) and Appendix A for monitoring. Also, 
additional guidance for quality control and analytical confirmation are 
specified in the ``UCMR Analytical Methods and Quality Control 
Manual'', available by the time this rule is published. This final 
regulation covers quality control steps for all sampling and testing 
under this program. Today's final rule requires that all monitored 
systems follow these methods and procedures in organizing and 
conducting their UCMR sampling and testing. Systems must also ensure 
that the laboratories they use to analyze samples use these approved 
methods and procedures. The specific quality control requirements 
addressed in Sec. 141.40(a)(3), (4) and (5) and Appendix A of the final 
rule include: sample collection/preservation; sample transport; sample 
and sample extract holding time and storage; sample analyses/quality 
control requirements, including quality control (QC) requirements, 
calibration, calibration verification, laboratory reagent (method) 
blank, quality control sample, laboratory duplicates, sample matrix 
spike and matrix spike duplicate, internal standard, surrogate 
standard, method detection limit determination, minimum reporting 
level; confirmation; and reporting requirements. EPA believes that 
specifying the quality control requirements for UCMR sampling and 
testing will enable the Agency to have a high degree of confidence in 
determining the extent and range of concentrations for the contaminants 
on the UCMR (1999) List, since they are not regularly tested for 
nationally.
5. Monitoring of Routinely Tested Water Quality Parameters
    In addition to the contaminants to be monitored, several chemical 
and physical parameters are important indicators of water quality and 
may contribute to the likelihood of contaminants being found in 
drinking water. EPA requested public comment on whether it should 
require the monitoring and reporting of these routinely tested 
parameters, usually associated with water quality analyses, to provide 
for a more thorough scientific understanding of the occurrence of 
unregulated contaminants. These chemical and physical parameters are 
not added to the UCMR (1999) List because they are not contaminants, 
but rather they provide supplementary data about the sample results 
which will facilitate their interpretation and use in regulatory 
decisions. Public comments indicated that for some systems and States, 
these chemical and physical parameters are routinely tested for, and in 
others, they are not. One commenter stated that temperature and pH were 
important for chemical contaminant occurrence and degradation. Another 
commenter indicated that analyzing for these water quality parameters 
is essential to managing his system's water. In response, EPA has 
revised the rule to require that for organic and inorganic chemical 
samples, pH be reported for the sampling event of each sampling point. 
Since no supporting information was provided, EPA determined that while 
temperature may be important for microorganisms, it is not expected to 
affect the results for chemical contaminants because the storage and 
transit temperature requirements in the approved methods will minimize 
the loss of target contaminants due to any physical, chemical or 
biological processes. For microbiological contaminants, temperature, 
pH, free disinfectant residual, and total disinfectant residual must be 
reported. These required water quality parameters are listed in 
Sec. 141.40 (a)(4)(i) Table 2, Water Quality Parameters To Be Monitored 
With UCMR Contaminants. These water quality parameters must be reported 
as analytical results along with other results and data elements.
6. Relation to Compliance Monitoring Requirements
    Currently, compliance monitoring for regulated contaminants is 
coordinated on a three-year cycle. All public water systems that are 
required to monitor for specific contaminants a minimum of one year out 
of every three, six, or nine

[[Page 50573]]

years, depending on the contaminant and its occurrence in the system. 
The existing unregulated contaminant monitoring requirements and the 
final revised UCMR require monitoring during one year out of every five 
years. EPA provides flexibility in this final UCMR so that public water 
systems: (a) only have to monitor for unregulated contaminants during 
one twelve-month period every five years (unless the State, at its 
discretion, determines that PWSs should conduct more frequent 
monitoring); (b) can use previously State-specified compliance sampling 
points, including source water sampling points; and (c) choose a 
sampling time within quarters or three-month periods specified in the 
rule. Hence, the compliance monitoring and the UCMR monitoring can be 
coordinated, to the extent practical, by conducting UCMR monitoring 
during a coincident year during which compliance monitoring is 
required. The years within which the unregulated contaminant monitoring 
are required to occur are specified in Sec. 141.40(a)(3), Table 1, 
Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring List, column 6.
7. Previous Monitoring of the Contaminants on the Final UCMR (1999) 
List
    Some PWSs may already have monitored for or want to monitor before 
the rule's effective date of January 1, 2001, for some of the 
contaminants identified on the final UCMR (1999) List because of local 
or State concerns about the possibility of those contaminants occurring 
in drinking water. At the time of proposal, EPA was concerned about 
allowing systems to report monitoring results for samples taken and 
tested prior to promulgation of the UCMR. EPA was concerned that such 
results might not be comparable to results obtained under this revised 
UCMR Program because of differences in sampling and analytical 
protocols, as well as the sampling schedule. Other factors thought to 
compound the problem of comparability included: (1) monitoring methods 
may have changed or improved; (2) water quality changes over time; and, 
(3) today's action requires reporting of a net increase of seven 
additional data elements, which will allow various, consistent 
comparisons to be made and data to be aggregated nationally based on 
current sound-science and quality assurance/quality control 
consistency. However, EPA received comments recommending that 
previously collected data should be accepted for the unregulated 
contaminants on the monitoring list as long as they meet all the 
requirements of this final rule. In response, EPA reevaluated the 
circumstances under which previously collected (also referred to as 
``grandfathered'' or ``grandparented'') data could be accepted, given 
the statistical and quality assurance/quality control requirements of 
the UCMR Program. EPA has modified the regulation to allow previously 
collected data to be reported, as long as the data meet the sampling, 
testing and reporting requirements specified in 40 CFR 141.35(d) and 
141.40(a)(3), (4), (5) and Appendix A. This change will allow for early 
monitoring and reporting for MTBE, as long as it meets the requirements 
of the UCMR. By doing so, EPA is responding to one of the 
recommendations of the Blue Ribbon Panel on Oxygenates in Gasoline, a 
panel appointed by EPA Administrator Browner, to evaluate the issues 
posed by the use of MTBE in gasoline. This recommendation consisted of 
accelerating the implementation of the UCMR, by allowing systems to 
sample for MTBE prior to the implementation date of January 1, 2001.

E. Waivers

1. Waivers for Systems Serving More Than 10,000 Persons
    Section 1445(a)(2)(F) of SDWA allows a State to obtain a waiver of 
UCMR monitoring for specific contaminants if the State demonstrates 
that the UCMR listing criteria do not apply in that State. These 
criteria are:
    (a) the criteria for listing a contaminant in the occurrence 
priorities list in the CCL or the regulatory process identifying 
contaminant occurrence in two or more States; and
    (b) whether an analytical method exists for the contaminant.
    When a State makes such a demonstration for a waiver of a specific 
contaminant on the monitoring list, EPA may waive monitoring for that 
contaminant in that State for large systems (serving more than 10,000 
persons) only.
    Stakeholders indicated that waiver requirements should be 
sufficiently stringent to obtain the most representative national data 
possible, including non-detections of contaminants on the UCMR (1999) 
List. Since only the UCMR listing criteria in (a) are relevant to a 
State-specific waiver and based on stakeholders' concern that the 
waiver be narrowly applied, EPA is requiring that this waiver be 
applied only where the State can demonstrate that the contaminant has 
not been used, applied, stored, disposed, released, or detected in the 
source waters or distribution systems in the State in the past 15 years 
and that the contaminant does not occur naturally (such as growth in a 
system or air deposition) in the State. Source Water Assessments 
provided for under Sections 1453 and 1428(b) of SDWA may be used as the 
basis for these waivers if the assessments specifically address the 
contaminant(s) on the UCMR List for which a waiver is sought. Table 3, 
Uses and Environmental Sources of Contaminants for the Monitoring List, 
presents the uses and sources of the contaminants included for the 
final UCMR (1999) List. A State can apply for a waiver from monitoring 
for specific contaminants, but must receive EPA approval to waive the 
monitoring.
    While some chemical contaminants may only be discharged into the 
environment in regional or local areas, microbiological contaminants 
may be ubiquitous. However, previous monitoring results over time may 
provide information useful to waiver determinations for microbiological 
contaminants.
    Public comments on system-specific waivers ranged from not allowing 
waivers for any systems to providing waiver procedures for individual 
systems. EPA decided that such waivers are not provided by the statute 
and would be generally inconsistent with the nature of a program that 
relies on nationally representative data. Detections and non-detections 
are equally important in deciding whether to regulate a contaminant. If 
waivers are given to systems not expected to have occurrence of a 
particular contaminant or group of contaminants, then the resulting 
data set will be biased toward systems having detections, potentially 
contributing to an incorrect conclusion about contaminant occurrence 
and regulation. EPA did not change the rule to allow other 
circumstances under which contaminant monitoring waivers could be 
given.
2. Waivers for Small Systems in State Plans
    EPA is not allowing waivers to be granted for small systems serving 
10,000 or fewer persons in State Plans for the national representative 
sample. Stakeholders also supported this position. The systems in State 
Plans will be statistically selected with the assumption that all 
systems in a particular size category and water source type have an 
equal probability of being selected. Non-detections are just as 
important as detections of contaminants for national analysis. Waiving 
contaminants to be monitored in certain States not expecting to have 
such contaminants biases the

[[Page 50574]]

representative sample toward detections. Selecting the small systems to 
be included in the State Monitoring Plans for the representative sample 
through a statistical process effectively waives ninety-seven percent 
of the systems from the final monitoring requirements (based on using 
99 percent confidence level with three percent allowable error). 
Therefore, EPA rejected waivers for systems serving fewer than 10,000 
persons because this approach is contradictory to obtaining a 
scientifically sound data set that provides the basis for a scientific 
statistical analysis. The rule was not changed in this regard.

                Table 3.--Uses and Environmental Sources of Contaminants for the Monitoring List
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Contaminant name                   CASRN                   Use or environmental source
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Proposed Chemical Contaminants
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1,2-diphenylhydrazine....................        122-66-7  Used in the production of benzidine and anti-
                                                            inflammatory drugs.
2-methyl-phenol..........................         95-48-7  Released in automobile and diesel exhaust, coal tar
                                                            and petroleum refining, and wood pulping.
2,4-dichlorophenol.......................        120-83-2  Chemical intermediate in herbicide production.
2,4-dinitrophenol........................         51-28-5  Released from mines, metal, and petroleum plants.
2,4-dinitrotoluene.......................        121-14-2  Used in the production of isocyanate and explosives.
2,4,6-trichlorophenol....................         88-06-2  By-product of fossil fuel burning, used as
                                                            bactericide and wood/glue preservative.
2,6-dinitrotoluene.......................        606-20-2  Used as mixture with 2,4-DNT (similar uses).
Acetochlor...............................      34256-82-1  Herbicide used with cabbage, citrus, coffee, and corn
                                                            crops.
Alachlor ESA.............................  ..............  Degradation product of alachlor, an herbicide used
                                                            with corn, bean, peanut, and soybean crops to
                                                            control grasses and weeds.
DCPA di-acid degradate...................       2136-79-0  Degradation product of DCPA, an herbicide used on
                                                            grasses and weeds with fruit and vegetable crops.
DCPA mono-acid degradate.................        887-54-7  Degradation product of DCPA, an herbicide used on
                                                            grasses and weeds with fruit and vegetable crops.
DDE......................................         72-55-9  Degradation product of DDT, a general insecticide.
Diazinon.................................        333-41-5  Insecticide used with rice, fruit, vineyards, and
                                                            corn crops.
Disulfoton...............................        298-04-4  Insecticide used with cereal, cotton, tobacco, and
                                                            potato crops.
Diuron...................................        330-54-1  Herbicide used on grasses in orchards and wheat
                                                            crops.
EPTC.....................................        759-94-4  Herbicide used on annual grasses, weeds, in potatoes
                                                            and corn.
Fonofos..................................        944-22-9  Soil insecticide used on worms and centipedes.
Lead-210 (Pb-210)........................      14255-04-0  Part of the uranium decay series, naturally
                                                            occurring.
Linuron..................................        330-55-2  Herbicide used with corn, soybean, cotton, and wheat
                                                            crops.
Molinate.................................       2212-67-1  Selective herbicide used with rice, controls
                                                            watergrass.
MTBE.....................................       1634-04-4  Octane enhancer in unleaded gasoline.
Nitrobenzene.............................         98-95-3  Used in the production of aniline, which is used to
                                                            make dyes, herbicides, and drugs.
Perchlorate..............................      14797-73-0  Oxygen additive in solid fuel propellant for rockets,
                                                            missiles, and fireworks.
Polonium-210 (Po-210)....................      13981-52-7  Part of the uranium decay series, naturally
                                                            occurring.
Prometon.................................       1610-18-0  Herbicide used on annual and perennial weeds and
                                                            grasses.
RDX......................................        121-82-4  Used in explosives; ammunition plants.
Terbacil.................................       5902-51-2  Herbicide used with sugarcane, alfalfa, and some
                                                            fruit, etc.
Terbufos.................................      13071-79-9  Insecticide used with corn, sugar beet, and grain
                                                            sorghum crops.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Microbiological Contaminants
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adenoviruses.............................             N/A  Fecal sources; hand to mouth transmission.
Aeromonas................................             N/A  Present in all freshwater and brackish water.
Cyanobacteria (Blue-green algae), other               N/A  Bloom in surface water bodies; produce toxins.
 freshwater algae and their toxins.
Caliciviruses............................             N/A  Contaminated food and water, raw shellfish.
Coxsackieviruses.........................             N/A  Fecal sources; hand to mouth transmission.
Echoviruses..............................             N/A  Fecal sources; hand to mouth transmission.
Helicobacter pylori......................             N/A  Fecal sources; hand to mouth transmission.
Microsporidia............................             N/A  Occur in rivers, ponds, lakes, and unfiltered water.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

F. Representative Sample of Systems Serving 10,000 or Fewer Persons

    As required by section 1445(a)(2)(A) and (C), the regulation 
requires that only a representative sample of public water systems 
serving 10,000 or fewer persons must monitor for unregulated 
contaminants. As previously explained, only community and non-transient 
non-community systems are required to monitor for unregulated 
contaminants under this action. Therefore, the representative sample 
will include only community and non-transient non-community systems 
serving 10,000 or fewer persons. The representative sample must be of 
sufficient size to gather the necessary information on occurrence of 
unregulated contaminants to determine whether or not to regulate them, 
while not burdening every water system with the expense of monitoring. 
The number of systems selected within each of three size ranges of 
small systems will be based on the proportion of the State's population 
served by systems in that size range. (An example appears in Section 
5.(a), ``State Plans for the Representative Sample''.) The small 
systems in the national representative sample will be selected using a 
stratified random sampling process. This process will utilize a random 
number generator to choose a statistically determined number of systems 
in each State, considering the proportion of the population served by 
CWSs and NTNCWSs by water source type (i.e., ground or surface water) 
and system

[[Page 50575]]

size category (i.e., 25 to 500 persons, 501 to 3,300, and 3,301 to 
10,000) within the water source type. The regulation stipulates that 
the national representative sample is the basis for the State 
Monitoring Plan in each state. The use of this statistical approach is 
designed to take into account different system sizes, types of systems, 
the source of supply, contaminants likely to be found, and geographic 
location. EPA believes that the statistical process for selecting 
systems to monitor must yield data that are sufficient to answer 
questions about occurrence of contaminants on a national scale for use 
in exposure assessments and technology evaluations of alternative 
treatments at a PWS and in its watershed. These data should also be 
sufficient to answer questions on a broad multi-state scale, such as 
systems classified by size or source of water, particularly when 
combined with data for the 2,774 large systems.
    Under this action, small system monitoring will be too sparse to 
answer questions about occurrence at the scale of a single State. The 
number of systems required for evaluation of occurrence in a single 
State is far greater than, and thus more costly than, those needed for 
the broader national evaluations required under the Act to determine 
whether or not to regulate a contaminant and to assist in developing 
future drinking water regulations.
1. System Size
    Based on statistics reported in the Safe Drinking Water Information 
System (SDWIS) database, the following numbers of systems (1997 data) 
by size will approximate the universe from which a representative 
sample of systems serving 10,000 or fewer people will be taken for the 
national representative sample plan. These system size categories are 
used in other statutory and regulatory characterizations of systems, 
and are applied under the existing rule for unregulated contaminant 
monitoring for the scheduling of sampling. The relevant system and 
population information (1997) for systems serving 10,000 or fewer 
persons is:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                   Population served nationally
             No. of people served in PWS size range               No. of PWSs in -------------------------------
                                                                    size range          CWS           NTNCWS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
25-500..........................................................          48,100       5,249,577       2,379,034
501-3,300.......................................................          14,126      19,918,106       2,724,728
3,301-10,000....................................................           3,410      25,236,059         401,579
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................................          65,636      50,403,742       5,505,341
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Considering all community water systems and nontransient non-
community water systems that do not purchase their water supplies, 
65,636 PWSs are in the size range for small systems as defined in 
Section 1445. In response to public comments that indicated the 
appropriateness of including purchased water systems, EPA revised this 
rule to cover systems purchasing water from other systems if their 
distribution systems are the locations of the maximum residence time or 
lowest disinfectant residual in relation to the combined water seller-
purchaser distribution system. Purchased water systems will not be 
required to monitor for contaminants for which the sampling location is 
specified as the entry point to the distribution system because they 
could bias results by potentially causing double counting of 
contaminant occurrence.
2. System Type
(a) Public Water System Monitoring
    Under today's action, all public water systems serving 10,000 or 
fewer persons, except transient non-community systems, will be 
considered for monitoring, but only a subset will be selected for the 
national representative sample. Purchased water systems will be 
excluded from UCMR monitoring for contaminants where the sampling point 
is identified as the entry point to the distribution system. Public 
water systems owned and/or operated on Tribal lands by Tribes will have 
the same probability of being selected for the national representative 
sample as any other system in its water source-system size category. 
EPA will identify the size of the representative sample and the 
specific systems required to monitor and send the list of systems to 
the States for review and inclusion in State Monitoring Plans 
(discussed in Section V. F. 5).
(b) Nontransient Non-Community Water Systems
    Nontransient non-community water systems (NTNCWSs) represent 
schools, hospitals and other facilities in communities that serve the 
resident population but have their own water supply systems. 
Approximately 20,000 systems of this type exist in the United States. 
Today's final regulation at Sec. 141.40(a)(1)(iii) includes NTNCWSs as 
a separate type of water system to be included in the representative 
sample for monitoring. Typically, these systems are closely associated 
with a local resident population and may be a significant source of 
water consumed by that population over a lifetime. The selection of 
NTNCWSs will use the same statistical process as for CWSs, with systems 
grouped within a State by water source type and size category. NTNCWSs 
are considered separately to avoid double-counting the population 
served when conducting exposure assessments of both small CWSs and 
NTNCWSs, while allowing weighting of lifetime water consumption by 
system type.
(c) Transient Non-Community Systems
    Transient non-community water systems represent systems providing 
drinking water to transient populations such as at a restaurant in a 
rural location or a highway roadside rest area. About 97,000 of these 
systems exist in the United States; their location and type are highly 
variable. It will be difficult to extrapolate exposure from monitoring 
results, given the very short-term nature of the systems' use by 
individuals who may not be in the area for more than a few hours or 
days. Because of problems with implementation and cost for sampling 
such a large and highly variable set of typically very small systems, 
EPA has excluded transient systems from all unregulated contaminant 
monitoring requirements in this final rule. In this regard, this action 
is consistent with the current UCMR Program. Four of the five public 
commenters addressing transient systems supported exclusion of 
transient systems from requirements for unregulated contaminant 
monitoring.
3. Geographic Location
    SDWA Section 1445 specifies that State plans should consider 
``geographic location'' when selecting a representative sample. This is

[[Page 50576]]

accomplished at the broadest level by selecting systems from each 
State. However, within a State, the sources of water may not be evenly 
distributed across that State, especially surface waters. Cities 
transfer water across watershed boundaries, or move water from one 
State to another. To best represent water being consumed by 
individuals, EPA defines ``geographic location'' in the representative 
sample for the final rule today as the location of the source of water, 
rather than as an even distribution of points across the State. For 
example, if 40 percent of the people in a State obtain their water from 
one water source type (e.g., surface water), 40 percent of the systems 
selected for the representative state sample should be from that source 
type, even if this results in points unevenly distributed across the 
State. This distribution should be accommodated by allocating systems 
based on the population served nationally and in each State stratified 
by water source and system size category.
4. Likelihood of Finding Contaminants
    Section 1445(a)(2)(A) requires that the UCMR Program take into 
account the likelihood of finding a contaminant in establishing 
variable monitoring requirements for systems. The final rule allows the 
UCMR Program to focus on monitoring for contaminants that are expected 
to be found nationally or within several regions of the United States. 
Therefore, the expectation of finding the contaminants nationally is 
fundamental to the approach of the representative sample and its 
statistical method of selection. The ``likelihood of finding 
contaminants'' factor is accommodated by the step-wise three-tiered 
approach of Pre-Screen Testing, Screening Survey and Assessment 
Monitoring.
5. State Plans for the Representative Sample
    As discussed previously, Section 1445 (a)(2)(C) allows States to 
develop State Monitoring Plans (also referred to as ``State Plans'') to 
assess the occurrence of unregulated contaminants for small systems in 
the State. EPA believes that the development of State Plans is affected 
by two other considerations: (i) the State plans must fit together into 
a national representative sample so that it is, in fact, nationally 
``representative,'' and (ii) EPA will pay for the reasonable costs of 
testing and laboratory analysis necessary to carry out monitoring at 
State Plans, pursuant to Section 1445(a)(2)(C)(ii).
(a) Representative State Plans
    To have representativeness at the national level while at the same 
time allowing each State to develop a ``State Plan,'' the testing for 
which EPA will fund, the Agency will take the following approach. Based 
on a statistical random selection process applied to all CWSs and 
NTNCWSs nationally using the average population served by systems and 
water source type (surface or ground water to ensure geographic 
coverage) within service-size categories (25-500, 501-3,300, 3,301-
10,000 persons), EPA will select at least twice as many CWSs and 
NTNCWSs as required for the national representative sample. EPA will 
use a random number generator to select these systems. These systems 
will be divided into an ``initial plan'' list and a ``replacement 
list'' to allow for replacement of systems on the list with systems 
from the replacement list, by States. The representative sample will be 
allocated on a State basis, and then stratified by water source type 
and then by service size category within each water source type. EPA 
will use the percentages of the populations served in each water 
source-system size category to further allocate the systems in each 
State. The ``initial plan'' list of systems will identify those systems 
tentatively selected by EPA for each State. To establish a State Plan 
for small system monitoring, a State may enter into a Memorandum of 
Agreement (MOA) with EPA to take a partnership role in the development 
and implementation of the State Plan. By agreeing to participate in the 
process for the State plan through the MOA, the State must accept the 
EPA-selected systems on the ``initial plan'' as its plan, or review the 
list to determine which systems should be removed from the list because 
of such factors as closure, merger, or water purchase arrangement and 
submit a modified plan. The State must replace the system(s) they 
remove from the list with the water system(s) from the ``replacement 
list'' in the order the systems are listed in the replacement list, 
thus creating a ``modified plan.'' The State, in either case, must 
inform the EPA of the State's choice of plan (i.e., ``initial'' plan or 
``modified'' plan) along with reasons for removing and replacing 
systems on the ``initial plan'' within 60 days of receiving the 
``initial plan.'' If the State decides not to enter into an MOA with 
EPA for the State Plan process, then the EPA will consult with the 
State before the State adopts the ``initial plan'' as its State Plan. 
In a State with an MOA, the State Plan will include a process for the 
State to inform the public water systems of their responsibility to 
monitor and report results, their vulnerable time period, other 
monitoring times, sampling instructions, and of their participation in 
the screening survey and pre-screen testing. The EPA will inform 
systems of their inclusion in the representative sample if the State 
chooses not to enter into an MOA for the State Plan. This approach 
ensures a nationally representative set of systems and allows a State 
flexibility to modify EPA's ``initial plan'' with minimal burden. EPA 
will develop and provide initial plans to States and Tribes in the 
first half of year 2000 to allow sufficient time for State/Tribal 
review and modification, and for informing systems selected for the 
State Plans.
    Statistical Approach. Under today's action, the representative 
sample of small public water systems will be composed of a subset of 
systems which, in the aggregate, represent the public water systems of 
the three small system size categories within the United States. Within 
a State, public water systems will need to be selected so that the 
proportion of persons served by the systems sampled is as close as 
possible to the proportion of persons served by that system size 
category within each water source type for that State. The portion of 
the national representative sample within a State's boundaries will 
become that State's Monitoring Plan, after review and possible 
adjustment by the State, and then EPA review.
    For the small systems considered, a representative sample size of 
approximately 800 systems will provide a confidence level of 99 percent 
with an allowable error of plus or minus 1 percent. This number of 
systems is statistically derived to allow population weighting for 
exposure assessment. Because of population weighting in the selection 
of the representative sample, systems are a surrogate for the number of 
people being monitored for unregulated contaminants in their drinking 
water. Since population exposure assessment is the principal use of the 
data in the regulation development process, the quantity of interest is 
the fraction of people exposed, rather than the fraction of systems 
affected. However, the law requires measuring contaminant occurrence at 
systems and it is more efficient to measure at systems. So the 
population weighted plan allows EPA to recognize systems providing 
drinking water to their service population as a surrogate for people. 
When the goal is exposure assessment, then a population weighted 
sampling plan for systems is optimal. The results can also be used to

[[Page 50577]]

estimate the number of systems affected, although the selected 
population weighted plan is not optimal for this purpose.
    The results will also be useful for analysis of contaminant 
occurrence at small systems in national analyses by water source and 
system size categories or strata, with a confidence level of 95 percent 
and a one percent margin of error. EPA will allocate systems to each 
State, water source type and system size category by: (1) estimating 
the population served by all small CWSs in each State, (2) dividing 
this population into the population served in each water source type-
system size combination to derive a percentage, and (3) multiplying the 
percentage by the number of small systems in the State, with the result 
being the number of systems allocated to each water source-system size 
category. This allocation is a statistical stratification of systems by 
water source type and system size category. The approach ensures that 
each State has systems allocated to it for its State Plan. To 
accomplish this allocation of systems to each State, EPA will add a 
sufficient number of small CWSs and NTNCWSs to the statistically 
derived number for the representative sample to allow each State to 
have a plan that will then fit into the national representative sample, 
with each State having at least two systems. Once monitored, the 
results of the representative sample of small systems will then be 
combined with large system results in an overall national analysis of 
contaminant occurrence in systems. EPA believes that this sample size 
will provide an adequate level of confidence, considering size, type 
(community and non-transient non-community water systems), geographic 
location (State), and water source. EPA also believes that this 
approach provides sufficient information for the decision processes 
drawing on UCMR monitoring data for systems serving 10,000 or fewer 
persons, while keeping testing costs at a manageable level. This number 
of systems should be sufficient to statistically evaluate whether a 
contaminant occurs in a specified proportion, such as 2 or 3 percent of 
the population (using systems as a surrogate). This number of systems, 
confidence level and allowable error will enable EPA to: (1) evaluate 
the statistical significance of contaminant occurrence with low 
frequency and (2) compute the percent of systems for occurrence 
nationally, combining the results of both small and large systems.
    Further rationale for using a small number of systems and small 
allowable error (confidence interval) in calculating the number of 
systems to be included in the representative sample is provided in the 
monitoring results from previous unregulated contaminant monitoring 
under the existing program. EPA has results from over 28,000 systems 
from the unregulated contaminant monitoring activities of 1988 to 1992 
(the first round of unregulated contaminant monitoring under the 
existing program) that indicate that of the 34 contaminants required to 
be monitored at that time, 30 occurred at less than 2 percent of 
systems and, of those, 27 occurred at less than 1 percent of systems. 
Ten of these contaminants were selected for the Contaminant Candidate 
List ``Regulatory Priorities'' (see 64 FR 23403) and all of the ten 
contaminants occurred at less than 2 percent of systems and eight, at 
less than 1 percent. Of the eight contaminants occurring at less than 
one percent of systems, four have health effects values within the 
concentration range of contaminant occurrence (bromomethane [a 
pesticide], 1,3-dichloropropene [a pesticide], hexachlorobutadiene [a 
solvent], and 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane [a solvent]), and consequently 
may be considered for future regulation. These data point at the need 
to focus at the low end of occurrence. Using a small allowable error 
minimizes the chance of EPA incorrectly deciding whether or not to 
regulate a contaminant based on occurrence. Once EPA evaluates health 
effects data, contaminant occurrence among States and systems, 
contaminant sources, treatment technologies, and other relevant 
information, the small allowable error allows EPA to make regulatory 
determinations with a high degree of confidence.
    If, based on prior information (e.g., from a Screening Survey or 
Pre-screen Testing), EPA determines that the listed contaminants occur 
in a different percent of systems at a different statistical confidence 
level and/or allowable error providing scientifically defensible 
monitoring results, then EPA may apply a different likely percent of 
systems, confidence level, and/or allowable error to determine a 
smaller representative sample size. The statistical approach for 
specifying the number of systems by water source type (ground water, 
surface water or ground water under the direct influence of surface 
water) and systems size is as follows:
    The number of systems, n, required in the representative sample is 
determined by the allowable error (d) around the estimate 
for p, the proportion of systems (a population-weighted surrogate for 
people) which exceed a criteria (e.g., detection level) of interest. 
Based on the binomial distribution in statistics, the number of systems 
n which must be sampled for a likely proportion p of people (systems as 
a surrogate) with contaminant occurrence within the allowable error d 
with confidence (1-a) is approximately:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17SE99.000

    The number of systems to be sampled, n, does not depend on the 
total number of systems available. The number from the standard normal 
distribution, z, is obtained from a table of the standard normal 
distribution, representing a collection of data following a ``bell-
shaped curve'' which have a (standardized) mean of zero and standard 
deviation of one. The significance level, a, is the chance of the 
statistical interval of interest not containing the true value of the 
number being estimated, which, in this case, is the percent of systems 
where contaminants of concern on the UCMR List occur. The true value 
for the percentage of systems where contaminants of concern occur can 
only be known if all systems are sampled, which is not a possibility 
since Section 1445(a)(2)(A) requires that only a representative subset 
of small systems be required to monitor for unregulated contaminants. 
Using this equation (1), the matrix below presents the required sample 
sizes for several values of allowable error margins and confidence 
levels. For the national representative sample, an allowable error of 
0.01 at a confidence level of 99 percent and a likely 
proportion of systems with contaminant occurrence of 1 percent was 
chosen. The possibilities for sample size, confidence level and 
allowable error considered in developing this approach are:

[[Page 50578]]



   Sample Sizes From a Universe of 65,600 Systems Based on: Confidence
                                  Level
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                d, Allowable Error
         Confidence Level (1-a)          -------------------------------
                                            .03     .02     .01    .005
------------------------------------------------------------------------
90%.....................................      30      67     266   1,065
95%.....................................      42      95     380   1,521
99%.....................................      73     165     659   2,636
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA believes that a representative sample size of 659 systems to be 
sufficient to draw conclusions about contaminant occurrence for small 
systems, based on 99 percent (.99) confidence level,  a 1 
percent (.01) allowable margin of error (confidence interval), and 
target percent of contaminant occurrence in 1 percent of systems. EPA 
chose a confidence level of 99 percent because it wanted high 
confidence that the true proportion was included in its sample results. 
A 5 percent chance that the window of error did not include the true 
proportion was considered too large, given the amount of money invested 
in monitoring and regulatory decisions. Based on the monitoring 
program, a 1 percent risk (100-99 percent confidence) that EPA missed 
the target was more acceptable.
    A small allowable error (narrow confidence interval), such as 
1 percent (0.01), is important for evaluating 
the expected low percentages of contaminant occurrence in systems 
because EPA wants to be able to determine when the monitoring results 
show that the percent of systems is distinguishable from zero or some 
other small value close to zero. Determining this outcome will help EPA 
decide which contaminants should receive primary focus for possible 
regulation after the results are evaluated with health effects data.
    To further consider the implications of the table above, suppose 
that after sampling these 659 systems, the proportion p which equaled 
or exceeded a detection level was 4 percent (0.04). The estimate of the 
true (unknown) proportion will be 0.040.02, or 4 to 6 
percent. This interval has a 99 percent likelihood of containing the 
true proportion of systems having an occurrence of the contaminant of 
concern. There is a 1 percent (0.01) chance (a) that the true 
proportion is outside this estimated interval. A larger allowable 
error, d, (e.g., 3 percent) results in a wider estimate window. Knowing 
only that the proportion is somewhere within a window of 6 percent 
(e.g., between 1 and 7 percent) was too large a window of error if the 
percent of systems having occurrence of the UCMR (1999) List 
contaminants is less than 3 percent, which may be possible based on 
information from previous unregulated contaminant monitoring. In such a 
situation, it will be difficult to determine whether the percent of 
systems with contaminant occurrence was significantly different than 
zero or some small number.
    For the purposes of data interpretation in the future, EPA has 
determined that, rather than using the normal approximation to the 
binomial distribution, the Agency should use the Wilson score interval 
method (Newcombe, 1998) which results in a confidence interval around 
the estimate of the percent of systems with contaminant occurrence 
which is narrower on the left or ``zero'' side of the estimate and 
wider on the right side of the estimate. One advantage to this interval 
is that it does not include zero whenever the estimated exposure is 
non-zero.
    Additionally, EPA will increase the representative sample size of 
CWSs to 721 to increase the statistical power of the smallest system 
category. EPA will also add 79 systems to the NTNCWS sample size (using 
the same approach of applying the percentage of population served by 
NTNCWSs in each State to derive the number of systems allocated to each 
State). A total of 800 CWSs and NTNCWSs are included as the national 
representative sample. This allocation facilitates assigning systems to 
each State in the representative sample, allowing each State to have at 
least two systems.
    Technical peer review of the statistical approach found it to be 
sound for the purposes of estimating contaminant occurrence to assess 
population exposure to the contaminants from Assessment Monitoring. 
Both internal and external peer review indicated the possibility of 
using another statistical method (such as the Poisson approximation to 
the binomial distribution or Wilson score interval method) to derive 
the number of systems in the national representative sample and to 
interpret the data at a given confidence level and error once they are 
reported. Additionally, the public commenters supported the statistical 
approach for deriving and implementing the national representative 
sample of small systems.
    The representative sample of 721 small CWSs and 79 NTNCWSs will be 
disaggregated to the State level, and stratified by water source type 
(ground water or surface water) and system size (the three size 
categories of 25-500, 501-3,300, and 3,301-10,000 persons). The 
stratification by State, water source type and system size is described 
in the following example.
    Example. To determine the number of PWSs (CWSs and NTNCWSs) 
randomly selected for unregulated contaminant monitoring as part of the 
national representative sample, the following figures are used as the 
starting point and are approximations for the purposes of example only:

US population: 265,000,000
US population served by small PWSs serving  10,000 persons: 
50,000,000

    State A's population served by small PWSs serving 10,000 or fewer 
persons equals 1,251,340 persons, which divided by 50,000,000 persons 
served nationally by small water systems equals 2.5 percent, or the 
percent of State A's population served by small systems of the national 
population served by small systems. Multiplying 2.5 percent (0.025) 
times the 659 systems nationally equals 16.48, rounded to 16, which is 
the number of small systems allocated to State A for its representative 
sample. Mathematically, this can be expressed as:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17SE99.001


[[Page 50579]]


    State A's population served by small PWSs supplied by surface water 
(SW) or ground water under the direct influence of surface water 
(GWUDI) equals 449,920 persons.
    State A's population served by small PWSs supplied by ground water 
(GW) equals 801,420 persons.
    For each water source type (surface or ground water), the 
population served by small systems is further divided into the size 
category. The next step is to divide the population in each size 
category by the population served by small systems in State A 
(1,251,340 persons), and then multiply that result by the number of 
small systems allocated to State A (18 systems), to obtain the number 
of systems in that size category for the water source type that will be 
in the State Plan (identified below as ``State Plan Allocation''). For 
each water source type, the example results for State A are:

                                           SW/GWUDI Systems in State A
                              [Numbers of systems rounded to nearest whole number]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Number of
                                   Population served          persons           Systems            State plan
  System size (persons served)      by size category         served in         allocated           allocation
                                                              state A          to state A
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10,000-3,301....................  281,200 persons....  www.epa.gov/safewater).
    EPA asked for public comment on whether it should consider using a 
targeted approach for selecting systems in the national representative 
sample based on prior knowledge of contaminant use or occurrence, 
system operation or other locational information, rather than this 
stratified random selection approach. Internal and external peer 
reviewers and public commenters agreed that a targeted approach would 
bias the national results.
    Several aspects of potential bias are of concern to EPA: (1) prior 
information on targeted use of a contaminant may not be perfect which 
may lead to missing the target zone; (2) targeting leads to biased 
results that would be expected to have a larger percentage of 
detections, potentially overstating occurrence of the contaminant; (3) 
targeting areas of known or expected contaminant use or occurrence for 
monitoring does not provide a representative national picture of 
occurrence, because both detections and nondetections of contaminants 
are equally important in determining national occurrence in the 
decision process of whether or not to regulate a contaminant; and (4) 
targeting areas of known or expected use or occurrence does not take 
into account that surface waters can carry the contaminant out of the 
targeted area.
    The State Monitoring Plans will also include a representative 
sample of small systems that will be combined with a set of randomly 
selected large systems for Screening Survey monitoring of UCMR (1999) 
List 2 contaminants. The number of small systems, selected through the 
same statistical process from the systems used to conduct Assessment 
Monitoring, will be smaller (perhaps 150 to 200 systems out of a total 
number of about 300 small and large systems) because the purpose of the 
Screening Survey is to test for contaminant presence in systems rather 
than testing for concentrations in an established percentage (such as 2 
or 3 percent) of systems, as is the case for Assessment Monitoring. If 
a contaminant occurs in a small percent (e.g., 0.5 percent) of systems, 
then the contaminant will be considered to occur at a level that will 
indicate that it should be included in the next round of Assessment 
Monitoring.
    EPA needs to balance the number of systems included in the national 
representative sample required for statistical validity with the cost 
of paying for the testing. EPA believes that the final rule's approach 
balances the number of systems to be tested with the cost and also 
balances a nationally representative sample with the allowance for 
State plans. The final approach also relieves States from having to 
develop the statistical design and specify the systems to be monitored.
(b) Systems Selected for Pre-Screen Testing
    If a State enters into an MOA with EPA, it can participate in the 
Pre-Screen Testing program. States must specify from 5 up to 25 systems 
as the systems most vulnerable to the contaminants on UCMR (1999) List 
3. EPA will determine the number of systems to be selected in any State 
based on the population served by CWSs and NTNCWSs in a State. The 
States must modify their State Plans to identify the small systems 
selected for Pre-Screen Testing and notify the EPA of their addition to 
those Plans.
(c) Tribal Water Systems
    Public water systems serving less than 10,000 persons that are 
located on Tribal lands in Indian country will be treated as an 
individual stratum for the representative sample. The stratified random 
selection process described previously allocates systems within water 
source and size category by population served. A PWS in Indian country 
will have the same probability of being selected as any other water 
system in another State based on the proportion of the population 
served by water source and system size category. Because no State has 
jurisdiction over such systems, EPA will consult with the appropriate 
tribal government concerning whether any initially selected system 
should be replaced due to merger, closure, or purchase of water from 
another system. The resulting set of systems will be the ``State Plan'' 
for Indian country.
    Public comments relative to Tribal water systems requested that 
Tribal systems be specified through a stratified random selection 
process like the other systems in the national representative sample to 
avoid biasing the results. EPA agrees and plans to identify Tribal 
systems through the same stratified random selection process that is 
applied to the other systems.
(d) ``Index'' Systems
    EPA generally has less information about systems serving 10,000 or 
fewer persons than about systems serving more than 10,000 persons. This 
lack of information on these systems and their operation affects EPA's 
ability to tailor regulations to systems of this size. To provide an 
improved understanding of small systems, EPA will select up to 30 small 
public water systems as ``Index'' systems and EPA will conduct 
Assessment Monitoring at these systems during each of the five years 
for which the UCMR List and national representative sample must be 
established. EPA is requiring more frequent monitoring from these 
systems than the systems selected for Assessment Monitoring. Index 
systems must be selected from the systems designated in State 
Monitoring Plans using a random number generator. EPA will pay for this 
monitoring, including provision of sample equipment, shipment of 
samples, testing, and reporting. EPA will help Index systems collect 
samples by sending a field technician to each Index system to obtain 
the samples. Index system sampling is being conducted to: ensure sample 
collection quality for the 30 systems; provide information of temporal 
variation encountered during the monitoring cycle; and better 
understand the needs of small public water systems in future 
regulations. The Index system sampling program is designed to ensure 
that future regulations better reflect the conditions under which small 
systems operate. Owners/operators of Index systems are required to 
assist EPA in identifying

[[Page 50581]]

appropriate sampling locations and provide information on wells and 
intakes in use at the time of sampling, well casing and screen depth 
(if known) for those wells, and the pumping rates of each well or 
intake at the time of sampling. The monitoring results for the Index 
systems will be used to characterize the UCMR results to other small 
systems in the national representative sample with this frequency and 
for this additional information. EPA or its representative will also 
collect information on precipitation, land use and other environmental 
factors (e.g., soils and geology) to provide the Agency with 
information on other conditions potentially affecting drinking water 
quality of small systems. This Index system monitoring will facilitate 
extrapolation of Assessment Monitoring results nationally for systems 
of this size. A description of the selection process for Index systems 
using a random number generator will be presented in the background 
document, noted above, titled ``National Representative Sample of Small 
Public Water Systems: Statistical Design and State Plans for the 
Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation.''
    Public comments received concerning Index systems were generally 
supportive of the approach to provide additional information to tailor 
future regulations to small systems.
(e) Other State Data
    Some States may sample and test additional systems beyond those 
included in the State Monitoring Plan. Any additional systems sampled 
by States should not be combined with those of the State Monitoring 
Plan for the purpose of computing national estimates of contamination. 
While providing useful information for protecting the health of persons 
using drinking water from these systems, this additional data will bias 
the results of the national representative sample if included. However, 
if the State wants to report the results of such monitoring, EPA could 
receive the data through the Safe Drinking Water Information System 
(SDWIS) for input to the NCOD. EPA plans to develop acceptance criteria 
to allow such data to be placed in the NCOD. Public comments supported 
EPA's position that any data from additional systems not in the State 
Monitoring Plan should not be combined with data from the 
representative sample of small systems because it would bias the 
national results.

G. Reporting of Monitoring Results

    Today's final regulation replaces the reporting requirements at 40 
CFR 141.35 to make the reported occurrence results more useful for 
sound scientific analyses.
1. Reporting Requirements (Data Elements)
    UCMR data are one of four types of data that will potentially be 
reported to the NCOD as required by Section 1445(g). The other types of 
data that may be included in the NCOD are: (1) regulated contaminant 
occurrence data below the maximum contaminant level (MCL) but above the 
minimum reporting level (MRL) (a regulation may be developed to obtain 
this data during 2000); (2) source water monitoring data; and (3) other 
data from special studies and research. Since these data will come from 
varying sources, they may have different reporting requirements. The 
PWS data from unregulated contaminant monitoring may have the smallest 
number of data elements to be reported because of the greater level of 
control over the quality of the data through the laboratory 
certification programs and the monitoring and quality control 
requirements in the final rule today.
    EPA engaged in an extensive process of stakeholder and technical 
review when developing the NCOD to identify information reporting 
requirements that allow data from different sources to be adequately 
evaluated, compared, and interpreted. The NCOD information requirements 
process identified additional data elements that must be considered for 
UCMR reporting with unregulated contaminant sample test results. These 
data elements are especially important because many of the contaminants 
may not be routinely tested for and will need sample test data quality 
indicators to assist in interpreting the results. These additional data 
elements for the unregulated contaminants, and the reasons EPA adds 
them to the previous reporting requirements in this rule, are explained 
briefly in the following table. EPA requested public comment on these 
additional reporting requirements identified in Table 4, Final 
Additional Data Elements for the UCMR. The only comments EPA received, 
other than support for the additional data elements to be reported, 
were to clarify Minimum Reporting Level and Method Detection Level 
reporting and their difference from Instrument Detection Level and 
Estimated Detection Level and to use ``presence/absence'' for 
microbiological contaminants only. A technical peer reviewer also 
suggested that spiking concentration be added to the reporting 
requirements to allow evaluation of the methods being used, since the 
methods are still being refined. The reader is referred to the document 
titled, ``Public Comment and Response Summary'' for the Unregulated 
Contaminant Monitoring Regulation for a discussion of these comments. 
The complete list of data elements for the UCMR appears in the rule at 
Sec. 141.35(d), Table 1.

          Table 4.--Final Additional Data Elements for the UCMR
------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Final data element            Definition       Reason for reporting
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public Water System Facility  An identification     Identify source
 Identification Number--       number established    water, treatment
 Source, Treatment Plant and   by the State, or,     plant and sampling
 Sampling Point.               at the State's        location for use in
                               discretion, the       evaluating
                               PWS, that is unique   contaminant source
                               to the system for     controls in
                               an intake for each    regulation
                               source of water, a    development. The
                               treatment plant and   source intake/well
                               a sampling point.     identification
                               Within each PWS,      number can be
                               each intake,          related to latitude
                               treatment plant and   and longitude for
                               sampling point must   use in geographic
                               receive a unique      analysis of land
                               identification        use, soils, geology
                               number, including,    and precipitation
                               for intake; surface   for alternative
                               water intake,         treatment and
                               ground water well     control analysis.
                               or wellfield          Treatment plant
                               centroid; and         identification
                               including, for        number can be
                               sampling point;       related to
                               entry points to the   treatment
                               distribution          information for
                               system, wellhead      that plant to use
                               (or wellfield),       in analysis of
                               intake, or            alternative
                               locations within      treatments.
                               the distribution      Sampling point
                               system. The same      identification
                               identification        number will allow
                               number must be used   the sample test
                               consistently          result to be
                               throughout the        consistently
                               history of            associated with the
                               unregulated           same sample
                               contaminant           location over time
                               monitoring to         for trend analysis.
                               represent the
                               facility.

[[Page 50582]]

 
Sample Analysis Type........  The type of sample    Indicates field and
                               collected.            spiked sample to
                               Permitted values      ensure that the
                               include: (a) Field    sample test result
                               Sample--sample        is used for the
                               collected and         appropriate
                               submitted for         analysis (e.g.,
                               analysis under this   contaminant
                               rule. (b) Batch       concentration
                               Spike/Spike           trends, sample test
                               Duplicate Samples--   performance, etc.).
                               Samples associated
                               with a batch for
                               calculating
                               analytical
                               precision and
                               accuracy. A batch
                               is a collection of
                               22 samples analyzed
                               together, of which
                               two are the spike
                               and spike duplicate
                               samples, that are
                               tested for analyte
                               concentrations.
Detection Level.............  ``Detection level''   Indicates lowest
                               refers to the         quantifiable
                               detection limit       measurement level
                               applied to both the   applied through the
                               method and            method to the
                               equipment.            sample to allow
                               Detection limits      comparison with
                               are the lowest        other sample test
                               concentration of a    results.
                               target contaminant
                               that a given method
                               or piece of
                               equipment can
                               reliably ascertain
                               and report as
                               greater than zero
                               (i.e., Instrument
                               Detection Limit,
                               Method Detection
                               Limit, Estimated
                               Detection Limit).
Detection Level Unit of       The unit of measure   Indicates the
 Measure.                      to express the        reporting unit for
                               concentration,        the detection
                               count, or other       limit.
                               value of a
                               contaminant level
                               for the detection
                               level reported.
                              (e.g., g/L,
                               colony forming
                               units/mL (CFU/mL),
                               etc.).
Batch Identification Number.  A unique number       Allows calculation
                               assigned by the       and comparison of
                               laboratory            precision and
                               analyzing samples     accuracy among
                               to a specific batch   batches of samples
                               of samples. The       and association of
                               number comprises 9    precision and
                               digits for the        accuracy with each
                               laboratory            sample in a batch
                               identification        to sort results
                               number, 4 digits      based on data
                               for the year, 2       quality.
                               digits for the
                               month, 2 digits for
                               the day, and 2
                               digits for the
                               batch of samples.
Spiking Concentration.......  The concentration of  Allows calculation
                               method analytes       of precision and
                               added to a sample     accuracy for a
                               to be analyzed for    batch of samples
                               calculating           and an evaluation
                               analytical            of the method.
                               precision and
                               accuracy.
Analytical Precision........  For purposes of the   Indicates
                               UCMR, Analytical      variability among
                               Precision is          laboratory results
                               defined as the        as measured by
                               relative percent      testing replicate
                               difference (RPD)      field or duplicate
                               between spiked        spiked samples, and
                               matrix duplicates.    is a key measure of
                               The RPD for the       sample test
                               spiked matrix         performance.
                               duplicates analyzed
                               in the same batch
                               of samples as the
                               analytical result
                               being reported is
                               to be entered in
                               this field.
                               Precision is
                               calculated as RPD
                               between spiked
                               matrix duplicates
                               using, RPD = [(X1-
                               X2) / {(X1 + X2)/
                               2}] x 100.
Analytical Accuracy.........  For the purposes of   Indicates whether
                               the UCMR, accuracy    test results are
                               is defined as the     within a group of
                               percent recovery of   measurements
                               the contaminant in    corresponding to
                               the spiked matrix     the true value of
                               sample analyzed in    the results, and is
                               the same analytical   a key measure of
                               batch as the sample   sample test
                               result being          performance.
                               reported and
                               calculated using;.
                              % recovery = [(amt.
                               found in Spiked
                               sample--amt. found
                               in sample) / amt.
                               spiked] x 100.
Presence/Absence............  Chemicals: Presence-- Chemicals: Indicates
                               a response was        results that do not
                               produced by the       have a quantifiable
                               analysis (i.e.,       value and whether,
                               greater than or       for a positive
                               equal to the MDL      result, the
                               but less than the     chemical
                               MRL)/Absence--no      concentration is
                               response was          between the MRL and
                               produced by the       the MDL to allow
                               analysis (i.e.,       more thorough
                               less than the MDL).   assessment of the
                              Microbiologicals:      method's capability
                               Presence--indicates   to identify the
                               a response was        contaminant.
                               produced by the      Microbiologicals:
                               analysis/Absence--    Allows measure
                               indicates no          under conditions
                               response was          and for
                               produced by the       microorganisms that
                               analysis.             are not able to be
                                                     counted.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Note that EPA deleted ``composite'' from the proposed set of data 
elements since the final rule does not allow compositing. Since this 
program is designed to measure actual occurrence of contaminants, 
compositing (the combining of samples from several sampling points of a 
water system) will dilute concentrations of contaminants to be 
measured. Stakeholders supported the deletion of compositing, and 
believed it to be contrary to the objectives of the UCMR. No public 
comments were received on this subject.
    Also note that ``Public Water System Facility Source Intake 
Identification Number'' must currently be reported under existing 
reporting requirements for SDWIS under 40 CFR 142.15(b)(1). The UCMR 
will expand this requirement to include the unique identification 
numbers for treatment plant and sampling point, which may not change 
over time. EPA is not requiring, through today's action, the reporting 
of treatment data (treatment objectives and processes) since these data 
are already required to be reported by January 1, 2000, for all 
systems. (Safe Drinking Water Information System

[[Page 50583]]

FACT SHEET, Revised Inventory Reporting Requirements, June 1998)
    The rationale for including these data elements is that EPA needs 
the detailed information concerning the sample test, location, and 
treatment that will allow the results to be used in making a 
determination of whether or not to regulate the contaminant and to 
develop regulations. The specific reasons are identified in Table 4. To 
avoid duplicate and costly resampling efforts, EPA believes that 
systems should obtain and report the most complete information the 
first time a sample is tested.
    The information requirements process for development of the NCOD 
identified technical questions that need to be answered in the 
regulatory process that the UCMR is to support. These data elements are 
associated with these questions. While the list of data elements will 
increase by five (from 12 to 17) in today's final UCMR (as compared to 
the existing UCMR), reporting them the first time precludes the need to 
obtain the information through another process. Because the 1996 SDWA 
Amendments expanded the determinations and types of analyses that need 
to be conducted to develop a rule, including these data elements is 
responsive to the new regulatory environment in which drinking water 
regulations must be developed.
    These new data elements will not be a major burden for a PWS. Only 
four of the elements must be supplied by the PWS: the PWS ID; the 
Facility ID; the sample number; and sample collection date. All other 
elements can be supplied by the laboratory.
    States commented that EPA should not require system inventory data 
if those data are required under another reporting arrangement in 40 
CFR 142.15(b)(1). As a result, EPA modified this final rule eliminating 
inventory data elements that are required for other reporting. Today's 
rule requires that Public Water System Facility ID be reported. Coupled 
with the PWS ID, the facility ID can be linked to sampling site 
information and locational data necessary for thorough analyses of the 
data.
    As explained earlier, EPA also requires owners/operators of Index 
systems that are part of State Plans for the national representative 
sample to provide data concerning well casing, screen depths and 
pumping rates at each well or intake at the time of monitoring. This 
reporting will allow EPA to tailor regulations to systems serving 
10,000 or fewer persons by relating sample test results to conditions 
that affect capture of contaminants by ground water and surface water 
supplied systems.
2. Reporting to the Primacy Agency
    Today's rule changes reporting relationships for unregulated 
contaminant monitoring data. The statute requires that the results be 
reported to the primary enforcement (or ``primacy'') authority for the 
system. Many States and systems raised questions about the necessity 
and utility of requiring State primacy for the UCMR. In response to 
these comments, EPA has decided to directly implement the UCMR, while 
allowing States to participate in State Plan review and implementation 
through MOAs rather than through State primacy. Some States noted that 
UCMR data will primarily be used by EPA to make regulatory 
determinations, and that such data are not required by the State to 
assess compliance for public health. The States however, need these 
data for their program records and implementation. In response to these 
comments, EPA is not requiring the State to report the data, but is 
requiring the PWS to report the data electronically to EPA, unless 
otherwise arranged, with a copy to the State. EPA will issue guidance 
on the process of reporting to EPA electronically or in other formats 
and providing a copy of the results to the State. Since EPA is paying 
for small systems' testing and reporting, the Agency will set up an 
electronic reporting system for these systems that are required to 
report. EPA will report the data to the States for these small systems. 
EPA will hold the data of small and large systems for 60 days to allow 
systems and States to review the data before placing the data in the 
NCOD, as required by SDWA. EPA encourages States to review the data as 
time allows because their review is critical to identifying drinking 
water quality issues that may not be obvious at the national level. 
This review provides an additional level of data quality control before 
EPA uses the data in regulatory decisions.
3. Timing of Reporting
    In response to public comments from States and systems requesting 
more time to report these data, EPA modified the rule at Sec. 141.35(c) 
to require large PWSs to report their monitoring results within thirty 
days, rather than ten days, after the month in which they receive the 
results from the laboratory. This requirement provides additional time 
for systems to review the UCMR results before reporting them to EPA.
4. Method of Reporting
    SDWA Section 1445 (a)(2)(D) states that each PWS that monitors for 
unregulated contaminants must provide the monitoring results to the 
primacy authority for the system. Today's final rule requires 
electronic reporting by PWSs to EPA, while providing a copy of the 
results to the State (Sec. 141.35(e)). The rule also allows EPA to 
specify another method for reporting by a PWS, if necessary. Public 
commenters supported allowing an alternate reporting method for PWSs if 
they could not report electronically. Note that EPA will pay for the 
testing and laboratory analysis of samples for small systems in State 
Monitoring Plans. Since EPA plans to establish electronic recordkeeping 
of the results from systems in State Plans, electronic reporting for 
these systems will be done through the assistance of EPA. EPA might 
consider specifying another method for reporting when a system serving 
over 10,000 persons has not developed the capability to report 
electronic results. However, most laboratories have this capability and 
could probably provide this service for the PWS.
5. Public Notification of Availability of Results
    SDWA Section 1445 (a)(2)(E) requires notification of the results of 
the UCMR program to be made available to persons served by the system. 
The results of UCMR monitoring for CWSs will be reported through annual 
Consumer Confidence Reports (CCR), as required by Sec. 141.153 (d). For 
NTNCWSs, UCMR monitoring results will be reported according to 
requirements of the revised public notification rule as proposed May 
13, 1999 at 64 FR 25963. Failure to monitor for unregulated 
contaminants required through the UCMR will also be reportable under 
the public notification rule.
    The results that will be reported through the CCR and public 
notification rules should be based on the same monitoring data that the 
States will receive under the UCMR and will be required to be reported 
to the NCOD. Information in the NCOD will be available to the public.

VII. Section-by-Section Analysis of Public Comment and EPA Response

    This portion of the preamble is devoted to highlighting major 
changes in the specific sections and paragraphs of the revisions to the 
Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation, including 40 CFR 141.35, 
141.40, 142.15(c), and 142.16, in the order that they appear in the 
Code of Federal

[[Page 50584]]

Regulations and are promulgated here as a final rule today. The details 
of the peer review and public comments and EPA's responses can be found 
in two background documents: External Peer Reviews of the Unregulated 
Contaminant Monitoring Regulation, and Public Comment and Response 
Summary for the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation.

A. Section 141.35--Reporting of Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring 
Results

1. Does this reporting apply to me?
    This paragraph notes that Sec. 141.35 applies to the owner or 
operator of any PWS required to monitor for unregulated contaminants 
under Sec. 141.40. Exceptions to the reporting requirements are also 
noted. The majority of comments received on this topic suggested that 
water systems using purchased water should be required to monitor for 
contaminants occurring in distribution lines, such as microbiological 
contaminants. Like the proposed rule, today's final rule states that 
small systems serving 10,000 or fewer persons need not report their 
results to EPA because EPA will pay and arrange for testing and 
reporting of the results. To improve the logical flow of the rule, EPA 
moved this exception to this paragraph from the paragraph immediately 
below it.
    In response to these comments, EPA has modified this section, 
noting that water systems that purchase all of their water will be 
included in the UCMR for contaminants having distribution system 
sampling points, including points of maximum residence time or points 
of lowest disinfectant residual.
    A few commenters suggested it was inappropriate for only the small 
systems selected as part of the national representative sample to 
report UCMR results and not other small systems. In response, EPA notes 
that Section 1445(a)(2)(D) of the SDWA states that all systems required 
to conduct unregulated contaminant monitoring must report the results. 
Because only a nationally representative sample of small systems will 
be required to monitor under the UCMR, only those systems will have to 
report the results.
2. To whom must I report?
    This section explains the reporting requirements for systems that 
will monitor for unregulated contaminants.
    Under today's rule, a system must report the results of unregulated 
contaminant monitoring to EPA and provide a copy to the State. This is 
a change from the proposal and is based on EPA's decision, in response 
to public comment, to implement this rule through MOAs with State 
agencies rather than through the primacy process. EPA will hold the 
data for 60 days to allow systems and States time to conduct a quality 
control review before entering the data into the NCOD. This is 
discussed in more detail in IX.A. Implementation of the Rule. The 
system also must notify the public of the monitoring results as 
provided in Subpart O (Consumer Confidence Reports) and proposed 
Subpart Q (Public Notification) of this part.
    Even though small systems do not report their results because EPA 
will do that for them, small systems must still comply with the public 
notification requirements for these results.
3. When do I report monitoring results?
    This section specifies that a PWS must report the results of 
unregulated contaminant monitoring within thirty days following the 
month in which they receive the results from the laboratory.
    Today's final rule is slightly different from that of the proposed 
rule. Rather than reporting within 10 days of receiving monitoring 
results, it extends the deadline for reporting results to thirty days 
after the month in which the results are received from the laboratory. 
This change provides more time for the system to review the data before 
reporting. This is in response to comments received indicating that the 
requirement that systems report results within 10 days after receiving 
results from the laboratory is too short a period. Additionally, 
commenters were concerned with adequate time to review and understand 
the data before reporting them to EPA. Also, as noted previously, EPA 
will wait 60 days before placing the data in the National Drinking 
Water Contaminant Occurrence Database (NCOD) to allow additional time 
for systems, States and EPA to ensure quality control of the data.
    Consistent with the decision to not require States to adopt this 
rule as part of primacy, EPA has also clarified that EPA, not the State 
primacy agency, will specify the required monitoring period.
    A commenter was concerned with the costs associated with reporting 
UCMR results quarterly and requested that PWSs be allowed to report 
data in an annual batch. EPA is maintaining the requirement of 
quarterly reporting because EPA does not believe that annual reporting 
would allow EPA to use the data as input to the next round of the CCL 
and UCMR lists, which is a principal objective of the rule. Also, large 
PWSs already report quarterly. Additionally, EPA plans to evaluate the 
data early to determine whether modifications are needed in the 
analytical methods.
4. What information must I report?
    This section lists and defines the data elements that must be 
reported. In addition to analytical results and quality control, EPA is 
requiring information on the PWS from which the analyzed sample was 
taken.
    Today's rule modifies somewhat the unregulated contaminant 
monitoring reporting requirements in the proposed rule (Table 8 of 
``Revisions to the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation for 
Public Water Systems,'' Federal Register, vol. 64, no. 83, April 30, 
1999, pages 23426 to 23428) and reorders the sample data elements. For 
example, for microbiological monitoring, future requirements may 
specify either a sampling point in the distribution system that has the 
maximum residence time or, under today's rule, the lowest disinfectant 
residual, in response to comments concerning systems using disinfectant 
booster stations where the disinfectant residual is low. These sampling 
point types were added to the data element listing. Questions were 
raised as to how the UCMR would accommodate water systems that have 
mixed sources (i.e., use blended/mixed surface water and ground water). 
In response, the data element, Water Source Type, will be modified in 
the Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS) Inventory Reporting 
Requirements to address this issue: the valid choices for this data 
element will include purchased/non-purchased blended/mixed water. See 
40 CFR 141.35(d) Table 1 of the rule for more information.
    Sample collection date must be reported as 4-digit year, 2-digit 
month, and 2-digit day under the final rule to ensure year 2000 
compliance, and to refine date records, as suggested by peer reviewers. 
Also added to the sample data elements is a sample batch identification 
number, which is assigned by the laboratory to each batch of samples 
analyzed with the spike and spike duplicate sample at the spiking 
concentration to allow analysis of method performance. The list of 
permitted sample analysis types is reduced to field sample and batch 
spike/spike duplicate since these will be the only required sample 
types reported for unregulated contaminant monitoring.
    During the public comment period, a comment was received suggesting 
that inventory data elements should be provided officially by the 
States through

[[Page 50585]]

the inventory data reporting process, rather than by systems with their 
sample results. EPA agrees that inventory data elements are already 
reported by a different mechanism. Therefore, EPA has removed the data 
elements that are or will be included in the Safe Drinking Water 
Information System (SDWIS) Inventory Reporting Requirements: sampling 
point type, water source type, public water system facility type, 
latitude of the public water system facility for source and treatment 
plant, and longitude of the public water system facility for source and 
treatment plant. This change in data elements under today's rule 
provides for the revision or addition in inventory data reporting for 
the data elements not included in the rule to address:
    (A) for sampling point type, an expansion of allowable choices to 
include: raw/untreated water, finished water from treatment system, 
finished/treated water from entry point to the distribution system 
after treatment, finished/treated water from within the distribution 
system, finished/treated water from the distribution system at the 
location of maximum residence time or lowest disinfectant residual, 
finished/treated water from the distribution system at the location of 
lowest disinfectant residual, finished/treated water from household/
drinking water tap, finished/treated water from unknown location, and 
other finished/treated water;
    (B) for water source type, to include allowable choices of: surface 
water from a stream or purchased surface water from a stream, surface 
water from a lake or reservoir, or purchased surface water from a lake 
or reservoir, ground water under the direct influence of surface water 
or purchased ground water under the direct influence of surface water, 
ground water or purchased ground water, and blended/mixed surface water 
and ground water, or purchased blended/mixed surface water and ground 
water;
    (C) for public water system facility type, to include, for the 
purposes of UCMR, the allowable choices of: intake (for surface water 
sources), well or wellfield (for ground water sources), treatment 
plant, sampling point, entry point to distribution system, reservoir, 
booster station, and unknown;
    (D) latitude of the public water system facility for source and 
treatment plant; and
    (E) longitude of the public water system facility for source and 
treatment plant. Additionally, the SDWIS inventory reporting 
requirements will address associating the PWS facility identification 
number of any sampling point with the PWS facility identification 
number of its respective treatment plant. Furthermore, the reason that 
the latitude and longitude of the treatment plant should be reported is 
to allow the association of other data, such as health effects 
information, with a point closest to the affected population, since the 
ultimate use of the UCMR data is for input to exposure assessment in 
determining whether or not to regulate a contaminant.
    Comments were received suggesting that EPA include the maximum 
reporting level (MRL) in the data elements. It is not necessary to 
include the MRL in the data elements because the MRL is specified in 
the rule in Sec. 141.40(a)(3) Table 1. The rule wording is clarified so 
that a particular laboratory having the capability for reliable lower 
detection may report concentrations below the MRL.
    Some commenters had concerns about the inclusion of a presence/
absence data element. For microbiological contaminants, this data 
element may be needed because analytical methods do not always allow 
for quantification of the target organism in the sample and may only 
allow for a qualitative response, i.e., presence or absence. For 
chemical contaminants it can be used for reporting the detection of 
chemical contaminants below the MRL but above the MDL.
5. How must I report this information?
    This section explains that the unregulated contaminant monitoring 
results must be reported in electronic or in another format specified 
by EPA, such as a template on paper that can be scanned and entered 
into the NCOD electronically.
    A question was raised as to how EPA will be able to accept 
electronic data from diverse laboratory information systems at the many 
laboratories that may be reporting data. It was also suggested that EPA 
work with States and water suppliers to develop formats to make 
electronic submission easier. EPA is considering the development of 
software that may be downloaded from the EPA website to enable systems 
and their laboratories to electronically report data. This may be the 
same electronic data form that allows PWSs to report data to NCOD/
SDWIS.
    Some commenters indicated that the State should have the option to 
specify an alternate reporting method, particularly with respect to 
small systems. It was also suggested that EPA should write the rule so 
as not to preclude reporting directly to States and EPA from the 
laboratories for small systems, as well as for large systems. The 
laboratory, whether EPA-approved or an EPA-designated (i.e., contract) 
laboratory, could report to systems, States, and EPA. As noted 
previously, EPA will report the data for small systems.
    As noted, the final rule is modified to require systems to report 
to EPA. EPA will require electronic reporting, unless some other format 
must be used for a particular system. This situation may be established 
in consultation with the State and described in subsequent guidance 
that EPA will prepare on the UCMR reporting process.
    One commenter also expressed the need for an electronic legal 
equivalency of a signed hard copy of a laboratory report. Since there 
is no requirement for electronic reporting of a signed laboratory 
report, EPA will not require an electronic legal equivalency. Systems 
may want a signed hard copy for their own records.
6. Can the laboratory to which I send samples report the results for 
me?
    This section states that a laboratory can report the sample 
results, so long as it provides the system with a copy for review and 
record keeping.
    The Agency was asked to clarify that it is the responsibility of 
the PWS owner/operator to report data to EPA, even if the laboratory 
reports the results. In response to comments, the rule wording has been 
clarified to stress that the PWS is responsible for reporting 
information and ensuring that the laboratory provides the results to 
EPA and the State.
7. Can I report previously collected data to meet the testing and 
reporting requirements for the contaminants in Sec. 141.40(a)(3)?
    This paragraph was added in response to many comments received 
requesting a provision for systems to report relevant unregulated 
contaminant data collected before implementation of today's rule, in 
lieu of allowing only UCMR data collected after the rule's effective 
date. The general consensus was that some large systems may already 
have monitored for or want to monitor before 2001 for these 
contaminants, especially if it fits within their monitoring cycle. This 
paragraph specifies that, as long as systems meet the requirements 
specified in Sec. 141.40(a)(3), (4), (5) and Appendix A for monitoring 
and in Sec. 141.35 (d) for reporting, the data collected before the 
effective date of this rule can be submitted to meet the testing and 
reporting requirements for the contaminants in Sec. 141.40(a)(3).

[[Page 50586]]

B. Section 141.40--Monitoring Requirements for Unregulated Contaminants

1. Requirements for Owners and Operators of Public Water Systems
(a) Do I have to monitor for unregulated contaminants?
    This section eliminates unregulated contaminant monitoring 
requirements for owners and operators of transient, non-community water 
systems. It also specifies the monitoring requirements for large 
systems that do and do not purchase their entire water supply from 
another system and for small systems selected for the program that do 
and do not purchase their entire water supply from other systems.
    Today's rule describes specific monitoring requirements for large 
and small systems that purchase their entire water supply from other 
systems. This is in response to the many commenters who indicated that 
PWSs using purchased water should be included in the UCMR for 
microbiological contaminants, or other contaminants that may arise in 
the distribution system. As a result, EPA modified the rule to require 
that water systems that purchase all of their water will be included in 
the UCMR for contaminants having distribution system sampling points.
(b) How would I be selected for the monitoring under the State 
Monitoring Plan, the screening survey, or the pre-screen testing?
    This section is basically unchanged from the proposed rule since 
commenters broadly supported the 3-tier approach to the monitoring 
program. It explains that only a representative sample of small 
systems, randomly selected by EPA, will be required to conduct 
assessment monitoring for unregulated contaminants as part of a State 
Monitoring Plan. A subset of these systems will be randomly selected as 
Index systems and required to submit additional information. Each State 
will have the opportunity to modify the list of selected systems.
(c) For which contaminants must I monitor?
    The Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring List is presented in this 
section. It comprises List 1, the chemical contaminants to be monitored 
under Assessment Monitoring; List 2, the chemical and microbiological 
contaminants to be monitored under the Screening Survey; and List 3, 
the chemical and microbiological contaminants to be monitored under 
Pre-Screen Testing.
    In response to many comments, today's rule makes changes in the 
contaminant lists as presented in the proposed rule. For List 1, the 
chemicals perchlorate and acetochlor are added and the microbiological 
contaminant Aeromonas is removed and moved to List 2. The analytical 
methods for perchlorate and acetochlor are reserved. The methods are 
expected to be ready in the near future, at which time, a rule revision 
will be published for comment and promulgated to ensure these 
contaminants can be monitored on or before January 2001. Nitrobenzene, 
also on List 1, has an approved method, but it requires careful 
implementation. Acetochlor (now on List 1) is removed from List 2, and 
RDX and the radionuclide polonium-210 are added to List 2. The sampling 
locations for List 1 and 2 contaminants are Entry Points to the 
Distribution System (EPTDS), except for Aeromonas and polonium-210, for 
which the sampling points are reserved until the methods are further 
validated and promulgated. The radionuclide lead-210 is added to List 
3. Sampling locations for the radionuclides and microogranisms are 
reserved, as are the dates for the period during which monitoring must 
be completed. These dates will be determined at a later time. To 
activate monitoring for the contaminants on Lists 2 and 3, the methods 
and related sampling requirements must be specified in future 
rulemaking revising this regulation.
    Many commenters indicated that it would be premature to include 
Aeromonas on List 1 since the specified method has not been 
sufficiently field tested. It was also suggested that the rule should 
be clear about its focus on Aeromonas the genus, not the species A. 
hydrophila.
    In response, EPA has moved Aeromonas to List 2. The CCL specifies 
Aeromonas hydrophila; however, the proposed analytical method 
identifies to the level of the Aeromonas hydrophila complex, which is a 
group of about 7 to 12 Aeromonas species. To identify to the species 
level would increase the cost and complexity of the analysis and, given 
funding considerations, would limit the size of the Aeromonas 
monitoring program that could be done. Given the cost of the analyses 
and how frequently Aeromonas has been found in previous finished water 
surveys, a panel of EPA scientists (CCL Microbiology Meeting, 
Cincinnati, OH, July 9, 1998) agreed that identifying to the Aeromonas 
hydrophila complex (rather than the species) level was adequate for the 
purpose of the UCMR. A final method has not yet been written for 
Aeromonas. The current draft analytical method for Aeromonas, draft EPA 
Method 1602, does not include verification tests since a final decision 
on the inclusion of verification tests into the method will be made 
after method validation studies. Since the method validation studies 
have not been completed, EPA has placed Aeromonas on List 2, to be 
monitored after the method is ready.
    In response to over 100 public comments and peer review 
considerations addressing the inclusion of perchlorate in the UCMR, EPA 
has added it to List 1. EPA did not originally propose monitoring for 
perchlorate under this portion of the regulation based on three general 
concerns: its apparent local/regional, rather than nationwide, 
occurrence at the time EPA assembled the monitoring list; current 
analytical methods do not adequately address potential interferences 
from chloride, sulfate or other dissolved solids; and no laboratories 
are certified for performing analyses using the methods for 
perchlorate. Based on many comments that showed perchlorate occurrence 
in many locations around the nation, EPA placed perchlorate on List 1. 
The analytical method for perchlorate is listed as ``reserved'' in the 
UCMR pending imminent conclusion of EPA refinement and review of the 
analytical method. Since EPA did not initially include a perchlorate 
analytical method in the proposal to this regulation, it will be 
necessary for EPA to issue an additional regulation to formally propose 
and promulgate a perchlorate analytical method prior to initiating 
monitoring for perchlorate under the UCMR.
    Therefore, following promulgation of the UCMR (including the 
``reserved'' perchlorate method reference), EPA will be proposing a new 
regulation specifying both the approved analytical method for the 
analyses of perchlorate, and the implementation of a laboratory 
approval system, where labs are certified to test for perchlorate. EPA 
is currently conducting analytical methods development to support the 
analyses of perchlorate. This new method will be based on the currently 
available ion chromatography methods, but will include a criteria 
detailing when a laboratory must perform a sample clean-up procedure to 
minimize the impact of elevated concentrations of chloride, sulfate or 
other dissolved solids. The laboratory approval system will be based 
upon previous certification of the laboratory for the analyses of 
compliance monitoring samples using

[[Page 50587]]

either EPA Method 300.0 or 300.1, and the successful analyses of a 
perchlorate performance evaluation sample.
    EPA asked for comment on and a few commenters recommended the 
addition of RDX (hexahydro-1,3,5-trinitro-1,3,5-triazine) to the UCMR. 
In response, EPA has placed RDX on List 2, as its method needs further 
refinement. EPA will propose and promulgate an analytical method for 
RDX prior to requiring monitoring for RDX under the UCMR.
    EPA also received comments suggesting that it move acetochlor, 2,4-
dichlorophenol and 2,4,6-trichlorophenol from List 2 to List 1, and 
require systems to use EPA Method 525.2 to analyze for acetochlor and 
either a new SPE/GC/MS method modified for EPA Method 525.2 or a 
modified EPA Method 552 to analyze for the phenols. EPA has moved 
acetochlor to List 1, since the analysis of acetochlor using EPA Method 
525.2 is expected to be approved prior to UCMR implementation. The 
evaluation of the use of EPA Method 525.2 will be finalized after 
acetochlor preservation studies have been completed. EPA will propose 
and promulgate an analytical method, likely EPA Method 525.2, for 
acetochlor prior to requiring monitoring for acetochlor under the UCMR.
    EPA did not move 2,4-dichlorophenol and 2,4,6-trichlorophenol to 
List 1 since the progress of method development for these contaminants 
is not equivalent to that of acetochlor. EPA has determined that the 
phenols are not compatible with EPA Method 525.2 and expects to require 
a separate SPE/GC/MS method currently under development. A modification 
to EPA Method 552 was also suggested. The suggested diazomethane 
modification to EPA Method 552 is not an option permitted in Method 552 
as an EPA approved method and must be evaluated, reviewed and approved 
before allowing it to be used as an EPA method.
    As noted in this comment, dichlorophenol and 2,4,6-trichlorophenol 
can only be analyzed using method 552, when the diazomethane used is 
sufficiently strong. This does not lead to the type of reproducibility 
needed to approve this method in a variety of analytical laboratories 
that may produce diazomethane of varying strengths. If the diazomethane 
is not as strong as that indicated in this comment, the recovery of 
dichlorophenol can drop to 10%. In addition, 2,4,6-trichlorophenol is 
subject to interferences caused by the derivatization product of 2,4-
dichlorophenol, regardless of the strength of the diazomethane. Method 
552 is not approved for the analyses of any other UCMR analytes. 
Therefore, use of Method 552 for these 2 compounds would then require 
the laboratory to use a separate method for the analyses of the other 
phenols included in the UCMR. Instead of requiring 2 methods for these 
analyses, EPA is currently conducting the method development necessary 
to provide a solid phase extraction GC/MS method, that does not require 
derivatization, for the analyses of all of the phenols included in the 
UCMR as well as other phenols not currently listed. This will provide a 
single solid phase extraction, GC/MS method for the analyses of all of 
the phenols included in the UCMR. Therefore, 2,4-dichlorophenol and 
2,4,6-trichlorophenol will remain on List 2.
    As suggested by several commenters, EPA has added polonium-210 and 
lead-210 to the UCMR Lists. New information indicates that methods for 
these contaminants may be easier to conduct than originally envisioned. 
However, EPA research and an external expert reviewer with experience 
with radionuclides note that the currently available methods for lead-
210 and polonium-210 may be very time consuming and will require an 
experienced analyst. There are also significant laboratory capacity and 
capability concerns. Few, if any, laboratories currently performing 
compliance drinking water radiochemistry have any experience with 
polonium-210 or particularly lead-210. The method for lead-210, in 
particular, needs further refinement. Therefore, EPA has added 
polonium-210 to List 2 and lead-210 to List 3. Before requiring 
monitoring for these contaminants, EPA will need to address issues 
related to radionuclide laboratory capacity and certification.
    The recommendation was also made that the Agency add EPA Method 
502.2 for the measurement of MTBE. Several public comments suggested 
that EPA Method 502.2 was reliable, and that if it is not added, then 
there could be added burden on PWSs using GC methods. EPA considered 
the commenters concerns; however, the Agency is not allowing the use of 
EPA Method 502.2 for MTBE. MTBE is not included in EPA Method 502.2 
because MTBE cannot be reliably measured by either of the detectors 
used in the method, and its stability has not been tested using the 
preservatives listed in that method.
    Some commenters also suggested the use of EPA 525.2 for 
nitrobenzene since they have problems using the methods listed in this 
regulation. Nitrobenzene will remain on List 1 with EPA Method 524.2, 
and voluntary consensus standard methods D5790-95 and SM6210D being 
approved for its analysis. However, the commenters are correct that 
some laboratories have had problems measuring nitrobenzene using these 
methods. When laboratories do not use the three stage trap listed in 
the method, nitrobenzene cannot be detected at reasonable 
concentrations in either standards or samples. Since they will 
therefore clearly fail the quality control requirements of the method, 
data will only be generated by laboratories that can provide useful 
data based on full method implementation. While the data provided by a 
commenter and confirmed by current EPA methods development research 
demonstrate that nitrobenzene can be analyzed using EPA Method 525.2, 
the preservation of nitrobenzene using Method 525.2 conditions has not 
been demonstrated. The methods development research needed to determine 
that nitrobenzene can be preserved using the sampling procedures 
specified in EPA Method 525.2 is currently being conducted. If 
nitrobenzene is compatible with this method's preservation 
requirements, then EPA will propose and promulgate an analytical method 
for nitrobenzene prior to requiring monitoring for nitrobenzene.
    As for the use of EPA Method 525.2 for the analyses of 
nitrobenzene, research recently conducted in the OGWDW laboratory 
clearly indicated that nitrobenzene cannot be accurately analyzed using 
Method 525.2. Recoveries of nitrobenzene were less then 10% when 
samples were extracted using the conditions specified in method 525.2. 
In conversations with the laboratory submitting this comment, EPA was 
informed that the data submitted in this comment was not developed 
using the procedures specified in EPA Method 525.2. In addition, no 
analyte stability data is available for the storage of nitrobenzene in 
samples preserved as specified in method 525.2 or in extracts generated 
using method 525.2. Therefore, EPA Method 525.2 will not be approved 
for the analyses of nitrobenzene.
    One commenter suggested that EPA Method 632 is a simple method with 
adequate sensitivity for measuring diuron and linuron. EPA Method 632 
is a modification of the National Pesticide Survey Method 4, which EPA 
has found is not reliable for diuron and linuron.
    One commenter requested that an HPLC method that can measure each 
of the two DCPA acid degradates separately be approved for their 
analyses. However, this method was published in a journal not by EPA or

[[Page 50588]]

any of the consensus methods organizations. This method, to the best of 
EPA's knowledge, is only being used in a limited number of laboratories 
and therefore has not had the level of validation necessary for use in 
this type of occurrence data gathering effort. In addition, since the 
methods that were approved measure the two DCPA degradates as a single 
analyte, approving a method that measures them differently would cause 
concern about data reporting and interpretation.
(d) What general monitoring requirements must I follow for List 1 
monitoring?
    This section specifies what is generally required of all systems 
participating in Assessment Monitoring. It also details additional 
monitoring requirements unique to large and to small systems.
    Several commenters expressed support for collecting routine water 
quality parameters (WQPs) and agreed that WQPs provide useful 
information and a solid framework within which to explain and 
understand monitoring results, especially for microbiological 
contaminants. Several did not believe that reporting or testing of WQPs 
is necessary, noting that WQPs are not routinely collected for all 
systems, and expressing particular concern that small ground water 
systems without treatment do not collect information on chlorine 
residuals.
    Water quality parameters are important for microbiological 
contaminants and may affect degradation of chemical contaminants. 
However, EPA is limiting the set of additional parameters, in response 
to comments. EPA is requiring reporting of additional parameters, as 
appropriate to the contaminant type, including pH, turbidity, 
temperature, and free and total disinfectant residuals. In addition, 
today's rule specifies the contaminant type and EPA Method, Standard 
Method, or other voluntary consensus standard that may be used to 
measure these parameters. Small ground water systems that do not 
disinfect would have no residuals to measure or report, so this will 
not be a burden. Furthermore, for small systems serving 10,000 or fewer 
persons, EPA will pay for the testing of these water quality parameters 
as part of the testing program for unregulated contaminants.
    The monitoring requirements for large systems remain unchanged from 
the proposed rule. Text covering small systems has been clarified (1) 
to indicate that the State may inform small systems of sampling 
arrangements other than those listed in this section, (2) that EPA-
designated laboratories will provide sampling equipment, and (3) the 
EPA will specify sample collection times.
    It was suggested that the Agency use total trihalomethane (TTHM) 
monitoring sites for the microbiological contaminants. In general, 
commenters requested that more explicit designations be given for 
microbiological sampling sites. EPA has noted that it expects that 
system specific sites of normal and maximum residence time and normal 
and lowest chlorine residual will be designated when revisions to this 
final rule are made for contaminants of concern in distribution 
systems. These sites have been designated for other rules, related to 
total coliform and total trihalomethane/disinfectant byproduct 
sampling. Further, EPA will propose and promulgate appropriate 
monitoring sites for microbiological contaminants prior to requiring 
monitoring for Aeromonas and other contaminants of interest in 
distribution systems. The TTHM monitoring sites may be appropriate and, 
if so, will be included in the future rulemaking.
(e) What specific sampling and quality control requirements must I 
follow for monitoring of List 1 contaminants?
    This section details the requirements for all systems, including 
sample collection, shipping time and reviewing and reporting results. 
It also prohibits compositing samples. Also provided in this section 
are requirements unique to large and small PWSs that are part of the 
State Monitoring Plan.
    Today's text has been clarified to indicate that the State or EPA 
may inform all systems of sampling arrangements other than those 
specified in the rule. Other changes from the proposed rule related to 
large systems include clarifications on the frequency of sampling for 
chemical and microbiological contaminants conducted by surface water 
and ground water systems, as well as expanded information on sampling 
locations.
    Regarding small systems that are part of a State Monitoring Plan, 
today's rule notes that the State or EPA may inform the system of 
sampling arrangements other than those specified in the proposed rule. 
It also notes that EPA's laboratory will send additional instructions 
for sampling if the first sampling event was not properly conducted.
(i) All systems
    Overall requirements for all systems relative to (A) sample 
collection and shipping time, (B) no compositing of samples, and (C) 
review and reporting of results were not changed from the proposed to 
final rule.
(ii) Large systems
    Specific sampling requirements for large systems are in this 
section.
(A) Timeframe
    One commenter indicated that EPA should adapt the UCMR process to 
the 3-year compliance monitoring cycle. The rule already states that 
coordination with the 3-year compliance monitoring cycle is 
appropriate.
(B) Frequency
    Many commenters were concerned that requiring ground water samples 
6 months apart was not flexible enough to accommodate other monitoring 
schedules. Several commenters also suggested that systems using 
groundwater only be required to collect one sample per year because 
ground water systems do not vary much in water quality.
    EPA has modified the rule to provide flexibility to the system to 
pick one of the three months in the vulnerable time and then one of 
three months 5 to 7 months earlier or later than the vulnerable time. 
This schedule should preserve the longer time between ground water 
samples desired for calculating an average annual concentration for 
exposure assessment.
    EPA will maintain the two samples for ground water systems. Ground 
water systems encompass a wide range of conditions and many utilize 
unconfined settings that do exhibit temporal variability. To assess 
exposure from a one-year sampling activity, most experts EPA consulted 
and most stakeholders agreed that the program must try to capture the 
range of contaminant concentrations that occur to ensure 
representativeness of the results over time nationally. Two samples are 
the minimum to estimate an average exposure; one sample will be 
targeted toward the season of elevated concentrations (the vulnerable 
monitoring time). Many experts and reviewers suggested more frequent 
sampling, but the current design was deemed a reasonable compromise 
between data needs and burden. The UCMR frequency adds one additional 
sample over five years for a ground water site, not one every year. 
While some systems may not exhibit much variability, and some deep 
systems may not exhibit any synthetic contaminants, the UCMR must 
include the full range of water system conditions to develop an 
accurate estimate of national occurrence and exposure. Additionally, 
with the UCMR monitoring being

[[Page 50589]]

coordinated with compliance monitoring (to the extent possible), 
approximately one-third of systems affected by the rule will monitor 
each year. Therefore, UCMR Assessment Monitoring is expected to be 
conducted over a range of hydrologic patterns.
    This wide range of ground water conditions also effects the nature 
of vulnerable periods. Some ground water systems show clear seasonal 
patterns, some show different scale of variability, and some show no 
variations (for some types of contaminants). For these new 
contaminants, EPA set a default vulnerable period (May, June, or July) 
that would fit the majority of vulnerable seasonal patterns around the 
United States. Expert technical reviewers and stakeholders concurred 
with this period. However, the State can specify a different period, 
based on their knowledge of local conditions. EPA decided not to allow 
systems to establish vulnerable periods because of the need for 
national consistency to support a sound statistical approach. Allowing 
each system to establish a vulnerable time would introduce significant 
variability in the program implementation, contrary to the consistency 
basis of the statistical approach for an unbiased sample. EPA decided 
that flexibility at the State level to select an alternate vulnerable 
monitoring time was the maximum allowable variability that should be 
incorporated into the implementation of the program.
(C) Location
    A few commenters suggested that EPA allow source water monitoring, 
particularly in States where source water monitoring is used as a more 
stringent location for compliance monitoring. In related comments, the 
Agency was asked to provide further information about entry points to 
the distribution system (EPTDS), particularly with respect to 
groundwater systems with multiple wellhead and/or using multiple 
aquifers, suggesting that representative samples might be collected 
instead of from every entry point.
    The sampling location for chemical contaminants is given on List 1 
as the EPTDS and is now further defined to include the compliance 
monitoring point specified by the State or EPA under 40 CFR Part 141. 
In implementing compliance monitoring, the States and EPA have made 
determinations of where representative samples are collected, and this 
rule will incorporate these determinations and be consistent with 
ongoing monitoring. However, if the compliance monitoring point 
specified by the State is a source (raw) water site, and a UCMR 
contaminant is detected, then sampling must be conducted at the EPTDS 
unless the State or EPA determines that no treatment or processing was 
in place that would affect the measurement of the contaminants. In that 
case, the additional sampling at the EPTDS would not be required.
(D) Sampling instructions
    This section did not change and EPA did not receive any comments on 
it.
(E) Testing and analytical methods
    Several commenters raised questions about the process for 
laboratory certification under the rule. As noted in the rule, 
laboratories are automatically certified for the analysis of UCMR 
chemicals if they are already certified to conduct compliance 
monitoring for a chemical included in the same method being approved 
for UCMR analysis. Since the Standard Methods, ASTM, and AOAC methods 
approved in the UCMR use the same technology as the EPA method listed 
for the same analyte, laboratories certified for compliance monitoring 
using the EPA method may also use any of these methods approved for the 
same analyte. As the method to be used for the analysis of perchlorate 
will be based upon the currently available single analyte methods for 
the analysis of perchlorate, EPA will need to conduct a performance 
evaluation study of labs to approve them for perchlorate monitoring 
before January 2001. Details of this approval system will be included 
in a public notice and comment period prior to conducting approval for 
perchlorate analysis.
(F) Sampling deviations
    This section did not change and EPA did not receive any comments on 
it.
(G) Testing
    This section did not change and EPA did not receive any comments on 
it.
(iii) Small systems that are part of the State Monitoring Plan
    In the Preamble of the proposed rule, EPA asked for public comment 
on whether a random selection of small systems across the nation was 
appropriate for a representative sample of small systems or a targeted 
sampling approach based on prior information about contaminant 
occurrence or use should be applied. Most commenters, and particularly 
expert technical reviewers, addressing this issue supported the random 
selection of systems as an unbiased, scientifically sound approach.
    EPA determined after consulting statisticians inside and outside 
EPA that a targeted approach would increase sampling errors unless the 
sample size is increased. A random sample is necessary to provide small 
system data roughly equivalent to large system data. Further 
stratification could introduce non-random sampling errors unless the 
sample size is increased. Targeted monitoring may also miss the target 
area if little is known about the actual location of use of a 
contaminant or if the contaminant is used beyond the specified target 
area. Additionally, surface waters will carry contaminants beyond the 
target area to surface water supplied drinking water systems downstream 
that need to be considered for UCMR monitoring. Also, targeting would 
be very difficult with the number of contaminants the UCMR is designed 
to measure. Finally, stratified sampling also requires extensive 
knowledge about a variety of factors beyond the fate and transport of a 
contaminant in the environment.
(A) Frequency
    Comments and EPA response were addressed under (ii) Large Systems, 
above.
(B) Location
    Comments and EPA response were addressed under (ii) Large Systems, 
above.
(C) Sampling deviations
    State commenters asked about resampling if sampling errors 
occurred. EPA modified this paragraph to include provisions for 
resampling using additional instructions from the State or EPA.
(D) Sample kits
    No comments were received on this section. It is unchanged.
(E) Sampling instructions
    States indicated that some flexibility was needed within a month's 
timeframe to accommodate changes in sampling schedules that could not 
be accounted for up-front. In response, EPA changed the specifications. 
The State Plan will specify the year and day, plus or minus 2 weeks, to 
allow flexibility and/or to account for changes related to the State's 
determination of an alternate vulnerable sampling period. The State may 
pick another year and day to coincide with compliance monitoring.
(F) Duplicate samples
    No comments were received on this section. It is unchanged.

[[Page 50590]]

(G) Sampling forms
    No comments were received on this section. It is unchanged.
(H) Sample submission
    At least ten States expressed concerns about the ability of small 
system owner/operators to properly collect samples for UCMR 
requirements, which would, therefore, affect the quality of the UCMR 
results. These States suggested that they could collect UCMR samples 
for systems in the State Monitoring Plans since, in most States, the 
number of small systems would be limited, and some of them already 
conduct compliance field sampling for small systems.
    The rule allows for States to sample. States can address field 
sampling in their Memorandum of Agreement between the State and EPA. 
EPA would welcome the assistance of States in collecting samples from 
small systems to ensure high quality data for future decisions 
concerning whether or not to regulate unregulated contaminants.
(f) What additional requirements must I follow if my system is selected 
as an Index system?
    This section explains that systems selected as Index systems must 
help EPA or the State identify appropriate sampling locations and 
provide information on the wells and intakes that are in use at the 
time of sampling, on well casing and screen depths (if known) for those 
wells, and the pumping rate of each well or intake at the time of 
sampling. However, EPA will provide field technical support to collect 
samples at index systems and assist the systems with compilation of 
this information, as well as reporting these data.
    Comments were supportive and no substantive changes were made to 
this section.
(g) What must I do if my system is selected for the Screening Survey or 
Pre-Screen Testing?
    This section explains what is required of large and small systems 
selected to participate in the Screening Survey or in Pre-Screen 
Testing. Today's rule notes that large systems must report test results 
to States and EPA. EPA will be developing guidance for this reporting 
process.
(h) What is a violation of this rule?
    EPA added a new Sec. 141.40(a)(8) that clarifies violations of this 
rule. This clarification will help public water systems understand the 
consequences of a failure to monitor. The changes state that any 
failure to monitor or report will be a monitoring or reporting 
violation.
2. Requirements for State and Tribal Participation
(a) How can I as the director of a State or Tribal drinking water 
program participate in unregulated contaminant monitoring, including 
the State Monitoring Plan for small systems, and the Screening Survey 
and Pre-Screen Testing of all systems?
    Today's final rule incorporates a variety of changes from the 
proposed rule in response to public comments. Many comments were 
received requesting that EPA directly implement the UCMR, rather than 
require States to obtain primacy. In response to these comments, 
adoption of this rule is no longer a condition of maintaining PWS 
primacy. EPA will proceed with direct implementation. However, EPA 
recognizes the important role of the States in this program and has 
modified the rule to encourage States and EPA to enter into Memoranda 
of Agreement (MOA) to facilitate State participation and 
implementation. EPA also recognizes that, in the absence of the option 
for an MOA, the three-tier monitoring approach of the UCMR would 
require States to apply for primacy revisions under this program three 
separate times (separately for each of the three lists) over five 
years; moreover, the primacy application period extends beyond the 
start of monitoring for each of the three tiers. Through the MOA, EPA 
and the State may also address other aspects of this final rule's 
implementation, including compliance tracking and enforcement.
    This section explains that the director of a State or Tribal 
drinking water program can complete an MOA with EPA that describes the 
State's or Tribe's activities in accepting or modifying the initial 
monitoring plan, determining an alternative vulnerable time for 
sampling, modifying the timing of monitoring, identifying sampling 
points for small systems, notifying large and small systems of their 
monitoring responsibilities, providing instructions to systems that are 
part of the State Monitoring Plan, and participating in the Screening 
Survey and Pre-Screen Testing.
    Regarding the initial plan, EPA will specify the small systems, 
rather than just their number, and the year and day plus or minus two 
weeks--rather than the week, month, and year in the proposed rule--that 
each small system must monitor for List 1 contaminants. A State can 
request that a system which purchases all its water from another 
system, as clarified in today's rule, be removed from the initial 
monitoring list, except if it is required to monitor for contaminants 
in the distribution system.
    Public comments also suggested that States be allowed to remove 
systems from the monitoring list for justifiable and compelling 
reasons. States may remove systems from the plan if the systems have 
closed, merged, or purchase all of their water from another system. 
However, in response to comments, purchased water systems may be 
selected to monitor contaminants in the distribution system, since 
purchased water systems tend to have locations furthest from the 
treatment plant. In these cases, they would be added to the plan as 
sampling points in the distribution system for the systems first 
selected. In a change from the proposed rule, States may now remove 
systems from the list for other reasons, subject to review by EPA, as 
long as the decision to remove systems from the list is not based on 
contaminant occurrence, non-occurrence, or potential vulnerability of a 
system to a contaminant. Not removing systems based on prior or 
presumed information about contaminants preserves the statistical 
principle of an unbiased sample.
    A State must explain in the State Plan sent to EPA why it believes 
a system should be removed, but the final decision rests with EPA, as 
EPA is responsible for ensuring the integrity of the national 
representative sample.
    Systems are expected to monitor between May 1 and July 31, as the 
default vulnerable period, but today's rule allows a State to determine 
if there is a different period when any of the small systems in the 
initial plan, or any of the large systems that must monitor, are more 
vulnerable to contamination. If so, a State must notify the affected 
systems of when they are to take samples. If a State changes the 
vulnerable time for monitoring, the rule now indicates, in response to 
comments, that the State should also consider that the effects on 
modifying the timing of monitoring. The States would notify EPA of 
their determination through the submission of their revised Plan to 
EPA.
    The proposed rule required States to provide EPA with plans for 
notifying each PWS selected in the initial or modified monitoring plan 
of their responsibilities and to provide them with instructions for 
monitoring. Under today's rule, establishing the State role of 
informing systems of their responsibilities is part of the State-EPA 
MOA.

[[Page 50591]]

    As was the case under the proposed rule, a State entering an MOA 
with EPA must provide instructions to systems that are part of the 
State Monitoring Plan implementation; EPA will provide guidance on the 
instructions. Today's final rule adds new language requiring a State to 
inform EPA at least 6 months before the first monitoring is to occur if 
the State plans to do the sampling or to make alternative arrangements 
for the sampling at systems in the plan. The State also must address 
the alternative monitoring arrangements in the MOA with EPA. These 
alternative monitoring arrangements could include the State sampling at 
small systems, a change from, but not precluded in, the proposed rule.
    Today's rule enables States, through a State-EPA MOA, to 
participate in Screening Survey monitoring by small systems as well as 
large systems. To participate, a State must review its State Monitoring 
Plan to ensure that no systems have closed, merged, or purchase water 
from other systems (unless the system is to conduct microbiological 
monitoring) and then make any necessary changes. States also must 
notify selected systems of the Screening Survey requirements.
    Under today's rule, States may participate in Pre-Screen Testing in 
two ways. First, within 60 days of receiving EPA's letter concerning 
the initiation of Pre-Screen Testing for specific contaminants, a 
participating State must identify between 5 and 25 systems determined 
to be representative of the systems most vulnerable to the List 3 
contaminants. Second, if Pre-Screen Testing is part of the MOA, a State 
now must notify each selected system's owner or operator of the Pre-
Screen Testing requirements.
    Today's rule also notes that if a State decides not to prepare an 
MOA with EPA to develop the State Monitoring Plan for small systems, 
the initial plan provided by EPA will become the State Monitoring Plan 
for a State or Tribe. Under the proposed rule, the initial plan became 
the State plan if a State did not accept the initial plan or submit a 
request to EPA to modify the initial plan within 60 days.
    A commenter raised concerns about whether Tribal systems would be 
selected in a random manner to avoid bias toward selecting vulnerable 
systems. EPA will select Tribal systems at random. The rule treats 
Tribal systems the same as other systems with equal probability of 
selection.
    A commenter was concerned about who would inform systems of their 
responsibility to monitor. As noted above, the State still plays a 
critical role in the successful implementation of the program, 
including informing the systems. If the State elects not to enter into 
an MOA, EPA will inform systems of their responsibilities.
    Several commenters asked whether States should review List 2 
systems in the representative sample at a later date to check the 
status of the systems prior to the Screening Survey. A provision has 
been made for later State review of List 2 systems in the State Plan to 
check system status that may have changed since the initial review.
(b) What if I decide not to enter into an MOA?
    This is a new section not included in the proposed rule, although 
it responds to the previous recognition in the proposed rule that a 
State may not desire to engage in the process of preparing a State 
Monitoring Plan. This section indicates that EPA will carry out the 
functions that the State could have conducted.
(c) Can I add contaminants to the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring 
List?
    This section explains how seven or more State governors can 
petition the EPA Administrator to add one or more contaminants to the 
Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring List.
    Except for the numbering of this subsection, it is unchanged from 
the proposed rule.
(d) Can I waive monitoring requirements?
    This section explains that monitoring requirements can be waived 
only with EPA approval and only under very limited conditions.
    Except for the numbering of this subsection, it is unchanged from 
the proposed rule.
    A few commenters inquired as to whether EPA would allow individual 
systems to be waived from monitoring. The statute only provides for 
State-wide waivers.

C. Appendix A--Quality Control Requirements for Testing All Samples 
Collected Under Sec. 141.40

    This appendix specifies the requirements that a system must follow 
to control the quality of samples collected and submitted under 
Sec. 141.40. Areas covered are sample collection/preservation, method 
detection limit, calibration, reagent blank analysis, quality control 
sample, matrix spike and duplicate, internal standard calibration, 
method performance test, detection confirmation, and reporting.
    In response to public comments, a few minor technical modifications 
have been made to the Appendix, modifying specifications for 
calibration, matrix spikes and matrix spike duplicates, and the number 
of significant digits specified for MRLs.

D. Section 142.15--Reports by States

    Section 142.15(c)(3) is replaced in its entirety by the term 
``Reserved'' in today's final regulation because States will not go 
through a primacy revision process but may be reviewing the data for 
quality control purposes before EPA places them in the NCOD. The 
wording in the proposed rule is, therefore, not included.

E. Section 142.16--Special Primacy Requirements

    Section 142.16(e) is revised to delete references to Sec. 141.40 
that are no longer relevant.

VIII. General Issues From Public Comment and EPA Response

    Several additional issues were raised during the technical peer 
review and public comment processes. They are summarized and addressed 
next.

A. Data Quality

    One commenter indicated that data quality objectives should 
determine confidence bounds for occurrence and exposure estimates and 
that resulting DQOs should be maintained for all system sizes. Many 
data quality specifications, such as confidence levels for the 
representative sample, are presented in F., Representative sample of 
systems serving 10,000 persons or fewer. EPA will publish other Data 
Quality Objectives for the UCMR in the Quality Assurance Project Plan 
for the program.
    Commenters indicated that EPA should give balanced attention to 
both false negatives and false positives in establishing analytical 
methods and quality control procedures for the contaminants on the UCMR 
List. The Agency has evaluated analytical methods developed by both EPA 
and other voluntary consensus standards organizations that publish 
analytical methods, such as Standard Methods and the American Society 
for Testing and Materials. The Agency has not approved analytical 
methods published only in analytical journals or methods that use 
techniques that cannot routinely be used by all drinking water analysis 
laboratories (e.g., acid, base/neutral fractionation, or packed column 
gas chromatography). Because control of ``false negatives'' is 
essential to the quality of the data collected under this

[[Page 50592]]

final regulation, documentation of the contaminants' stability under 
the sample and extract holding conditions specified in the analytical 
method were also evaluated.

B. EPA Funding for Small System Testing

    Commenters were concerned about small system testing for which EPA 
is to pay the costs. They suggested that if there is reduced funding, 
then EPA should reduce the list, sampling frequency or number of 
systems sampled. EPA currently has sufficient funds for this rule. If 
for some reason, funds are reduced, EPA will consider a range of 
options to respond to this circumstance, but in all cases would ensure 
that the rule would not impose a significant economic impact on small 
entities.

C. Lab Certification

    Commenters were concerned that EPA needs to identify steps and 
procedures necessary to maintain certification for unregulated 
contaminant analysis and clarify how States are to certify laboratories 
in time for implementation of the rule. EPA will maintain the process 
for laboratory certification as it is. The rule provides an automatic 
certification of laboratories that are certified for the same methods 
applied to at least one other contaminant. No separate certification is 
required under the current UCMR.

D. Research

    Commenters indicated that EPA should commit research funds for 
Aeromonas and preservation process studies. EPA is developing a 
detailed research agenda with its Office of Research and Development in 
support of the contaminants on the CCL.

E. Regulation Format

    Some State commenters indicated that they may not be able to 
incorporate this regulation by reference because it is in question-and-
answer format. EPA is no longer requiring States to have primacy to 
implement the UCMR, so the States will not have to incorporate the UCMR 
into their regulations. However, States will still be able to 
participate in the State Monitoring Plan as specified in a Memorandum 
of Agreement between the State and EPA.

F. Voluntary Data Submittal

    One commenter indicated that EPA should encourage voluntary source 
water data if standardized methods were utilized to substantiate 
treatment needs. EPA will pursue obtaining data from other reliable 
sources since additional data will help inform decision processes. 
Source water data are available from other agencies.

IX. Other Changes Related to the Regulation

A. Implementation of the Rule

    Implementation issues addressed in today's final rule include 
setting an effective date, instituting a memorandum of agreement (MOA) 
process with interested States; establishing the laboratory testing 
program; continuing research on methods development; determining the 
representative national sample and associated State Plans; conducting 
the sampling, analysis, and reporting; and allowing previously 
collected monitoring data. The UCMR program, as revised by today's 
final rule, is illustrated in Figure 1, ``Unregulated Contaminant 
Monitoring Approach.'' A critical part of this program is funding the 
testing of samples from the national representative sample of small 
systems.

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

[[Page 50593]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17SE99.002



BILLING CODE 6560-50-C

[[Page 50594]]

1. Setting an Effective Date
    EPA has testing methods which are expected to give reliable and 
reproducible results for 10 of the contaminants on the UCMR Monitoring 
List to be tested for under Assessment Monitoring. These methods are 
widely used in the drinking water industry, although not necessarily 
for the listed contaminants. Testing for these contaminants, and other 
information about them, will help EPA determine whether to regulate 
them. Results of the UCMR testing should be available before the next 
revision of the CCL, in February 2003. Additionally, prior to 
initiation of the monitoring resulting from this rule, EPA must 
establish laboratory analysis contracts with laboratories that will do 
the testing and associated activities (including setting up a database 
and electronic reporting process) establish Memoranda of Agreement with 
States to implement the rule, and develop the national representative 
sample and send each State its allocation for review. Therefore, EPA 
has set January 1, 2001, as the effective date of the UCMR program, 
approximately16 months from the promulgation of this final rule. 
Shortly after this rule is promulgated, EPA will issue another 
rulemaking for public comment to add methods for perchlorate and 
acetochlor which were not previously on List 1. This action will allow 
these contaminants to be tested in 2001 and may allow data collected 
prior to the effective date to be used to meet the requirements of this 
final rule.
    The 16-month period will enable States to enter into MOAs with EPA 
to provide support for the implementation of this final rule, to review 
the initial State Monitoring Plans, and to inform small PWSs of their 
selection and their responsibilities for monitoring. EPA will use this 
time to establish its laboratory program to test samples from small 
systems. Analytical methods are already in use for the contaminants to 
be tested for under Assessment Monitoring, so 16 months should be 
sufficient for laboratories that serve large systems to organize and 
implement the testing program, especially given the assistance provided 
by the methods and quality control manual. EPA is working to ensure 
that the manual and the contaminant occurrence reporting guidance 
documents are available to allow the program's implementation at that 
time. The requirements for small systems and the sampling and quality 
control procedures for all systems are specified in Sec. 141.40(a)(3), 
(4), and (5) and in Appendix A. Figure 2 shows the timing of the major 
components and activities supporting the UCMR program.

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

[[Page 50595]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17SE99.003



BILLING CODE 6560-50-C

[[Page 50596]]

2. Analytical Methods for the Testing Program
    The required methods are identified in today's rule at 
Sec. 141.40(a)(3), Table 1, ``Assessment Monitoring.'' Additional 
sampling and quality control requirements can be found in 
Sec. 141.40(a)(4) and (5) and in Appendix A. Large systems are required 
to follow the methods and procedures in Sec. 141.40(a)(3), (4), (5) and 
Appendix A. Laboratories that test samples from small systems will also 
have to comply with Sec. 141.40(a)(3), (4), (5), and Appendix A.
    EPA has prepared guidance documents to help large systems organize 
and conduct their unregulated contaminant testing programs. The 
Agency's draft sampling guidance, ``UCMR Guidance for Operators of 
Systems Serving 10,000 or Fewer Persons'' provides details on sampling 
requirements. The Agency's ``Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring 
Regulation Analytical Methods and Quality Control Manual'' provides 
detailed guidance on specific method requirements related to the 
unregulated contaminants on the monitoring list and on quality control 
for all testing under this program.
3. Testing Program for Large Systems
    Implementation of today's rule will result in Assessment Monitoring 
for List 1 contaminants only (including perchlorate and acetochlor, for 
which methods will be addressed in a separate rulemaking shortly). 
Analytical methods are in use for these contaminants, and EPA plans to 
review laboratories' procedures for their testing during Assessment 
Monitoring because of this program's stringent data-quality 
requirements.
    The Agency anticipates that the contaminants on List 2, for the 
Screening Survey, may be monitored during the 5-year listing cycle 
through a separate rulemaking. EPA will select a statistically valid 
random sample of about 150 large systems to provide samples to a 
limited number of EPA-approved laboratories. The Agency's approval will 
depend on a variety of factors, including its evaluation of (1) 
laboratory capability, (2) test results of blind samples, (3) 
experience with similar methodologies, (4) willingness to accept 
samples from any PWS required to monitor under this regulation, and (5) 
provision of the testing for List 2 (and List 3) contaminants at a 
reasonable cost to large systems required to monitor.
    Large systems selected for the Screening Survey (or Pre-Screen 
Testing for List 3 contaminants) will be notified by the State or EPA 
before the dates established for collecting and submitting samples to 
determine the presence of contaminants on List 2. For List 2 and 3 
contaminants, large systems must send samples to laboratories approved 
by EPA.
4. Testing Program for Small Systems
    Based on a competitive selection process, EPA will designate one to 
five laboratories that will test Assessment Monitoring samples from 
approximately 800 small systems in the State Monitoring Plans and, from 
the index systems, over the program's 5-year cycle. The laboratories 
will need to be able to provide all necessary sampling equipment to 
these systems, complete yet easy-to-follow instructions on the 
equipment's use, and appropriate sample preservation and testing 
services. They also will have to report electronically the test results 
to EPA and, in an alternate format specified by EPA if necessary, the 
PWSs, and provide a copy to the States, according to the reporting 
requirements of today's rule.
    EPA will review and evaluate laboratory procedures to ensure that 
sufficient testing and data quality standards are met. Today's 
requirements and the final ``UCMR Analytical Methods and Quality 
Control Manual'' would be part of the testing contracts that EPA 
expects to sign with the selected laboratories.
    Once a future rule is finalized to implement the Screening Survey 
for List 2 contaminants, EPA will select a statistically valid random 
sample of 150 small systems to provide samples during the two to three 
years in the middle of the 5-year cycle. The laboratories that test for 
List 1 contaminants for small systems will also test for contaminants 
on List 2.
5. Continued Development of Analytical Methods
    EPA has yet to establish analytical methods for List 2 and List 3 
contaminants that can be used widely and at reasonable cost. The Agency 
is establishing, through its Office of Research and Development, a 
research program to identify such methods. As analytical methods for 
the List 2 and List 3 contaminants are developed, EPA will propose and 
promulgate them as a revision to today's rule and solicit public 
comments on them. In addition to specifying the analytical methods to 
be used, these future revisions will establish sampling locations, 
minimum reporting levels applicable to the contaminants, and the dates 
sampling is to occur.
6. Determining the Representative National Sample and State Monitoring 
Plans
    EPA requires only a representative sample of up to 800 small 
systems to monitor for the presence of unregulated contaminants in 
their drinking water. No later than 6 months prior to the start of 
Assessment Monitoring, EPA will identify, through a statistical 
selection process using a random number generator, up to 800 small 
systems (from approximately 65,600 community and non-transient non-
community water systems) and at least 800 alternate systems in case 
replacements are needed. Each system will have an approximately equal 
chance of being selected based on its source water type (ground water 
or surface water) and size category (25 to 500, 501 to 3,300, or 3,301 
to 10,000 persons served). EPA will notify each State, tribe, and 
territory of the selected systems or the systems themselves (i.e., the 
initial State Monitoring Plan) and the alternates within its 
jurisdiction.
    Each State, tribe and territory can enter into a Memorandum of 
Agreement (MOA) with EPA to participate in the monitoring program, 
which will include development and implementation of the State 
Monitoring Plan. Each State, Tribe, and Territory will have 60 days to 
review its initial plan and (1) accept the plan as its State Monitoring 
Plan and inform EPA of that; (2) propose to EPA deletions from and 
additions to the initial plan, and explain the reasons for the changes, 
in order to create the State Monitoring Plan; or (3) choose not to 
participate in an MOA to develop the State Monitoring Plan, in which 
case, the initial plan sent to the State will become the final State 
Monitoring Plan.
    A State, Tribe, or Territory that chooses option 1 or 2 must also 
inform EPA of how and when it will notify the selected systems of their 
responsibilities for monitoring, along with any necessary modifications 
to the timing of sampling related to vulnerable period determinations 
or to coordinate with compliance monitoring, at the State's discretion. 
A State may also choose an alternative ``most vulnerable time'' for its 
systems to sample if systems are most vulnerable to contamination by 
unregulated contaminants during a period other than May through July, 
as specified in today's rule. States that choose option 3 may still 
elect to notify the selected systems and provide the necessary 
information about their monitoring responsibilities as long as EPA is 
notified 6 months prior to the

[[Page 50597]]

first unregulated contaminant monitoring.
    The systems randomly chosen by EPA to be index systems will also be 
specified in each State's initial plan. Any required replacements for 
the index systems will come from a list of randomly selected alternates 
included in the plan. EPA expects to provide, through the laboratories 
selected to test for unregulated contaminants, contractor support in 
collecting, shipping, and testing samples and in gathering additional 
information to support these index systems.
    The Agency's procedures for selecting index systems is described in 
a technical document, ``National Representative Sample and State Plans 
for Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring at Public Water Systems Serving 
10,000 or Fewer Persons.''
    Although monitoring for List 2 contaminants is not required by 
today's rule, EPA will provide with the initial State Monitoring Plans 
a list of systems that would monitor for List 2 contaminants once a 
future rule implementing the Screening Survey is promulgated. The 
Agency will select randomly about 180 small systems and 120 large 
systems when it prepares the initial plans. States will review these 
systems at the same time they review their initial plans. EPA believes 
that the analytical methods for List 2 contaminants will be ready for 
use during the first 3 years of the 5-year listing cycle and that the 
Screening Survey will be undertaken during that period.
    For the Pre-Screen Testing, each State may specify 5 to 25 systems 
that are representative of systems most vulnerable to the contaminants 
on List 3. EPA will determine the exact number of systems to be 
selected in each State based on the population served by community and 
non-transient non-community water systems. Each State must add to its 
monitoring plan any small systems selected for Pre-Screen Testing and 
will notify EPA of their addition.
7. Specifying the Vulnerable Monitoring Period
    Each State may modify the vulnerable monitoring period specified in 
Sec. 141.40(a)(5)(ii)(B) for a single system, a group of systems, or 
all systems selected to perform monitoring. In changing the vulnerable 
period, the State may consider environmental, precipitation, and 
system-specific factors. For small systems in the State Monitoring 
Plan, changes in the vulnerable time must be included in the Plan.
8. Conducting the Sampling
    All selected systems must monitor for the unregulated contaminants 
on List 1 and should coordinate, at State discretion and to the extent 
practical, with their compliance monitoring schedule for regulated 
chemicals. For small systems in State Monitoring Plans, States may also 
select an alternative year and day, plus or minus two weeks, within the 
3 year monitoring time frame for Assessment Monitoring as long as 
approximately one-third of the systems in the State Monitoring Plan 
monitor in each year of the 3 year period. Surface water-supplied 
systems must monitor for chemical contaminants every 3 months during a 
12-month period, and ground water-supplied systems must monitor for 
them once approximately every 6 months during a 12-month period of 
every 5-year testing cycle beginning in the years indicated in column 6 
of UCMR Table 1, List 1, Sec. 141.40(a)(3). One sample must be taken at 
each post-treatment distribution system entry point or other 
representative sampling point designated by the State for compliance 
monitoring under 40 CFR 141.24(f) representing all principal, non-
emergency water sources in use during the 12-month period, or at each 
distribution sampling point, during May to July unless the State 
identifies a period when one, some, or all of its systems are more 
vulnerable to contamination by List 1 chemicals.
    For microbiological contaminants, a PWS must monitor at a site in 
the distribution system that represents the water supplied to the 
system's customers and at a site in the distribution system that has 
the maximum residence time or lowest disinfectant residual, depending 
on the contaminant. This also would apply to PWS that purchase their 
water supply from another system. One set of samples must be taken 
during the system's most vulnerable time, defined as May 1 through July 
31 in today's final rule, or at a time designated by the State as the 
must vulnerable period, and another set of samples must be taken 
approximately 5-7 months before or after.
    The 5-year unregulated contaminant listing cycle can be coordinated 
with the 3-year compliance monitoring schedule by starting the next 5-
year monitoring round in January 2001 and taking UCM samples when 
compliance sampling is performed, regardless of where the 3-year cycle 
is in a particular State. Sampling in the rest of the State would occur 
during the next 2 years, following the State's compliance monitoring 
schedule. Even though a system is not sampled for regulated 
contaminants during the 5-year UCMR listing cycle, it may be required 
to monitor for unregulated contaminants during that time.
9. Establishing Sampling Points
    Today's rule specifies that sampling must be done at entry points 
to the distribution system, or at sampling points designated by the 
State to be representative compliance monitoring sites under 40 CFR 
141.24 (f)(1), (2), or (3). For systems that are required to monitor 
source (raw) water for compliance purposes, the UCMR program 
accommodates these compliance sites in the following way: If sampling 
and testing at source water compliance sampling points results in 
detection of any UCMR List 1 contaminants, then Assessment Monitoring 
must shift to entry points to the distribution system for unregulated 
contaminants unless there is no treatment.
10. Large Systems
    For Assessment Monitoring, large systems will follow the sampling 
requirements in Sec. 141.40. They are explained further in the draft 
methods and quality control manual.
11. Systems in State Monitoring Plans
    EPA's ``UCMR Guidance for Operators of Public Water Systems Serving 
10,000 or Fewer Persons'' explains the responsibilities of PWSs that 
are part of the representative sample and State Monitoring Plan. It 
also explains further the requirements for operators of small systems, 
which are found at Sec. 141.40(a)(3), (4), (5) and Appendix A, and 
addresses sampling including frequency and location, receipt and use of 
sampling equipment, shipping samples to laboratories, reviewing the 
results, and reporting. States can use the guidance to give monitoring 
schedules and instructions to systems when informing them of their 
responsibility to participate in the representative sample and State 
Monitoring Plan.
    Small systems that are part of a State Monitoring Plan must sample 
at the locations specified in the regulation, similar to the other 
systems described previously. EPA will inform the competitively 
selected laboratories about which systems are included in the State 
Monitoring Plans and should therefore receive sampling equipment.
    Ten percent of the systems in the State Monitoring Plans will be 
randomly selected to collect duplicate samples for quality control 
purposes. These samples will be collected using the same

[[Page 50598]]

procedures as those for the first sample collection.
12. Screening Survey
    The Screening Survey is not part of today's rule. Today's rule only 
publishes the UCMR (1999) List 2 contaminants that systems will monitor 
for once the necessary analytical methods are developed, peer reviewed, 
proposed, and promulgated. When the methods are ready, EPA will issue a 
rule requiring large and small PWSs to collect water samples and submit 
them for testing to determine the presence of specified contaminants. 
EPA will pay for the shipping and testing of samples collected by small 
systems in State Monitoring Plans.
13. Pre-Screen Testing
    Except for publishing the List 3 contaminants as part of the 
revised UCMR (1999) list, Pre-Screen Testing is not part of today's 
rule. Once analytical methods for these contaminants are developed, 
peer reviewed, proposed and promulgated. EPA will promulgate a rule 
specifying the sample locations and dates, analytical methods to be 
used, and minimum reporting levels.
    Pre-Screen Testing will be a limited sampling and testing effort, 
conducted under controlled conditions. EPA will ask States to identify, 
within 90 days of the request, 5 to 25 large and small systems 
vulnerable to List 3 contaminants so that EPA will have a national set 
of up to 200 systems to collect samples. The Agency intends to use the 
results of this testing to determine whether a more representative 
monitoring effort should be made through Assessment Monitoring or a 
Screening Survey. Although the samples will come from the most 
vulnerable systems in the country'and not from a statistically valid, 
randomly selected group of systems'EPA could decide to regulate one or 
more of the List 3 contaminants if monitoring and other available 
information shows a clear and present threat to public health.
    Persons taking samples to be tested for certain contaminants may 
require specific training and skills to ensure the integrity of the 
samples. In such cases, EPA may contract for sampling services, and the 
PWS owner/operator would be required only to provide access to the 
sampling locations.
    The Agency will pay for shipping and testing samples from small 
systems participating in the Pre-Screen Testing. EPA will forward 
testing results for review by the PWSs and States before posting them 
on the NCOD where the public can access them. Large systems will pay 
for sampling, shipping, and testing at EPA-approved laboratories, and 
they will report the results to EPA and provide a copy to the State. 
EPA will enter the data into the NCOD.
14. Testing
    As explained previously, EPA has prepared a methods and quality 
control manual for taking samples and analyzing them for contaminants 
on the monitoring list. The manual covers the requirements found in 
Sec. 141.40(a)(3), (4), and (5) and Appendix A. EPA will make the 
manual available to systems, States and other interested parties in 
hard copy and on the Internet. Laboratories testing for unregulated 
contaminants at the request of PWSs will need to follow the 
requirements of Sec. 141.40 and Appendix A. EPA plans to establish a 
program to review methods implementation and performance of the 
participating laboratories.
    For small PWSs in State Monitoring Plans, EPA will identify through 
competitive bids one to five laboratories that will test their water 
samples for the presence of unregulated contaminants. The Agency is 
doing this so it can pay for the testing of samples from small PWSs. 
Later this year, EPA will seek bids from laboratories that wish to be 
considered for this effort. The first samples are expected to be 
available for testing after January 1, 2001.
    For large systems required to test for contaminants on Lists 2 and 
3, EPA will open a process to approve on a competitive basis, a limited 
number of laboratories for these analyses. This approval process will 
occur as EPA specifies methods for Lists 2 and 3 contaminants.
15. Reporting Requirements
    The results of contaminant testing will have to be reported along 
with the 17 data elements identified in today's rule. Inventory data 
about systems (including PWS facility identification numbers allowing 
association of treatment plants to sampling points, and latitude and 
longitude of treatment plants) reported by States will be addressed 
separately in Safe Drinking Water Information System Inventory 
Reporting Requirements. PWSs are responsible for reporting 
electronically to EPA, unless EPA specifies alternative reporting 
requirements, such as a standard paper form that can be electronically 
scanned to make the data available in electronic format for computer 
storage, retrieval, and use. The PWSs must also provide a copy of the 
results to their States.
    Small systems listed in State Monitoring Plans and large systems 
will have to report five data elements to the laboratory testing its 
samples: PWS identification number; PWS facility identification number 
for source (intake, well or wellfield), treatment plant, and sampling 
points; water source type; sample identification number; and sample 
collection date. The remaining data elements will be provided by the 
laboratory. If systems have not previously reported PWS facility 
identification number for sources, treatment plants and sampling points 
prior to their first UCMR report, then they must do so at the time of 
the first report. This information must be reported so that each 
sampling point used for UCMR sampling must be able to be associated 
with its treatment plant(s) and source(s) in use at the time the 
sampling occurred.
    For systems demonstrating that they are not able to report 
electronically, EPA may specify an alternative reporting format that 
will allow EPA to enter the system's data into the National Drinking 
Water Contaminant Occurrence Database. EPA will use the ``Unregulated 
Contaminant Monitoring Reporting Guidance'' to guide the development of 
this alternative reporting format.
16. Record Keeping
    Today's rule does not change PWSs' responsibility for keeping 
records of data from unregulated contaminant monitoring, which are 
presented in Sec. 141.33, for PWSs.
17. Previously Collected Data
    Public water systems that have previously collected data on List 1 
may submit this information. However, this data must meet the specific 
testing and reporting requirements as described in today's final rule.
18. Modifying the Monitoring List
    As required under SDWA Section 1445, EPA will modify the 
Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring List, Table 1, every 5 years to 
include the contaminants of greatest concern at that time. If EPA still 
requires additional data for some previously listed contaminants, they 
may remain on the list. Within each 5-year listing cycle, EPA will also 
modify the monitoring list to include the analytical methods for Lists 
2 and 3 contaminants and their related sampling requirements. These 
modifications will occur through future rulemaking, with opportunity 
for public comment.
    Funding for Testing of Samples for Systems in State Monitoring 
Plans and for Pre-Screen Testing. EPA will pay the cost of testing 
samples taken from small

[[Page 50599]]

systems pursuant to a State Monitoring Plan. These payments will be 
made directly to EPA-approved laboratories that meet the requirements 
of Sec. 141.40(a)(3), (4), (5), and Appendix A, which are further 
described in the methods and quality control manual. The Agency expects 
to minimize costs of testing and take advantage of economies of scale 
through this approach, rather than reimbursing 800 systems for 
analytical costs at up to 800 different laboratories. Administrative 
costs will be less with this approach and contracted testing costs for 
a larger volume of samples should be less.
    Two funding sources are available to pay for testing of these small 
system samples to carry out the provisions of SDWA Section 
1445(a)(2)(C). Since FY 1998, EPA has been required to reserve annually 
$2 million from funds appropriated for the Drinking Water State 
Revolving Fund (DWSRF) to pay for unregulated contaminant testing. SDWA 
Section 1445(a)(2)(H) authorizes $10 million each year through FY 2003 
to carry out all aspects of the UCMR program, including paying to test 
samples from small systems under State Monitoring Plans. Currently, $2 
million from the DWSRF set-aside for FY 1998 and FY 1999 are available 
to support unregulated contaminant monitoring for small systems. EPA 
will use this set-aside in future years to pay for this testing and for 
the testing of samples drawn from small systems participating in the 
Screening Survey and Pre-Screen Testing. If funding for the UCMR 
program changes, however, EPA will need to consider how to accommodate 
reduced funding. The Agency could, for example, recalculate the 
representative sample size to a lower confidence level commensurate 
with available resources.

B. Implementation in Indian Country

    Several provisions of this rule apply to State governments, and 
this preamble section clarifies how they will apply in Indian country.
    As explained earlier, EPA intends to include all small systems in 
Indian country in a single, separate group. Like small systems in each 
State, small systems anywhere in Indian country may be selected at 
random to participate in the UCM program. EPA will not, however, notify 
the State of the systems selected and allow the State to select 
alternatives for systems that have closed, merged, or that purchase 
their water from other systems. Instead, EPA will contact the 
appropriate tribal governments for that purpose. The resulting group of 
systems will compose the single ``State Plan'' for Indian country. The 
EPA will notify selected systems of their UCMR responsibilities.
    Tribes with ``treatment as a State'' status may enter into an MOA 
with EPA to provide support in implementing the UCMR for small systems 
monitoring plans. For systems on tribal lands of Tribes not having 
``treatment as a State'' status, EPA will serve as the point of contact 
with the system and will implement the UCMR with the tribe. In either 
case, the steps of implementation would be the same as those described 
previously.

C. Performance-based Measurement System

    EPA's Office of Water plans to implement a performance-based 
measurement system (PBMS) that would allow the option of using either 
performance criteria or reference methods in its drinking water 
regulatory programs, removing the requirement that only EPA-specified 
and approved analytical methods be used in SDWA regulatory programs. 
The requirement to use approved methods for SDWA regulatory programs 
would, however, be maintained for certain method-defined analytes 
(e.g., Total Coliform and asbestos), and for data gathering prospective 
to regulation, such as the contaminant monitoring in this rule.
    As noted above, many of the contaminants of interest for the 
Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring (UCM) program can be classified as 
``emerging'' and thus do not have existing performance criteria or 
reference methods. In addition to collecting information about 
contaminant occurrence, the UCM program will enable the development of 
reference methods and performance criteria. UCM testing will provide 
data to assist the Agency in developing performance criteria that would 
be proposed with the MCL, monitoring requirements, etc. for an analyte. 
For these reasons, the Agency is specifying the method to be used for 
UCM testing. Once, however, a contaminant proceeds to regulation 
development as an NPDWR, EPA expects to have sufficient data and method 
development information to be able to propose both performance criteria 
and a validated reference method, either of which could be used for 
compliance monitoring of the contaminant.

X. Guidance Manuals

    EPA will provide a guidance manual to further explain the quality 
control measures that laboratories will need to perform for all 
unregulated contaminant monitoring. For systems that are part of State 
Plans for representative samples, the sampling guidance, ``UCMR 
Guidance for Operators of Public Water Systems Serving 10,000 or Fewer 
Persons'', will be available. Commenters asked for additional time to 
review the guidances for implementing this regulation. EPA will provide 
additional time for review and comment on the guidances: (1) UCMR 
Guidance for Operators of Public Water Systems Serving 10,000 or Fewer 
Persons; (2) UCMR Integrated Guidance; (3) UCMR Reporting Guidance; (4) 
Contaminant Selection, Methods, and Sampling: Technical Background 
Information for the UCMR. The guidance and manual ``UCMR Analytical 
Methods and Quality Control Manual'' and ``National Representative 
Sample of Small Public Water Systems: Statistical Design and State 
Plans for the UCMR'' will be available through the EPA Safe Drinking 
Water Hotline at 800-426-4791, or through EPA's Office of Ground Water 
and Drinking Water Homepage at www.epa.gov/safewater at the time of 
promulgation of this rule. EPA would apply these same testing and 
quality control procedures to the samples of all monitored systems. 
These final procedures are discussed in more detail in Section D. 
``Monitoring Requirements Under the Final UCMR''.

XI. Costs and Benefits of the Rule

A. Program Cost Estimates

    Today's final rule requires that only Assessment Monitoring for 
List 1 contaminants (12 chemical contaminants) be conducted over a 3-
year period by all 2,774 large PWSs and a randomly selected 
representative sample of 800 small systems. Perchlorate and acetochlor 
monitoring will be activated under List 1 shortly after today's rule, 
by a separate regulation that will add the methods for those 
contaminants. Monitoring for contaminants on Lists 2 and 3 will wait 
until EPA promulgates rules to initiate the Screening Survey and Pre-
Screen Testing.
    Labor costs pertain to systems, State primacy agencies, and EPA. 
They include activities such as reading the regulation, notifying 
systems selected to participate, sample collection, reporting, record 
keeping, and data analysis.
    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. The Agency also 
will incur non-labor costs in procuring services to conduct quality 
assurance surveys at contract laboratories and in collecting

[[Page 50600]]

samples at a select number of Index systems.
    Laboratory analysis accounts for almost 70 percent of the national 
cost for a program such as this one. These costs generally are 
calculated as follows: the number of systems multiplied by the number 
of sampling points is multiplied by the sampling frequency and then 
multiplied by the cost of laboratory analysis. (This calculation is 
repeated for each separate analytical method). Shipping is added to the 
calculated costs to derive the total direct analytical non-labor costs. 
Instead of assuming that large systems will pay the full analytical 
costs for Assessment Monitoring, EPA assumes they will pay smaller 
``incremental'' analytical costs because UCMR monitoring will coincide 
with ongoing Phase II/V compliance monitoring. In some cases, UCMR 
analyses use the laboratory analytical methods required for ongoing 
compliance monitoring. Therefore, when unregulated contaminant 
monitoring and Phase II/V monitoring are conducted concurrently, only 
incremental fees are charged for the analysis of additional UCMR 
compounds. Of course, if analyzing samples for some unregulated 
contaminants requires testing methods that are not currently in use, no 
cost savings can be realized. Note that, since the methods for 
perchlorate and acetochlor have a ``Reserved'' status in this rule 
promulgation, costs for these contaminants will be estimated when the 
rule revisions for these methods are published.
    The details of EPA's cost assumptions and estimates can be found in 
the Information Collection Request (ICR) prepared for this rule (ICR 
No. 1882.01), which presents estimated costs and burden for the 1999-
2001 period. It was sent to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 
on April 15, 1999. A background cost document, ``Burden and Cost 
Calculation for the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation,'' is 
attached as an appendix to the ICR. It presents the total and the 
estimated annual cost and burden for the final rule's first 5-year 
cycle (from 2001 to 2005). Some of the costs EPA estimated are 
associated with program start-up and may not recur in future monitoring 
cycles. Although some of these start-up costs might be incurred before 
2001, they are included and averaged as part of the 5-year program 
costs to simplify the calculations; systems will incur costs only 
during the 5-year monitoring cycle. Copies of the ICR may be obtained 
from Sandy Farmer by mail at: Office of Policy Regulatory Information 
Division; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2137); 401 M St., S.W.; 
Washington, DC 20460, by email at: [email protected], or by calling: 
(202) 260-2740. A copy may also be downloaded from the Internet at: 
http://www.epa.gov/icr.
    In preparing the UCMR ICR, EPA relied on standard assumptions and 
data sources used in the preparation of other drinking water program 
ICRs. These include the public water system inventory, number of entry 
points per system, and labor rates. To estimate the labor burden for 
State and some system activities, the Agency used its standard State 
Resource Model, which is documented in the Resource Analysis Computer 
Program for State Drinking Water Agencies (January 1993). Other 
assumptions are discussed next.
1. Assumptions: Assessment Monitoring
    EPA's estimated cost of Assessment Monitoring is based on the 
following assumptions:
     Surface water systems will sample 4 times during 1 year 
and ground water systems will sample twice during 1 year in the 5-year 
UCMR program cycle.
     EPA will pay the testing costs for the representative 
sample of 800 small systems, which will be performed by selected 
laboratories.
     Large systems will pay for their own testing, which will 
be performed by laboratories of their choice (in accordance with UCMR 
program quality control requirements).
     All systems will, to the extent practical, conduct their 
chemical sampling along with their standard compliance monitoring to 
reduce labor burden and analytical costs where possible.
    In addition, various quality assurance and quality control measures 
(e.g., 10 percent duplicate samples from the representative systems) 
will be in effect. Water samples also will be taken from a group of 30 
small ``Index systems'' (a subset of the national representative sample 
of small systems) during all 5 years of the monitoring cycle to assess 
any trends in temporal occurrence, other data variability, or program 
problems.
2. Estimated Average Annual Cost for 5-Year Program: Assessment 
Monitoring Only
    EPA estimates that the average annual cost of nationwide Assessment 
Monitoring is approximately $8.4 million, as follows:
     EPA: $3.1 million, including $2.0 million in testing costs 
for small systems.
     States: $461,500.
     Small systems: $16,440.
     Large systems: $4.8 million.
    The estimated average annual cost (labor plus non-labor) is 
approximately $21 per participating small system and $1,735 per large 
system.
    These average annual costs do not represent the peak costs expected 
to be encountered during program implementation. Most of the 
monitoring, and hence most of the costs, are expected to occur over a 
3-year period, allowing for follow-up work and data review, reporting, 
and analysis. EPA's peak year costs (during the 3 core years of 
Assessment Monitoring primarily for the representative sample) are 
estimated to be $3.6 million for Assessment Monitoring. Peak year costs 
for large systems are projected to be about $8.0 million for Assessment 
Monitoring.

B. Estimated Net Costs

    EPA estimated the UCMR program's net cost by comparing the new 
program costs, with the estimated costs of the unrevised program (i.e., 
the baseline costs). The standard labor rates and activities used to 
estimate the new program costs were also used to determine the baseline 
costs, and the same water inventory numbers were used for the 
comparison. A simplifying assumption with respect to the baseline'that 
all systems serving more than 500 persons monitor during the same 5-
year interval--was also made.
    The Agency also had to address several differences between the two 
programs. The regulation replaced by today's rule did not require 
systems serving 150 or fewer service connections to monitor for 
unregulated contaminants unless requested to do so by the State. Data 
in the drinking water program information system suggest that State 
required about one-third of the systems serving 500 or fewer people to 
monitor; thus one-third of systems serving 150 or fewer service 
connections were included in EPA's baseline estimates.
    Another significant difference between the previous program and the 
new one is the list of contaminants for which monitoring is required. 
The previous regulations required monitoring for 48 chemicals included 
in Table 1 of the Proposed Rule Preamble (64 FR 23401). (Although 
monitoring for 14 of the chemicals was discretionary, their associated 
costs were derived from the analytical method required for the other 
unregulated contaminants and the regulated volatile organic compounds 
[VOCs]. Consequently, they do not make a substantive difference in the 
cost estimates.) Although the previous program required monitoring for 
more

[[Page 50601]]

contaminants than does the program implemented by today's final rule, 
monitoring requirements of the previous UCMR program were derived from 
fewer analytical methods, and all were derived from standard methods 
used for routine compliance samples. Hence, the analytical costs were 
relatively lower.
    Given the above assumptions and full implementation over 5 years, 
the revised UCMR program will save small drinking water systems an 
estimated $35.8 million over the estimated baseline. The annual costs 
for each small system participating in unregulated contaminant 
monitoring are reduced an estimated $190. Small systems will realize 
this saving because, unlike the previous program, the new program does 
not require any of them to pay for the analysis of water samples to 
determine the presence of unregulated contaminants. Only small systems 
chosen for the representative national sample will incur any costs, and 
they will be labor costs only.
    Under the UCMR Assessment Monitoring program, large systems will 
face a $10.2 million increase in costs, primarily from the increase in 
laboratory analytical costs. Average annual large system costs are 
estimated to increase by approximately $730 under the new UCMR program.
    EPA estimated the baseline costs to the States at $7.5 million over 
the 2001-2005 monitoring cycle, plus year 2000 start-up costs. Total 
estimated saving to States under the revised UCMR program is an 
estimated $5.2 million. This saving will be primarily in labor costs 
because the States will have oversight interactions with only 800 small 
water systems, far fewer than previously were involved in unregulated 
contaminant monitoring.
    EPA estimated that it would have cost the Agency $1.9 million to 
run the previous monitoring program over the 2001-2005 monitoring 
period, plus start-up costs. The Agency's costs are estimated to almost 
double under the revised Assessment Monitoring program primarily 
because it will fund sample shipment and analysis for small systems.
    The cost reductions also can be attributed to the ``Suspension of 
Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Requirements for Small Public Water 
Systems (Direct Final Rule),'' which was published in the Federal 
Register on January 8, 1999. It suspended the requirement for small 
systems to perform another round of monitoring for unregulated 
contaminants because it would have overlapped with the revised UCMR 
program. Approximately two-thirds of the systems between 3,300 and 
10,000 persons will save the cost of monitoring in 1999 and 2000 by the 
action of the Direct Final Rule, resulting in a savings of about $5.3 
million for these systems.

C. Benefits

    Today's rule significantly reduces burden, especially for small 
water systems. The original UCMR program, initiated in 1988, required 
all community water systems (CWSs) to monitor for 48 contaminants. 
States could waive the requirement for systems serving 150 or fewer 
service connections, although these systems had to be available for 
monitoring under the regulation. Analysis of the first round of data, 
from 1988 to 1993, indicates that well over 25,000 PWSs were involved 
in the original monitoring program. The revised program will involve 
only 3,574 to 3,724 systems: 2,774 large systems and up to 800 small 
systems.
    The systems that will be regulated under today's rule will monitor 
for fewer contaminants than was the case under the original UCMR 
program. EPA will pay the small systems' costs of testing, keeping 
their burden to a minimum and limiting it to collecting the samples and 
contacting a shipping service to pick them up for delivery to a 
laboratory. The Agency also will manage the laboratory testing program 
for these systems, minimizing the time they interact with the 
laboratories. The laboratories contracted by EPA to perform the 
analyses also will provide electronic reporting services for small 
systems that lack this capability. Consequently, the costs borne by the 
selected 800 systems will be substantially reduced under the revised 
program.
    Regarding the full UCMR program, cost savings can be attributed to 
the use of a small sample of small and large systems in the Screening 
Surveys and Pre-Screen Testing. The two Screening Surveys of 300 
systems each and the Pre-Screen Testing of up to 200 systems will allow 
statistically valid, targeted approaches to be applied to emerging 
contaminants. These early screening efforts will help EPA determine 
whether contaminants are already in public water systems and whether 
they should be monitored for in the subsequent 5-year monitoring cycle. 
This approach--rather than requiring Assessment Monitoring for all 30 
contaminants at all monitored systems--is projected to save large water 
systems and EPA more than $50 million in annual Assessment Monitoring 
costs.
    State burden also will be reduced. A substantial portion of State 
burden depends on the number of systems that a State must manage. 
Although the revised UCMR program introduces some new elements, fewer 
systems are involved so State oversight activity (e.g., system 
notification and record keeping) will be reduced.
    Today's final rule increases the number of data elements that must 
be reported from 12 to 17. These data must be reported with each sample 
to make the monitoring data more useful for analysis. However, the 
additional burden on systems is minimal, because most of the data 
elements will be reported to EPA by laboratories which already 
routinely record many of them.
    The long-term benefits of the revised UCMR program are:
     Contaminants whose occurrence in drinking or source water 
is not widespread will be identified early, which will enable 
evaluations and decisions to minimize further the monitoring and 
resources that would otherwise be committed to those contaminants.
     Contaminants whose occurrence in drinking water is 
widespread will trigger additional research on health effects and 
treatment as soon as practical to protect the health of sensitive 
persons.
     The use of a representative sample of small systems (which 
comprise the majority of PWSs) can provide a scientifically sound, 
statistically valid data set that can be used for improved analysis and 
program decisions at reduced cost.

XII. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866--Regulatory Planning and Review

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the 
Agency must determine whether a regulatory action is ``significant'' 
and therefore subject to OMB review and the requirements of the 
Executive Order. The Order defines ``significant regulatory action'' as 
one that is likely to result in a rule that may:
    (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or 
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the 
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public 
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or 
communities;
    (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an 
action taken or planned by another agency;
    (3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, 
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients 
thereof; or

[[Page 50602]]

    (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal 
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in 
the Executive Order.
    It has been determined that this rule is not a ``significant 
regulatory action'' under the terms of Executive Order 12866 and is 
therefore not subject to OMB review.

B. Executive Order 13045--Protection of Children From Environmental 
Health Risks 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 E.O. 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 rule is not subject to E.O. 13045 because it is not 
``economically significant'' as defined under E.O. 12866. Further, EPA 
interprets E.O. 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that 
are based on health or safety risks, such that the analysis required 
under section 5-501 of the Order has the potential to influence the 
regulation. This final rule is not subject to E.O. 13045 because it 
does not establish an environmental standard intended to mitigate 
health or safety risks. For the most part, this rule establishes 
procedures for monitoring of unregulated contaminants on the Agency's 
CCL. Given EPA's interest in protecting children's health, however, as 
part of the provisions in the rule allowing State governors and Indian 
tribes to petition EPA to add contaminants to the Unregulated 
Contaminant Monitoring List, EPA asks them specifically to include any 
information that might be available regarding disproportional risks to 
the health or safety of children. Such information would help inform 
EPA's decision making regarding future lists.
    This final rule is part of the Agency's overall strategy for 
deciding whether to regulate the contaminants on the CCL (63 FR 10273). 
Its purpose 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 occurrence and health effects data to decide 
whether to regulate any of these contaminants.

C. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Pub L. 
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 UMRA section 202, 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 a rule for which a written statement is 
needed, UMRA section 205 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 
UMRA section 203 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 for the 
private sector in any one year. Total annual costs of today's rule for 
State, local, and Tribal governments and the private sector, are 
estimated to be $7.3 million, of which EPA will pay $2.0 million, or 27 
percent. Thus, today's rule is not subject to the requirements of UMRA 
sections 202 and 205.
    EPA has determined that this rule contains no regulatory 
requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small 
governments because EPA will pay for the reasonable costs of sample 
testing for the small PWSs required to sample and test for unregulated 
contaminants under this rule, including those owned and operated by 
small governments. The only costs that small systems will pay are the 
costs attributed to (1) the labor associated with reading the 
regulations, guidance, and instructions to implement the monitoring 
requirements, (2) collecting the samples and packing them for shipping 
to the laboratory (EPA will pay for shipping), and (3) reporting and 
record keeping. These costs are not significant. Thus, today's rule is 
not subject to the requirements of UMRA section 203.

D. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The Office of Management and Budget (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 2040-0208. An Information Collection 
Request (ICR) document which presents estimated costs and burdens for 
the 1999-2001 period has been prepared by EPA (ICR No. 1882.02). A 
background cost document, ``Burden and Cost Calculations for the 
Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation,'' is attached as an 
appendix to the ICR and presents the estimated costs and burdens for 
the first 5-year cycle of the final rule. A copy of these may be 
obtained from Sandy Farmer by mail at OP Regulatory Information 
Division; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2137); 401 M St., S.W.; 
Washington, DC 20460; by email at: [email protected]; or by calling: 
(202) 260-2740. A copy may also be downloaded from the Internet at:
http://www.epa.gov/icr.
    The information to be collected under today's rule is to fulfill 
the statutory requirements of section 1445(a)(2) of the Safe Drinking 
Water Act, as amended in 1996. The data to be collected will describe 
the source water, location, and test results for samples taken from 
PWSs. The concentrations of any identified UCMR contaminants will be 
evaluated regarding health effects and will be considered for future 
regulations accordingly. Reporting is mandatory. The data are not 
subject to confidentiality protection.
    Burden is defined as the total time, effort, or financial resources 
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain,

[[Page 50603]]

or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This 
includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, 
install, and use technology and systems to collect, validate, verify, 
process, maintain, disclose, and provide 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.
    The annual burden and cost estimates described below are for the 
implementation assumptions put forth in this Rule, which includes only 
the Assessment Monitoring component of the UCMR Program. For Assessment 
Monitoring, the respondents are 800 small water systems (in the 
national representative sample of systems serving 10,000 or fewer 
people), 2,774 large public water systems, and 56 States and primacy 
agents (3,630 total respondents). The frequency of response varies 
across respondents and years. System costs (particularly laboratory 
analytical costs) vary depending on the number of entry or sampling 
points.
    For the three-year ICR period 1999-2001, small systems will sample 
and report an average of 2.7 times for the entire period. The burden 
for small systems is estimated to be an average of 1.5 hours annually 
per system, with an annual cost of $31. Large systems will sample and 
report an average of 2.9 times for the entire period, and are estimated 
to have a 3.3 hour per system annual burden, with a labor cost of $93 
per year. Non-labor costs per year for these systems is estimated at 
$2,798 per system. On average, States are assumed to report quarterly 
during each UCMR implementation year. It is estimated that each State 
will incur 141 hours of burden per year, with an annual labor cost of 
$5,647 for the ICR period 1999-2001. Non-labor costs for States were 
assumed to be minimal, with 10 percent of the States incurring a one-
time $25,000 contractor cost for the optional upgrading of their 
drinking water databases; an average of $833 per year per State for the 
ICR period. In aggregate, the average respondent (i.e., small systems, 
large systems, and the States) incurs an average annual burden of 9.0 
hours and a labor plus non-labor cost of $2,400. Because the actual 
implementation period of the UCMR does not begin until 2001, most of 
the costs presented here occur during that year. Average annual costs 
reflect the fact that the UCMR program implementation only overlaps 
with one of the three ICR years (1999-2001).
    The burden and cost per response for the three ICR years for 
Assessment Monitoring are estimated to be 1.7 hour burden at $35 per 
response for small systems; 3.4 hours at $95 for labor and $2,847 in 
analytical costs for large systems; and 52.9 hours at $2,116 for labor 
for States. In aggregate, the average response (i.e., responses from 
small systems, large systems, and the States) is associated with a 
burden of 8.7 hours, with a labor plus non-labor cost of $2,213 per 
response over the three-year ICR period.
    Over the ICR period, the Agency is estimated to incur an annual 
burden of 9,150 hours, with an average annual cost for labor of 
$366,000. Non-labor costs for EPA, which are primarily comprised of the 
analytical and shipping costs for representative set of small systems, 
and other contractor costs, are estimated at $1.3 million per year over 
the period 1999-2001. Non-labor costs are primarily attributed to the 
cost of sample testing for small systems.
    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 on its ICR. The OMB control numbers 
for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR Part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter 
15. EPA is amending the table in 40 CFR Part 9 of currently approved 
ICR control numbers issued by OMB for various regulations to list the 
information requirements contained in the final rule.

E. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., 
as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act 
(SBREFA), EPA generally is required to conduct a regulatory flexibility 
analysis describing the impact of the regulatory action on small 
entities as part of rulemaking. However, under section 605(b) of the 
RFA, if EPA certifies that the rule will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, the Agency 
is not required to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis. Pursuant 
to RFA section 605(b), 5 U.S.C. 605(b) and for the reasons set forth 
below, I certify that this rule will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    For purposes of RFA analyses for SDWA rulemakings, the Agency 
defines small entities as 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. This 
alternative definition was established for all drinking water rules in 
the Consumer Confidence Reports rulemaking (63 FR 44511-44536 [August 
19, 1998]). EPA also consulted with the Small Business Administration 
about the alternative definition as it relates to small businesses. For 
further information on the establishment of this definition of small 
entities, see the referenced Federal Register notice.
    EPA has determined that the UCMR will affect small water utilities, 
since it is applicable to a subset of small community and non-transient 
noncommunity water systems. However, the affected systems are limited 
to a representative sample of approximately 800 small PWSs, or 1.2 
percent of systems serving 10,000 or fewer persons. These systems will 
be required to conduct monitoring, as specified in the UCMR (i.e., 
collect and prepare samples for shipping). EPA will assume all costs 
for testing of the samples and for shipping the samples from these 
systems to certified laboratories throughout the United States. EPA has 
set aside $2 million from the DWSRF in Fiscal Years 1998 and 1999, and 
plans to do so into the future with its authority to set aside DWSRF 
monies to implement this SDWA provision.
    EPA has estimated the impact of today's rule and concludes that the 
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities. The rationale for this conclusion is that EPA 
plans to pay the full costs of shipping and testing samples for small 
systems and does not plan, under any scenario, to ask systems to pay 
these costs. (The costs to these systems will be limited to the labor 
hours associated with collecting a sample and preparing it for 
shipping.)
    EPA evaluated the cost to small entities under two scenarios. Under 
either scenario, EPA will assume the cost of shipping and testing 
samples for small systems. The ``full implementation'' scenario assumes 
full funding from the DWSRF set-aside through the year 2005, with the 
full Assessment Monitoring program being implemented. The ``limited 
implementation'' scenario assumes that EPA will pay for testing with 
the funds already set aside for this program. Under either scenario, 
this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities, and EPA certifies that fact. Cost summaries 
for both scenarios are provided below.

[[Page 50604]]

1. Full Assessment Monitoring Implementation Scenario
    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. EPA 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. The estimated distribution of the 
representative sample, categorized by ownership type, source water, and 
system size, is presented below in Table 5.

        Table 5.--Number of Publicly and Privately Owned Systems To Participate in Assessment Monitoring
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Publicly owned systems          Privately owned systems
                                -----------------------------------------------------------------   Total--all
         Size category              Non-index                       Non-index                         systems
                                     systems      Index systems      systems      Index systems
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground Water Systems:
    500 and under..............              20               1              76               2               99
    501 to 3,300...............             146               6              67               3              222
    3,301 to 10,000............             144               7              40               2              193
                                --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Subtotal...............             310              14             183               7              514
                                ================================================================================
Surface Water Systems:
    500 and under..............              18               0              49               0               67
    501 to 3,300...............              51               2              23               1               77
    3,301 to 10,000............             106               5              30               1              142
                                --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Subtotal...............             175               7             102               2              286
                                ================================================================================
        Total..................             485              21             285               9              800
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The basis for the UCMR RFA certification under full Assessment 
Monitoring program implementation is as follows: the average annual 
compliance costs of the rule represent less than 1 percent of revenues/
sales for the 800 small water systems that will be affected. The EPA 
estimates that EPA and system costs for implementing small system 
sampling for the full UCMR Assessment Monitoring program (2001-2005) 
will be approximately $10.2 million. Since the Agency specifically 
structured the rule to avoid significantly affecting a substantial 
number of small entities by assuming all costs for laboratory analyses, 
shipping, and quality control for small entities, EPA costs comprise 
approximately 99 percent ($10.1 million) of the total costs. (Note that 
EPA's contribution to the small system program is assumed to include 
all small system analytical and shipping costs, as well as all non-
labor program support costs.) Table 6 presents the annual costs to 
small systems and to EPA for the small system sampling program, along 
with the number of participating small systems during each of the 5 
years of the program.

                              Table 6.--EPA Costs for Small Systems Under Full Implementation of UCMR Assessment Monitoring
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       Cost description \1\                             2001          2002          2003          2004           2005           Total
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Costs to EPA for Small System Program: quality assurance, ongoing     $3,317,970    $2,647,790    $2,617,790      $856,890       $648,440    $10,088,880
 coordination, data analysis, analytical costs, shipping costs,
 and costs for contractor site visits to small Index systems \2\..
Costs to Small Systems: additional labor for monitoring or                26,796        25,840        25,840         1,861          1,861         82,198
 monitoring assistance............................................
                                                                   -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total Costs to EPA and Small Systems for UCMR...............     3,924,769     2,993,810     3,053,630     1,338,752      1,150,297     10,171,078
                                                                   =====================================================================================
Number of Systems to be Monitoring each Year:
  Non-Index and Index in 2001-2003, Index only in 2004-2005 \3\
    Public........................................................           182           182           182           107             21            533
    Private.......................................................           104           104           104            81              9            267
                                                                   -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total.......................................................           286           286           286           188             30           800
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ AM = Assessment Monitoring.
\2\ EPA costs during the year 2001 include some start-up costs that may actually be incurred during the year 2000.
\3\ Total number of systems is 800. All 30 Index systems sample during each year 2001-2005. One-third of Non-Index systems sample during each year from
  2001-2003. The rows do not add across, because the same 30 Index systems sample during every year of 5-year implementation cycle.


[[Page 50605]]

    System costs are attributed to the labor required for reading State 
notification letters, monitoring, reporting, and record keeping. 
Assuming that systems will efficiently conduct UCMR sampling (e.g., 
coincident with other required monitoring when feasible), the estimated 
average annual per system labor burden for full Assessment Monitoring 
implementation will be $17 (0.8 hours) for ground water systems and $27 
(1.3 hours) for surface water systems. In total, ground water and 
surface water systems average 1.0 hours of burden per year with an 
average annual cost of $21. Average annual cost, in all cases, is less 
than 0.2 percent of system revenues/sales. Therefore, as stated 
previously, the Administrator certifies that this rule, as funded by 
EPA, will not have a significant economic impact on small entities. 
Tables 7a and 7b below present the estimated economic impacts in the 
form of revenue/sales tests for publicly and privately owned systems.

                   Table 7a.--UCMR Full Assessment Monitoring Implementation Scenario: Analysis for Publicly-Owned Systems (2001-2005)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Annual number of      Average annual hours     Average annual cost    ``Revenue test'' \2\
                                                           systems affected \1\     per system  (2001-      per system  (2001-           (percent)
                       System size                       ------------------------          2005)                   2005)         -----------------------
                                                                      Percent of ------------------------------------------------
                                                            Number     US total    Non-index     Index     Non-index     Index     Non-index     Index
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Ground Water Systems
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
500 and under...........................................         4.8        0.01         0.6         2.0       $9.03      $28.28        0.05        0.17
501 to 3,300............................................        35.4        0.29         0.7         2.8       10.12       39.88        0.01        0.04
3,301 to 10,000.........................................        35.8        1.49         0.9         3.6       24.02      100.80        0.01        0.02
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Surface Water Systems
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
500 and under...........................................         3.5        0.18         1.1         0.0       16.39        0.00        0.06        0.00
501 to 3,300............................................        12.2        0.67         1.2         4.2       18.03       60.90        0.01        0.03
3,301 to 10,000.........................................        25.9        2.58         1.2         4.0       33.24      112.00        0.00        0.02
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Calculated as \1/5\ of the Non-Index sample, plus all Index systems for each year from 2001-2005; actual sampling for Non-Index systems takes place
  over three years, while that of Index systems occurs over each of five years.
\2\ The ``Revenue Test'' was used to evaluate the economic impact of an information collection on small government entities (e.g., publicly-owned
  systems); costs are presented as a percentage of median annual revenue in each size category.


                  Table 7b.--UCMR Full Assessment Monitoring Implementation Scenario: Analysis for Privately-Owned Systems (2001-2005)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Annual number of      Average annual hours     Average annual cost     ``Sales test'' \2\
                                                           systems affected \1\     per system  (2001-      per system  (2001-           (percent)
                       System size                       ------------------------          2005)                 2005) \1\       -----------------------
                                                                      Percent of ------------------------------------------------
                                                            Number     US total    Non-index     Index     Non-index     Index     Non-index     Index
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Ground Water Systems
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
500 and under...........................................        17.6        0.04         0.6         2.0       $9.03      $28.28        0.06        0.18
501 to 3,300............................................        16.2        0.13         0.7         2.8       10.12       39.88        0.01        0.04
3,301 to 10,000.........................................        10.1        0.42         0.9         3.6       24.02      100.80        0.00        0.02
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Surface Water Systems
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
500 and under...........................................         9.7        0.51         1.1         0.0       16.39        0.00        0.07        0.00
501 to 3,300............................................         5.6        0.31         1.2         4.2       18.03       60.90        0.01        0.04
3,301 to 10,000.........................................         7.3        0.72         1.2         4.0       33.24      112.00        0.01        0.02
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Calculated as \1/5\ of the Non-Index sample, plus all Index systems for each year from 2001-2005; actual sampling for Non-Index systems takes place
  over three years, while that of Index systems occurs over each of five years.
\2\ The ``Sales Test'' was used to evaluate the economic impact of an information collection on small private entities (e.g., privately-owned systems);
  costs are presented as a percentage of median annual sales in each size category.

2. Limited Implementation Scenario
    Despite the expected $2 million annual budget, EPA recognizes that 
funding levels vary from year to year and thus the Agency cannot 
guarantee the precise amount that will ultimately be available to 
implement its UCMR Assessment Monitoring Program (although a 
considerable portion of those funds are currently on hand). If an 
amount commensurate with funding the optimal UCMR Assessment Monitoring 
Program (in terms of numbers of small systems sampled and numbers of 
contaminants analyzed) is not available, the Agency will adjust the 
UCMR program to accommodate the available funds. This adjustment may 
necessitate use of fewer sample sites, testing for fewer contaminants, 
or both.
    Although the Agency considers the scenario of no additional funding 
to be unlikely, EPA also evaluated the scenario of ``current funds 
only'' for purposes of this RFA analysis. In this ``current available 
funds'' scenario EPA would receive no funding for small system testing 
beyond the $4 million set aside from the DWSRF in FY 1998 and FY 1999. 
EPA anticipates funding this program such that no small system would 
incur testing costs, as intended in the legislation. Small systems 
would be responsible only for taking the sample. By analyzing the small 
system impact under this scenario, EPA can

[[Page 50606]]

demonstrate that, regardless of funding levels, the UCMR will not have 
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. Given the flexibility of the proposed rule, EPA can ensure 
scientifically defensible results, balanced with available funding.
    In the optimal program, the sample of 800 systems is derived by 
applying a 99 percent confidence level, with 1 percent error tolerance. 
To accommodate a $4 million budget, the representative sample of small 
systems would be reduced to approximately 400 systems. Although this 
smaller sample would be less rigorous than the anticipated sample of 
800 systems, the sample error would still remain within plus or minus 5 
percent. These 400 systems would incur only labor costs for collecting 
and packing the samples, while EPA would pay to ship and test these 
samples.
    With the currently available $4 million, EPA will be able to fund 
approximately 50 percent of the planned Assessment Monitoring program 
for small systems. To estimate the costs under this scenario, EPA 
assumed that only the Assessment Monitoring component of the UCMR would 
be implemented and that the smaller representative sample would be 
allocated across system size categories in the same proportions as 
those in the sample of 800 systems, with 10 of these systems being 
Index sites, as seen in Table 8. Finally, for the cost analysis of this 
current funds scenario, EPA assumed that the national representative 
sample will reflect the proportions of publicly and privately owned 
systems in the national inventory of public water systems.1 
Because EPA's statistical approach uses a random selection process for 
systems in the national representative sample, publicly-and privately-
owned systems should be selected in the same proportions for that 
sample as they occur in the set of all community and non-transient non-
community water systems in the nation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Publicly- and privately-owned systems allocations are 
estimated using data from the 1995 Community Water System Survey. 
Publicly-owned systems are those that are owned by a city, town, 
township, village, municipal government, State or federal 
government, or any other publicly-owned or operated system. 
Privately-owned systems include those owned by private investors or 
homeowners' associations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Agency is concerned that a reduced sample size will reduce the 
statistical likelihood that the observed contaminant occurrence levels 
will be representative of actual occurrence across the nation. Because 
of this, the Agency will actively pursue funding for the full program 
described in this Preamble.

 Table 8.--Number of Publicly- and Privately-Owned Systems To Participate in Assessment Monitoring, for Limited
                                               Funding Program \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Publicly-owned systems          Privately-owned systems
                                -----------------------------------------------------------------   Total--all
         Size category              Non-index                       Non-index                         systems
                                     systems      Index systems      systems      Index systems
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground Water Systems:
    500 and under..............              10               0              39               1               50
    501 to 3,300...............              75               2              34               1              112
    3,301 to 10,000............              73               2              21               1               97
                                --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Subtotal ground water               158               4              94               3              259
         systems...............
                                ================================================================================
Surface Water Systems:
    500 and under..............               9               0              24               0               33
    501 to 3,300...............              26               1              12               0               39
    3,301 to 10,000............              54               2              15               0               71
                                --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Subtotal surface water               89               3              51               0              143
         systems...............
                                ================================================================================
        Total..................             247               7             145               3             402
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Limited Funding Program assumes that the only funds available to run the program are those that are
  currently in hand--$4 million of set aside funds from Federal Fiscal Years 1998 and 1999. This is a ``worst
  case'' funding scenario.

    Under the limited funding scenario, EPA's costs for Assessment 
Monitoring would be incurred primarily from 2001 to 2003. Systems are 
assumed to sample during 1 year of the 3-year period, with one-third of 
systems sampling during each year. However, Index Systems are assumed 
to monitor during each of the three Assessment Monitoring years. The 
distribution of costs to EPA and small systems over the entire 5 years 
is presented in Table 9.

                                            Table 9.--EPA Costs for Small Systems--Limited $4 Million Program
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         Cost description                               2001          2002          2003          2004           2005           Total
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Costs to EPA for Assessment Monitoring Program: Quality assurance,    $1,367,947    $1,082,342    $1,082,342      $280,422       $186,948     $4,000,000
 ongoing coordination, data analysis, shipping costs, testing
 costs, reporting and analysis costs, and costs for contractor
 site visits to ``Index'' systems.................................
Costs to Small Systems (Assessment Monitoring): including                 13,162        11,527        11,527             0              0         36,216
 additional labor for monitoring or monitoring assistance.........
                                                                   -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 50607]]

 
      Total Costs to EPA and Small Systems for Assessment              1,381,109     1,093,869     1,093,869       280,422        186,948      4,036,216
       Monitoring.................................................
                                                                   =====================================================================================
Number of Systems each Year: Assessment Monitoring and Index
 Systems in 2001-2003: \1\
    Public........................................................            89            89            89             0              0            254
    Private.......................................................            51            51            51             0              0            148
      Total.......................................................           140           140           140             0              0           402
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Rows do not add across because the 10 Index systems sample during each year 2001-2003. One-third of Non-Index systems sample during each year from
  2001-2003.

    Under this limited $4 million program, EPA's costs represent 
approximately 98 percent of the national cost for the small system 
sampling program. As in full UCMR implementation, small system costs 
are attributed to the additional labor required for reading State 
letters, monitoring, reporting, and record keeping. It is estimated 
that under a limited program of Assessment Monitoring only the average 
annual per system labor burden will be $14 (0.7 hours) for ground water 
systems and $25 (1.2 hours) for surface water systems. In total, ground 
water and surface water systems average 0.9 hours of burden per year, 
with an average annual cost of $18.
    Through revenue and sales tests, determinations of economic impact 
are presented in Tables 10a and 10b respectively. Under this limited $4 
million program, systems will be subject to less required monitoring 
than in the full UCMR program. For both full Assessment Monitoring 
implementation and the limited funding scenario, average annual cost is 
in all cases lower than 1 percent of annual sales/revenues. Thus, even 
in this worst case, limited implementation scenario, EPA certifies that 
today's final rule would not impose a significant economic impact on 
small entities.

                            Table 10a.--UCMR Limited Implementation Scenario: Analysis for Publicly-Owned Systems (2001-2005)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Annual number of      Average annual hours     Average annual cost    ``Revenue test'' \2\
                                                           systems affected \1\     per system  (2001-      per system  (2001-           (percent)
                       System size                       ------------------------          2005)                   2005)         -----------------------
                                                                      Percent of ------------------------------------------------
                                                            Number     US total    Non-index     Index     Non-index     Index     Non-Index     Index
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Ground Water Systems
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
500 and under...........................................         2.1        0.00         0.6         1.3       $8.06      $18.71        0.05        0.11
501 to 3,300............................................        16.2        0.13         0.6         1.5        9.15       22.19        0.01        0.02
3,301 to 10,000.........................................        16.1        0.67         0.8         2.0       22.16       57.12        0.00        0.01
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Surface Water Systems
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
500 and under...........................................         1.7        0.09         1.1         0.0       15.41        0.00        0.05        0.00
501 to 3,300............................................         5.6        0.31         1.2         2.6       17.07       38.28        0.01        0.02
3,301 to 10,000.........................................        11.8        1.17         1.1         2.5       31.35       70.56        0.00       0.01
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Calculated as \1/5\ of publicly-owned Non-Index sample, plus all public Index systems for each year from 2001-2003; actual sampling for Non-Index
  takes place over 3 years, Index in each of 3 years.
\2\ The ``Revenue Test'' was used to evaluate the economic impact of an information collection on small governments (e.g., publicly owned systems);
  costs are presented as a percentage of median annual revenue in each size category.


                           Table 10b.--UCMR Limited Implementation Scenario: Analysis for Privately-Owned Systems (2001-2005)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Annual number of      Average annual hours     Average annual cost    ``Revenue test'' \2\
                                                           systems affected \1\   per system (2001-2005)  per system (2001-2005)         (percent)
                       System size                       -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Percent of
                                                            Number     US total    Non-index     Index     Non-index     Index     Non-index     Index
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Ground Water Systems
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
500 and under...........................................         8.2        0.02         0.6         1.3       $8.06      $18.71        0.05        0.12
501 to 3,300............................................         7.4        0.06         0.6         1.5        9.15       22.19        0.01        0.02
3,301 to 10,000.........................................         4.5        0.19         0.8         2.0       22.16       57.12        0.00        0.01
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Surface Water Systems
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
500 and under...........................................         4.8        0.25         1.1         0.0       15.41        0.00        0.07        0.00
501 to 3,300............................................         2.5        0.14         1.2         2.6       17.07       38.28        0.01        0.03

[[Page 50608]]

 
3,301 to 10,000.........................................         3.3        0.33         1.1         2.5       31.35       70.56        0.01        0.01
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Calculated as \1/5\ of the Non-Index sample, plus all Index systems for each year from 2001-2005; actual sampling for Non-Index systems takes place
  over 3 years, while that of Index systems occurs during each of 3 years.
\2\ The ``Sales Test'' was used to evaluate the economic impact of an information collection on small private entities (e.g., privately owned systems);
  costs are presented as a percentage of median annual sales in each size category.

F. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    As noted in the proposed rule, Section 12(d) of the National 
Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA), Pub. L. No. 104-113, 
Sec. 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. EPA has decided to 
use consensus methods published by the three major voluntary consensus 
method organizations--Standard Methods, AOAC International, and 
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM)--that would be 
acceptable for compliance determinations under SDWA for the UCMR (1999) 
List 1. The voluntary consensus methods found are listed in 
Sec. 141.40(a)(3), Table 1, List 1. For the Assessment Monitoring 
portion of the final rule, EPA is approving the use of all of the non-
EPA analytical methods adopted by these voluntary consensus groups that 
are applicable to the analyses of these unregulated contaminants when 
used in conjunction with the required quality-control practices 
specified in the rule.
    A few public comments suggested the updating of consensus methods 
approved in Table 1, List 1, or an additional method to consider. To 
that end, the Agency updated the consensus methods listed to include 
those identified in the most current (20th) edition of Standard Methods 
(SM). SM 6200B, from the 20th edition, is also approved for volatile 
analysis; SM 6210D remains on the list but only appears in previous 
editions. A commenter suggested use of SM 6640 for DCPA mono and di 
acids for List 1; however, this method does not address hydrolysis, a 
critical step in the analyses of this contaminant, so EPA is not 
including it on the list.
    EPA conducted a search to identify potentially applicable voluntary 
consensus standards for chemical and microbiological parameters 
included in Lists 2 and 3 of this rule. EPA identified and listed in 
the proposal some general methods specifications that the Agency 
believes may potentially be used to reliably detect some of the 
contaminants on List 2. However, EPA was unable to find either an EPA 
or voluntary consensus method applicable to the monitoring required and 
none were brought to our attention in comments on the proposed rule. 
Commenters suggested EPA also approve EPA Method 632 for linuron and 
diuron, which does not include confirmation or preservation steps; and 
EPA Method 552 for the phenols, which has low recoveries and 
interferences among the compounds. For these reasons, EPA has not 
included these EPA methods for the respective contaminants. No other 
voluntary consensus standards were brought to the Agency's attention in 
comments on the proposed rule. EPA is developing acceptable methods to 
determine the presence of the contaminants on Lists 2 and 3, and will 
take additional public comment when the rules are proposed for 
monitoring of List 2 and 3 contaminants.

G. 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, the unregulated 
contaminant monitoring regulation 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 national representative sample that is population-
weighted within each system size category allocated across States, the 
final rule ensures that no group within the population is under 
represented.

H. Federalism Executive Orders

    Under Executive Order 12875, EPA may not issue a regulation that is 
not required by statute and that creates a mandate upon a State, local, 
or tribal government, unless the Federal government provides the funds 
necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by those 
governments, or EPA consults with those governments. If EPA complies by 
consulting, Executive Order 12875 requires EPA to provide to OMB with a 
description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation with 
representatives of affected State, local, and tribal governments; the 
nature of their concerns; any written communications from the 
governments; and a statement supporting the need to issue the 
regulation. In addition, Executive Order 12875 requires EPA to develop 
an effective process permitting elected officials and other 
representatives of State, local, and tribal governments ``to provide 
meaningful and timely input in the development of regulatory proposals 
containing significant unfunded mandates.''
    EPA has concluded that today's rule will create a mandate on local 
governments that own or operate PWSs and that the Federal government 
will not provide the funds necessary to pay all of the direct costs 
incurred by these governments in complying with the mandate. However, 
EPA will pay for the

[[Page 50609]]

sample testing costs of small systems and has budgeted funds to do so.
    In developing this rule, EPA consulted with State, local, and 
tribal governments to enable them to provide meaningful and timely 
input in the development of this rule. Prior to the publication of the 
proposed rule, EPA received input through its public stakeholder 
process, by conducting public meetings and through targeted mailings. 
Additionally, EPA received input through its public comment process 
from 22 States, 13 public water systems and local water agencies, and 
130 other commenters, including non-profit organizations, associations, 
industry, and individuals. EPA also sent out nearly 400 targeted 
mailings directly to 360 Tribes, Tribal organizations, and small water 
system organizations to ensure that they were informed of the proposed 
rule's publication and had an opportunity to comment. The principal 
concerns raised were that: (1) States did not want to go through the 
primacy process; (2) EPA should include perchlorate on the monitoring 
list; (3) EPA should use multi-analyte methods to the extent possible 
for testing; and (4) EPA should allow previous monitoring data for some 
of the contaminants on the list. In response to these principal 
concerns, EPA changed the implementation steps for the regulation from 
primacy revisions to a Memorandum of Agreement with States. Perchlorate 
is now on UCMR List 1 (1999) for early monitoring. EPA incorporated as 
many additional contaminants in List 1 using multi-analyte methods as 
possible, specifically moving acetochlor from List 2 to List 1. Systems 
can submit previously collected data to meet the UCMR, as long as the 
requirements for sampling, testing and reporting are met.
    Finally, while there is a new executive order on federalism, 
Executive Order 13132, it will not go into effect until November 3, 
1999. In the interim, under the current Executive Order 12612 on 
federalism, this rule does not have a substantial direct effect upon 
States, upon the relationship between the national government and the 
States, or upon the distribution of power and responsibilities among 
the various levels of government. The final rule allows States to 
decide whether they want to enter a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with 
EPA to implement the monitoring program. If they decide not to enter 
into an MOA, then EPA will directly implement the monitoring program, 
since the data are for the purposes of deciding which contaminants to 
regulate in the future at the Federal level and will not have a direct 
effect on public health protection under current drinking water 
standards implemented by States.

I. Executive Order 13084--Consultation and Coordination with Indian 
Tribal Governments

    Under Executive Order 13084, EPA may not issue a regulation that is 
not required by statute, that significantly or uniquely affects the 
communities of Indian Tribal governments, and that imposes substantial 
direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the Federal 
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance 
costs incurred by the Tribal governments, or EPA consults with those 
governments. If EPA complies by consulting, Executive Order 13084 
requires EPA to provide to OMB, in a separately identified section of 
the preamble to the rule, a description of the extent of EPA's prior 
consultation with representatives of affected Tribal governments, a 
summary of the nature of their concerns, and a statement supporting the 
need to issue the regulation. In addition, Executive Order 13084 
requires EPA to develop an effective process permitting elected 
officials and other representatives of Indian Tribal governments ``to 
provide meaningful and timely input in the development of regulatory 
policies on matters that significantly or uniquely affect their 
communities.''
    Today's rule does not significantly or uniquely affect the 
communities of Indian Tribal governments. Only one Tribal water system 
serves more than 10,000 persons. All the other Tribal water systems 
serve 10,000 or fewer persons, and in today's rule have an equal 
probability of being selected in the national representative sample of 
small systems, for which EPA will pay the costs of unregulated 
contaminant testing. Thus, these Tribal water systems will be treated 
the same as water systems of a State and the impact of the rule on them 
will not be significant.
    This rule will not impose substantial direct compliance costs on 
such communities either because, with the exception of the one large 
Tribal water system, the Federal government will provide most of the 
funds necessary to pay the direct costs incurred by tribal governments 
in complying with the rule. Accordingly, the requirements of section 
3(b) of Executive Order 13084 do not apply to this rule. Nevertheless, 
in developing this rule, EPA consulted with representatives of Tribal 
governments pursuant to both Executive Order 12875 and Executive Order 
13084. The extent of EPA's consultation, the nature of the governments' 
concerns, and EPA's position supporting the need for this rule, are 
discussed in the preamble section that addresses compliance with 
Executive Order 12875. Tribes were consulted and raised issues 
concerning the utility of a targeted, rather than a representative 
random, sampling approach and the applicability of ``treatment as a 
State'' under the final rule.

J. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. Sec. 801 et seq., as added 
by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, 
generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency 
promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy 
of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller 
General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this 
rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House 
of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States 
prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule 
cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal 
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by U.S.C. 
Sec. 804(2). This rule will be effective January 1, 2001.

XIII. 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 to 
provide early input to regulation development. Activities related to 
the UCMR included meetings for developing the CCL and the information 
requirements of the NCOD, as well as specific meetings focused on 
revising the UCMR monitoring list. During the development of the UCMR, 
stakeholders from a wide range of public and private entities provided 
key perspectives. Representatives from public water systems, 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 meetings that were instrumental in the development of today's final 
rule.
    As noted previously, the CCL identifies contaminants for which EPA

[[Page 50610]]

may take regulatory action and for which EPA needs additional data. The 
UCMR list contains contaminants for which additional data are needed 
before EPA can determine their regulatory status. The meetings to 
develop the CCL included stakeholder meetings to discuss the list 
broadly and meetings focused on particular issues conducted through the 
National Drinking Water Advisory Council's (NDWAC) Working Group on 
Occurrence and Contaminant Selection, as follows:
     December 2-3, 1996 Stakeholders Meeting.
     April 3-4, 1997 NDWAC Working Group.
     June 23, 1997 NDWAC Working Group.
     July 17, 1997 NDWAC Working Group.
     January 7, 1998 NDWAC Conference Call.
    These meetings resulted in the Drinking Water Contaminant Candidate 
List (63 FR 10274, March 2, 1998). The contaminants in today's rule for 
unregulated contaminant monitoring are taken in large part from the CCL 
``Occurrence Priorities.''
    The NCOD development activities included 10 public meetings on 
information requirements that should be considered for inclusion in the 
database. These meetings were held between October 1997 and February 
1998. The work of the NCOD development team is incorporated as the 
reporting requirements for sample testing in today's unregulated 
contaminant monitoring regulation. Several documents concerning the 
NCOD development which were used in the public meetings are:
     Options for the National Drinking Water Contaminant 
Occurrence Data Base, Background Document (Working Draft), EPA 815-D-
97-001, May 1997.
     National Drinking Water Contaminant Occurrence Data Base--
Development Strategy, Background Document (Working Draft), EPA 815-D-
97-005, December 1997.
     Options for Design of the National Drinking Water 
Contaminant Occurrence Data Base, Background Document (Working Draft), 
EPA 815-D-98-001, January 1998.
    EPA held its first stakeholder meeting to discuss options for the 
development of the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation on 
December 2 and 3, 1997, in Washington, DC. A variety of stakeholders 
attended that meeting, including representatives of PWSs, States, 
industry, health and laboratory organizations, and the public. EPA 
prepared a background document for the meeting, Options for Developing 
the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation (Working Draft), EPA 
815-D-97-003, November 1997. A summary of the meeting is also 
available. EPA held a second stakeholders meeting on June 3 and 4, 1998 
to obtain input from interested parties on significant issues evolving 
from drafting the regulation, which needed further public input. The 
Agency prepared a public review document for that meeting, Background 
Information and Draft Annotated Outline for a Proposed Unregulated 
Contaminant Monitoring Regulation, Background Document, (Working 
Draft), May 1998. A meeting summary also is available. EPA also sent 
special requests for review of stakeholder documents to more than 360 
Tribes (exclusive of the Alaskan native villages) and to small systems 
organizations to obtain their input.
    In all, EPA held 17 public meetings with stakeholders and 
interested parties related directly or closely to the final Unregulated 
Contaminant Monitoring Regulation. Additionally, EPA received 39 
comments by the public comment date of June 14, 1999, from a range of 
the public, including individuals, water systems, States, environmental 
organizations, and associations. EPA also received 121 comments after 
the comment period, primarily from individuals concerned with 
perchlorate being on the Monitoring List.

XIV. References

    Barbash, J.E., and E.A. Resek. 1996. Pesticides in Ground Water, 
volume two of the series Pesticides in the Hydrologic System. Ann 
Arbor Press, Inc., Chelsea, Michigan.
    Battaglin, W., and Hay, L. 1996. Effects of sampling strategies 
on estimates of annual mean herbicide concentrations in Midwestern 
rivers. Environmental Science and Technology, v. 30, p. 889-896.
    Hallberg, G. 1989a. Pesticide pollution of groundwater in the 
humid United States; In Bouwer, H., and Bowman, R.S., eds., Effect 
of Agriculture on Groundwater. Agriculture, Ecosystems, and 
Environment, v. 26, p. 299-367.
    Hallberg, G.R. 1989b. Nitrate in groundwater in the United 
States, In Follett, R.F., ed., Nitrogen Management and Groundwater 
Protection; Chapter 3, p. 35-74. Elsevier Sci. Pub., Amsterdam, The 
Netherlands.
    Hallberg, G., and D. Keeney. 1993. Nitrate. In Alley, W.A., 
Regional Ground-Water Quality; Chapter 2, p. 297-322. Van Nostrand 
Reinhold, New York, NY.
    Harada, Koh, W.C. Burnett, P.A. LaRock, and J.B. Cowart. 1989. 
Polonium in Florida groundwater and its possible relationship to the 
sulfur cycle and bacteria. Geochemica et Cosmochimica Acta, v. 53, 
pp. 143-150.
    Havelaar, A.H., M. During and J.F. Versteegh. 1987. Ampicillin-
dextrin agar medium for the enumeration of Aeromonas species in 
water by membrane filtration. Journal of Applied Bacteriology. 
62(3):279-287.
    Larson, S.J., P.D. Capel, and M.S. Majewski. 1997. Pesticides in 
Surface Waters, volume three of the series Pesticides in the 
Hydrologic System. Ann Arbor Press, Inc., Chelsea, Michigan.
    Newcombe, R.G. 1998. Two-Confidence Intervals for the Single 
Proportion: Comparison of Seven Methods. Statistics in Medicine, 
vol. 17, p. 857-872.
    Pinsky, P., M. Lorber, K. Johnson, B. Kross, L. Burmeister, A. 
Wilkins, and G. Hallberg. 1997. A study of the temporal variability 
of atrazine in private well water. Environmental Monitoring and 
Assessment, v. 47, p. 197-221.
    Upchurch, S.B. 1991. Radiochemistry of Uranium-Series Isotopes 
in Groundwater. Florida Institute of Phosphate Research (Report No. 
05-022-092).

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 9

    Environmental protection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

40 CFR Part 141

    Environmental protection, Analytical methods, Chemicals, 
Incorporation by Reference, Intergovernmental relations, 
Microorganisms, Monitoring, Water supply.

40 CFR Part 142

    Environmental protection, Analytical methods, Chemicals, 
Intergovernmental relations, Microorganisms, Monitoring, Water supply.

    Dated: August 30, 1999.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
    For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40 Chapter I of the 
Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 9--OMB APPROVALS UNDER THE PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT

    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.

    2. Section 9.1 is amended by removing the entry for ``141.33-
141.35''; revising the entry for ``141.40''; and by adding in numerical 
order under the indicated heading new entries ``141.33-141.34'' and 
``141.35'' to read as follows:

[[Page 50611]]

Sec. 9.1  OMB approvals under the Paperwork Reduction Act.

* * * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            OMB control
                     40 CFR Citation                            No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
               National Primary Drinking Water Regulations
141.33-141.34...........................................       2040-0090
141.35..................................................       2040-0208
141.40..................................................       2040-0208
 
                  *        *        *        *        *
------------------------------------------------------------------------

PART 141--NATIONAL PRIMARY DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS

    1. The authority citation for part 141 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 300f, 300g-1, 300g-2, 300g-3, 300g-4, 300g-
5, 300g-6, 300j-4, 300j-9, and 300j-11.

    2. Section 141.35 is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 141.35  Reporting of unregulated contaminant monitoring results.

    (a) Does this reporting apply to me? (1) This section applies to 
any owner or operator of a public water system required to monitor for 
unregulated contaminants under Sec. 141.40. This section requires you 
to report the results of this monitoring.
    (2) Exception. You do not need to report results if you are a 
system serving a population of 10,000 or less, since EPA will arrange 
for testing and reporting of the results. However, you will still need 
to comply with consumer confidence reporting and public notification 
requirements for these results.
    (b) To whom must I report? You must report the results of 
unregulated contaminant monitoring to EPA and provide a copy to the 
State. You must also notify the public of the monitoring results as 
provided in Subpart O (Consumer Confidence Reports) and Subpart Q 
(Public Notification) of this part.
    (c) When must I report monitoring results? You must report the 
results of unregulated contaminant monitoring within thirty (30) days 
following the month in which you received the results from the 
laboratory . EPA will place the data in the national drinking water 
contaminant occurrence database sixty (60) days after you report the 
data to allow for quality control review by systems and States.
    (d) What information must I report? You must report the information 
specified in the following table for each sample, and for each spiked 
sample and spike duplicate sample analyzed for quality control purposes 
and associated with each sample and its sample batch:

   Table 1.--Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Reporting Requirements
------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Data element                          Definition
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Public Water System (PWS)   The code used to identify each PWS. The
 Identification Number.         code begins with the standard two-
                                character postal State abbreviation; the
                                remaining seven characters are unique to
                                each PWS.
2. Public Water System         An identification number established by
 Facility Identification        the State, or, at the State's
 Number--Source, Treatment      discretion, the PWS, that is unique to
 Plant, and Sampling Point.     the system for an intake for each source
                                of water, a treatment plant and a
                                sampling point. Within each PWS, each
                                intake, treatment plant and sampling
                                point must receive a unique
                                identification number, including, for
                                intake; surface water intake, ground
                                water well or wellfield centroid; and
                                including, for sampling point; entry
                                points to the distribution system,
                                wellhead, intake, locations within the
                                distribution system, or other
                                representative sampling point specified
                                by the State. The same identification
                                number must be used consistently
                                throughout the history of unregulated
                                contaminant monitoring to represent the
                                facility.
3. Sample Collection Date....  The date the sample is collected reported
                                as 4-digit year, 2-digit month, and 2-
                                digit day.
4. Sample Identification       A numeric value assigned by the PWS or
 Number.                        laboratory to uniquely identify a
                                specific sampling occurrence.
5. Contaminant/Parameter.....  The unregulated contaminant or water
                                quality parameter for which the sample
                                is being analyzed.
6. Analytical Results--Sign..  An alphanumeric value indicating whether
                                the sample analysis result was:
                               (a) (<) ``less than'' means the
                                contaminant was not detected or was
                                detected at a level ``less than'' the
                                MRL.
                               (b) (=) ``equal to'' means the
                                contaminant was detected at a level
                                ``equal to'' the value reported in
                                ``Analytical Result--Value.''
7. Analytical Result--Value..  The actual numeric value of the analysis
                                for chemical and microbiological
                                results, or the minimum reporting level
                                (MRL) if the analytical result is less
                                than the specified contaminant's MRL
8. Analytical Result--Unit of  The unit of measurement for the
 Measure.                       analytical results reported. [e.g.,
                                micrograms per liter, (g/L);
                                colony-forming units per milliliter,
                                (CFU/mL), etc.]
9. Analytical Method Number..  The identification number of the
                                analytical method used.
10. Sample Analysis Type.....  The type of sample collected. Permitted
                                values include:
                               (a) Field Sample--sample collected and
                                submitted for analysis under this rule.
                               (b) Batch Spike/Spike Duplicate--Samples
                                associated with a batch used for
                                calculating analytical precision and
                                accuracy. A batch is defined as the set
                                of field samples plus one spiked sample
                                and one spiked duplicate sample analyzed
                                for contaminant concentrations
11. Sample Batch               A number assigned by the laboratory to
 Identification Number.         the batch of samples analyzed with the
                                spiked sample (at the spiking
                                concentration reported), to be reported
                                as 9-digit laboratory number (assigned
                                by the State or EPA), 4-digit year, 2-
                                digit month, 2-digit day and 2-digit
                                batch number.
12. Detection Level..........  ``Detection level'' refers to the
                                detection limit applied to both the
                                method and equipment. Detection limit is
                                the lowest concentration of a target
                                contaminant that a given method or piece
                                of equipment can reliably ascertain and
                                report as greater than zero ( e.g.,
                                Instrument Detection Limit, Method
                                Detection Limit, or Estimated Detection
                                Limit).
13. Detection Level Unit of    The unit of measure to express the
 Measure.                       concentration, count, or other value of
                                a contaminant level for the detection
                                level reported.
                               (e.g., g/L, colony forming units/
                                mL (CFU/mL), etc.)

[[Page 50612]]

 
14. Analytical Precision.....  Precision is the degree of agreement
                                among a set of repeated measurements and
                                is monitored through the use of
                                replicate samples or measurements. For
                                purposes of the Unregulated Contaminant
                                Monitoring Regulation (UCMR), Analytical
                                Precision is defined as the relative
                                percent difference (RPD) between spiked
                                matrix duplicates. The RPD for the
                                spiked matrix duplicates analyzed in the
                                same batch of samples as the analytical
                                result being reported is to be entered
                                in this field. Precision is calculated
                                as Relative Percent Difference (RPD)
                                between spiked matrix duplicates using,
                               RPD = [(X1-X2) /  (X1 + X2)/2]  x  100
15. Analytical Accuracy......  Accuracy describes how close a result is
                                to the true value measured through the
                                use of spikes, standards, surrogates or
                                performance evaluation samples. For
                                purposes of unregulated contaminant
                                monitoring, accuracy is defined as the
                                percent recovery of the contaminant in
                                the spiked matrix sample analyzed in the
                                same analytical batch as the sample
                                result being reported and calculated
                                using;
                               % recovery = [(amt. found in spiked
                                sample--amt. found in sample) / amt.
                                spiked]  x  100
16. Spiking Concentration....  The concentration of method analytes
                                added to a sample to be analyzed for
                                calculating analytical precision and
                                accuracy where the value reported use
                                the same unit of measure reported for
                                Analytical Results
17. Presence/Absence.........  Chemicals: Presence--a response was
                                produced by the analysis (i.e., greater
                                than or equal to the MDL but less than
                                the MRL)/Absence--no response was
                                produced by the analysis (i.e., less
                                than the MDL).
                               Microbiologicals: Presence--indicates a
                                response was produced by the analysis /
                                Absence--indicates no response was
                                produced by the analysis.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (e) How must I report this information? You must report this 
information in the electronic or other format specified by EPA.
    (f) Can the laboratory to which I send samples report the results 
for me? Yes, as long as the laboratory sends you a copy for review and 
recordkeeping. However, you are responsible for the reporting of this 
information and ensuring that the laboratory reports these results to 
EPA, with a copy to the State, on time.
    (g) Can I report previously collected data to meet the testing and 
reporting requirements for the contaminants listed in 
Sec. 141.40(a)(3)? Yes, as long as the data meet the specific 
requirements of Sec. 141.40(a)(3), (4), (5), and Appendix A of 
Sec. 141.40 and you report the data with the information specified in 
paragraph (d) of this section.
    3. Section 141.40 is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 141.40  Monitoring requirements for unregulated contaminants.

    (a) Requirements for owners and operators of public water systems. 
(1) Do I have to monitor for unregulated contaminants?
    (i) Transient systems. If you own or operate a transient non-
community water system, you do not have to monitor for unregulated 
contaminants.
    (ii) Large systems not purchasing their entire water supply from 
another system. If you own or operate a wholesale or retail public 
water system (other than a transient system) that serves more than 
10,000 persons, as determined by the State, and do not purchase your 
entire water supply from another public water system, you must monitor 
as follows:
    (A) You must monitor for the unregulated contaminants on List 1 of 
Table 1, Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation (1999) List, in 
paragraph (a)(3) of this section.
    (B) You must monitor for the unregulated contaminants on List 2 of 
Table 1, Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation (1999) List, in 
paragraph (a)(3) of this section, if notified by your State or EPA that 
you are part of the Screening Surveys.
    (C) You must monitor for the unregulated contaminants on List 3 of 
Table 1, Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation (1999) List, in 
paragraph (a)(3) of this section, if notified by your State or EPA that 
you are part of the Pre-Screen Testing.
    (iii) Large systems purchasing their entire water supply from 
another system. If you own or operate a public water system (other than 
a transient system) that serves more than 10,000 persons and purchase 
your entire water supply from a wholesale public water system, you must 
monitor as follows:
    (A) You must monitor for the unregulated contaminants on List 1 of 
Table 1, Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation (1999) List, in 
paragraph (a)(3) of this section, that have a ``sampling location'' 
indicated as ``distribution system''.
    (B) You must monitor for the unregulated contaminants on List 2 of 
Table 1, Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation (1999) List, in 
paragraph (a)(3) of this section, that have a ``sampling location'' 
indicated as ``distribution system'' if notified by your State or EPA 
that you are part of the Screening Surveys.
    (C) You must monitor for the unregulated contaminants on List 3 of 
Table 1, Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation (1999) List, in 
paragraph (a)(3) of this section, that have a ``sampling location'' 
indicated as ``distribution system'' if notified by your State or EPA 
that you are part of the Pre-Screen Testing.
    (iv) Small systems not purchasing their entire water supply from 
another system. If you own or operate a public water system (other than 
a transient system) that serves 10,000 or fewer persons and do not 
purchase your entire water supply from another public water system, you 
must monitor as follows:
    (A) You must monitor for the unregulated contaminants on List 1 of 
Table 1, Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation (1999) List, 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 small systems.
    (B) You must monitor for the unregulated contaminants on List 2 of 
Table 1, Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation (1999) List, in 
paragraph (a)(3) of this section, if you are notified by your State or 
EPA that you are part of the Screening Surveys.
    (C) You must monitor for the unregulated contaminants on List 3 of 
Table 1, Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation (1999) List, in 
paragraph (a)(3) of this section, if you are notified by your State or 
EPA that you are part of the Pre-Screen Testing.
    (v) Small systems purchasing their entire water supply from another

[[Page 50613]]

system. If you own or operate a public water system (other than a 
transient system) that serves 10,000 or fewer persons and purchase your 
entire water supply from a wholesale public water system, you must 
monitor as follows:
    (A) You must monitor for the unregulated contaminants on List 1 of 
Table 1, Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation (1999) List, in 
paragraph (a)(3) of this section, that have a ``sampling location'' 
indicated as ``distribution system'' if you are notified by your State 
or EPA that you are part of the State Monitoring Plan for small 
systems.
    (B) You must monitor for the unregulated contaminants on List 2 of 
Table 1, Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation (1999) List, in 
paragraph (a)(3) of this section, that have a ``sampling location'' 
indicated as ``distribution system'' if you are notified by your State 
or EPA that you are part of the Screening Surveys.
    (C) You must monitor for the unregulated contaminants on List 3 of 
Table 1, Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation (1999) List, in 
paragraph (a)(3) of this section, that have a ``sampling location'' 
indicated as ``distribution system'' if you are notified by your State 
or EPA that you are part of the Pre-Screen Testing.
    (2) How would I be selected for the monitoring under the State 
Monitoring Plan, the Screening Surveys, or the Pre-Screen Testing? (i) 
State Monitoring Plan. Only a representative sample of small systems 
must monitor for unregulated contaminants. EPA will select a national 
representative sample of small public water systems in each State 
through the use of a random number generator. Selection will be 
weighted by population served within each system water source type 
(surface or ground water) and system size category (systems serving 25-
500, 501-3,300, and 3,301-10,000 persons). EPA may allocate additional 
systems to water source types or system size categories to increase the 
statistical inferential ability for those categories. EPA will also 
select a small group of systems to be ``Index systems.'' Systems 
selected as Index systems are required to provide information about 
their site and operation that will serve to allow extrapolation of 
their results to other systems of similar size, rather than collecting 
detailed information at every small system. Each State will have the 
opportunity to make some modifications to the list of small systems 
that EPA selects. You will be notified by the State or EPA if your 
system is part of the final State Monitoring Plan.
    (ii) Screening Surveys. The purpose of the Screening Surveys is to 
determine the occurrence of contaminants in drinking water or sources 
of drinking water for which analytical methods have recently been 
developed for unregulated contaminant monitoring. EPA will select up to 
300 systems to participate in each survey by using a random number 
generator. You will be notified by the State or EPA if your system is 
selected for monitoring under the Screening Surveys.
    (iii) Pre-screen Testing. The purpose of Pre-Screen Testing is to 
determine the occurrence of contaminants for which EPA needs to 
evaluate new analytical methods in locations where the contaminants are 
most likely to be found. EPA will select up to 200 systems to 
participate in this testing after considering the characteristics of 
the contaminants, precipitation, system operation, and environmental 
conditions. You will be notified by the State or EPA that your system 
has been selected for monitoring under the Pre-Screen Testing program.
    (3) For which contaminants must I monitor? Lists 1, 2 and 3 of 
unregulated contaminants are listed in the following table:

                                           Table 1.--Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation (1999) List
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   List 1--Assessment Monitoring Chemical Contaminants
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                   6-Period during which
           1-Contaminant              2-CAS registry number   3-Analytical methods    4-Minimum reporting    5-Sampling location      monitoring to be
                                                                                             level                                       completed
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2,4-dinitrotoluene.................  121-14-2..............  EPA 525.2 a...........  2 g/L e.....  EPTDS f..............  2001-2003
2,6-dinitrotoluene.................  606-20-2..............  EPA 525.2 a...........  2 g/L e.....  EPTDS f..............  2001-2003
Acetochlor.........................  34256-82-1............  Reserved m............  Reserved m...........  EPTDS f..............  2001-2003
DCPA mono-acid degradate...........  887-54-7..............  EPA 515.1 a...........  1 g/L e.....  EPTDS f..............  2001-2003
                                                             EPA 515.2 a
                                                             D5317-93 b
                                                             AOAC 992.32 c
DCPA di-acid degradate.............  2136-79-0.............  EPA 515.1 a...........  1 g/L e.....  EPTDS f..............  2001-2003
                                                             EPA 515.2 a
                                                             D5317-93 b
                                                             AOAC 992.32 c
4,4'-DDE...........................  72-55-9...............  EPA 508 a.............  0.8 g/L e...  EPTDS f..............  2001-2003
                                                             EPA 508.1 a
                                                             EPA 525.2 a
                                                             D5812-96 b
                                                             AOAC 990.06 c
EPTC...............................  759-94-4..............  EPA 507 a.............  1 g/L e.....  EPTDS f..............  2001-2003
                                                             EPA 525.2 a
                                                             D5475-93 b
                                                             AOAC 991.07 c
Molinate...........................  2212-67-1.............  EPA 507 a.............  0.9 g/L e...  EPTDS f..............  2001-2003
                                                             EPA 525.2 a
                                                             D5475-93 b
                                                             AOAC 991.07 c
MTBE...............................  1634-04-4.............  EPA 524.2 a...........  5 g/L g.....  EPTDS f..............  2001-2003
                                                             D5790-95b
                                                             SM 6210D d
                                                             SM 6200B d

[[Page 50614]]

 
Nitrobenzene.......................  98-95-3...............  EPA 524.2 a...........  10 g/L g....  EPTDS f..............  2001-2003
                                                             D5790-95 b
                                                             SM6210D d
                                                             SM6200B d
Perchlorate........................  14797-73-0............  Reserved m............  Reserved m...........  EPTDS f..............  2001-2003
Terbacil...........................  5902-51-2.............  EPA 507 a.............  2 g/L e.....  EPTDS f..............  2001-2003
                                                             EPA 525.2 a
                                                             D5475-93 b
                                                             AOAC 991.07 c
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      List 2--Screening Survey Chemical Contaminants  To Be Sampled After Notice of Analytical Methods Availability
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                   6-Period during which
           1-Contaminant              2-CAS registry number   3-Analytical methods    4-Minimum reporting    5-Sampling location      monitoring to be
                                                                                             level                                       completed
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1,2-diphenylhydrazine..............  122-66-7..............  EPA 525.2 i...........  Reserved h...........  EPTDS f..............  Reserved h
2-methyl-phenol....................  95-48-7...............  SPE/GC/MS l...........  Reserved h...........  EPTDS f..............  Reserved h
2,4-dichlorophenol.................  120-83-2..............  SPE/GC/MS l...........  Reserved h...........  EPTDS f..............  Reserved h
2,4-dinitrophenol..................  51-28-5...............  SPE/GC/MS l...........  Reserved h...........  EPTDS f..............  Reserved h
2,4,6-trichlorophenol..............  88-06-2...............  SPE/GC/MS l...........  Reserved h...........  EPTDS f..  Reserved h
Alachlor ESA.......................  TBD h.................  TBD h.................  Reserved h...........  EPTDS f..............  Reserved h
Diazinon...........................  333-41-5..............  EPA 525.2 k...........  Reserved h...........  EPTDS f..............  Reserved h
Disulfoton.........................  298-04-4..............  EPA 525.2 k...........  Reserved h...........  EPTDS f..............  Reserved h
Diuron.............................  330-54-1..............  SPE/HPLC/ UV j........  Reserved h...........  EPTDS f..............  Reserved h
Fonofos............................  944-22-9..............  EPA 525.2 i...........  Reserved h...........  EPTDS f..............  Reserved h
Linuron............................  330-55-2..............  SPE/HPLC/UV j.........  Reserved h...........  EPTDS f..............  Reserved h
Polonium-210.......................  13981-52-7............  Reserved h............  Reserved h...........  Reserved h...........  Reserved h
Prometon...........................  1610-18-0.............  EPA 525.2 k...........  Reserved h...........  EPTDS f..............  Reserved h
Terbufos...........................  13071-79-9............  EPA 525.2 k...........  Reserved h...........  EPTDS f..............  Reserved h
RDX................................  121-82-4..............  Reserved h............  Reserved h...........  EPTDS f..............  Reserved
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  List 2--Screening Survey Microbiological Contaminants  To Be Sampled After Notice of Analytical Methods Availability
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                   6-Period during which
           1-Contaminant                2-Identification      3-Analytical methods    4-Minimum reporting    5-Sampling location      monitoring to be
                                             number                                          level                                       completed
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aeromonas..........................  Reserved h............  Reserved h............  Reserved h...........  Reserved h...........  Reserved
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         List 3--Pre-Screen Testing Radionuclides  To Be Sampled After Notice of Analytical Methods Availability
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                   6-Period during which
           1-Contaminant              2-CAS registry number   3-Analytical methods    4-Minimum reporting    5-Sampling location      monitoring to be
                                                                                             level                                       completed
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lead-210...........................  14255-04-0............  Reserved h............  Reserved h...........  Reserved h...........  Reserved
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 50615]]


 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        List 3--Pre-Screen Testing Microorganisms  To Be Sampled After Notice of Analytical Methods Availability
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                   6-Period during which
           1-Contaminant                2-Identification      3-Analytical methods    4-Minimum reporting    5-Sampling location      monitoring to be
                                             number                                          level                                       completed
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cyanobacteria (blue-green algae,     Reserved h............  Reserved h............  Reserved h...........  Reserved h...........  Reserved h
 other freshwater algae and their
 toxins).
Echoviruses........................  Reserved h............  Reserved h............  Reserved h...........  Reserved h...........  Reserved h
Coxsackieviruses...................  Reserved h............  Reserved h............  Reserved h...........  Reserved h...........  Reserved h
Helicobacter pylori................  Reserved h............  Reserved h............  Reserved h...........  Reserved h...........  Reserved h
Microsporidia......................  Reserved h............  Reserved h............  Reserved h...........  Reserved h...........  Reserved h
Calciviruses.......................  Reserved h............  Reserved h............  Reserved h...........  Reserved h...........  Reserved h
Adenoviruses.......................  Reserved h............  Reserved h............  Reserved h...........  Reserved h...........  Reserved h
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Column headings are:
1-Chemical or microbiological contaminant: the name of the contaminants to be analyzed.
2-CAS (Chemical Abstract Service Number) Registry No. 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 or density 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-Years During Which Monitoring to Be Completed: The years during which the sampling and testing are to occur for the indicated contaminant.
The procedures shall be done in accordance with the documents listed below. The incorporation by reference of the following documents listed in
  footnotes b-d was approved by the Director of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies of the documents may
  be obtained from the sources listed below. Information regarding obtaining these documents can be obtained from the Safe Drinking Water Hotline at 800-
  426-4791. Documents may be inspected at EPA's Drinking Water Docket, 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460 (Telephone: 202-260-3027); or at the
  Office of Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., Suite 700, Washington, DC.
a The version of the EPA methods which you must follow for this Rule are listed at 40 CFR 141.24 (e).
b Annual Book of ASTM Standards, 1996 and 1998, Vol. 11.02, American Society for Testing and Materials. Method D5812-96 is located in the Annual Book of
  ASTM Standards, 1998, Vol. 11.02. Methods D5790-95, D5475-93, and D5317-93 are located in the Annual Book of ASTM Standards, 1996 and 1998, Vol 11.02.
  Copies may be obtained from the American Society for Testing and Materials, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken, PA 19428.
b Official Methods of Analysis of AOAC (Association of Official Analytical Chemist) International, Sixteenth Edition, 4th Revision, 1998, Volume I, AOAC
  International, First Union National Bank Lockbox, PO Box 75198, Baltimore, MD 21275-5198. 1-800-379-2622.
d SM 6210 D is only found in the 18th and 19th editions of Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 1992 and 1995, American Public
  Health Association; either edition may be used. SM 6200 B is only found in the 20th edition of Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and
  Wastewater, 1998. Copies may be obtained from the American Public Health Association, 1015 Fifteenth Street NW, Washington, DC 20005.
e Minimum Reporting Level determined by multiplying by 10 the least sensitive method's minimum detection limit (MDL=standard deviation times the
  Student's T value for 99% confidence level with n-1 degrees of freedom), or when available, multiplying by 5 the least sensitive method's estimated
  detection limit (where the EDL equals the concentration of compound yielding approximately a 5 to 1 signal to noise ratio or the calculated MDL,
  whichever is greater).
f Entry Points to the Distribution System (EPTDS), After Treatment, representing each non-emergency water source in routine use over the twelve-month
  period of monitoring; sampling must occur at the EPTDS, unless the State has specified other sampling points that are used for compliance monitoring
  40 CFR 141.24 (f)(1), (2), and (3). See 40 CFR 141.40(a)(5)(ii)(C) for a complete explanation of requirements, including the use of source (raw) water
  sampling points.
g Minimum Reporting Levels (MRL) for Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) determined by multiplying either the published Method Detection Limit (MDL) or 0.5
  g/L times 10, whichever is greater. The MDL of 0.5 g/L (0.0005 mg/L) was selected to conform to VOC MDL requirements of 40 CFR
  141.24(f)(17)(i)(E).
h To be Determined at a later time
i Compound currently not listed as a contaminant in this method.
j Methods development currently in progress to develop a solid phase extraction/high performance liquid chromatography/ultraviolet method for the
  determination of this compound.
k Compound listed as being a contaminant using EPA Method 525.2; however, adequate sample preservation is not available. Preservation studies currently
  being conducted to develop adequate sample preservation.
l Methods development currently in progress to develop a solid phase extraction/gas chromatography/mass spectrometry method for the determination of
  this compound.
m If not determined by regulation by December 31, 2000, this contaminant will become part of List 2.


    (4) What general requirements must I follow for monitoring List 1 
contaminants? (i) All systems. You must:
    (A) Collect samples of the listed contaminants in accordance with 
paragraph (a)(5) of this section and Appendix A of this section and any 
other specific instructions provided to you by the State or EPA,
    (B) Analyze the additional parameters specified below in Table 2. 
``Water Quality Parameters to be Monitored with UCMR Contaminants'' for 
each relevant contaminant type. You must analyze the parameters for 
each sampling event of each sampling point, using the method indicated, 
and report using the data elements 1 through 10 in Table 1, 
Sec. 141.35(d), Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Reporting 
Requirements;
    (C) Review the laboratory testing results to ensure reliability; 
and
    (D) Report the results as specified in Sec. 141.35.

[[Page 50616]]



                                        Table 2.--Water Quality Parameters To Be Monitored With UCMR Contaminants
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                       Methodology
              Parameter                    Contaminant type     ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   EPA method            Standard methods \1\                        Other
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
pH...................................  Chemical;...............       \2\ 150.1  4500-H + B                           ASTM D1293-84 \3\
                                       Microbiological.........       \2\ 150.2                                       ASTM D1293-95 \3\
Turbidity............................  Microbiological.........        4,5180.1  2130 B \4\                           GLI Method 2 4,6
Temperature..........................  Microbiological.........  ..............  2550                                 ..................................
Free Disinfectant Residual...........  Microbiological.........  ..............  4500-Cl D                            ASTM D 1253-86 \3\
                                                                                 4500-Cl F
                                                                                 4500-Cl G
                                                                                 4500-Cl H
                                                                                 4500-ClO2 D
                                                                                 4500-ClO2 E
                                                                                 4500-O3 B
Total Disinfectant Residual..........  Microbiological.........  ..............  4500-Cl D                            ASTM D 1253-86 \3\
                                                                                 4500-Cl E \4\
                                                                                 4500-Cl F
                                                                                 4500-Cl G \4\
                                                                                 4500-Cl I
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The procedures shall be done in accordance with the documents listed below. The incorporation by reference of the following documents was approved by
  the Director of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies of the documents may be obtained from the sources
  listed below. Information regarding obtaining these documents can be obtained from the Safe Drinking Water Hotline at 800-426-4791. Documents may be
  inspected at EPA's Drinking Water Docket, 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460 (Telephone: 202-260-3027); or at the Office of Federal Register, 800
  North Capitol Street, NW., Suite 700, Washington, DC.
\1\ The 18th and 19th Editions of Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 1992 and 1995. Methods 2130 B; 2550; 4500-Cl D, E, F, G,
  H, I; 4500-ClO2 D, E; 4500-H+ B; and 4500-O3 B in the 20th edition Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 1998, American Public
  Health Association, 1015 Fifteenth St. NW, Washington D.C., 20005.
\2\ Methods 150.1 and 150.2 are available from US EPA, NERL, 26 W. Martin Luther King Dr., Cincinnati, Ohio 45268. The identical methods are also in
  ``Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes,'' EPA-600/4-79-020, March 1983, available from the National Technical Information Service (NTIS),
  U.S. Department of Commerce, 5285 Port Royal Rd., Springfield, Virginia 22161, PB84-128677. (Note: NTIS toll-free number is 800-553-6847.)
\3\ Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Editions 1994 and 1996,Volumes 11.01, American Society for Testing and Materials, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, West
  Conshohocken, PA 19428. Version D1293-84 is located in the Annual Book of ASTM Standards, 1994, Volumes 11.01. Version D1293-95 is located in the
  Annual Book of ASTM Standards, 1996, Volumes 11.01.
\4\ ``Technical Notes on Drinking Water,'' EPA-600/R-94-173, October 1994, Available at NTIS, PB95-104766.
\5\ ``Methods for the Determination of Inorganic Substances in Environmental Samples,'' EPA-600/R-93-100, August 1993. Available at NTIS, PB94-121811
\6\ GLI Method 2, ``Turbidity,'' November 2, 1992, Great Lakes Instruments Inc., 8855 North 55th St., Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53223.

    (ii) Large systems. In addition to paragraph (a)(4)(i) of this 
section, you must arrange for testing of the samples according to the 
methods specified for each contaminant in Table 1, Unregulated 
Contaminant Monitoring Regulation (1999) List, in paragraph (a)(3) of 
this section, and in Appendix A of this section.
    (iii) Small systems. Unless directed otherwise by the State or EPA, 
in addition to paragraph (a)(4)(i) of this section , you must:
    (A) Properly receive, store, maintain and use the sampling 
equipment sent to you from the laboratory designated by EPA;
    (B) Sample at the times specified by the State or the EPA;
    (C) Collect and pack samples in accordance with the instructions 
sent to you by the laboratory designated by EPA; and
    (D) Send the samples to the laboratory designated by EPA.
    (5) What specific sampling and quality control requirements must I 
follow for monitoring of List 1 contaminants? (i) All systems. Unless 
the State or EPA informs you of other sampling arrangements, you must 
comply with the following requirements:
    (A) Sample collection and shipping time. If you must ship the 
samples for testing, you must collect the samples early enough in the 
day to allow adequate time to send the samples for overnight delivery 
to the laboratory since some samples must be processed at the 
laboratory within 30 hours of collection. You must not collect samples 
on Friday, Saturday or Sunday because sampling on these days would not 
allow samples to be shipped and received at the laboratory within 30 
hours.
    (B) No compositing of samples. You must not composite (that is, 
combine, mix or blend) the samples. You must collect, preserve and test 
each sample separately.
    (C) Review and reporting of results. After you have received the 
laboratory results, you must review and confirm the system information 
and data regarding sample collection and test results. You must report 
the results as provided in Sec. 141.35.
    (ii) Large systems. In addition to paragraph (a)(5)(i) of this 
section, you must comply with the following:
    (A) Timeframe. You must collect the samples in one twelve-month 
period during the years indicated in column 6 of Table 1, Unregulated 
Contaminant Monitoring Regulation (1999) List.
    (B) Frequency. You must collect the samples within the timeframe 
and according to the following frequency specified by contaminant type 
and water source type:

[[Page 50617]]



                      Table 3.--Monitoring Frequency by Contaminant and Water Source Types
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Contaminant type              Water source type           Timeframe                 Frequency
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chemical...........................  Surface water.........  Twelve (12) months....  Four quarterly samples
                                                                                      taken as follows: Select
                                                                                      either the first, second,
                                                                                      or third month of a
                                                                                      quarter and sample in that
                                                                                      same month of each of four
                                                                                      (4) consecutive quarters a
                                                                                      to ensure that one of
                                                                                      those sampling events
                                                                                      occurs during the
                                                                                      vulnerable time.b
                                     Ground water..........  Twelve (12) months....  Two (2) times in a year
                                                                                      taken as follows: Sample
                                                                                      during one (1) month of
                                                                                      the vulnerable time b and
                                                                                      during one (1) month five
                                                                                      (5) to seven (7) months
                                                                                      earlier or later.c
Microbiological....................  Surface and ground      Twelve (12) months....  Two (2) times in a year
                                      water.                                          taken as follows: Sample
                                                                                      during one (1) month of
                                                                                      the vulnerable time b and
                                                                                      during one (1) month five
                                                                                      (5) to seven (7) months
                                                                                      earlier or later.c
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a ``Select either the first, second, or third month of a quarter and sample in that same month of each of four
  (4) consecutive quarters'' means that you must monitor during each of the four (4) months of either: January,
  April, July, October; or February, May, August, November; or March, June, September, December.
b ``Vulnerable time'' means May 1 through July 31, unless the State or EPA informs you that it has selected a
  different time period for sampling as your system's vulnerable time.
c ``Sample during one (1) month of the vulnerable time and during one (1) month five (5) to seven (7) months
  earlier or later'' means, for example, that if you select May as your ``vulnerable time'' month to sample,
  then one (1) month five (5) to seven (7) months earlier would be either October, November or December of the
  preceding year, and one (1) month five (5) to seven (7) months later would be either, October, November, or
  December of the same year.

    (C) Location. You must collect samples at the location specified 
for each listed contaminant in column 5 of the Table 1, UCMR (1999) 
List, in paragraph (a)(3) of this section. The sampling location for 
chemical contaminants must be the entry point to the distribution 
system or the compliance monitoring point specified by the State or EPA 
under 40 CFR 141.24(f)(1), (2), and (3). If the compliance monitoring 
point as specified by the State is for source (raw) water and any of 
the contaminants in paragraph (a)(3) of this section are detected, then 
you must also sample at the entry point to the distribution system at 
the frequency indicated in paragraph (a)(5)(ii)(B) of this section with 
the following exception: If the State or EPA determines that sampling 
at the entry point to the distribution system is unnecessary because no 
treatment was instituted between the source water and the distribution 
system that would affect measurement of the contaminants listed in 
paragraph (a)(3) of this section, then you do not have to sample at the 
entry point to the distribution system.
    (D) Sampling instructions. You must follow the sampling procedure 
for the method specified in column 3 of List 1 of Table 1, Unregulated 
Contaminant Monitoring Regulation (1999) List, in paragraph (a)(3) of 
this section, for each contaminant.
    (E) Testing and analytical methods. For each listed contaminant, 
you must use the analytical method specified in column 3 of List 1 of 
Table 1, Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation (1999) List, in 
paragraph (a)(3) of this section, the minimum reporting levels in 
column 4 of List 1 of Table 1, Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring 
Regulation (1999) List, in paragraph (a)(3) of this section, and the 
quality control procedures specified in Appendix A of this section.
    (F) Sampling deviations. If you do not collect a sample according 
to the procedures specified for a listed contaminant, you must resample 
within 14 days of observing the occurrence of the error (which may 
include notification from the laboratory that you must resample) 
following the procedures specified for the method. (This resampling is 
not for confirmation sampling but to correct the sampling error.)
    (G) Testing. You must arrange for the testing of the contaminants 
by a laboratory certified under Sec. 141.28 for compliance analysis 
using the EPA analytical methods listed in column 3 for each 
contaminant in Table 1, Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation 
(1999) List, in paragraph (a)(3) of this section, whether you use the 
EPA analytical methods or non-EPA methods listed in Table 1.
    (iii) Small systems that are part of the State Monitoring Plan. 
Unless directed otherwise by the State or EPA, in addition to paragraph 
(a)(5)(i) of this section, you must comply with the following:
    (A) Timeframe and frequency. You must collect samples at the times 
specified for you by the State or EPA, within the timeframe specified 
in paragraph (a)(5)(ii)(A) of this section and according to the 
frequency specified in paragraph (a)(5)(ii)(B) of this section for the 
contaminant type and water source type.
    (B) Location. You must collect samples at the locations specified 
for you by the State or EPA.
    (C) Sampling deviations. If you do not collect a sample according 
to the instructions provided to you for a listed contaminant, then you 
must report the deviation on the sample reporting form that you send to 
the laboratory with the samples. You must resample following 
instructions that you will be sent from EPA's designated laboratory or 
the State.
    (D) Sample kits. You must store and maintain the sample collection 
kits sent to you by EPA's designated laboratory in a secure place until 
used for sampling. You should read the instructions for each kit when 
you receive it. If indicated in the kit's instructions, you must freeze 
the cold packs. 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 or arrive damaged, you must notify EPA's designated laboratory 
which sent you the sample collection kits.
    (E) 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 preparing the sample and shipping 
containers for

[[Page 50618]]

shipment. You must also comply with the instructions sent to you by 
EPA's designated laboratory concerning the handling of sample 
containers for specific contaminants.
    (F) Duplicate samples. EPA will select 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 
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 the sampling forms 
sent to you by the laboratory, including the data elements 1 through 6 
listed in Sec. 141.35(d) for each sample. You must sign and date the 
sampling forms.
    (H) Sample submission. 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 in your instructions.
    (6) What additional requirements must I follow if my system is 
selected as an Index system? If your system is selected as an Index 
system in the State Monitoring Plan, you must assist the State or EPA 
in identifying appropriate sampling locations and provide information 
on which wells and intakes are in use at the time of sampling, well 
casing and screen depths (if known) for those wells, and the pumping 
rate of each well or intake at the time of sampling.
    (7) What must I do if my system is selected for the Screening 
Surveys or Pre-Screen Testing? (i) Large systems. If your system serves 
over 10,000 persons, you must collect and arrange for testing of the 
contaminants in List 2 and List 3 of Table 1, Unregulated Contaminant 
Monitoring Regulation (1999) List, in paragraph (a)(3) of this section, 
in accordance with the requirements set out in paragraphs (a)(4) and 
(5) of this section. You must send the samples to one of the 
laboratories designated by EPA in your notification. You must report 
the test results to EPA, and provide a copy to the State, as specified 
in 40 CFR 141.35.
    (ii) Small systems. If your system serves 10,000 or fewer persons, 
you must collect samples in accordance with the instructions sent to 
you by the State or EPA, or, if informed by the State or EPA that the 
State or EPA will collect the sample, you must assist the State or EPA 
in identifying the appropriate sampling locations and in taking the 
samples. EPA will report the test results to you and the State.
    (8) What is a violation of this Rule? (i) Any failure to monitor in 
accordance with Sec. 141.40(a)(3) through (7) and Appendix A is a 
monitoring violation. (ii) Any failure to report in accordance with 
Sec. 141.35 is a reporting violation.
    (b) Requirements for State and Tribal Participation. (1) How can I, 
as the director of a State or Tribal drinking water program, 
participate in unregulated contaminant monitoring, including Assessment 
Monitoring (which includes the State Monitoring Plan for small 
systems), the Screening Surveys, and Pre-Screen Testing of all systems? 
You can enter into a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with the EPA that 
describes your State's or Tribe's activities to:
    (i) Accept or modify the initial plan. EPA will first specify the 
systems serving 10,000 or fewer persons by water source and size in an 
initial State Monitoring Plan for each State using a random number 
generator. EPA will also generate a replacement list of systems for 
systems that may not have been correctly specified on the initial plan. 
This initial State Monitoring Plan will also indicate the year and day, 
plus or minus two (2) weeks from the day, that each system must monitor 
for the contaminants in List 1 of Table 1 of this section, Unregulated 
Contaminant Monitoring Regulation (1999) List. EPA will provide you 
with the initial monitoring plan for your State or Tribe, including 
systems to be Index systems and those systems to be part of the 
Screening Surveys. Within sixty (60) days of receiving your State's 
initial plan, you may notify EPA that you either accept it as your 
State Monitoring Plan or request to modify the initial plan by removing 
systems that have closed, merged or are purchasing water from another 
system and replacing them with other systems. Any purchased water 
system associated with a non-purchased water system must be added to 
the State Monitoring Plan if the State determines that its distribution 
line is the location of the maximum residence time or lowest 
disinfectant residual of the combined distribution system. In this 
case, the purchased water system must monitor for the contaminants for 
which the ``distribution system'' is identified as the point of 
``maximum residence time'' or ``lowest disinfectant residual,'' 
depending on the contaminant, and not the community water system 
selling water to it. You must replace any systems you removed from the 
initial plan with systems from the replacement list in the order they 
are listed. Your request to modify the initial plan must include the 
modified plan and the reasons for the removal and replacement of 
systems. If you believe that there are reasons other than those 
previously listed for removing and replacing one or more other systems 
from the initial plan, you may include those systems and their 
replacement systems in your request to modify the initial plan. EPA 
will review your request to modify your State's initial plan. Please 
note that information about the actual or potential occurrence or non-
occurrence of contaminants at a system or a system's vulnerability to 
contamination is not a basis for removal from or addition to the plan.
    (ii) Determine an alternate vulnerable time. Within 60 days of 
receiving the initial State Monitoring Plan, you may also determine 
that the most vulnerable time of the year for any or all of the systems 
in the plan, and for any of the large systems that must monitor, is 
some period other than May 1 through July 31. If you make this 
determination, you must modify the initial plan to indicate the 
alternate vulnerable time and to which systems the alternate vulnerable 
time applies. EPA will review these determinations when you submit your 
request to modify your State's initial monitoring plan to the EPA. You 
must notify the small system(s) in your final State Monitoring Plan and 
the large system(s) of the most vulnerable time(s) of the year that you 
have specified for them to sample for one of their sampling events. You 
must notify them at least 90 days before their first unregulated 
contaminant sampling is to occur. You may need to consider the timing 
of monitoring in paragraph (b)(1)(iii) of this section.
    (iii) Modify the timing of monitoring. Within sixty (60) days of 
receiving the initial plan, you may also modify the plan by selecting 
an alternative year and day, plus or minus two (2) weeks, within the 
years specified in column 6, List 1 of Table 1, Unregulated Contaminant 
Monitoring Regulation (1999) List, in paragraph (a)(3) of this section, 
for monitoring for each system in the initial plan as long as 
approximately one-third of the systems in the State Plan monitor in 
each of the three (3) years listed. This monitoring may be coordinated 
with regulated contaminant compliance monitoring at your discretion. 
You must send the modified plan to EPA.
    (iv) Identify alternate sampling points for small systems in the 
State Monitoring Plan. All systems are required to monitor for the 
contaminants at the sampling locations specified in column 5, List 1 of 
Table 1, Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation (1999) List, in 
paragraph (a)(3) of this section, unless the State specifies an 
alternate compliance sampling point as the sampling location.

[[Page 50619]]

If the compliance sampling points for the small systems in the State 
Monitoring Plan are different than those specified in paragraph (a)(3) 
of this section, then you must indicate these sampling points in the 
plan. These alternative sampling points must allow proper sampling and 
testing for the unregulated contaminants.
    (v) Notify small and large systems of their monitoring 
responsibilities. You must provide notification to systems in the plan 
and, where appropriate, the large systems, at least ninety (90) days 
before sampling must occur.
    (vi) Provide instructions to systems that are part of the final 
State Monitoring Plan. You must send a monitoring schedule to each 
system listed in the State Monitoring Plan and instructions on 
location, frequency, timing of sampling, use of sampling equipment, and 
handling and shipment of samples based on these regulations. EPA will 
provide you with guidance for these instructions. If you perform the 
sampling or make alternative arrangements for the sampling at the 
systems in the plan, you must inform EPA at least six (6) months before 
the first monitoring is to occur and address the alternative monitoring 
arrangements in the MOA.
    (vii) Participate in monitoring for the Screening Surveys for small 
and large systems. Within 120 days prior to sampling, EPA will notify 
you which systems have been selected to participate in the Screening 
Surveys, the sampling dates, the designated laboratory for testing, and 
instructions for sampling. You must review the small systems that EPA 
selected for the State Monitoring Plan to ensure that the systems are 
not closed, merged or purchasing water from another system (unless the 
system is to conduct microbiological contaminant monitoring), and then 
make any replacements in the plan, as described in paragraph (b)(1)(i) 
of this section. You must notify the selected systems in your State of 
these Screening Surveys requirements. You must provide the necessary 
Screening Surveys information to the selected systems at least ninety 
(90) days prior to the sampling date.
    (viii) Participate in monitoring for Pre-Screen Testing for small 
and large systems. You can participate in Pre-Screen Testing in two 
ways.
    (A) First, within ninety (90) days of EPA's letter to you 
concerning initiation of Pre-Screen Testing for specific contaminants, 
you can identify from five (5) up to twenty-five (25) systems in your 
State that you determine to be representative of the most vulnerable 
systems to these contaminants, modify your State Monitoring Plan to 
include these most vulnerable systems if any serve 10,000 or fewer 
persons, and notify EPA of the addition of these systems to the State 
Plan. These systems must be selected from all community and non-
transient noncommunity water systems. EPA will use the State-identified 
vulnerable systems to select up to 200 systems nationally to be 
monitored considering the characteristics of the contaminants, 
precipitation, system operation, and environmental conditions.
    (B) Second, within 120 days prior to sampling, EPA will notify you 
which systems have been selected, sampling dates, the designated 
laboratory for testing of samples for systems serving 10,000 or fewer 
persons and approved laboratories for systems serving more than 10,000 
persons, and instructions for sampling. You must notify the owners or 
operators of the selected systems in your State of these Pre-Screen 
Testing requirements. At least ninety (90) days prior to the sampling 
date, you must provide the necessary Pre-Screen Testing information to 
the owners or operators of the selected systems and then inform EPA 
that you took this action to allow sufficient time for EPA to ensure 
laboratory readiness.
    (ix) Revise system's treatment plant location(s) to include 
latitude and longitude. For reporting to the Safe Drinking Water 
Information System, EPA already requires reporting of either the 
latitude and longitude or the street address for the treatment plant 
location. If the State enters into an MOA, the State must report each 
system's treatment plant location(s) as latitude and longitude (in 
addition to street address, if previously reported) by the time of the 
system's reporting of Assessment Monitoring results to the National 
Drinking Water Contaminant Occurrence Database.
    (2) What if I decide not to participate in an MOA? If you decide 
not to enter into an MOA with EPA to develop the State Monitoring Plan 
for small systems, the initial monitoring plan that EPA sent you will 
become the final State Monitoring Plan for your State or Tribe. In that 
case, you may still notify each public water system of its selection 
for the plan and instructions for monitoring as long as you notify EPA 
that you will be undertaking this responsibility at least six (6) 
months prior to the first unregulated contaminant monitoring.
    (3) Can I add contaminants to the Unregulated Contaminant 
Monitoring List? Yes, the SDWA allows Governors of seven (7) or more 
States to petition the EPA Administrator to add one or more 
contaminants to the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation 
(1999) 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 in paragraph (a)(3) of this section, 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 
Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation (1999) List, in paragraph 
(a)(3) of this section.
    (4) Can I waive monitoring requirements? Only with EPA approval and 
under very limited conditions. Conditions and procedures for obtaining 
the only type of waiver available under these regulations are as 
follows:
    (i) Application. You may apply to EPA for a State-wide waiver from 
the unregulated contaminant monitoring requirements for public water 
systems serving more than 10,000 persons. To apply for such a waiver, 
you must submit an application to EPA that includes the following 
information:
    (A) the list of contaminants on the Unregulated Contaminant 
Monitoring List for which you request a waiver, and
    (B) documentation for each contaminant in your request 
demonstrating that the contaminants have not been used, applied, 
stored, disposed of, released, naturally present or detected in the 
source waters or distribution systems in your State during the past 15 
years, and that it does not occur naturally in your State.
    (ii) Approval. EPA will notify you if EPA agrees to waive 
monitoring requirements.

Appendix A to Sec. 141.40--Quality Control Requirements for Testing All 
Samples Collected

    Your system must ensure that the quality control requirements 
listed below for testing of samples collected and submitted under 
Sec. 141.40 are followed:
    (1) Sample Collection/Preservation. Follow the sample collection 
and preservation requirements for the specified method for each of 
the contaminants in Table 1, UCMR (1999) List, 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 the laboratory 
must follow.

[[Page 50620]]

    (2) Method Detection Limit. Calculate the laboratory method 
detection limit (MDLs) for each contaminant in Table 1, Unregulated 
Contaminant Monitoring Regulation (1999) List, of paragraph (a)(3) 
of this section using the appropriate specified method according to 
procedures in 40 CFR Part 136, Appendix B with the exception that 
the contaminant concentration used to fortify reagent water must be 
less than or equal to the minimum reporting level (MRL) for the 
contaminants as specified in column 4, Table 1, UCMR (1999) List, in 
paragraph (a)(3) of this section. The calculated MDL is equal to the 
standard deviation times the Student's T value for 99% confidence 
level with n-1 degrees of freedom. (The MDL must be less than or 
equal to one-half of the MRL.)
    (3) Calibration. Follow the initial calibration requirements as 
specified in the method utilized. Calibration must be verified 
initially with a low-level standard at a concentration at or below 
the MRL for each contaminant. Perform a continuing calibration 
verification following every 10th sample. The calibration 
verification must be performed by alternating low-level and mid-
level calibration standards. The low-level standard is defined as a 
concentration at or below the MRL with an acceptance range of 
40%. The mid-level standard is in the middle of the 
calibration range with an acceptance range of 20%.
    (4) Reagent Blank Analysis. Analyze one laboratory reagent 
(method) blank per sample set/batch that is treated exactly as a 
sample. The maximum allowable background concentration is one-half 
of the MRL for all contaminants. A field reagent blank is required 
only for EPA Method 524.2 (or equivalent listed methods, D5790.95, 
SM6210D, and SM6200B).
    (5) Quality Control Sample. Obtain a quality control sample from 
an external source to check laboratory performance at least once 
each quarter.
    (6) Matrix Spike and Duplicate. Prepare and analyze the sample 
matrix spike (SMS) for accuracy and matrix spike duplicate (MSD) 
samples for precision to determine method accuracy and precision for 
all contaminants in Table 1, Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring 
Regulation (1999) List, in paragraph (a)(3) of this section. SMS/MSD 
samples must be prepared and analyzed at a frequency of 5% (or one 
SMS/MSD set per every 20 samples) or with each sample batch 
whichever is more frequent. In addition, the SMS/MSD spike 
concentrations must be alternated between a low-level spike and mid-
level spike approximately 50% of the time. (For example: a set of 40 
samples will require preparation and analysis of two SMS/MSD sets. 
The first set must be spiked at either the low-level or mid level, 
and the second set must be spiked with the other standard, either 
the low-level or mid-level, whichever was not used for the initial 
SMS/MSD set). The low-level SMS/MSD spike concentration must be 
within 20% of the MRL for each contaminant. The mid-
level SMS/MSD spike concentration must be within 20% of 
the mid-level calibration standard for each contaminant, and should 
represent, where possible, an approximate average concentration 
observed in previous analyses of that analyte. The spiking 
concentrations must be reported in the same units of measure as the 
analytical results.
    (7) Internal Standard Calibration. As appropriate to a method's 
requirements to be used, test and obtain an internal standard for 
the methods for each chemical contaminant in Table 1, Unregulated 
Contaminant Monitoring Regulation (1999) List, in paragraph (a)(3) 
of this section, a pure contaminant of known concentration, for 
calibration and quantitation purposes. The methods specify the 
percent recovery or response that you must obtain for acceptance.
    (8) Method Performance Test. As appropriate to a method's 
requirements, test for surrogate compounds, a pure contaminant 
unlikely to be found in any sample, to be used to monitor method 
performance. The methods specify the percent recovery that you must 
obtain for acceptance.
    (9) Detection Confirmation. Confirm any chemical contaminant 
detected above the MRL by gas chromatographic/mass spectrometric 
(GC/MS) methods. If testing resulted in first analyzing the sample 
extracts via specified gas chromatographic methods, an initial 
confirmation by a second column dissimilar to the primary column may 
be performed. If the contaminant detection is confirmed by the 
secondary column, then the contaminant must be reconfirmed by GC/MS 
using three (3) specified ion peaks for contaminant identification. 
Use one of the following confirming techniques: perform single point 
calibration of the GC/MS system for confirmation purposes only as 
long as the calibration standard is at a concentration within 
 50% of the concentration determined by the initial 
analysis; or perform a three (3) point calibration with single point 
daily calibration verification of the GC/MS system regardless of 
whether that verification standard concentration is within 
 50% of sample response. If GC/MS analysis confirms the 
initial contaminant detection, report results determined from the 
initial analysis.
    (10) Reporting. Report the analytical results and other data, 
with the required data listed in 40 CFR 141.35, Table 1. Report this 
data electronically to EPA, unless EPA specifies otherwise, and 
provide a copy to the State. Systems must coordinate with their 
laboratories for electronic reporting to EPA to ensure proper 
formatting and timely data submission.

PART 142--NATIONAL PRIMARY DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS 
IMPLEMENTATION

    1. 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.

Sec. 142.15   [Amended]

    2. Section 142.15 is amended by removing and reserving paragraph 
(c)(3).
    3. Section 142.16 is amended by revising paragraphs (e) 
introductory text, (e)(1) introductory text, and (e)(1)(i)(C) 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 Secs. 141.11, 141.23, 141.24, 
141.32, 141.61 and 141.62 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):
    (1) If a State chooses to issue waivers from the monitoring 
requirements in Secs. 141.23 and 141.24, the State shall describe the 
procedures and criteria which it will use to review waiver applications 
and issue waiver determinations.
    (i) * * *
    (C) The State decision criteria, including the factors that will be 
considered in deciding to grant or deny waivers. The decision criteria 
must include the factors specified in Secs. 141.24(f)(8) and 
141.24(h)(6).
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 99-23030 Filed 9-3-99; 12:35 pm]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P