[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 2 (Thursday, January 4, 2007)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 367-398]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-22123]



[[Page 367]]

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

Part II





Environmental Protection Agency





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



40 CFR Parts 9, 141, and 142



Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation (UCMR) for Public Water 
Systems Revisions; Final Rule

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

[[Page 368]]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 9, 141 and 142

[Docket No. OW-2004-0001; FRL-8261-7]
RIN 2040-AD93


Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation (UCMR) for Public 
Water Systems Revisions

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), as amended in 1996, 
requires the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to 
establish criteria for a program to monitor unregulated contaminants 
and to publish a list of contaminants to be monitored every five years. 
EPA published the first set of contaminants in 1999. This final 
regulation meets the SDWA requirement by publishing the next set of 
unregulated contaminants to be monitored and the requirements for such 
monitoring.
    This final rule describes the design for the second Unregulated 
Contaminant Monitoring Regulation (UCMR) cycle (i.e., UCMR 2) of 2007-
2011. EPA is requiring monitoring of 25 chemicals using 5 different 
analytical methods. UCMR 2 monitoring will occur during 2008-2010. 
Implementation of this final rule will benefit the environment by 
providing EPA and other interested parties with scientifically valid 
data on the occurrence of these contaminants in drinking water, thereby 
permitting the assessment of the population potentially being exposed 
and the levels of that exposure. These data are the primary source of 
occurrence and exposure data for the Agency to determine whether to 
regulate these contaminants.

DATES: This final rule is effective on February 5, 2007. For purposes 
of judicial review, this rule is promulgated as of 1 p.m. eastern time 
on January 4, 2007 as provided in 40 CFR 23.7. The incorporation by 
reference of certain publications listed in this rule is approved by 
the Director of the Federal Register as of February 5, 2007.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID 
No. OW-2004-0001. All documents in the docket are listed in the index 
at www.regulations.gov. Although listed in the index, some information 
is not publicly available, e.g., confidential business information or 
other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain 
other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the 
Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. 
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically 
at http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Water Docket, EPA/
DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. 
This Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday 
through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for this 
Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the 
Water Docket is (202) 566-2426.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David J. Munch, Technical Support 
Center, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water, United States 
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, 26 West Martin Luther 
King Drive (MS 140), Cincinnati, OH 45268, telephone (513) 569-7843; e-
mail address [email protected]. For general information, contact the 
Safe Drinking Water Hotline. Callers within the United States may reach 
the Hotline at (800) 426-4791. The Hotline is open Monday through 
Friday, excluding legal holidays, from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m., eastern time.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

Does This Action Apply to Me?

    Entities regulated by this action are public water systems (PWSs). 
All large community and non-transient non-community water systems 
serving more than 10,000 people will be required to monitor. A 
community water system means a PWS which serves at least 15 service 
connections used by year-round residents or regularly serves at least 
25 year-round residents. Non-transient non-community water system means 
a PWS that is not a community water system and that regularly serves at 
least 25 of the same people over 6 months per year. Only a nationally 
representative sample of community and non-transient non-community 
systems serving 10,000 or fewer people will be required to monitor. 
Transient non-community systems (i.e., systems that do not regularly 
serve at least 25 of the same people over 6 months per year) will not 
be required to monitor. States, Territories, and Tribes that qualify 
for treatment as a State for purposes of this program, may participate 
in the implementation of the second cycle of the Unregulated 
Contaminant Monitoring Regulation (i.e., UCMR 2) through a Partnership 
Agreement. These agencies may choose to conduct analyses to measure for 
contaminants in water samples collected for the UCMR 2, in which case 
they will be regulated by this action.
    Regulated categories and entities are identified in the following 
table.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Examples of potentially
             Category                 regulated entities       NAICS\a\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
State, local, & tribal             States, local and tribal       924110
 Governments.                       governments that
                                    analyze water samples
                                    on behalf of PWSs
                                    required to conduct
                                    such analysis; States,
                                    local and tribal
                                    governments that
                                    directly operate
                                    community and non-
                                    transient non-community
                                    water systems required
                                    to monitor.
Industry.........................  Private operators of           221310
                                    community and non-
                                    transient non-community
                                    water systems required
                                    to monitor.
Municipalities...................  Municipal operators of        924110
                                    community and non-
                                    transient non-community
                                    water systems required
                                    to monitor.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ NAICS = North American Industry Classification System.

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a 
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this 
action. This table lists the types of entities that EPA is now aware 
could potentially be regulated by this action. Other types of entities 
not listed in the table could also be regulated. To determine whether 
your facility is regulated by this action, you should carefully examine 
the definition of PWS in Sec.  141.2 of title 40 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations, and applicability criteria in Sec.  141.40(a)(1) and (2) 
of this final action. If you have questions regarding the applicability 
of this action to a particular entity, consult the person

[[Page 369]]

listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

Abbreviations and Acronyms

HBB 2,2',4,4',5,5'-hexabromobiphenyl
[mu]g/L Microgram per liter
ASDWA Association of State Drinking Water Administrators
BDE-47 2,2',4,4'-tetrabromodiphenyl ether
BDE-99 2,2',4,4',5-pentabromodiphenyl ether
BDE-100 2,2',4,4',6-pentabromodiphenyl ether
BDE-153 2,2',4,4',5,5'-hexabromodiphenyl ether
CCL Contaminant Candidate List
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DBP Disinfection Byproduct
DBPR Stage 1 or Stage 2 Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule
DSMRT Distribution system maximum residence time
DQO Data quality objective
DWSRF Drinking Water State Revolving Fund
EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
EPTDS Entry point to the distribution system
ESA Ethane sulfonic acid
FR Federal Register
GC Gas chromatography
GWUDI Ground water under the direct influence of surface water
HAA5 Haloacetic acid 5 (5 HAAs currently regulated)
HPLC High performance liquid chromatography
HRPIR Half range prediction interval of results
ICR Information collection request
IDC Initial demonstration of capability
IDSE Initial distribution system evaluation
IHS Indian Health Service
LC Liquid chromatography
LCMRL Lowest concentration minimum reporting level
LFSM Laboratory fortified sample matrix
LFSMD Laboratory fortified sample matrix duplicate
MCL Maximum contaminant level
MRL Minimum reporting level
MS Mass spectrometry
NAICS National American Industry Classification System
NCOD National Drinking Water Contaminant Occurrence Database
NDBA N-nitroso-di-n-butylamine
NDEA N-nitrosodiethylamine
NDMA N-nitrosodimethylamine
NDPA N-nitroso-di-n-propylamine
NMEA N-nitrosomethylethylamine
NPDWR National Primary Drinking Water Regulation
NPYR N-nitrosopyrrolidine
NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
OA Oxanilic acid
OMB Office of Management and Budget
PA Partnership agreement
PIR Prediction interval of results
PT Proficiency testing
PWS Public water system
PWSID Public water system identification
QA Quality assurance
QC Quality control
RDX Hexahydro-1,3,5-trinitro-1,3,5-triazine
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
RSD Relative standard deviation
SBA Small Business Administration
SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act
SDWARS Safe Drinking Water Accession and Review System
SDWIS Safe Drinking Water Information System
SPE Solid phase extraction
TNT 2,4,6-trinitrotoluene
TTHM Total trihalomethanes
UCMR Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation
UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency

Table of Contents

I. General Information
    Does This Action Apply to Me?
II. Statutory Authority and Background
    A. What Is the Statutory Authority for UCMR?
    B. How Does EPA Meet These Statutory Requirements?
III. Summary of This Rule
    A. What Are the Major Changes between the Proposed and Final 
Rule?
    Exhibit 1: Changes to UCMR 2 between Proposed and Final Rule
    B. Which Water Systems Must Monitor?
    1. This Rule
    2. Summary of Major Comments
    C. What Are the UCMR 2 Priority Contaminants and Associated 
Methods?
    1. List Compilation
    Exhibit 2: Analytical Methods Approved for UCMR 2 Monitoring
    2. Acetanilide Pesticides, Degradation Products, and Related 
Methods
    3. Explosives and Related Methods
    4. Perchlorate and Related Methods
    5. Nitrosamines/NDMA and Related Methods
    6. Flame Retardants, Other Priority Contaminants, and Related 
Methods
    7. Triazines Chlorodegradates and Parent Compounds
    8. Other Compounds That Were Considered
    D. How Are Laboratories Approved for UCMR 2 Monitoring?
    1. This Rule
    2. Summary of Major Comments
    E. What Is A System's Responsibility Regarding the Use of 
Laboratories?
    1. This Rule
    2. Summary of Major Comments
    F. What Specific Quality Control Requirements Must Be Followed?
    1. Method Development Approach and Method Defined Quality 
Control
    2. Minimum Reporting Level
    3. Lowest Concentration Minimum Reporting Level
    4. Laboratory Fortified Sample Matrix and Laboratory Fortified 
Sample Matrix Duplicate
    G. When Are Samples Collected?
    1. This Rule
    2. Summary of Major Comments
    H. Where Are Samples Collected?
    1. Entry Points to the Distribution System
    2. Distribution System Maximum Residence Time
I. How Should Samples Be Collected?
    1. This Rule
    2. Summary of Major Comments
    J. What Are the UCMR 2 Reporting Requirements?
    1. Information Required Prior to Monitoring
    2. Reporting of Required Data Elements
    3. Reporting Process
    4. Cross-Media Reporting and Data Availability
    K. What Constitutes a Violation Under UCMR 2?
    L. Technical Correction Rule Changes in This Rule
    1. Changes Pertaining to Aldicarb Monitoring
    2. Changes Pertaining to State Primacy
IV. State and Tribal Participation
    A. Partnership Agreements
    1. This Rule
    2. Summary of Major Comments
    B. Governors' Petition and State-Wide Waivers
V. Cost and Benefits of This Rule
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With 
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From 
Environmental Health and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect 
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address 
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 
Populations
    K. Congressional Review Act
VII. Public Involvement in Regulation Development
VIII. References

List of Exhibits

Exhibit 1: Changes to UCMR 2 between Proposed and Final Rule
Exhibit 2: Analytical Methods Approved for UCMR 2 Monitoring

[[Page 370]]

II. Statutory Authority and Background

A. What Is the Statutory Authority for UCMR?

    Section 1445(a)(2) of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), as 
amended in 1996, requires that once every five years, beginning in 
August 1999, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 
shall issue a list of no more than 30 unregulated contaminants to be 
monitored by public water systems (PWSs), and that EPA enter the 
monitoring data into the National Drinking Water Contaminant Occurrence 
Database (NCOD). EPA's UCMR program must ensure that only a nationally 
representative sample of PWSs serving 10,000 or fewer people will be 
required to monitor; however, there are no such restrictions on the 
number of systems serving more than 10,000 people. EPA must vary the 
frequency and schedule for monitoring based on the number of people a 
system serves, the source of supply, and the contaminants likely to be 
found.

B. How Does EPA Meet These Statutory Requirements?

    To fulfill the initial SDWA requirements, EPA published ``Revisions 
to the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation for Public Water 
Systems; Final Rule,'' on September 17, 1999 (64 FR 50556, (USEPA, 
1999)). Several supplemental rules were published to establish 
analytical methods and to provide clarifications and refinements to the 
initial rule: 65 FR 11372, March 2, 2000 (USEPA, 2000); 66 FR 2273, 
January 11, 2001 (USEPA, 2001a); and 67 FR 65888, October 29, 2002 
(USEPA, 2002b). SDWA, as amended in 1996, requires that at least once 
every five years EPA identify a list of no more than 30 unregulated 
contaminants to be monitored. This final action fulfills this statutory 
obligation, identifying 25 priority contaminants for monitoring using 
five analytical methods. EPA has developed a contaminant list (Exhibit 
2, in Section III.C.1) and sampling design for UCMR 2 (2007-2011) with 
input from both stakeholders and an EPA working group. This list is the 
same as was presented in the proposed rule, with one exception: 
perchlorate has been removed from the UCMR 2 monitoring requirements 
(see Section III.C. 4 for further discussion).

III. Summary of This Rule

A. What Are the Major Changes Between the Proposed and Final Rule?

    EPA published ``Revisions to the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring 
Regulation for Public Water Systems; Proposed Rule,'' on August 22, 
2005 (70 FR 49094, (USEPA, 2005a)). EPA received comments from 36 
public commenters.
    In response to comments received and further consideration, EPA 
removed perchlorate from the list of contaminants to be monitored for 
under UCMR 2, and revised or clarified requirements pertaining to 
system applicability criteria, reporting, monitoring, and quality 
control. In addition, to accommodate PWS preparation for rule 
implementation and to provide additional assurance of sufficient 
laboratory capacity, this rule contains revised language that changes 
the start of monitoring from July 2007 to January 2008, such that the 
effective monitoring period is now January 2008 through December 2010. 
Exhibit 1 provides a summary of these changes, and a listing of the 
corresponding preamble section, which provides a more detailed 
discussion of the revisions and related public comments. Sections 
III.B-K summarize the different aspects of this rule and the associated 
major comments received in response to the August 2005 proposed rule 
and their impact, if any, on this rule.
    This summary focuses on the changes between the proposed and final 
rule, and requirements with deadlines that are triggered by the 
publication date of this final rule. EPA has compiled a document 
containing all public comments and EPA's responses entitled ``UCMR 2 
Categorized Public Comments,'' which can be obtained by going to http://www.regulations.gov, and searching for Docket ID No. OW-2004-0001 
under the advanced search tab.

                          Exhibit 1.--Changes to UCMR 2 between Proposed and Final Rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         Rule section
---------------------------------------------------------------  Description of change    Corresponding preamble
                Number                    Title/description                                      section
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
141.35(a)............................  General applicability..  Defines ``finished       III.B.
                                                                 water'' to clarify the
                                                                 definition of
                                                                 ``population served''.
141.35(c)(3)(i)......................  Documenting ground       Clarifies that approved  III.J.1.c.
                                        water representative     representative well
                                        sampling locations.      plans from previous
                                                                 UCMR cycles can be
                                                                 submitted to identify
                                                                 representative entry
                                                                 point(s).
141.35(c)(5).........................  PWS notification of EPA  Provides exception to    III.J.1.d.
                                        if sampling schedule     notification
                                        cannot be met.           requirement for PWS
                                                                 with ground water
                                                                 sampling location that
                                                                 can collect second
                                                                 sample sets within 5-7
                                                                 months of the first
                                                                 sample set.
141.35(e)............................  Data Elements..........  Revises Table 1 of Sec.  III.J.2.
                                                                   141.35 to:
                                                                1. Clarify the
                                                                 definition of ``Water
                                                                 Source Type'' for a
                                                                 sampling point..
                                                                2. Change the name of
                                                                 ``Sampling Point Type
                                                                 Identification Code''
                                                                 to ``Sampling Point
                                                                 Type Code'' and
                                                                 distinguish this data
                                                                 element from
                                                                 ``Sampling Point
                                                                 Identification Code''..
                                                                3. Clarify the
                                                                 definition for
                                                                 ``Disinfectant
                                                                 Residual Type''..
141.40(a)(3).........................  Analytes to be           Revises Table 1 of       III.G.
                                        monitored and            141.40 to:              III.C.4.
                                        monitoring period.      1. Change monitoring     III.F.2.
                                                                 begin date to January
                                                                 2008, and Screening
                                                                 Survey monitoring
                                                                 period to coincide
                                                                 with Assessment
                                                                 Monitoring..
                                                                2. Delete perchlorate
                                                                 from table and
                                                                 associated footnotes..
                                                                3. Revise minimum
                                                                 reporting levels to
                                                                 one significant
                                                                 figure..

[[Page 371]]

 
141.40(a)(4)(i)(A)...................  Monitoring schedules...  Clarifies that EPA or    III.G. and III.J.1.d.
                                                                 the State will
                                                                 determine PWS
                                                                 monitoring schedules.
141.40(a)(4)(i)(B)...................  Frequency..............  1. Requires PWSs with    III.G.
                                                                 ground water sampling
                                                                 locations that cannot
                                                                 collect their second
                                                                 samples within 5-7
                                                                 months of the first
                                                                 samples to contact EPA.
                                                                2. Changes Table 2 to
                                                                 indicate that ground
                                                                 water sample events
                                                                 must occur 5-7 months
                                                                 apart..
141.40(a)(4)(i)(D)...................  Sampling Instructions..  1. Clarifies that        III.C.2; III.F.1; and
                                                                 acetanilide parent and   III.C.4.
                                                                 degradates must be
                                                                 sampled at the same
                                                                 time and location.
                                                                2. Deletes reference to
                                                                 collection methods for
                                                                 perchlorate samples.
141.40(a)(4)(i)(G)...................  Laboratory errors or     Changes resampling       III. I.
                                        sampling deviations.     deadline from within
                                                                 14 days to within 30
                                                                 days.
141.40(a)(5)(i)......................  Sample collection        Deletes reference to     III.C.4.
                                        preservation.            preservation methods
                                                                 for perchlorate
                                                                 samples.
141.40(a)(5)(iii)(B)(2)..............  Quality control          Deletes additional       III.C.4.
                                        requirements.            quality control
                                                                 requirements for
                                                                 perchlorate methods.
141.40(a)(5)(iv).....................  Laboratory accuracy and  Changes method           III.F.4.
                                        precision.               requirement to fortify
                                                                 the matrix at the
                                                                 minimum reporting
                                                                 level (MRL)
                                                                 concentration to
                                                                 within ;+/-50% vs. +/-
                                                                 20%.
141.40(a)(5)(v)......................  Detection confirmation   Deletes requirements in  III.C.4 and III.F.1.
                                        for perchlorate.         this section; and
                                                                 renumbers subsequent
                                                                 paragraphs accordingly.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Which Water Systems Must Monitor?

1. This Rule
    This rule requires that Assessment Monitoring be conducted by all 
large community and non-transient, non-community water systems serving 
more than 10,000 people, and a nationally representative sample of 800 
small water systems serving 10,000 or fewer people. Transient non-
community water systems and those systems that purchase all of their 
finished water from another system are excluded from the requirements 
of UCMR 2. Assessment Monitoring is the largest in scope of the three 
UCMR 2 monitoring components (or tiers). Under Assessment Monitoring, 
``List 1'' contaminants, for which standard analytical methods are 
available, are monitored to assess national occurrence in drinking 
water. These are the priority contaminants for which analytical method 
technologies are well established.
    The second tier of UCMR 2 is referred to as ``List 2'' or Screening 
Survey monitoring. List 2 contaminants are those for which analytical 
methods have been recently developed, and for which the technologies 
are not widely used; laboratory capacity, therefore, may be 
insufficient to conduct the larger scale Assessment Monitoring. The 
Screening Survey will be conducted by approximately 400 PWSs serving 
more than 100,000 people (all systems in this largest size category), 
by a randomly selected sample of 320 PWSs serving between 10,001 and 
100,000 people, and by 480 small PWSs.
    Pre-Screen Testing, the third tier of UCMR monitoring that is 
designed for priority ``List 3'' contaminants, whose methods are very 
new or specialized, is not required in this action, although EPA is 
retaining the regulatory language that supports Pre-Screen Testing 
authority as part of the three-tiered UCMR framework. If EPA ultimately 
decides to include Pre-Screen Testing as part of this or a future UCMR, 
EPA will initiate a rulemaking action to propose List 3 contaminants 
(and their associated analytical methods) and to solicit public 
comments.
    This rule also defines ``population served'' as ``the number of 
people served directly by the PWS'' plus those served ``by any 
consecutive system receiving all or part of its finished water from 
that PWS.'' To help clarify the definition of population served, the 
final regulation will also include the definition of ``finished water'' 
that was recently finalized as part of the ``Stage 2 Disinfectants and 
Disinfection Byproducts Rule'' (71 FR 388, January 4, 2006 (USEPA, 
2006a)) as follows: ``Finished water is water that is introduced into 
the distribution system of a public water system and is intended for 
distribution and consumption without further treatment, except the 
treatment necessary to maintain water quality in the distribution 
system (e.g., booster disinfection, addition of corrosion control 
chemicals).'' This final regulation also specifies the PWS system's 
water source and population served, as of June 30, 2005, as the basis 
for establishing a defined list of PWSs that are subject to the rule 
requirements.
2. Summary of Major Comments
    Comments included a recommendation for EPA to define the term 
``finished water'' in EPA's definition of ``population served,'' and 
support for the designation of the June 30, 2005, applicability date 
because it would eliminate some of the confusion that occurred under 
UCMR 1 and avoid extra effort to keep monitoring plans accurate and 
current. In response to these comments, this final regulation contains 
the definition of ``finished water'' that was recently finalized as 
part of the Stage 2 Disinfection Byproducts Rule and retains the 
proposed applicability date. EPA agrees that the specific applicability 
date of June 30, 2005, will help to streamline the implementation 
process.
    Other comments included recommendations to publish the list of 
systems that are subject to UCMR 2. Such a list, including preliminary 
schedules, is posted on the UCMR Web page: http://www.epa.gov/safewater/ucmr/ucmr2.

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

1. List Compilation
a. This Rule
    This rule specifies 25 contaminants for monitoring, along with five 
EPA

[[Page 372]]

Methods for analysis as listed in Exhibit 2. EPA began with a list of 
over 200 contaminants, compiled from a variety of different sources, 
including: UCMR 1 reserved contaminants; Candidate Contaminant List 1 
(CCL 1) ``deferred pesticides''; CCL 1 suspected endocrine disruptors; 
and other emerging contaminants. The CCL is a list of contaminants that 
are not subject to any proposed or promulgated National Primary 
Drinking Water Regulation (NPDWR), are known or anticipated to occur at 
PWSs, and may require regulation under SDWA. The first CCL, published 
in March 1998 (referred to as ``CCL 1''), identified 60 contaminants or 
contaminant groups (63 FR 10274, March 2, 1998 (USEPA, 1998b)) that 
were divided into categories to represent research and data needs for 
each of the following: (1) Regulatory determination priorities; (2) 
health effects research priorities; (3) treatment research priorities; 
(4) analytical methods research priorities; and (5) occurrence 
priorities. Through a multi-stepped review and prioritization process 
(with relative health effects the top priority), the UCMR analyte list 
was narrowed and prioritized, as described in the August 2005 proposed 
rule, and 26 contaminants were identified. However, based on public 
comment and further consideration, EPA has removed the requirement for 
monitoring perchlorate under the UCMR 2 program (see Section III.C.4).

      Exhibit 2.--Analytical Methods Approved for UCMR 2 Monitoring
------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Analytical method \1\            Contaminant        UCMR 2 ``List''
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA Method 527 (SPE/GC/MS)....  2,2',4,4'-              List 1,
                                 tetrabromodiphenyl      Assessment
                                 ether (BDE-47).         Monitoring: 7
                                                         contaminants.
                                2,2',4,4',5-
                                 pentabromodiphenyl
                                 ether (BDE-99).
                                2,2',4,4',5,5'-
                                 hexabromobiphenyl
                                 (HBB).
                                2,2',4,4',5,5'-
                                 hexabromodiphenyl
                                 ether (BDE-153).
                                2,2',4,4',6-
                                 pentabromodiphenyl
                                 ether (BDE-100).
                                Dimethoate............
                                Terbufos sulfone......
EPA Method 529 (SPE/GC/MS)....  1,3-dinitrobenzene....  List 1,
                                                         Assessment
                                                         Monitoring: 3
                                                         contaminants.
                                2,4,6-trinitrotoluene
                                 (TNT).
                                Hexahydro-1,3,5-
                                 trinitro-1,3,5-
                                 triazine (RDX).
EPA Method 521 (SPE/GC/CI/MS/   N-nitrosodiethylamine   List 2,
 MS).                            (NDEA).                 Screening
                                                         Survey: 6
                                                         contaminants.
                                N-nitrosodimethylamine
                                 (NDMA).
                                N-nitroso-di-n-
                                 butylamine (NDBA).
                                N-nitroso-di-n-
                                 propylamine (NDPA).
                                N-
                                 nitrosomethylethylami
                                 ne (NMEA).
                                N-nitrosopyrrolidine
                                 (NPYR).
EPA Method 535 (SPE/LC/MS/MS).  Acetochlor ethane       List 2,
                                 sulfonic acid (ESA).    Screening
                                                         Survey: 6
                                                         contaminants.
                                Acetochlor oxanilic
                                 acid (OA).
                                Alachlor ESA..........
                                Alachlor OA...........
                                Metolachlor ESA.......
                                Metolachlor OA........
EPA Method 525.2 (SPE/GC/MS)..  Acetochlor............  List 2,
                                                         Screening
                                                         Survey: 3
                                                         contaminants.
                                Alachlor..............
                                Metolachlor...........
Total of 25 UCMR 2
 contaminants .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ EPA Method 521: Determination of Nitrosamines in Drinking Water by
  Solid Phase Extraction and Capillary Column Gas Chromatography with
  Large Volume Injection and Chemical Ionization Tandem Mass
  Spectrometry (MS/MS) (USEPA, 2004a).
EPA Method 525.2: Determination of Organic Compounds in Drinking Water
  by Liquid-Solid Extraction and Capillary Column Gas Chromatography/
  Mass Spectrometry (USEPA, 1995).
EPA Method 527: Determination of Selected Pesticides and Flame
  Retardants in Drinking Water by Solid Phase Extraction and Capillary
  Column Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry (GC/MS) (USEPA, 2004b).
EPA Method 529: Determination of Explosives and Related Compounds in
  Drinking Water by Solid Phase Extraction and Capillary Column Gas
  Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry (GC/MS) (USEPA, 2002a).
EPA Method 535, Revision 1.1: Measurement of Chloroacetanilide and Other
  Acetamide Herbicide Degradates in Drinking Water by Solid Phase
  Extraction and Liquid Chromatography/Tandem Mass Spectrometry (LC/MS/
  MS) (USEPA, 2004c).

b. Summary of Major Comments
    Some commenters supported the contaminant selection process in 
general, but disagreed with EPA's criterion that pesticides must be 
currently registered to be considered for UCMR 2 because pesticides can 
persist even after they are no longer in use. EPA agrees that the issue 
of pesticides and their degradates is an important one and will 
consider, in future contaminant selection processes, the commenters' 
concern about the requirement that pesticides be registered. EPA did 
not receive comments on its health effects prioritization process.
    Comments were received recommending that EPA substantially increase 
the number of UCMR 2 contaminants because of the large number of 
contaminants that are manufactured and sold in the United States. 
Section 1445(a)(2)(B)(i) of SDWA specifically limits the number of 
unregulated contaminants to 30 in each UCMR five-year cycle. The UCMR 2 
list represents what EPA believes to be the highest priority drinking 
water contaminants for which monitoring information is needed and 
obtainable.
    Further comments indicated that EPA needs to clarify the process 
for prioritization of both UCMR and CCL contaminants. In general, 
concern was expressed that EPA did not sufficiently explain the status 
of CCL research

[[Page 373]]

priorities, especially with respect to the UCMR contaminant selection 
process.
    In the August 2005 preamble to the proposed rule, as well as in 
other past Federal Register notifications, EPA has explained in detail 
the connections between the CCL and the UCMR programs (http://www.epa.gov/safewater/ucmr). The preamble to the proposed UCMR 2 
regulation presented the logic behind the consideration of potential 
analytes for the UCMR. Section III ``Requirements of the Unregulated 
Contaminant Monitoring Program'' detailed all aspects of how EPA 
selected the contaminants proposed in this regulation with subsections 
describing what priority contaminants were selected for UCMR 2; a 
compilation of the initial list of potential UCMR 2 candidates; how EPA 
established priorities for UCMR 2; EPA's health effects prioritization 
approach; and the specific information and considerations that went 
into EPA's decisions on each analyte selected.
    EPA has also been engaged in a multi-year process designed to 
create an improved CCL process. This process began after the first CCL 
was published in 1998 and EPA expects the next CCL (CCL 3) to reflect 
substantial progress in implementing this new process. Because the new 
CCL process was underway but not yet completed in 2005, CCL 2 carried 
over the previous list and did not reflect the changes EPA is expecting 
to make in identifying contaminants for possible regulation. EPA 
expects that CCL 3 will reflect a more robust, transparent, and 
systematic process to identify priority contaminants in drinking water 
that will form the primary basis for future UCMR lists.
    Before EPA can list a chemical compound or microbiological 
parameter on UCMR, adequate analytical methods must be available. For 
some of the chemicals (i.e., organotins, triazines and algal toxins) 
and for all the microbiological parameters listed on the CCL, adequate 
analytical methods have not yet been developed. EPA is actively engaged 
in analytical method development research for these parameters both in-
house and through its various contracts and grant mechanisms. EPA 
regularly publishes journal articles and other reports on the progress 
of all of these research activities that are available for the public 
to review.
2. Acetanilide Pesticides, Degradation Products, and Related Methods
a. This Rule
    Under this rule, the three highest-use parent acetanilide 
compounds, acetochlor, alachlor, and metolachlor, and their ESA and OA 
degradation products are specified as List 2, Screening Survey 
contaminants. The final rule also specifies EPA Method 525.2 for 
analysis of the parent compounds and EPA Method 535 for analysis of the 
acetanilide degradates. There were no changes between the proposed and 
final rule language regarding these priority contaminants and their 
associated methods. However, this rule contains revised language to 
clarify that acetanilide parent and degradation product sampling must 
be conducted at the same time and same location.
b. Summary of Major Comments
    Some commenters did not agree with EPA's proposal to monitor the 
three parent acetanilide compounds because some water systems include 
these as part of their regulated volatile organic compound analyses 
using EPA Method 525.2. Another recommendation was that no special 
certification for Method 525.2 be required, since many laboratories are 
already approved to conduct this analysis for regulated contaminants. 
EPA is requiring monitoring of these three parent pesticides because it 
is essential that the acetanilide parent and the degradation products 
analysis be conducted using samples collected in the same location and 
at the same time to provide data on their relative concentrations 
(i.e., to establish relationships, if any, between the two). In 
addition, because UCMR requires only a sample of PWSs to conduct 
monitoring, and the resulting occurrence data is used to support EPA 
decisions about whether to regulate a contaminant to protect public 
health, the quality of data collected, at minimum reporting levels that 
are considerably lower than those used for compliance monitoring, is 
very important. Therefore, the analyses must meet even more stringent 
quality control procedures than those used for other national drinking 
water analyses, and special approval of laboratories is warranted for 
both EPA Method 535 and 525.2. These analyses are required as part of 
the Screening Survey, and therefore analytical costs to PWSs are 
limited to approximately 720 large systems (EPA is paying for the 
analytical costs of small system monitoring).
    EPA agreed with recommendations in public comment to require 
monitoring for acetanilide parents and their degradation products at 
the same location and time to provide data on their relative 
concentrations. The final regulation contains revised language to 
include this requirement.
    Finally, concern was expressed in public comments that EPA may 
develop a single maximum contaminant level (MCL) for the parents plus 
their degradates; commenters specifically pointed out that different 
toxicity endpoints may exist for parents and degradates, and that a 
single MCL could conflict with some state standards. EPA has made no 
decision regarding whether or how to regulate these compounds. Such 
decisions are beyond the scope of this rule.
3. Explosives and Related Methods
a. This Rule
    Under this rule, EPA is requiring that three explosives: Hexahydro-
1,3,5-trinitro-1,3,5-triazine (RDX), 1,3-dinitrobenzene, and, 2,4,6-
trinitrotoluene (TNT) be monitored as part of List 1, Assessment 
Monitoring. The final rule also specifies EPA Method 529 for analysis 
of these compounds. There were no changes between the proposed and 
final rule language regarding these priority contaminants and their 
associated method.
b. Summary of Major Comments
    Some commenters thought that other contaminants may be more 
widespread and should take priority over explosives for testing. 
However, if monitoring for explosives was required, the commenters 
recommended that it be limited to areas near munitions facilities. The 
explosives have not yet undergone a sufficiently widespread occurrence 
study for EPA to be confident that these contaminants are only a 
concern near munitions facilities. The decision to monitor for these 
contaminants, versus others considered, was driven by their potential 
health effects through the process described previously.
4. Perchlorate and Related Methods
a. This Rule
    Under this rule, EPA has removed the requirement for monitoring 
perchlorate under the UCMR 2 program. All references to perchlorate, 
its associated methods, and specific quality control requirements have 
been removed from the final rule. As a result, the requirements of 
Sec.  141.40(a)(5)(v), Detection Confirmation, were deleted, and all 
subsequent sections have been renumbered accordingly. The other rule 
sections that were impacted by this decision (with reference to 
perchlorate or relevant analytical methods being removed) are: Sec.  
141.40(a)(3)--Analytes

[[Page 374]]

to be monitored; Sec.  141.40(a)(4)(i)(D)--Sampling Instructions; Sec.  
141.40(a)(5)(i)--Sample collection/preservation; and Sec.  
141.40(a)(5)(iii)(B)(2)--Quality control requirements for validation of 
laboratory performance at or below the MRL.
b. Summary of Major Comments
    Approximately 75 percent of commenters submitted comments on the 
topic of perchlorate. The majority of the commenters did not support an 
additional round of perchlorate monitoring, the most common reason 
being the added cost of monitoring, without the perceived potential for 
gaining sufficient, new information.
    Monitoring for perchlorate was conducted during UCMR 1 in over 
3,800 PWSs, with a minimum reporting level of 4.0 micrograms per liter 
([mu]g/L). The data collected during this survey represents a 
statistically valid set of high quality data that will inform EPA on 
the occurrence and potential exposure to perchlorate from public 
drinking water supplies. EPA will continue to evaluate these exposure 
data along with other available information (e.g., health effects) as 
the Agency makes its regulatory determination. Until that evaluation is 
complete, EPA agrees with the commenters that it is not clear that the 
Agency needs additional information on the occurrence of perchlorate in 
drinking water. As a result, imposing additional perchlorate monitoring 
costs on water systems is not warranted at this time. Therefore, EPA 
has removed the requirement for monitoring perchlorate under the UCMR 2 
program. If EPA later decides that additional perchlorate monitoring is 
warranted, the Agency will undertake an appropriate rulemaking action.
5. Nitrosamines/NDMA and Related Methods
a. This Rule
    This rule requires systems to monitor for six nitrosamines as part 
of the List 2, Screening Survey. The final rule also specifies EPA 
Method 521 for analysis of these compounds. There were no changes 
between the proposed and final rule language regarding these priority 
contaminants and their associated method.
b. Summary of Major Comments
    Some commenters thought that nitrosamine sampling would be more 
appropriately conducted as part of the Stage 1 and Stage 2 DBPRs. EPA 
disagrees with these comments for several reasons. While in fact, to 
date, the scientific literature identifies only N-nitroso-dimethylamine 
(NDMA) and N-nitrosodiethylamine (NDEA) as disinfection byproducts, the 
Screening Survey for nitrosamines is designed to aid in understanding 
the proportion of nitrosamines, particularly NDMA, that results from 
source water contamination versus that which results from disinfection. 
Also, the nitrosamines in this regulation are all compounds projected 
to have significant adverse health effects. All of these compounds are 
probable human carcinogens with 10-\6\ cancer risk levels 
that are in the low nanogram per liter range. These compounds would be 
high priorities for monitoring whether their occurrence is the result 
of source water contamination or disinfection.
    Several commenters disagreed with the use of Method 521, mostly 
because of questions on the scope and extent of interlaboratory testing 
and validation. Commenters thought that methods that are already being 
used by laboratories should be allowed under UCMR. Several commenters 
gave specific suggestions as to which methods were commonly in use that 
could be used for UCMR monitoring.
    The methods developed by EPA, for this and other chemical methods 
needs for the analysis of drinking water, were subjected to a rigorous 
process that included a series of testing, validation studies and peer 
review, which went beyond the proficiency testing or round robin study 
of the alternative draft unpublished methods suggested by the 
commenters. Each individual procedure of every method proposed by EPA 
was subjected to rigorous testing for a minimum of two years using 
scientifically sound procedures. EPA's review of the suggested 
alternative draft methods also identified technical deficiencies that 
preclude their approval for monitoring under UCMR 2.
6. Flame Retardants, Other Priority Contaminants, and Related Methods
a. This Rule
    Under this rule, EPA is requiring monitoring for five flame 
retardants, as well as terbufos sulfone and dimethoate, as part of List 
1, Assessment Monitoring. The final rule also specifies EPA Method 527 
for analysis of these compounds. There were no changes between the 
proposed and final rule language regarding these priority contaminants 
and their associated method.
b. Summary of Major Comments
    Concern was raised through public comment that only one citation 
was provided in the proposed rule preamble supporting the rationale for 
choosing this group of contaminants. Public comment suggestions were 
made that there may be other groups of contaminants, such as endocrine 
disruptors, that would be a better choice than the flame retardants. 
EPA notes that both Darnerud, 2001 and Hites, 2004 were cited in the 
preamble of the proposed regulation as sources of the statements 
concerning flame retardants. There are however, many additional 
articles in the scientific literature which could have also been cited. 
In an article entitled ``An overview of brominated flame retardants in 
the environment'' by Cynthia A. deWit, which was published in 
Chemosphere, 46 (2002), the author cites over 180 published articles on 
flame retardants. In addition, three published articles; T.E. Stoker, 
``Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology'', 207 (2005); T.A. McDonald, 
``Chemosphere'', 46 (2002); and I.A.T.M. Meerts, ``Environmental Health 
Perspectives'', 109 Vol. 4 (2001) concern tests that have been 
performed which support that the flame retardants specified for 
monitoring in UCMR 2 are endocrine disruptors.
7. Triazines Chlorodegradates and Parent Compounds
a. This Rule
    In the proposed rule preamble, EPA solicited public comment 
regarding three triazine chlorodegradates and three of their parent 
compounds because the Agency is conducting a cumulative risk assessment 
for the chlorodegradates as a group with atrazine, simazine, and 
propazine. While atrazine and simazine are already regulated under 
NPDWRs, EPA was considering UCMR monitoring for these parent compounds 
concurrent with the collection of UCMR data for their degradation 
products to determine the degree of correlation between the occurrence 
of the parents and their degrades. Though public comment was requested, 
triazines were not officially proposed for inclusion under UCMR 2 
monitoring. There were no changes between the proposed and final rule 
language, and thus, the triazines are not part of the UCMR 2 monitoring 
requirements.
b. Summary of Major Comments
    Commenter opinion varied regarding inclusion of triazines in UCMR 2 
monitoring. For those that supported their inclusion, the primary 
reason was health effects. One of these commenters also recommended 
that cyanizine be included in this contaminant group. Of those who 
opposed including this group, the following reasons were given:

[[Page 375]]

concern about laboratory capacity if two similar analyses using liquid 
chromatography/tandem mass spectrometry (LC/MS/MS) were required to be 
conducted in the same time frame; concern regarding the status of 
method development; the belief that the manufacturer should pay for 
occurrence testing; and the fact that information on the parent 
compounds is already available.
    Although validation of a new triazine method has been completed, 
EPA agrees that requiring the use of two LC/MS/MS methods in the same 
UCMR cycle could present a laboratory capacity problem. Due to these 
concerns, EPA has concluded that triazine monitoring should be 
postponed until a future cycle of the UCMR.
8. Other Compounds That Were Considered
a. This Rule
    In identifying the target contaminants for this rule, EPA began 
with a list of over 200 contaminants, compiled from a variety of 
different sources, including: UCMR 1 reserved contaminants; CCL 1 
deferred pesticides; CCL 1 suspected endocrine disruptors; and other 
emerging contaminants. Through a multi-stepped review and 
prioritization process, the list was narrowed and prioritized. EPA's 
final prioritization was based on the available relative health effects 
information for each compound.
b. Summary of Major Comments
    EPA received comment encouraging the Agency to include some 
endocrine disruptors on the UCMR 2 contaminant list. The initial list 
that EPA compiled included several contaminants that were identified as 
suspected endocrine disruptors during CCL 1 development, as well as 
others that are widely suspected to be endocrine disruptors. EPA used a 
multi-stepped review and prioritization process to select 25 
contaminants for monitoring from the broader pool of 200 contaminants. 
Several different health effects criteria were used to prioritize 
contaminants in addition to endocrine disruption, such as cancer 
classification and toxicity. Although some contaminants that are 
considered endocrine disruptors are not part of the final monitoring 
list, all five flame retardants that are part of UCMR 2 are suspected 
endocrine disruptors. In addition, EPA will consider these other 
contaminants for monitoring in future rounds of UCMR monitoring.

D. How Are Laboratories Approved for UCMR 2 Monitoring?

1. This Rule
    The UCMR 2 laboratory approval process is designed to assess 
whether laboratories meet the required equipment, laboratory 
performance, and data reporting criteria. Laboratories wishing to 
participate in UCMR 2 must contact EPA to be considered. This rule 
requires laboratories to complete and submit their registration to EPA 
by April 4, 2007 (i.e., within 90 days of final rule publication). To 
be approved to conduct UCMR testing, this rule requires that the 
laboratory be certified under Sec.  141.28 for one or more compliance 
analyses; demonstrate, for each analytical method it plans to use for 
UCMR testing, that it can meet the Initial Demonstration of Capability 
(IDC) requirements and successfully participate in the UCMR Proficiency 
Testing (PT) Program; and has the capability to post monitoring data to 
EPA's electronic reporting system. Laboratories are encouraged to apply 
for UCMR 2 approval as early as possible. The steps for the laboratory 
approval process are as follows:
a. Request To Participate
    The laboratory must contact EPA requesting to participate in the 
UCMR 2 laboratory approval process. Laboratories must send this request 
to: UCMR 2 Laboratory Approval Coordinator, USEPA, Technical Support 
Center, 26 West Martin Luther King Drive (MS 140), Cincinnati, OH 
45268; or e-mail at: [email protected]. EPA began 
accepting participation requests for the methods associated with UCMR 2 
(including List 1, Assessment Monitoring, and List 2, Screening Survey) 
following publication of the proposed rule on August 22, 2005. The 
laboratory must complete and submit the necessary registration by April 
4, 2007.
b. Registration
    EPA will send each laboratory that requests a registration package 
a list of information that EPA will need to process that application. 
This registration information will provide EPA with the basic 
information about the candidate laboratory including: Laboratory name; 
mailing address; shipping address; contact name; phone number; fax 
number; e-mail address; and UCMR 2 methods for which the laboratory is 
seeking approval. Thus, the purpose of the registration step is to 
ensure that EPA has all of the necessary contact information and that 
each laboratory receives a customized application package, which will 
include materials and instructions for the methods that it plans to 
use.
c. Application Package
    When EPA receives the registration information, an application 
package will be sent to the laboratory for completion. This application 
package will be customized to address only those EPA methods selected 
in the laboratory's registration. EPA may provide analytical standards 
to be used when conducting monitoring; however, laboratories will be 
required to procure their own standards, where commercially available, 
to be used to complete the application process. Information requested 
in the application will include:
     IDC data, including precision, accuracy, and MRL studies;
     Information regarding analytical equipment;
     Proof of current drinking water laboratory certification; 
and
     Example chromatograms for each method under review.
    The laboratory must also confirm that it will post UCMR 2 
monitoring results (on behalf of its PWS clients) to EPA's UCMR 
electronic data reporting system.
d. EPA Review of Application Package
    EPA will review the application package and, if necessary, request 
follow-up information. Satisfactory completion of this portion of the 
process will allow the laboratory to participate in the UCMR 2 PT 
program.
e. Proficiency Testing
    A PT sample is a synthetic sample containing a concentration of an 
analyte that is known to EPA, but unknown to the laboratory being 
tested. To complete the initial laboratory approval process, a 
laboratory must successfully analyze UCMR 2 PT sample(s) for each 
method for which the laboratory is seeking approval. A laboratory must 
pass only one PT for each of the UCMR 2 methods. Laboratories applying 
for UCMR 2 approval, and laboratories conducting UCMR 2 analyses, may 
be subject to on-site laboratory audits. No PT studies will be 
conducted after the start of monitoring. Laboratories will not be 
approved if they did not successfully complete a PT study.
f. Written EPA Approval
    After the first five steps (a-e, above) have been successfully 
completed, EPA will send the laboratory a letter listing the methods 
for which approval is granted. These letters will also include a 
reminder that the laboratory may be subject to on-site audits. A list 
of

[[Page 376]]

laboratories approved for UCMR 2 will be posted to EPA's UCMR Web site: 
http://www.epa.gov/safewater/ucmr/ucmr2/labs.html.
2. Summary of Major Comments
    Several comments recommended that EPA continue to oversee the 
laboratory approval process and offer PTs throughout the UCMR 2 period 
to ensure that approved laboratories are maintaining data quality. EPA 
notes that the laboratory approval process is meant to establish a list 
of laboratories that have demonstrated their ability to perform the 
Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) requirements for UCMR 2 
methods. EPA and its supporting contractor will be assisting candidate 
laboratories to achieve the required proficiency during the laboratory 
approval process. Once the approvals are completed, EPA does not intend 
to invest the resources to maintain an ongoing laboratory monitoring 
program. However, EPA will continue to provide technical assistance to 
laboratories that request it. In addition, EPA will conduct a limited 
number of on-site laboratory audits. PWSs also have a role to play in 
data quality. In selecting a laboratory for conducting UCMR 2 analyses, 
the PWS should consider the laboratory's commitment to data quality. As 
a partner in the commitment to quality data, the PWS should request and 
review the QC data associated with their UCMR 2 occurrence samples.
    Public comments also expressed concern that there may not be 
adequate time for laboratories to receive certification, resulting in 
reduced laboratory capacity at the onset of monitoring. Recommendations 
included: Adjusting monitoring schedules in instances of inadequate 
laboratory capacity; conducting the laboratory approval process prior 
to rule promulgation; and extending the deadline for laboratories to 
report monitoring results. EPA began offering the first round of 
preliminary laboratory PTs in mid-2006. Additional rounds were 
conducted before and are scheduled to be conducted after promulgation 
of the final regulation. EPA is confident that sufficient laboratory 
capacity will be available, but will also closely evaluate the results 
of these preliminary PTs.
    In addition, this rule contains language that revises the Screening 
Survey and Assessment Monitoring time frame to January 2008 through 
December 2010. This revision extends the start date of UCMR 2 
monitoring by 6 months from the proposed July 2007 start date and 
allows the Screening Survey to be conducted across three years as 
opposed to the two-year time frame that was proposed. This will allow 
PWSs more time for UCMR 2 planning and budgeting and provide additional 
assurance of sufficient laboratory capacity.

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

1. This Rule
    Under this rule, systems selected to participate in monitoring will 
be required to use laboratories that are approved by EPA for UCMR 2 
monitoring (see Section III.D, above). Large systems must ensure that 
the laboratories conducting their analyses meet UCMR 2 QC requirements 
and post the data in EPA's electronic data reporting system within 120 
days of the sample collection date.
2. Summary of Major Comments
    Several comments were received regarding PWSs' responsibility for 
laboratory compliance with QC and reporting requirements, indicating 
that EPA should be responsible for ensuring laboratory compliance, as a 
condition of certification.
    PWSs have always been responsible for the quality of the results 
produced by the laboratory they employ, whether that monitoring was 
conducted in support of UCMR 1 or compliance monitoring under SDWA. 
Large PWSs (serving greater than 10,000 people) must ensure that their 
laboratories have received appropriate EPA approvals to conduct UCMR 2 
methods and must ensure that laboratories follow the specific UCMR 2 QC 
requirements. EPA recommends that laboratory requirements be addressed 
in the contractual language between the PWS and laboratory. EPA's UCMR 
Web site at: http://www.epa.gov/safewater/ucmr/ucmr2 provides 
informational materials that PWSs can use to help them evaluate their 
data. These materials include: a laboratory approval manual, the 
analytical methods (each of which contain a table summarizing QC 
requirements of that method), and a general reference guide designed to 
help PWSs develop laboratory contracts.

F. What Specific Quality Control Requirements Must Be Followed?

1. Method Development Approach and Method Defined Quality Control
a. This Rule
    Under this rule, UCMR 2 analyses will be conducted using five EPA 
methods. This final rule revises several aspects of the methods QC 
requirements compared to those that were established under UCMR 1, 
including: revising the definition of and procedures for MRL detection 
limits (see Section III.F.2. for more detail); and no longer requiring 
QC samples because standards are generally not available. The final 
rule language also contains other revisions to QC requirements that 
were necessary because of the removal of perchlorate from the final 
UCMR 2 monitoring list. See Section III.C.4 for a listing of those 
changes.
b. Summary of Major Comments
    A few commenters were concerned that the methods have not been 
properly validated, potentially increasing costs if repeat sampling is 
needed. These commenters also believe that laboratory capacity would be 
insufficient to conduct all required monitoring.
    As noted elsewhere, EPA is confident that the analytical method 
validation procedures that it has followed provide the appropriate 
evaluation of analytical methods and that the design of the Assessment 
Monitoring and Screening Surveys ensures that adequate laboratory 
capacity will be available. Moreover, as noted elsewhere, the final 
rule extends the time frame for Screening Survey monitoring from two 
years (as originally proposed) to three years, coinciding with 
Assessment Monitoring. This extended timeframe will further enable 
approved laboratories to handle the analyses associated with UCMR 2 
monitoring.
    EPA received comments disagreeing with its proposal to no longer 
require QC samples, arguing that this will diminish the quality of the 
analyses, and that companies that manufacture QC standards will have 
them available in 2006. A quality control sample, in this context, is a 
primary dilution standard of methods analytes that is obtained from a 
source external to the laboratory and different from the source of 
calibration standards. Although EPA agrees that the periodic 
measurement of a QC sample is an important element of standard 
laboratory quality control, it is not feasible to require the use of QC 
samples that do not currently exist and may or may not exist in the 
future. In addition, all laboratories will be required to pass an EPA 
performance study, which will help to assure the quality of the 
calibration standards being used. However, EPA is strongly encouraging 
all UCMR laboratories to analyze an independently prepared quantitative 
standard on a quarterly basis. If commercially prepared QC standards 
are available, they should be used. If not, laboratories should have a 
second analyst prepare a separate set of quantitative standards to 
serve as

[[Page 377]]

independent quality control checks of the calibration standards being 
used by the laboratory. EPA will continue to require that UCMR 
laboratories analyze a variety of other samples (i.e., duplicate 
samples, laboratory fortified reagent and matrix samples, etc.) 
designed to assess the quality of their analyses, as specified in each 
analytical method and in the ``UCMR 2 Laboratory Approval Manual'' 
(USEPA, 2004d).
2. Minimum Reporting Level
a. This Rule
    Under this rule, all laboratories certified to conduct UCMR 
analysis must be able to demonstrate their ability to detect each UCMR 
contaminant at the specified MRL. MRLs represent an estimate of the 
lowest concentration of a compound that can be quantitatively measured 
by a group of experienced drinking water laboratories. Previously, MRLs 
had been determined by analytical laboratories using expert 
professional judgment, but standard criteria for MRL determinations had 
not been established. For this rule, EPA has revised the process for 
developing MRLs as follows. The MRLs are now based on Lowest 
Concentration Minimum Reporting Levels (LCMRLs) which were determined 
by each laboratory that developed or subsequently tested the methods. 
LCMRLs represent the lowest concentration of a compound that can be 
quantitatively determined in each individual laboratory. In the 
interest of greater consistency, EPA has developed a statistical 
protocol for single-laboratory determinations of LCMRLs, using linear 
regression and prediction intervals.
b. Summary of Major Comments
    Several comments were received regarding the number of significant 
figures associated with the MRLs. These commenters wanted the number of 
significant figures reduced. In considering public comments, EPA agrees 
that the MRLs should be reported to one significant figure. The final 
regulation contains revised language reflecting that MRLs are rounded 
to one significant figure.
    Commenters also thought that having a different MRL for each 
analyte may lead to calibration errors. They suggested revising the 
MRLs within each method to achieve some proportional relationship among 
the MRLs. EPA does not agree with this comment. The MRLs are based upon 
a statistical analysis of the quantitation levels achieved at multiple 
laboratories. To adjust those to some proportional level would be 
arbitrary.
3. Lowest Concentration Minimum Reporting Level
a. This Rule
    EPA has developed a protocol for developing MRLs based on LCMRLs 
determined by each laboratory that developed or subsequently tested the 
methods listed in this action. For UCMR 1, EPA specified MRLs and a 
requirement for recovery at the MRL so that data quality was documented 
daily. In the interest of greater consistency, EPA developed a 
statistical protocol for single-laboratory determinations of LCMRLs 
using linear regression and prediction intervals. This approach has 
been evaluated through expert peer review conducted in accordance with 
the Agency's formal peer review process and through the performance of 
a pilot-scale interlaboratory study. A free tool for calculating the 
LCMRL was developed and is available for download on the Web: http://www.epa.gov/safewater/methods/sourcalt.html#Mlcmrl.
b. Summary of Major Comments
    Some public commenters disagreed with the 50-150 percent acceptance 
criteria for MRLs, arguing that it exceeds routinely accepted criteria, 
and suggested instead to use  10-20 percent. EPA believes 
that these commenters are referring to  10-20% relative 
standard deviation (RSD) and notes that the MRL verification 
requirement is based on the three sigma prediction interval being 
within 50-150 percent. EPA believes that the 50-150 percent criteria is 
in fact, a very stringent requirement comparable to that advocated by 
the commenters. As an example, to meet the 50-150 percent criteria for 
the 99 percent prediction interval, as specified in Sec.  
141.40(a)(5)(iii), and assuming 100 percent accuracy, would require an 
RSD of 13.5 percent. Since both precision and accuracy are measured by 
this criterion, any errors in accuracy would serve to reduce the 
required RSD even further, and make the precision criteria more 
stringent.
    Other comments expressed concern that acceptance criteria were not 
consistently applied, possibly leading to inconsistencies in the 
precision and accuracy of reported values. EPA agrees that the LCMRL 
process, as specified in the proposed regulation, does not apply 
consistent acceptance criteria over the analytical range of the test 
method. EPA has always recognized that precision and accuracy of 
analytical methods are a function of concentration, and has generally 
published differing acceptance criteria for its methods in recognition 
of this fact. These concentration-based criteria do not in any way 
represent a change in policy, rather, recognition of the reality of 
analytical measurements.
4. Laboratory Fortified Sample Matrix and Laboratory Fortified Sample 
Matrix Duplicate
a. This Rule
    Under this rule, all participating laboratories will be required to 
analyze Laboratory Fortified Sample Matrix (LFSM) samples for accuracy, 
and Laboratory Fortified Sample Matrix Duplicate (LFSMD) samples for 
precision, for all UCMR 2 contaminants. LFSM/LFSMD samples must be 
prepared using a sample collected and analyzed in accordance with UCMR 
2 requirements and analyzed at a frequency of 5 percent (or one LFSM/
LFSMD set per every 20 samples) or with each sample batch, whichever is 
more frequent. In addition, the LFSM/LFSMD fortification concentrations 
must be alternated between a low-level fortification and mid-level 
fortification approximately 50 percent of the time. The low-level LFSM/
LFSMD fortification concentration must be within  50 
percent of the MRL for each contaminant, and the mid-level LFSM/LFSMD 
fortification concentration must be within  20 percent of 
the mid-level calibration standard for each contaminant. The low-level 
method fortification level requirement of  50 percent 
represents a revision to the proposed rule language based on public 
comments that  20 percent was too restrictive.
b. Summary of Major Comments
    Some commenters expressed concerned about the added expense of 
extra bottles and the time needed to coordinate with laboratories and 
other utilities to ensure that the proper number of LFSM/LFSMD samples 
will be submitted. Although EPA has changed the way that QC data will 
be tracked, EPA has not changed the number of sample bottles which need 
to be collected. The requirement to fortify at least one UCMR field 
sample per analytical batch, and to report these data to EPA, has not 
changed from UCMR 1. The only change compared to UCMR 1 is in how the 
data are to be reported. Previously, laboratories were required to 
report the percent recoveries of each analyte in the fortified field 
samples; in UCMR 2 they are required to report the analytical result 
and EPA will compute the recoveries.
    Other commenters suggested using the same sample for duplicates 
instead of a second sample and using more

[[Page 378]]

laboratory blanks to decrease cost. EPA notes that data from laboratory 
blanks and fortified matrix samples provide very different information. 
Data from fortified reagent water samples help the data user understand 
how well the laboratory is performing the analysis. Fortified matrix 
samples are used to determine if there are interfering compounds in the 
matrix that preclude accurate analysis and to assess the precision and 
accuracy of the database of field results. Since fortified reagent 
water samples are not subject to the same type of matrix interferences 
that field samples are, data from reagent water samples are not a 
scientifically valid way to determine the precision and accuracy of 
field data.

G. When Are Samples Collected?

1. This Rule
    To accommodate PWS preparation for rule implementation and to 
provide additional assurance of sufficient laboratory capacity, this 
rule contains revised language that changes the start of monitoring 
from July 2007 to January 2008, such that the effective monitoring 
period is now January 2008 through December 2010. This rule also 
contains language that revises the Screening Survey time frame to match 
that of Assessment Monitoring. Thus, Screening Survey systems will be 
scheduled to monitor during a continuous 12-month period during January 
2008 through December 2010.
    In addition, as under UCMR 1, ground water sampling points must be 
monitored twice in a consecutive 12-month period. However, to provide 
PWSs with more flexibility, the final rule contains revised language to 
allow the second sampling event for ground water sampling points to 
occur within 5-7 months of the first sampling event instead of within 6 
months, as proposed. EPA will establish schedules for all systems to 
ensure adequate laboratory capacity for the analysis of UCMR 
contaminants and to improve the oversight of monitoring and data 
reporting. EPA will use the State Monitoring Plans to identify all 
systems that will participate in the UCMR 2 program, and to identify 
the monitoring schedule for each system.
    This action also contains language that clarifies the definition of 
a sampling location's source type. The final rule language specifies 
that if any percentage of the total water associated with a sampling 
point originates either from surface water or ground water under the 
direct influence of surface water (GWUDI) during the 12-month 
monitoring period, then that source should be reported as ``SW'' or 
``GU'' as appropriate. These sampling points must be monitored for four 
consecutive quarters, with sample events occurring three months apart 
(e.g., a system could conduct monitoring in either: (1) January, April, 
July, October; (2) February, May, August, November; or (3) March, June, 
September, December).
2. Summary of Major Comments
    Many commenters did not support EPA's proposal to designate each 
PWS's month and year of monitoring, expressing concern for budget and 
scheduling, and some specific concerns that the assigned schedule could 
conflict with the Initial Distribution System Evaluation (IDSE) that is 
required under the Stage 2 DBPR. Alternatives recommended by commenters 
included: setting a ``window'' in which monitoring must be completed; 
allowing systems to conduct monitoring over the entire monitoring 
period; and allowing systems to set their own schedules. Some 
commenters recommended that EPA change the Screening Survey time frame 
to match that of Assessment Monitoring; others recommended delaying the 
start of the Screening Survey by one year. Based on its experience with 
UCMR 1, EPA has determined that establishing a defined schedule (month 
and year) for each PWS is necessary. Under UCMR 1, EPA did not 
establish Assessment Monitoring schedules for large systems. This 
resulted in delayed or incomplete monitoring for a number of large 
systems, leading to enforcement actions that may have been avoided had 
schedules been established. To help PWSs with scheduling and to provide 
additional assurance of laboratory capacity, the final regulation 
contains revised language that: (1) Changes the monitoring period for 
UCMR 2 from July 2007 through June 2010 to January 2008 through 
December 2010; and (2) extends the two-year monitoring period for the 
List 2 Screening Survey contaminants to three years, such that the 
Screening Survey will coincide with the three-year Assessment 
Monitoring period of January 2008 through December 2010. In addition, 
systems will have the opportunity to change their sampling schedules 
either through EPA's electronic data reporting system by August 2, 
2007, or after this date by fax, mail, or e-mail request to EPA.
    Some commenters indicated that wells may not be operating 
continually and therefore, some systems with ground water sources will 
be unable to meet EPA's schedule. Some recommended that EPA allow 
systems to conduct the second sampling event within 5-7 months of the 
first sample, as was done under UCMR 1. In response to this 
recommendation, the final regulation contains revised language that 
extends the time frame for collecting the second ground water sample to 
5-7 months following the collection of the first round of samples. For 
planning purposes, EPA will initially schedule these sampling events 6 
months apart. However, systems will have the flexibility to sample 
within a 5-7 month window. Systems will be required to notify EPA if 
they cannot monitor within this 3-month window. Refer to Section 
III.J.1.c for more detail on the requirement for a water system to 
notify EPA if it is unable to monitor according to its assigned 
schedule.

H. Where Are Samples Collected?

1. Entry Points to the Distribution System
a. This Rule
    This rule establishes that all UCMR 2 samples will be collected at 
entry points to the distribution system (EPTDSs), and for nitrosamines, 
within the distribution system, and eliminates the option of source 
water monitoring (except for source water that leaves the EPTDS 
untreated).
b. Summary of Major Comments
    Several commenters disagreed with EPA's proposal to eliminate 
monitoring from ``raw source water'' samples. Several reasons were 
given, including: Cost savings through coordination with compliance 
monitoring; raw water samples would provide useful information for 
determining which water treatment technologies are needed and potential 
human exposure; and EPA allowed systems the option of sampling raw 
water or EPTDS locations under UCMR 1. Other alternatives suggested 
were to allow systems with multiple source water sampling locations to 
collect a sample from the highest risk source based on their Source 
Water Assessments, and to require a portion of large systems with 
surface water sources to conduct raw water sampling under Assessment 
Monitoring.
    In response to these comments, EPA notes that the UCMR design was 
established in fulfillment of the 1996 SDWA Amendments (Section 
1445(a)(2)), which states: ``The regulations shall require monitoring 
of drinking water supplied by public water systems * * *'' The UCMR 
program was designed to collect data that would provide information for 
human exposure study. This is best achieved by conducting monitoring at 
the EPTDS as opposed to a pre-treatment sampling

[[Page 379]]

site. However, to provide flexibility during UCMR 1, systems were 
allowed to collect ``raw source water'' samples in those States where 
samples for regulated contaminants were collected prior to treatment. 
If a system detected any contaminants above the MRL (and treatment was 
subsequently applied), monitoring at EPTDSs was subsequently required. 
This created substantial confusion and errant reporting during UCMR 1; 
many systems did not fully understand or comply with the requirement to 
conduct the required EPTDS monitoring following a raw water detection. 
EPA anticipates that this confusion would be even more likely during 
UCMR 2 if raw water monitoring was allowed because of the anticipated 
occurrence rates for some UCMR 2 analytes. Moreover, since UCMR 2 
methods are not used to support regulated contaminant monitoring, UCMR 
2 samples cannot be used to meet compliance monitoring requirements.
2. Distribution System Maximum Residence Time
a. This Rule
    This rule requires systems that are participating in the Screening 
Survey to collect nitrosamine samples both at EPTDSs and in the 
distribution system to capture the occurrence of nitrosamines as 
disinfection byproducts. This rule requires systems to collect their 
nitrosamine samples at their distribution system maximum residence time 
(DSMRT) location(s) for each treatment plant/water source as defined in 
the Stage 1 DBPR. Water systems that do not have defined DSMRT sampling 
points in the distribution system (e.g., systems that do not apply a 
chemical disinfectant, wholesalers without retail customers) will be 
required to collect nitrosamine samples at EPTDSs only.
b. Summary of Major Comments
    EPA requested comment on whether nitrosamines should be collected 
at both EPTDSs and at the DSMRT for each treatment plant/water source 
as defined in Stage 1 DBPR. A few commenters agreed that this 
monitoring should occur at both sampling locations. Some commenters 
disagreed with sampling finished water, saying that EPA will be unable 
to determine whether NDMA occurs in the source or is formed as a 
disinfection byproduct (DBP) without raw water data or information on 
the disinfection level at the time of sample collection. In addition, 
commenters pointed out that treatment can reduce the concentration of 
some contaminants.
    EPA is requiring that nitrosamine samples be collected at two 
locations to allow the Agency to evaluate whether exposure to 
nitrosamines is influenced by the distribution system. Since the 
nitrosamines may occur as source water contaminants and/or DBPs, 
monitoring at both the EPTDSs and DSMRTs will provide EPA with the 
range of human exposures to these contaminants in drinking water. In 
addition, if a nitrosamine is present as a result of reactions with the 
disinfectant, the concentration may increase the longer the water is in 
contact with that disinfectant. EPA plans to compare the aggregated 
concentration data from the two sample points to determine if there is 
a significant difference in the concentrations. This information will 
assist EPA in determining an appropriate sampling strategy if a 
decision to regulate nitrosamines is made after the UCMR 2 exposure 
information is available. EPA will also evaluate differences between 
systems using free chlorine versus chloramines to determine if the type 
of residual disinfectant is associated with nitrosamine levels.
    EPA agrees that the UCMR 2 data will not establish the source of 
nitrosamines, if they are present in finished water. However, the 
Agency does not agree that raw water data would necessarily establish 
the source of nitrosamine contamination. Some coagulant aid polymers 
used in drinking water treatment have been implicated as precursors of 
nitrosamines. The inability to identify the source of the contaminant 
is not limited to nitrosamines; it extends to all UCMR 2 contaminants. 
The UCMR program was designed to collect data that would provide 
information for human exposure study. This is best achieved by 
conducting monitoring at the EPTDS as opposed to a pre-treatment 
sampling site because the treatment process can influence the 
concentration present in drinking water.
    Several public comments were received regarding the timing of UCMR 
2 monitoring and the completion of IDSEs. Commenters were concerned 
that most systems have not begun their IDSEs to identify the longest 
residence time in their system, and thus, DSMRT locations may not be 
available for nitrosamine occurrence testing. During UCMR 2 
implementation, disinfecting systems will conduct monitoring at the 
Stage 1 DBPR distribution system sampling locations. These locations 
reflect the water system's and Primary Agency's judgment concerning 
areas in the distribution system that have the ``oldest'' water (i.e., 
those locations with the greatest distribution system maximum residence 
times or DSMRT). Under the Stage 2 DBPR, systems will be required to 
conduct IDSEs to determine locations with representative high total 
trihalomethanes (TTHM) and haloacetic acids (HAA5) concentrations. EPA 
agrees that new information collected during the IDSE study may result 
in the water system no longer using the Stage 1 DSMRT sampling 
locations because other areas of the distribution system may have 
higher concentrations of TTHM or HAA5. However, EPA believes it is 
still appropriate to use the Stage 1 DSMRT sample locations for the 
UCMR 2 monitoring because it is premature to link nitrosamine 
occurrence levels to TTHM and HAA5 levels. In addition, no water system 
is required to conduct Stage 2 compliance monitoring until 2012, long 
after UCMR 2 monitoring is complete.

I. How Should Samples Be Collected?

1. This Rule
    This rule includes clarifying language that acetanilide parent 
compounds and their degradates must be collected at the same time and 
sampling location (Sec.  141.40(a)(4)(i)(D)). Refer to Section III.C.2 
for a more detailed discussion of comments pertaining to acetanilides. 
This rule also revises system resampling requirements related to 
laboratory errors or sampling deviations (Sec.  141.40(a)(4)(i)(G)). 
Previously, systems were required to resample within 14 days of 
becoming aware of a sampling or laboratory error. Systems will now have 
30 days to collect the resample. This rule also retains the instruction 
that sample collection and shipping take place Monday-Thursday to 
ensure that samples arrive at the laboratory at the required 
temperature.
2. Summary of Major Comments
    EPA agreed with comments that recommended acetanilide parent and 
the degradation products analysis be conducted using samples collected 
in the same location, and at the same time, to provide data on their 
relative concentrations. The final regulation contains revised language 
to specify that acetanilide parent and degradation product sampling be 
conducted at the same time and at the same site.
    Several public comments were received indicating that a resampling 
period of 14 days is too short. Some made recommendations for extending 
the period to within 30 days of receiving written notification that a 
laboratory error had occurred or after the system determines that a 
sampling error has

[[Page 380]]

occurred. Others recommended up to two months. In response to these 
comments, EPA has included revisions to the final regulation requiring 
resampling to occur within 30 days of being informed or becoming aware 
of the sampling or laboratory error. Extending the resampling period 
beyond 30 days would result in a large number of resamples being 
collected in the next quarterly monitoring period.

J. What Are the UCMR 2 Reporting Requirements?

1. Information Required Prior to Monitoring
a. Contact Information
    This rule finalizes the proposed requirement for water systems to 
report contact information (i.e., the name, affiliation, mailing 
address, phone number, fax number, and e-mail address of the PWS 
Technical Contact and PWS Official) to EPA. Large systems (those 
serving 10,000 or more people) must submit this information by April 4, 
2007 using EPA's electronic data reporting system. Small systems, or 
States (if acting on their behalf) must submit this information within 
90 days of receiving a letter from EPA that requests contact 
information. EPA did not receive any comments regarding these 
requirements.
b. Sampling Location and Inventory Information
i. This Rule
    This rule finalizes the proposed requirement for large PWSs to 
provide inventory information for each of their required sampling 
locations by August 2, 2007 (i.e., within 210 days of final rule 
publication) using EPA's electronic reporting system. For each sampling 
location, or for each approved representative sampling location, large 
systems must submit the following: public water system identification 
(PWSID) code; PWS facility identification code; sampling point 
identification code; sampling point type code; and sampling location 
water type. Any changes to these data must be reported to EPA's 
electronic reporting system within 30 days of the change. Section 
III.J.3.b of this action includes a more detailed discussion of EPA's 
electronic reporting system.
    ii. Summary of major comments
    Some commenters recommended that existing inventory information 
from the Safe Drinking Water Accession and Review System (SDWARS) or 
other databases, such as EPA's Safe Drinking Water Information System 
(SDWIS), be used to pre-populate the database for UCMR 2 to reduce some 
of the burden on water systems. EPA will use the large system inventory 
that is currently stored in SDWARS 1 as much as possible, and 
supplement that with new entry point facilities from SDWIS, as well as 
new information provided by the State. PWSs will be responsible for 
verifying, correcting, and updating inventory information. PWSs will 
identify the facilities/sample points that are required to be sampled 
(i.e., all EPTDSs or approved representative EPTDSs sampling points, as 
well as applicable DSMRT sampling points). PWSs that are required to 
monitor in the distribution system will have the opportunity in SDWARS 
to associate the distribution system sample point with an entry point.
c. Proposals for Representative Sampling Locations
i. This Rule
    Under this action, some large systems that have multiple ground 
water EPTDSs can request approval to monitor at representative entry 
point(s) rather than at each EPTDS. Large PWSs can submit either 
documentation of alternate EPTDS sampling locations that were approved 
by the State or EPA for UCMR 1 or Phase II/V monitoring, or a proposal 
for sampling at representative EPTDS(s), with supporting documentation 
to demonstrate that any EPTDS selected as representative of the ground 
water supplied from multiple wells is associated with an individual 
well that draws from the same aquifer as the multiple wells (i.e., 
those being represented).
ii. Summary of Major Comments
    Many commenters agreed with EPA's proposal to allow ground water 
systems to use representative entry points. Some indicated that EPA 
should allow more flexibility in the type of data used to support the 
selection of representative EPTDSs. In particular, some commenters 
suggested that EPA allow any previously approved representative 
monitoring plans used for UCMR 1 (including those approved by EPA) as 
appropriate documentation. Commenters also indicated that some systems 
may need more than 210 days after the publication date to prepare a 
representative well proposal and that EPA should extend this deadline.
    In response to comments, the final regulation contains revised 
language to allow PWSs to submit documentation of a representative well 
plan approved in previous UCMR cycles (Sec.  141.35(c)(3)(i)). However, 
EPA is not revising the rule language that lists examples of the types 
of information a PWS may submit to demonstrate the representativeness 
of a well (Sec.  141.35(c)(3)(ii)). The situation and available data 
will vary too widely from PWS to PWS for EPA to specify the exact data 
that are necessary. Further, EPA believes that the time frame for 
submitting representative proposals is reasonable and notes that 
systems were made aware of this opportunity shortly after the 
publication of the proposed rule.
d. Reporting/Coordination of Monitoring Schedules for Large Systems
i. This Rule
    Under UCMR 2, EPA will establish monitoring schedules for all 
participating systems. Large systems have until August 2, 2007 (i.e., 
210 days from the publication of this final rule) to revise their 
schedule using the EPA electronic data reporting system. After August 
2, 2007, if a large PWS cannot sample according to the required 
schedule, the PWS Official must fax, mail, or e-mail a request to EPA 
explaining the reason samples cannot be taken according to the assigned 
schedule and requesting an alternative schedule. This rule also 
contains revised language clarifying that the second set of samples 
from ground water sources may be collected any time within 5-7 months 
of the first sampling event without the PWS being required to notify 
EPA.
ii. Summary of Major Comments
    Some commenters recommended that the 210-day deadline for 
submitting a revised monitoring schedule be removed and systems be 
allowed to conduct monitoring at any time during the entire three-year 
time frame. Commenters indicated that the deadline would limit a water 
system's ability to coordinate its monitoring schedule with a contract 
laboratory's analytical capacity, and would result in an increased 
likelihood of monitoring and reporting violations due to operational 
failures beyond the water system's control. As discussed in Section 
III.J.1.d of this preamble, EPA will establish a defined schedule 
(month and year) for each PWS. During the 210-day period following 
publication of the final regulation (i.e., August 2, 2007), a PWS can 
simply revise its schedule using the EPA electronic data reporting 
system. Barring a serious problem with large numbers of PWSs wanting to 
change their scheduled monitoring to the same time frame, EPA will 
honor all of these requests. After August 2, 2007, a PWS may request 
that its schedule be changed; however, unlike the first 210-day period, 
the PWS will need to

[[Page 381]]

explain its rationale for the requested change. Budgetary issues or 
well closings are examples of problems that will be considered 
legitimate reasons for schedule changes. A system is subject to its 
original assigned sampling schedule or its modified schedule 
established prior to August 2, 2007 via EPA's electronic data reporting 
system, unless and until it receives notification from EPA specifying a 
new schedule.
    To help PWSs with scheduling and to provide additional assurance of 
laboratory capacity, the final regulation contains revised language 
that: (1)Changes the monitoring period for UCMR 2 from July 2007 
through June 2010 to January 2008 through December 2010; and (2) 
extends the two-year monitoring period for the List 2 Screening Survey 
contaminants to three years, such that the Screening Survey will 
coincide with the three-year Assessment Monitoring period of January 
2008 through December 2010. In addition, because of the logistical 
issues associated with sampling for UCMR 2 (e.g., seasonal operation of 
some wells), the final regulation also contains revised language that 
extends the time frame for collecting the second ground water sample to 
5-7 months following the collection of the first round of samples. This 
will allow systems that have multiple sampling points to schedule the 
second sampling event across the 5-7 month window. However, for 
planning purposes, EPA will preliminarily schedule these sampling 
events 6 months apart.
    e. Notice regarding applicability or inability to meet sampling 
schedule
i. This Rule
    This rule includes system reporting requirements to ensure 
communication between PWSs and EPA regarding rule applicability and 
compliance. These requirements include: reporting changes in system 
status or other factors that affect a system's requirements under the 
rule (e.g., a system believes it does not meet the applicability 
criteria for UCMR); notifying EPA if a system believes it is subject to 
UCMR requirements but has not been notified by either EPA or the State 
regarding requirements; and reporting to EPA if a system cannot sample 
according to its assigned schedule. The final regulation at Sec.  
141.35(c)(5) contains revised language to clarify that systems 
collecting samples from ground water sources can collect their second 
set of samples within the 5-7 months of the first sampling event.
ii. Summary of Major Comments
    Some commenters suggested that EPA develop a list of acceptable 
reasons for not monitoring from a source to eliminate the need for 
systems to notify EPA. EPA believes that it is impractical to develop 
an exhaustive list. It is important that EPA be notified of any reason 
that a scheduled sampling event will be missed to allow for effective 
coordination of compliance assistance and enforcement actions.
2. Reporting of Required Data Elements
a. This Rule
    This rule specifies 15 data elements in Sec.  141.35(e), Table 1, 
to be reported with UCMR 2 sample test results. In this table, EPA is 
providing clarifying language to the following four data elements: 
Water Source Type (data element 3); Sampling Point 
Identification Code (data element 4); Sampling Point Type Code 
(data element 5); and Disinfectant Residual Type (data element 
6). EPA received comments on Sample Analysis Type (data 
element 11) and Sample Event Code (data element 15) 
but did not revise these data elements in this action.
b. Summary of Major Comments
    Comments were received questioning whether systems would be 
required to report source water changes that occur throughout the 12-
month monitoring period or only those that occur between sampling 
events. To simplify UCMR 2 reporting, the definition of ``Water Source 
Type'' (data element 3) contains revised language specifying 
that if any percentage of the total water associated with that sampling 
point originates either from surface water or GWUDI source during the 
12-month monitoring period, then that source should be reported as 
``SW'' or ``GU'' as appropriate. If a sampling point is served by both 
a surface water and GWUDI source during the 12-month monitoring period, 
then that source should be reported as SW (i.e., SW takes precedence 
over GU in the hierarchy of source water reporting). The only time that 
a source is to be considered ground water is if 100 percent of the 
water associated with that sampling point is from a ground water source 
during the entire 12-month monitoring period. By defining a sampling 
point source over the entire 12-month monitoring period, many instances 
where a system would otherwise need to report a change in its source to 
EPA will be eliminated.
    Some commenters indicated that definitions for Sampling Point 
Identification Code (data element 4), and Sampling Point Type 
Identification Code (data element 5), seem redundant. In 
response to comments, the final regulation contains revised language 
changing the name of data element 5 to ``Sampling Point Type 
Code'' and clarifying the definitions of these two data elements.
    Some commenters recommended that EPA clarify the definition of 
``Disinfectant Residual Type'' (data element 6) because some 
systems may periodically use an alternate disinfectant. EPA's intent in 
the proposed rule language was that PWSs would report the type of 
disinfectant used at the time of each specific sampling event. In 
response to this comment, the final rule contains revised language to 
Table 1 of Sec.  141.35(e) to clarify this point.
    Some commenters expressed concern that EPA will create 
inconsistencies in water system and laboratory databases by retaining 
the name ``Sample Analyses Type'' from UCMR 1 but changing the codes 
associated with it. EPA revised the codes associated with this data 
element (11) to better reflect the type of sample collected. 
The values that laboratories used previously proved to be problematic, 
since laboratories did not have enough information about the PWS's 
treatment systems or sample locations to assign the correct sample 
analysis type. Instead, EPA proposed and is finalizing in this rule 
codes that will provide EPA with QC information at the field sample 
level and with information about which UCMR field sample was fortified.
3. Reporting Process
a. Where to Report
    This rule specifies in Sec.  141.35(b)(1) the Web address for 
information that must be submitted electronically as: http://www.epa.gov/safewater/ucmr/ucmr2/reporting.html. This paragraph of the 
final rule also specifies that supporting documentation can be 
submitted to: UCMR Sampling Coordinator, USEPA, Technical Support 
Center, 26 West Martin Luther King Drive (MS 140), Cincinnati, OH 
45268; or by e-mail at [email protected]; or by fax 
at (513) 569-7191. EPA did not receive any comments related to this 
aspect of the rule.
b. Electronic Reporting System
i. This Rule
    EPA's electronic data reporting system--called SDWARS, which can be 
accessed on the Web at: http://www.epa.gov/safewater/ucmr/ucmr2/reporting.html--is the primary portal for PWSs and laboratories to 
submit contact

[[Page 382]]

and inventory information to EPA. The UCMR program requires that all 
monitoring results and associated data elements be reported using this 
system. There were no changes between the proposed and final rule 
language regarding this data reporting system. The data review and 
approval process is discussed in Section III.J.3.c.
ii. Summary of Major Comments
    EPA received several recommendations to provide more information 
and guidance related to PWS and laboratory use of its electronic data 
reporting system. In addition, several commenters requested that EPA 
pre-populate the UCMR 2 database with contact and inventory information 
that was collected under UCMR 1, or that it be easily accessible 
through EPA's SDWIS database.
    EPA is not pre-populating the SDWARS 2 database with PWS contact 
information for two reasons. First, the data that EPA currently has on 
file are several years old and EPA is aware that many changes in 
contact information are necessary. Second, EPA will use a PWS's entry 
of this information into SDWARS to confirm that the system has 
successfully set up its SDWARS account. However, EPA will upload all 
inventory information that it has available (i.e., PWS identification 
code; PWS facility identification code; sampling point identification 
code; sampling point type code; and sampling location water type). PWSs 
will be responsible for verifying, correcting, and updating inventory 
information, as needed. In addition, EPA is finalizing the specific 
process for the upload of monitoring results and will release the 
details of the process and upload files as far ahead of the start of 
monitoring as possible.
    Some comments were received expressing concern about the stability 
of the UCMR 1/SDWARS 1 database, claiming that data was lost which 
caused unnecessary notices of violation to be issued. Comments 
suggested that reminder letters/notices for compliance assistance would 
be more effective. Other comments were received suggesting that, to 
minimize confusion, PWSs have the option to report using the process 
they already use to report to their States, and States would then 
report to EPA.
    EPA is not aware of any cases in which SDWARS lost data. In 
general, where data appeared to be lost, closer review revealed other 
reasons for the problem, including various situations that resulted in 
data that was not officially ``approved'' or data transfer errors by 
laboratories that caused SDWARS to reject all or parts of files. When 
developing UCMR 1 and the overall UCMR program, EPA was concerned about 
the problem of transcription errors in data reporting. Therefore, EPA 
designed SDWARS such that the originator (i.e., the laboratory that 
performed the analysis) was responsible for entering the data into the 
database.
c. Data Review and Approval Process/Timeline
i. This Rule
    This rule requires large systems to ensure that their laboratory 
posts the data in EPA's electronic data reporting system (http://www.epa.gov/safewater/ucmr/ucmr2/reporting.html) within 120 days from 
the sample collection date. Large systems then have 60 days from when 
the laboratory posts the data in EPA's electronic data reporting system 
to review, approve, and submit the data to the State and EPA via the 
EPA electronic reporting system. If systems do not take action on the 
data within 60 days of the laboratory's posting to the electronic 
reporting system, the data will be considered approved by the system, 
and available for EPA review, and subsequent public release.
    Because EPA pays for and organizes the small system testing 
program, the review and approval steps for small systems differ. Small 
systems are only required to record system and sample location 
information on the sampling forms and bottles that are sent to them by 
the UCMR Sampling Coordinator. Procedures for submitting this 
information will be specified in the instructions sent to the system. 
Small systems are not required to review monitoring results, although 
they will be given a 60-day opportunity to review such results prior to 
their results being posted to the publicly available Web site.
ii. Summary of Major Comments
    Several commenters expressed that PWSs could not be held 
responsible for laboratory compliance with the UCMR 2 reporting 
requirements. Section 141.35(c)(6)(ii) specifies that PWSs must ensure 
that their laboratories post the required data to the electronic 
database within 120 days of sampling. PWSs have the responsibility to 
require that their laboratory meets this reporting deadline and PWSs 
are ultimately responsible for ensuring the quality of their data.
    Regarding compliance with review and approval timelines, commenters 
also were concerned that unnecessary enforcement notices were issued 
during UCMR 1 often because PWSs had not correctly processed and 
approved data through SDWARS. Several commenters recommended that 
reminder notices would help to ensure reporting compliance during UCMR 
2 and reduce the need for enforcement actions. Other commenters were 
concerned about laboratory capacity and the ability of a limited number 
of approved laboratories to successfully conduct analyses and reporting 
within the required time frames.
    EPA is currently in the final stages of developing the SDWARS 
electronic data entry system for entry of UCMR 2 monitoring results and 
is including an automatic e-mail system that will alert PWSs that data 
was entered by the laboratory, thereby reminding PWSs that they need to 
review and approve their monitoring data.
4. Cross-Media Reporting and Data Availability
a. Cross-Media Electronic Reporting
    The reporting required under this final rule is consistent with the 
requirements of the October 13, 2005, regulation, ``Cross-Media 
Electronic Reporting'' (70 FR 59847, (USEPA, 2005b)).
b. Data Availability
    The data collected through the UCMR program is being stored in NCOD 
to facilitate analysis and review of contaminant occurrence; to guide 
the conduct of the CCL process; and to support the Administrator's 
determination to regulate a contaminant in the interest of protecting 
public health, as required under SDWA Section 1412(b)(1). Results of 
the UCMR 1 monitoring can be viewed by the public at EPA's UCMR Web 
site: http://www.epa.gov/safewater/ucmr/data.html.

K. What Constitutes a Violation Under UCMR 2?

    Under this rule, EPA will finalize the definitions for monitoring 
and reporting violations as proposed. A monitoring violation under UCMR 
2 is defined as: ``Any failure to monitor in accordance with Sec. Sec.  
141.40(a)(3)-(5) is a monitoring violation.'' A reporting violation is 
defined as: ``Any failure to report in accordance with Sec.  141.35 is 
a reporting violation.'' EPA did not receive any comments related to 
these violation definitions.

L. Technical Correction Rule Changes in This Rule

    This rule includes two technical corrections pertaining to: 
Aldicarb monitoring and State primacy.

[[Page 383]]

1. Changes Pertaining to Aldicarb Monitoring
    When EPA published ``Revisions to the Unregulated Contaminant 
Monitoring Regulation for Public Water Systems; Final Rule,'' on 
September 17, 1999 (64 FR 50556, (USEPA, 1999)), two references to 
Sec.  141.40 in Sec.  141.24 became obsolete, but were not corrected in 
the 1999 rule. EPA is correcting this technical error by revising the 
references to requirements for monitoring for aldicarb, aldicarb 
sulfone, and aldicarb sulfoxide in Sec.  141.24(h) and Sec.  
141.24(h)(7)(v). EPA suspended monitoring for these regulated 
contaminants in a 1992 Federal Register notice (57 FR 22178, May 27, 
1992 (USEPA, 1992)), and there are no monitoring requirements for these 
contaminants under UCMR.
2. Changes Pertaining to State Primacy
    Section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 
553(b)(B), provides that, when an agency for good cause finds that 
notice and public procedure are impracticable, unnecessary or contrary 
to the public interest, the agency may issue a rule without providing 
prior notice and an opportunity for public comment. In today's final 
rule, EPA is removing the reference to Sec.  141.40 in Sec.  142.16(e), 
a portion in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) that enumerates the 
sections of the CRF subject to State primacy. The reference was first 
removed on September 17, 1999 (64 FR 50556, (USEPA, 1999)), when EPA 
published ``Revisions to the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring 
Regulation for Public Water Systems; Final Rule.'' However, in EPA's 
subsequent publication of the ``Arsenic and Clarifications to 
Compliance and New Source Contaminants Monitoring Final Rule'' (66 FR 
6975, January 22, 2001, (USEPA, 2001b)), the Agency inadvertently 
reinserted the reference to Sec.  141.40 in Sec.  142.16(e). EPA has 
determined that there is good cause for making this rule change final 
without prior proposal and opportunity for comment because removal of 
this reference was the product of a prior notice-and-comment 
rulemaking, (see 64 FR 50556, (USEPA, 1999)) and because the reference 
to UCMR monitoring is erroneous and no longer has any substantive 
effect. Thus, notice and public procedure are unnecessary. EPA finds 
that this constitutes ``good cause'' under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B). For the 
same reasons, EPA is making this rule change effective upon 
publication.

IV. State and Tribal Participation

A. Partnership Agreements

1. This Rule
    Under UCMR 2, States may continue to have a role in rule 
implementation through Partnership Agreements (PAs). Because specific 
activities for individual States are identified and established through 
the PAs, not through rule language, this rule does not contain 
reference to PAs.
2. Summary of Major Comments
    Comments received regarding State participation in UCMR 2 
included:Recommendations that non-partnering States have an opportunity 
to review State Monitoring Plans; concerns regarding State resources to 
help implement UCMR 2; and the need for more guidance from EPA 
regarding PAs, including the need for a template for the sampling 
protocols for States to use as the basis for their water system 
notification. EPA sent the draft State Monitoring Plans to all States 
prior to the negotiation of PAs. All States that agreed to partner with 
EPA were asked to review and provide any needed revisions to the draft 
plan. Each State could agree to accept additional responsibilities as 
documented through each State's final PA with EPA. In addition, EPA 
will provide States with guidance and templates for small system 
instructions.

B. Governors' Petition and State-Wide Waivers

    This rule retains the UCMR 1 language that, consistent with SDWA, 
allows a minimum of seven State Governors to petition EPA to add 
contaminants to the UCMR Contaminant list. This rule also retains the 
UCMR 1 language that allows States to waive monitoring requirements 
with EPA approval and under very limited conditions. EPA did not 
receive any comments on either of these topics.

V. Cost and Benefits of This Rule

    In this rule, EPA finalized a new set of contaminants for 
monitoring in the second five-year UCMR cycle of 2007--2011. UCMR 2 
Assessment Monitoring (for List 1 contaminants) will be conducted from 
January 2008 through December 2010 by 800 systems serving 10,000 or 
fewer, and by all systems serving more than 10,000 people. The 
Screening Survey for List 2 contaminants will also be conducted from 
January 2008 through December 2010 by 800 systems serving 100,000 or 
fewer, and all systems serving more than 100,000 (approximately 400 
systems). Small systems (those serving 10,000 or fewer people) will not 
be subject to more than one component of UCMR 2 monitoring. For cost 
estimation purposes, EPA assumes that one-third of systems will monitor 
during each of the three monitoring years (2008-2010).
    Labor costs pertain to systems, States, and EPA. They include 
activities such as reading the regulation, notifying systems selected 
to participate, sample collection, data review, reporting, and 
recordkeeping. Non-labor costs will be incurred primarily by EPA and by 
large PWSs. They include the cost of shipping samples to laboratories 
for testing and the cost of the actual laboratory analyses.
    In this rule, EPA specified five analytical methods to monitor for 
25 new UCMR contaminants. Estimated system and EPA costs are based on 
the projected analytical costs for these methods. With the exception of 
Method 525.2, these methods are comparatively new and will not coincide 
with other compliance monitoring (e.g., no cost savings for coincident 
monitoring can be realized). Laboratory analysis and shipping of 
samples account for approximately 71 percent of the national cost for 
UCMR 2 implementation. These costs are calculated as follows: The 
number of systems, multiplied by the number of sampling locations, 
multiplied by the sampling frequency, multiplied by the cost of 
laboratory analysis. Under UCMR 2, surface water (and GWUDI) sampling 
points will be monitored four times during the applicable year of 
monitoring, and ground water sampling points will be monitored twice 
during the applicable year of monitoring. Screening Survey systems that 
are required to monitor for DBPs will be required to sample for 
nitrosamines at one distribution system sampling point per treatment 
plant (i.e., at the DSMRT), as well as their EPTDS sampling locations.
    Following publication of the proposed rule, and EPA's initial cost 
and burden estimates, EPA received several cost-related public 
comments. Several public commenters felt that EPA's estimates of cost 
and burden (e.g., laboratory, shipping fees and estimated labor burden) 
to PWSs were too low.
    During the proposed rule and Information Collection Requirement 
(ICR) development, EPA estimated laboratory fees based on consultations 
with several national drinking water laboratories and based on costs of 
similar analytical methods. In response to comments, EPA revisited the 
estimates of UCMR 2 method pricing. EPA approached three additional 
national drinking water laboratories

[[Page 384]]

(different than those consulted previously) and requested pricing 
estimates for UCMR 2 methods. EPA averaged the pricing estimates from 
the laboratories that were consulted into the cost estimates. EPA also 
revisited key shipping company pricing lists to ensure that shipping 
cost assumptions were as accurate as possible.
    With respect to per system burden estimates, EPA notes that all 
burden estimates represent average burden hours, which include surface 
water systems that may have very few sampling points, and thus lower 
sampling burden, as well as those systems with higher numbers of 
sampling points that would therefore have greater sampling activity 
labor burden. Moreover, a system's burden is primarily incurred during 
its one year of required UCMR monitoring (between January 2008 and 
December 2010). However, in compliance with the requirements of the 
Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), these cost and burden 
estimates are presented as an average over the applicable three-year 
ICR period (2007-2009). Small systems (those serving 10,000 or fewer 
people) will have the lowest burden not only because of the relative 
smaller size of their infrastructure, but also because these systems 
will receive a great deal of direct assistance from EPA and/or their 
State.
    EPA estimates of laboratory fees are based on the average cost 
determined through consultations with national drinking water 
laboratories, unit costs are as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assessment Monitoring (List 1):
  EPA Method 527 (for 7 contaminants).........................      $220
  EPA Method 529 (for 3 contaminants).........................       215
                                                               ---------
    Total List 1..............................................       435
                                                               ---------
Screening Survey (List 2):
  EPA Method 521 (for 6 contaminants).........................       310
  EPA Method 535 (for 6 contaminants).........................       370
  EPA Method 525.2 (for 3 contaminants).......................       190
                                                               ---------
    Total List 2..............................................       870
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Shipping is added to the calculated costs to derive the total 
direct analytical non-labor costs. Estimated shipping costs were based 
on the average cost of shipping a 15-pound package overnight, plus a 
ground shipment cost of the empty package which is sent to the PWSs 
prior to their required sampling.
    In preparing the UCMR 2 ICR, EPA relied on standard assumptions and 
data sources used in the preparation of other drinking water program 
ICRs. These include the PWS inventory, number of sampling points per 
system, and labor rates. EPA expects that States will incur only labor 
costs associated with UCMR 2 implementation. State costs were estimated 
using the relevant modules of the State Resource Model that was 
recently developed by the Association of State Drinking Water 
Administrators (ASDWA) in conjunction with EPA (ASDWA, 2003) to help 
States forecast resource needs. Model estimates were adjusted to 
account for actual levels of State participation under UCMR 1. Because 
State participation is determined through the PAs, level of effort will 
vary across States and depend on their individual agreements with EPA.
    Over the UCMR 2 cycle of 2007-2011, EPA estimates that nationwide, 
the average annual cost of UCMR 2 is approximately $8.87 million. These 
total estimated annual costs and total estimated costs (labor and non-
labor) are incurred as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Average          Total
                                            annual cost      estimated
               Respondent                     for all      costs for all
                                            respondents     respondents
                                            (2007-2011)     (2007-2011)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Small Systems serving 25--10,000,                $0.06 m           $0.30
 including labor only (non-labor costs
 are paid for by EPA)...................
Large Systems serving 10,001--100,000,            3.84 m           19.20
 including labor and non-labor costs....
Large Systems serving 100,001 and                 1.91 m            9.55
 greater, including labor and non-labor
 costs..................................
States, including labor costs related to          0.49 m            2.45
 implementation coordination............
EPA, including labor for implementation           2.57 m           12.85
 coordination and non-labor for small
 system testing.........................
                                         -------------------------------
    National Total......................          8.87 m           44.35
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additional details regarding EPA's cost assumptions and estimates 
can be found in the ICR Number 2192.01 amendment prepared for the final 
rule (OMB number 2040-0270), which presents estimated cost and burden 
for the 2007-2009 monitoring period. Estimates of costs over the entire 
second five-year UCMR cycle of 2007-2011 are attached as an appendix to 
the ICR. Copies of the ICR and its amendment may be obtained from the 
EPA public docket for this rule, which includes this ICR, under Docket 
ID Number OW-2004-0001.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    Under Executive Order (EO) 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), 
this action is a ``significant regulatory action.'' Accordingly, EPA 
submitted this action to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for 
review under EO 12866 and any changes made in response to OMB 
recommendations have been documented in the docket for this action.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    OMB has approved the information collection requirements contained 
in this rule under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 
U.S.C. 3501 et seq. and has assigned OMB control number 2040-0270.
    The information to be collected under this rule fulfills the 
statutory requirements of Section 1445(a)(2) of SDWA, as amended in 
1996. The data to be collected will describe the source of the water, 
location, and test results for samples taken from PWSs. The 
concentrations of any identified UCMR contaminants will be evaluated 
with respect to health effects and those contaminants will be 
considered for future regulation accordingly. Reporting is mandatory. 
The data are not subject to confidentiality protection.
    The annual burden and cost estimates described below are for the 
implementation assumptions described in Section V, Cost and Benefits of 
the Rule, of this action. Respondents to the

[[Page 385]]

UCMR 2 will include 1,280 small water systems (those serving 10,000 or 
fewer people; 800 for Assessment Monitoring and 480 for Screening 
Survey monitoring), the 3,633 large PWSs (those serving more than 
10,000 people), and the 56 States and primacy agencies (4,969 total 
respondents). The frequency of response varies across respondents and 
years. System costs (particularly laboratory analytical costs) vary 
depending on the number of sampling locations. Cost estimates assumes 
that most Assessment Monitoring and Screening Survey systems will 
conduct sampling evenly across the January 2008-December 2010 
monitoring period (i.e., one-third in each of the three consecutive 12-
month periods). Because the applicable ICR period is 2007-2009, only 
two years of core monitoring activity are captured in the ICR 
estimates. Some rule preparation, including reporting of contact and 
inventory information, will occur during 2007.
    Small systems (those serving 10,000 or fewer) that are selected for 
UCMR 2 monitoring will sample an average of 1.8 times per system (i.e., 
number of responses per system) across the three-year ICR period of 
2007-2009. The average burden per response for small systems is 
estimated to be 3.5 hours. Large systems serving 10,001 to 100,000 
people and large systems serving more than 100,000 people will sample 
and report an average of 2.0 and 2.4 times per system, respectively, 
across the three-year ICR period of 2007-2009. The average burdens per 
response for these two categories of large systems are estimated to be 
9.8 and 15.2 hours, respectively. The larger burden per response for 
the largest systems reflects the fact that these systems typically have 
more sampling locations. States are assumed to have an average of 1.0 
response per year, related to coordination with EPA and systems, with 
an average burden per response of 203.2 hours. In aggregate, during the 
ICR period of 2007-2009, the average response (including responses from 
both systems and States) is associated with a burden of 12.1 hours, 
with a labor plus non-labor cost of $2,170 per response.
    The annual average per respondent burden hours and costs for the 
ICR period of 2007-2009 are: small systems--2.1 hour burden at $57 for 
labor; large systems serving 10,001 to 100,000--6.6 hours at $197 for 
labor, and $1,651 for analytical costs; large systems serving more than 
100,000--12.1 hours at $431 for labor, and $4,840 for analytical costs; 
and States--203.2 hours at $11,107 for labor. Annual average burden and 
cost per respondent (including both systems and States) is estimated to 
be 8.1 hours, with a labor plus non-labor cost of $1,456 per 
respondent. Note that small systems do not pay for testing costs, so 
they only incur labor costs. The total annual burden for the ICR 
reporting period of 2007-2009 is 40,386 hours (with a labor cost of 
$1.51 million); the total annual analytical cost is $5.73 million.
    The Agency estimates the annual burden to EPA for UCMR program 
activities during the ICR years of 2007-2009 to be approximately 9,533 
hours, at an annual labor cost of $0.66 million. EPA's annual non-labor 
costs are estimated to be $2.3 million. EPA's non-labor costs are 
primarily attributed to the cost of sample analysis for small systems 
(analysis is just under 90 percent of non-labor cost).
    Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources 
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or 
provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time 
needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize 
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and 
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and 
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to 
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; 
train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; 
search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; 
and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required 
to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a 
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's 
regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. In addition, EPA is 
amending the table in 40 CFR part 9 of currently approved OMB control 
numbers for various regulations to list the regulatory citations for 
the information requirements contained in this final rule.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency 
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to 
notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative 
Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the 
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, 
small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
    The RFA provides default definitions for each type of small entity. 
Small entities are defined as: (1) A small business as defined by the 
Small Business Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; 
(2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, 
county, town, school district or special district with a population of 
less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any ``not-for-
profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not 
dominant in its field.'' However, the RFA also authorizes an agency to 
use alternative definitions for each category of small entity, ``which 
are appropriate to the activities of the agency'' after proposing the 
alternative definition(s) in the Federal Register and taking comment (5 
U.S.C. 601(3)-(5)). In addition, to establish an alternative small 
business definition, agencies must consult with SBA's Chief Counsel for 
Advocacy.
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of this final rule on small 
entities, EPA considered small entities to be PWSs serving 10,000 or 
fewer people, because this is the system size specified in SDWA as 
requiring special consideration with respect to small system 
flexibility. As required by the RFA, EPA proposed using this 
alternative definition in the Federal Register (63 FR 7605, February 
13, 1998 (USEPA, 1998a)), requested public comment, consulted with the 
SBA, and finalized the alternative definition in the Consumer 
Confidence Reports rulemaking (63 FR 44511, August 19, 1998 (USEPA, 
1998c)). As stated in that Final Rule, the alternative definition is 
applied to this regulation as well.
    After considering the economic impacts of this final rule on small 
entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The small 
entities directly regulated by this final rule are a subset of small 
community and non-transient non-community PWSs serving 10,000 or fewer 
people. We have determined that the 1,280 small PWSs required to 
participate in either the Assessment Monitoring or Screening Survey 
components of UCMR 2 will experience an average cost of $43 per year; 
the remainder of small systems are not subject to this final rule.
    Although this final rule will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities, EPA nonetheless has 
tried to reduce the impact of this rule on small entities. As required 
by SDWA, the Agency

[[Page 386]]

specifically structured the rule to avoid significantly affecting small 
entities by assuming all costs for laboratory analyses, shipping, and 
QC for small entities. As a result, EPA incurs the entirety of the non-
labor costs associated with UCMR 2 small system monitoring. With its 
authority to use monies from the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund 
(DWSRF) for the purposes of implementing this provision of SDWA, EPA 
has set aside $2.0 million each year to apply towards these costs. 
Small system costs are limited to the additional labor required for 
reading about their requirements, monitoring, reporting, and 
recordkeeping. The estimated average annual burden across the five-year 
UCMR 2 cycle of 2007-2011 is estimated to be 1.5 hours at $43 per small 
system. These costs for small systems are discussed in Section 6(a)(i) 
of the ICR document, available on the EPA public docket for this rule, 
under Docket ID Number OW-2004-0001 at http://www.regulations.gov.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public 
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the 
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal 
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA 
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit 
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that 
may result in expenditures to State, local, and Tribal governments, in 
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any 
one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement 
is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify 
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt 
the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative 
that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 
do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, 
section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least 
costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative if the 
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation of why that 
alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory 
requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small 
governments, including Tribal governments, it must have developed under 
section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must 
provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling 
officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely 
input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant 
Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and 
advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory 
requirements.
    EPA has determined that this rule does not contain a Federal 
mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for 
State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private 
sector in any one year. Total annual costs of this final rule (across 
the UCMR 2 cycle of 2007-2011), for State, local, and Tribal 
governments and the private sector, are estimated to be $8.86 million, 
of which EPA will pay $2.57 million, or approximately 29 percent. Thus, 
this rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of 
the UMRA.
    EPA has determined that this rule contains no regulatory 
requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small 
governments. The Agency will pay for the reasonable costs of sample 
analysis for the small PWSs required to monitor for unregulated 
contaminants under this final rule, including those owned and operated 
by small governments. The only costs that small systems will incur are 
those attributed to collecting the UCMR samples and packing them for 
shipping to the laboratory (EPA will pay for shipping). These costs are 
minimal. They are not significant or unique. Thus, this rule is not 
subject to the requirements of UMRA section 203.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August 
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure 
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the 
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.'' 
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the 
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct 
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national 
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and 
responsibilities among the various levels of government.''
    This final rule does not have Federalism implications. It will not 
have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship 
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution 
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, 
as specified in Executive Order 13132.
    The cost to State and local governments is minimal, and the rule 
does not preempt State law. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply 
to this rule. In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent 
with EPA policy to promote communications between EPA and State and 
local governments, EPA specifically solicited comment on the proposed 
rule from State and local officials.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian 
Tribal Governments

    Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination 
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), 
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful 
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory 
policies that have tribal implications.''
    This final rule does not have Tribal implications, as specified in 
Executive Order 13175. It will neither impose substantial direct 
compliance costs on Tribal governments, nor preempt Tribal law. This 
final rule also requires monitoring by a nationally representative 
sample of small systems (i.e., those serving 10,000 or fewer people). 
EPA estimates that approximately one percent of small Tribal systems 
will be selected as part of such sample. EPA estimates the average 
annual cost over the five-year rule period to be $43, based on the 
labor associated with collecting a sample and preparing it for 
shipping. All other small-system expenses (associated with shipping and 
laboratory fees) are paid by EPA.
    EPA consulted with Tribal officials early in the process of 
developing the UCMR program to permit them to have meaningful and 
timely input into its development. In developing the original UCMR, EPA 
held stakeholder meetings and prepared background information for 
stakeholder review. EPA sent requests for review of stakeholder 
documents to nearly 400 Tribes, Tribal organizations, and small systems 
organizations to obtain their input. Representatives from the Indian 
Health Service (IHS) Sanitary Deficiency System and Tribes were 
consulted regarding decisions on rule design, the design for the 
statistical selection of small systems, and potential costs.
    Tribes raised issues concerning the selection of the nationally 
representative sample of small systems, particularly the manner in 
which Tribal systems would be considered under the sample selection 
process. EPA developed the sample frame for Tribal

[[Page 387]]

systems and Alaska Native water systems in response to those concerns. 
EPA worked with the Tribes, Alaska Natives, the IHS, and the States to 
determine how to classify each Tribal system for consideration in the 
statistically-based selection of the nationally representative sample 
of small systems. As a result of those discussions, small PWSs that are 
located in Indian country in each of the EPA Regions containing Indian 
country were evaluated as part of a Tribal category that receives 
selection consideration comparable to that of small systems outside of 
Indian country. Thus, Tribal systems have the same probability of being 
selected as other water systems in the stratified selection process 
that weighs systems by water source and size class by population 
served.
    EPA also held a public stakeholder meeting on October 23, 2003. 
This meeting was announced to the public in a Federal Register notice 
dated September 11, 2003. Prior to the meeting, background materials 
and rule development information were sent to specific stakeholders, 
including representatives from the IHS and the Native American Water 
Association.
    As described previously, this final rule requires monitoring by all 
large systems serving more than 10,000 people. Ten Tribal water systems 
have been identified as large systems. EPA estimates the average annual 
cost for each large system over the five-year rule period to be less 
than $1,200. Such cost is based on a labor component (associated with 
the collection of samples) and a non-labor component (associated with 
shipping and laboratory fees).
    This final rule, addressing the second UCMR period, maintains the 
basic program design of the original UCMR, building upon the structure 
established by the original rule for this cyclical program. The primary 
changes include: (1) Improving the design of the Screening Survey for 
List 2 contaminants to increase the statistical strength of the 
sampling results; (2) updating the lists of contaminants to be 
monitored and the analytical methods approved to conduct that 
monitoring; (3) revising the ``data elements'' required to be reported; 
and (4) revising the implementation of the monitoring program to 
reflect ``lessons learned'' during UCMR 1.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental 
Health and Safety Risks

    Executive Order 13045, ``Protection of Children from Environmental 
Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), applies 
to any rule that: (1) is determined to be ``economically significant'' 
as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an 
environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may 
have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action 
meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health 
or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the 
planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and 
reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.
    This final rule is not subject to the Executive Order because it is 
not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and 
because the Agency does not have reason to believe the environmental 
health or safety risks addressed by this action present a 
disproportionate risk to children.
    This final rule is part of the Agency's overall strategy for 
deciding whether to regulate the contaminants identified on the CCL (63 
FR 10274, March 2, 1998 (USEPA, 1998b)). The purpose of this final rule 
is to ensure that EPA has data on the occurrence of contaminants on the 
CCL where those data are lacking. EPA is also taking steps to ensure 
that the Agency will have data on the health effects of these 
contaminants on children through its research program. The Agency will 
use these data (both contaminant occurrence and health effects) to help 
decide whether or not to regulate any of these contaminants.
    However, given EPA's interest in protecting children's health, as 
part of the original provisions in UCMR 1, allowing State Governors to 
petition EPA to add contaminants to the UCMR Contaminant List, EPA 
requests Governors to include any information that might be available 
regarding disproportional risks to the health or safety of children. 
Such information will help inform EPA's decisionmaking regarding the 
UCMR contaminant list.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy 
Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This rule is not a ``significant energy action'' as defined in 
Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355 
(May 22, 2001)) because it is not likely to have a significant adverse 
effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The frequency of 
required monitoring and testing in this rulemaking does not rise to the 
level of significant cost to drinking water utilities. Therefore, we 
have concluded that this rule is not likely to have any adverse energy 
costs.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    As noted in the proposed rule, Section 12(d) of the National 
Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law 
No. 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary 
consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would 
be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary 
consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials 
specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business 
practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus 
standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through 
OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and 
applicable voluntary consensus standards.
    This rulemaking involves technical standards. Therefore, the Agency 
conducted a search to identify potentially applicable voluntary 
consensus standards. However, we identified no such standards, and none 
were brought to our attention in comments. Therefore, EPA has decided 
to use the methods development that the Agency conducted (described in 
Section III.C), which was necessary to establish acceptable methods for 
the determination of these UCMR 2 parameters.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental 
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    Executive Order 12898, ``Federal Actions to Address Environmental 
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations'' (February 
11, 1994), focuses Federal attention on the environmental and human 
health conditions of minority and low-income populations with the goal 
of achieving environmental protection for all communities.
    By seeking to identify unregulated contaminants that may pose 
health risks via drinking water from all PWSs, UCMR furthers the 
protection of public health for all citizens, including minority and 
low-income populations using public water supplies. Using a 
statistically-derived set of systems for the nationally representative 
sample that is population-weighted within each system size category in 
each State, the final rule ensures that no group within the population 
is under-represented.

K. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the 
Small

[[Page 388]]

Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally 
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating 
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, 
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the 
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other 
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior 
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A Major rule cannot 
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal 
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 
804(2). This rule will be effective February 5, 2007.

VII. Public Involvement in Regulation Development

    EPA's Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water has developed a 
process for stakeholder involvement in its regulatory activities for 
the purpose of providing early input to regulation development. When 
designing and developing the UCMR program in the late 1990s, EPA held 
meetings for developing the CCL, establishing the information 
requirements of the NCOD, and selecting priority contaminants for 
monitoring. During the initial development of the UCMR program, 
stakeholders, including PWSs, States, industry, and other organizations 
attended meetings to discuss the UCMR. Seventeen other meetings were 
held specifically concerning UCMR development. For a description of 
public involvement activities related to the UCMR, please see the 
discussion in the September 1999 UCMR Final Rule Federal Register at 64 
FR 50556 (USEPA, 1999).
    Specific to the development of UCMR 2, a stakeholder meeting was 
held on October 29, 2003, in Washington, DC. There were 25 attendees, 
representing State agencies, Federal agencies, laboratories, PWSs, and 
drinking water associations. The topics of presentations and 
discussions included: Rationale for selecting a new list of proposed 
contaminants; analytical methods to be used in measuring these 
contaminants; sampling design, particularly for the Screening Survey 
monitoring; procedure for determining LCMRLs; validation of laboratory 
performance at or below the MRL; revisions to data elements; and other 
proposed revisions based on lessons learned during implementation of 
UCMR 1.
    In addition to public involvement during program and proposed rule 
development, EPA received comments from 36 public commenters. EPA's 
responses to these comments are summarized in Sections III, IV and V of 
this preamble. EPA has compiled a document containing all public 
comments and EPA's responses entitled: ``UCMR 2 Categorized Public 
Comments,'' (USEPA, 2006b) which can be obtained by going to http://www.regulations.gov and searching for Docket ID No. OW-2004-0001 under 
the advanced search tab.

VIII. References

    Association of State Drinking Water Administrators (ASDWA). 
2003. Public Health Protection Threatened by Inadequate Resources 
for State Drinking Water Programs--An Analysis of State Drinking 
Water Programs Resources, Needs, and Barriers. April 2003. Available 
on the Internet at: http://www.asdwa.org/.

Darnerud, P.O., G.S. Erickson, T. Johannesson, P.B. Larson, and M. 
Viluksela. 2001. Polybrominated Diphenyl Ethers: Occurrence, Dietary 
Exposure, and Toxicology. Environmental Health Perspectives 
Supplements. Vol. 109, No. S1. Available on the Internet at: http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/members/2001/suppl-1/49-68darnerud/darnerud-full.html. de Wit, C.A. February 2002. An overview of brominated 
flame retardants in the environment. Chemosphere. 46(5):583-624.
Hites, R. 2004. Polybrominated Diphenyl Ethers in the Environment 
and in People: A Meta-Analysis of Concentration. Environmental 
Science and Technology. Vol. 38, No. 4. pp. 945-956.
McDonald, T.A. February 2002. A perspective on the potential health 
risks of PBDEs. Chemosphere. 46(5):745-55.
Meerts, I.A., Letcher, R.J., Hoving, S., Marsh, G., Bergman, A., 
Lemmen, J.G., van der Burg, B., and A. Brouwer. April 2001. In vitro 
estrogenicity of polybrominated diphenyl ethers, hydroxylated PDBEs, 
and polybrominated bisphenol A compounds. Environmental Health 
Perspective. 109(4):399-407.
Stoker, T.E., Cooper, R.L., Lambright, C.S., Wilson, V.S., Furr, J., 
and L.E. Gray. August 2005. In vivo and in vitro anti-androgenic 
effects of DE-71, a commercial polybrominated diphenyl ether (PBDE) 
mixture. Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology. 207(1):78-88.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1992. 
National Primary Drinking Water Regulations; Aldicarb, Aldicarb 
Sulfoxide, and Aldicarb Sulfone; Notice of postponement of certain 
provisions of final rule. Federal Register. Vol. 57, No. 102. p. 
22178, May 27, 1992.
USEPA. 1995. Method 525.2--Determination of Organic Compounds in 
Drinking Water by Liquid-Solid Extraction and Capillary Column Gas 
Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry. Revision 2.0, 1995 is available on 
the Internet at: http://www.NEMI.gov.
USEPA. 1998a. National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Consumer 
Confidence Reports; Final Rule. Federal Register. Vol. 63, No. 30. 
p. 7605, February 13, 1998.
USEPA. 1998b. Announcement of the Drinking Water Contaminant 
Candidate List; Notice. Federal Register. Vol. 63, No. 40. p. 10274, 
March 2, 1998.
USEPA. 1998c. National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Consumer 
Confidence Reports. Federal Register. Vol. 63, No. 160. p. 44511, 
August 19, 1998.
USEPA. 1999. Revisions to the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring 
Regulation for Public Water Systems; Final Rule. Federal Register. 
Vol. 64, No. 180. p. 50556, September 17, 1999.
USEPA. 2000. Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation for 
Public Water Systems: Analytical Methods for Perchlorate and 
Acetochlor; Announcement of Laboratory Approval and Performance 
Testing (PT) Program for the Analysis of Perchlorate; Final Rule and 
Proposed Rule. Federal Register. Vol. 65, No. 42. p. 11372, March 2, 
2000.
USEPA. 2001a. Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation for 
Public Water Systems; Analytical Methods for List 2 Contaminants; 
Clarifications to the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation. 
Federal Register. Vol. 66, No. 8. p. 2273, January 11, 2001.
USEPA. 2001b. National Primary Drinking Water Regulations; Arsenic 
and Clarifications to Compliance and New Source Contaminants 
Monitoring. Federal Register. Vol. 66, No. 14. p. 6975, January 22, 
2001.
USEPA. 2002a. EPA Method 529--Determination of Explosives and 
Related Compounds in Drinking Water by Solid Phase Extraction and 
Capillary Column Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry (GC/MS). 
Available on the Internet at: http://www.epa.gov/nerlcwww/ordmeth.htm.
USEPA. 2002b. Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation: 
Approval of Analytical Method for Aeromonas; National Primary and 
Secondary Drinking Water Regulations: Approval of Analytical Methods 
for Chemical and Microbiological Contaminants. Federal Register. 
Vol. 67, No. 209. p. 65888, October 29, 2002.
USEPA. 2004a. EPA Method 521--Determination of Nitrosamines in 
Drinking Water by Solid Phase Extraction and Capillary Column Gas 
Chromatography with Large Volume Injection and Chemical Ionization 
Tandem Mass Spectrometry (MS/MS). Revision 1.0, April 2005 is 
available on the Internet at: http://www.epa.gov/nerlcwww/ordmeth.htm.
USEPA. 2004b. EPA Method 527--Determination of Selected Pesticides 
and Flame Retardants in Drinking Water by Solid Phase Extraction and 
Capillary Column Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry (GC/MS). EPA 
815-R-05-005. April 2005. Available on the Internet at: http://www.epa.gov/safewater/methods/sourcalt.html.

[[Page 389]]

USEPA. 2004c. EPA Method 535, Measurement of Chloroacetanilide and 
Other Acetamide Herbicide Degradates in Drinking Water by Solid 
Phase Extraction and Liquid Chromatography/Tandem Mass Spectrometry 
(LC/MS/MS). Version 1.1, April 2005 is available on the Internet at: 
http://www.epa.gov/nerlcwww/ordmeth.htm.
USEPA. 2004d. UCMR 2 Laboratory Approval Manual. Available upon 
request as detailed at: http://www.epa.gov/safewater/ucmr/ucmr2/index.html.
USEPA. 2005a. Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation (UCMR) 
for Public Water Systems Revisions; Proposed Rule. Federal Register. 
Vol. 70, No. 161. p. 49093, August 22, 2005.
USEPA. 2005b. Cross Media Electronic Reporting. Federal Register. 
Vol. 70, No. 197. p. 59847, October 13, 2005.
USEPA. 2006a. National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Stage 2 
Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule; Final Rule. Federal 
Register. Vol. 71 No. 2. p. 388, January 4, 2006.
USEPA. 2006b. UCMR 2 Categorized Public Comments. Available on the 
Internet at: http://www.epa.gov/safewater/ucmr/ucmr2/index.html.

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 9

    Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

40 CFR Part 141

    Environmental protection, Chemicals, Incorporation by reference, 
Indians-lands, Intergovernmental relations, Radiation protection, 
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Water supply.

40 CFR Part 142

    Analytical methods, Chemicals, Environmental Protection, 
Administrative practice and procedure, Chemicals, Indians-lands, 
Radiation Protection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Water 
supply.

    Dated: December 20, 2006.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Administrator.

0
For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter 1 of the 
Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 9--OMB APPROVALS UNDER THE PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT

0
1. The authority citation for part 9 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 7 U.S.C. 135 et seq., 136-136y; 15 U.S.C. 2001, 2003, 
2005, 2006, 2601-2671; 21 U.S.C. 331j, 346a, 348; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 33 
U.S.C. 1251 et seq., 1311, 1313d, 1314, 1318, 1321, 1326, 1330, 
1342, 1344, 1345(d) and (e); 1361; E.O. 11735, 38 FR 21243, 3 CFR, 
1971-1975 Comp. p. 973; 42 U.S.C. 241, 242b, 243, 246, 300f, 300g, 
300g-1, 300g-2, 300g-3, 300g-4, 300g-5, 300g-6, 300j-1, 300j-2, 
300j-3, 300j-4, 300j-9, 1857 et seq., 6901-6992k, 7401-7671q, 7542, 
9601-9657, 11023, 11048.


0
2. Section 9.1 is amended by revising the entries for ``141.35'' and 
``141.40'' to read as follows:


Sec.  9.1  OMB approvals under the Paperwork Reduction Act.

* * * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            OMB Control
                     40 CFR Citation                            No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                * * * * *
 
               National Primary Drinking Water Regulations
 
                                * * * * *
141.35..................................................       2040-0270
141.40..................................................       2040-0270
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

PART 141--NATIONAL PRIMARY DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS

0
3. The authority citation for part 141 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart C--[Amended]

0
4. Section 141.24 is amended by revising paragraph (h) introductory 
text, removing footnote 7 of paragraph (h) introductory text, and by 
revising paragraph (h)(7)(v) to read as follows:


Sec.  141.24  Organic chemicals, sampling and analytical requirements.

* * * * *
    (h) Analysis of the contaminants listed in Sec.  141.61(c) for the 
purposes of determining compliance with the maximum contaminant level 
shall be conducted as follows, with the exception that no monitoring is 
required for aldicarb, aldicarb sulfoxide or aldicarb sulfone:
* * * * *
    (7) * * *
    (v) If the monitoring results in detection of one or more of 
certain related contaminants (heptachlor and heptachlor epoxide), then 
subsequent monitoring shall analyze for all related contaminants.
* * * * *

Subpart D--[Amended]

0
5. Section 141.35 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  141.35  Reporting for unregulated contaminant monitoring results.

    (a) General applicability. This section applies to any owner or 
operator of a public water system (PWS) required to monitor for 
unregulated contaminants under Sec.  141.40(a); such owner or operator 
is referred to as ``you.'' This section specifies the information that 
must be reported to EPA prior to the commencement of monitoring and 
describes the process for reporting monitoring results to EPA. For the 
purposes of this section, PWS ``population served'' includes the sum of 
the retail population served directly by the PWS plus the population 
served by any consecutive system(s) receiving all or part of its 
finished water from that PWS. For purposes of this section, the term 
``finished'' means water that is introduced into the distribution 
system of a PWS and is intended for distribution and consumption 
without further treatment, except the treatment necessary to maintain 
water quality in the distribution system (e.g., booster disinfection, 
addition of corrosion control chemicals). For purposes of this section, 
the term ``State'' refers to the State or Tribal government entity that 
has jurisdiction over your PWS even if that government does not have 
primary enforcement responsibility for PWSs under the Safe Drinking 
Water Act. For purposes of this section, the term ``PWS Official'' 
refers to the person at your PWS who is able to function as the 
official spokesperson for the system's Unregulated Contaminant 
Monitoring Regulation (UCMR) activities; and the term ``PWS Technical 
Contact'' refers to the person at your PWS who is responsible for the 
technical aspects of your UCMR activities, such as details concerning 
sampling and reporting.
    (b) Reporting by all systems. You must meet the reporting 
requirements of this paragraph if you meet the applicability criteria 
in Sec.  141.40(a)(2).
    (1) Where to submit UCMR reporting requirement information. Some of 
your reporting requirements are to be fulfilled electronically, and 
others by mail. Information that must be submitted using EPA's 
electronic data reporting system must be submitted through: http://www.epa.gov/safewater/ucmr/ucmr2/reporting.html. Documentation that is 
required to be mailed can be submitted either: To UCMR Sampling 
Coordinator, USEPA, Technical Support Center, 26 West Martin Luther 
King Drive (MS 140), Cincinnati, OH 45268; or by e-mail at [email protected]; or by fax at (513) 569-7191. In 
addition, you must notify the public of the availability of unregulated 
contaminant

[[Page 390]]

monitoring data as provided in Subpart Q (Public Notification) of this 
part (40 CFR 141.207). Community Water Systems that detect unregulated 
contaminants under this monitoring must also address such detections as 
part of their Consumer Confidence Reports, as provided in Subpart O of 
this part (40 CFR 141.151).
    (2) Contacting EPA if your system does not meet applicability 
criteria or has a status change. If you have received a letter from EPA 
concerning your required monitoring and your system does not meet the 
applicability criteria for UCMR established in Sec.  141.40(a)(2), or 
if a change occurs at your system that may affect your requirements 
under UCMR as defined in Sec.  141.40(a)(3) through (5), you must fax, 
mail, or e-mail a letter to EPA, as specified in paragraph (b)(1) of 
this section. The letter must be from your PWS Official and must 
include an explanation as to why the UCMR requirements are not 
applicable to your PWS, or have changed for your PWS, along with the 
appropriate contact information. EPA will make an applicability 
determination based on your letter and in consultation with the State 
when necessary. You are subject to UCMR requirements unless and until 
you receive a letter from EPA agreeing that you do not meet the 
applicability criteria.
    (c) Reporting by large systems. If you serve a population of more 
than 10,000 people, and meet the applicability criteria in Sec.  
141.40(a)(2)(i), you must meet the reporting requirements in paragraphs 
(c)(1) through (8) of this section.
    (1) Contact information. You must provide contact information by 
April 4, 2007, and provide updates within 30 days if this information 
changes. The contact information must be submitted using EPA's 
electronic data reporting system, as specified in paragraph (b)(1) of 
this section, and include the name, affiliation, mailing address, phone 
number, fax number, and e-mail address for your PWS Technical Contact 
and your PWS Official.
    (2) Sampling location and inventory information. You must provide 
your sampling location and inventory information by August 2, 2007 
using EPA's electronic data reporting system. You must submit the 
following information for each sampling location, or for each approved 
representative sampling location (as specified in paragraph (c)(3) of 
this section regarding representative sampling locations): PWS 
identification (PWSID) code; PWS facility identification code; water 
source type, sampling point identification code; and sampling point 
type code; ( as defined in Table 1, paragraph (e) of this section). If 
this information changes, you must report updates to EPA's electronic 
data reporting system within 30 days of the change.
    (3) Proposed ground water representative sampling locations. Some 
systems that use ground water as a source and have multiple entry 
points to the distribution system (EPTDSs) may propose monitoring at 
representative entry point(s), rather than monitor at every EPTDS, as 
follows:
    (i) Qualifications. Large PWSs that have EPA- or State-approved 
alternate EPTDS sampling locations from a previous UCMR cycle, or as 
provided for under Sec. Sec.  141.23(a)(1), 141.24(f)(1), or 
141.24(h)(1), may submit a copy of documentation from their State or 
EPA that approves their alternative sampling plan for EPTDSs. PWSs that 
do not have an approved alternative EPTDS sampling plan may submit a 
proposal to sample at representative EPTDS(s) rather than at each 
individual EPTDS if: They use ground water as a source; all of their 
well sources have either the same treatment or no treatment; and they 
have multiple EPTDSs from the same source, such as an aquifer. You must 
submit a copy of the existing alternate EPTDS sampling plan or your 
representative well proposal, as appropriate, by May 4, 2007, as 
specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this section.
    (ii) Demonstration. If you are submitting a proposal to sample at 
representative EPTDS(s) rather than at each individual EPTDS, you must 
demonstrate that any EPTDS that you select as representative of the 
ground water you supply from multiple wells is associated with a well 
that draws from the same aquifer as the wells it will represent. You 
must submit the following information for each proposed representative 
sampling location: PWSID Code, PWS Facility Identification Code, and 
Sampling Point Identification Code (as defined in Table 1, paragraph 
(e) of this section). You must also include documentation to support 
your proposal that the specified wells are representative of other 
wells. This documentation can include system-maintained well logs or 
construction drawings indicating that the representative well(s) is/are 
at a representative depth, and details of well casings and grouting; 
data demonstrating relative homogeneity of water quality constituents 
(e.g., pH, dissolved oxygen, conductivity, iron, manganese) in samples 
drawn from each well; and data showing that your wells are located in a 
limited geographic area (e.g., all wells within a 0.5 mile radius) and/
or, if available, the hydrogeologic data indicating the time of travel 
separating the representative well from each of the individual wells it 
represents (e.g., all wells within a five-year time of travel 
delineation). Your proposal must be sent in writing to EPA, as 
specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this section. You must also provide a 
copy of this information to the State, unless otherwise directed by the 
State. Information about the actual or potential occurrence or non-
occurrence of contaminants in an individual well, or a well's 
vulnerability to contamination, must not be used as a basis for 
selecting a representative well.
    (iii) Approval. EPA or the State (as specified in the Partnership 
Agreement reached between the State and EPA) will review your proposal, 
coordinate any necessary changes with you, and approve the final list 
of EPTDSs where you will be required to monitor. Your plan will not be 
final until you receive written approval from EPA or the State.
    (4) Contacting EPA if your PWS has not been notified of 
requirements. If you believe you are subject to UCMR requirements, as 
defined in Sec.  141.40(a)(1) and (2)(i), and you have not been 
notified by either EPA or your State by June 4, 2007, you must send a 
letter to EPA, as specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this section. The 
letter must be from your PWS Official and must include an explanation 
as to why the UCMR requirements are applicable to your system along 
with the appropriate contact information. A copy of the letter must 
also be submitted to the State, as directed by the State. EPA will make 
an applicability determination based on your letter, and in 
consultation with the State when necessary, and will notify you 
regarding your applicability status and required sampling schedule. 
However, if your PWS meets the applicability criteria specified in 
Sec.  141.40(a)(2)(i), you are subject to the UCMR monitoring and 
reporting requirements, regardless of whether you have been notified by 
the State or EPA.
    (5) Notifying EPA if your PWS cannot sample according to schedule.
    (i) General rescheduling notification requirements. Large systems 
may change their Assessment Monitoring (List 1) or Screening Survey 
(List 2) schedule up to August 2, 2007 using EPA's electronic data 
reporting system, as specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this section. 
After these dates have passed, if your PWS cannot sample according to 
your assigned sampling schedule (e.g., because of budget constraints, 
or if a sampling location will be closed during the scheduled month of 
monitoring),

[[Page 391]]

you must fax, mail, or e-mail a letter to EPA, as specified in 
paragraph (b)(1) of this section, prior to the scheduled sampling date. 
You must include an explanation of why the samples cannot be taken 
according to the assigned schedule and the alternative schedule you are 
requesting. You are subject to your assigned UCMR sampling schedule or 
the schedule that you revised on or before August 2, 2007, unless and 
until you receive a letter from EPA specifying a new schedule.
    (ii) Exceptions to the rescheduling notification requirements. For 
ground water sampling, if the second round of sampling will be 
completed five to seven months after the first sampling event, as 
specified in Table 2 of Sec.  141.40(a)(4)(i)(B), no notification to 
EPA is required. If any ground water sampling location will be non-
operational for more than one month before and one month after the 
month in which the second sampling event is scheduled (i.e., it is not 
possible for you to sample within the five to seven month window), you 
must notify EPA, as specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this section, 
explaining why the schedule cannot be met. You must comply with any 
modified schedule provided by EPA.
    (6) Reporting monitoring results. For each sample, you must report 
the information specified in Table 1 of paragraph (e) of this section, 
using EPA's electronic data reporting system, as follows. If you are 
conducting Assessment Monitoring, you must include data elements 1 
through 5, and 7 through 15 in paragraph (e) of this section; and if 
you are conducting Screening Survey monitoring, you must include 
elements 1 through 15. You also must report any changes made to data 
elements 1 through 6 to EPA, in writing, explaining the nature and 
purpose of the proposed change, as specified in paragraph (b)(1) of 
this section.
    (i) Electronic reporting system. You are responsible for ensuring 
that the laboratory conducting the analysis of your unregulated 
contaminant monitoring samples (your laboratory) posts the analytical 
results to EPA's electronic reporting system. You are also responsible 
for reviewing, approving, and submitting those results to EPA.
    (ii) Reporting schedule. You must ensure that your laboratory posts 
the data to EPA's electronic data reporting system within 120 days from 
the sample collection date (sample collection must occur as specified 
in Sec.  141.40(a)(4)). You have 60 days from when the laboratory posts 
the data in EPA's electronic data reporting system to review, approve, 
and submit the data to the State and EPA, at the Web address specified 
in paragraph (b)(1) of this section. If you do not take action on the 
data within 60 days of the laboratory's posting to the electronic 
reporting system, the data will be considered approved by you, and 
available for EPA and State review.
    (7) Only one set of results accepted. If you report more than one 
set of valid results for the same sampling location and the same 
sampling event (for example, because you have had more than one 
laboratory analyze replicate samples collected under Sec.  
141.40(a)(5), or because you have collected multiple samples during a 
single monitoring event at the same sampling location), EPA will use 
the highest of the reported values as the official result.
    (8) No reporting of previously collected data. You cannot report 
previously collected data to meet the testing and reporting 
requirements for the contaminants listed in Sec.  141.40(a)(3). All 
analyses must be performed by laboratories approved by EPA to perform 
UCMR analyses using the analytical methods specified in Table 1 of 
Sec.  141.40(a)(3) and using samples collected according to Sec.  
141.40(a)(4). Such requirements preclude the possibility of 
``grandfathering'' previously collected data.
    (d) Reporting by small systems. If you serve a population of 10,000 
or fewer people, and you are notified that you have been selected for 
UCMR monitoring, your reporting requirements will be specified within 
the materials that EPA sends you, including a request for contact 
information, and a request for information associated with the sampling 
kit.
    (1) Contact information. EPA will send you a notice requesting 
contact information for key individuals at your system, including name, 
affiliation, mailing address, phone number, fax number, and e-mail 
address. These individuals include your PWS Technical Contact and your 
PWS Official. You are required to provide this information within 90 
days of receiving the notice from EPA as specified in paragraph (b)(1) 
of this section. If this information changes, you also must provide 
updates within 30 days of the change, as specified in paragraph (b)(1) 
of this section.
    (2) Reporting sampling information. You must record data elements 
listed in Table 1 of paragraph (e) of this section on each sample form 
and sample bottle provided to you by the UCMR Sampling Coordinator, as 
follows: If you are conducting Assessment Monitoring, you must include 
elements 1 through 5, and 7; if you are conducting Screening Survey, 
you must include elements 1 through 7. You must send this information 
as specified in the instructions of your sampling kit, which will 
include the due date and return address. You must report any changes 
made in data elements 1 through 6 by mailing or e-mailing an 
explanation of the nature and purpose of the proposed change to EPA, as 
specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this section.
    (e) Data elements. Table 1 defines the data elements that must be 
provided with UCMR sample results.

   Table 1.--Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Reporting Requirements
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Data element                          Definition
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Public Water System              The code used to identify each PWS.
 Identification (PWSID) Code.        The code begins with the standard 2-
                                     character postal State abbreviation
                                     or Region code; the remaining 7
                                     numbers are unique to each PWS in
                                     the State. The same identification
                                     code must be used to represent the
                                     PWS identification for all current
                                     and future UCMR monitoring.
2. Public Water System Facility     An identification code established
 Identification Code.                by the State or, at the State's
                                     discretion, by the PWS, following
                                     the format of a 5-digit number
                                     unique within each PWS for each
                                     applicable facility (i.e., for each
                                     source of water, treatment plant,
                                     distribution system, or any other
                                     facility associated with water
                                     treatment or delivery). The same
                                     identification code must be used to
                                     represent the facility for all
                                     current and future UCMR monitoring.
3. Water Source Type..............  The type of source water that
                                     supplies a water system facility.
                                     Systems must report one of the
                                     following codes for each sampling
                                     location:

[[Page 392]]

 
                                       SW = surface water (to be
                                        reported for water facilities
                                        that are served all or in part
                                        by a surface water source at any
                                        time during the twelve-month
                                        period).
                                       GW = ground water (to be reported
                                        for water facilities that are
                                        served entirely by a ground
                                        water source).
                                       GU = ground water under the
                                        direct influence of surface
                                        water (to be reported for water
                                        facilities that are served all
                                        or in part by ground water under
                                        the direct influence of surface
                                        water at any time during the
                                        twelve-month sampling period),
                                        and are not served at all by
                                        surface water during this
                                        period.
4. Sampling Point Identification    An identification code established
 Code.                               by the State, or at the State's
                                     discretion, by the PWS, that
                                     uniquely identifies each sampling
                                     point. Each sampling code must be
                                     unique within each applicable
                                     facility, for each applicable
                                     sampling location (i.e., entry
                                     point to the distribution system or
                                     distribution system sample at
                                     maximum residence time). The same
                                     identification code must be used to
                                     represent the sampling location for
                                     all current and future UCMR
                                     monitoring.
5. Sampling Point Type Code.......  A code that identifies the location
                                     of the sampling point as either:
                                       EP = entry point to the
                                        distribution system.
                                       MR = distribution system sample
                                        at maximum residence time.
6. Disinfectant Residual Type.....  The type of disinfectant in use at
                                     the time of UCMR sampling to
                                     maintain a residual in the
                                     distribution system for each
                                     Screening Survey sampling point. To
                                     be reported by systems required to
                                     conduct Screening Survey
                                     monitoring. Systems must report
                                     using the following codes for each
                                     Screening Survey sampling location
                                     (i.e., EP, MR):
                                       CL = chlorine
                                       CA = chloramine
                                       OT = all other types of
                                        disinfectant (e.g., chlorine
                                        dioxide)
                                       ND = no disinfectant used.
7. Sample Collection Date.........  The date the sample is collected,
                                     reported as 4-digit year, 2-digit
                                     month, and 2-digit day.
8. Sample Identification Code.....  An alphanumeric value up to 30
                                     characters assigned by the
                                     laboratory to uniquely identify
                                     containers, or groups of
                                     containers, containing water
                                     samples collected at the same
                                     sampling location for the same
                                     sampling date.
9. Contaminant....................  The unregulated contaminant for
                                     which the sample is being analyzed.
10. Analytical Method Code........  The identification code of the
                                     analytical method used.
11. Sample Analysis Type..........  The type of sample collected and/or
                                     prepared, as well as the
                                     fortification level. Permitted
                                     values include:
                                       FS = field sample; sample
                                        collected and submitted for
                                        analysis under this rule.
                                       LFSM = laboratory fortified
                                        sample matrix; a UCMR field
                                        sample with a known amount of
                                        the contaminant of interest
                                        added.
                                       LFSMD = laboratory fortified
                                        sample matrix duplicate;
                                        duplicate of the laboratory
                                        fortified sample matrix.
                                       CF = concentration fortified;
                                        reported with sample analysis
                                        types LFSM and LFSMD, the
                                        concentration of a known
                                        contaminant added to a field
                                        sample.
12. Analytical Results--Sign......  A value indicating whether the
                                     sample analysis result was:
                                       (<) ``less than'' means the
                                        contaminant was not detected, or
                                        was detected at a level below
                                        the Minimum Reporting Level.
                                       (=) ``equal to'' means the
                                        contaminant was detected at the
                                        level reported in ``Analytical
                                        Result--Value.''
13. Analytical Result--Value......  The actual numeric value of the
                                     analytical results for: field
                                     samples; laboratory fortified
                                     matrix samples; laboratory
                                     fortified sample matrix duplicates;
                                     and concentration fortified.
14. Laboratory Identification Code  The code, assigned by EPA, used to
                                     identify each laboratory. The code
                                     begins with the standard two-
                                     character State postal
                                     abbreviation; the remaining five
                                     numbers are unique to each
                                     laboratory in the State.
15. Sample Event Code.............  A code assigned by the PWS for each
                                     sample event. This will associate
                                     samples with the PWS monitoring
                                     plan to allow EPA to track
                                     compliance and completeness.
                                     Systems must assign the following
                                     codes:
                                       SE1 = represents samples
                                        collected to meet the UCMR
                                        monitoring requirement for the
                                        first sampling period (all
                                        source types).
                                       SE2 = represents samples
                                        collected to meet the UCMR
                                        monitoring requirement for the
                                        second sampling period (all
                                        source types).
                                       SE3 = represents samples
                                        collected to meet the UCMR
                                        monitoring requirement for the
                                        third sampling period (surface
                                        water and ground water under the
                                        direct influence of surface
                                        water (GWUDI) sources only).
                                       SE4 = represents samples
                                        collected to meet the UCMR
                                        monitoring requirement for the
                                        fourth sampling period (surface
                                        water and GWUDI sources only).
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 393]]

Subpart E--[Amended]

0
4. Section 141.40 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  141.40  Monitoring requirements for unregulated contaminants.

    (a) General applicability. This section specifies the monitoring 
and quality control requirements that must be followed if you own or 
operate a public water system (PWS) that is subject to the Unregulated 
Contaminant Monitoring Regulation (UCMR), as specified in paragraphs 
(a)(1) and (2) of this section. In addition, this section specifies the 
UCMR requirements for State and Tribal participation. For the purposes 
of this section, PWS ``population served,'' ``State,'' `` PWS 
Official,'' ``PWS Technical Contact,'' and ``finished water'' apply as 
defined in Sec.  141.35(a). The determination of whether a PWS is 
required to monitor under this rule is based on the type of system 
(e.g., community water system, non-transient non-community water 
system, etc.); whether the system purchases all of its water, as 
finished water, from another system; and its population served as of 
June 30, 2005.
    (1) Applicability to transient non-community systems. If you own or 
operate a transient non-community water system, you do not have to 
monitor that system for unregulated contaminants.
    (2) Applicability to community water systems and non-transient non-
community water systems.
    (i) Large systems. If you own or operate a wholesale or retail PWS 
(other than a transient non-community system) that serves more than 
10,000 people, and do not purchase your entire water supply as finished 
water from another PWS, you must monitor according to the 
specifications in this paragraph (a)(2)(i). If you believe that your 
applicability status is different than EPA has specified in the 
notification letter that you received, or if you are subject to UCMR 
requirements and you have not been notified by either EPA or your 
State, you must report to EPA, as specified in Sec.  141.35(b)(2) or 
(c)(4).
    (A) Assessment Monitoring. You must monitor for the unregulated 
contaminants on List 1 of Table 1, UCMR Contaminant List, in paragraph 
(a)(3) of this section. If you serve a population of more than 10,000 
people, you are required to perform this monitoring regardless of 
whether you have been notified by the State or EPA.
    (B) Screening Survey. You must monitor for the unregulated 
contaminants on List 2 (Screening Survey) of Table 1, as specified in 
paragraph (a)(3) of this section, if your system serves 10,001 to 
100,000 people and you are notified by EPA or your State that you are 
part of the State Monitoring Plan for Screening Survey testing. If your 
system serves more than 100,000 people, you are required to conduct 
this Screening Survey testing regardless of whether you have been 
notified by the State or EPA.
    (C) Pre-Screen Testing. You must monitor for the unregulated 
contaminants on List 3 of Table 1, in paragraph (a)(3) of this section, 
if notified by your State or EPA that you are part of the Pre-Screen 
Testing.
    (ii) Small systems. Small PWSs, as defined in this paragraph, will 
not be selected to monitor for any more than one of the three 
monitoring lists provided in Table 1, UCMR Contaminant List, in 
paragraph (a)(3) of this section. EPA will provide sample containers, 
provide pre-paid air bills for shipping the sampling materials, conduct 
the laboratory analysis, and report and review monitoring results for 
all small systems selected to conduct monitoring under paragraphs 
(a)(2)(ii)(A) through (C) of this section. If you own or operate a PWS 
(other than a transient system) that serves 10,000 or fewer people and 
do not purchase your entire water supply from another PWS, you must 
monitor as follows:
    (A) Assessment Monitoring. You must monitor for the unregulated 
contaminants on List 1 of Table 1, in paragraph (a)(3) of this section, 
if you are notified by your State or EPA that you are part of the State 
Monitoring Plan for Assessment Monitoring.
    (B) Screening Survey. You must monitor for the unregulated 
contaminants on List 2 of Table 1, in paragraph (a)(3) of this section, 
if notified by your State or EPA that you are part of the State 
Monitoring Plan for the Screening Survey.
    (C) Pre-Screen Testing. You must monitor for the unregulated 
contaminants on List 3 of Table 1, in paragraph (a)(3) of this section, 
if you are notified by your State or EPA that you are part of the State 
Monitoring plan for Pre-Screen Testing.
    (3) Analytes to be monitored. Lists 1, 2, and 3 of unregulated 
contaminants are provided in the following table:

                                                             Table 1.--UCMR Contaminant List
                                                  [List 1: Assessment Monitoring Chemical Contaminants]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          2--CAS                                                                                  6--Period during which
           1--Contaminant                registry      3--Analytical methods     4--Minimum reporting     5--Sampling location       monitoring to be
                                          number                \a\                   level \b\                   \c\                   completed
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dimethoate..........................         60-51-5  EPA 527 \d\............  0.7 [mu]g/L............  EPTDS..................      1/1/2008-12/31/2010
Terbufos sulfone....................      56070-16-7  EPA 527 \d\............  0.4 [mu]g/L............  EPTDS..................      1/1/2008-12/31/2010
2,2',4,4'-tetrabromodiphenyl ether         5436-43-1  EPA 527 \d\............  0.3 [mu]g/L............  EPTDS..................      1/1/2008-12/31/2010
 (BDE-47).
2,2',4,4',5-pentabromodiphenyl ether      60348-60-9  EPA 527 \d\............  0.9 [mu]g/L............  EPTDS..................      1/1/2008-12/31/2010
 (BDE-99).
2,2',4,4',5,5'-hexabromobiphenyl          59080-40-9  EPA 527 \d\............  0.7 [mu]g/L............  EPTDS..................      1/1/2008-12/31/2010
 (HBB).
2,2',4,4',5,5'-hexabromodiphenyl          68631-49-2  EPA 527 \d\............  0.8 [mu]g/L............  EPTDS..................      1/1/2008-12/31/2010
 ether (BDE-153).
2,2',4,4',6-pentabromodiphenyl ether     189084-64-8  EPA 527 \d\............  0.5 [mu]g/L............  EPTDS..................      1/1/2008-12/31/2010
 (BDE-100).
1,3-dinitrobenzene..................         99-65-0  EPA 529 \e\............  0.8 [mu]g/L............  EPTDS..................      1/1/2008-12/31/2010
2,4,6-trinitrotoluene (TNT).........        118-96-7  EPA 529 \e\............  0.8 [mu]g/L............  EPTDS..................      1/1/2008-12/31/2010
Hexahydro-1,3,5-trinitro-1,3,5-             121-82-4  EPA 529 \e\............  1 [mu]g/L..............  EPTDS..................      1/1/2008-12/31/2010
 triazine (RDX).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 394]]


                                                             Table 1.--UCMR Contaminant List
                                                     [List 2: Screening Survey Chemical Contaminants
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          2--CAS                                                                                  6--Period during which
           1--Contaminant                registry      3--Analytical methods     4--Minimum reporting     5--Sampling location       monitoring to be
                                          number                \a\                   level \b\                   \c\                   completed
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Acetanilide Pesticide Degradation Products
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acetochlor ESA......................     187022-11-3  EPA 535 \f\............  1 [mu]g/L..............  EPTDS..................      1/1/2008-12/31/2010
Acetochlor OA.......................     184992-44-4  EPA 535 \f\............  2 [mu]g/L..............  EPTDS..................      1/1/2008-12/31/2010
Alachlor ESA........................     142363-53-9  EPA 535 \f\............  1 [mu]g/L..............  EPTDS..................      1/1/2008-12/31/2010
Alachlor OA.........................     171262-17-2  EPA 535 \f\............  2 [mu]g/L..............  EPTDS..................      1/1/2008-12/31/2010
Metolachlor ESA.....................     171118-09-5  EPA 535 \f\............  1 [mu]g/L..............  EPTDS..................      1/1/2008-12/31/2010
Metolachlor OA......................     152019-73-3  EPA 535 \f\............  2 [mu]g/L..............  EPTDS..................      1/1/2008-12/31/2010
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Acetanilide Pesticide Parent Compounds
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acetochlor..........................      34256-82-1  EPA 525.2 \g\..........  2 [mu]g/L..............  EPTDS..................      1/1/2008-12/31/2010
Alachlor............................      15972-60-8  EPA 525.2 \g\..........  2 [mu]g/L..............  EPTDS..................      1/1/2008-12/31/2010
Metolachlor.........................      51218-45-2  EPA 525.2 \g\..........  1 [mu]g/L..............  EPTDS..................      1/1/2008-12/31/2010
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Nitrosamines
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
N-nitrosodiethylamine (NDEA)........         55-18-5  EPA 521 \h\............  0.005 [mu]g/L..........  DSMRT and EPTDS........      1/1/2008-12/31/2010
N-nitroso-dimethylamine (NDMA)......         62-75-9  EPA 521 \h\............  0.002 [mu]g/L..........  DSMRT and EPTDS........      1/1/2008-12/31/2010
N-nitroso-di-n-butylamine (NDBA)....        924-16-3  EPA 521 \h\............  0.004 [mu]g/L..........  DSMRT and EPTDS........      1/1/2008-12/31/2010
N-nitroso-di-n-propylamine (NDPA)...        621-64-7  EPA 521 \h\............  0.007 [mu]g/L..........  DSMRT and EPTDS........      1/1/2008-12/31/2010
N-nitroso-methylethylamine (NMEA)...      10595-95-6  EPA 521 \h\............  0.003 [mu]g/L..........  DSMRT and EPTDS........      1/1/2008-12/31/2010
N-nitrosopyrrolidine (NPYR).........        930-55-2  EPA 521 \h\............  0.002 [mu]g/L..........  DSMRT and EPTDS........      1/1/2008-12/31/2010
Reserved \i\........................    Reserved \i\  Reserved \i\...........  Reserved \i\...........  Reserved \i\...........             Reserved \i\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Column headings are:
1--Contaminant: The name of the contaminant to be analyzed.
2--CAS (Chemical Abstract Service) Registry Number or Identification Number: A unique number identifying the chemical contaminants.
3--Analytical Methods: method numbers identifying the methods that must be used to test the contaminants.
4--Minimum Reporting Level: The value and unit of measure at or above which the concentration of the contaminant must be measured using the approved
  analytical methods.
5--Sampling Location: The locations within a PWS at which samples must be collected.
6--Period During Which Monitoring to Be Completed: The dates during which the sampling and testing are to occur for the indicated contaminant.
 
 The analytical procedures shall be performed in accordance with the documents associated with each method (per the following footnotes). The
  incorporation by reference of the following documents listed in footnotes d--h was approved by the Director of the Federal Register in accordance with
  5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Information on how to obtain these documents can be provided by the Safe Drinking Water Hotline at (800) 426-4791.
  Documents may be inspected at EPA's Drinking Water Docket, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., EPA West, Room B102, Washington, DC 20460, Telephone: (202)
  566-2426; or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030,
  or go to:http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/index.html.
\a\ The version of the EPA methods which you must follow for this Regulation are listed in d--h as follows.
\b\ The Minimum Reporting Level (MRL) was established by EPA by adding the mean of the Lowest Concentration Minimum Reporting Levels (LCMRL) determined
  according to the procedure detailed in ``Statistical Protocol for the Determination of The Single-Laboratory Lowest Concentration Minimum Reporting
  Level (LCMRL) and Validation of the Minimum Reporting Level (MRL)'' by the primary and secondary laboratories conducting the development and
  validation of the analytical method to three times the difference of the LCMRLs. If LCMRL data from three or more laboratories were available, the MRL
  was established by EPA by adding three times the standard deviation of the LCMRLs to the mean of the LCMRLs. Note that EPA Method 525.2 was developed
  prior to UCMR 2, hence the LCMRLs were not determined for analytes determined by this method.
\c\ Sampling must occur at entry points to the distribution system (EPTDSs) after treatment is applied that represent each non-emergency water source in
  routine use over the 12-month period of monitoring. See 40 CFR 141.35(c)(3) for an explanation of the requirements related to use of representative
  EPTDSs. Sampling for nitrosamines on List 2 must also occur at the disinfection byproduct distribution system maximum residence time (DSMRT) sampling
  locations as defined in 40 CFR 141.132(b)(1)(i) and at EPTDS sampling locations. If a treatment plant/water source is not subject to the sampling
  required in 40 CFR 141.132(b)(1), then the samples for nitrosamines must be collected only at the EPTDS location(s).
\d\ EPA Method 527 ``Determination of Selected Pesticides and Flame Retardants in Drinking Water by Solid Phase Extraction and Capillary Column Gas
  Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry (GC/MS),'' Revision 1.0, April 2005 is available at http://www.epa.gov/safewater/methods/sourcalt.html.
\e\ EPA Method 529 ``Determination of Explosives and Related Compounds in Drinking Water by Solid Phase Extraction and Capillary Column Gas
  Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry (GC/MS),'' Revision 1.0, September 2002 is available at http://www.epa.gov/nerlcwww/ordmeth.htm.
\f\ EPA Method 535 `` Measurement of Chloroacetanilide and Other Acetamide Herbicide Degradates in Drinking Water by Solid Phase Extraction and Liquid
  Chromatography/Tandem Mass Spectrometry (LC/MS/MS),'' Version 1.1, April 2005 is available at http://www.epa.gov/nerlcwww/ordmeth.htm.
\g\ EPA Method 525.2 ``Determination of Organic Compounds in Drinking Water by Liquid-Solid Extraction and Capillary Column Gas Chromatography/Mass
  Spectrometry,'' Revision 2.0, 1995 is available at http://www.NEMI.gov.
\h\ EPA Method 521 ``Determination of Nitrosamines in Drinking Water by Solid Phase Extraction and Capillary Column Gas Chromatography with Large Volume
  Injection and Chemical Ionization Tandem Mass Spectrometry (MS/MS),'' Version 1.0, September 2004 is available at http://www.epa.gov/nerlcwww/ordmeth.htm.
\i\ To be determined at a later time.

    (4) Sampling requirements.
    (i) Large systems. If you serve more than 10,000 people and meet 
the UCMR applicability criteria specified in paragraph (a)(2)(i) of 
this section, you must comply with the requirements specified in 
paragraphs (a)(4)(i)(A) through (I) of this section. Your samples must 
be collected according to the

[[Page 395]]

schedule that you are assigned by EPA or your State, or the schedule 
that you revised using EPA's electronic data reporting system on or 
before August 2, 2007. Your schedule must follow both the timing and 
frequency of monitoring specified in Tables 1 and 2 of this section.
    (A) Monitoring period. You must collect the samples in one 
continuous 12-month period for List 1 Assessment Monitoring, and, if 
applicable, for List 2 Screening Survey, or List 3 Pre-Screen Testing, 
during the time frame indicated in column 6 of Table 1, in paragraph 
(a)(3) of this section. EPA or your State will specify the month(s) and 
year(s) in which your monitoring must occur. As specified in Sec.  
141.35(c)(5), you must contact EPA if you believe you cannot conduct 
monitoring according to your schedule.
    (B) Frequency. You must collect the samples within the time frame 
and according to the frequency specified by contaminant type and water 
source type for each sampling location, as specified in Table 2, in 
this paragraph, with the following exception. For the second round of 
ground water sampling, if a sample location is non-operational for more 
than one month before and one month after the scheduled sampling month 
(i.e., it is not possible for you to sample within the five to seven 
month window specified the Table 2, in this paragraph), you must notify 
EPA as specified in Sec.  141.35(c)(5).

                      Table 2.--Monitoring Frequency by Contaminant and Water Source Types
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Contaminant type                Water source type             Time frame               Frequency
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chemical...........................  Surface water or ground      12 months.............  You must monitor for 4
                                      water under the direct                               consecutive quarters.
                                      influence of surface water                           Sample events must
                                      (GWUDI) (includes all                                occur 3 months apart.
                                      sampling locations for
                                      which some or all of the
                                      water comes from a surface
                                      water or GWUDI source at
                                      any time during the 12
                                      month monitoring period).
                                     Ground water...............  12 months.............  You must monitor twice
                                                                                           in a consecutive 12-
                                                                                           month period. Sample
                                                                                           events must occur 5-7
                                                                                           months apart.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (C) Location. You must collect samples for each List 1 Assessment 
Monitoring contaminant, and, if applicable, for each List 2 Screening 
Survey, or List 3 Pre-Screen Testing contaminant, as specified in Table 
1, in paragraph (a)(3) of this section. Samples must be collected at 
each sample point that is specified in column 5 of Table 1, in 
paragraph (a)(3) of this section. If you are a ground water system with 
multiple EPTDSs, and you request and receive approval from EPA or the 
State for sampling at representative EPTDS(s), as specified in Sec.  
141.35(c)(3), you must collect your samples from the approved 
representative sampling location(s). Systems conducting Screening 
Survey monitoring must also sample for nitrosamines at the disinfection 
byproduct distribution system maximum residence time (DSMRT) sampling 
location(s) if they are subject to sampling requirements in Sec.  
141.132(b)(1).
    (D) Sampling instructions. For each List 1 Assessment Monitoring 
contaminant, and, if applicable, for each List 2 Screening Survey, or 
List 3 Pre-Screen Testing contaminant, you must follow the sampling 
procedure for the method specified in column 3 of Table 1, in paragraph 
(a)(3) of this section. In addition, you must not composite (that is, 
combine, mix, or blend) the samples; you must collect and preserve each 
sample separately. Samples collected for the analysis of Acetanilide 
``parent'' pesticides and their degradation products (Methods 525.2 and 
535) must be collected at the same sampling point, at the same time.
    (E) Sample collection and shipping time. If you must ship the 
samples for analysis, you must collect the samples early enough in the 
day to allow adequate time to send the samples for overnight delivery 
to the laboratory. You should not collect samples on Friday, Saturday, 
or Sunday because sampling on these days may not allow samples to be 
shipped and received at the laboratory at the required temperature, 
unless you have made special arrangements with your laboratory to 
receive the samples.
    (F) Analytical methods. For each contaminant, you must use the 
respective analytical methods for List 1, and, if applicable, for List 
2, or List 3 that are specified in column 3 of Table 1, in paragraph 
(a)(3) of this section; report values at or above the minimum reporting 
levels for List 1, and, if applicable, for List 2 Screening Survey, or 
List 3 Pre-Screen Testing, that are specified in column 4 of Table 1, 
in paragraph (a)(3) of this section; and conduct the quality control 
procedures specified in paragraph (a)(5) of this section.
    (G) Laboratory errors or sampling deviations. If the laboratory 
data do not meet the required QC criteria, as specified in paragraph 
(a)(5) of this section, or you do not follow the required sampling 
procedures, as specified in paragraphs (a)(4) of this section, you must 
resample within 30 days of being informed or becoming aware of these 
facts. This resampling is not for the purpose of confirming previous 
results, but to correct the sampling or laboratory error. All systems 
must report the results obtained from the first sampling for each 
sampling period, except for cases of sampling or laboratory errors. For 
the purposes of this rule, no samples are to be recollected for the 
purposes of confirming the results observed in a previous sampling.
    (H) Analysis. For the List 1 contaminants, and, if applicable, List 
2 Screening Survey, or List 3 Pre-Screen Testing contaminants, 
identified in Table 1, paragraph (a)(3) of this section, you must 
arrange for testing by a laboratory that has been approved by EPA 
according to requirements in paragraph (a)(5)(ii) of this section.
    (I) Review and reporting of results. After you have received the 
laboratory results, you must review, approve, and submit the system 
information, and sample collection data and test results. You must 
report the results as provided in Sec.  141.35(c)(6).
    (ii) Small systems. If you serve 10,000 or fewer people and are 
notified that you are part of the State Monitoring Plan for Assessment 
Monitoring, Screening Survey or Pre-Screen monitoring, you must comply 
with the requirements specified in paragraphs (a)(4)(i)(A) through (H) 
of this section. If EPA or the State informs you that they

[[Page 396]]

will be collecting your UCMR samples, you must assist them in 
identifying the appropriate sampling locations and in collecting the 
samples.
    (A) Monitoring period and frequency. You must collect samples at 
the times specified for you by the State or EPA. Your schedule must 
follow both the timing of monitoring specified in Table 1, List 1, and, 
if applicable, List 2, or List 3, and the frequency of monitoring in 
Table 2 of this section.
    (B) Location. You must collect samples at the locations specified 
for you by the State or EPA.
    (C) Sample kits. You must store and maintain the sample collection 
kits sent to you by the UCMR Sampling Coordinator in accordance with 
the kit's instructions. The sample kit will include all necessary 
containers, packing materials and cold packs, instructions for 
collecting the sample and sample treatment (such as dechlorination or 
preservation), report forms for each sample, contact name and telephone 
number for the laboratory, and a prepaid return shipping docket and 
return address label. If any of the materials listed in the kit's 
instructions are not included in the kit or arrive damaged, you must 
notify the UCMR Sampling Coordinator who sent you the sample collection 
kits.
    (D) Sampling instructions. You must comply with the instructions 
sent to you by the State or EPA concerning the use of containers, 
collection (how to fill the sample bottle), dechlorination and/or 
preservation, and sealing and preparation of sample and shipping 
containers for shipment. You must not composite (that is, combine, mix, 
or blend) the samples. You also must collect, preserve, and test each 
sample separately. You must also comply with the instructions sent to 
you by the UCMR Sampling Coordinator concerning the handling of sample 
containers for specific contaminants.
    (E) Sampling deviations. If you do not collect a sample according 
to the instructions provided to you for a listed contaminant, you must 
report the deviation within 7 days of the scheduled monitoring on the 
sample reporting form, as specified in Sec.  141.35(d)(2). You must 
resample following instructions that you will be sent from the UCMR 
Sampling Coordinator or State. A copy of the form must be sent to the 
laboratory with the recollected samples, and to the UCMR Sampling 
Coordinator.
    (F) Duplicate samples. EPA will select a subset of systems in the 
State Monitoring Plan that must collect duplicate samples for quality 
control. If your system is selected, you will receive two sample kits 
for an individual sampling location that you must use. You must use the 
same sampling protocols for both sets of samples, following the 
instructions in the duplicate sample kit.
    (G) Sampling forms. You must completely fill out each of the 
sampling forms and bottles sent to you by the UCMR Sampling 
Coordinator, including data elements listed in Sec.  141.35(e) for each 
sample. If you are conducting Assessment Monitoring, you must include 
elements 1 through 5, and 7; and if you are conducting Screening 
Survey, you must include elements 1 through 7. You must sign and date 
the sampling forms.
    (H) Sample collection and shipping. You must collect the samples 
early enough in the day to allow adequate time to send the samples for 
overnight delivery to the laboratory. You should not collect samples on 
Friday, Saturday, or Sunday because sampling on these days may not 
allow samples to be shipped and received at the laboratory at the 
required temperature unless you have made special arrangements with EPA 
for the laboratory to receive the samples. Once you have collected the 
samples and completely filled in the sampling forms, you must send the 
samples and the sampling forms to the laboratory designated on the air 
bill.
    (5) Quality control requirements. If your system serves more than 
10,000 people, you must ensure that the quality control requirements 
listed below are met during your sampling procedures and by the 
laboratory conducting your analyses. You must also ensure that all 
method quality control procedures and all UCMR quality control 
procedures are followed.
    (i) Sample collection/preservation. You must follow the sample 
collection and preservation requirements for the specified method for 
each of the contaminants in Table 1, in paragraph (a)(3) of this 
section. These requirements specify sample containers, collection, 
dechlorination, preservation, storage, sample holding time, and extract 
storage and/or holding time that you must assure that the laboratory 
follow.
    (ii) Laboratory approval for Lists 1, List 2 and List 3. To be 
approved to conduct UCMR testing, the laboratory must be certified 
under Sec.  141.28 for one or more compliance analyses; demonstrate for 
each analytical method it plans to use for UCMR testing that it can 
meet the Initial Demonstration of Capability (IDC) requirements 
detailed in the analytical methods specified in column 3 of Table 1, in 
paragraph (a)(3) of this section; and successfully participate in the 
UCMR Proficiency Testing (PT) Program administered by EPA for each 
analytical method it plans to use for UCMR testing. UCMR laboratory 
approval decisions will be granted on an individual method basis for 
the methods listed in column 3 of Table 1 in paragraph (a)(3) of this 
section for List 1, List 2, and List 3 contaminants. Laboratory 
approval is contingent upon the capability of the laboratory to post 
monitoring data to the EPA electronic data reporting system. To 
participate in the UCMR Laboratory Approval Program, the laboratory 
must complete and submit the necessary registration forms by April 4, 
2007. Correspondence must be addressed to: UCMR 2 Laboratory Approval 
Coordinator, USEPA, Technical Support Center, 26 West Martin Luther 
King Drive (MS 140), Cincinnati, OH 45268; or e-mailed to EPA at [email protected].
    (iii) Minimum Reporting Level. The MRL is the lowest analyte 
concentration for which future recovery is predicted to fall, with high 
confidence (at least 99%), between 50% and 150% recovery.
    (A) Validation of laboratory performance. Your laboratory must be 
capable of quantifying each contaminant listed in Table 1, at or below 
the MRL specified in column 4 of Table 1, in paragraph (a)(3) of this 
section. You must ensure that the laboratory completes and has on file 
and available for your inspection, records of two distinct procedures. 
First, your laboratory must have conducted an IDC involving replicate 
analyses at or below the MRL as described in this paragraph. Second, 
for each day that UCMR analyses are conducted by your laboratory, a 
validation of its ability to quantify each contaminant, at or below the 
MRL specified in column 4 of Table 1, in paragraph (a)(3) of this 
section, following the procedure listed in paragraph (a)(5)(iii)(B) of 
this section, must be performed. The procedure for initial validation 
of laboratory performance at or below the MRL is as follows:
    (1) All laboratories using EPA drinking water methods under UCMR 
must demonstrate that they are capable of meeting data quality 
objectives (DQOs) at or below the MRL listed in Table 1, column 4, in 
paragraph (a)(3) of this section.
    (2) The MRL, or any concentration below the MRL, at which 
performance is being evaluated, must be contained within the range of 
calibration. The calibration curve regression model and the range of 
calibration levels that are used in these performance validation steps 
must be used in all routine sample

[[Page 397]]

analyses used to comply with this regulation. Only straight line or 
quadratic regression models are allowed. The use of either weighted or 
unweighted models is permitted. The use of cubic regression models is 
not permitted.
    (3) Replicate analyses of at least seven (7) fortified samples in 
reagent water must be performed at or below the MRL for each analyte, 
and must be processed through the entire method procedure (i.e., 
including extraction, where applicable, and with all preservatives).
    (4) A prediction interval of results (PIR), which is based on the 
estimated arithmetic mean of analytical results and the estimated 
sample standard deviation of measurement results, must be determined by 
Equation 1:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR04JA07.000

Where:

t is the Student's t value with df degrees of freedom and confidence 
level (1-[alpha]),
s is the sample standard deviation of n replicate samples fortified 
at the MRL,
n is the number of replicates.

    (5) The values needed to calculate the PIR using Equation 1 are: 
Number of replicates (n); Student's t value with a two-sided 99% 
confidence level for n number of replicates; the average (mean) of at 
least seven replicates; and the sample standard deviation. Factor 1 is 
referred to as the Half Range PIR (HRPIR).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR04JA07.001


For a certain number of replicates and for a certain confidence level 
in Student's t, this factor
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR04JA07.002


is constant, and can be tabulated according to replicate number and 
confidence level for the Student's t. Table 3 in this paragraph lists 
the constant factor (C) for replicate sample numbers 7 through 10 with 
a confidence level of 99% for Student's t.

    (6) The HRPIR is calculated by Equation 2:
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR04JA07.003
    
    (7) The PIR is calculated by Equation 3:
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR04JA07.004
    

    Table 3.--The Constant Factor (C) to be Multiplied by the Standard Deviation to Determine the Half Range
                           Interval of the PIR (Student's t 99% Confidence Level) \a\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                            Constant factor (C) to be multiplied
             Replicates                        Degrees of freedom                by the standard  deviation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               7                                     6                                 3.963
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               8                                     7                                 3.711
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               9                                     8                                 3.536
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              10                                     9                                3.409
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ The critical t-value for a two-sided 99% confidence interval is equivalent to the critical t-value for a one-
  sided 99.5% confidence interval, due to the symmetry of the t-distribution. PIR = Prediction Interval of
  Results.

    (8) The lower and upper result limits of the PIR must be converted 
to percent recovery of the concentration being tested. To pass criteria 
at a certain level, the PIR lower recovery limits cannot be lower than 
the lower recovery limits of the QC interval (50%), and the PIR upper 
recovery limits cannot be greater than the upper recovery limits of the 
QC interval (150%). When either of the PIR recovery limits falls 
outside of either bound of the QC interval of recovery (higher than 
150% or less than 50%), laboratory performance is not validated at the 
concentration evaluated. If the PIR limits are contained within both 
bounds of the QC interval, laboratory performance is validated for that 
analyte.
    (B) Quality control requirements for validation of laboratory 
performance at or below the MRL.
    (1) You must ensure that the calibration curve regression model and 
that the range of calibration levels that are used in these performance 
validation steps are used in future routine sample analysis. Only 
straight line or quadratic regression models are allowed. The use of 
either weighted or unweighted models is permitted. The use of cubic 
regression models is not permitted.
    (2) You must ensure, once your laboratory has performed an IDC as 
specified in each analytical method (demonstrating that DQOs are met at 
or below an MRL), that a daily performance check is performed for each 
analyte and method. A single laboratory blank, fortified at or below 
the MRL for each analyte, must be processed through the entire method 
procedure. The measured concentration for each analyte must be 
converted to a percent recovery, and if the recovery is within 50%-150% 
(inclusive), the daily performance of the laboratory has been 
validated. The results for any analyte for which 50%-150% recovery 
cannot be demonstrated during the daily check are not valid. 
Laboratories may elect to re-run the daily performance check sample if 
the performance for any analyte or analytes cannot be validated. If 
performance is validated for these analytes, the laboratory performance 
is considered validated. Alternatively, the laboratory may re-calibrate 
and repeat the performance validation process for all analytes.
    (iv) Laboratory fortified sample matrix and laboratory fortified 
sample matrix duplicate. You must ensure that your laboratory prepares 
and analyzes the Laboratory Fortified Sample Matrix

[[Page 398]]

(LFSM) sample for accuracy and Laboratory Fortified Sample Matrix 
Duplicate (LFSMD) samples for precision to determine method accuracy 
and precision for all contaminants in Table 1, in paragraph (a)(3) of 
this section. LFSM/LFSMD samples must be prepared using a sample 
collected and analyzed in accordance with UCMR 2 requirements and 
analyzed at a frequency of 5% (or 1 LFSM/LFSMD set per every 20 
samples) or with each sample batch, whichever is more frequent. In 
addition, the LFSM/LFSMD fortification concentrations must be 
alternated between a low-level fortification and mid-level 
fortification approximately 50% of the time. (For example: A set of 40 
samples will require preparation and analysis of 2 LFSM/LFSMD sets. The 
first set must be fortified at either the low-level or mid-level, and 
the second set must be fortified with the other standard, either the 
low-level or mid-level, whichever was not used for the initial LFSM/
LFSMD set.) The low-level LFSM/LFSMD fortification concentration must 
be within 50% of the MRL for each contaminant (e.g., for an 
MRL of 1 [mu]g/L the acceptable fortification levels must be between 
0.5 [mu]g/L and 1.5 [mu]g/L). The mid-level LFSM/LFSMD fortification 
concentration must be within 20% of the mid-level 
calibration standard for each contaminant, and should represent, where 
possible and where the laboratory has data from previously analyzed 
samples, an approximate average concentration observed in previous 
analyses of that analyte. There are no acceptance criteria specified 
for LFSM/LFSMD analyses. All LFSM/LFSMD data are to be reported.
    (v) Method defined quality control. You must ensure that your 
laboratory performs Laboratory Fortified Blanks and Laboratory 
Performance Checks, as appropriate to the method's requirements, for 
those methods listed in Table 1, column 3, in paragraph (a)(3) of this 
section. Each method specifies acceptance criteria for these QC checks.
    (vi) Reporting. You must ensure that your laboratory reports the 
analytical results and other data, with the required data listed in 
Table 1, in Sec.  141.35(e). You must require your laboratory to submit 
these data electronically to the State and EPA using EPA's electronic 
data reporting system, accessible at (http://www.epa.gov/safewater/ucmr/ucmr2/reporting.html), within 120 days from the sample collection 
date. You then have 60 days from when the laboratory posts the data to 
review, approve, and submit the data to the State and EPA, via EPA's 
electronic data reporting system. If you do not electronically approve 
and submit the laboratory data to EPA within 60 days of the 
laboratory's posting to EPA's electronic reporting system, the data 
will be considered approved and final for State and EPA review.
    (6) Violation of this rule.
    (i) Monitoring violations. Any failure to monitor in accordance 
with Sec.  141.40(a)(3)-(5) is a monitoring violation.
    (ii) Reporting violations. Any failure to report in accordance with 
Sec.  141.35 is a reporting violation.
    (b) Petitions and Waivers by States. (1) Governors' petition for 
additional contaminants. The Safe Drinking Water Act allows Governors 
of seven (7) or more States to petition the EPA Administrator to add 
one or more contaminants to the UCMR Contaminant List in paragraph 
(a)(3) of this section. The petition must clearly identify the 
reason(s) for adding the contaminant(s) to the monitoring list, 
including the potential risk to public health, particularly any 
information that might be available regarding disproportional risks to 
the health and safety of children, the expected occurrence documented 
by any available data, any analytical methods known or proposed to be 
used to test for the contaminant(s), and any other information that 
could assist the Administrator in determining which contaminants 
present the greatest public health concern and should, therefore, be 
included on the UCMR Contaminant List in paragraph (a)(3) of this 
section.
    (2) State-wide waivers. A State can waive monitoring requirements 
only with EPA approval and under very limited conditions. Conditions 
and procedures for obtaining a waiver are as follows:
    (i) Application. A State may apply to EPA for a State-wide waiver 
from the unregulated contaminant monitoring requirements for PWSs 
serving more than 10,000 people. To apply for such a waiver, the State 
must submit an application to EPA that includes the following 
information: The list of contaminants on the UCMR Contaminant List for 
which a waiver is requested, along with documentation for each 
contaminant in the request demonstrating that the contaminants or their 
parent compounds do not occur naturally in the State, and certifying 
that during the past 15 years they have not been used, applied, stored, 
disposed of, released, or detected in the source waters or distribution 
systems in the State.
    (ii) Approval. EPA will review State applications and notify the 
State whether it accepts or rejects the request. The State must receive 
written approval from EPA before issuing a State-wide waiver.

PART 142--NATIONAL PRIMARY DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS 
IMPLEMENTATION

0
6. The authority citation for part 142 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart B--[Amended]

0
7. Section 142.16 is amended by revising paragraph (e) introductory 
text to read as follows:


Sec.  142.16  Special primacy requirements.

* * * * *
    (e) An application for approval of a State program revision which 
adopts the requirements specified in Sec. Sec.  141.11, 141.23, 141.24, 
141.32, 141.61, and 141.62 for a newly regulated contaminant must 
contain the following (in addition to the general primacy requirements 
enumerated elsewhere in this part, including the requirement that State 
regulations be at least as stringent as the Federal requirements):
* * * * *
 [FR Doc. E6-22123 Filed 1-3-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P