Revisions to the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR 4) for Public Water Systems and Announcement of Public Meeting, 92666-92692 [2016-30469]

Download as PDF 92666 § 52.220 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 244 / Tuesday, December 20, 2016 / Rules and Regulations Identification of plan-in part. mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES * * * * * (c) * * * (124) * * * (ix) * * * (D) Previously approved on July 31, 1985 in paragraph (c)(124)(ix)(B) of this section and now deleted without replacement, Rule 130 (introductory text, b.1, n1, p5, and s2), and now deleted with replacement in paragraphs (c)(480)(i)(A)(3) and (4), Rules 220(c) and 230. * * * * * (156) * * * (vi) * * * (B) Previously approved on July 31, 1985 in paragraph (c)(156)(vi)(A) of this section and now deleted without replacement, Rule 130 (b2, m1, p3, p3a, and s7), and now deleted with replacement in Paragraph (c)(480)(i)(A)(3) of this section, Chapter II, 220(B). * * * * * (162) * * * (i) * * * (B) Previously approved on July 31, 1985 in paragraph (c)(162)(i)(A) of this section and now deleted with replacement in Paragraph (c)(480)(i)(A)(3) of this section, Chapter II, 220(A). * * * * * (164) * * * (i) * * * (B) * * * (5) Previously approved on April 17, 1987 in paragraph (c)(164)(i)(B)(1) of this section and now deleted without replacement, Rule 130 (d1 and s5), and now deleted with replacement in paragraph (c)(480)(i)(A)(2) of this section, rule 200(a). * * * * * (385) * * * (i) * * * (B) * * * (2) Previously approved on May 6, 2011 in paragraph (c)(385)(i)(B)(1) of this section and now deleted with replacement in paragraph (c)(480)(i)(A)(1) of this section, Rule 130, ‘‘Definitions,’’ amended December 14, 2010. * * * * * [FR Doc. 2016–30186 Filed 12–19–16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560–50–P VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:50 Dec 19, 2016 Jkt 241001 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 141 [EPA–HQ–OW–2015–0218; FRL–9956–71– OW] RIN 2040–AF49 Revisions to the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR 4) for Public Water Systems and Announcement of Public Meeting Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Final rule; notice of public meeting. AGENCY: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is finalizing a Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) rule that requires public water systems to collect occurrence data for contaminants that may be present in drinking water but are not yet subject to EPA’s drinking water standards set under the SDWA. This rule identifies eleven analytical methods to support water system monitoring for a total of 30 chemical contaminants, consisting of nine cyanotoxins and one cyanotoxin group; two metals; eight pesticides plus one pesticide manufacturing byproduct (hereinafter collectively referred to as ‘‘pesticides’’); three brominated haloacetic acid disinfection byproduct groups; three alcohols; and three semivolatile organic chemicals. EPA is also announcing a public meeting and webinar to discuss the implementation of the fourth Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule. DATES: This final rule is effective on January 19, 2017, 30 days after publication in the Federal Register. The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of January 19, 2017. ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OW–2015–0218. All documents in the docket are listed on the https://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., confidential business information (CBI) 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 electronically through https:// www.regulations.gov. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brenda D. Parris, Standards and Risk SUMMARY: PO 00000 Frm 00118 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 Management Division (SRMD), Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water (OGWDW) (MS 140), Environmental Protection Agency, 26 West Martin Luther King Drive, Cincinnati, OH 45268; telephone number: (513) 569– 7961; or email address: parris.brenda@ epa.gov; or Melissa Simic, SRMD, OGWDW (MS 140), Environmental Protection Agency, 26 West Martin Luther King Drive, Cincinnati, Ohio 45268; telephone number: (513) 569– 7864; or email address: simic.melissa@ epa.gov. For general information, contact the Safe Drinking Water Hotline. Callers within the United States can reach the Hotline at (800) 426–4791. The Hotline is open Monday through Friday, excluding federal holidays, from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., eastern time. The Safe Drinking Water Hotline can also be found on the Internet at: https:// www.epa.gov/ground-water-anddrinking-water/safe-drinking-waterhotline. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Contents I. General Information A. Does this action apply to me? B. What action is the Agency taking and why? C. What is the Agency’s authority for taking this action? D. What is the estimated cost of this action? E. What is the applicability date? II. Background A. How has EPA implemented the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Program? B. How are the Contaminant Candidate List, the UCMR program, the Regulatory Determination process and the NCOD interrelated? III. What are the key requirements of the rule, including notable changes between UCMR 3, the proposed UCMR 4 and the final UCMR 4? A. What contaminants are in UCMR 4? 1. This Rule 2. Summary of Major Comments and EPA Responses B. What are the UCMR 4 sampling design and timeline of activities? 1. Sampling Frequency, Timing a. This Rule b. Summary of Major Comments and EPA Responses 2. Phased Sample Analysis for Microcystins a. This Rule b. Summary of Major Comments and EPA Responses 3. Applicability of HAA Monitoring Requirements a. This Rule b. Summary of Major Comments and EPA Responses 4. Representative Sampling a. This Rule b. Summary of Major Comments and EPA Responses E:\FR\FM\20DER1.SGM 20DER1 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 244 / Tuesday, December 20, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 5. Sampling Locations a. This Rule b. Summary of Major Comments and EPA Responses C. What are the reporting requirements for UCMR 4? 1. Data Elements a. This Rule b. Summary of Major Comments and EPA Responses IV. How are laboratories approved for UCMR 4 monitoring? A. Request To Participate B. Registration C. Application Package D. EPA’s Review of Application Packages E. Proficiency Testing F. Written EPA Approval V. What is the past and future stakeholder involvement in the regulation process? A. What is the states’ role in the UCMR program? B. What stakeholder meetings have been held in preparation for UCMR 4? C. How do I participate in the upcoming stakeholder meeting? 1. Meeting Participation 2. Meeting Materials D. How did EPA consider Children’s Environmental Health? E. How did EPA address Environmental Justice? VI. What documents are being incorporated by reference? A. Methods From the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency B. Methods From American Public Health Association—Standard Methods (SM) 1. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater 2. Standard Methods Online C. Methods From ASTM International VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution or Use I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act and 1 CFR Part 51 J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations K. Congressional Review Act (CRA) VIII. References Abbreviations and Acronyms mg/L Microgram per liter Adda (2S,3S,8S,9S,4E,6E)-3-amino-9methoxy-2,6,8-trimethyl-10-phenyl-4,6decadienoic acid VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:50 Dec 19, 2016 Jkt 241001 ASDWA Association of State Drinking Water Administrators ASTM ASTM International CAS Chemical Abstract Service CBI Confidential Business Information CCC Continuing Calibration Check CCL Contaminant Candidate List CFR Code of Federal Regulations CRA Congressional Review Act CWS Community Water System D/DBPRs Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rules (including Stage 1 and Stage 2 D/DBPRs) ELISA Enzyme-linked Immunosorbent Assay EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency EPTDS Entry Point to the Distribution System ESI Electrospray Ionization FR Federal Register GC Gas Chromatography GC/ECD Gas Chromatography/Electron Capture Detection GC/MS Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry GW Ground Water GWUDI Ground Water Under the Direct Influence of Surface Water HAAs Haloacetic Acids HAA5 Dibromoacetic Acid, Dichloroacetic Acid, Monobromoacetic Acid, Monochloroacetic Acid, Trichloroacetic Acid HAA6Br Bromochloroacetic Acid, Bromodichloroacetic Acid, Dibromoacetic Acid, Dibromochloroacetic Acid, Monobromoacetic Acid, Tribromoacetic Acid HAA9 Bromochloroacetic Acid, Bromodichloroacetic Acid, Chlorodibromoacetic Acid, Dibromoacetic Acid, Dichloroacetic Acid, Monobromoacetic Acid, Monochloroacetic Acid, Tribromoacetic Acid, Trichloroacetic Acid IC Ion Chromatography IC–MS/MS Ion Chromatography-Tandem Mass Spectrometry IC/ESI–MS/MS Ion Chromatography/ Electrospray Ionization/Tandem Mass Spectrometry ICP–MS Inductively Coupled Plasma-Mass Spectrometry ICR Information Collection Request IDC Initial Demonstration of Capability IS Internal Standard LFB Laboratory Fortified Blank LRB Laboratory Reagent Blank LC/ESI–MS/MS Liquid Chromatography/ Electrospray Ionization/Tandem Mass Spectrometry LC–MS/MS Liquid Chromatography/ Tandem Mass Spectrometry LT2 Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule M Million MAC Mycobacterium Avium Complex MRL Minimum Reporting Level NAICS North American Industry Classification System NARA National Archives and Records Administration NCOD National Contaminant Occurrence Database NPDWRs National Primary Drinking Water Regulations PO 00000 Frm 00119 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 92667 NTNCWS Non-transient Non-community Water System OGWDW Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water OMB Office of Management and Budget PA Partnership Agreement PRA Paperwork Reduction Act PT Proficiency Testing PWS Public Water System PWSID Public Water System Identification QC Quality Control QCS Quality Control Sample QHS Quality HAA Sample RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act SBA Small Business Administration SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act SDWARS Safe Drinking Water Accession and Review System SDWIS/Fed Federal Safe Drinking Water Information System SM Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater SMP State Monitoring Plan SOP Standard Operating Procedure SPE Solid Phase Extraction SR Source Water SRF Drinking Water State Revolving Fund SRMD Standards and Risk Management Division SUR Surrogate Standard SVOCs Semivolatile Organic Chemicals SW Surface Water TNCWS Transient Non-community Water System TOC Total Organic Carbon UCMR Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency I. General Information A. Does this action apply to me? The fourth Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR 4) applies to public water systems (PWSs). PWSs are systems that provide water for human consumption through pipes, or other constructed conveyances, to at least 15 service connections or that regularly serve an average of at least 25 individuals daily at least 60 days out of the year. This rule applies to all large community and non-transient noncommunity water systems (NTNCWSs) serving more than 10,000 people. A community water system (CWS) is a PWS that has at least 15 service connections used by year-round residents or regularly serves at least 25 year-round residents. A NTNCWS is a PWS that is not a CWS and that regularly serves at least 25 of the same people over six months per year. Some examples of NTNCWS are schools, factories, office buildings and hospitals, which have their own water systems. EPA selects the nationally representative sample of small CWSs and NTNCWSs serving 10,000 or fewer people that are required to monitor (see E:\FR\FM\20DER1.SGM 20DER1 92668 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 244 / Tuesday, December 20, 2016 / Rules and Regulations ‘‘Statistical Design and Sample Selection for the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation’’ (USEPA, 2001a) for a description of the statistical approach for the nationally representative sample). This rule does not apply to transient non-community water systems (TNCWSs) (i.e., noncommunity water systems that do not regularly serve at least 25 of the same people over six months per year). A TNCWSs provides water in a place such as a gas station or campground, where people do not remain for long periods of time. States, territories and tribes with primary enforcement responsibility (primacy) to administer the regulatory program for PWSs under the SDWA can participate in the implementation of UCMR 4 through Partnership Agreements (PAs). Primacy agencies with PAs can choose to be involved in various aspects of the UCMR 4 monitoring for the PWSs they oversee; however, the PWS remains responsible for compliance with the rule requirements. Examples of potentially regulated categories and entities are identified in the following table. Category Examples of potentially regulated entities State, local & tribal governments ............. States, local and tribal governments that analyze water samples on behalf of PWSs required to conduct such analysis; states, local and tribal governments that directly operate CWSs and NTNCWSs required to monitor. Private operators of CWSs and NTNCWSs required to monitor ................................ Municipal operators of CWSs and NTNCWSs required to monitor ............................ Industry ..................................................... Municipalities ............................................ a NAICS 924110 221310 924110 = 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 summarizes the types of entities that EPA is aware could potentially be regulated by this action. If you are uncertain whether your entity is regulated by this action, carefully examine the definition of a PWS found in §§ 141.2 and 141.3, and the applicability criteria found in § 141.40(a)(1) and (2) of Title 40 in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). If you have questions, please consult the contacts listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. B. What action is the Agency taking and why? mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES NAICS a This final rule requires PWSs to analyze drinking water samples for 29 unregulated contaminants that do not have health based standards set under the SDWA, as well as one group of regulated contaminants (described in section I.C), and to report their results to EPA. This is the fourth national monitoring effort under the UCMR program, and builds upon the framework established under the prior three UCMR actions (see section II.A). The monitoring provides data to inform future regulatory actions to protect public health. The public benefits from the information about whether or not unregulated contaminants are present in their drinking water. If contaminants are not found, consumer confidence in their drinking water will improve. If contaminants are found, illnesses may be avoided when subsequent actions, such as regulations, reduce or eliminate those contaminants. VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:50 Dec 19, 2016 Jkt 241001 C. What is the Agency’s authority for taking this action? As part of its responsibilities under the SDWA, EPA implements section 1445(a)(2), ‘‘Monitoring Program for Unregulated Contaminants.’’ This section, as amended in 1996, requires that once every five years, beginning in August 1999, EPA issue a list of no more than 30 unregulated contaminants to be monitored by PWSs. The list can include contaminants included in previous UCMR cycles but will generally focus on contaminants not yet monitored under UCMR. SDWA section 1445(g)(7) requires that EPA enter the monitoring data into the Agency’s publicly-available National Contaminant Occurrence Database (NCOD). The SDWA also requires that EPA ensures that systems serving a population larger than 10,000 people, as well as a nationally representative sample of PWSs serving 10,000 or fewer people, monitor for the unregulated contaminants. EPA must vary the frequency and schedule for monitoring based on the number of persons served, the source of supply, and the contaminants likely to be found. EPA is using this authority as the basis for monitoring 29 of the 30 contaminants. Section 1445(a)(1)(A) of the SDWA, as amended in 1996, requires that every person who is subject to any SDWA requirement establish and maintain such records, make such reports, conduct such monitoring and provide such information as the Administrator may reasonably require by regulation to assist the Administrator in establishing SDWA regulations. Pursuant to this provision, EPA can also require the monitoring of contaminants already subject to EPA’s drinking water standards. EPA is using this authority as the basis for monitoring one of the PO 00000 Frm 00120 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 chemical groups (Haloacetic Acids 5 (HAA5)) under this rule. Sample collection and analysis for HAA5 can be done concurrently with the unregulated HAA monitoring (for HAA6Br and HAA9) described in section III.B.3 (resulting in no significant additional burden since all three HAA groups can be measured by a single method) and will allow EPA to better understand cooccurrence between regulated and unregulated disinfection byproducts. Hereinafter, all 30 chemicals/groups are collectively referred to as ‘‘contaminants.’’ D. What is the estimated cost of this action? EPA estimates the total average national cost of this action will be $24.3 million per year from 2017–2021. EPA has documented the assumptions and data sources used in the preparation of this estimate in the Information Collection Request (ICR) (USEPA, 2016a). EPA identified eleven analytical methods (nine EPA-developed analytical methods and two alternate, equivalent, consensus organizationdeveloped methods) to analyze samples for 30 UCMR 4 contaminants. EPA’s estimate of the analytical cost for the UCMR 4 contaminants and related indicators is $2,500 per sample set. EPA calculated these costs by summing the laboratory unit cost of each method. Small PWSs selected for UCMR 4 monitoring sample an average of 6.7 times per PWS (i.e., number of responses per PWS) across the threeyear ICR period. The estimated labor burden per response for small PWSs is 2.8 hours. Large PWSs and very large PWSs sample and report an average of 11.4 and 14.1 times per PWS, respectively, across the three-year ICR period. The estimated labor burden per E:\FR\FM\20DER1.SGM 20DER1 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 244 / Tuesday, December 20, 2016 / Rules and Regulations response for large and very large PWSs is 6.1 and 9.9 hours, respectively. Exhibit 1 presents a breakdown of estimated annual average national costs. Estimated PWS (i.e., large and very large) and EPA costs reflect the analytical cost (i.e., non-labor) for all UCMR 4 methods as well as laborrelated cost. EPA pays for the analytical costs for all systems serving a population of 10,000 or fewer people. Laboratory analysis and sample shipping account for approximately 79% of the total national cost for UCMR 4 implementation. EPA estimated laboratory unit costs based on consultations with multiple commercial drinking water laboratories. The cost of the laboratory methods includes shipping the sample from the facility to the laboratory as part of the cost for the analysis. EPA expects that states will incur labor costs associated with voluntary assistance with UCMR 4 implementation. EPA estimated state costs using the relevant assumptions from the State Resource Model, which was developed by the Association of State Drinking Water Administrators (ASDWA) (ASDWA, 2013) to help states forecast resource needs. Model estimates were adjusted to account for actual levels of state participation under UCMR 3. State participation is voluntary; thus, the level of effort is expected to vary among states and will depend on their individual agreements with EPA. Additional details regarding EPA’s cost assumptions and estimates can be found in the ‘‘Information Collection Request for the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR 4)’’ (USEPA, 2016a) EPA ICR Number 2192.08, which presents estimated cost and burden for the 2017–2019 period, 92669 consistent with the 3-year timeframe for ICRs. Estimates of costs over the entire 5-year UCMR 4 period of 2017–2021 are attached as an appendix to the ICR. Specifically, most of the burden is incurred in the second, third and fourth year (i.e., monitoring and sample analysis) of the UCMR 4 monitoring period. The first year (the planning year) involves a lesser burden, and the final fifth year involves the least burden since the program is concluding. The next ICR period will overlap with the last two years of the 5-year UCMR 4 period, and therefore will have substantially lower figures. Copies of the ICR and its appendix are available in the EPA public docket for this final rule, under Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OW–2015–0218. The total estimated annual costs (labor and nonlabor) are as follows: EXHIBIT 1—ESTIMATED AVERAGE ANNUAL COSTS OF UCMR 4 Avg. annual cost all respondents (2017–2021) 1 Respondent Small Systems (25–10,000), including labor 2 only (non-labor costs 3 paid for by EPA) ................................................................. Large Systems (10,001–100,000), including labor and non-labor costs .......................................................................................... Very Large Systems (100,001 and greater), including labor and non-labor costs ........................................................................... States, including labor costs related to implementation coordination ............................................................................................... EPA, including labor for implementation and non-labor for small system testing ............................................................................ Average Annual National Total .................................................................................................................................................. $0.2 15.0 4.1 0.5 4.5 M M M M M 24.3 M 1 Totals may not equal the sum of components due to rounding. 2 Labor costs pertain to systems, states and EPA. Costs include activities such as reading the rule, notifying systems selected to participate, sample collection, data review, reporting and record keeping. 3 Non-labor costs will be incurred primarily by EPA and by very large and large PWSs. They include the cost of shipping samples to laboratories for testing and the cost of the laboratory analyses. mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES E. What is the applicability date? II. Background The determination of whether a PWS is required to monitor under UCMR 4 is based on the type of system (e.g., CWS, NTNCWS, etc.) and its retail population served, as indicated by the Federal Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS/Fed) inventory on December 31, 2015. SDWIS/Fed can be accessed at https://www.epa.gov/ground-water-anddrinking-water/safe-drinking-waterinformation-system-sdwis-federalreporting. If a PWS believes its retail population served in SDWIS/Fed is inaccurate, the system should contact its state to verify its population as of the applicability date and request a correction, if necessary. The 5-year UCMR 4 program will take place from January 2017 through December 2021, with sample collection occurring between January 1, 2018, and December 31, 2020. A. How has EPA implemented the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring program? VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:50 Dec 19, 2016 Jkt 241001 EPA published the list of contaminants for the first UCMR (UCMR 1) in the Federal Register (FR) on September 17, 1999 (64 FR 50556, (USEPA, 1999)), the second UCMR (UCMR 2) on January 4, 2007 (72 FR 368, (USEPA, 2007)) and the third UCMR (UCMR 3) on May 2, 2012 (77 FR 26072, (USEPA, 2012a)). EPA established a three-tiered approach for monitoring contaminants under the UCMR program. Assessment Monitoring for ‘‘List 1’’ contaminants typically relies on analytical methods, techniques or technologies that are in common use by drinking water laboratories. Screening Survey monitoring for ‘‘List 2’’ contaminants typically relies on newer techniques or technologies that are not as commonly used, such that PO 00000 Frm 00121 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 laboratory capacity to perform List 2 analyses may be limited. Finally, PreScreen Testing for ‘‘List 3’’ contaminants is often associated with techniques or technologies that are very recently developed and/or are particularly complex. In addition to method cost and complexity and laboratory capacity, EPA considers sampling frequency and the relevant universe of PWSs when deciding which of the three tiers is appropriate for the monitoring of a contaminant. EPA designed the Assessment Monitoring sampling approach (USEPA, 2001a) to ensure that sample results would yield a high level of confidence and a low margin of error. The design for a nationally representative sample of small systems called for the sample set to be stratified by water source type (ground water (GW) or surface water (SW)), service size category and state (where each state is allocated a E:\FR\FM\20DER1.SGM 20DER1 92670 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 244 / Tuesday, December 20, 2016 / Rules and Regulations minimum of two systems in its state monitoring plan (SMP)). This final action identifies 30 List 1 contaminants to be measured during Assessment Monitoring from 2018– 2020, with pre-monitoring activity in 2017 and post-monitoring activity in 2021. EPA developed this rule after considering input from public comments. For more information on EPA’s response to public comments, please see section III. B. How are the Contaminant Candidate List, the UCMR program, the Regulatory Determination process and the NCOD interrelated? Under the 1996 amendments to the SDWA, Congress established a stepwise, risk-based approach for determining which contaminants would become subject to drinking water standards. Under the first step, EPA is required to publish, every five years, a list of contaminants that are not yet regulated but which are known or anticipated to occur in PWSs; this is known as the Contaminant Candidate List (CCL). Under the second step, EPA must require, every five years, monitoring of up to 30 unregulated contaminants (many of which have been selected from the CCL for the UCMR monitoring todate) to determine their occurrence in drinking water systems; this is known as the UCMR program. Under the third step, EPA is required to determine, every five years, whether or not to begin the process of developing a national primary drinking water regulation for at least five CCL contaminants; this is known as a Regulatory Determination and involves evaluating the following questions: (1) May the contaminant have an adverse effect on human health? (2) Is the contaminant known to occur or substantially likely to occur in PWSs with a frequency and at levels of public health concern? (3) In the sole judgement of the Administrator, does regulation of such contaminants present a meaningful opportunity for risk reduction for people served by PWSs? Finally, the SDWA requires EPA to issue national primary drinking water regulations (NPDWRs) for contaminants the Agency determines should be regulated. The CCL process identifies contaminants that may require regulation, while the UCMR program helps provide the data necessary for the Regulatory Determination process previously outlined. The data collected through the UCMR program are stored in the drinking water NCOD to facilitate analysis and review of contaminant occurrence, and support the Administrator’s determination on whether regulation of a contaminant is in the public health interest, as required under SDWA section 1412(b)(1). UCMR results can be viewed by the public at: https://www.epa.gov/dwucmr. PWSs are also responsible for addressing UCMR results in their annual Consumer Confidence Reports, consistent with prior UCMR cycles and as required by § 141.153. III. What are the key requirements of the rule, including notable changes between UCMR 3, the proposed UCMR 4 and the final UCMR 4? EPA published ‘‘Revisions to the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR 4) for Public Water Systems and Announcement of a Public Meeting;’’ Proposed Rule, on December 11, 2015 (80 FR 76897, (USEPA, 2015a)). The UCMR 4 proposal identified eleven new analytical methods to support water system monitoring for a total of 30 new contaminants, and detailed other potential changes relative to UCMR 3. Among the other changes reflected in the UCMR 4 proposal were identification of water systems subject to UCMR 4 and provisions for sampling locations, timeframe and frequency, as well as updated data elements. EPA received input on the UCMR 4 proposal from 34 public commenters, including state and local government, utilities and utility stakeholder organizations, laboratories, academia, non-governmental organizations and other interested stakeholders . After considering the comments, EPA made the changes described in Exhibit 2 to develop the final UCMR 4 action. Sections III A–C summarize key aspects of this final rule and the associated notable and recurring comments received in response to the proposed rule. EPA has compiled all public comments and EPA’s responses in the ‘‘Response to Comments Document for the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR 4),’’ (USEPA, 2016b), which can be found in the electronic docket listed in the ADDRESSES section of this notice. EXHIBIT 2—NOTABLE CHANGES TO UCMR 4 BETWEEN PROPOSED AND FINAL RULE CFR rule section Description of change Title/description § 141.40(a)(3) .......................... Related specifications for the analytes to be monitored. § 141.40(a)(3) and § 141.40(a)(4). mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES No. Sampling design requirements—frequency. § 141.40(a)(3) and § 141.40(a)(4). § 141.40(a)(3) .......................... Phased sample analysis for microcystins. Applicability of HAA monitoring requirements. VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:50 Dec 19, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00122 Revises Table 1 to include EPA Method 546 Enzyme-linked Immunosorbent Assay (ELISA) and removes source water as a sample location for cyanotoxins. Revises Table 1 to update the monitoring dates to January 2018 through December 2020 for the 20 additional contaminants, and also updates Table 2 to reflect the traditional sample collection timeframe (consecutive 12-month period) for the 20 additional contaminants. Additionally, updates Table 2 to reflect the traditional sample collection frequency (four consecutive quarters for SW and ground water under the direct influence of surface water (GWUDI) water systems, and twice, 5–7 months apart, for GW systems) for those 20 contaminants. Removes source water samples from the phased sample analysis for microcystins. Removes UCMR 4 HAA requirement for water systems that are not subject to HAA5 monitoring under the Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproduct Rules (D/DBPRs). Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20DER1.SGM 20DER1 Corresponding preamble section III.A. & III.B. III.B. & I.E. III.B.2 III.B.3 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 244 / Tuesday, December 20, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 92671 EXHIBIT 2—NOTABLE CHANGES TO UCMR 4 BETWEEN PROPOSED AND FINAL RULE—Continued CFR rule section Description of change No. § 141.35(e) .............................. Title/description Reporting requirements— Data elements. A. What contaminants are in UCMR 4? 1. This Rule EPA is maintaining the proposed list of unregulated contaminants and the methods associated with analyzing those contaminants, with the exception of updating the ELISA method for ‘‘total microcystins’’ (see Exhibit 3). Further information on the prioritization process, as well as contaminant-specific information (source, use, production, release, persistence, mobility, health effects and occurrence) that EPA used to select the contaminants is contained in ‘‘UCMR 4 Contaminants—Information Compendium for Final Rule’’ (USEPA, 2016c). This Information Compendium can be found in the electronic docket listed in the ADDRESSES section of this notice. 2. Summary of Major Comments and EPA Responses Commenters who expressed an opinion about the proposed UCMR 4 analytes were generally supportive. Some commenters suggested alternative ways to collect the HAA information. Suggestions included collecting results for all nine HAAs individually; only Updates and clarifies data elements to address disinfecting and treatment types, and adds data elements to account for the metadata collected for the cyanotoxins. collecting results for HAA9; or doing targeted research studies of HAAs independent of UCMR. EPA has concluded that monitoring for the three HAA groups (HAA5, HAA6Br and HAA9) will provide the information of interest on the relative occurrence between regulated and unregulated HAAs as well as brominated versus chlorinated HAAs. Though the targeted research proposed by some commenters is beyond the scope of today’s action, EPA will take the recommendation under advisement and consider how such research may complement the UCMR data. Some commenters supported EPA’s proposal to not include Legionella pneumophila and Mycobacterium avium Complex (MAC) in UCMR 4; others encouraged EPA to add Legionella, and in some cases MAC. The latter commenters identified several candidate methods, suggested that Legionella is not exclusively a premise plumbing issue, and pointed to concerns with health effects. While EPA recognizes the Legionella concern, the Agency has concluded that this national survey will not be able to adequately address many of the variables, Analytes One Cyanotoxin Group using EPA Method 546 (Adda ELISA): 1 ‘‘total microcystins’’. Seven Cyanotoxins using EPA Method 544 (SPE LC–MS/MS): 2 microcystin-LA. microcystin-LF. microcystin-LR. microcystin-LY. microcystin-RR. microcystin-YR. nodularin. Two Cyanotoxins using EPA Method 545 (LC/ESI–MS/MS): 3 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES anatoxin-a. cylindrospermopsin. Two Metals using EPA Method 200.8 (ICP–MS) 4 or alternate SM 5 or ASTM: 6 germanium. manganese. Nine Pesticides using EPA Method 525.3 (SPE GC/MS): 7 alpha-hexachlorocyclohexane. chlorpyrifos. dimethipin. ethoprop. VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:50 Dec 19, 2016 profenofos. tebuconazole. total permethrin (cis- & trans-). tribufos. Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00123 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 III.C. complexities and uncertainties discussed by commenters. More research is needed to identify the optimal sampling location, frequency of sampling events and proper sampling population, and address biofilms and associated indicators. Further research is also needed on the dose-response ecology of Legionella in the distribution system to identify the correct method needed to monitor at a level that would be instructive and cost effective. Multiple commenters expressed concerns with the ELISA methodology and some of the specific elements of the ELISA Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) (Ohio EPA, 2015) identified in the proposal for cyanotoxins. In 2016, EPA finalized EPA Method 546: ‘‘Determination of Total Microcystins and Nodularins in Drinking Water and Ambient Water by Adda Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay’’ as the prescribed method for total microcystins (USEPA, 2016e). The fundamentals of Method 546 are quite similar to those of the Ohio EPA methodology, and Method 546 addresses concerns expressed about minimum reporting levels (MRLs), holding times and quality control. EXHIBIT 3—30 UCMR 4 ANALYTES List 1 Corresponding preamble section E:\FR\FM\20DER1.SGM 20DER1 92672 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 244 / Tuesday, December 20, 2016 / Rules and Regulations EXHIBIT 3—30 UCMR 4 ANALYTES—Continued oxyfluorfen. Three Brominated HAA Groups using EPA Method 552.3 (GC/ECD) or 557 (IC/ESI–MS/MS): 8 9 10 HAA5. HAA6Br. HAA9. Three Alcohols using EPA Method 541 (GC/MS): 11 1-butanol. 2-methoxyethanol. 2-propen-1-ol. Three Semivolatile Organic Chemicals (SVOCs) using EPA Method 530 (GC/MS): 12 butylated hydroxyanisole. o-toluidine. quinolone. 1 EPA Method 546 Adda Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay (ELISA) (USEPA, 2016e). Method 544 (Solid phase extraction (SPE) liquid chromatography/tandem mass spectrometry (LC–MS/MS)) (USEPA, 2015b). This method will only be used if analyses by ELISA (for ‘‘total microcystins’’) yield results above reporting limits. 3 EPA Method 545 (Liquid chromatography/electrospray ionization/tandem mass spectrometry (LC/ESI–MS/MS)) (USEPA, 2015c). 4 EPA Method 200.8 (Inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (ICP–MS)) (USEPA, 1994). 5 Standard Methods (SM) 3125 (SM, 2005a) or SM 3125–09 (SM Online, 2009). 6 ASTM International (ASTM) D5673–10 (ASTM, 2010). 7 EPA Method 525.3 (SPE Gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (GC/MS)) (USEPA, 2012b). 8 EPA Method 552.3 (Gas chromatography/electron capture detection (GC/ECD)) (USEPA, 2003) and EPA Method 557 (Ion chromatographyelectrospray ionization-tandem mass spectrometry (IC–ESI–MS/MS)) (USEPA, 2009a). HAA5 includes: Dibromoacetic acid, dichloroacetic acid, monobromoacetic acid, monochloroacetic acid, trichloroacetic acid. HAA6Br includes: Bromochloroacetic acid, bromodichloroacetic acid, dibromoacetic acid, chlorodibromoacetic acid, monobromoacetic acid, tribromoacetic acid. HAA9 includes: Bromochloroacetic acid, bromodichloroacetic acid, chlorodibromoacetic acid, dibromoacetic acid, dichloroacetic acid, monobromoacetic acid, monochloroacetic acid, tribromoacetic acid, trichloroacetic acid. 9 Regulated HAAs (HAA5) are included in the monitoring program to gain a better understanding of co-occurrence with currently unregulated disinfection byproducts. 10 Brominated HAA monitoring also includes sampling for indicators total organic carbon (TOC) and bromide using methods approved for compliance monitoring. TOC methods include: SM 5310B, SM 5310C, SM 5310D (SM, 2005b, 2005c, 2005d), or SM 5310B–00, SM 5310C–00, SM 5310D–00 (SM Online, 2000a, 2000b, 2000c), EPA Method 415.3 (Rev. 1.1 or 1.2) (USEPA, 2005, 2009b). Bromide methods include: EPA Methods 300.0 (Rev. 2.1), 300.1 (Rev. 1.0), 317.0 (Rev. 2.0), 326.0 (Rev. 1.0) (USEPA, 1993, 1997, 2001b, 2002) or ASTM D 6581–12 (ASTM, 2012). 11 EPA Method 541 (GC/MS) (USEPA, 2015d). 12 EPA Method 530 (GC/MS) (USEPA, 2015e). 2 EPA mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES EPA is maintaining the 2018 to 2020 monitoring timeframe identified in the VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:50 Dec 19, 2016 Jkt 241001 proposal. Preparations prior to 2018 will include coordinating laboratory approval, selecting representative small systems (USEPA, 2001a), developing SMPs and establishing monitoring PO 00000 Frm 00124 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4725 schedules. Exhibit 4 illustrates the major activities that will take place in preparation for and during the implementation of UCMR 4. E:\FR\FM\20DER1.SGM 20DER1 ER20DE16.002</GPH> B. What are the UCMR 4 sampling design and timeline of activities? Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 244 / Tuesday, December 20, 2016 / Rules and Regulations To minimize the impact of the rule on small systems (those serving 10,000 or fewer people), EPA pays for the sample kit preparation, sample shipping fees and analysis costs for these systems. In addition, no small system will be required to monitor for both cyanotoxins and the 20 additional UCMR contaminants. Consistent with prior UCMRs, large systems (those 92673 serving more than 10,000 people) pay for all costs associated with their monitoring. A summary of the estimated number of systems subject to monitoring is shown in Exhibit 5. EXHIBIT 5—SYSTEMS TO PARTICIPATE IN UCMR 4 MONITORING National sample: Assessment monitoring design System size (number of people served) Small Systems 1 (25– 10,000). Large Systems 2 (10,001 and over). Total ........................ 20 Additional list 1 contaminants 3 10 List 1 cyanotoxins 800 randomly selected SW or GWUDI systems Total number of systems per size category All SW or GWUDI systems (2,725) ..................... 800 randomly selected SW, GWUDI and GW systems. All SW, GWUDI and GW systems (4,292) .......... 1,600 4,292 3,525 .................................................................... 5,092 .................................................................... 5,892 1 Total for small systems is additive because these systems will only be selected for one component of UCMR 4 sampling (10 cyanotoxins or 20 additional contaminants). EPA will pay for all analytical costs associated with monitoring at small systems. 2 Large system counts are approximate. The number of large systems is not additive. All SW and GWUDI systems will monitor for cyanotoxins; those same systems will also monitor for the 20 additional List 1 contaminants, as will the large GW systems. 3 Water systems that are not subject to HAA5 monitoring under the D/DBPRs (§ 141.Subparts L and V) are not required to monitor for the UCMR 4 HAAs or associated indicators (TOC and bromide). 1. Sampling Frequency, Timing mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES a. This Rule Today’s rule maintains the proposed increased sampling frequency and narrower monitoring timeframe for total microcystins and the nine cyanotoxins. Sampling will take place twice a month for four consecutive months (total of eight sampling events) for SW and GWUDI systems. These water systems will collect samples during the monitoring timeframe of March through November (excluding December, January and February). GW systems are excluded from cyanotoxin monitoring. Monitoring for the 20 additional UCMR 4 contaminants will be based on the traditional UCMR sampling frequency and timeframe. For SW and GWUDI systems, sampling will take place for four consecutive quarters over the course of 12 months (total of four sampling events). Sampling events will occur three months apart. For example, if the first sample is taken in January, the second will then occur anytime in April, the third will occur anytime in July and the fourth will occur anytime in October. For GW systems, sampling will take place twice over the course of 12 months (total of two sampling events). Sampling events will occur five to seven months apart. For example, if the first sample is taken in April, the second sample will then occur anytime in September, October or November. EPA, in conjunction with the states, will initially determine schedules (year and months of monitoring) for large water systems. These PWSs will then have an opportunity to modify their schedule for planning purposes or other reasons (e.g., to conduct monitoring VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:50 Dec 19, 2016 Jkt 241001 during the months the system or the state believes are most vulnerable, spread costs over multiple years, address a situation where the sampling location will be closed during the scheduled month of monitoring, etc.). PWSs are not permitted to reschedule monitoring specifically to avoid sample collection during a suspected vulnerable period for the cyanotoxins. EPA will schedule and coordinate small system monitoring by working closely with partnering states. SMPs provide an opportunity for states to review and revise the initial sampling schedules that EPA proposes. b. Summary of Major Comments and EPA Responses Commenters generally supported the narrower timeframe for cyanotoxin sampling but disfavored the narrower March through November timeframe for the 20 additional contaminants. For the latter group of contaminants, EPA received multiple comments that recommended using the traditional sampling frequency and timing of previous UCMR cycles. Commenters cited the potential for cost savings by allowing the UCMR 4 HAAs to be sampled on the same schedule as compliance monitoring, and they also suggested that traditional 12-month monitoring would be appropriate for assessing lifetime exposure. EPA agrees with these points and today’s rule includes the traditional monitoring schedule for the 20 additional contaminants. EPA’s response is detailed more fully in the ‘‘Response to Comments Document for the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR 4),’’ (USEPA, 2016b), PO 00000 Frm 00125 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 which can be found in the electronic docket listed in the ADDRESSES section of this notice. Several commenters recommended that the Agency reduce the number of sample events for GW systems to one instead of the traditional two. Commenters provided an assessment of data on UCMR 3 contaminants in GW systems, and suggested that there is no significant statistical difference between the results for the two sample events for many of the contaminants. EPA acknowledges that based on the UCMR 3 data, the correlation between sample event 1 and sample event 2 for GW systems can be high, and the distributions of measured values can be very similar. However, when making regulatory determinations, EPA evaluates the number of systems (and populations) with means or single measured values above health levels of concern, as both values provide important information on the occurrence of UCMR contaminants in PWSs. The approach suggested by commenters would yield less accurate data for several reasons. First, the analysis provided by the commenters shows that the counts or percentage of systems above a concentration of interest can vary between sample events, and that there are individual cases where the contaminant is not detected in one sample event but occurs at significant levels in the second event. In addition, the analysis by commenters did not find a strong correlation between the two GW sampling events for chlorate, a disinfectant byproduct, likely due to the temporal variability in disinfection practices. This strongly suggests that having a single sample E:\FR\FM\20DER1.SGM 20DER1 92674 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 244 / Tuesday, December 20, 2016 / Rules and Regulations event may not be appropriate for temporally variable contaminants like pesticides and other anthropogenic contaminants. EPA did consider making exceptions for certain classes of contaminants (e.g., those contaminants that are not as temporally variable), however, the UCMR design must address all types of contaminants on a national scale, often without advance knowledge about the degree to which the contaminant occurrence may vary over time. Making exceptions would increase the complexity of the sample design. In addition, statistical means based on two measurements have considerably less error than a single measurement per system and provide a more robust dataset for future regulatory decisions. EPA also notes that the analysis provided by commenters only addressed a limited set of contaminants (i.e., those from UCMR 3) and did not examine the results from other UCMR cycles; if EPA were to consider reducing sampling frequency as suggested, the Agency would need more robust information. EPA will re-evaluate this issue in future UCMR cycles if new information becomes available. Finally, it is worth noting that the Agency does allow systems the opportunity to reduce monitoring by using approved GW representative entry points and, in the case of water systems that purchase water from the same source, by using representative connections. mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES 2. Phased Sample Analysis for Microcystins a. This Rule Today’s rule utilizes a phased sample analysis approach for the microcystins to reduce analytical costs (i.e., PWSs will collect all required samples for each sampling event but not all samples may need to be analyzed). However, that phased approach has been simplified relative to the proposed approach and will begin with sample collection at the entry point to the distribution system (EPTDS). Three samples will be collected at the EPTDS for cyanotoxins. One sample will be collected for EPA Method 546 (Adda ELISA), another for potential analysis by EPA Method 544, and another for analysis by EPA Method 545. Adda ELISA is a widely used screening assay that allows for the aggregate detection of numerous microcystin congeners; it does not allow for measurement of the individual congeners (USEPA, 2015f; Fischer et al., 2001; McElhiney and Lawton, 2005; Zeck et al., 2001). If the EPTDS ELISA result is less than 0.3 micrograms per liter (mg/L) (i.e., the reporting limit for VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:50 Dec 19, 2016 Jkt 241001 total microcystins), then the sample collected for Method 544 will not be analyzed for that sample event and only the Adda ELISA result will be reported to EPA. If the ELISA result is greater than or equal to 0.3 mg/L, the result will be reported to EPA and the EPA Method 544 sample will then be analyzed to identify and quantify nodularin and the six specific microcystin congeners identified in Exhibit 3. Cylindrospermopsin and anatoxin-a will only be monitored at the EPTDS, with analysis by EPA Method 545. In lieu of the proposed source-water ELISA monitoring, this final rule requires PWSs to answer four simple ‘‘metadata’’ questions (identifying the appropriate responses from the options provided) to help EPA understand the source water quality at the time their EPTDS samples are collected. These questions are identified in the Data Elements section III.C.1. water data used to support future regulatory determinations. EPA also received comments reflecting confusion about the interpretation of results from the Adda ELISA microcystin method and Method 544 (microcystins by LC–MS/MS). EPA notes that the two methods provide different measures of microcystin occurrence and risk, and one result cannot practically be used to confirm the other. The Adda ELISA allows for an aggregate quantification of a wide spectrum of microcystin congeners based on the ability of the antibodies used in the assay to recognize microcystins, while Method 544 focuses on quantifying six specific microcystin congeners. The microcystins addressed in Method 544 may or may not be the dominant congeners in particular source waters. b. Summary of Major Comments and EPA Responses a. This Rule If a water system is not subject to HAA5 monitoring under the D/DBPRs (see § 141.622 for D/DBPR monitoring requirements), the water systems is not required to collect and analyze UCMR 4 HAA samples. EPA received multiple comments on the proposed phased approach to microcystins and the utility of measuring pH and temperature in the source water. Some commenters recommended omitting source water sampling for microcystins, suggesting that a correlation cannot be drawn between source water and finished water using the proposed approach. Commenters also suggested the following: Targeted studies should collect treatment plant metadata to support future analyses; the phased approach could potentially miss an increase in cyanotoxins released as a result of treatment (e.g., cell rupture during treatment); the inclusion of both source water data and drinking water data in NCOD and other outreach materials would confuse consumers; and more appropriate candidate indicators could be considered. EPA has considered these concerns and is not requiring source water microcystin monitoring in the final rule, nor is the Agency requiring pH and temperature data collection. UCMR 4 focuses instead on finished water cyanotoxin data collection and a more qualitative characterization of source water. EPA estimates that the final rule approach, relying on the collection of source water metadata in lieu of source water sampling, reduces $1.8 million in costs from the proposed regulation over the five-year period of the UCMR 4. The collection of source water metadata can easily be incorporated into the data reporting system and will complement the quantitative analytical drinking PO 00000 Frm 00126 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 3. Applicability of HAA Monitoring Requirements b. Summary of Major Comments and EPA Responses One commenter suggested that EPA remove the UCMR 4 requirement for water systems to monitor for HAAs if the system is not subject to HAA5 monitoring under the D/DBPRs. The logic is that non-disinfecting GW systems would not be expected to have measureable HAAs as DBPs. EPA agrees with the comment and has removed the requirement. This change reduces the UCMR 4 cost by $826,000 from the proposed rule’s cost over the 5-year UCMR 4 period. 4. Representative Sampling a. This Rule Consistent with previous UCMRs and as described in § 141.35(c)(3), UCMR 4 maintains the option for large GW systems that have multiple EPTDSs to sample, with prior approval, at representative sampling locations rather than at each EPTDS. Representative sampling plans approved under prior UCMRs will be recognized as valid for UCMR 4. Systems must submit a copy of documentation from their state or EPA representing the prior approval of their alternative sampling plan. Any new GW representative monitoring plans must be submitted to EPA for review (by the state or EPA) within 120 days from publication of this final rule. E:\FR\FM\20DER1.SGM 20DER1 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 244 / Tuesday, December 20, 2016 / Rules and Regulations Once approved, these representative EPTDS locations, along with previously approved EPTDS locations from prior UCMRs, must be loaded into the Safe Drinking Water Accession and Review System (SDWARS) by the water system by December 31, 2017. Consistent with previous UCMRs and as described in § 141.40, Table 1, systems that purchase water with multiple connections from the same wholesaler may select one representative connection from that wholesaler. This EPTDS sampling location must be representative of the highest annual volume connections. If the connection selected as the representative EPTDS is not available for sampling, an alternate highest volume representative connection must be sampled. Water provided by multiple wholesalers will be considered different sources and will each need a representative connection. b. Summary of Major Comments and EPA Responses EPA received multiple comments about representative wholesale connections from consecutive systems. Commenters were concerned that this approach to reduce monitoring would be eliminated in UCMR 4. The proposed rule preamble explicitly highlighted the flexibility for representative ground water sampling, but did not highlight the option for representative wholesale connections (i.e., for consecutive systems). In this preamble, EPA is affirming the opportunity for water systems that purchase water (with multiple connections from the same wholesaler) to reduce monitoring; this option will continue in UCMR 4. EPA will likewise address this in future meetings, webinars and outreach materials. 5. Sampling Locations mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES a. This Rule Sample collection for the UCMR 4 contaminants will take place at the EPTDS for all contaminant groups except for the HAAs, which will take place in the distribution system. Sampling for the HAA indicators, TOC and bromide, will take place at a single source water influent for each treatment plant. If the system’s treatment plant/water source is subject to the D/DBPR’s HAA5 monitoring requirements under § 141.622, the water system will collect samples for the UCMR 4 HAAs at the D/ DBPR sampling location(s). UCMR 4 HAA samples and D/DBPR HAA5 compliance monitoring samples may be collected by the PWS at the same time. VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:50 Dec 19, 2016 Jkt 241001 However, EPA notes that PWSs are required to arrange for UCMR 4 HAA samples to be analyzed by a UCMR 4 approved laboratory using EPA Method 552.3 or 557 (both of which are compliance methods also approved for analysis of D/DBPR samples). For those systems subject to UCMR 4 HAA monitoring, sampling for the HAA indicators (TOC and bromide) will take place at the source water influent for each treatment plant (concurrent with UCMR 4 HAA sampling in the distribution system). This indicatormonitoring requirement does not pertain to consecutive systems (i.e., those purchasing water from other systems). For purposes of TOC and bromide sampling, EPA defines source water influent under UCMR as untreated water entering the water treatment plant (i.e., at a location prior to any treatment). SW and GWUDI systems subject to TOC monitoring under the D/DBPRs will use their TOC source water sampling site(s) defined at § 141.132 for UCMR 4 TOC and bromide samples. If a SW or GWUDI system is not subject to the D/DBPR TOC monitoring, it will use its Long Term 2 Enhance Surface Water Treatment Rule (LT2) source water sampling site(s) (§ 141.703) to collect UCMR 4 samples for TOC and bromide. GW systems that are subject to the D/DBPRs will take TOC and bromide samples at their influents entering their treatment train. b. Summary of Major Comments and EPA Responses With the exception of microcystin monitoring, commenters generally agreed with the sampling location approach described in the proposal. Changes made to address the microcystin comments are addressed in section III.B.2. C. What are the reporting requirements for UCMR 4? 1. Data Elements a. This Rule Today’s final rule maintains the 26 data elements described in the proposed rule and updates some of the definitions for clarity and consistency in the reporting requirements. Additionally, EPA has included four data elements to address collection of the source water metadata discussed in section III.B.2. The four new metadata elements are all yes or no questions, with a corresponding drop down menu of options if yes is selected: (1) Bloom Occurrence—preceding the finished water sample collection, did PO 00000 Frm 00127 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 92675 you observe an algal bloom in your source waters near the intake? (2) Cyanotoxin Occurrence— preceding the finished water sample collection, were cyanotoxins ever detected in your source waters, near the intake and prior to any treatment (based on sampling by you or another party)? (3) Indicator of Possible Bloom— Treatment—preceding the finished water sample collection, did you notice any changes in your treatment system operation and/or treated water quality that may indicate a bloom in the source water? (4) Indicator of Possible Bloom— Source Water Quality Parameters— preceding the finished water sample collection, did you observe any notable changes in source water quality parameters (if measured)? Please see Table 1 of § 141.35(e) for the complete list of data elements, definitions and drop down options that will be provided in the data reporting system. b. Summary of Major Comments and EPA Responses EPA received many comments on the proposed data elements, particularly regarding the complexity and utility of collecting the new quality control (QC) parameters; concerns with how the data will be gathered and processed; and questions about how the database will function. EPA will collect all 30 data elements in SDWARS 4, an updated version of the data reporting system used in previous UCMR actions. More than half of these data elements (e.g., inventory and analytical results) were used in prior UCMR cycles and were included in the previous SDWARS system. The new QC data elements are already generated by the laboratory and do not constitute new analytical requirements. SDWARS 4 will include improvements in the user interface and new QC checks will be built into the system to review the data in real-time. Consistent with prior UCMR cycles, states and EPA will have access to data once posted by the laboratory and reviewed by the PWS (or 60 days after the laboratory posting, whichever comes first). EPA will offer two database training sessions in 2017 to help users become familiar with the new system. One training session will be for the water systems and the other training session will be for the laboratories. A future Federal Register announcement will provide more details on these training sessions. Other comments regarding the data elements included the following specific points: a request for a simpler E:\FR\FM\20DER1.SGM 20DER1 92676 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 244 / Tuesday, December 20, 2016 / Rules and Regulations mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES classification of treatment ‘‘bins’’; a recommendation that the final rule collect the primary and secondary disinfectant practice in place at the time of HAA sampling; an observation that the UCMR 4 data are more informative when there is information describing the associated treatment; a recommendation that EPA simplify the data elements and data definitions; and a recommendation that the rule not collect metadata about oxidant addition, oxidant order of application, oxidant dose and oxidant contact time. The final rule simplifies and clarifies the treatment options available for the PWS to select as metadata; includes the collection of all disinfectant practices and information describing the treatment in place; simplifies the data elements and data definitions; and does not include the collection of metadata about oxidant order of application, dose or contact time. EPA’s response is detailed more fully in the ‘‘Response to Comments Document for the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR 4),’’ (USEPA, 2016b), which can be found in the electronic docket listed in the ADDRESSES section of this notice. IV. How are laboratories approved for UCMR 4 monitoring? Consistent with the proposal, and with past practice, the final rule requires EPA approval of all laboratories conducting analyses for UCMR 4. EPA will follow the traditional Agency approach, outlined in the proposal, to approving UCMR laboratories, which requires laboratories seeking approval to: (1) Provide EPA with data that demonstrates a successful completion of an initial demonstration of capability (IDC) as outlined in each method; (2) verify successful analytical performance at or below the MRLs as specified in this action; (3) provide information about laboratory operating procedures; and (4) successfully participate in an EPA proficiency testing (PT) program for the analytes of interest. Audits of laboratories may be conducted by EPA prior to and/or following approval. The ‘‘UCMR 4 Laboratory Approval Requirements and Information Document’’ (USEPA, 2016d) provides guidance on the EPA laboratory approval program and the specific method acceptance criteria. EPA may supply analytical reference standards for select analytes to participating/approved laboratories when reliable standards are not readily available through commercial sources. This final rule’s structure for the laboratory approval program is the same as that proposed for UCMR 4 and VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:50 Dec 19, 2016 Jkt 241001 employed in previous UCMRs, and provides an assessment of the laboratories’ ability to perform analyses using the methods listed in § 141.40(a)(3), Table 1. The UCMR 4 laboratory approval process is designed to assess whether laboratories possess the required equipment and analyst skills and can meet the laboratoryperformance and data-reporting criteria described in this action. Laboratory participation in the UCMR laboratory approval program is voluntary. However, as in previous UCMRs and as proposed for UCMR 4, EPA will require PWSs to exclusively use laboratories that have been approved under the program to analyze UCMR 4 samples. EPA expects to post a list of approved UCMR 4 laboratories to https:// www.epa.gov/dwucmr. Laboratories are encouraged to apply for UCMR 4 approval as early as possible, as EPA anticipates that large PWSs scheduled for monitoring in the first year will be making arrangements for sample analyses soon after the final rule is published. The steps and requirements for the laboratory approval process are listed in sections A through F below. A. Request To Participate Laboratories interested in the UCMR 4 laboratory approval program can request registration materials by emailing EPA at UCMR_Sampling_Coordinator@ epa.gov to request registration materials. B. Registration Laboratory applicants will provide registration information that includes: Laboratory name, mailing address, shipping address, contact name, phone number, email address and a list of the UCMR 4 methods for which the laboratory is seeking approval. This registration step provides EPA with the necessary contact information, and ensures that each laboratory receives a customized application package. Laboratories must complete and submit the necessary registration information by February 21, 2017. C. Application Package Laboratories wishing to participate will complete and return a customized application package that includes the following: IDC data, including precision, accuracy and results of MRL studies; information regarding analytical equipment and other materials; proof of current drinking water laboratory certification (for select compliance monitoring methods); and example chromatograms for each method under review. Laboratories must complete and submit the necessary application materials by April 19, 2017. PO 00000 Frm 00128 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 As a condition of receiving and maintaining approval, the laboratory is expected to confirm that it will post UCMR 4 monitoring results and quality control data that meet method criteria (on behalf of its PWS clients) to EPA’s UCMR electronic data reporting system, SDWARS. D. EPA’s Review of Application Packages EPA will review the application packages and, if necessary, request follow-up information. Laboratories that successfully complete the application process become eligible to participate in the UCMR 4 PT program. E. Proficiency Testing A PT sample is a synthetic sample containing a concentration of an analyte or mixture of analytes that is known to EPA, but unknown to the laboratory. To be approved, a laboratory is expected to meet specific acceptance criteria for the analysis of a UCMR 4 PT sample(s) for each analyte in each method, for which the laboratory is seeking approval. EPA intends to offer at least two opportunities for a laboratory to successfully analyze UCMR 4 PT samples after publication of the final rule. A laboratory is expected to pass one of the PT studies for each analytical method for which it is requesting approval, and will not be required to pass a PT study for a method it has already passed in a previous UCMR 4 PT study. EPA does not expect to conduct additional PT studies after the start of system monitoring; however, laboratory audits will likely be ongoing throughout UCMR 4 implementation. Initial laboratory approval is expected to be contingent on successful completion of a PT study. Continued laboratory approval is contingent on successful completion of the audit process and satisfactorily meeting all the other stated conditions. F. Written EPA Approval For laboratories that have already successfully completed the preceding steps (A through E), EPA will have sent the applicant a letter listing the methods for which approval is pending (i.e., pending promulgation of this rule). Because no changes have been made to the final rule that impact the laboratory approval program, laboratories that received pending approval letters will be granted approval without further action on their part. Additional approval actions (i.e., for those laboratories that apply and have not already proceeded to the point of being in ‘‘approval pending’’ status) will be based on laboratory completion of Steps E:\FR\FM\20DER1.SGM 20DER1 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 244 / Tuesday, December 20, 2016 / Rules and Regulations A through E. In both cases, EPA will document its final decision in writing. EPA did not receive any adverse comments on the laboratory approval process or criteria that it proposed. V. What is the past and future stakeholder involvement in the regulation process? A. What is the states’ role in the UCMR program? UCMR is a direct implementation rule (i.e., EPA has primary responsibility for its implementation) and state participation is voluntary. Under previous UCMRs, specific activities that individual states, tribes and territories agreed to carry out or assist with were identified and established exclusively through PAs. Through PAs, states, tribes and territories can help EPA implement the UCMR program and help ensure that the UCMR data are of the highest quality possible to best support Agency decision making. Under UCMR 4, EPA will continue to use the PA process to determine and document the following: the process for review and revision of the SMPs; replacing and updating system information; review and approval of proposed GW representative monitoring plans; notification and instructions for systems; and compliance assistance. EPA recognizes that states/primacy agencies often have the best information about PWSs in their state and encourages states to partner. SMPs include tabular listings of the systems that EPA selected and the proposed schedule for their monitoring. Initial SMPs also typically include instructions to states for revising and/or correcting system information in the SMPs, including modifying the sampling schedules for small systems. EPA will incorporate revisions from states, resolve any outstanding questions and return the final SMPs to each state. mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES B. What stakeholder meetings have been held in preparation for UCMR 4? EPA incorporates stakeholder involvement into each UCMR cycle. Specific to the development of UCMR 4, EPA held three public stakeholder meetings and is announcing a fourth in today’s preamble (see section V.C). EPA held a meeting focused on drinking water methods for CCL contaminants on May 15, 2013, in Cincinnati, Ohio. Participants included representatives of state agencies, laboratories, PWSs, environmental organizations and drinking water associations. Meeting topics included an overview of the regulatory process (CCL, UCMR and VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:50 Dec 19, 2016 Jkt 241001 Regulatory Determination) and drinking water methods under development, primarily for CCL contaminants (see USEPA, 2013 for presentation materials). EPA held a second stakeholder meeting on June 25, 2014, in Washington, DC. Attendees representing state agencies, tribes, laboratories, PWSs, environmental organizations and drinking water associations participated in the meeting via webinar and in person. Meeting topics included a status update on UCMR 3; UCMR 4 potential sampling design changes relative to UCMR 3; UCMR 4 candidate analytes and rationale; and the laboratory approval process (see USEPA, 2014 for meeting materials). The third stakeholder meeting was held on January 13, 2016, via a webinar, during the public comment period for the proposed rule. Attendees representing state agencies, laboratories, PWSs, environmental organizations and drinking water associations participated. Meeting topics included the proposed UCMR 4 monitoring requirements, analyte selection and rationale, analytical methods, the laboratory approval process and GW representative monitoring plans (see USEPA, 2016f for meeting materials). C. How do I participate in the upcoming stakeholder meeting? EPA will hold the fourth UCMR 4 public stakeholder meeting in Washington, DC, on April 12, 2017. Attendees can participate in person or via webinar. Topics will include the final UCMR 4 requirements for monitoring, sampling and reporting, analytical methods, the laboratory approval process, GW representative monitoring plans and consecutive system monitoring plans. 1. Meeting Participation Those who wish to participate in the public meeting, whether in person or via webinar, need to register in advance no later than 5:00 p.m., eastern time on April 7, 2017, by going to https:// www.eventbrite.com/e/ucmr-4-publicstakeholder-meeting-registration28264984329. To ensure adequate time for questions, individuals or organizations with specific questions should identify any upfront questions when they register. Additional questions from attendees will be taken during the meeting and answered as time permits. The number of webinar connections available for the meeting is limited and will be available on a firstcome, first-served basis. Further details about registration and participation can be found on EPA’s Unregulated PO 00000 Frm 00129 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 92677 Contaminant Monitoring Program ‘‘Meetings and Materials’’ Web site at https://www.epa.gov/dwucmr. 2. Meeting Materials Materials are expected to be sent by email to all registered attendees prior to the meeting. EPA will post the materials on the Agency’s Web site for persons who are unable to participate. D. How did EPA consider Children’s Environmental Health? Executive Order 13045 does not apply to UCMR 4, however, EPA’s Policy on Evaluating Health Risks to Children is applicable (See VII.G. Executive Order 13045). By monitoring for unregulated contaminants that may pose health risks via drinking water, UCMR furthers the protection of public health for all citizens, including children. EPA considered children’s health risks during the development of UCMR 4. This includes considering public comments about candidate contaminant priorities. The objective of UCMR 4 is to collect nationally representative drinking water data on a set of unregulated contaminants. EPA generally collects occurrence data for contaminants at the lowest levels that are feasible for the national network of approved drinking water laboratories to quantify accurately. By setting reporting levels as low as is feasible, the Agency positions itself to better address contaminant risk information in the future, including that associated with unique risks to children. E. How did EPA address Environmental Justice? The EPA has concluded that this action is not subject to Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) because it does not establish an environmental health or safety standard (see VII.J. Executive Order 12898). This regulatory action provides EPA and other interested parties with scientifically valid data on the national occurrence of selected contaminants in drinking water. 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. EPA recognizes that unregulated contaminants in drinking water are of interest to all populations and structured the rulemaking process and implementation of the UCMR 4 rule to allow for meaningful involvement and transparency. EPA organized public meetings and webinars to share information regarding the development of UCMR 4; coordinated with tribal governments; and convened a E:\FR\FM\20DER1.SGM 20DER1 92678 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 244 / Tuesday, December 20, 2016 / Rules and Regulations workgroup that included representatives from several states. EPA will continue to collect U.S. Postal Service Zip Codes for each PWS’s service area, as collected under UCMR 3, to support assessment in future regulatory evaluations of whether or not minority, low-income and/or indigenous-population communities are uniquely impacted by particular drinking water contaminants. mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES VI. What documents are being incorporated by reference? The following methods are incorporated by reference into this section for UCMR 4 monitoring. All approved material is available for inspection electronically at https:// www.regulations.gov (Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OW–2015–0218), or from the sources listed for each method. EPA has worked to make these methods and documents reasonably available to interested parties. The EPA and nonEPA methods that support monitoring under this rule are as follows: A. Methods From the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency The following methods are from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Water Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20004. 1. Method 200.8 ‘‘Determination of Trace Elements in Waters and Wastes by Inductively Coupled Plasma—Mass Spectrometry,’’ Revision 5.4, EMMC Version, 1994. Available on the Internet at https://www.nemi.gov. This is an EPA method for the analysis of elements in water by ICP–MS and will measure germanium and manganese during UCMR 4. 2. Method 300.0 ‘‘Determination of Inorganic Anions by Ion Chromatography Samples,’’ Revision 2.1, August 1993. Available on the Internet at https://www.nemi.gov. This is an EPA method for the analysis of inorganic anions in water samples using ion chromatography (IC) with conductivity detection. It will be used for the measurement of bromide, an indicator for the HAAs. 3. Method 300.1 ‘‘Determination of Inorganic Anions in Drinking Water by Ion Chromatography,’’ Revision 1.0, 1997. Available on the Internet at https://www.epa.gov/ dwanalyticalmethods. This is an EPA method for the analysis of inorganic anions in water samples using IC with conductivity detection. It will be used for the measurement of TOC, an indicator for the HAAs. 4. Method 317.0 ‘‘Determination of Inorganic Oxyhalide Disinfection By- VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:50 Dec 19, 2016 Jkt 241001 Products in Drinking Water Using Ion Chromatography with the Addition of a Postcolumn Reagent for Trace Bromate Analysis,’’ Revision 2.0, July 2001, EPA 815–B–01–001. Available on the Internet at https://www.epa.gov/ dwanalyticalmethods. This is an EPA method for the analysis of inorganic anions in water samples using IC with conductivity detection. It will be used for the measurement of bromide, an indicator for the HAAs. 5. Method 326.0 ‘‘Determination of Inorganic Oxyhalide Disinfection ByProducts in Drinking Water Using Ion Chromatography Incorporating the Addition of a Suppressor Acidified Postcolumn Reagent for Trace Bromate Analysis,’’ Revision 1.0, June 2002, EPA 815–R–03–007. Available on the Internet at https://www.epa.gov/ dwanalyticalmethods. This is an EPA method for the analysis of inorganic anions in water samples using IC with conductivity detection. It will be used for the measurement of bromide, an indicator for the HAAs. 6. Method 415.3 ‘‘Determination of Total Organic Carbon and Specific UV Absorbance at 254 nm in Source Water and Drinking Water,’’ Revision 1.1, February 2005, EPA/600/R–05/055. Available on the Internet at https:// www.epa.gov/water-research/epadrinking-water-research-methods. This is an EPA method for the analysis of TOC in water samples using a conductivity detector or a nondispersive infrared detector. 7. Method 415.3 ‘‘Determination of Total Organic Carbon and Specific UV Absorbance at 254 nm in Source Water and Drinking Water,’’ Revision 1.2, September 2009, EPA/600/R–09/122. Available on the Internet at https:// www.epa.gov/water-research/epadrinking-water-research-methods. This is an EPA method for the analysis of TOC in water samples using a conductivity detector or a nondispersive infrared detector. 8. Method 525.3 ‘‘Determination of Semivolatile Organic Chemicals in Drinking Water by Solid Phase Extraction and Capillary Column Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry (GC/MS),’’ Version 1.0, February 2012, EPA/600/R–12/010. Available on the Internet https://www.epa.gov/waterresearch/epa-drinking-water-researchmethods. This is an EPA method for the analysis of semivolatile organic chemicals in drinking water using SPE and GC/MS and will measure the nine UCMR 4 pesticides (alphahexachlorocyclohexane, chlorpyrifos, dimethipin, ethoprop, oxyfluorfen, profenofos, tebuconazole, total cis- and trans- permethrin and tribufos). PO 00000 Frm 00130 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 9. Method 530 ‘‘Determination of Select Semivolatile Organic Chemicals in Drinking Water by Solid Phase Extraction and Gas Chromatography/ Mass Spectrometry (GC/MS),’’ Version 1.0, January 2015, EPA/600/R–14/442. Available on the Internet at https:// www.epa.gov/water-research/epadrinking-water-research-methods. This is an EPA method for the analysis of semivolatile organic chemicals in drinking water using SPE and GC/MS and will measure butylated hydroxyanisole, o-toluidine and quinoline. 10. EPA Method 541: ‘‘Determination of 1-Butanol, 1,4-Dioxane, 2Methoxyethanol and 2-Propen-1-ol in Drinking Water by Solid Phase Extraction and Gas Chromatography/ Mass Spectrometry,’’ November 2015, EPA 815–R–15–011. Available on the Internet at https://www.epa.gov/waterresearch/epa-drinking-water-researchmethods. This is an EPA method for the analysis of selected alcohols and 1,4dioxane in drinking water using SPE and GC/MS and will measure 1-butanol, 2-methoxyethanol and 2-propen-1-ol. 11. Method 544 ‘‘Determination of Microcystins and Nodularin in Drinking Water by Solid Phase Extraction and Liquid Chromatography/Tandem Mass Spectrometry (LC/MS/MS),’’ Version 1.0, February 2015, EPA 600–R–14/474. Available on the Internet at https:// www.epa.gov/water-research/epadrinking-water-research-methods. This is an EPA method for the analysis of selected cyanotoxins in drinking water using SPE and LC–MS/MS with electrospray ionization (ESI) and will measure six microcystins (microcystinLA, microcystin-LF, microcystin-LR, microcystin-LY, microcystin-RR and microcystin-YR) and nodularin. 12. EPA Method 545: ‘‘Determination of Cylindrospermopsin and Anatoxin-a in Drinking Water by Liquid Chromatography Electrospray Ionization Tandem Mass Spectrometry (LC/ESI– MS/MS),’’ April 2015, EPA 815–R–15– 009. Available on the Internet at https:// www.epa.gov/dwanalyticalmethods. This is an EPA method for the analysis of selected cyanotoxins in drinking water using LC–MS/MS with ESI and will measure cylindrospermopsin and anatoxin-a. 13. EPA Method 546: ‘‘Determination of Total Microcystins and Nodularins in Drinking Water and Ambient Water by Adda Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay,’’ August 2016, EPA–815–B–16– 011. Available on the Internet at https:// www.epa.gov/dwanalyticalmethods. This is an EPA method for the analysis of total microcystins and nodularins in drinking water using ELISA. E:\FR\FM\20DER1.SGM 20DER1 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 244 / Tuesday, December 20, 2016 / Rules and Regulations mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES 14. Method 552.3 ‘‘Determination of Haloacetic Acids and Dalapon in Drinking Water by Liquid-Liquid Microextraction, Derivatization, and Gas Chromatography with Electron Capture Detection,’’ Revision 1.0, July 2003, EPA 815–B–03–002. Available on the Internet at https://www.epa.gov/ dwanalyticalmethods. This is an EPA method for the analysis of haloacetic acids and dalapon in drinking water using liquid-liquid microextraction, derivatization, and GC with ECD, and will measure the three UCMR 4 HAA groups (HAA5, HAA6Br and HAA9). 15. EPA Method 557: ‘‘Determination of Haloacetic Acids, Bromate, and Dalapon in Drinking Water by Ion Chromatography Electrospray Ionization Tandem Mass Spectrometry (IC–ESI– MS/MS),’’ Version 1.0, September 2009, EPA 815–B–09–012. Available on the Internet at https://www.epa.gov/ dwanalyticalmethods. This is an EPA method for the analysis of haloacetic acids, bromate, and dalapon in drinking water using IC–MS/MS with ESI, and will measure the three UCMR 4 HAA groups (HAA5, HAA6Br and HAA9). B. Methods From American Public Health Association—Standard Methods (SM) The following methods are from American Public Health Association— Standard Methods (SM), 800 I Street NW., Washington, DC 20001–3710 1. ‘‘Standard Methods for the Examination of Water & Wastewater,’’ 21st edition (2005). a. SM 3125 ‘‘Metals by Inductively Coupled Plasma/Mass Spectrometry.’’ This is a Standard Method for the analysis of metals and metalloids in water by ICP–MS and is used for the analysis of germanium and manganese. b. SM 5310B ‘‘Total Organic Carbon (TOC): High-Temperature Combustion Method.’’ This is a Standard Method for the analysis of TOC in water samples using a conductivity detector or a nondispersive infrared detector. c. SM 5310C ‘‘Total Organic Carbon (TOC): Persulfate-UV or HeatedPersulfate Oxidation Method.’’ This is a Standard Method for the analysis of TOC in water samples using conductivity detector or a nondispersive infrared detector. d. SM 5310D ‘‘Total Organic Carbon (TOC): Wet-Oxidation Method.’’ This is a Standard Method for the analysis of TOC in water samples using a conductivity detector or a nondispersive infrared detector. 2. ‘‘Standard Methods Online.,’’ approved 2000 (unless noted). Available for purchase on the Internet at http:// www.standardmethods.org. VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:50 Dec 19, 2016 Jkt 241001 a. SM 3125 ‘‘Metals by Inductively Coupled Plasma/Mass Spectrometry’’ Editorial revisions, 2011 (SM 3125–09). This is a Standard Method for the analysis of metals and metalloids in water by ICP–MS and is used to measure germanium and manganese. b. SM 5310B ‘‘Total Organic Carbon: High-Temperature Combustion Method,’’ (5310B–00). This is a Standard Method for the analysis of TOC in water samples using a conductivity detector or a nondispersive infrared detector. c. SM 5310C ‘‘Total Organic Carbon: Persulfate-UV or Heated-Persulfate Oxidation Method,’’ (5310C–00). This is a Standard Method for the analysis of TOC in water samples using a conductivity detector or a nondispersive infrared detector. d. SM 5310D ‘‘Total Organic Carbon: Wet-Oxidation Method,’’ (5310D–00). This is a Standard Method for the analysis of TOC in water samples using a conductivity detector or a nondispersive infrared detector. C. Methods From ASTM International The following methods are from ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken, PA 19428– 2959. 1. ASTM D5673–10 ‘‘Standard Test Method for Elements in Water by Inductively Coupled Plasma-Mass Spectrometry,’’ approved August 1, 2010. Available for purchase on the Internet at http://www.astm.org/ Standards/D5673.htm. This is an ASTM method for the analysis of elements in water by ICP–MS and is used to measure germanium and manganese. 2. ASTM D6581–12 ‘‘Standard Test Methods for Bromate, Bromide, Chlorate, and Chlorite in Drinking Water by Suppressed Ion Chromatography,’’ approved March 1, 2012. Available for purchase on the Internet at http://www.astm.org/ Standards/D6581.htm. This is an ASTM method for the analysis of inorganic anions in water samples using IC with conductivity detection. It will be used for the measurement of bromide, an indicator for the HAAs. VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review This action is a significant regulatory action that was submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review. Any changes made in response to OMB recommendations have been PO 00000 Frm 00131 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 92679 documented in the docket, ‘‘Documentation of OMB Review Under Executive Order 12866: Revisions to the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation (UCMR 4) for Public Water Systems.’’ The EPA prepared an analysis of the potential costs associated with this action, and this is also available in the docket, ‘‘Information Collection Request for the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR 4).’’ B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) The information collection activities in this rule have been submitted for approval to OMB under the PRA. The ICR document that the EPA prepared has been assigned EPA ICR number 2192.08. You can find a copy of the ICR in the docket for this rule, and it is briefly summarized here. The ICR requirements are not enforceable until OMB approves them. The information that EPA will collect under this rule fulfills the statutory requirements of section 1445(a)(2) of the SDWA, as amended in 1996. EPA will collect information that describes the source of the water, location and test results for samples taken from PWSs as described in 40 CFR 141.35(e). The information collected will support Agency decisions as to whether or not to regulate particular contaminants under the SDWA. Reporting is mandatory. The data are not subject to confidentiality protection. EPA received a number of comments regarding cost and burden of the proposed rule. Those comments recommended the following: Omit source water monitoring for microcystins; omit UCMR 4 HAA monitoring for PWSs that do not conduct HAA compliance monitoring; allow monitoring over a 12-month period for contaminants other than cyanotoxins; and provide more accurate cost estimates. Based on these public comments, the following changes were made to the final rule. EPA’s response is detailed more fully in the ‘‘Response to Comments Document for the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR 4),’’ (USEPA, 2016b), which can be found in the electronic docket listed in the ADDRESSES section of this notice. 1. Removed the proposed source water monitoring requirement for microcystins, temperature and pH. 2. Limited UCMR 4 HAA monitoring to only those PWSs that are subject to the D/DBPRs. 3. Restored the traditional 12-month monitoring schedule for the 20 additional (non-cyanotoxin) contaminants. This will support PWSs E:\FR\FM\20DER1.SGM 20DER1 92680 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 244 / Tuesday, December 20, 2016 / Rules and Regulations that wish to do concurrent HAA compliance monitoring and UCMR 4 sampling. 4. Increased the wage estimates to 2016 rates using the Employment Cost Index for waters and salaries in trade, transport and utilities. 5. Updated the analytical costs of each method with new cost estimates from more laboratories. The annual burden and cost estimates described in this section are based on the implementation assumptions described in section III. In general, burden hours were calculated by: 1. Determining the activities that PWSs and states would complete to comply with the UCMR activity; 2. Estimating the number of hours per activity; 3. Estimating the number of respondents per activity; and 4. Multiplying the hours per activity by the number of respondents for that activity. Respondents to UCMR 4 include 1,600 small PWSs (800 for cyanotoxin monitoring and a different set of 800 for monitoring the additional 20 contaminants), the ∼4,292 large PWSs and the 56 states and primacy agencies (∼5,948 total respondents). The frequency of response varies across respondents and years. System costs (particularly laboratory analytical costs) vary depending on the number of sampling locations. For cost estimates, EPA assumed that systems will conduct sampling evenly from January 2018 through December 2020, excluding December, January and February of each year for cyanotoxins (i.e., one-third of the systems in each year of monitoring). Because the applicable ICR period is 2017–2019, one year of monitoring activity (i.e., 2020) is not captured in the ICR estimates; this will be addressed in a subsequent ICR renewal for UCMR 4. Small PWSs that are selected for UCMR 4 monitoring will sample an average of 6.7 times per PWS (i.e., number of responses per PWS) across the 3-year ICR period. The average burden per response for small PWSs is estimated to be 2.8 hours. Large PWSs (those serving 10,001 to 100,000 people) and very large PWSs (those serving more than 100,000 people) will sample and report an average of 11.4 and 14.1 times per PWS, respectively, across the 3-year ICR period. The average burden per response for large and very large PWSs is estimated at 6.1 and 9.9 hours, respectively. States are assumed to have an annual average burden of 244.3 hours related to coordination with EPA and PWSs. In the aggregate, during the ICR period, the average response (e.g., responses from PWSs and states) is associated with a burden of 6.9 hours, with a labor plus non-labor cost of $1,636 per response. The annual average per-respondent burden hours and costs for the ICR period are: Small PWSs—6.1 hours, or $169, for labor; large PWSs—23.3 hours, or $684, for labor and $5,756 for analytical costs; very large PWSs—46.4 hours, or $1,253, for labor and $15,680 for analytical costs; and states—244.3 hours, or $11,789, for labor. Annual average burden and cost per respondent (including both systems and states) is estimated to be 23.3 hours, with a labor plus non-labor cost of $3,718 per respondent. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). 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 rules in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. When OMB approves this ICR, the Agency will announce that approval in the Federal Register and publish a technical amendment to 40 CFR part 9 to display the OMB control number for the approved information collection activities contained in this final rule. C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) For purposes of assessing the impacts of this rule on small entities, EPA considered small entities to be PWSs serving 10,000 or fewer people, because this is the system size specified in the SDWA as requiring special consideration with respect to small system flexibility. As required by the RFA, EPA proposed using this alternative definition in the FR, (63 FR 7606, February 13, 1998 (USEPA, 1998a)), sought public comment, consulted with the Small Business Administration (SBA) and finalized the alternative definition in the Consumer Confidence Reports rulemaking, (63 FR 44512, August 19, 1998 (USEPA, 1998b)). As stated in that Final Rule, the alternative definition will be applied to future drinking water rules, including this rule. An agency certifies that a rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. In making this determination, the impact of concern is any significant adverse economic impact on a substantial number of small entities if the rule relieves regulatory burden, has no net burden or otherwise has a positive economic effect on the small entities subject to the rule. The evaluation of the overall impact on small systems, summarized in the preceding discussion, is further described as follows. EPA analyzed the impacts for privately-owned and publicly-owned water systems separately, due to the different economic characteristics of these ownership types, such as different rate structures and profit goals. However, for both publicly- and privately-owned systems, EPA used the ‘‘revenue test,’’ which compares annual system costs attributed to the rule to the system’s annual revenues. EPA used median revenue data from the 2006 CWS Survey for public and private water systems (USEPA, 2009c). The revenue figures were updated to 2016 dollars, and increased by three percent to account for inflation. EPA assumes that the distribution of the sample of participating small systems will reflect the proportions of publicly- and privately-owned systems in the national inventory. The estimated distribution of the representative sample, categorized by ownership type, source water and system size, is presented in Exhibit 6. EXHIBIT 6—NUMBER OF PUBLICLY- AND PRIVATELY-OWNED SMALL SYSTEMS SUBJECT TO UCMR 4 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES System size (# of people served) Publicly-owned Privatelyowned Total 1 Ground Water 500 and under ............................................................................................................................. 501 to 3,300 ................................................................................................................................. 3,301 to 10,000 ............................................................................................................................ 21 161 179 64 62 41 85 223 220 Subtotal GW ......................................................................................................................... 361 167 528 VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:50 Dec 19, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00132 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20DER1.SGM 20DER1 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 244 / Tuesday, December 20, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 92681 EXHIBIT 6—NUMBER OF PUBLICLY- AND PRIVATELY-OWNED SMALL SYSTEMS SUBJECT TO UCMR 4—Continued System size (# of people served) Privatelyowned Publicly-owned Total 1 Surface Water (and GWUDI) 500 and under ............................................................................................................................. 501 to 3,300 ................................................................................................................................. 3,301 to 10,000 ............................................................................................................................ 18 241 548 21 86 158 39 327 706 Subtotal SW .......................................................................................................................... 807 265 1,072 Total of Small Water Systems ...................................................................................... 1,168 432 1,600 1 PWS counts were adjusted to display as whole numbers in each size category. The basis for the UCMR 4 RFA certification is as follows: For the 1,600 small water systems that will be affected, the average annual cost for complying with this rule represents no more than 0.7% of system revenues (the highest estimated percentage is for GW systems serving 500 or fewer people, at 0.7% of its median revenue). Exhibit 7 presents the yearly cost to small systems and to EPA for the small system sampling program, along with an illustration of system participation for each year of UCMR 4. EXHIBIT 7—IMPLEMENTATION OF UCMR 4 AT SMALL SYSTEMS Cost description 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total 1 2021 Costs to EPA for Small System Program (Assessment Monitoring) $0 $5,635,113 $5,635,113 $5,635,113 $0 $16,905,340 270,848 0 812,545 5,905,962 5,905,962 0 17,717,886 1/3 PWSs Sample 1/3 PWSs Sample 1/3 PWSs Sample 1/3 PWSs Sample ........................ 800 ........................ 800 Costs to Small Systems (Assessment Monitoring) 0 270,848 270,848 Total Costs to EPA and Small Systems for UCMR 4 0 5,905,962 System Monitoring Activity Timeline 2 Assessment Monitoring: Cyanotoxins ....................................... ........................ Assessment Monitoring: 20 Additional Contaminants .............. ........................ 1/3 PWSs Sample 1/3 PWSs Sample 1 Totals 2 Total may not equal the sum of components due to rounding. number of systems is 1,600. No small system conducts Assessment Monitoring for both cyanotoxins and the 20 additional contaminants. PWS costs are attributed to the labor required for reading about UCMR 4 requirements, monitoring, reporting and record keeping. The estimated average annual burden across the 5-year UCMR 4 implementation period of 2017–2021 is 2.8 hours at $102 per small system. Average annual cost, in all cases, is less than 0.7% of system revenues. By assuming all costs for laboratory analyses, shipping and quality control for small entities, EPA incurs the entirety of the non-labor costs associated with UCMR 4 small system monitoring, or 95% of total small system testing costs. Exhibit 8 and Exhibit 9 present the estimated economic impacts in the form of a revenue test for publicly- and privatelyowned systems. EXHIBIT 8—UCMR 4 RELATIVE COST ANALYSIS FOR SMALL PUBLICLY-OWNED SYSTEMS (2017–2021) Annual number of systems impacted 1 System size (# of people served) Average annual hours per system (2017–2021) Average annual cost per system (2017–2021) Revenue test 2 (%) Ground Water Systems mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES 500 and under ................................................................................................. 501 to 3,300 ..................................................................................................... 3,301 to 10,000 ................................................................................................ 4 32 36 1.5 1.6 1.7 $55 59 63 0.14 0.04 0.01 3.3 3.3 3.4 119 119 124 0.16 0.04 0.01 Surface Water (and GWUDI) Systems 500 and under ................................................................................................. 501 to 3,300 ..................................................................................................... 3,301 to 10,000 ................................................................................................ 4 48 110 1 PWS counts were adjusted to display as whole numbers in each size category. Revenue Test was used to evaluate the economic impact of an information collection on small government entities (e.g., publicly-owned systems); costs are presented as a percentage of median annual revenue in each size category (EPA, 2009c). 2 The VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:50 Dec 19, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00133 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20DER1.SGM 20DER1 92682 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 244 / Tuesday, December 20, 2016 / Rules and Regulations EXHIBIT 9—UCMR 4 RELATIVE COST ANALYSIS FOR SMALL PRIVATELY-OWNED SYSTEMS (2017–2021) Annual number of systems impacted 1 System size (# of people served) Average annual hours per system (2017–2021) Average annual cost per system (2017–2021) Revenue test 2 (%) Ground Water Systems 500 and under ................................................................................................. 501 to 3,300 ..................................................................................................... 3,301 to 10,000 ................................................................................................ 13 12 8 1.5 1.6 1.7 $55 59 63 0.74 0.04 0.01 3.3 3.3 3.4 119 119 124 0.28 0.04 0.01 Surface Water (and GWUDI) Systems 500 and under ................................................................................................. 501 to 3,300 ..................................................................................................... 3,301 to 10,000 ................................................................................................ 4 17 32 1 PWS counts were adjusted to display as whole numbers in each size category. Revenue Test was used to evaluate the economic impact of an information collection on small government entities (e.g., privately-owned systems); costs are presented as a percentage of median annual revenue in each size category (EPA, 2009c). 2 The mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES The Agency has determined that 1,600 small PWSs (for Assessment Monitoring), or approximately 4.2% of all small systems, will experience an impact of no more than 0.7% of revenues; the remainder of small systems will not be impacted. Although this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, EPA has attempted to reduce this impact by assuming all costs for analyses of the samples and for shipping the samples from small systems to laboratories contracted by EPA to analyze UCMR 4 samples (the cost of shipping is now included in the cost of each analytical method). EPA has set aside $2.0 million each year from the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (SRF), with its authority to use SRF monies for the purposes of implementing this provision of the SDWA. Thus, the costs to these small systems will be limited to the labor associated with collecting a sample and preparing it for shipping. I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. In making this determination, the impact of concern is any significant adverse economic impact on small entities. The Agency therefore concluded that this action will have no net regulatory burden for all directly regulated small entities. D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) This action does not contain an annual unfunded mandate of $100 million or more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531–1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action implements mandate(s) specifically and explicitly set forth in the SDWA without the VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:50 Dec 19, 2016 Jkt 241001 exercise of any policy discretion by the EPA. E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments This action will neither impose substantial direct compliance costs on federally recognized tribal governments, nor preempt tribal law. As described previously, this rule requires monitoring by all large PWSs. Information in the SDWIS/Fed water system inventory indicates there are 17 large tribal PWSs (ranging in size from 10,001 to 40,000 customers). EPA estimates the average annual cost to each of these large PWSs, over the 5-year rule period, to be $3,864. This cost is based on a labor component (associated with the collection of samples), and a non-labor component (associated with shipping and laboratory fees), and represents 1.1% of average revenue/sales for large PWSs. UCMR also requires monitoring by a nationally representative sample of small PWSs. EPA estimates that approximately 1.5% of small tribal systems will be selected as a nationally representative sample for Assessment Monitoring. EPA estimates the average annual cost to small tribal systems over the 5-year rule period to be $102. Such cost is based on the labor associated with collecting a sample and preparing it for shipping and represents less than 0.7% of average revenue/sales for small PWSs. All other small PWS expenses PO 00000 Frm 00134 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 (associated with shipping and laboratory fees) are paid by EPA. EPA consulted with tribal officials under the EPA Policy on Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribes early in the process of developing this rule to permit them to have meaningful and timely input into its development. A summary of that consultation is provided in the electronic docket listed in the ADDRESSES section of this notice. G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and because EPA does not think the environmental health or safety risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to children. This action’s health and risk assessments are addressed in section V.D of the preamble. H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution or Use This action is not a ‘‘significant energy action’’ because it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution or use of energy. This is a national drinking water occurrence study that was submitted to OMB for review. I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act and 1 CFR Part 51 This action involves technical standards. This rule uses methods developed by the Agency and two major voluntary consensus method organizations to support UCMR 4 monitoring. The voluntary consensus method organizations are Standard Methods and ASTM International. EPA E:\FR\FM\20DER1.SGM 20DER1 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 244 / Tuesday, December 20, 2016 / Rules and Regulations identified acceptable consensus method organization standards for the analysis of manganese and germanium. In addition, there are several consensus standards that are approved for compliance monitoring that will be available for use in the analysis of TOC and bromide. A summary of each method along with how the method specifically applies to UCMR 4 can be found in section VI of the preamble. All of these standards are reasonably available for public use. The Agency methods are free for download on EPA’s Web site. The methods in the Standard Method 21st edition are consensus standards, available for purchase from the publisher, and are commonly used by the drinking water community. The methods in the Standard Method Online are consensus standards, available for purchase from the publisher’s Web site, and are commonly used by the drinking water community. The methods from ASTM International are consensus standards, are available for purchase from the publisher’s Web site, and are commonly used by the drinking water community. J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations The EPA concludes that this action is not subject to Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) because it does not establish an environmental health or safety standard. Background information regarding EPA’s consideration of Executive Order 12898 in the development of this final rule is provided in section V.E of this preamble, and an additional supporting document has been placed in the electronic docket listed in the ADDRESSES section of this notice. K. Congressional Review Act (CRA) This action is subject to the CRA, and the EPA will submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES VIII. References ASDWA. 2013. Insufficient Resources for State Drinking Water Programs Threaten Public Health: An Analysis of State Drinking Water Programs’ Resources and Needs. December 2013. ASTM. 2010. ASTM D5673–10—Standard Test Method for Elements in Water by Inductively Coupled Plasma-Mass Spectrometry. Approved August 1, 2010. Available for purchase on the Internet at http://www.astm.org/Standards/D5673.htm. ASTM. 2012. ASTM D6581–12—Standard Test Methods for Bromate, Bromide, VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:50 Dec 19, 2016 Jkt 241001 Chlorate, and Chlorite in Drinking Water by Suppressed Ion Chromatography. Available for purchase on the Internet at http:// www.astm.org/Standards/D6581.htm. Fischer, W.J., Garthwaite, I., Miles, C.O., Ross, K.M., Aggen, J.B., Chamberlin, A.R., Towers, N.R., Dietrich, D.R. 2001. CongenerIndependent Immunoassay for Microcystins and Nodularins. Environmental Science & Technology, 35 (24), pp 4849–4856. Available for purchase on the Internet at http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/es011182f. McElhiney, J., and Lawton, L.A. 2005. Detection of the Cyanobacterial Hepatotoxins Microcystins. Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology, 203 (3): 219–230. Available for purchase on the Internet at http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.taap.2004.06.002. Ohio EPA. 2015. Ohio EPA Total (Extracellular and Intracellular) Microcystins—Adda by ELISA Analytical Methodology. Version 2.0. January 2015. Available on the Internet at http:// www.epa.ohio.gov/Portals/28/documents/ habs/HAB_Analytical_Methodology.pdf. SM Online. 2000a. SM 5310B–00—The Determination of Total Organic Carbon by High-Temperature Combustion Method. Standard Methods Online. Available for purchase on the Internet at http:// www.standardmethods.org. SM Online. 2000b. SM 5310C–00—Total organic carbon by Persulfate-UV or HeatedPersulfate Oxidation Method. Standard Methods Online. Available for purchase on the Internet at http:// www.standardmethods.org. SM Online. 2000c. SM 5310D–00—Total organic carbon by Wet-Oxidation Method. Standard Methods Online. Available for purchase on the Internet at http:// www.standardmethods.org. SM. 2005a. SM 3125—Metals by Inductively Coupled Plasma/Mass Spectrometry. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water & Wastewater, 21st edition. American Public Health Association, 800 I Street NW., Washington, DC 20001– 3710. SM. 2005b. SM 5310B—The Determination of Total Organic Carbon by HighTemperature Combustion Method. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water & Wastewater, 21st edition. American Public Health Association, 800 I Street NW., Washington, DC 20001–3710. SM. 2005c. SM 5310C–00—Total Organic Carbon by Persulfate-UV or Heated-Persulfate Oxidation Method. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water & Wastewater, 21st edition. American Public Health Association, 800 I Street NW., Washington, DC 20001– 3710. SM. 2005d. SM 5310D—Total Organic Carbon by Wet-Oxidation Method. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water & Wastewater, 21st edition. American Public Health Association, 800 I Street NW., Washington, DC 20001–3710. SM Online. 2009. SM 3125–09—Metals by Inductively Coupled Plasma/Mass Spectrometry (Editorial revisions, 2011). Standard Methods Online. Available for purchase on the Internet at http:// www.standardmethods.org. USEPA. 1993. EPA Method 300.0— Determination of Inorganic Anions by Ion PO 00000 Frm 00135 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 92683 Chromatography Samples. Revision 2.1. Available on the Internet at https:// www.nemi.gov. USEPA. 1994. EPA Method 200.8— Determination of Trace Elements in Waters and Wastes by Inductively Coupled PlasmaMass Spectrometry. Revision 5.4. Available on the Internet at https://www.nemi.gov/. USEPA. 1997. EPA Method 300.1— Determination of Inorganic Anions in Drinking Water by Ion Chromatography. Revision 1.0. 1997. Available on the Internet at https://www.epa.gov/ dwanalyticalmethods. USEPA. 1998a. National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Consumer Confidence Reports; Proposed Rule. Federal Register. Vol. 63, No. 30, p. 7606, February 13, 1998. USEPA. 1998b. National Primary Drinking Water Regulation: Consumer Confidence Reports; Final Rule. Federal Register. Vol. 63, No. 160, p. 44512, 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. 2001a. Statistical Design and Sample Selection for the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation (1999). EPA 815–R–01–004, August 2001. USEPA. 2001b. EPA Method 317.0— Determination of Inorganic Oxyhalide Disinfection By-Products in Drinking Water Using Ion Chromatography with the Addition of a Postcolumn Reagent for Trace Bromate Analysis. Revision 2.0. EPA 815–B–01–001. Available on the Internet at https:// www.epa.gov/dwanalyticalmethods. USEPA. 2002. EPA Method 326.0— Determination of Inorganic Oxyhalide Disinfection By-Products in Drinking Water Using Ion Chromatography Incorporating the Addition of a Suppressor Acidified Postcolumn Reagent for Trace Bromate Analysis. Revision 1.0. EPA 815–R–03–007. Available on the Internet at https:// www.epa.gov/dwanalyticalmethods. USEPA. 2003. EPA Method 552.3— Determination of Haloacetic Acids and Dalapon in Drinking Water by Liquid-Liquid Microextraction, Derivatization, and Gas Chromatography with Electron Capture Detection. Revision 1.0. EPA 815–B–03–002, July 2003. Available on the Internet at https://www.epa.gov/dwanalyticalmethods. USEPA. 2005. EPA Method 415.3— Determination of Total Organic Carbon and Specific UV Absorbance at 254 nm in Source Water and Drinking Water. Revision 1.1. EPA/600/R–05/055, February 2005. Available on the Internet at https://www.epa.gov/waterresearch/epa-drinking-water-researchmethods. USEPA. 2007. Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation (UCMR) for Public Water Systems Revisions. Federal Register. Vol. 72, No. 2, p. 368, January 4, 2007. USEPA. 2009a. EPA Method 557— Determination of Haloacetic Acids, Bromate, and Dalapon in Drinking Water by Ion Chromatography Electrospray Ionization Tandem Mass Spectrometry (IC–ESI–MS/ MS). Version 1.0. EPA 815–B–09–012, September 2009. Available on the Internet at https://www.epa.gov/dwanalyticalmethods. E:\FR\FM\20DER1.SGM 20DER1 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES 92684 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 244 / Tuesday, December 20, 2016 / Rules and Regulations USEPA. 2009b. EPA Method 415.3— Determination of Total Organic Carbon and Specific UV Absorbance at 254 nm in Source Water and Drinking Water. Revision 1.2. EPA/600/R–09/122, September 2009. Available on the Internet at https:// www.epa.gov/water-research/epa-drinkingwater-research-methods. USEPA. 2009c. 2006 Community Water Survey. Volume II: Detailed Tables and Survey Methodology. EPA 815–R–09–002, May 2009. Available on the Internet at https://www.epa.gov/ dwstandardsregulations/community-watersystem-survey. USEPA. 2012a. Revisions to the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation (UCMR 3) for Public Water Systems; Final Rule. Federal Register. Vol. 77, No. 85, p. 26072, May 2, 2012. USEPA. 2012b. EPA Method 525.3— Determination of Semivolatile Organic Chemicals in Drinking Water by Solid Phase Extraction and Capillary Column Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry (GC/ MS). Version 1.0. EPA/600/R–12/010, February 2012. Available on the Internet at https://www.epa.gov/water-research/epadrinking-water-research-methods. USEPA. 2013. Meetings and Materials for the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Program. Available on the Internet at https:// www.epa.gov/dwucmr. USEPA. 2014. Stakeholder Meeting Slides Regarding Revisions to the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation. Available on the Internet at https:// www.epa.gov/dwucmr. USEPA. 2015a. Revisions to the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR 4) for Public Water Systems and Announcement of a Public Meeting; Proposed Rule. Federal Register. Vol 80, No. 238, p. 76897, December 11, 2015. USEPA. 2015b. EPA Method 544— Determination of Microcystins and Nodularin in Drinking Water by Solid Phase Extraction and Liquid Chromatography/Tandem Mass Spectrometry (LC/MS/MS). Version 1.0. EPA– 600–R–14/474, February 2015. Available on the Internet at https://www.epa.gov/waterresearch/epa-drinking-water-researchmethods. USEPA. 2015c. EPA Method 545— Determination of Cylindrospermopsin and Anatoxin-a in Drinking Water by Liquid Chromatography Electrospray Ionization Tandem Mass Spectrometry (LC/ESI–MS/ MS). EPA 815–R–15–009, April 2015. Available on the Internet at https:// www.epa.gov/dwanalyticalmethods. USEPA. 2015d. EPA Method 541— Determination of 1-Butanol, 1,4-Dioxane, 2Methoxyethanol And 2-Propen-1-ol in Drinking Water by Solid Phase Extraction and Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry. EPA 815–R–15–011, November 2015. Available on the Internet at https://www.epa.gov/dwanalyticalmethods. USEPA. 2015e. EPA Method 530— Determination of Select Semivolatile Organic Chemicals in Drinking Water by Solid Phase Extraction and Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry (GC/MS). Version 1.0. EPA/ 600/R–14/442, January 2015. Available on the Internet at https://www.epa.gov/water- VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:50 Dec 19, 2016 Jkt 241001 research/epa-drinking-water-researchmethods. USEPA. 2015f. Drinking Water Health Advisory for the Cyanobacterial Microcystin Toxins. EPA 820–R–15–100, June 2015. Available on the Internet at https:// www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-06/ documents/microcystins-report-2015.pdf. USEPA. 2016a. Information Collection Request for the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR 4). EPA 815–B–16– 019, November 2016. USEPA. 2016b. Response to Comments Document for the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR 4). EPA 815–R–16– 002, October 2016. USEPA. 2016c. UCMR 4 Contaminants— Information Compendium for Final Rule. EPA 815–B–16–020, October 2016. USEPA. 2016d. UCMR 4 Laboratory Approval Requirements and Information Document. EPA 815–B–16–026, November 2016. USEPA. 2016e. EPA Method 546— Determination of Total Microcystins and Nodularins in Drinking Water and Ambient Water by Adda Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay. EPA 815–B–16–011, August 2016. Available on the Internet at https://www.epa.gov/dwanalyticalmethods. USEPA. 2016f. Meetings and Materials for the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Program. Available on the Internet at https:// www.epa.gov/dwucmr/unregulatedcontaminant-monitoring-rule-ucmr-meetingsand-materials. Zeck, A., Weller, M.G., Bursill, D., Niessner, R. 2001. Generic Microcystin Immunoassay Based on Monoclonal Antibodies Against Adda. Analyst, 126: 2002–2007. Available for purchase on the Internet at http://dx.doi.org/10.1039/ B105064H. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 141 Environmental protection, Chemicals, Incorporation by reference, Indianlands, Intergovernmental relations, Radiation protection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Water supply. Dated: December 8, 2016. Gina McCarthy, Administrator. For the reasons set forth in the preamble, EPA amends 40 CFR part 141 as follows: PART 141—NATIONAL PRIMARY DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS 1. The authority citation for part 141 continues to read as follows: ■ Authority: 42 U.S.C. 300f, 300g–1, 300g– 2, 300g–3, 300g–4, 300g–5, 300g–6, 300j–4, 300j–9, and 300j–11. Subpart D—Reporting and Recordkeeping 2. In § 141.35: a. Revise the third sentence in paragraph (b)(1). ■ ■ PO 00000 Frm 00136 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 b. Revise the second and third sentences in paragraph (b)(2). ■ c. Remove ‘‘October 1, 2012,’’ and add in its place ‘‘December 31, 2017,’’ in paragraph (c)(1). ■ d. Revise the second and third sentences in paragraph (c)(2). ■ e. Revise the last sentence in paragraph (c)(3)(i). ■ f. Revise the fifth sentence in paragraph (c)(3)(ii). ■ g. Remove ‘‘October 1, 2012,’’ and add in its place April 19, 2017, in paragraph (c)(4). ■ h. Revise paragraphs (c)(5)(i), (c)(6) introductory text, (d)(2), and (e). The revisions and additions read as follows: ■ § 141.35 Reporting for unregulated contaminant monitoring results. * * * * * (b) * * * (1) * * * Information that must be submitted using EPA’s electronic data reporting system must be submitted through: https://www.epa.gov/dwucmr. * * * (2) * * * If you have received a letter from EPA or your State concerning your required monitoring and your system does not meet the applicability criteria for UCMR established in § 141.40(a)(1) or (2), or if a change occurs at your system that may affect your requirements under UCMR as defined in § 141.40(a)(3) through (5), you must mail or email a letter to EPA, as specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this section. The letter must be from your PWS Official and must include your PWS Identification (PWSID) Code along with 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.* * * (c) * * * (2) * * * You must provide your sampling location(s) and inventory information by December 31, 2017, using EPA’s electronic data reporting system. You must submit, verify or update the following information for each sampling location, or for each approved representative sampling location (as specified in paragraph (c)(3) of this section regarding representative sampling locations): PWSID Code; PWS Name; PWS Facility Identification Code; PWS Facility Name; PWS Facility Type; Water Source Type; Sampling Point Identification Code; Sampling Point Name; and Sampling Point Type Code; (as defined in Table 1 of paragraph (e) of this section). (3) * * * (i) * * * You must submit a copy of the existing alternate EPTDS sampling E:\FR\FM\20DER1.SGM 20DER1 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 244 / Tuesday, December 20, 2016 / Rules and Regulations plan or your representative well proposal, as appropriate, April 19, 2017, as specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this section. (ii) * * * You must submit the following information for each proposed representative sampling location: PWSID Code; PWS Name; PWS Facility Identification Code; PWS Facility Name; PWS Facility Type; Sampling Point Identification Code; and Sampling Point Name (as defined in Table 1, paragraph (e) of this section). * * * * * * * * (5) * * * (i) General rescheduling notification requirements. Large systems may change their monitoring schedules up to December 31, 2017, using EPA’s electronic data reporting system, as specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this section. After this date has passed, if your PWS cannot sample according to your assigned sampling schedule (e.g., because of budget constraints, or if a sampling location will be closed during the scheduled month of monitoring), you must mail or email a letter to EPA, as specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this section, prior to the scheduled sampling date. You must include an explanation of why the samples cannot be taken according to the assigned schedule, and you must provide the alternative schedule you are requesting. You must not reschedule monitoring specifically to avoid sample collection during a suspected vulnerable period. You are subject to your assigned UCMR sampling schedule or the schedule that you revised on or before December 31, 2017, unless and until you receive a letter from EPA specifying a new schedule. * * * * * (6) Reporting monitoring results. For UCMR samples, you must report all data elements specified in Table 1 of paragraph (e) of this section, using EPA’s electronic data reporting system. You also must report any changes, relative to what is currently posted, made to data elements 1 through 9 to EPA in writing, explaining the nature and purpose of the proposed change, as specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this section. * * * * * (d) * * * 92685 (2) Reporting sampling information. You must provide your sampling location(s) by December 31, 2017, using EPA’s electronic data reporting system, as specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this section. If this information changes, you must report updates, including new sources and sampling locations that are put in use before or during the PWS’ UCMR sampling period, to EPA’s electronic data reporting system within 30 days of the change, as specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this section. You must record all data elements listed in Table 1 of paragraph (e) of this section on each sample form and sample bottle, as appropriate, provided to you by the UCMR Sampling Coordinator. You must send this information as specified in the instructions of your sampling kit, which will include the due date and return address. You must report any changes made in data elements 1 through 9 by emailing 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 for UCMR monitoring. TABLE 1—UNREGULATED CONTAMINANT MONITORING REPORTING REQUIREMENTS Data element Definition 1. Public Water System Identification (PWSID) Code. The code used to identify each PWS. 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. Unique name, assigned once by the PWS. An identification code established 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. Unique name, assigned once by the PWS, for every facility ID (e.g., Treatment Plant). 2. Public Water System Name ....... 3. Public Water System Facility Identification Code. 4. Public Water System Facility Name. 5. Public Water System Facility Type. mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES 6. Water Source Type ..................... 7. Sampling Code. Point Identification 8. Sampling Point Name ................. VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:50 Dec 19, 2016 That code that identifies that type of facility as either: CC = consecutive connection. DS = distribution system. IN = source water influent. SS = sampling station. TP = treatment plant. OT = other. The type of source water that supplies a water system facility. Systems must report one of the following codes for each sampling location: SW = surface water (to be reported for water facilities that are served entirely by a surface water source during the twelve-month period). GW = ground water (to be reported for water facilities that are served entirely by a ground water source during the twelve-month period). 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. MX = mixed water (to be reported for water facilities that are served by a mix of surface water, ground water and/or ground water under the direct influence of surface water during the twelve-month period). An identification code established 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, source water influent 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. Unique sample point name, assigned once by the PWS, for every sample point ID (e.g., Entry Point). Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00137 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20DER1.SGM 20DER1 92686 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 244 / Tuesday, December 20, 2016 / Rules and Regulations TABLE 1—UNREGULATED CONTAMINANT MONITORING REPORTING REQUIREMENTS—Continued Data element Definition 9. Sampling Point Type Code ......... A code that identifies the location of the sampling point as either: SR = source water taken from plant influent; untreated water entering the water treatment plant (i.e., a location prior to any treatment). EP = entry point to the distribution system. DS = distribution system sample. All of the disinfectants/oxidants that have been added prior to the entry point to the distribution system. Please select all that apply: PEMB = Permanganate. HPXB = Hydrogen peroxide. CLGA = Gaseous chlorine. CLOF = Offsite Generated Hypochlorite (stored as a liquid form). CLON = Onsite Generated Hypochlorite. CAGC = Chloramine (formed with gaseous chlorine). CAOF = Chloramine (formed with offsite hypochlorite). CAON = Chloramine (formed with onsite hypochlorite). CLDB = Chlorine dioxide. OZON = Ozone. ULVL = Ultraviolet light. OTHD = All other types of disinfectant/oxidant. NODU = No disinfectant/oxidant used. Treatment information associated with the sample point. Please select all that apply: CON = Conventional (non-softening, consisting of at least coagulation/sedimentation basins and filtration). SFN = Softening. RBF = River bank filtration. PSD = Pre-sedimentation. INF = In-line filtration. DFL = Direct filtration. SSF = Slow sand filtration. BIO = Biological filtration (operated with an intention of maintaining biological activity within filter). UTR = Unfiltered treatment for surface water source. GWD = Groundwater system with disinfection only. PAC = Application of powder activated carbon. GAC = Granular activated carbon adsorption (not part of filters in CON, SCO, INF, DFL, or SSF). AIR = Air stripping (packed towers, diffused gas contactors). POB = Pre-oxidation with chlorine (applied before coagulation for CON or SFN plants or before filtration for other filtration plants). MFL = Membrane filtration. IEX = Ionic exchange. DAF = Dissolved air floatation. CWL = Clear well/finished water storage without aeration. CWA = Clear well/finished water storage with aeration. ADS = Aeration in distribution system (localized treatment). OTH = All other types of treatment. NTU = No treatment used. DKN = Do not know. Disinfectant residual type in the distribution system for each HAA sample. CL2 = Chlorine (i.e., originating from addition of free chlorine only). CLO2 = chlorine dioxide. CLM = Chloramines (originating from with addition of chlorine and ammonia or pre-formed chloramines). CAC = Chlorine and chloramines (if being mixed from chlorinated and chloroaminated water). NOD = No disinfectant residual. The date the sample is collected, reported as 4-digit year, 2-digit month, and 2-digit day (YYYY/MM/DD). 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. The unregulated contaminant for which the sample is being analyzed. The identification code of the analytical method used. Laboratory assigned extraction batch ID. Must be unique for each extraction batch within the laboratory for each method. For CCC samples report the Analysis Batch Identification Code as the value for this field. For methods without an extraction batch, leave this field null. Date for the start of the extraction batch (YYYY/MM/DD). For methods without an extraction batch, leave this field null. Laboratory assigned analysis batch ID. Must be unique for each analysis batch within the laboratory for each method. Date for the start of the analysis batch (YYYY/MM/DD). The type of sample collected and/or prepared, as well as the fortification level. Permitted values include: CF = concentration fortified; the concentration of a known contaminant added to a field sample reported with sample analysis types LFSM, LFSMD, LFB, CCC and QCS. CCC = continuing calibration check; a calibration standard containing the contaminant, the internal standard, and surrogate analyzed to verify the existing calibration for those contaminants. FS = field sample; sample collected and submitted for analysis under this rule. IS = internal standard; a standard that measures the relative response of contaminants. 10. Disinfectant Type ...................... 11. Treatment Information .............. 12. Disinfectant Residual Type ....... 13. Sample Collection Date ............ 14. Sample Identification Code ....... 15. Contaminant .............................. 16. Analytical Method Code ............ 17. Extraction Batch Identification Code. mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES 18. Extraction Date ......................... 19. Analysis Batch Identification Code. 20. Analysis Date ............................ 21. Sample Analysis Type .............. VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:50 Dec 19, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00138 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20DER1.SGM 20DER1 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 244 / Tuesday, December 20, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 92687 TABLE 1—UNREGULATED CONTAMINANT MONITORING REPORTING REQUIREMENTS—Continued Data element Definition 22. Analytical Results—Sign ........... 23. Analytical Result—Measured Value. 24. Additional Value ........................ 25. Laboratory Identification Code .. 26. Sample Event Code .................. 27. Bloom Occurrence .................... mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES 28. Cyanotoxin Occurrence ............ 29. Indicator of Possible Bloom— Treatment. VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:50 Dec 19, 2016 LFB = laboratory fortified blank; an aliquot of reagent water fortified with known quantities of the contaminants and all preservation compounds. LRB = laboratory reagent blank; an aliquot of reagent water treated exactly as a field sample, including the addition of preservatives, internal standards, and surrogates to determine if interferences are present in the laboratory, reagents, or other equipment. LFSM = laboratory fortified sample matrix; a UCMR field sample with a known amount of the contaminant of interest and all preservation compounds added. LFSMD = laboratory fortified sample matrix duplicate; duplicate of the laboratory fortified sample matrix. QCS = quality control sample; a sample prepared with a source external to the one used for initial calibration and CCC. The QCS is used to check calibration standard integrity. QHS = quality HAA sample; HAA sample collected and submitted for quality control purposes. SUR = surrogate standard; a standard that assesses method performance for each extraction. 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— Measured Value.’’ The actual numeric value of the analytical results for: Field samples; laboratory fortified matrix samples; laboratory fortified sample matrix duplicates; and concentration fortified. Represents the true value or the fortified concentration for spiked samples for QC Sample Analysis Types (CCC, EQC, LFB, LFSM and LFSMD). For Sample Analysis Type FS and LRB and for IS and surrogate QC Contaminants, leave this field null. 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. 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: SEC1, SEC2, SEC3, SEC4, SEC5, SEC6, SEC7 and SEC8—represent samples collected to meet UCMR Assessment Monitoring requirements for cyanotoxins; where ‘‘SEC1’’ represents the first sampling period, ‘‘SEC2’’ the second period and so forth, for all eight sampling events. SEA1, SEA2, SEA3 and SEA4—represent samples collected to meet UCMR Assessment Monitoring requirements for the additional contaminants; where ‘‘SEA1’’ and ‘‘SEA2’’ represent the first and second sampling period for all water types; and ‘‘SEA3’’ and ‘‘SEA4’’ represent the third and fourth sampling period for SW and GU sources only. A yes or no answer provided by the PWS for each cyanotoxin sample event. Question: Preceding the finished water sample collection, did you observe an algal bloom in your source waters near the intake? YES = if yes, select all the YESs that apply: YD = yes, on the day the UCMR cyanotoxin sample was collected. YW = yes, between the day the sample was taken and the past week. YM = yes, between the past week and past month. YY = yes, between the past month and past year. YP = yes, prior to the past year. NO = have never seen a bloom. A yes or no answer provided by the PWS for each cyanotoxin sample event. Question: Preceding the finished water sample collection, were cyanotoxins ever detected in your source waters near the intake and prior to any treatment (based on sampling by you or another party)? YES = if yes, select all the YESs that apply: YD = yes, on the day the UCMR cyanotoxin sample was collected. YW = yes, between the day the sample was taken and the past week. YM = yes, between the past week and past month. YY = yes, between the past month and past year. YP = yes, prior to the past year. NO = have never detected cyanotoxins in source water. NS = unaware of any source water cyanotoxin sampling. Select all that apply (i.e., all that were detected) if you answered YES to detecting cyanotoxins in source water: MIC = Microcystins. CYL = Cylindrospermopsin. ANA = Anatoxin-A. SAX = Saxitoxins. OTH = Other. DK = do not know. A yes or no answer provided by the PWS for each cyanotoxin sample event. Question: Preceding the finished water sample collection, did you notice any changes in your treatment system operation and/or treated water quality that may indicate a bloom in the source water? YES = if yes, select all that apply: DFR = Decrease in filter runtimes. ITF = Increase in turbidity in filtered water. ICD = Need for increased coagulant dose. TOI = Increase in taste and odor issues in finished water. IOD = Need for increase in oxidant/disinfectant dose. IDB = Increase in TTHM/HAA5 in finished water. Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00139 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20DER1.SGM 20DER1 92688 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 244 / Tuesday, December 20, 2016 / Rules and Regulations TABLE 1—UNREGULATED CONTAMINANT MONITORING REPORTING REQUIREMENTS—Continued Data element Definition OTH = Describe other changes. NO = no changes. 30. Indicator of Possible Bloom— A yes or no answer provided by the PWS for each cyanotoxin sample event. Source Water Quality Parameters. Question: Preceding the finished water sample collection, did you observe any notable changes in source water quality parameters (if measured)? YES = if yes, select all that apply to the source water: ITP = Increase in water temperature. ITU = Increase in turbidity. IAL = Increase in alkalinity. ITO = Increase in total organic carbon. ICD = Increase in chlorine demand. IPH = Increase in pH. ICA = Increase in chlorophyll a. IPY = Increase in phycocyanin. INU = Increase in nutrients (example: nitrogen or phosphorus). OTH = Describe other changes. NO = no changes observed. Subpart E—Special Regulations, Including Monitoring Regulations and Prohibition on Lead Use 3. In § 141.40: a. Remove ‘‘December 31, 2010’’ and add in its place ‘‘December 31, 2015’’ in paragraph (a) introductory text. ■ b. Revise paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(2)(i)(A), (a)(2)(ii)(A) and (C), (a)(3), and (a)(4)(i)(B) and (C). ■ c. Remove ‘‘October 1, 2012.’’ and add in its place ‘‘December 31, 2017.’’ in paragraph (a)(4)(i). ■ d. Revise paragraph (a)(4)(ii) introductory text. ■ e. Remove and reserve paragraph (a)(4)(ii)(F). ■ f. Add paragraph (a)(4)(iii). ■ g. Remove ‘‘August 1, 2012.’’ and add in its place ‘‘February 21, 2017, and necessary application material April 19, 2017.’’ in paragraph (a)(5)(ii). ■ ■ h. Revise paragraph (a)(5)(v), the second sentence in paragraph (a)(5)(vi), and paragraph (c). The revisions and addition read as follows: ■ § 141.40 Monitoring requirements for unregulated contaminants. (a) * * * (1) Applicability to transient noncommunity systems. If you own or operate a transient non-community water system, you are not subject to monitoring requirements in this section. (2) * * * (i) * * * (A) Assessment monitoring. You must monitor for the contaminants on List 1, per Table 1, UCMR Contaminant List, in paragraph (a)(3) of this section. If you serve a retail 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. * * * * * (ii) * * * (A) Assessment monitoring. You must monitor for the contaminants on List 1 per Table 1, in paragraph (a)(3) of this section, if you are notified by your State or EPA that you are part of the State Monitoring Plan for Assessment Monitoring. * * * * * (C) Pre-screen testing. You must monitor for the 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 contaminants are provided in the following table: TABLE 1—UCMR CONTAMINANT LIST 1—Contaminant 2—CAS Registry No. 3—Analytical methods a 4—Minimum reporting level b 5—Sampling location c 6—Period during which monitoring to be completed mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES List 1: Assessment Monitoring Cyanotoxin Chemical Contaminants ‘‘total microcystin’’ ................. anatoxin-a ............................. cylindrospermopsin ............... microcystin-LA ...................... microcystin-LF ...................... microcystin-LR ...................... microcystin-LY ...................... microcystin-RR ..................... microcystin-YR ...................... nodularin ............................... N/A ................ 64285–06–9 .. 143545–90–8 96180–79–9 .. 154037–70–4 101043–37–2 123304–10–9 111755–37–4 101064–48–6 118399–22–7 EPA EPA EPA EPA EPA EPA EPA EPA EPA EPA 546 545 545 544 544 544 544 544 544 544 ......................... ......................... ......................... ......................... ......................... ......................... ......................... ......................... ......................... ......................... 0.3 μg/L ............... 0.03 μg/L ............. 0.09 μg/L ............. 0.008 μg/L ........... 0.006 μg/L ........... 0.02 μg/L ............. 0.009 μg/L ........... 0.006 μg/L ........... 0.02 μg/L ............. 0.005 μg/L ........... EPTDS EPTDS EPTDS EPTDS EPTDS EPTDS EPTDS EPTDS EPTDS EPTDS ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... 3/1/2018–11/30/2020. 3/1/2018–11/30/2020. 3/1/2018–11/30/2020. 3/1/2018–11/30/2020. 3/1/2018–11/30/2020. 3/1/2018–11/30/2020. 3/1/2018–11/30/2020. 3/1/2018–11/30/2020. 3/1/2018–11/30/2020. 3/1/2018–11/30/2020. List 1: Assessment Monitoring Additional Chemical Contaminants Metals germanium ............................ VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:50 Dec 19, 2016 7440–56–4 .... Jkt 241001 EPA 200.8, ASTM D5673–10, SM 3125. PO 00000 Frm 00140 Fmt 4700 0.3 μg/L ............... Sfmt 4700 EPTDS ...................... E:\FR\FM\20DER1.SGM 20DER1 1/1/2018–12/31/2020. Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 244 / Tuesday, December 20, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 92689 TABLE 1—UCMR CONTAMINANT LIST—Continued 1—Contaminant 2—CAS Registry No. manganese ........................... 7439–96–5 .... 4—Minimum reporting level b 5—Sampling location c 0.4 μg/L ............... EPTDS ...................... 3—Analytical methods a EPA 200.8, ASTM D5673–10, SM 3125. 6—Period during which monitoring to be completed 1/1/2018–12/31/2020. Pesticides and a Pesticide Manufacturing Byproduct alphahexachlorocyclohexane. chlorpyrifos ........................... dimethipin ............................. ethoprop ................................ oxyfluorfen ............................ profenofos ............................. tebuconazole ........................ total permethrin (cis- & trans). tribufos .................................. 319–84–6 ...... EPA 525.3 ...................... 0.01 μg/L ............. EPTDS ...................... 1/1/2018–12/31/2020. 2921–88–2 .... 55290–64–7 .. 13194–48–4 .. 42874–03–3 .. 41198–08–7 .. 107534–96–3 52645–53–1 .. EPA EPA EPA EPA EPA EPA EPA ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... 0.03 μg/L ............. 0.2 μg/L ............... 0.03 μg/L ............. 0.05 μg/L ............. 0.3 μg/L ............... 0.2 μg/L ............... 0.04 μg/L ............. EPTDS EPTDS EPTDS EPTDS EPTDS EPTDS EPTDS ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... 1/1/2018–12/31/2020. 1/1/2018–12/31/2020. 1/1/2018–12/31/2020. 1/1/2018–12/31/2020. 1/1/2018–12/31/2020. 1/1/2018–12/31/2020. 1/1/2018–12/31/2020. 78–48–8 ........ EPA 525.3 ...................... 0.07 μg/L ............. EPTDS ...................... 1/1/2018–12/31/2020. D/DBPR HAA location. D/DBPR HAA location. D/DBPR HAA location. 1/1/2018–12/31/2020. EPTDS ...................... EPTDS ...................... EPTDS ...................... 1/1/2018–12/31/2020. 1/1/2018–12/31/2020. 1/1/2018–12/31/2020. EPTDS ...................... EPTDS ...................... EPTDS ...................... 1/1/2018–12/31/2020. 1/1/2018–12/31/2020. 1/1/2018–12/31/2020. Reserved .................. Reserved. Reserved .................. Reserved. 525.3 525.3 525.3 525.3 525.3 525.3 525.3 Brominated Haloacetic Acid (HAA) Groups d e HAA5 .................................... N/A ................ EPA 552.3 or EPA 557 .. N/A ...................... HAA6Br ................................. N/A ................ EPA 552.3 or EPA 557 .. N/A ...................... HAA9 .................................... N/A ................ EPA 552.3 or EPA 557 .. N/A ...................... 1/1/2018–12/31/2020. 1/1/2018–12/31/2020. Alcohols 1-butanol ............................... 2-methoxyethanol ................. 2-propen-1-ol ........................ 71–36–3 ........ 109–86–4 ...... 107–18–6 ...... EPA 541 ......................... EPA 541 ......................... EPA 541 ......................... 2.0 μg/L ............... 0.4 μg/L ............... 0.5 μg/L ............... Other Semivolatile Chemicals butylated hydroxanisole ........ o-toluidine ............................. quinoline ............................... 25013–16–5 .. 95–53–4 ........ 91–22–5 ........ EPA 530 ......................... EPA 530 ......................... EPA 530 ......................... 0.03 μg/L ............. 0.007 μg/L ........... 0.02 μg/L ............. List 2: Screening Survey Reserved .............................. Reserved ....... Reserved ........................ Reserved ............. List 3: Pre-Screen Testing mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES Reserved .............................. Reserved ....... Reserved ........................ Reserved ............. 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 (MRL): The value and unit of measure at or above which the concentration of the contaminant must be measured using the approved analytical methods. If EPA determines, after the first six months of monitoring that the specified MRLs result in excessive resampling, EPA will establish alternate MRLs and will notify affected PWSs and laboratories of the new MRLs. N/A is defined as non-applicable. 5—Sampling Location: The locations within a PWS at which samples must be collected. 6—Period During Which Monitoring to be Completed: The time period during which the sampling and testing will occur for the indicated contaminant. a The analytical procedures shall be performed in accordance with the documents associated with each method, see paragraph (c) of this section. b The MRL is the minimum concentration of each analyte that must be reported to EPA. c With the exception of HAA monitoring, sampling must occur at entry points to the distribution system (EPTDSs), after treatment is applied, that represent each non-emergency water source in routine use over the 12-month period of monitoring. Systems that purchase water with multiple connections from the same wholesaler may select one representative connection from that wholesaler. This EPTDS sampling location must be representative of the highest annual volume connections. If the connection selected as the representative EPTDS is not available for sampling, an alternate highest volume representative connection must be sampled. See 40 CFR 141.35(c)(3) for an explanation of the requirements related to the use of representative GW EPTDSs. Sampling for UCMR 4 HAA groups must be conducted at the Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproduct Rule (D/DBPR) sampling locations (40 CFR 141.622). d UCMR 4 HAA monitoring applies only to those PWSs that are subject to D/DBPR HAA5 monitoring requirements. VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:50 Dec 19, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00141 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20DER1.SGM 20DER1 92690 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 244 / Tuesday, December 20, 2016 / Rules and Regulations e PWSs that purchase 100 percent of their water (‘‘consecutive systems’’) are not required to collect UCMR 4 source water samples for TOC or bromide analyses. Sampling for TOC and bromide must otherwise occur at source water influent locations representing untreated water entering the water treatment plant (i.e., a location prior to any treatment). SW and GWUDI systems subject to the D/DBPR TOC monitoring must use their D/DBPR TOC source water sampling site(s) from 40 CFR 141.132 for UCMR 4 TOC and bromide samples. SW and GWUDI systems that are not subject to D/DBPR TOC monitoring will use their Long Term 2 Enhance Surface Water Treatment Rule (LT2) source water sampling site(s) (40 CFR 141.703) for UCMR 4 TOC and bromide samples. Ground water systems that are subject to the D/DBPRs, and therefore subject to UCMR 4 HAA monitoring, will take TOC and bromide samples at their influents entering their treatment train. TOC and bromide must be collected at the same time as HAA samples. These indicator samples must be collected at a single source water influent using methods already approved for compliance monitoring. TOC methods include: SM 5310 B, SM 5310 C, SM 5310 D (21st edition), or SM 5310 B–00, SM 5310 C–00, SM 5310 D–00 (SM Online), EPA Method 415.3 (Rev. 1.1 or 1.2). Bromide methods include: EPA Methods 300.0 (Rev. 2.1), 300.1 (Rev. 1.0), 317.0 (Rev. 2.0), 326.0 (Rev. 1.0) or ASTM D 6581–12. The MRLs for the individual HAAs are discussed in paragraph (a)(5)(v) of this section. (4) * * * (i) * * * (B) Frequency. You must collect the samples within the timeframe and according to the frequency specified by contaminant type and water source type for each sampling location, as specified in Table 2, in this paragraph. For the second or subsequent round of sampling, if a sample location is nonoperational for more than one month before and one month after the scheduled sampling month (i.e., it is not possible for you to sample within the window specified in Table 2, in this paragraph), you must notify EPA as specified in § 141.35(c)(5) to reschedule your sampling. TABLE 2—MONITORING FREQUENCY BY CONTAMINANT AND WATER SOURCE TYPES Contaminant type List 1 Cyanotoxins Chemicals. List 1 Contaminants—Additional Chemicals. Water source type Frequency 1 Timeframe Surface water or Ground water under the direct influence of surface water (GWUDI). Surface water or GWUDI ............. March–November. 12 months ......... Ground water ................................ 12 months ......... You must monitor twice a month for four consecutive months (total of eight sampling events). Sample events must occur two weeks apart. You must monitor for four consecutive quarters. Sample events must occur three months apart. (Example: If first monitoring is in January, the second monitoring must occur any time in April, the third any time in July and the fourth any time in October). You must monitor twice in a consecutive 12-month period. Sample events must occur 5–7 months apart. (Example: If the first monitoring event is in April, the second monitoring event must occur any time in September, October or November). 1 Systems must assign a sample event code for each contaminant listed in Table 1. Sample event codes must be assigned by the PWS for each sample event. For more information on sample event codes see § 141.35(e) Table 1. (C) Location. You must collect samples for each List 1 Assessment Monitoring contaminant, and, if applicable, for each List 2 Screening Survey, or List 3 Pre-Screen Testing contaminant, as specified in Table 1, in paragraph (a)(3) of this section. Samples must be collected at each sample point that is specified in column 5 and footnote c of Table 1, in paragraph (a)(3) of this section. PWSs conducting List 1 monitoring for the brominated HAA groups must collect TOC and bromide samples as specified in footnote d of Table 1, in paragraph (a)(3) of this section. If you are a GW system with multiple EPTDSs, and you request and receive approval from EPA or the State for sampling at representative EPTDS(s), as specified in § 141.35(c)(3), you must collect your samples from the approved representative sampling location(s). * * * * * (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)(ii)(A) through (H) of this section. If EPA or the State informs you that they will be collecting your UCMR samples, you must assist them in identifying the appropriate sampling locations and in collecting the samples. * * * * * (iii) Phased sample analysis for microcystins. You must collect the three required samples (one each for EPA Methods 544, 545 and 546 (ELISA) at the EPTDS) for each sampling event, but not all samples may need to be analyzed. If the Method 546 ELISA result is less than 0.3 mg/L, report that result and do not analyze the EPA Method 544 sample for that sample event. If the Method 546 ELISA result is greater than or equal to 0.3 mg/L, report the value and analyze the other microcystin sample using EPA Method 544. You must analyze the EPA Method 545 sample for each sample event for Cylindrospermopsin and anatoxin-a only. * * * * * (5) * * * (v) Method defined quality control. You must ensure that your laboratory analyzes Laboratory Fortified Blanks and conducts 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. The following HAA results must be reported using EPA’s electronic data reporting system for quality control purposes. mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES TABLE 4—HAA QC RESULTS 2—CAS Registry No. 1—Contaminant 3—Analytical methods a 4—Minimum reporting level b 5—HAA6Br Group Brominated Haloacetic Acid (HAA) Groups Bromochloroacetic acid (BCAA) ...... Bromodichloroacetic acid (BDCAA) VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:50 Dec 19, 2016 5589–96–8 71133–14–7 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 EPA 552.3 or EPA 557 ...... EPA 552.3 or EPA 557 ...... Frm 00142 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 0.3 μg/L. 0.5 μg/L. E:\FR\FM\20DER1.SGM 20DER1 6—HAA9 Group 7—HAA5 Group Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 244 / Tuesday, December 20, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 92691 TABLE 4—HAA QC RESULTS—Continued 3—Analytical methods a 2—CAS Registry No. 1—Contaminant 4—Minimum reporting level b Chlorodibromoacetic acid (CDBAA) Tribromoacetic acid (TBAA) ............ Monobromoacetic acid (MBAA) ....... 5278–95–5 75–96–7 79–08–3 EPA 552.3 or EPA 557 ...... EPA 552.3 or EPA 557 ...... EPA 552.3 or EPA 557 ...... 0.3 μg/L ........ 2.0 μg/L. 0.3 μg/L. Dibromoacetic acid (DBAA) ............. 631–64–1 EPA 552.3 or EPA 557 ...... 0.3 μg/L ........ Dichloroacetic acid (DCAA) ............. Monochloroacetic acid (MCAA) ....... Trichloroacetic acid (TCAA) ............. 79–43–6 79–11–8 76–03–9 EPA 552.3 or EPA 557 ...... EPA 552.3 or EPA 557 ...... EPA 552.3 or EPA 557 ...... 5—HAA6Br Group 0.2 μg/L. 2.0 μg/L ........ 0.5 μg/L. 6—HAA9 Group 7—HAA5 Group HAA6Br HAA9 HAA5 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES 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 (MRL): The value and unit of measure at or above which the concentration of the contaminant must be measured using the approved analytical methods. If EPA determines, after the first six months of monitoring that the specified MRLs result in excessive resampling, EPA will establish alternate MRLs and will notify affected PWSs and laboratories of the new MRLs. 5–7—HAA groups identified in paragraph (a)(3) of this section to be monitored as UCMR contaminants. a The analytical procedures shall be performed in accordance with the documents associated with each method, see paragraph (c) of this section, and must meet all quality control requirements outlined paragraph (a)(5) of this section. b The MRL is the minimum concentration of each analyte that must be reported to EPA. (vi) * * * You must require your laboratory to submit these data electronically to the State and EPA using EPA’s electronic data reporting system, accessible at https:// www.epa.gov/dwucmr, within 120 days from the sample collection date. * * * * * * * * (c) Incorporation by reference. These standards are incorporated by reference into this section with the approval of the Director of the Federal Register under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. All approved material is available for inspection either electronically at http:// www.regulations.gov, in hard copy at the Water Docket, EPA/DC, and from the sources as follows. The Public Reading Room (EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC) is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for this Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, and the telephone number for the Water Docket is (202) 566–2426. The material is also available for inspection at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call (202) 741–6030 or go to http://www.archives.gov/ federal-register/cfr/about.html. (1) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Water Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20004. (i) Method 200.8 ‘‘Determination of Trace Elements in Waters and Wastes by Inductively Coupled Plasma—Mass Spectrometry,’’ Revision 5.4, EMMC Version, 1994. Available on the Internet at https://www.nemi.gov. VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:50 Dec 19, 2016 Jkt 241001 (ii) Method 300.0 ‘‘Determination of Inorganic Anions by Ion Chromatography Samples,’’ Revision 2.1, August 1993. Available on the Internet at https://www.nemi.gov. (iii) Method 300.1 ‘‘Determination of Inorganic Anions in Drinking Water by Ion Chromatography,’’ Revision 1.0, 1997. Available on the Internet at https://www.epa.gov/ dwanalyticalmethods. (iv) Method 317.0 ‘‘Determination of Inorganic Oxyhalide Disinfection ByProducts in Drinking Water Using Ion Chromatography with the Addition of a Postcolumn Reagent for Trace Bromate Analysis,’’ Revision 2.0, July 2001, EPA 815–B–01–001. Available on the Internet at https://www.epa.gov/ dwanalyticalmethods. (v) Method 326.0 ‘‘Determination of Inorganic Oxyhalide Disinfection ByProducts in Drinking Water Using Ion Chromatography Incorporating the Addition of a Suppressor Acidified Postcolumn Reagent for Trace Bromate Analysis,’’ Revision 1.0, June 2002, EPA 815–R–03–007. Available on the Internet at https://www.epa.gov/ dwanalyticalmethods. (vi) Method 415.3 ‘‘Determination of Total Organic Carbon and Specific UV Absorbance at 254 nm in Source Water and Drinking Water,’’ Revision 1.1, February 2005, EPA/600/R–05/055. Available on the Internet at https:// www.epa.gov/water-research/epadrinking-water-research-methods. (vii) Method 415.3 ‘‘Determination of Total Organic Carbon and Specific UV Absorbance at 254 nm in Source Water and Drinking Water,’’ Revision 1.2, September 2009, EPA/600/R–09/122. Available on the Internet at https:// PO 00000 Frm 00143 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 www.epa.gov/water-research/epadrinking-water-research-methods. (viii) Method 525.3 ‘‘Determination of Semivolatile Organic Chemicals in Drinking Water by Solid Phase Extraction and Capillary Column Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry (GC/MS),’’ Version 1.0, February 2012, EPA/600/R–12/010. Available on the Internet https://www.epa.gov/waterresearch/epa-drinking-water-researchmethods. (ix) Method 530 ‘‘Determination of Select Semivolatile Organic Chemicals in Drinking Water by Solid Phase Extraction and Gas Chromatography/ Mass Spectrometry (GC/MS),’’ Version 1.0, January 2015, EPA/600/R–14/442. Available on the Internet at https:// www.epa.gov/water-research/epadrinking-water-research-methods. (x) EPA Method 541: ‘‘Determination of 1-Butanol, 1,4-Dioxane, 2Methoxyethanol and 2-Propen-1-ol in Drinking Water by Solid Phase Extraction and Gas Chromatography/ Mass Spectrometry,’’ November 2015, EPA 815–R–15–011. Available on the Internet at https://www.epa.gov/waterresearch/epa-drinking-water-researchmethods. (xi) Method 544 ‘‘Determination of Microcystins and Nodularin in Drinking Water by Solid Phase Extraction and Liquid Chromatography/Tandem Mass Spectrometry (LC/MS/MS),’’ Version 1.0, February 2015, EPA 600–R–14/474. Available on the Internet at https:// www.epa.gov/water-research/epadrinking-water-research-methods. (xii) EPA Method 545: ‘‘Determination of Cylindrospermopsin and Anatoxin-a in Drinking Water by Liquid Chromatography Electrospray Ionization Tandem Mass Spectrometry (LC/ESI– E:\FR\FM\20DER1.SGM 20DER1 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES 92692 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 244 / Tuesday, December 20, 2016 / Rules and Regulations MS/MS),’’ April 2015, EPA 815–R–15– 009. Available on the Internet at https:// www.epa.gov/dwanalyticalmethods. (xiii) EPA Method 546: ‘‘Determination of Total Microcystins and Nodularins in Drinking Water and Ambient Water by Adda Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay,’’ August 2016, EPA–815–B–16–011. Available on the Internet at https://www.epa.gov/ dwanalyticalmethods. (xiv) Method 552.3 ‘‘Determination of Haloacetic Acids and Dalapon in Drinking Water by Liquid-Liquid Microextraction, Derivatization, and Gas Chromatography with Electron Capture Detection,’’ Revision 1.0, July 2003, EPA 815–B–03–002. Available on the Internet at https://www.epa.gov/ dwanalyticalmethods. (xv) EPA Method 557: ‘‘Determination of Haloacetic Acids, Bromate, and Dalapon in Drinking Water by Ion Chromatography Electrospray Ionization Tandem Mass Spectrometry (IC–ESI– MS/MS),’’ Version 1.0, September 2009, EPA 815–B–09–012. Available on the Internet at https://www.epa.gov/ dwanalyticalmethods. (2) American Public Health Association—Standard Test Method for Elements in Water by Inductively Coupled Plasma-Mass Spectrometry,’’ approved August 1, 2010. Available for purchase on the Internet at http:// www.astm.org/Standards/D5673.htm. (i) ‘‘Standard Methods for the Examination of Water & Wastewater,’’ 21st edition (2005). (A) SM 3125 ‘‘Metals by Inductively Coupled Plasma/Mass Spectrometry.’’ (B) SM 5310B ‘‘Total Organic Carbon (TOC): High-Temperature Combustion Method.’’ (C) SM 5310C ‘‘Total Organic Carbon (TOC): Persulfate-UV or HeatedPersulfate Oxidation Method.’’ (D) SM 5310D ‘‘Total Organic Carbon (TOC): Wet-Oxidation Method.’’ (ii) The following methods are from ‘‘Standard Methods Online.,’’ approved 2000 (unless noted). Available for purchase on the Internet at http:// www.standardmethods.org. (A) SM 3125 ‘‘Metals by Inductively Coupled Plasma/Mass Spectrometry’’ Editorial revisions, 2011 (SM 3125–09). (B) SM 5310B ‘‘Total Organic Carbon: High-Temperature Combustion Method,’’ (5310B–00). (C) SM 5310C ‘‘Total Organic Carbon: Persulfate-UV or Heated-Persulfate Oxidation Method,’’ (5310C–00). (D) SM 5310D ‘‘Total Organic Carbon: Wet-Oxidation Method,’’ (5310D–00). (3) ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken, PA 19428–2959. (i) ASTM D5673–10 ‘‘Standard Test Method for Elements in Water by VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:50 Dec 19, 2016 Jkt 241001 Inductively Coupled Plasma-Mass Spectrometry,’’ approved August 1, 2010. Available for purchase on the Internet at http://www.astm.org/ Standards/D5673.htm. (ii) ASTM D6581–12 ‘‘Standard Test Methods for Bromate, Bromide, Chlorate, and Chlorite in Drinking Water by Suppressed Ion Chromatography,’’ approved March 1, 2012. Available for purchase on the Internet at http://www.astm.org/ Standards/D6581.htm. [FR Doc. 2016–30469 Filed 12–19–16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560–50–P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Office of the Secretary 43 CFR Part 2 [No. DOI–2016–0006; 17XD4523WS DS10200000 DWSN00000.000000 WBS DP10202] RIN 1093–AA21 Freedom of Information Act Regulations Office of the Secretary, Interior. Final rule. AGENCY: ACTION: This rule revises the regulations that the Department of the Interior (Department) follows in processing records under the Freedom of Information Act in part to comply with the FOIA Improvement Act of 2016. The revisions clarify and update procedures for requesting information from the Department and procedures that the Department follows in responding to requests from the public. DATES: This rule is effective on January 19, 2017. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cindy Cafaro, Office of Executive Secretariat and Regulatory Affairs, 202– 208–5342. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: SUMMARY: I. Why We’re Publishing This Rule and What It Does A. Introduction In late 2012, the Department published a final rule updating and replacing the Department’s previous Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) regulations. In early 2016, the Department updated that final rule, primarily to authorize the Office of Inspector General to process their own FOIA appeals. On June 30, 2016, the FOIA Improvement Act of 2016, Public Law 114–185, 130 Stat. 538 (the Act) was enacted. The Act specifically PO 00000 Frm 00144 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 requires all agencies to review and update their FOIA regulations in accordance with its provisions. In addition, the Department has received feedback from its FOIA practitioners and requesters and identified areas where it would be possible to further update, clarify, and streamline the language of some procedural provisions. On September 20, 2016, the Department published a proposed rule in the Federal Register (81 FR 64401) to implement the Act and address the feedback received. We requested comments on the proposed rule over a 60-day period ending on November 21, 2016, and we considered all comments received in drafting this final rule. Accordingly, the Department is making the following changes to 43 CFR part 2: • Section 2.4(e) is amended to provide additional guidance on how bureaus handle misdirected requests. • Section 2.15 is amended to bring attention to the Department’s existing FOIA Request Tracking Tool (https:// foia.doi.gov/requeststatus). • Section 2.19 is amended to bring further attention to the services provided by the Office of Government Information Services (OGIS), in accordance with the provisions of the Act. • Section 2.21 is amended to reflect that the OGIS would be defined earlier in the regulations than it previously had been and to reference bureaus’ FOIA Public Liaisons, in addition to the OGIS. • Section 2.24 is amended to require a foreseeable harm analysis, in accordance with the provisions of the Act, and to require bureaus to provide an explanation to the requester when an estimate of the volume of any records withheld in full or in part is not provided. • Section 2.37(f) is amended to reflect the provisions of the Act. • Section 2.39 is amended to remove what will be superfluous language, after the changes to section 2.37(f). • Section 2.58 is amended to provide more time for requesters to appeal, in accordance with the provisions of the Act. • Section 2.66(d) is amended to reflect an updated Web site link. B. Discussion of Comments Six commenters responded to the invitation for comments, including two commenters from subcomponents of Federal agencies and four commenters from non-Federal sources. Two of these commenters offered substantive suggestions on specific existing provisions of the rule that are not being amended; these suggestions are outside the scope of this rulemaking and are not E:\FR\FM\20DER1.SGM 20DER1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 244 (Tuesday, December 20, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 92666-92692]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-30469]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 141

[EPA-HQ-OW-2015-0218; FRL-9956-71-OW]
RIN 2040-AF49


Revisions to the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR 4) 
for Public Water Systems and Announcement of Public Meeting

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule; notice of public meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is finalizing a 
Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) rule that requires public water systems 
to collect occurrence data for contaminants that may be present in 
drinking water but are not yet subject to EPA's drinking water 
standards set under the SDWA. This rule identifies eleven analytical 
methods to support water system monitoring for a total of 30 chemical 
contaminants, consisting of nine cyanotoxins and one cyanotoxin group; 
two metals; eight pesticides plus one pesticide manufacturing byproduct 
(hereinafter collectively referred to as ``pesticides''); three 
brominated haloacetic acid disinfection byproduct groups; three 
alcohols; and three semivolatile organic chemicals. EPA is also 
announcing a public meeting and webinar to discuss the implementation 
of the fourth Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule.

DATES: This final rule is effective on January 19, 2017, 30 days after 
publication in the Federal Register. The incorporation by reference of 
certain publications listed in the regulations is approved by the 
Director of the Federal Register as of January 19, 2017.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under 
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2015-0218. All documents in the docket are 
listed on the https://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in 
the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., 
confidential business information (CBI) 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 electronically through https://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brenda D. Parris, Standards and Risk 
Management Division (SRMD), Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water 
(OGWDW) (MS 140), Environmental Protection Agency, 26 West Martin 
Luther King Drive, Cincinnati, OH 45268; telephone number: (513) 569-
7961; or email address: parris.brenda@epa.gov; or Melissa Simic, SRMD, 
OGWDW (MS 140), Environmental Protection Agency, 26 West Martin Luther 
King Drive, Cincinnati, Ohio 45268; telephone number: (513) 569-7864; 
or email address: simic.melissa@epa.gov. For general information, 
contact the Safe Drinking Water Hotline. Callers within the United 
States can reach the Hotline at (800) 426-4791. The Hotline is open 
Monday through Friday, excluding federal holidays, from 10:00 a.m. to 
4:00 p.m., eastern time. The Safe Drinking Water Hotline can also be 
found on the Internet at: https://www.epa.gov/ground-water-and-drinking-water/safe-drinking-water-hotline.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents

I. General Information
    A. Does this action apply to me?
    B. What action is the Agency taking and why?
    C. What is the Agency's authority for taking this action?
    D. What is the estimated cost of this action?
    E. What is the applicability date?
II. Background
    A. How has EPA implemented the Unregulated Contaminant 
Monitoring Program?
    B. How are the Contaminant Candidate List, the UCMR program, the 
Regulatory Determination process and the NCOD interrelated?
III. What are the key requirements of the rule, including notable 
changes between UCMR 3, the proposed UCMR 4 and the final UCMR 4?
    A. What contaminants are in UCMR 4?
    1. This Rule
    2. Summary of Major Comments and EPA Responses
    B. What are the UCMR 4 sampling design and timeline of 
activities?
    1. Sampling Frequency, Timing
    a. This Rule
    b. Summary of Major Comments and EPA Responses
    2. Phased Sample Analysis for Microcystins
    a. This Rule
    b. Summary of Major Comments and EPA Responses
    3. Applicability of HAA Monitoring Requirements
    a. This Rule
    b. Summary of Major Comments and EPA Responses
    4. Representative Sampling
    a. This Rule
    b. Summary of Major Comments and EPA Responses

[[Page 92667]]

    5. Sampling Locations
    a. This Rule
    b. Summary of Major Comments and EPA Responses
    C. What are the reporting requirements for UCMR 4?
    1. Data Elements
    a. This Rule
    b. Summary of Major Comments and EPA Responses
IV. How are laboratories approved for UCMR 4 monitoring?
    A. Request To Participate
    B. Registration
    C. Application Package
    D. EPA's Review of Application Packages
    E. Proficiency Testing
    F. Written EPA Approval
V. What is the past and future stakeholder involvement in the 
regulation process?
    A. What is the states' role in the UCMR program?
    B. What stakeholder meetings have been held in preparation for 
UCMR 4?
    C. How do I participate in the upcoming stakeholder meeting?
    1. Meeting Participation
    2. Meeting Materials
    D. How did EPA consider Children's Environmental Health?
    E. How did EPA address Environmental Justice?
VI. What documents are being incorporated by reference?
    A. Methods From the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
    B. Methods From American Public Health Association--Standard 
Methods (SM)
    1. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater
    2. Standard Methods Online
    C. Methods From ASTM International
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and 
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With 
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From 
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act and 1 CFR 
Part 51
    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address 
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 
Populations
    K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)
VIII. References

Abbreviations and Acronyms

[micro]g/L Microgram per liter
Adda (2S,3S,8S,9S,4E,6E)-3-amino-9-methoxy-2,6,8-trimethyl-10-
phenyl-4,6-decadienoic acid
ASDWA Association of State Drinking Water Administrators
ASTM ASTM International
CAS Chemical Abstract Service
CBI Confidential Business Information
CCC Continuing Calibration Check
CCL Contaminant Candidate List
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CRA Congressional Review Act
CWS Community Water System
D/DBPRs Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rules (including 
Stage 1 and Stage 2 D/DBPRs)
ELISA Enzyme-linked Immunosorbent Assay
EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
EPTDS Entry Point to the Distribution System
ESI Electrospray Ionization
FR Federal Register
GC Gas Chromatography
GC/ECD Gas Chromatography/Electron Capture Detection
GC/MS Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry
GW Ground Water
GWUDI Ground Water Under the Direct Influence of Surface Water
HAAs Haloacetic Acids
HAA5 Dibromoacetic Acid, Dichloroacetic Acid, Monobromoacetic Acid, 
Monochloroacetic Acid, Trichloroacetic Acid
HAA6Br Bromochloroacetic Acid, Bromodichloroacetic Acid, 
Dibromoacetic Acid, Dibromochloroacetic Acid, Monobromoacetic Acid, 
Tribromoacetic Acid
HAA9 Bromochloroacetic Acid, Bromodichloroacetic Acid, 
Chlorodibromoacetic Acid, Dibromoacetic Acid, Dichloroacetic Acid, 
Monobromoacetic Acid, Monochloroacetic Acid, Tribromoacetic Acid, 
Trichloroacetic Acid
IC Ion Chromatography
IC-MS/MS Ion Chromatography-Tandem Mass Spectrometry
IC/ESI-MS/MS Ion Chromatography/Electrospray Ionization/Tandem Mass 
Spectrometry
ICP-MS Inductively Coupled Plasma-Mass Spectrometry
ICR Information Collection Request
IDC Initial Demonstration of Capability
IS Internal Standard
LFB Laboratory Fortified Blank
LRB Laboratory Reagent Blank
LC/ESI-MS/MS Liquid Chromatography/Electrospray Ionization/Tandem 
Mass Spectrometry
LC-MS/MS Liquid Chromatography/Tandem Mass Spectrometry
LT2 Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule
M Million
MAC Mycobacterium Avium Complex
MRL Minimum Reporting Level
NAICS North American Industry Classification System
NARA National Archives and Records Administration
NCOD National Contaminant Occurrence Database
NPDWRs National Primary Drinking Water Regulations
NTNCWS Non-transient Non-community Water System
OGWDW Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water
OMB Office of Management and Budget
PA Partnership Agreement
PRA Paperwork Reduction Act
PT Proficiency Testing
PWS Public Water System
PWSID Public Water System Identification
QC Quality Control
QCS Quality Control Sample
QHS Quality HAA Sample
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
SBA Small Business Administration
SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act
SDWARS Safe Drinking Water Accession and Review System
SDWIS/Fed Federal Safe Drinking Water Information System
SM Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater
SMP State Monitoring Plan
SOP Standard Operating Procedure
SPE Solid Phase Extraction
SR Source Water
SRF Drinking Water State Revolving Fund
SRMD Standards and Risk Management Division
SUR Surrogate Standard
SVOCs Semivolatile Organic Chemicals
SW Surface Water
TNCWS Transient Non-community Water System
TOC Total Organic Carbon
UCMR Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule
UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    The fourth Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR 4) applies 
to public water systems (PWSs). PWSs are systems that provide water for 
human consumption through pipes, or other constructed conveyances, to 
at least 15 service connections or that regularly serve an average of 
at least 25 individuals daily at least 60 days out of the year. This 
rule applies to all large community and non-transient non-community 
water systems (NTNCWSs) serving more than 10,000 people. A community 
water system (CWS) is a PWS that has at least 15 service connections 
used by year-round residents or regularly serves at least 25 year-round 
residents. A NTNCWS is a PWS that is not a CWS and that regularly 
serves at least 25 of the same people over six months per year. Some 
examples of NTNCWS are schools, factories, office buildings and 
hospitals, which have their own water systems. EPA selects the 
nationally representative sample of small CWSs and NTNCWSs serving 
10,000 or fewer people that are required to monitor (see

[[Page 92668]]

``Statistical Design and Sample Selection for the Unregulated 
Contaminant Monitoring Regulation'' (USEPA, 2001a) for a description of 
the statistical approach for the nationally representative sample). 
This rule does not apply to transient non-community water systems 
(TNCWSs) (i.e., non-community water systems that do not regularly serve 
at least 25 of the same people over six months per year). A TNCWSs 
provides water in a place such as a gas station or campground, where 
people do not remain for long periods of time.
    States, territories and tribes with primary enforcement 
responsibility (primacy) to administer the regulatory program for PWSs 
under the SDWA can participate in the implementation of UCMR 4 through 
Partnership Agreements (PAs). Primacy agencies with PAs can choose to 
be involved in various aspects of the UCMR 4 monitoring for the PWSs 
they oversee; however, the PWS remains responsible for compliance with 
the rule requirements. Examples of potentially regulated categories and 
entities are identified in the following table.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 Examples of potentially
            Category                regulated entities       NAICS \a\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
State, local & tribal            States, local and                924110
 governments.                     tribal governments
                                  that analyze water
                                  samples on behalf of
                                  PWSs required to
                                  conduct such analysis;
                                  states, local and
                                  tribal governments
                                  that directly operate
                                  CWSs and NTNCWSs
                                  required to monitor.
Industry.......................  Private operators of             221310
                                  CWSs and NTNCWSs
                                  required to monitor.
Municipalities.................  Municipal operators of           924110
                                  CWSs and NTNCWSs
                                  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 summarizes the types of entities that EPA is aware 
could potentially be regulated by this action. If you are uncertain 
whether your entity is regulated by this action, carefully examine the 
definition of a PWS found in Sec. Sec.  141.2 and 141.3, and the 
applicability criteria found in Sec.  141.40(a)(1) and (2) of Title 40 
in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). If you have questions, please 
consult the contacts listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT section.

B. What action is the Agency taking and why?

    This final rule requires PWSs to analyze drinking water samples for 
29 unregulated contaminants that do not have health based standards set 
under the SDWA, as well as one group of regulated contaminants 
(described in section I.C), and to report their results to EPA. This is 
the fourth national monitoring effort under the UCMR program, and 
builds upon the framework established under the prior three UCMR 
actions (see section II.A). The monitoring provides data to inform 
future regulatory actions to protect public health.
    The public benefits from the information about whether or not 
unregulated contaminants are present in their drinking water. If 
contaminants are not found, consumer confidence in their drinking water 
will improve. If contaminants are found, illnesses may be avoided when 
subsequent actions, such as regulations, reduce or eliminate those 
contaminants.

C. What is the Agency's authority for taking this action?

    As part of its responsibilities under the SDWA, EPA implements 
section 1445(a)(2), ``Monitoring Program for Unregulated 
Contaminants.'' This section, as amended in 1996, requires that once 
every five years, beginning in August 1999, EPA issue a list of no more 
than 30 unregulated contaminants to be monitored by PWSs. The list can 
include contaminants included in previous UCMR cycles but will 
generally focus on contaminants not yet monitored under UCMR. SDWA 
section 1445(g)(7) requires that EPA enter the monitoring data into the 
Agency's publicly-available National Contaminant Occurrence Database 
(NCOD). The SDWA also requires that EPA ensures that systems serving a 
population larger than 10,000 people, as well as a nationally 
representative sample of PWSs serving 10,000 or fewer people, monitor 
for the unregulated contaminants. EPA must vary the frequency and 
schedule for monitoring based on the number of persons served, the 
source of supply, and the contaminants likely to be found. EPA is using 
this authority as the basis for monitoring 29 of the 30 contaminants.
    Section 1445(a)(1)(A) of the SDWA, as amended in 1996, requires 
that every person who is subject to any SDWA requirement establish and 
maintain such records, make such reports, conduct such monitoring and 
provide such information as the Administrator may reasonably require by 
regulation to assist the Administrator in establishing SDWA 
regulations. Pursuant to this provision, EPA can also require the 
monitoring of contaminants already subject to EPA's drinking water 
standards. EPA is using this authority as the basis for monitoring one 
of the chemical groups (Haloacetic Acids 5 (HAA5)) under this rule. 
Sample collection and analysis for HAA5 can be done concurrently with 
the unregulated HAA monitoring (for HAA6Br and HAA9) described in 
section III.B.3 (resulting in no significant additional burden since 
all three HAA groups can be measured by a single method) and will allow 
EPA to better understand co-occurrence between regulated and 
unregulated disinfection byproducts.
    Hereinafter, all 30 chemicals/groups are collectively referred to 
as ``contaminants.''

D. What is the estimated cost of this action?

    EPA estimates the total average national cost of this action will 
be $24.3 million per year from 2017-2021. EPA has documented the 
assumptions and data sources used in the preparation of this estimate 
in the Information Collection Request (ICR) (USEPA, 2016a). EPA 
identified eleven analytical methods (nine EPA-developed analytical 
methods and two alternate, equivalent, consensus organization-developed 
methods) to analyze samples for 30 UCMR 4 contaminants. EPA's estimate 
of the analytical cost for the UCMR 4 contaminants and related 
indicators is $2,500 per sample set. EPA calculated these costs by 
summing the laboratory unit cost of each method.
    Small PWSs selected for UCMR 4 monitoring sample an average of 6.7 
times per PWS (i.e., number of responses per PWS) across the three-year 
ICR period. The estimated labor burden per response for small PWSs is 
2.8 hours. Large PWSs and very large PWSs sample and report an average 
of 11.4 and 14.1 times per PWS, respectively, across the three-year ICR 
period. The estimated labor burden per

[[Page 92669]]

response for large and very large PWSs is 6.1 and 9.9 hours, 
respectively.
    Exhibit 1 presents a breakdown of estimated annual average national 
costs. Estimated PWS (i.e., large and very large) and EPA costs reflect 
the analytical cost (i.e., non-labor) for all UCMR 4 methods as well as 
labor-related cost. EPA pays for the analytical costs for all systems 
serving a population of 10,000 or fewer people. Laboratory analysis and 
sample shipping account for approximately 79% of the total national 
cost for UCMR 4 implementation. EPA estimated laboratory unit costs 
based on consultations with multiple commercial drinking water 
laboratories. The cost of the laboratory methods includes shipping the 
sample from the facility to the laboratory as part of the cost for the 
analysis.
    EPA expects that states will incur labor costs associated with 
voluntary assistance with UCMR 4 implementation. EPA estimated state 
costs using the relevant assumptions from the State Resource Model, 
which was developed by the Association of State Drinking Water 
Administrators (ASDWA) (ASDWA, 2013) to help states forecast resource 
needs. Model estimates were adjusted to account for actual levels of 
state participation under UCMR 3. State participation is voluntary; 
thus, the level of effort is expected to vary among states and will 
depend on their individual agreements with EPA.
    Additional details regarding EPA's cost assumptions and estimates 
can be found in the ``Information Collection Request for the 
Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR 4)'' (USEPA, 2016a) EPA 
ICR Number 2192.08, which presents estimated cost and burden for the 
2017-2019 period, consistent with the 3-year timeframe for ICRs. 
Estimates of costs over the entire 5-year UCMR 4 period of 2017-2021 
are attached as an appendix to the ICR. Specifically, most of the 
burden is incurred in the second, third and fourth year (i.e., 
monitoring and sample analysis) of the UCMR 4 monitoring period. The 
first year (the planning year) involves a lesser burden, and the final 
fifth year involves the least burden since the program is concluding. 
The next ICR period will overlap with the last two years of the 5-year 
UCMR 4 period, and therefore will have substantially lower figures.
    Copies of the ICR and its appendix are available in the EPA public 
docket for this final rule, under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2015-0218. 
The total estimated annual costs (labor and non-labor) are as follows:

           Exhibit 1--Estimated Average Annual Costs of UCMR 4
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Avg. annual
                                                             cost all
                       Respondent                          respondents
                                                         (2017-2021) \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Small Systems (25-10,000), including labor \2\ only               $0.2 M
 (non-labor costs \3\ paid for by EPA).................
Large Systems (10,001-100,000), including labor and non-          15.0 M
 labor costs...........................................
Very Large Systems (100,001 and greater), including                4.1 M
 labor and non-labor costs.............................
States, including labor costs related to implementation            0.5 M
 coordination..........................................
EPA, including labor for implementation and non-labor              4.5 M
 for small system testing..............................
                                                        ----------------
    Average Annual National Total......................           24.3 M
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Totals may not equal the sum of components due to rounding.
\2\ Labor costs pertain to systems, states and EPA. Costs include
  activities such as reading the rule, notifying systems selected to
  participate, sample collection, data review, reporting and record
  keeping.
\3\ Non-labor costs will be incurred primarily by EPA and by very large
  and large PWSs. They include the cost of shipping samples to
  laboratories for testing and the cost of the laboratory analyses.

E. What is the applicability date?

    The determination of whether a PWS is required to monitor under 
UCMR 4 is based on the type of system (e.g., CWS, NTNCWS, etc.) and its 
retail population served, as indicated by the Federal Safe Drinking 
Water Information System (SDWIS/Fed) inventory on December 31, 2015. 
SDWIS/Fed can be accessed at https://www.epa.gov/ground-water-and-drinking-water/safe-drinking-water-information-system-sdwis-federal-reporting. If a PWS believes its retail population served in SDWIS/Fed 
is inaccurate, the system should contact its state to verify its 
population as of the applicability date and request a correction, if 
necessary. The 5-year UCMR 4 program will take place from January 2017 
through December 2021, with sample collection occurring between January 
1, 2018, and December 31, 2020.

II. Background

A. How has EPA implemented the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring 
program?

    EPA published the list of contaminants for the first UCMR (UCMR 1) 
in the Federal Register (FR) on September 17, 1999 (64 FR 50556, 
(USEPA, 1999)), the second UCMR (UCMR 2) on January 4, 2007 (72 FR 368, 
(USEPA, 2007)) and the third UCMR (UCMR 3) on May 2, 2012 (77 FR 26072, 
(USEPA, 2012a)). EPA established a three-tiered approach for monitoring 
contaminants under the UCMR program. Assessment Monitoring for ``List 
1'' contaminants typically relies on analytical methods, techniques or 
technologies that are in common use by drinking water laboratories. 
Screening Survey monitoring for ``List 2'' contaminants typically 
relies on newer techniques or technologies that are not as commonly 
used, such that laboratory capacity to perform List 2 analyses may be 
limited. Finally, Pre-Screen Testing for ``List 3'' contaminants is 
often associated with techniques or technologies that are very recently 
developed and/or are particularly complex. In addition to method cost 
and complexity and laboratory capacity, EPA considers sampling 
frequency and the relevant universe of PWSs when deciding which of the 
three tiers is appropriate for the monitoring of a contaminant.
    EPA designed the Assessment Monitoring sampling approach (USEPA, 
2001a) to ensure that sample results would yield a high level of 
confidence and a low margin of error. The design for a nationally 
representative sample of small systems called for the sample set to be 
stratified by water source type (ground water (GW) or surface water 
(SW)), service size category and state (where each state is allocated a

[[Page 92670]]

minimum of two systems in its state monitoring plan (SMP)).
    This final action identifies 30 List 1 contaminants to be measured 
during Assessment Monitoring from 2018-2020, with pre-monitoring 
activity in 2017 and post-monitoring activity in 2021. EPA developed 
this rule after considering input from public comments. For more 
information on EPA's response to public comments, please see section 
III.

B. How are the Contaminant Candidate List, the UCMR program, the 
Regulatory Determination process and the NCOD interrelated?

    Under the 1996 amendments to the SDWA, Congress established a 
stepwise, risk-based approach for determining which contaminants would 
become subject to drinking water standards. Under the first step, EPA 
is required to publish, every five years, a list of contaminants that 
are not yet regulated but which are known or anticipated to occur in 
PWSs; this is known as the Contaminant Candidate List (CCL). Under the 
second step, EPA must require, every five years, monitoring of up to 30 
unregulated contaminants (many of which have been selected from the CCL 
for the UCMR monitoring to-date) to determine their occurrence in 
drinking water systems; this is known as the UCMR program. Under the 
third step, EPA is required to determine, every five years, whether or 
not to begin the process of developing a national primary drinking 
water regulation for at least five CCL contaminants; this is known as a 
Regulatory Determination and involves evaluating the following 
questions:
    (1) May the contaminant have an adverse effect on human health?
    (2) Is the contaminant known to occur or substantially likely to 
occur in PWSs with a frequency and at levels of public health concern?
    (3) In the sole judgement of the Administrator, does regulation of 
such contaminants present a meaningful opportunity for risk reduction 
for people served by PWSs?
    Finally, the SDWA requires EPA to issue national primary drinking 
water regulations (NPDWRs) for contaminants the Agency determines 
should be regulated.
    The CCL process identifies contaminants that may require 
regulation, while the UCMR program helps provide the data necessary for 
the Regulatory Determination process previously outlined. The data 
collected through the UCMR program are stored in the drinking water 
NCOD to facilitate analysis and review of contaminant occurrence, and 
support the Administrator's determination on whether regulation of a 
contaminant is in the public health interest, as required under SDWA 
section 1412(b)(1). UCMR results can be viewed by the public at: 
https://www.epa.gov/dwucmr. PWSs are also responsible for addressing 
UCMR results in their annual Consumer Confidence Reports, consistent 
with prior UCMR cycles and as required by Sec.  141.153.

III. What are the key requirements of the rule, including notable 
changes between UCMR 3, the proposed UCMR 4 and the final UCMR 4?

    EPA published ``Revisions to the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring 
Rule (UCMR 4) for Public Water Systems and Announcement of a Public 
Meeting;'' Proposed Rule, on December 11, 2015 (80 FR 76897, (USEPA, 
2015a)). The UCMR 4 proposal identified eleven new analytical methods 
to support water system monitoring for a total of 30 new contaminants, 
and detailed other potential changes relative to UCMR 3. Among the 
other changes reflected in the UCMR 4 proposal were identification of 
water systems subject to UCMR 4 and provisions for sampling locations, 
timeframe and frequency, as well as updated data elements.
    EPA received input on the UCMR 4 proposal from 34 public 
commenters, including state and local government, utilities and utility 
stakeholder organizations, laboratories, academia, non-governmental 
organizations and other interested stakeholders . After considering the 
comments, EPA made the changes described in Exhibit 2 to develop the 
final UCMR 4 action. Sections III A-C summarize key aspects of this 
final rule and the associated notable and recurring comments received 
in response to the proposed rule. EPA has compiled all public comments 
and EPA's responses in the ``Response to Comments Document for the 
Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR 4),'' (USEPA, 2016b), 
which can be found in the electronic docket listed in the ADDRESSES 
section of this notice.

                      Exhibit 2--Notable Changes to UCMR 4 Between Proposed and Final Rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     CFR rule section
----------------------------------------------------------    Description of change      Corresponding preamble
                No.                   Title/description                                         section
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.   141.40(a)(3)...............  Related                Revises Table 1 to include  III.A. & III.B.
                                     specifications for     EPA Method 546 Enzyme-
                                     the analytes to be     linked Immunosorbent
                                     monitored.             Assay (ELISA) and removes
                                                            source water as a sample
                                                            location for cyanotoxins.
Sec.   141.40(a)(3) and Sec.        Sampling design        Revises Table 1 to update   III.B. & I.E.
 141.40(a)(4).                       requirements--freque   the monitoring dates to
                                     ncy.                   January 2018 through
                                                            December 2020 for the 20
                                                            additional contaminants,
                                                            and also updates Table 2
                                                            to reflect the
                                                            traditional sample
                                                            collection timeframe
                                                            (consecutive 12-month
                                                            period) for the 20
                                                            additional contaminants.
                                                            Additionally, updates
                                                            Table 2 to reflect the
                                                            traditional sample
                                                            collection frequency
                                                            (four consecutive
                                                            quarters for SW and
                                                            ground water under the
                                                            direct influence of
                                                            surface water (GWUDI)
                                                            water systems, and twice,
                                                            5-7 months apart, for GW
                                                            systems) for those 20
                                                            contaminants.
Sec.   141.40(a)(3) and Sec.        Phased sample          Removes source water        III.B.2
 141.40(a)(4).                       analysis for           samples from the phased
                                     microcystins.          sample analysis for
                                                            microcystins.
Sec.   141.40(a)(3)...............  Applicability of HAA   Removes UCMR 4 HAA          III.B.3
                                     monitoring             requirement for water
                                     requirements.          systems that are not
                                                            subject to HAA5
                                                            monitoring under the
                                                            Disinfectants and
                                                            Disinfection Byproduct
                                                            Rules (D/DBPRs).

[[Page 92671]]

 
Sec.   141.35(e)..................  Reporting              Updates and clarifies data  III.C.
                                     requirements--Data     elements to address
                                     elements.              disinfecting and
                                                            treatment types, and adds
                                                            data elements to account
                                                            for the metadata
                                                            collected for the
                                                            cyanotoxins.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. What contaminants are in UCMR 4?

1. This Rule
    EPA is maintaining the proposed list of unregulated contaminants 
and the methods associated with analyzing those contaminants, with the 
exception of updating the ELISA method for ``total microcystins'' (see 
Exhibit 3). Further information on the prioritization process, as well 
as contaminant-specific information (source, use, production, release, 
persistence, mobility, health effects and occurrence) that EPA used to 
select the contaminants is contained in ``UCMR 4 Contaminants--
Information Compendium for Final Rule'' (USEPA, 2016c). This 
Information Compendium can be found in the electronic docket listed in 
the ADDRESSES section of this notice.
2. Summary of Major Comments and EPA Responses
    Commenters who expressed an opinion about the proposed UCMR 4 
analytes were generally supportive. Some commenters suggested 
alternative ways to collect the HAA information. Suggestions included 
collecting results for all nine HAAs individually; only collecting 
results for HAA9; or doing targeted research studies of HAAs 
independent of UCMR. EPA has concluded that monitoring for the three 
HAA groups (HAA5, HAA6Br and HAA9) will provide the information of 
interest on the relative occurrence between regulated and unregulated 
HAAs as well as brominated versus chlorinated HAAs. Though the targeted 
research proposed by some commenters is beyond the scope of today's 
action, EPA will take the recommendation under advisement and consider 
how such research may complement the UCMR data.
    Some commenters supported EPA's proposal to not include Legionella 
pneumophila and Mycobacterium avium Complex (MAC) in UCMR 4; others 
encouraged EPA to add Legionella, and in some cases MAC. The latter 
commenters identified several candidate methods, suggested that 
Legionella is not exclusively a premise plumbing issue, and pointed to 
concerns with health effects. While EPA recognizes the Legionella 
concern, the Agency has concluded that this national survey will not be 
able to adequately address many of the variables, complexities and 
uncertainties discussed by commenters. More research is needed to 
identify the optimal sampling location, frequency of sampling events 
and proper sampling population, and address biofilms and associated 
indicators. Further research is also needed on the dose-response 
ecology of Legionella in the distribution system to identify the 
correct method needed to monitor at a level that would be instructive 
and cost effective.
    Multiple commenters expressed concerns with the ELISA methodology 
and some of the specific elements of the ELISA Standard Operating 
Procedure (SOP) (Ohio EPA, 2015) identified in the proposal for 
cyanotoxins. In 2016, EPA finalized EPA Method 546: ``Determination of 
Total Microcystins and Nodularins in Drinking Water and Ambient Water 
by Adda Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay'' as the prescribed method 
for total microcystins (USEPA, 2016e). The fundamentals of Method 546 
are quite similar to those of the Ohio EPA methodology, and Method 546 
addresses concerns expressed about minimum reporting levels (MRLs), 
holding times and quality control.

                      Exhibit 3--30 UCMR 4 Analytes
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                             List 1 Analytes
------------------------------------------------------------------------
        One Cyanotoxin Group using EPA Method 546 (Adda ELISA): 1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
``total microcystins''.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Seven Cyanotoxins using EPA Method 544 (SPE LC-MS/MS): 2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
microcystin-LA.                             microcystin-RR.
microcystin-LF.                             microcystin-YR.
microcystin-LR.                             nodularin.
microcystin-LY.                             ............................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Two Cyanotoxins using EPA Method 545 (LC/ESI-MS/MS): 3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
anatoxin-a.                                 cylindrospermopsin.
 Two Metals using EPA Method 200.8 (ICP-MS) 4 or alternate SM 5 or ASTM:
                                    6
------------------------------------------------------------------------
germanium.                                  manganese.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Nine Pesticides using EPA Method 525.3 (SPE GC/MS): 7
------------------------------------------------------------------------
alpha-hexachlorocyclohexane.                profenofos.
chlorpyrifos.                               tebuconazole.
dimethipin.                                 total permethrin (cis- &
                                             trans-).
ethoprop.                                   tribufos.

[[Page 92672]]

 
oxyfluorfen.                                ............................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Three Brominated HAA Groups using EPA Method 552.3 (GC/ECD) or 557 (IC/
                           ESI-MS/MS): 8 9 10
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HAA5.                                       HAA9.
HAA6Br.                                     ............................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Three Alcohols using EPA Method 541 (GC/MS): 11
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1-butanol.                                  2-propen-1-ol.
2-methoxyethanol.                           ............................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Three Semivolatile Organic Chemicals (SVOCs) using EPA Method 530 (GC/
                                 MS): 12
------------------------------------------------------------------------
butylated hydroxyanisole.                   quinolone.
o-toluidine.                                ............................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ EPA Method 546 Adda Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay (ELISA)
  (USEPA, 2016e).
\2\ EPA Method 544 (Solid phase extraction (SPE) liquid chromatography/
  tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS)) (USEPA, 2015b). This method will
  only be used if analyses by ELISA (for ``total microcystins'') yield
  results above reporting limits.
\3\ EPA Method 545 (Liquid chromatography/electrospray ionization/tandem
  mass spectrometry (LC/ESI-MS/MS)) (USEPA, 2015c).
\4\ EPA Method 200.8 (Inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (ICP-
  MS)) (USEPA, 1994).
\5\ Standard Methods (SM) 3125 (SM, 2005a) or SM 3125-09 (SM Online,
  2009).
\6\ ASTM International (ASTM) D5673-10 (ASTM, 2010).
\7\ EPA Method 525.3 (SPE Gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (GC/MS))
  (USEPA, 2012b).
\8\ EPA Method 552.3 (Gas chromatography/electron capture detection (GC/
  ECD)) (USEPA, 2003) and EPA Method 557 (Ion chromatography-
  electrospray ionization-tandem mass spectrometry (IC-ESI-MS/MS))
  (USEPA, 2009a). HAA5 includes: Dibromoacetic acid, dichloroacetic
  acid, monobromoacetic acid, monochloroacetic acid, trichloroacetic
  acid. HAA6Br includes: Bromochloroacetic acid, bromodichloroacetic
  acid, dibromoacetic acid, chlorodibromoacetic acid, monobromoacetic
  acid, tribromoacetic acid. HAA9 includes: Bromochloroacetic acid,
  bromodichloroacetic acid, chlorodibromoacetic acid, dibromoacetic
  acid, dichloroacetic acid, monobromoacetic acid, monochloroacetic
  acid, tribromoacetic acid, trichloroacetic acid.
\9\ Regulated HAAs (HAA5) are included in the monitoring program to gain
  a better understanding of co-occurrence with currently unregulated
  disinfection byproducts.
\10\ Brominated HAA monitoring also includes sampling for indicators
  total organic carbon (TOC) and bromide using methods approved for
  compliance monitoring. TOC methods include: SM 5310B, SM 5310C, SM
  5310D (SM, 2005b, 2005c, 2005d), or SM 5310B-00, SM 5310C-00, SM 5310D-
  00 (SM Online, 2000a, 2000b, 2000c), EPA Method 415.3 (Rev. 1.1 or
  1.2) (USEPA, 2005, 2009b). Bromide methods include: EPA Methods 300.0
  (Rev. 2.1), 300.1 (Rev. 1.0), 317.0 (Rev. 2.0), 326.0 (Rev. 1.0)
  (USEPA, 1993, 1997, 2001b, 2002) or ASTM D 6581-12 (ASTM, 2012).
\11\ EPA Method 541 (GC/MS) (USEPA, 2015d).
\12\ EPA Method 530 (GC/MS) (USEPA, 2015e).

B. What are the UCMR 4 sampling design and timeline of activities?

    EPA is maintaining the 2018 to 2020 monitoring timeframe identified 
in the proposal. Preparations prior to 2018 will include coordinating 
laboratory approval, selecting representative small systems (USEPA, 
2001a), developing SMPs and establishing monitoring schedules. Exhibit 
4 illustrates the major activities that will take place in preparation 
for and during the implementation of UCMR 4.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR20DE16.002


[[Page 92673]]


    To minimize the impact of the rule on small systems (those serving 
10,000 or fewer people), EPA pays for the sample kit preparation, 
sample shipping fees and analysis costs for these systems. In addition, 
no small system will be required to monitor for both cyanotoxins and 
the 20 additional UCMR contaminants. Consistent with prior UCMRs, large 
systems (those serving more than 10,000 people) pay for all costs 
associated with their monitoring. A summary of the estimated number of 
systems subject to monitoring is shown in Exhibit 5.

                             Exhibit 5--Systems To Participate in UCMR 4 Monitoring
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               National sample: Assessment monitoring design
                                         --------------------------------------------------------  Total number
  System size (number of people served)                                  20 Additional list 1     of systems per
                                             10 List 1 cyanotoxins         contaminants \3\        size category
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Small Systems \1\ (25-10,000)...........  800 randomly selected SW    800 randomly selected SW,            1,600
                                           or GWUDI systems.           GWUDI and GW systems.
Large Systems \2\ (10,001 and over).....  All SW or GWUDI systems     All SW, GWUDI and GW                 4,292
                                           (2,725).                    systems (4,292).
                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total...............................  3,525.....................  5,092.....................           5,892
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Total for small systems is additive because these systems will only be selected for one component of UCMR 4
  sampling (10 cyanotoxins or 20 additional contaminants). EPA will pay for all analytical costs associated with
  monitoring at small systems.
\2\ Large system counts are approximate. The number of large systems is not additive. All SW and GWUDI systems
  will monitor for cyanotoxins; those same systems will also monitor for the 20 additional List 1 contaminants,
  as will the large GW systems.
\3\ Water systems that are not subject to HAA5 monitoring under the D/DBPRs (Sec.   141.Subparts L and V) are
  not required to monitor for the UCMR 4 HAAs or associated indicators (TOC and bromide).

1. Sampling Frequency, Timing
a. This Rule
    Today's rule maintains the proposed increased sampling frequency 
and narrower monitoring timeframe for total microcystins and the nine 
cyanotoxins. Sampling will take place twice a month for four 
consecutive months (total of eight sampling events) for SW and GWUDI 
systems. These water systems will collect samples during the monitoring 
timeframe of March through November (excluding December, January and 
February). GW systems are excluded from cyanotoxin monitoring.
    Monitoring for the 20 additional UCMR 4 contaminants will be based 
on the traditional UCMR sampling frequency and timeframe. For SW and 
GWUDI systems, sampling will take place for four consecutive quarters 
over the course of 12 months (total of four sampling events). Sampling 
events will occur three months apart. For example, if the first sample 
is taken in January, the second will then occur anytime in April, the 
third will occur anytime in July and the fourth will occur anytime in 
October. For GW systems, sampling will take place twice over the course 
of 12 months (total of two sampling events). Sampling events will occur 
five to seven months apart. For example, if the first sample is taken 
in April, the second sample will then occur anytime in September, 
October or November.
    EPA, in conjunction with the states, will initially determine 
schedules (year and months of monitoring) for large water systems. 
These PWSs will then have an opportunity to modify their schedule for 
planning purposes or other reasons (e.g., to conduct monitoring during 
the months the system or the state believes are most vulnerable, spread 
costs over multiple years, address a situation where the sampling 
location will be closed during the scheduled month of monitoring, 
etc.). PWSs are not permitted to reschedule monitoring specifically to 
avoid sample collection during a suspected vulnerable period for the 
cyanotoxins. EPA will schedule and coordinate small system monitoring 
by working closely with partnering states. SMPs provide an opportunity 
for states to review and revise the initial sampling schedules that EPA 
proposes.
b. Summary of Major Comments and EPA Responses
    Commenters generally supported the narrower timeframe for 
cyanotoxin sampling but disfavored the narrower March through November 
timeframe for the 20 additional contaminants. For the latter group of 
contaminants, EPA received multiple comments that recommended using the 
traditional sampling frequency and timing of previous UCMR cycles. 
Commenters cited the potential for cost savings by allowing the UCMR 4 
HAAs to be sampled on the same schedule as compliance monitoring, and 
they also suggested that traditional 12-month monitoring would be 
appropriate for assessing lifetime exposure. EPA agrees with these 
points and today's rule includes the traditional monitoring schedule 
for the 20 additional contaminants. EPA's response is detailed more 
fully in the ``Response to Comments Document for the Unregulated 
Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR 4),'' (USEPA, 2016b), which can be 
found in the electronic docket listed in the ADDRESSES section of this 
notice.
    Several commenters recommended that the Agency reduce the number of 
sample events for GW systems to one instead of the traditional two. 
Commenters provided an assessment of data on UCMR 3 contaminants in GW 
systems, and suggested that there is no significant statistical 
difference between the results for the two sample events for many of 
the contaminants. EPA acknowledges that based on the UCMR 3 data, the 
correlation between sample event 1 and sample event 2 for GW systems 
can be high, and the distributions of measured values can be very 
similar. However, when making regulatory determinations, EPA evaluates 
the number of systems (and populations) with means or single measured 
values above health levels of concern, as both values provide important 
information on the occurrence of UCMR contaminants in PWSs. The 
approach suggested by commenters would yield less accurate data for 
several reasons. First, the analysis provided by the commenters shows 
that the counts or percentage of systems above a concentration of 
interest can vary between sample events, and that there are individual 
cases where the contaminant is not detected in one sample event but 
occurs at significant levels in the second event. In addition, the 
analysis by commenters did not find a strong correlation between the 
two GW sampling events for chlorate, a disinfectant byproduct, likely 
due to the temporal variability in disinfection practices. This 
strongly suggests that having a single sample

[[Page 92674]]

event may not be appropriate for temporally variable contaminants like 
pesticides and other anthropogenic contaminants. EPA did consider 
making exceptions for certain classes of contaminants (e.g., those 
contaminants that are not as temporally variable), however, the UCMR 
design must address all types of contaminants on a national scale, 
often without advance knowledge about the degree to which the 
contaminant occurrence may vary over time. Making exceptions would 
increase the complexity of the sample design. In addition, statistical 
means based on two measurements have considerably less error than a 
single measurement per system and provide a more robust dataset for 
future regulatory decisions. EPA also notes that the analysis provided 
by commenters only addressed a limited set of contaminants (i.e., those 
from UCMR 3) and did not examine the results from other UCMR cycles; if 
EPA were to consider reducing sampling frequency as suggested, the 
Agency would need more robust information. EPA will re-evaluate this 
issue in future UCMR cycles if new information becomes available.
    Finally, it is worth noting that the Agency does allow systems the 
opportunity to reduce monitoring by using approved GW representative 
entry points and, in the case of water systems that purchase water from 
the same source, by using representative connections.
2. Phased Sample Analysis for Microcystins
a. This Rule
    Today's rule utilizes a phased sample analysis approach for the 
microcystins to reduce analytical costs (i.e., PWSs will collect all 
required samples for each sampling event but not all samples may need 
to be analyzed). However, that phased approach has been simplified 
relative to the proposed approach and will begin with sample collection 
at the entry point to the distribution system (EPTDS). Three samples 
will be collected at the EPTDS for cyanotoxins. One sample will be 
collected for EPA Method 546 (Adda ELISA), another for potential 
analysis by EPA Method 544, and another for analysis by EPA Method 545. 
Adda ELISA is a widely used screening assay that allows for the 
aggregate detection of numerous microcystin congeners; it does not 
allow for measurement of the individual congeners (USEPA, 2015f; 
Fischer et al., 2001; McElhiney and Lawton, 2005; Zeck et al., 2001). 
If the EPTDS ELISA result is less than 0.3 micrograms per liter 
([micro]g/L) (i.e., the reporting limit for total microcystins), then 
the sample collected for Method 544 will not be analyzed for that 
sample event and only the Adda ELISA result will be reported to EPA. If 
the ELISA result is greater than or equal to 0.3 [micro]g/L, the result 
will be reported to EPA and the EPA Method 544 sample will then be 
analyzed to identify and quantify nodularin and the six specific 
microcystin congeners identified in Exhibit 3. Cylindrospermopsin and 
anatoxin-a will only be monitored at the EPTDS, with analysis by EPA 
Method 545.
    In lieu of the proposed source-water ELISA monitoring, this final 
rule requires PWSs to answer four simple ``metadata'' questions 
(identifying the appropriate responses from the options provided) to 
help EPA understand the source water quality at the time their EPTDS 
samples are collected. These questions are identified in the Data 
Elements section III.C.1.
b. Summary of Major Comments and EPA Responses
    EPA received multiple comments on the proposed phased approach to 
microcystins and the utility of measuring pH and temperature in the 
source water. Some commenters recommended omitting source water 
sampling for microcystins, suggesting that a correlation cannot be 
drawn between source water and finished water using the proposed 
approach. Commenters also suggested the following: Targeted studies 
should collect treatment plant metadata to support future analyses; the 
phased approach could potentially miss an increase in cyanotoxins 
released as a result of treatment (e.g., cell rupture during 
treatment); the inclusion of both source water data and drinking water 
data in NCOD and other outreach materials would confuse consumers; and 
more appropriate candidate indicators could be considered. EPA has 
considered these concerns and is not requiring source water microcystin 
monitoring in the final rule, nor is the Agency requiring pH and 
temperature data collection. UCMR 4 focuses instead on finished water 
cyanotoxin data collection and a more qualitative characterization of 
source water. EPA estimates that the final rule approach, relying on 
the collection of source water metadata in lieu of source water 
sampling, reduces $1.8 million in costs from the proposed regulation 
over the five-year period of the UCMR 4. The collection of source water 
metadata can easily be incorporated into the data reporting system and 
will complement the quantitative analytical drinking water data used to 
support future regulatory determinations.
    EPA also received comments reflecting confusion about the 
interpretation of results from the Adda ELISA microcystin method and 
Method 544 (microcystins by LC-MS/MS). EPA notes that the two methods 
provide different measures of microcystin occurrence and risk, and one 
result cannot practically be used to confirm the other. The Adda ELISA 
allows for an aggregate quantification of a wide spectrum of 
microcystin congeners based on the ability of the antibodies used in 
the assay to recognize microcystins, while Method 544 focuses on 
quantifying six specific microcystin congeners. The microcystins 
addressed in Method 544 may or may not be the dominant congeners in 
particular source waters.
3. Applicability of HAA Monitoring Requirements
a. This Rule
    If a water system is not subject to HAA5 monitoring under the D/
DBPRs (see Sec.  141.622 for D/DBPR monitoring requirements), the water 
systems is not required to collect and analyze UCMR 4 HAA samples.
b. Summary of Major Comments and EPA Responses
    One commenter suggested that EPA remove the UCMR 4 requirement for 
water systems to monitor for HAAs if the system is not subject to HAA5 
monitoring under the D/DBPRs. The logic is that non-disinfecting GW 
systems would not be expected to have measureable HAAs as DBPs. EPA 
agrees with the comment and has removed the requirement. This change 
reduces the UCMR 4 cost by $826,000 from the proposed rule's cost over 
the 5-year UCMR 4 period.
4. Representative Sampling
a. This Rule
    Consistent with previous UCMRs and as described in Sec.  
141.35(c)(3), UCMR 4 maintains the option for large GW systems that 
have multiple EPTDSs to sample, with prior approval, at representative 
sampling locations rather than at each EPTDS. Representative sampling 
plans approved under prior UCMRs will be recognized as valid for UCMR 
4. Systems must submit a copy of documentation from their state or EPA 
representing the prior approval of their alternative sampling plan. Any 
new GW representative monitoring plans must be submitted to EPA for 
review (by the state or EPA) within 120 days from publication of this 
final rule.

[[Page 92675]]

Once approved, these representative EPTDS locations, along with 
previously approved EPTDS locations from prior UCMRs, must be loaded 
into the Safe Drinking Water Accession and Review System (SDWARS) by 
the water system by December 31, 2017.
    Consistent with previous UCMRs and as described in Sec.  141.40, 
Table 1, systems that purchase water with multiple connections from the 
same wholesaler may select one representative connection from that 
wholesaler. This EPTDS sampling location must be representative of the 
highest annual volume connections. If the connection selected as the 
representative EPTDS is not available for sampling, an alternate 
highest volume representative connection must be sampled. Water 
provided by multiple wholesalers will be considered different sources 
and will each need a representative connection.
b. Summary of Major Comments and EPA Responses
    EPA received multiple comments about representative wholesale 
connections from consecutive systems. Commenters were concerned that 
this approach to reduce monitoring would be eliminated in UCMR 4. The 
proposed rule preamble explicitly highlighted the flexibility for 
representative ground water sampling, but did not highlight the option 
for representative wholesale connections (i.e., for consecutive 
systems). In this preamble, EPA is affirming the opportunity for water 
systems that purchase water (with multiple connections from the same 
wholesaler) to reduce monitoring; this option will continue in UCMR 4. 
EPA will likewise address this in future meetings, webinars and 
outreach materials.
5. Sampling Locations
a. This Rule
    Sample collection for the UCMR 4 contaminants will take place at 
the EPTDS for all contaminant groups except for the HAAs, which will 
take place in the distribution system. Sampling for the HAA indicators, 
TOC and bromide, will take place at a single source water influent for 
each treatment plant.
    If the system's treatment plant/water source is subject to the D/
DBPR's HAA5 monitoring requirements under Sec.  141.622, the water 
system will collect samples for the UCMR 4 HAAs at the D/DBPR sampling 
location(s). UCMR 4 HAA samples and D/DBPR HAA5 compliance monitoring 
samples may be collected by the PWS at the same time. However, EPA 
notes that PWSs are required to arrange for UCMR 4 HAA samples to be 
analyzed by a UCMR 4 approved laboratory using EPA Method 552.3 or 557 
(both of which are compliance methods also approved for analysis of D/
DBPR samples).
    For those systems subject to UCMR 4 HAA monitoring, sampling for 
the HAA indicators (TOC and bromide) will take place at the source 
water influent for each treatment plant (concurrent with UCMR 4 HAA 
sampling in the distribution system). This indicator-monitoring 
requirement does not pertain to consecutive systems (i.e., those 
purchasing water from other systems). For purposes of TOC and bromide 
sampling, EPA defines source water influent under UCMR as untreated 
water entering the water treatment plant (i.e., at a location prior to 
any treatment).
    SW and GWUDI systems subject to TOC monitoring under the D/DBPRs 
will use their TOC source water sampling site(s) defined at Sec.  
141.132 for UCMR 4 TOC and bromide samples. If a SW or GWUDI system is 
not subject to the D/DBPR TOC monitoring, it will use its Long Term 2 
Enhance Surface Water Treatment Rule (LT2) source water sampling 
site(s) (Sec.  141.703) to collect UCMR 4 samples for TOC and bromide. 
GW systems that are subject to the D/DBPRs will take TOC and bromide 
samples at their influents entering their treatment train.
b. Summary of Major Comments and EPA Responses
    With the exception of microcystin monitoring, commenters generally 
agreed with the sampling location approach described in the proposal. 
Changes made to address the microcystin comments are addressed in 
section III.B.2.
C. What are the reporting requirements for UCMR 4?
1. Data Elements
a. This Rule
    Today's final rule maintains the 26 data elements described in the 
proposed rule and updates some of the definitions for clarity and 
consistency in the reporting requirements. Additionally, EPA has 
included four data elements to address collection of the source water 
metadata discussed in section III.B.2.
    The four new metadata elements are all yes or no questions, with a 
corresponding drop down menu of options if yes is selected:
    (1) Bloom Occurrence--preceding the finished water sample 
collection, did you observe an algal bloom in your source waters near 
the intake?
    (2) Cyanotoxin Occurrence--preceding the finished water sample 
collection, were cyanotoxins ever detected in your source waters, near 
the intake and prior to any treatment (based on sampling by you or 
another party)?
    (3) Indicator of Possible Bloom--Treatment--preceding the finished 
water sample collection, did you notice any changes in your treatment 
system operation and/or treated water quality that may indicate a bloom 
in the source water?
    (4) Indicator of Possible Bloom--Source Water Quality Parameters--
preceding the finished water sample collection, did you observe any 
notable changes in source water quality parameters (if measured)?
    Please see Table 1 of Sec.  141.35(e) for the complete list of data 
elements, definitions and drop down options that will be provided in 
the data reporting system.
b. Summary of Major Comments and EPA Responses
    EPA received many comments on the proposed data elements, 
particularly regarding the complexity and utility of collecting the new 
quality control (QC) parameters; concerns with how the data will be 
gathered and processed; and questions about how the database will 
function.
    EPA will collect all 30 data elements in SDWARS 4, an updated 
version of the data reporting system used in previous UCMR actions. 
More than half of these data elements (e.g., inventory and analytical 
results) were used in prior UCMR cycles and were included in the 
previous SDWARS system. The new QC data elements are already generated 
by the laboratory and do not constitute new analytical requirements.
    SDWARS 4 will include improvements in the user interface and new QC 
checks will be built into the system to review the data in real-time. 
Consistent with prior UCMR cycles, states and EPA will have access to 
data once posted by the laboratory and reviewed by the PWS (or 60 days 
after the laboratory posting, whichever comes first). EPA will offer 
two database training sessions in 2017 to help users become familiar 
with the new system. One training session will be for the water systems 
and the other training session will be for the laboratories. A future 
Federal Register announcement will provide more details on these 
training sessions.
    Other comments regarding the data elements included the following 
specific points: a request for a simpler

[[Page 92676]]

classification of treatment ``bins''; a recommendation that the final 
rule collect the primary and secondary disinfectant practice in place 
at the time of HAA sampling; an observation that the UCMR 4 data are 
more informative when there is information describing the associated 
treatment; a recommendation that EPA simplify the data elements and 
data definitions; and a recommendation that the rule not collect 
metadata about oxidant addition, oxidant order of application, oxidant 
dose and oxidant contact time.
    The final rule simplifies and clarifies the treatment options 
available for the PWS to select as metadata; includes the collection of 
all disinfectant practices and information describing the treatment in 
place; simplifies the data elements and data definitions; and does not 
include the collection of metadata about oxidant order of application, 
dose or contact time. EPA's response is detailed more fully in the 
``Response to Comments Document for the Unregulated Contaminant 
Monitoring Rule (UCMR 4),'' (USEPA, 2016b), which can be found in the 
electronic docket listed in the ADDRESSES section of this notice.

IV. How are laboratories approved for UCMR 4 monitoring?

    Consistent with the proposal, and with past practice, the final 
rule requires EPA approval of all laboratories conducting analyses for 
UCMR 4. EPA will follow the traditional Agency approach, outlined in 
the proposal, to approving UCMR laboratories, which requires 
laboratories seeking approval to: (1) Provide EPA with data that 
demonstrates a successful completion of an initial demonstration of 
capability (IDC) as outlined in each method; (2) verify successful 
analytical performance at or below the MRLs as specified in this 
action; (3) provide information about laboratory operating procedures; 
and (4) successfully participate in an EPA proficiency testing (PT) 
program for the analytes of interest. Audits of laboratories may be 
conducted by EPA prior to and/or following approval. The ``UCMR 4 
Laboratory Approval Requirements and Information Document'' (USEPA, 
2016d) provides guidance on the EPA laboratory approval program and the 
specific method acceptance criteria.
    EPA may supply analytical reference standards for select analytes 
to participating/approved laboratories when reliable standards are not 
readily available through commercial sources.
    This final rule's structure for the laboratory approval program is 
the same as that proposed for UCMR 4 and employed in previous UCMRs, 
and provides an assessment of the laboratories' ability to perform 
analyses using the methods listed in Sec.  141.40(a)(3), Table 1. The 
UCMR 4 laboratory approval process is designed to assess whether 
laboratories possess the required equipment and analyst skills and can 
meet the laboratory-performance and data-reporting criteria described 
in this action. Laboratory participation in the UCMR laboratory 
approval program is voluntary. However, as in previous UCMRs and as 
proposed for UCMR 4, EPA will require PWSs to exclusively use 
laboratories that have been approved under the program to analyze UCMR 
4 samples. EPA expects to post a list of approved UCMR 4 laboratories 
to https://www.epa.gov/dwucmr. Laboratories are encouraged to apply for 
UCMR 4 approval as early as possible, as EPA anticipates that large 
PWSs scheduled for monitoring in the first year will be making 
arrangements for sample analyses soon after the final rule is 
published. The steps and requirements for the laboratory approval 
process are listed in sections A through F below.

A. Request To Participate

    Laboratories interested in the UCMR 4 laboratory approval program 
can request registration materials by emailing EPA at 
UCMR_Sampling_Coordinator@epa.gov to request registration materials.

B. Registration

    Laboratory applicants will provide registration information that 
includes: Laboratory name, mailing address, shipping address, contact 
name, phone number, email address and a list of the UCMR 4 methods for 
which the laboratory is seeking approval. This registration step 
provides EPA with the necessary contact information, and ensures that 
each laboratory receives a customized application package. Laboratories 
must complete and submit the necessary registration information by 
February 21, 2017.

C. Application Package

    Laboratories wishing to participate will complete and return a 
customized application package that includes the following: IDC data, 
including precision, accuracy and results of MRL studies; information 
regarding analytical equipment and other materials; proof of current 
drinking water laboratory certification (for select compliance 
monitoring methods); and example chromatograms for each method under 
review. Laboratories must complete and submit the necessary application 
materials by April 19, 2017.
    As a condition of receiving and maintaining approval, the 
laboratory is expected to confirm that it will post UCMR 4 monitoring 
results and quality control data that meet method criteria (on behalf 
of its PWS clients) to EPA's UCMR electronic data reporting system, 
SDWARS.

D. EPA's Review of Application Packages

    EPA will review the application packages and, if necessary, request 
follow-up information. Laboratories that successfully complete the 
application process become eligible to participate in the UCMR 4 PT 
program.

E. Proficiency Testing

    A PT sample is a synthetic sample containing a concentration of an 
analyte or mixture of analytes that is known to EPA, but unknown to the 
laboratory. To be approved, a laboratory is expected to meet specific 
acceptance criteria for the analysis of a UCMR 4 PT sample(s) for each 
analyte in each method, for which the laboratory is seeking approval. 
EPA intends to offer at least two opportunities for a laboratory to 
successfully analyze UCMR 4 PT samples after publication of the final 
rule. A laboratory is expected to pass one of the PT studies for each 
analytical method for which it is requesting approval, and will not be 
required to pass a PT study for a method it has already passed in a 
previous UCMR 4 PT study. EPA does not expect to conduct additional PT 
studies after the start of system monitoring; however, laboratory 
audits will likely be ongoing throughout UCMR 4 implementation. Initial 
laboratory approval is expected to be contingent on successful 
completion of a PT study. Continued laboratory approval is contingent 
on successful completion of the audit process and satisfactorily 
meeting all the other stated conditions.

F. Written EPA Approval

    For laboratories that have already successfully completed the 
preceding steps (A through E), EPA will have sent the applicant a 
letter listing the methods for which approval is pending (i.e., pending 
promulgation of this rule). Because no changes have been made to the 
final rule that impact the laboratory approval program, laboratories 
that received pending approval letters will be granted approval without 
further action on their part. Additional approval actions (i.e., for 
those laboratories that apply and have not already proceeded to the 
point of being in ``approval pending'' status) will be based on 
laboratory completion of Steps

[[Page 92677]]

A through E. In both cases, EPA will document its final decision in 
writing.
    EPA did not receive any adverse comments on the laboratory approval 
process or criteria that it proposed.

V. What is the past and future stakeholder involvement in the 
regulation process?

A. What is the states' role in the UCMR program?

    UCMR is a direct implementation rule (i.e., EPA has primary 
responsibility for its implementation) and state participation is 
voluntary. Under previous UCMRs, specific activities that individual 
states, tribes and territories agreed to carry out or assist with were 
identified and established exclusively through PAs. Through PAs, 
states, tribes and territories can help EPA implement the UCMR program 
and help ensure that the UCMR data are of the highest quality possible 
to best support Agency decision making. Under UCMR 4, EPA will continue 
to use the PA process to determine and document the following: the 
process for review and revision of the SMPs; replacing and updating 
system information; review and approval of proposed GW representative 
monitoring plans; notification and instructions for systems; and 
compliance assistance. EPA recognizes that states/primacy agencies 
often have the best information about PWSs in their state and 
encourages states to partner.
    SMPs include tabular listings of the systems that EPA selected and 
the proposed schedule for their monitoring. Initial SMPs also typically 
include instructions to states for revising and/or correcting system 
information in the SMPs, including modifying the sampling schedules for 
small systems. EPA will incorporate revisions from states, resolve any 
outstanding questions and return the final SMPs to each state.

B. What stakeholder meetings have been held in preparation for UCMR 4?

    EPA incorporates stakeholder involvement into each UCMR cycle. 
Specific to the development of UCMR 4, EPA held three public 
stakeholder meetings and is announcing a fourth in today's preamble 
(see section V.C). EPA held a meeting focused on drinking water methods 
for CCL contaminants on May 15, 2013, in Cincinnati, Ohio. Participants 
included representatives of state agencies, laboratories, PWSs, 
environmental organizations and drinking water associations. Meeting 
topics included an overview of the regulatory process (CCL, UCMR and 
Regulatory Determination) and drinking water methods under development, 
primarily for CCL contaminants (see USEPA, 2013 for presentation 
materials). EPA held a second stakeholder meeting on June 25, 2014, in 
Washington, DC. Attendees representing state agencies, tribes, 
laboratories, PWSs, environmental organizations and drinking water 
associations participated in the meeting via webinar and in person. 
Meeting topics included a status update on UCMR 3; UCMR 4 potential 
sampling design changes relative to UCMR 3; UCMR 4 candidate analytes 
and rationale; and the laboratory approval process (see USEPA, 2014 for 
meeting materials). The third stakeholder meeting was held on January 
13, 2016, via a webinar, during the public comment period for the 
proposed rule. Attendees representing state agencies, laboratories, 
PWSs, environmental organizations and drinking water associations 
participated. Meeting topics included the proposed UCMR 4 monitoring 
requirements, analyte selection and rationale, analytical methods, the 
laboratory approval process and GW representative monitoring plans (see 
USEPA, 2016f for meeting materials).

C. How do I participate in the upcoming stakeholder meeting?

    EPA will hold the fourth UCMR 4 public stakeholder meeting in 
Washington, DC, on April 12, 2017. Attendees can participate in person 
or via webinar. Topics will include the final UCMR 4 requirements for 
monitoring, sampling and reporting, analytical methods, the laboratory 
approval process, GW representative monitoring plans and consecutive 
system monitoring plans.
1. Meeting Participation
    Those who wish to participate in the public meeting, whether in 
person or via webinar, need to register in advance no later than 5:00 
p.m., eastern time on April 7, 2017, by going to https://www.eventbrite.com/e/ucmr-4-public-stakeholder-meeting-registration-28264984329. To ensure adequate time for questions, individuals or 
organizations with specific questions should identify any upfront 
questions when they register. Additional questions from attendees will 
be taken during the meeting and answered as time permits. The number of 
webinar connections available for the meeting is limited and will be 
available on a first-come, first-served basis. Further details about 
registration and participation can be found on EPA's Unregulated 
Contaminant Monitoring Program ``Meetings and Materials'' Web site at 
https://www.epa.gov/dwucmr.
2. Meeting Materials
    Materials are expected to be sent by email to all registered 
attendees prior to the meeting. EPA will post the materials on the 
Agency's Web site for persons who are unable to participate.

D. How did EPA consider Children's Environmental Health?

    Executive Order 13045 does not apply to UCMR 4, however, EPA's 
Policy on Evaluating Health Risks to Children is applicable (See VII.G. 
Executive Order 13045). By monitoring for unregulated contaminants that 
may pose health risks via drinking water, UCMR furthers the protection 
of public health for all citizens, including children. EPA considered 
children's health risks during the development of UCMR 4. This includes 
considering public comments about candidate contaminant priorities.
    The objective of UCMR 4 is to collect nationally representative 
drinking water data on a set of unregulated contaminants. EPA generally 
collects occurrence data for contaminants at the lowest levels that are 
feasible for the national network of approved drinking water 
laboratories to quantify accurately. By setting reporting levels as low 
as is feasible, the Agency positions itself to better address 
contaminant risk information in the future, including that associated 
with unique risks to children.

E. How did EPA address Environmental Justice?

    The EPA has concluded that this action is not subject to Executive 
Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) because it does not 
establish an environmental health or safety standard (see VII.J. 
Executive Order 12898). This regulatory action provides EPA and other 
interested parties with scientifically valid data on the national 
occurrence of selected contaminants in drinking water. 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. EPA recognizes that unregulated contaminants 
in drinking water are of interest to all populations and structured the 
rulemaking process and implementation of the UCMR 4 rule to allow for 
meaningful involvement and transparency. EPA organized public meetings 
and webinars to share information regarding the development of UCMR 4; 
coordinated with tribal governments; and convened a

[[Page 92678]]

workgroup that included representatives from several states.
    EPA will continue to collect U.S. Postal Service Zip Codes for each 
PWS's service area, as collected under UCMR 3, to support assessment in 
future regulatory evaluations of whether or not minority, low-income 
and/or indigenous-population communities are uniquely impacted by 
particular drinking water contaminants.

VI. What documents are being incorporated by reference?

    The following methods are incorporated by reference into this 
section for UCMR 4 monitoring. All approved material is available for 
inspection electronically at https://www.regulations.gov (Docket ID No. 
EPA-HQ-OW-2015-0218), or from the sources listed for each method. EPA 
has worked to make these methods and documents reasonably available to 
interested parties. The EPA and non-EPA methods that support monitoring 
under this rule are as follows:

A. Methods From the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

    The following methods are from the U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency, Water Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution 
Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20004.
    1. Method 200.8 ``Determination of Trace Elements in Waters and 
Wastes by Inductively Coupled Plasma--Mass Spectrometry,'' Revision 
5.4, EMMC Version, 1994. Available on the Internet at https://www.nemi.gov. This is an EPA method for the analysis of elements in 
water by ICP-MS and will measure germanium and manganese during UCMR 4.
    2. Method 300.0 ``Determination of Inorganic Anions by Ion 
Chromatography Samples,'' Revision 2.1, August 1993. Available on the 
Internet at https://www.nemi.gov. This is an EPA method for the 
analysis of inorganic anions in water samples using ion chromatography 
(IC) with conductivity detection. It will be used for the measurement 
of bromide, an indicator for the HAAs.
    3. Method 300.1 ``Determination of Inorganic Anions in Drinking 
Water by Ion Chromatography,'' Revision 1.0, 1997. Available on the 
Internet at https://www.epa.gov/dwanalyticalmethods. This is an EPA 
method for the analysis of inorganic anions in water samples using IC 
with conductivity detection. It will be used for the measurement of 
TOC, an indicator for the HAAs.
    4. Method 317.0 ``Determination of Inorganic Oxyhalide Disinfection 
By-Products in Drinking Water Using Ion Chromatography with the 
Addition of a Postcolumn Reagent for Trace Bromate Analysis,'' Revision 
2.0, July 2001, EPA 815-B-01-001. Available on the Internet at https://www.epa.gov/dwanalyticalmethods. This is an EPA method for the analysis 
of inorganic anions in water samples using IC with conductivity 
detection. It will be used for the measurement of bromide, an indicator 
for the HAAs.
    5. Method 326.0 ``Determination of Inorganic Oxyhalide Disinfection 
By-Products in Drinking Water Using Ion Chromatography Incorporating 
the Addition of a Suppressor Acidified Postcolumn Reagent for Trace 
Bromate Analysis,'' Revision 1.0, June 2002, EPA 815-R-03-007. 
Available on the Internet at https://www.epa.gov/dwanalyticalmethods. 
This is an EPA method for the analysis of inorganic anions in water 
samples using IC with conductivity detection. It will be used for the 
measurement of bromide, an indicator for the HAAs.
    6. Method 415.3 ``Determination of Total Organic Carbon and 
Specific UV Absorbance at 254 nm in Source Water and Drinking Water,'' 
Revision 1.1, February 2005, EPA/600/R-05/055. Available on the 
Internet at https://www.epa.gov/water-research/epa-drinking-water-research-methods. This is an EPA method for the analysis of TOC in 
water samples using a conductivity detector or a nondispersive infrared 
detector.
    7. Method 415.3 ``Determination of Total Organic Carbon and 
Specific UV Absorbance at 254 nm in Source Water and Drinking Water,'' 
Revision 1.2, September 2009, EPA/600/R-09/122. Available on the 
Internet at https://www.epa.gov/water-research/epa-drinking-water-research-methods. This is an EPA method for the analysis of TOC in 
water samples using a conductivity detector or a nondispersive infrared 
detector.
    8. Method 525.3 ``Determination of Semivolatile Organic Chemicals 
in Drinking Water by Solid Phase Extraction and Capillary Column Gas 
Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry (GC/MS),'' Version 1.0, February 2012, 
EPA/600/R-12/010. Available on the Internet https://www.epa.gov/water-research/epa-drinking-water-research-methods. This is an EPA method for 
the analysis of semivolatile organic chemicals in drinking water using 
SPE and GC/MS and will measure the nine UCMR 4 pesticides (alpha-
hexachlorocyclohexane, chlorpyrifos, dimethipin, ethoprop, oxyfluorfen, 
profenofos, tebuconazole, total cis- and trans- permethrin and 
tribufos).
    9. Method 530 ``Determination of Select Semivolatile Organic 
Chemicals in Drinking Water by Solid Phase Extraction and Gas 
Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry (GC/MS),'' Version 1.0, January 2015, 
EPA/600/R-14/442. Available on the Internet at https://www.epa.gov/water-research/epa-drinking-water-research-methods. This is an EPA 
method for the analysis of semivolatile organic chemicals in drinking 
water using SPE and GC/MS and will measure butylated hydroxyanisole, o-
toluidine and quinoline.
    10. EPA Method 541: ``Determination of 1-Butanol, 1,4-Dioxane, 2-
Methoxyethanol and 2-Propen-1-ol in Drinking Water by Solid Phase 
Extraction and Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry,'' November 2015, 
EPA 815-R-15-011. Available on the Internet at https://www.epa.gov/water-research/epa-drinking-water-research-methods. This is an EPA 
method for the analysis of selected alcohols and 1,4-dioxane in 
drinking water using SPE and GC/MS and will measure 1-butanol, 2-
methoxyethanol and 2-propen-1-ol.
    11. Method 544 ``Determination of Microcystins and Nodularin in 
Drinking Water by Solid Phase Extraction and Liquid Chromatography/
Tandem Mass Spectrometry (LC/MS/MS),'' Version 1.0, February 2015, EPA 
600-R-14/474. Available on the Internet at https://www.epa.gov/water-research/epa-drinking-water-research-methods. This is an EPA method for 
the analysis of selected cyanotoxins in drinking water using SPE and 
LC-MS/MS with electrospray ionization (ESI) and will measure six 
microcystins (microcystin-LA, microcystin-LF, microcystin-LR, 
microcystin-LY, microcystin-RR and microcystin-YR) and nodularin.
    12. EPA Method 545: ``Determination of Cylindrospermopsin and 
Anatoxin-a in Drinking Water by Liquid Chromatography Electrospray 
Ionization Tandem Mass Spectrometry (LC/ESI-MS/MS),'' April 2015, EPA 
815-R-15-009. Available on the Internet at https://www.epa.gov/dwanalyticalmethods. This is an EPA method for the analysis of selected 
cyanotoxins in drinking water using LC-MS/MS with ESI and will measure 
cylindrospermopsin and anatoxin-a.
    13. EPA Method 546: ``Determination of Total Microcystins and 
Nodularins in Drinking Water and Ambient Water by Adda Enzyme-Linked 
Immunosorbent Assay,'' August 2016, EPA-815-B-16-011. Available on the 
Internet at https://www.epa.gov/dwanalyticalmethods. This is an EPA 
method for the analysis of total microcystins and nodularins in 
drinking water using ELISA.

[[Page 92679]]

    14. Method 552.3 ``Determination of Haloacetic Acids and Dalapon in 
Drinking Water by Liquid-Liquid Microextraction, Derivatization, and 
Gas Chromatography with Electron Capture Detection,'' Revision 1.0, 
July 2003, EPA 815-B-03-002. Available on the Internet at https://www.epa.gov/dwanalyticalmethods. This is an EPA method for the analysis 
of haloacetic acids and dalapon in drinking water using liquid-liquid 
microextraction, derivatization, and GC with ECD, and will measure the 
three UCMR 4 HAA groups (HAA5, HAA6Br and HAA9).
    15. EPA Method 557: ``Determination of Haloacetic Acids, Bromate, 
and Dalapon in Drinking Water by Ion Chromatography Electrospray 
Ionization Tandem Mass Spectrometry (IC-ESI-MS/MS),'' Version 1.0, 
September 2009, EPA 815-B-09-012. Available on the Internet at https://www.epa.gov/dwanalyticalmethods. This is an EPA method for the analysis 
of haloacetic acids, bromate, and dalapon in drinking water using IC-
MS/MS with ESI, and will measure the three UCMR 4 HAA groups (HAA5, 
HAA6Br and HAA9).

B. Methods From American Public Health Association--Standard Methods 
(SM)

    The following methods are from American Public Health Association--
Standard Methods (SM), 800 I Street NW., Washington, DC 20001-3710
    1. ``Standard Methods for the Examination of Water & Wastewater,'' 
21st edition (2005).
    a. SM 3125 ``Metals by Inductively Coupled Plasma/Mass 
Spectrometry.'' This is a Standard Method for the analysis of metals 
and metalloids in water by ICP-MS and is used for the analysis of 
germanium and manganese.
    b. SM 5310B ``Total Organic Carbon (TOC): High-Temperature 
Combustion Method.'' This is a Standard Method for the analysis of TOC 
in water samples using a conductivity detector or a nondispersive 
infrared detector.
    c. SM 5310C ``Total Organic Carbon (TOC): Persulfate-UV or Heated-
Persulfate Oxidation Method.'' This is a Standard Method for the 
analysis of TOC in water samples using conductivity detector or a 
nondispersive infrared detector.
    d. SM 5310D ``Total Organic Carbon (TOC): Wet-Oxidation Method.'' 
This is a Standard Method for the analysis of TOC in water samples 
using a conductivity detector or a nondispersive infrared detector.
    2. ``Standard Methods Online.,'' approved 2000 (unless noted). 
Available for purchase on the Internet at http://www.standardmethods.org.
    a. SM 3125 ``Metals by Inductively Coupled Plasma/Mass 
Spectrometry'' Editorial revisions, 2011 (SM 3125-09). This is a 
Standard Method for the analysis of metals and metalloids in water by 
ICP-MS and is used to measure germanium and manganese.
    b. SM 5310B ``Total Organic Carbon: High-Temperature Combustion 
Method,'' (5310B-00). This is a Standard Method for the analysis of TOC 
in water samples using a conductivity detector or a nondispersive 
infrared detector.
    c. SM 5310C ``Total Organic Carbon: Persulfate-UV or Heated-
Persulfate Oxidation Method,'' (5310C-00). This is a Standard Method 
for the analysis of TOC in water samples using a conductivity detector 
or a nondispersive infrared detector.
    d. SM 5310D ``Total Organic Carbon: Wet-Oxidation Method,'' (5310D-
00). This is a Standard Method for the analysis of TOC in water samples 
using a conductivity detector or a nondispersive infrared detector.

C. Methods From ASTM International

    The following methods are from ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor 
Drive, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959.
    1. ASTM D5673-10 ``Standard Test Method for Elements in Water by 
Inductively Coupled Plasma-Mass Spectrometry,'' approved August 1, 
2010. Available for purchase on the Internet at http://www.astm.org/Standards/D5673.htm. This is an ASTM method for the analysis of 
elements in water by ICP-MS and is used to measure germanium and 
manganese.
    2. ASTM D6581-12 ``Standard Test Methods for Bromate, Bromide, 
Chlorate, and Chlorite in Drinking Water by Suppressed Ion 
Chromatography,'' approved March 1, 2012. Available for purchase on the 
Internet at http://www.astm.org/Standards/D6581.htm. This is an ASTM 
method for the analysis of inorganic anions in water samples using IC 
with conductivity detection. It will be used for the measurement of 
bromide, an indicator for the HAAs.

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive 
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This action is a significant regulatory action that was submitted 
to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review. Any changes 
made in response to OMB recommendations have been documented in the 
docket, ``Documentation of OMB Review Under Executive Order 12866: 
Revisions to the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation (UCMR 4) 
for Public Water Systems.'' The EPA prepared an analysis of the 
potential costs associated with this action, and this is also available 
in the docket, ``Information Collection Request for the Unregulated 
Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR 4).''

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    The information collection activities in this rule have been 
submitted for approval to OMB under the PRA. The ICR document that the 
EPA prepared has been assigned EPA ICR number 2192.08. You can find a 
copy of the ICR in the docket for this rule, and it is briefly 
summarized here. The ICR requirements are not enforceable until OMB 
approves them.
    The information that EPA will collect under this rule fulfills the 
statutory requirements of section 1445(a)(2) of the SDWA, as amended in 
1996. EPA will collect information that describes the source of the 
water, location and test results for samples taken from PWSs as 
described in 40 CFR 141.35(e). The information collected will support 
Agency decisions as to whether or not to regulate particular 
contaminants under the SDWA. Reporting is mandatory. The data are not 
subject to confidentiality protection.
    EPA received a number of comments regarding cost and burden of the 
proposed rule. Those comments recommended the following: Omit source 
water monitoring for microcystins; omit UCMR 4 HAA monitoring for PWSs 
that do not conduct HAA compliance monitoring; allow monitoring over a 
12-month period for contaminants other than cyanotoxins; and provide 
more accurate cost estimates. Based on these public comments, the 
following changes were made to the final rule. EPA's response is 
detailed more fully in the ``Response to Comments Document for the 
Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR 4),'' (USEPA, 2016b), 
which can be found in the electronic docket listed in the ADDRESSES 
section of this notice.
    1. Removed the proposed source water monitoring requirement for 
microcystins, temperature and pH.
    2. Limited UCMR 4 HAA monitoring to only those PWSs that are 
subject to the D/DBPRs.
    3. Restored the traditional 12-month monitoring schedule for the 20 
additional (non-cyanotoxin) contaminants. This will support PWSs

[[Page 92680]]

that wish to do concurrent HAA compliance monitoring and UCMR 4 
sampling.
    4. Increased the wage estimates to 2016 rates using the Employment 
Cost Index for waters and salaries in trade, transport and utilities.
    5. Updated the analytical costs of each method with new cost 
estimates from more laboratories.
    The annual burden and cost estimates described in this section are 
based on the implementation assumptions described in section III. In 
general, burden hours were calculated by:
    1. Determining the activities that PWSs and states would complete 
to comply with the UCMR activity;
    2. Estimating the number of hours per activity;
    3. Estimating the number of respondents per activity; and
    4. Multiplying the hours per activity by the number of respondents 
for that activity.
    Respondents to UCMR 4 include 1,600 small PWSs (800 for cyanotoxin 
monitoring and a different set of 800 for monitoring the additional 20 
contaminants), the ~4,292 large PWSs and the 56 states and primacy 
agencies (~5,948 total respondents). The frequency of response varies 
across respondents and years. System costs (particularly laboratory 
analytical costs) vary depending on the number of sampling locations. 
For cost estimates, EPA assumed that systems will conduct sampling 
evenly from January 2018 through December 2020, excluding December, 
January and February of each year for cyanotoxins (i.e., one-third of 
the systems in each year of monitoring). Because the applicable ICR 
period is 2017-2019, one year of monitoring activity (i.e., 2020) is 
not captured in the ICR estimates; this will be addressed in a 
subsequent ICR renewal for UCMR 4.
    Small PWSs that are selected for UCMR 4 monitoring will sample an 
average of 6.7 times per PWS (i.e., number of responses per PWS) across 
the 3-year ICR period. The average burden per response for small PWSs 
is estimated to be 2.8 hours. Large PWSs (those serving 10,001 to 
100,000 people) and very large PWSs (those serving more than 100,000 
people) will sample and report an average of 11.4 and 14.1 times per 
PWS, respectively, across the 3-year ICR period. The average burden per 
response for large and very large PWSs is estimated at 6.1 and 9.9 
hours, respectively. States are assumed to have an annual average 
burden of 244.3 hours related to coordination with EPA and PWSs. In the 
aggregate, during the ICR period, the average response (e.g., responses 
from PWSs and states) is associated with a burden of 6.9 hours, with a 
labor plus non-labor cost of $1,636 per response.
    The annual average per-respondent burden hours and costs for the 
ICR period are: Small PWSs--6.1 hours, or $169, for labor; large PWSs--
23.3 hours, or $684, for labor and $5,756 for analytical costs; very 
large PWSs--46.4 hours, or $1,253, for labor and $15,680 for analytical 
costs; and states--244.3 hours, or $11,789, for labor. Annual average 
burden and cost per respondent (including both systems and states) is 
estimated to be 23.3 hours, with a labor plus non-labor cost of $3,718 
per respondent. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    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 
rules in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. When OMB approves this 
ICR, the Agency will announce that approval in the Federal Register and 
publish a technical amendment to 40 CFR part 9 to display the OMB 
control number for the approved information collection activities 
contained in this final rule.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    For purposes of assessing the impacts of this rule on small 
entities, EPA considered small entities to be PWSs serving 10,000 or 
fewer people, because this is the system size specified in the SDWA as 
requiring special consideration with respect to small system 
flexibility. As required by the RFA, EPA proposed using this 
alternative definition in the FR, (63 FR 7606, February 13, 1998 
(USEPA, 1998a)), sought public comment, consulted with the Small 
Business Administration (SBA) and finalized the alternative definition 
in the Consumer Confidence Reports rulemaking, (63 FR 44512, August 19, 
1998 (USEPA, 1998b)). As stated in that Final Rule, the alternative 
definition will be applied to future drinking water rules, including 
this rule.
    An agency certifies that a rule will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the 
RFA. In making this determination, the impact of concern is any 
significant adverse economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities if the rule relieves regulatory burden, has no net burden or 
otherwise has a positive economic effect on the small entities subject 
to the rule. The evaluation of the overall impact on small systems, 
summarized in the preceding discussion, is further described as 
follows. EPA analyzed the impacts for privately-owned and publicly-
owned water systems separately, due to the different economic 
characteristics of these ownership types, such as different rate 
structures and profit goals. However, for both publicly- and privately-
owned systems, EPA used the ``revenue test,'' which compares annual 
system costs attributed to the rule to the system's annual revenues. 
EPA used median revenue data from the 2006 CWS Survey for public and 
private water systems (USEPA, 2009c). The revenue figures were updated 
to 2016 dollars, and increased by three percent to account for 
inflation. EPA assumes that the distribution of the sample of 
participating small systems will reflect the proportions of publicly- 
and privately-owned systems in the national inventory. The estimated 
distribution of the representative sample, categorized by ownership 
type, source water and system size, is presented in Exhibit 6.

               Exhibit 6--Number of Publicly- and Privately-Owned Small Systems Subject to UCMR 4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                    Privately-
                System size (# of people served)                  Publicly-owned       owned          Total 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Ground Water
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
500 and under...................................................              21              64              85
501 to 3,300....................................................             161              62             223
3,301 to 10,000.................................................             179              41             220
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Subtotal GW.................................................             361             167             528
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 92681]]

 
                                            Surface Water (and GWUDI)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
500 and under...................................................              18              21              39
501 to 3,300....................................................             241              86             327
3,301 to 10,000.................................................             548             158             706
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Subtotal SW.................................................             807             265           1,072
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
        Total of Small Water Systems............................           1,168             432           1,600
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ PWS counts were adjusted to display as whole numbers in each size category.

    The basis for the UCMR 4 RFA certification is as follows: For the 
1,600 small water systems that will be affected, the average annual 
cost for complying with this rule represents no more than 0.7% of 
system revenues (the highest estimated percentage is for GW systems 
serving 500 or fewer people, at 0.7% of its median revenue). Exhibit 7 
presents the yearly cost to small systems and to EPA for the small 
system sampling program, along with an illustration of system 
participation for each year of UCMR 4.

                                                  Exhibit 7--Implementation of UCMR 4 at Small Systems
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Cost description                           2017            2018            2019            2020            2021          Total \1\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Costs to EPA for Small System Program (Assessment Monitoring)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      $0      $5,635,113      $5,635,113      $5,635,113              $0     $16,905,340
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Costs to Small Systems (Assessment Monitoring)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       0         270,848         270,848         270,848               0         812,545
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Total Costs to EPA and Small Systems for UCMR 4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       0       5,905,962       5,905,962       5,905,962               0      17,717,886
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         System Monitoring Activity Timeline \2\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assessment Monitoring: Cyanotoxins......................  ..............        1/3 PWSs        1/3 PWSs        1/3 PWSs  ..............             800
                                                                                  Sample          Sample          Sample
Assessment Monitoring: 20 Additional Contaminants.......  ..............        1/3 PWSs        1/3 PWSs        1/3 PWSs  ..............             800
                                                                                  Sample          Sample          Sample
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Totals may not equal the sum of components due to rounding.
\2\ Total number of systems is 1,600. No small system conducts Assessment Monitoring for both cyanotoxins and the 20 additional contaminants.

    PWS costs are attributed to the labor required for reading about 
UCMR 4 requirements, monitoring, reporting and record keeping. The 
estimated average annual burden across the 5-year UCMR 4 implementation 
period of 2017-2021 is 2.8 hours at $102 per small system. Average 
annual cost, in all cases, is less than 0.7% of system revenues. By 
assuming all costs for laboratory analyses, shipping and quality 
control for small entities, EPA incurs the entirety of the non-labor 
costs associated with UCMR 4 small system monitoring, or 95% of total 
small system testing costs. Exhibit 8 and Exhibit 9 present the 
estimated economic impacts in the form of a revenue test for publicly- 
and privately-owned systems.

              Exhibit 8--UCMR 4 Relative Cost Analysis for Small Publicly-Owned Systems (2017-2021)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Average annual  Average annual
                                                   Annual number     hours per       cost per     Revenue test 2
        System size (# of people served)            of systems     system (2017-   system (2017-        (%)
                                                    impacted 1         2021)           2021)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Ground Water Systems
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
500 and under...................................               4             1.5             $55            0.14
501 to 3,300....................................              32             1.6              59            0.04
3,301 to 10,000.................................              36             1.7              63            0.01
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Surface Water (and GWUDI) Systems
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
500 and under...................................               4             3.3             119            0.16
501 to 3,300....................................              48             3.3             119            0.04
3,301 to 10,000.................................             110             3.4             124            0.01
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ PWS counts were adjusted to display as whole numbers in each size category.
\2\ The Revenue Test was used to evaluate the economic impact of an information collection on small government
  entities (e.g., publicly-owned systems); costs are presented as a percentage of median annual revenue in each
  size category (EPA, 2009c).


[[Page 92682]]


             Exhibit 9--UCMR 4 Relative Cost Analysis for Small Privately-Owned Systems (2017-2021)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Average annual  Average annual
                                                   Annual number     hours per       cost per     Revenue test 2
        System size (# of people served)            of systems     system (2017-   system (2017-        (%)
                                                    impacted 1         2021)           2021)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Ground Water Systems
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
500 and under...................................              13             1.5             $55            0.74
501 to 3,300....................................              12             1.6              59            0.04
3,301 to 10,000.................................               8             1.7              63            0.01
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Surface Water (and GWUDI) Systems
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
500 and under...................................               4             3.3             119            0.28
501 to 3,300....................................              17             3.3             119            0.04
3,301 to 10,000.................................              32             3.4             124            0.01
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ PWS counts were adjusted to display as whole numbers in each size category.
\2\ The Revenue Test was used to evaluate the economic impact of an information collection on small government
  entities (e.g., privately-owned systems); costs are presented as a percentage of median annual revenue in each
  size category (EPA, 2009c).

    The Agency has determined that 1,600 small PWSs (for Assessment 
Monitoring), or approximately 4.2% of all small systems, will 
experience an impact of no more than 0.7% of revenues; the remainder of 
small systems will not be impacted.
    Although this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities, EPA has attempted to reduce this 
impact by assuming all costs for analyses of the samples and for 
shipping the samples from small systems to laboratories contracted by 
EPA to analyze UCMR 4 samples (the cost of shipping is now included in 
the cost of each analytical method). EPA has set aside $2.0 million 
each year from the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (SRF), with its 
authority to use SRF monies for the purposes of implementing this 
provision of the SDWA. Thus, the costs to these small systems will be 
limited to the labor associated with collecting a sample and preparing 
it for shipping.
    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. In 
making this determination, the impact of concern is any significant 
adverse economic impact on small entities. The Agency therefore 
concluded that this action will have no net regulatory burden for all 
directly regulated small entities.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain an annual unfunded mandate of $100 
million or more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not 
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action 
implements mandate(s) specifically and explicitly set forth in the SDWA 
without the exercise of any policy discretion by the EPA.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have 
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between 
the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power 
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

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

    This action will neither impose substantial direct compliance costs 
on federally recognized tribal governments, nor preempt tribal law. As 
described previously, this rule requires monitoring by all large PWSs. 
Information in the SDWIS/Fed water system inventory indicates there are 
17 large tribal PWSs (ranging in size from 10,001 to 40,000 customers). 
EPA estimates the average annual cost to each of these large PWSs, over 
the 5-year rule period, to be $3,864. This cost is based on a labor 
component (associated with the collection of samples), and a non-labor 
component (associated with shipping and laboratory fees), and 
represents 1.1% of average revenue/sales for large PWSs. UCMR also 
requires monitoring by a nationally representative sample of small 
PWSs. EPA estimates that approximately 1.5% of small tribal systems 
will be selected as a nationally representative sample for Assessment 
Monitoring. EPA estimates the average annual cost to small tribal 
systems over the 5-year rule period to be $102. Such cost is based on 
the labor associated with collecting a sample and preparing it for 
shipping and represents less than 0.7% of average revenue/sales for 
small PWSs. All other small PWS expenses (associated with shipping and 
laboratory fees) are paid by EPA.
    EPA consulted with tribal officials under the EPA Policy on 
Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribes early in the process 
of developing this rule to permit them to have meaningful and timely 
input into its development. A summary of that consultation is provided 
in the electronic docket listed in the ADDRESSES section of this 
notice.

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

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is 
not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and 
because EPA does not think the environmental health or safety risks 
addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to children. 
This action's health and risk assessments are addressed in section V.D 
of the preamble.

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

    This action is not a ``significant energy action'' because it is 
not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, 
distribution or use of energy. This is a national drinking water 
occurrence study that was submitted to OMB for review.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act and 1 CFR Part 51

    This action involves technical standards. This rule uses methods 
developed by the Agency and two major voluntary consensus method 
organizations to support UCMR 4 monitoring. The voluntary consensus 
method organizations are Standard Methods and ASTM International. EPA

[[Page 92683]]

identified acceptable consensus method organization standards for the 
analysis of manganese and germanium. In addition, there are several 
consensus standards that are approved for compliance monitoring that 
will be available for use in the analysis of TOC and bromide. A summary 
of each method along with how the method specifically applies to UCMR 4 
can be found in section VI of the preamble.
    All of these standards are reasonably available for public use. The 
Agency methods are free for download on EPA's Web site. The methods in 
the Standard Method 21st edition are consensus standards, available for 
purchase from the publisher, and are commonly used by the drinking 
water community. The methods in the Standard Method Online are 
consensus standards, available for purchase from the publisher's Web 
site, and are commonly used by the drinking water community. The 
methods from ASTM International are consensus standards, are available 
for purchase from the publisher's Web site, and are commonly used by 
the drinking water community.

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

    The EPA concludes that this action is not subject to Executive 
Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) because it does not 
establish an environmental health or safety standard. Background 
information regarding EPA's consideration of Executive Order 12898 in 
the development of this final rule is provided in section V.E of this 
preamble, and an additional supporting document has been placed in the 
electronic docket listed in the ADDRESSES section of this notice.

K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

    This action is subject to the CRA, and the EPA will submit a rule 
report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of 
the United States. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 
U.S.C. 804(2).

VIII. References

    ASDWA. 2013. Insufficient Resources for State Drinking Water 
Programs Threaten Public Health: An Analysis of State Drinking Water 
Programs' Resources and Needs. December 2013.
    ASTM. 2010. ASTM D5673-10--Standard Test Method for Elements in 
Water by Inductively Coupled Plasma-Mass Spectrometry. Approved 
August 1, 2010. Available for purchase on the Internet at http://www.astm.org/Standards/D5673.htm.
    ASTM. 2012. ASTM D6581-12--Standard Test Methods for Bromate, 
Bromide, Chlorate, and Chlorite in Drinking Water by Suppressed Ion 
Chromatography. Available for purchase on the Internet at http://www.astm.org/Standards/D6581.htm.
    Fischer, W.J., Garthwaite, I., Miles, C.O., Ross, K.M., Aggen, 
J.B., Chamberlin, A.R., Towers, N.R., Dietrich, D.R. 2001. Congener-
Independent Immunoassay for Microcystins and Nodularins. 
Environmental Science & Technology, 35 (24), pp 4849-4856. Available 
for purchase on the Internet at http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/es011182f.
    McElhiney, J., and Lawton, L.A. 2005. Detection of the 
Cyanobacterial Hepatotoxins Microcystins. Toxicology and Applied 
Pharmacology, 203 (3): 219-230. Available for purchase on the 
Internet at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.taap.2004.06.002.
    Ohio EPA. 2015. Ohio EPA Total (Extracellular and Intracellular) 
Microcystins--Adda by ELISA Analytical Methodology. Version 2.0. 
January 2015. Available on the Internet at http://www.epa.ohio.gov/Portals/28/documents/habs/HAB_Analytical_Methodology.pdf.
    SM Online. 2000a. SM 5310B-00--The Determination of Total 
Organic Carbon by High-Temperature Combustion Method. Standard 
Methods Online. Available for purchase on the Internet at http://www.standardmethods.org.
    SM Online. 2000b. SM 5310C-00--Total organic carbon by 
Persulfate-UV or Heated-Persulfate Oxidation Method. Standard 
Methods Online. Available for purchase on the Internet at http://www.standardmethods.org.
    SM Online. 2000c. SM 5310D-00--Total organic carbon by Wet-
Oxidation Method. Standard Methods Online. Available for purchase on 
the Internet at http://www.standardmethods.org.
    SM. 2005a. SM 3125--Metals by Inductively Coupled Plasma/Mass 
Spectrometry. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water & 
Wastewater, 21st edition. American Public Health Association, 800 I 
Street NW., Washington, DC 20001-3710.
    SM. 2005b. SM 5310B--The Determination of Total Organic Carbon 
by High-Temperature Combustion Method. Standard Methods for the 
Examination of Water & Wastewater, 21st edition. American Public 
Health Association, 800 I Street NW., Washington, DC 20001-3710.
    SM. 2005c. SM 5310C-00--Total Organic Carbon by Persulfate-UV or 
Heated-Persulfate Oxidation Method. Standard Methods for the 
Examination of Water & Wastewater, 21st edition. American Public 
Health Association, 800 I Street NW., Washington, DC 20001-3710.
    SM. 2005d. SM 5310D--Total Organic Carbon by Wet-Oxidation 
Method. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water & Wastewater, 
21st edition. American Public Health Association, 800 I Street NW., 
Washington, DC 20001-3710.
    SM Online. 2009. SM 3125-09--Metals by Inductively Coupled 
Plasma/Mass Spectrometry (Editorial revisions, 2011). Standard 
Methods Online. Available for purchase on the Internet at http://www.standardmethods.org.
    USEPA. 1993. EPA Method 300.0--Determination of Inorganic Anions 
by Ion Chromatography Samples. Revision 2.1. Available on the 
Internet at https://www.nemi.gov.
    USEPA. 1994. EPA Method 200.8--Determination of Trace Elements 
in Waters and Wastes by Inductively Coupled Plasma-Mass 
Spectrometry. Revision 5.4. Available on the Internet at https://www.nemi.gov/.
    USEPA. 1997. EPA Method 300.1--Determination of Inorganic Anions 
in Drinking Water by Ion Chromatography. Revision 1.0. 1997. 
Available on the Internet at https://www.epa.gov/dwanalyticalmethods.
    USEPA. 1998a. National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: 
Consumer Confidence Reports; Proposed Rule. Federal Register. Vol. 
63, No. 30, p. 7606, February 13, 1998.
    USEPA. 1998b. National Primary Drinking Water Regulation: 
Consumer Confidence Reports; Final Rule. Federal Register. Vol. 63, 
No. 160, p. 44512, 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. 2001a. Statistical Design and Sample Selection for the 
Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation (1999). EPA 815-R-01-
004, August 2001.
    USEPA. 2001b. EPA Method 317.0--Determination of Inorganic 
Oxyhalide Disinfection By-Products in Drinking Water Using Ion 
Chromatography with the Addition of a Postcolumn Reagent for Trace 
Bromate Analysis. Revision 2.0. EPA 815-B-01-001. Available on the 
Internet at https://www.epa.gov/dwanalyticalmethods.
    USEPA. 2002. EPA Method 326.0--Determination of Inorganic 
Oxyhalide Disinfection By-Products in Drinking Water Using Ion 
Chromatography Incorporating the Addition of a Suppressor Acidified 
Postcolumn Reagent for Trace Bromate Analysis. Revision 1.0. EPA 
815-R-03-007. Available on the Internet at https://www.epa.gov/dwanalyticalmethods.
    USEPA. 2003. EPA Method 552.3--Determination of Haloacetic Acids 
and Dalapon in Drinking Water by Liquid-Liquid Microextraction, 
Derivatization, and Gas Chromatography with Electron Capture 
Detection. Revision 1.0. EPA 815-B-03-002, July 2003. Available on 
the Internet at https://www.epa.gov/dwanalyticalmethods.
    USEPA. 2005. EPA Method 415.3--Determination of Total Organic 
Carbon and Specific UV Absorbance at 254 nm in Source Water and 
Drinking Water. Revision 1.1. EPA/600/R-05/055, February 2005. 
Available on the Internet at https://www.epa.gov/water-research/epa-drinking-water-research-methods.
    USEPA. 2007. Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation 
(UCMR) for Public Water Systems Revisions. Federal Register. Vol. 
72, No. 2, p. 368, January 4, 2007.
    USEPA. 2009a. EPA Method 557--Determination of Haloacetic Acids, 
Bromate, and Dalapon in Drinking Water by Ion Chromatography 
Electrospray Ionization Tandem Mass Spectrometry (IC-ESI-MS/MS). 
Version 1.0. EPA 815-B-09-012, September 2009. Available on the 
Internet at https://www.epa.gov/dwanalyticalmethods.

[[Page 92684]]

    USEPA. 2009b. EPA Method 415.3--Determination of Total Organic 
Carbon and Specific UV Absorbance at 254 nm in Source Water and 
Drinking Water. Revision 1.2. EPA/600/R-09/122, September 2009. 
Available on the Internet at https://www.epa.gov/water-research/epa-drinking-water-research-methods.
    USEPA. 2009c. 2006 Community Water Survey. Volume II: Detailed 
Tables and Survey Methodology. EPA 815-R-09-002, May 2009. Available 
on the Internet at https://www.epa.gov/dwstandardsregulations/community-water-system-survey.
    USEPA. 2012a. Revisions to the Unregulated Contaminant 
Monitoring Regulation (UCMR 3) for Public Water Systems; Final Rule. 
Federal Register. Vol. 77, No. 85, p. 26072, May 2, 2012.
    USEPA. 2012b. EPA Method 525.3--Determination of Semivolatile 
Organic Chemicals in Drinking Water by Solid Phase Extraction and 
Capillary Column Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry (GC/MS). 
Version 1.0. EPA/600/R-12/010, February 2012. Available on the 
Internet at https://www.epa.gov/water-research/epa-drinking-water-research-methods.
    USEPA. 2013. Meetings and Materials for the Unregulated 
Contaminant Monitoring Program. Available on the Internet at https://www.epa.gov/dwucmr.
    USEPA. 2014. Stakeholder Meeting Slides Regarding Revisions to 
the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation. Available on the 
Internet at https://www.epa.gov/dwucmr.
    USEPA. 2015a. Revisions to the Unregulated Contaminant 
Monitoring Rule (UCMR 4) for Public Water Systems and Announcement 
of a Public Meeting; Proposed Rule. Federal Register. Vol 80, No. 
238, p. 76897, December 11, 2015.
    USEPA. 2015b. EPA Method 544--Determination of Microcystins and 
Nodularin in Drinking Water by Solid Phase Extraction and Liquid 
Chromatography/Tandem Mass Spectrometry (LC/MS/MS). Version 1.0. 
EPA-600-R-14/474, February 2015. Available on the Internet at 
https://www.epa.gov/water-research/epa-drinking-water-research-methods.
    USEPA. 2015c. EPA Method 545--Determination of 
Cylindrospermopsin and Anatoxin-a in Drinking Water by Liquid 
Chromatography Electrospray Ionization Tandem Mass Spectrometry (LC/
ESI-MS/MS). EPA 815-R-15-009, April 2015. Available on the Internet 
at https://www.epa.gov/dwanalyticalmethods.
    USEPA. 2015d. EPA Method 541--Determination of 1-Butanol, 1,4-
Dioxane, 2-Methoxyethanol And 2-Propen-1-ol in Drinking Water by 
Solid Phase Extraction and Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry. EPA 
815-R-15-011, November 2015. Available on the Internet at https://www.epa.gov/dwanalyticalmethods.
    USEPA. 2015e. EPA Method 530--Determination of Select 
Semivolatile Organic Chemicals in Drinking Water by Solid Phase 
Extraction and Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry (GC/MS). Version 
1.0. EPA/600/R-14/442, January 2015. Available on the Internet at 
https://www.epa.gov/water-research/epa-drinking-water-research-methods.
    USEPA. 2015f. Drinking Water Health Advisory for the 
Cyanobacterial Microcystin Toxins. EPA 820-R-15-100, June 2015. 
Available on the Internet at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-06/documents/microcystins-report-2015.pdf.
    USEPA. 2016a. Information Collection Request for the Unregulated 
Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR 4). EPA 815-B-16-019, November 
2016.
    USEPA. 2016b. Response to Comments Document for the Unregulated 
Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR 4). EPA 815-R-16-002, October 
2016.
    USEPA. 2016c. UCMR 4 Contaminants--Information Compendium for 
Final Rule. EPA 815-B-16-020, October 2016.
    USEPA. 2016d. UCMR 4 Laboratory Approval Requirements and 
Information Document. EPA 815-B-16-026, November 2016.
    USEPA. 2016e. EPA Method 546--Determination of Total 
Microcystins and Nodularins in Drinking Water and Ambient Water by 
Adda Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay. EPA 815-B-16-011, August 
2016. Available on the Internet at https://www.epa.gov/dwanalyticalmethods.
    USEPA. 2016f. Meetings and Materials for the Unregulated 
Contaminant Monitoring Program. Available on the Internet at https://www.epa.gov/dwucmr/unregulated-contaminant-monitoring-rule-ucmr-meetings-and-materials.
    Zeck, A., Weller, M.G., Bursill, D., Niessner, R. 2001. Generic 
Microcystin Immunoassay Based on Monoclonal Antibodies Against Adda. 
Analyst, 126: 2002-2007. Available for purchase on the Internet at 
http://dx.doi.org/10.1039/B105064H.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 141

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

    Dated: December 8, 2016.
Gina McCarthy,
Administrator.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, EPA amends 40 CFR part 
141 as follows:

PART 141--NATIONAL PRIMARY DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS

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

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

Subpart D--Reporting and Recordkeeping

0
2. In Sec.  141.35:
0
a. Revise the third sentence in paragraph (b)(1).
0
b. Revise the second and third sentences in paragraph (b)(2).
0
c. Remove ``October 1, 2012,'' and add in its place ``December 31, 
2017,'' in paragraph (c)(1).
0
d. Revise the second and third sentences in paragraph (c)(2).
0
e. Revise the last sentence in paragraph (c)(3)(i).
0
f. Revise the fifth sentence in paragraph (c)(3)(ii).
0
g. Remove ``October 1, 2012,'' and add in its place April 19, 2017, in 
paragraph (c)(4).
0
h. Revise paragraphs (c)(5)(i), (c)(6) introductory text, (d)(2), and 
(e).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:


Sec.  141.35   Reporting for unregulated contaminant monitoring 
results.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) * * * Information that must be submitted using EPA's electronic 
data reporting system must be submitted through: https://www.epa.gov/dwucmr. * * *
    (2) * * * If you have received a letter from EPA or your State 
concerning your required monitoring and your system does not meet the 
applicability criteria for UCMR established in Sec.  141.40(a)(1) or 
(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 mail or email a letter to EPA, as specified in paragraph 
(b)(1) of this section. The letter must be from your PWS Official and 
must include your PWS Identification (PWSID) Code along with 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.* * *
    (c) * * *
    (2) * * * You must provide your sampling location(s) and inventory 
information by December 31, 2017, using EPA's electronic data reporting 
system. You must submit, verify or update the following information for 
each sampling location, or for each approved representative sampling 
location (as specified in paragraph (c)(3) of this section regarding 
representative sampling locations): PWSID Code; PWS Name; PWS Facility 
Identification Code; PWS Facility Name; PWS Facility Type; Water Source 
Type; Sampling Point Identification Code; Sampling Point Name; and 
Sampling Point Type Code; (as defined in Table 1 of paragraph (e) of 
this section).
    (3) * * *
    (i) * * * You must submit a copy of the existing alternate EPTDS 
sampling

[[Page 92685]]

plan or your representative well proposal, as appropriate, April 19, 
2017, as specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this section.
    (ii) * * * You must submit the following information for each 
proposed representative sampling location: PWSID Code; PWS Name; PWS 
Facility Identification Code; PWS Facility Name; PWS Facility Type; 
Sampling Point Identification Code; and Sampling Point Name (as defined 
in Table 1, paragraph (e) of this section). * * *
* * * * *
    (5) * * *
    (i) General rescheduling notification requirements. Large systems 
may change their monitoring schedules up to December 31, 2017, using 
EPA's electronic data reporting system, as specified in paragraph 
(b)(1) of this section. After this date has passed, if your PWS cannot 
sample according to your assigned sampling schedule (e.g., because of 
budget constraints, or if a sampling location will be closed during the 
scheduled month of monitoring), you must mail or email a letter to EPA, 
as specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this section, prior to the 
scheduled sampling date. You must include an explanation of why the 
samples cannot be taken according to the assigned schedule, and you 
must provide the alternative schedule you are requesting. You must not 
reschedule monitoring specifically to avoid sample collection during a 
suspected vulnerable period. You are subject to your assigned UCMR 
sampling schedule or the schedule that you revised on or before 
December 31, 2017, unless and until you receive a letter from EPA 
specifying a new schedule.
* * * * *
    (6) Reporting monitoring results. For UCMR samples, you must report 
all data elements specified in Table 1 of paragraph (e) of this 
section, using EPA's electronic data reporting system. You also must 
report any changes, relative to what is currently posted, made to data 
elements 1 through 9 to EPA in writing, explaining the nature and 
purpose of the proposed change, as specified in paragraph (b)(1) of 
this section.
* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (2) Reporting sampling information. You must provide your sampling 
location(s) by December 31, 2017, using EPA's electronic data reporting 
system, as specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this section. If this 
information changes, you must report updates, including new sources and 
sampling locations that are put in use before or during the PWS' UCMR 
sampling period, to EPA's electronic data reporting system within 30 
days of the change, as specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this section. 
You must record all data elements listed in Table 1 of paragraph (e) of 
this section on each sample form and sample bottle, as appropriate, 
provided to you by the UCMR Sampling Coordinator. You must send this 
information as specified in the instructions of your sampling kit, 
which will include the due date and return address. You must report any 
changes made in data elements 1 through 9 by emailing 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 for UCMR monitoring.

   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 Name.......  Unique name, assigned once by the
                                     PWS.
3. 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.
4. Public Water System Facility     Unique name, assigned once by the
 Name.                               PWS, for every facility ID (e.g.,
                                     Treatment Plant).
5. Public Water System Facility     That code that identifies that type
 Type.                               of facility as either:
                                    CC = consecutive connection.
                                    DS = distribution system.
                                    IN = source water influent.
                                    SS = sampling station.
                                    TP = treatment plant.
                                    OT = other.
6. 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:
                                    SW = surface water (to be reported
                                     for water facilities that are
                                     served entirely by a surface water
                                     source during the twelve-month
                                     period).
                                    GW = ground water (to be reported
                                     for water facilities that are
                                     served entirely by a ground water
                                     source during the twelve-month
                                     period).
                                    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.
                                    MX = mixed water (to be reported for
                                     water facilities that are served by
                                     a mix of surface water, ground
                                     water and/or ground water under the
                                     direct influence of surface water
                                     during the twelve-month period).
7. 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,
                                     source water influent 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.
8. Sampling Point Name............  Unique sample point name, assigned
                                     once by the PWS, for every sample
                                     point ID (e.g., Entry Point).

[[Page 92686]]

 
9. Sampling Point Type Code.......  A code that identifies the location
                                     of the sampling point as either:
                                    SR = source water taken from plant
                                     influent; untreated water entering
                                     the water treatment plant (i.e., a
                                     location prior to any treatment).
                                    EP = entry point to the distribution
                                     system.
                                    DS = distribution system sample.
10. Disinfectant Type.............  All of the disinfectants/oxidants
                                     that have been added prior to the
                                     entry point to the distribution
                                     system. Please select all that
                                     apply:
                                    PEMB = Permanganate.
                                    HPXB = Hydrogen peroxide.
                                    CLGA = Gaseous chlorine.
                                    CLOF = Offsite Generated
                                     Hypochlorite (stored as a liquid
                                     form).
                                    CLON = Onsite Generated
                                     Hypochlorite.
                                    CAGC = Chloramine (formed with
                                     gaseous chlorine).
                                    CAOF = Chloramine (formed with
                                     offsite hypochlorite).
                                    CAON = Chloramine (formed with
                                     onsite hypochlorite).
                                    CLDB = Chlorine dioxide.
                                    OZON = Ozone.
                                    ULVL = Ultraviolet light.
                                    OTHD = All other types of
                                     disinfectant/oxidant.
                                    NODU = No disinfectant/oxidant used.
11. Treatment Information.........  Treatment information associated
                                     with the sample point. Please
                                     select all that apply:
                                    CON = Conventional (non-softening,
                                     consisting of at least coagulation/
                                     sedimentation basins and
                                     filtration).
                                    SFN = Softening.
                                    RBF = River bank filtration.
                                    PSD = Pre-sedimentation.
                                    INF = In-line filtration.
                                    DFL = Direct filtration.
                                    SSF = Slow sand filtration.
                                    BIO = Biological filtration
                                     (operated with an intention of
                                     maintaining biological activity
                                     within filter).
                                    UTR = Unfiltered treatment for
                                     surface water source.
                                    GWD = Groundwater system with
                                     disinfection only.
                                    PAC = Application of powder
                                     activated carbon.
                                    GAC = Granular activated carbon
                                     adsorption (not part of filters in
                                     CON, SCO, INF, DFL, or SSF).
                                    AIR = Air stripping (packed towers,
                                     diffused gas contactors).
                                    POB = Pre-oxidation with chlorine
                                     (applied before coagulation for CON
                                     or SFN plants or before filtration
                                     for other filtration plants).
                                    MFL = Membrane filtration.
                                    IEX = Ionic exchange.
                                    DAF = Dissolved air floatation.
                                    CWL = Clear well/finished water
                                     storage without aeration.
                                    CWA = Clear well/finished water
                                     storage with aeration.
                                    ADS = Aeration in distribution
                                     system (localized treatment).
                                    OTH = All other types of treatment.
                                    NTU = No treatment used.
                                    DKN = Do not know.
12. Disinfectant Residual Type....  Disinfectant residual type in the
                                     distribution system for each HAA
                                     sample.
                                    CL2 = Chlorine (i.e., originating
                                     from addition of free chlorine
                                     only).
                                    CLO2 = chlorine dioxide.
                                    CLM = Chloramines (originating from
                                     with addition of chlorine and
                                     ammonia or pre-formed chloramines).
                                    CAC = Chlorine and chloramines (if
                                     being mixed from chlorinated and
                                     chloroaminated water).
                                    NOD = No disinfectant residual.
13. Sample Collection Date........  The date the sample is collected,
                                     reported as 4-digit year, 2-digit
                                     month, and 2-digit day (YYYY/MM/
                                     DD).
14. 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.
15. Contaminant...................  The unregulated contaminant for
                                     which the sample is being analyzed.
16. Analytical Method Code........  The identification code of the
                                     analytical method used.
17. Extraction Batch                Laboratory assigned extraction batch
 Identification Code.                ID. Must be unique for each
                                     extraction batch within the
                                     laboratory for each method. For CCC
                                     samples report the Analysis Batch
                                     Identification Code as the value
                                     for this field. For methods without
                                     an extraction batch, leave this
                                     field null.
18. Extraction Date...............  Date for the start of the extraction
                                     batch (YYYY/MM/DD). For methods
                                     without an extraction batch, leave
                                     this field null.
19. Analysis Batch Identification   Laboratory assigned analysis batch
 Code.                               ID. Must be unique for each
                                     analysis batch within the
                                     laboratory for each method.
20. Analysis Date.................  Date for the start of the analysis
                                     batch (YYYY/MM/DD).
21. Sample Analysis Type..........  The type of sample collected and/or
                                     prepared, as well as the
                                     fortification level. Permitted
                                     values include:
                                    CF = concentration fortified; the
                                     concentration of a known
                                     contaminant added to a field sample
                                     reported with sample analysis types
                                     LFSM, LFSMD, LFB, CCC and QCS.
                                    CCC = continuing calibration check;
                                     a calibration standard containing
                                     the contaminant, the internal
                                     standard, and surrogate analyzed to
                                     verify the existing calibration for
                                     those contaminants.
                                    FS = field sample; sample collected
                                     and submitted for analysis under
                                     this rule.
                                    IS = internal standard; a standard
                                     that measures the relative response
                                     of contaminants.

[[Page 92687]]

 
                                    LFB = laboratory fortified blank; an
                                     aliquot of reagent water fortified
                                     with known quantities of the
                                     contaminants and all preservation
                                     compounds.
                                    LRB = laboratory reagent blank; an
                                     aliquot of reagent water treated
                                     exactly as a field sample,
                                     including the addition of
                                     preservatives, internal standards,
                                     and surrogates to determine if
                                     interferences are present in the
                                     laboratory, reagents, or other
                                     equipment.
                                    LFSM = laboratory fortified sample
                                     matrix; a UCMR field sample with a
                                     known amount of the contaminant of
                                     interest and all preservation
                                     compounds added.
                                    LFSMD = laboratory fortified sample
                                     matrix duplicate; duplicate of the
                                     laboratory fortified sample matrix.
                                    QCS = quality control sample; a
                                     sample prepared with a source
                                     external to the one used for
                                     initial calibration and CCC. The
                                     QCS is used to check calibration
                                     standard integrity.
                                    QHS = quality HAA sample; HAA sample
                                     collected and submitted for quality
                                     control purposes.
                                    SUR = surrogate standard; a standard
                                     that assesses method performance
                                     for each extraction.
22. 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-- Measured Value.''
23. Analytical Result--Measured     The actual numeric value of the
 Value.                              analytical results for: Field
                                     samples; laboratory fortified
                                     matrix samples; laboratory
                                     fortified sample matrix duplicates;
                                     and concentration fortified.
24. Additional Value..............  Represents the true value or the
                                     fortified concentration for spiked
                                     samples for QC Sample Analysis
                                     Types (CCC, EQC, LFB, LFSM and
                                     LFSMD). For Sample Analysis Type FS
                                     and LRB and for IS and surrogate QC
                                     Contaminants, leave this field
                                     null.
25. 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.
26. 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:
                                    SEC1, SEC2, SEC3, SEC4, SEC5, SEC6,
                                     SEC7 and SEC8--represent samples
                                     collected to meet UCMR Assessment
                                     Monitoring requirements for
                                     cyanotoxins; where ``SEC1''
                                     represents the first sampling
                                     period, ``SEC2'' the second period
                                     and so forth, for all eight
                                     sampling events.
                                    SEA1, SEA2, SEA3 and SEA4--represent
                                     samples collected to meet UCMR
                                     Assessment Monitoring requirements
                                     for the additional contaminants;
                                     where ``SEA1'' and ``SEA2''
                                     represent the first and second
                                     sampling period for all water
                                     types; and ``SEA3'' and ``SEA4''
                                     represent the third and fourth
                                     sampling period for SW and GU
                                     sources only.
27. Bloom Occurrence..............  A yes or no answer provided by the
                                     PWS for each cyanotoxin sample
                                     event.
                                    Question: Preceding the finished
                                     water sample collection, did you
                                     observe an algal bloom in your
                                     source waters near the intake?
                                    YES = if yes, select all the YESs
                                     that apply:
                                     YD = yes, on the day the UCMR
                                     cyanotoxin sample was collected.
                                     YW = yes, between the day the
                                     sample was taken and the past week.
                                     YM = yes, between the past week and
                                     past month.
                                     YY = yes, between the past month
                                     and past year.
                                     YP = yes, prior to the past year.
                                    NO = have never seen a bloom.
28. Cyanotoxin Occurrence.........  A yes or no answer provided by the
                                     PWS for each cyanotoxin sample
                                     event.
                                    Question: Preceding the finished
                                     water sample collection, were
                                     cyanotoxins ever detected in your
                                     source waters near the intake and
                                     prior to any treatment (based on
                                     sampling by you or another party)?
                                    YES = if yes, select all the YESs
                                     that apply:
                                     YD = yes, on the day the UCMR
                                     cyanotoxin sample was collected.
                                     YW = yes, between the day the
                                     sample was taken and the past week.
                                     YM = yes, between the past week and
                                     past month.
                                     YY = yes, between the past month
                                     and past year.
                                     YP = yes, prior to the past year.
                                    NO = have never detected cyanotoxins
                                     in source water.
                                    NS = unaware of any source water
                                     cyanotoxin sampling.
                                    Select all that apply (i.e., all
                                     that were detected) if you answered
                                     YES to detecting cyanotoxins in
                                     source water:
                                     MIC = Microcystins.
                                     CYL = Cylindrospermopsin.
                                     ANA = Anatoxin-A.
                                     SAX = Saxitoxins.
                                     OTH = Other.
                                     DK = do not know.
29. Indicator of Possible Bloom--   A yes or no answer provided by the
 Treatment.                          PWS for each cyanotoxin sample
                                     event.
                                    Question: Preceding the finished
                                     water sample collection, did you
                                     notice any changes in your
                                     treatment system operation and/or
                                     treated water quality that may
                                     indicate a bloom in the source
                                     water?
                                    YES = if yes, select all that apply:
                                     DFR = Decrease in filter runtimes.
                                     ITF = Increase in turbidity in
                                     filtered water.
                                     ICD = Need for increased coagulant
                                     dose.
                                     TOI = Increase in taste and odor
                                     issues in finished water.
                                     IOD = Need for increase in oxidant/
                                     disinfectant dose.
                                     IDB = Increase in TTHM/HAA5 in
                                     finished water.

[[Page 92688]]

 
                                     OTH = Describe other changes.
                                    NO = no changes.
30. Indicator of Possible Bloom--   A yes or no answer provided by the
 Source Water Quality Parameters.    PWS for each cyanotoxin sample
                                     event.
                                    Question: Preceding the finished
                                     water sample collection, did you
                                     observe any notable changes in
                                     source water quality parameters (if
                                     measured)?
                                    YES = if yes, select all that apply
                                     to the source water:
                                     ITP = Increase in water
                                     temperature.
                                     ITU = Increase in turbidity.
                                     IAL = Increase in alkalinity.
                                     ITO = Increase in total organic
                                     carbon.
                                     ICD = Increase in chlorine demand.
                                     IPH = Increase in pH.
                                     ICA = Increase in chlorophyll a.
                                     IPY = Increase in phycocyanin.
                                     INU = Increase in nutrients
                                     (example: nitrogen or phosphorus).
                                     OTH = Describe other changes.
                                    NO = no changes observed.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subpart E--Special Regulations, Including Monitoring Regulations 
and Prohibition on Lead Use

0
3. In Sec.  141.40:
0
a. Remove ``December 31, 2010'' and add in its place ``December 31, 
2015'' in paragraph (a) introductory text.
0
b. Revise paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(2)(i)(A), (a)(2)(ii)(A) and (C), 
(a)(3), and (a)(4)(i)(B) and (C).
0
c. Remove ``October 1, 2012.'' and add in its place ``December 31, 
2017.'' in paragraph (a)(4)(i).
0
d. Revise paragraph (a)(4)(ii) introductory text.
0
e. Remove and reserve paragraph (a)(4)(ii)(F).
0
f. Add paragraph (a)(4)(iii).
0
g. Remove ``August 1, 2012.'' and add in its place ``February 21, 2017, 
and necessary application material April 19, 2017.'' in paragraph 
(a)(5)(ii).
0
h. Revise paragraph (a)(5)(v), the second sentence in paragraph 
(a)(5)(vi), and paragraph (c).
    The revisions and addition read as follows:


Sec.  141.40  Monitoring requirements for unregulated contaminants.

    (a) * * *
    (1) Applicability to transient non-community systems. If you own or 
operate a transient non-community water system, you are not subject to 
monitoring requirements in this section.
    (2) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (A) Assessment monitoring. You must monitor for the contaminants on 
List 1, per Table 1, UCMR Contaminant List, in paragraph (a)(3) of this 
section. If you serve a retail 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.
* * * * *
    (ii) * * *
    (A) Assessment monitoring. You must monitor for the contaminants on 
List 1 per Table 1, in paragraph (a)(3) of this section, if you are 
notified by your State or EPA that you are part of the State Monitoring 
Plan for Assessment Monitoring.
* * * * *
    (C) Pre-screen testing. You must monitor for the 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 contaminants are 
provided in the following table:

                                                             Table 1--UCMR Contaminant List
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                   4--Minimum
          1--Contaminant            2--CAS Registry No.     3--Analytical      reporting level b       5--Sampling           6--Period during  which
                                                              methods a                                 location c         monitoring  to be completed
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             List 1: Assessment Monitoring Cyanotoxin Chemical Contaminants
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
``total microcystin''............  N/A.................  EPA 546............  0.3 [mu]g/L........  EPTDS..............  3/1/2018-11/30/2020.
anatoxin-a.......................  64285-06-9..........  EPA 545............  0.03 [mu]g/L.......  EPTDS..............  3/1/2018-11/30/2020.
cylindrospermopsin...............  143545-90-8.........  EPA 545............  0.09 [mu]g/L.......  EPTDS..............  3/1/2018-11/30/2020.
microcystin-LA...................  96180-79-9..........  EPA 544............  0.008 [mu]g/L......  EPTDS..............  3/1/2018-11/30/2020.
microcystin-LF...................  154037-70-4.........  EPA 544............  0.006 [mu]g/L......  EPTDS..............  3/1/2018-11/30/2020.
microcystin-LR...................  101043-37-2.........  EPA 544............  0.02 [mu]g/L.......  EPTDS..............  3/1/2018-11/30/2020.
microcystin-LY...................  123304-10-9.........  EPA 544............  0.009 [mu]g/L......  EPTDS..............  3/1/2018-11/30/2020.
microcystin-RR...................  111755-37-4.........  EPA 544............  0.006 [mu]g/L......  EPTDS..............  3/1/2018-11/30/2020.
microcystin-YR...................  101064-48-6.........  EPA 544............  0.02 [mu]g/L.......  EPTDS..............  3/1/2018-11/30/2020.
nodularin........................  118399-22-7.........  EPA 544............  0.005 [mu]g/L......  EPTDS..............  3/1/2018-11/30/2020.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             List 1: Assessment Monitoring Additional Chemical Contaminants
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                         Metals
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
germanium........................  7440-56-4...........  EPA 200.8, ASTM      0.3 [mu]g/L........  EPTDS..............  1/1/2018-12/31/2020.
                                                          D5673-10, SM 3125.

[[Page 92689]]

 
manganese........................  7439-96-5...........  EPA 200.8, ASTM      0.4 [mu]g/L........  EPTDS..............  1/1/2018-12/31/2020.
                                                          D5673-10, SM 3125.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Pesticides and a Pesticide Manufacturing Byproduct
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
alpha-hexachlorocyclohexane......  319-84-6............  EPA 525.3..........  0.01 [mu]g/L.......  EPTDS..............  1/1/2018-12/31/2020.
chlorpyrifos.....................  2921-88-2...........  EPA 525.3..........  0.03 [mu]g/L.......  EPTDS..............  1/1/2018-12/31/2020.
dimethipin.......................  55290-64-7..........  EPA 525.3..........  0.2 [mu]g/L........  EPTDS..............  1/1/2018-12/31/2020.
ethoprop.........................  13194-48-4..........  EPA 525.3..........  0.03 [mu]g/L.......  EPTDS..............  1/1/2018-12/31/2020.
oxyfluorfen......................  42874-03-3..........  EPA 525.3..........  0.05 [mu]g/L.......  EPTDS..............  1/1/2018-12/31/2020.
profenofos.......................  41198-08-7..........  EPA 525.3..........  0.3 [mu]g/L........  EPTDS..............  1/1/2018-12/31/2020.
tebuconazole.....................  107534-96-3.........  EPA 525.3..........  0.2 [mu]g/L........  EPTDS..............  1/1/2018-12/31/2020.
total permethrin (cis- & trans-).  52645-53-1..........  EPA 525.3..........  0.04 [mu]g/L.......  EPTDS..............  1/1/2018-12/31/2020.
tribufos.........................  78-48-8.............  EPA 525.3..........  0.07 [mu]g/L.......  EPTDS..............  1/1/2018-12/31/2020.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Brominated Haloacetic Acid (HAA) Groups d e
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HAA5.............................  N/A.................  EPA 552.3 or EPA     N/A................  D/DBPR HAA location  1/1/2018-12/31/2020.
                                                          557.
HAA6Br...........................  N/A.................  EPA 552.3 or EPA     N/A................  D/DBPR HAA location  1/1/2018-12/31/2020.
                                                          557.
HAA9.............................  N/A.................  EPA 552.3 or EPA     N/A................  D/DBPR HAA location  1/1/2018-12/31/2020.
                                                          557.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        Alcohols
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1-butanol........................  71-36-3.............  EPA 541............  2.0 [mu]g/L........  EPTDS..............  1/1/2018-12/31/2020.
2-methoxyethanol.................  109-86-4............  EPA 541............  0.4 [mu]g/L........  EPTDS..............  1/1/2018-12/31/2020.
2-propen-1-ol....................  107-18-6............  EPA 541............  0.5 [mu]g/L........  EPTDS..............  1/1/2018-12/31/2020.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Other Semivolatile Chemicals
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
butylated hydroxanisole..........  25013-16-5..........  EPA 530............  0.03 [mu]g/L.......  EPTDS..............  1/1/2018-12/31/2020.
o-toluidine......................  95-53-4.............  EPA 530............  0.007 [mu]g/L......  EPTDS..............  1/1/2018-12/31/2020.
quinoline........................  91-22-5.............  EPA 530............  0.02 [mu]g/L.......  EPTDS..............  1/1/2018-12/31/2020.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                List 2: Screening Survey
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reserved.........................  Reserved............  Reserved...........  Reserved...........  Reserved...........  Reserved.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               List 3: Pre-Screen Testing
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reserved.........................  Reserved............  Reserved...........  Reserved...........  Reserved...........  Reserved.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 (MRL): The value and unit of measure at or above which the concentration of the contaminant must be measured using the
  approved analytical methods. If EPA determines, after the first six months of monitoring that the specified MRLs result in excessive resampling, EPA
  will establish alternate MRLs and will notify affected PWSs and laboratories of the new MRLs. N/A is defined as non-applicable.
5--Sampling Location: The locations within a PWS at which samples must be collected.
6--Period During Which Monitoring to be Completed: The time period during which the sampling and testing will occur for the indicated contaminant.
a The analytical procedures shall be performed in accordance with the documents associated with each method, see paragraph (c) of this section.
b The MRL is the minimum concentration of each analyte that must be reported to EPA.
c With the exception of HAA monitoring, sampling must occur at entry points to the distribution system (EPTDSs), after treatment is applied, that
  represent each non-emergency water source in routine use over the 12-month period of monitoring. Systems that purchase water with multiple connections
  from the same wholesaler may select one representative connection from that wholesaler. This EPTDS sampling location must be representative of the
  highest annual volume connections. If the connection selected as the representative EPTDS is not available for sampling, an alternate highest volume
  representative connection must be sampled. See 40 CFR 141.35(c)(3) for an explanation of the requirements related to the use of representative GW
  EPTDSs. Sampling for UCMR 4 HAA groups must be conducted at the Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproduct Rule (D/DBPR) sampling locations (40 CFR
  141.622).
d UCMR 4 HAA monitoring applies only to those PWSs that are subject to D/DBPR HAA5 monitoring requirements.

[[Page 92690]]

 
e PWSs that purchase 100 percent of their water (``consecutive systems'') are not required to collect UCMR 4 source water samples for TOC or bromide
  analyses. Sampling for TOC and bromide must otherwise occur at source water influent locations representing untreated water entering the water
  treatment plant (i.e., a location prior to any treatment). SW and GWUDI systems subject to the D/DBPR TOC monitoring must use their D/DBPR TOC source
  water sampling site(s) from 40 CFR 141.132 for UCMR 4 TOC and bromide samples. SW and GWUDI systems that are not subject to D/DBPR TOC monitoring will
  use their Long Term 2 Enhance Surface Water Treatment Rule (LT2) source water sampling site(s) (40 CFR 141.703) for UCMR 4 TOC and bromide samples.
  Ground water systems that are subject to the D/DBPRs, and therefore subject to UCMR 4 HAA monitoring, will take TOC and bromide samples at their
  influents entering their treatment train. TOC and bromide must be collected at the same time as HAA samples. These indicator samples must be collected
  at a single source water influent using methods already approved for compliance monitoring. TOC methods include: SM 5310 B, SM 5310 C, SM 5310 D (21st
  edition), or SM 5310 B-00, SM 5310 C-00, SM 5310 D-00 (SM Online), EPA Method 415.3 (Rev. 1.1 or 1.2). Bromide methods include: EPA Methods 300.0
  (Rev. 2.1), 300.1 (Rev. 1.0), 317.0 (Rev. 2.0), 326.0 (Rev. 1.0) or ASTM D 6581-12. The MRLs for the individual HAAs are discussed in paragraph
  (a)(5)(v) of this section.

    (4) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (B) Frequency. You must collect the samples within the timeframe 
and according to the frequency specified by contaminant type and water 
source type for each sampling location, as specified in Table 2, in 
this paragraph. For the second or subsequent round of sampling, if a 
sample location is 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 window specified in Table 2, in this 
paragraph), you must notify EPA as specified in Sec.  141.35(c)(5) to 
reschedule your sampling.

                       Table 2--Monitoring Frequency by Contaminant and Water Source Types
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Contaminant type              Water source type           Timeframe               Frequency \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
List 1 Cyanotoxins Chemicals.......  Surface water or        March-November........  You must monitor twice a
                                      Ground water under                              month for four consecutive
                                      the direct influence                            months (total of eight
                                      of surface water                                sampling events). Sample
                                      (GWUDI).                                        events must occur two
                                                                                      weeks apart.
List 1 Contaminants--Additional      Surface water or GWUDI  12 months.............  You must monitor for four
 Chemicals.                                                                           consecutive quarters.
                                                                                      Sample events must occur
                                                                                      three months apart.
                                                                                      (Example: If first
                                                                                      monitoring is in January,
                                                                                      the second monitoring must
                                                                                      occur any time in April,
                                                                                      the third any time in July
                                                                                      and the fourth any time in
                                                                                      October).
                                     Ground water..........  12 months.............  You must monitor twice in a
                                                                                      consecutive 12-month
                                                                                      period. Sample events must
                                                                                      occur 5-7 months apart.
                                                                                      (Example: If the first
                                                                                      monitoring event is in
                                                                                      April, the second
                                                                                      monitoring event must
                                                                                      occur any time in
                                                                                      September, October or
                                                                                      November).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Systems must assign a sample event code for each contaminant listed in Table 1. Sample event codes must be
  assigned by the PWS for each sample event. For more information on sample event codes see Sec.   141.35(e)
  Table 1.

    (C) Location. You must collect samples for each List 1 Assessment 
Monitoring contaminant, and, if applicable, for each List 2 Screening 
Survey, or List 3 Pre-Screen Testing contaminant, as specified in Table 
1, in paragraph (a)(3) of this section. Samples must be collected at 
each sample point that is specified in column 5 and footnote c of Table 
1, in paragraph (a)(3) of this section. PWSs conducting List 1 
monitoring for the brominated HAA groups must collect TOC and bromide 
samples as specified in footnote d of Table 1, in paragraph (a)(3) of 
this section. If you are a GW 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).
* * * * *
    (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)(ii)(A) through (H) 
of this section. If EPA or the State informs you that they will be 
collecting your UCMR samples, you must assist them in identifying the 
appropriate sampling locations and in collecting the samples.
* * * * *
    (iii) Phased sample analysis for microcystins. You must collect the 
three required samples (one each for EPA Methods 544, 545 and 546 
(ELISA) at the EPTDS) for each sampling event, but not all samples may 
need to be analyzed. If the Method 546 ELISA result is less than 0.3 
[mu]g/L, report that result and do not analyze the EPA Method 544 
sample for that sample event. If the Method 546 ELISA result is greater 
than or equal to 0.3 [mu]g/L, report the value and analyze the other 
microcystin sample using EPA Method 544. You must analyze the EPA 
Method 545 sample for each sample event for Cylindrospermopsin and 
anatoxin-a only.
* * * * *
    (5) * * *
    (v) Method defined quality control. You must ensure that your 
laboratory analyzes Laboratory Fortified Blanks and conducts 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. 
The following HAA results must be reported using EPA's electronic data 
reporting system for quality control purposes.

                                                                 Table 4--HAA QC Results
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                       4--Minimum
        1--Contaminant             2--CAS            3--Analytical methods a       reporting level b   5--HAA6Br Group   6--HAA9 Group    7--HAA5 Group
                                Registry No.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Brominated Haloacetic Acid (HAA) Groups
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bromochloroacetic acid (BCAA)       5589-96-8  EPA 552.3 or EPA 557..............  0.3 [mu]g/L......
Bromodichloroacetic acid           71133-14-7  EPA 552.3 or EPA 557..............  0.5 [mu]g/L......
 (BDCAA).

[[Page 92691]]

 
Chlorodibromoacetic acid            5278-95-5  EPA 552.3 or EPA 557..............  0.3 [mu]g/L......  HAA6Br
 (CDBAA).
Tribromoacetic acid (TBAA)...         75-96-7  EPA 552.3 or EPA 557..............  2.0 [mu]g/L......
Monobromoacetic acid (MBAA)..         79-08-3  EPA 552.3 or EPA 557..............  0.3 [mu]g/L......
                                                                                                                                        ----------------
Dibromoacetic acid (DBAA)....        631-64-1  EPA 552.3 or EPA 557..............  0.3 [mu]g/L......  ................  HAA9
                                                                                                     ------------------
Dichloroacetic acid (DCAA)...         79-43-6  EPA 552.3 or EPA 557..............  0.2 [mu]g/L......
Monochloroacetic acid (MCAA).         79-11-8  EPA 552.3 or EPA 557..............  2.0 [mu]g/L......  ................  ...............  HAA5
Trichloroacetic acid (TCAA)..         76-03-9  EPA 552.3 or EPA 557..............  0.5 [mu]g/L......
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 (MRL): The value and unit of measure at or above which the concentration of the contaminant must be measured using the
  approved analytical methods. If EPA determines, after the first six months of monitoring that the specified MRLs result in excessive resampling, EPA
  will establish alternate MRLs and will notify affected PWSs and laboratories of the new MRLs.
5-7--HAA groups identified in paragraph (a)(3) of this section to be monitored as UCMR contaminants.
a The analytical procedures shall be performed in accordance with the documents associated with each method, see paragraph (c) of this section, and must
  meet all quality control requirements outlined paragraph (a)(5) of this section.
b The MRL is the minimum concentration of each analyte that must be reported to EPA.

    (vi) * * * You must require your laboratory to submit these data 
electronically to the State and EPA using EPA's electronic data 
reporting system, accessible at https://www.epa.gov/dwucmr, within 120 
days from the sample collection date. * * *
* * * * *
    (c) Incorporation by reference. These standards are incorporated by 
reference into this section with the approval of the Director of the 
Federal Register under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. All approved 
material is available for inspection either electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, in hard copy at the Water Docket, EPA/DC, and from 
the sources as follows. The Public Reading Room (EPA West, Room 3334, 
1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC) is open from 8:30 a.m. to 
4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The 
telephone number for this Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and 
the telephone number for the Water Docket is (202) 566-2426. The 
material is also available for inspection at the National Archives and 
Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of 
this material at NARA, call (202) 741-6030 or go to http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/about.html.
    (1) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Water Docket, EPA/DC, EPA 
West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20004.
    (i) Method 200.8 ``Determination of Trace Elements in Waters and 
Wastes by Inductively Coupled Plasma--Mass Spectrometry,'' Revision 
5.4, EMMC Version, 1994. Available on the Internet at https://www.nemi.gov.
    (ii) Method 300.0 ``Determination of Inorganic Anions by Ion 
Chromatography Samples,'' Revision 2.1, August 1993. Available on the 
Internet at https://www.nemi.gov.
    (iii) Method 300.1 ``Determination of Inorganic Anions in Drinking 
Water by Ion Chromatography,'' Revision 1.0, 1997. Available on the 
Internet at https://www.epa.gov/dwanalyticalmethods.
    (iv) Method 317.0 ``Determination of Inorganic Oxyhalide 
Disinfection By-Products in Drinking Water Using Ion Chromatography 
with the Addition of a Postcolumn Reagent for Trace Bromate Analysis,'' 
Revision 2.0, July 2001, EPA 815-B-01-001. Available on the Internet at 
https://www.epa.gov/dwanalyticalmethods.
    (v) Method 326.0 ``Determination of Inorganic Oxyhalide 
Disinfection By-Products in Drinking Water Using Ion Chromatography 
Incorporating the Addition of a Suppressor Acidified Postcolumn Reagent 
for Trace Bromate Analysis,'' Revision 1.0, June 2002, EPA 815-R-03-
007. Available on the Internet at https://www.epa.gov/dwanalyticalmethods.
    (vi) Method 415.3 ``Determination of Total Organic Carbon and 
Specific UV Absorbance at 254 nm in Source Water and Drinking Water,'' 
Revision 1.1, February 2005, EPA/600/R-05/055. Available on the 
Internet at https://www.epa.gov/water-research/epa-drinking-water-research-methods.
    (vii) Method 415.3 ``Determination of Total Organic Carbon and 
Specific UV Absorbance at 254 nm in Source Water and Drinking Water,'' 
Revision 1.2, September 2009, EPA/600/R-09/122. Available on the 
Internet at https://www.epa.gov/water-research/epa-drinking-water-research-methods.
    (viii) Method 525.3 ``Determination of Semivolatile Organic 
Chemicals in Drinking Water by Solid Phase Extraction and Capillary 
Column Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry (GC/MS),'' Version 1.0, 
February 2012, EPA/600/R-12/010. Available on the Internet https://www.epa.gov/water-research/epa-drinking-water-research-methods.
    (ix) Method 530 ``Determination of Select Semivolatile Organic 
Chemicals in Drinking Water by Solid Phase Extraction and Gas 
Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry (GC/MS),'' Version 1.0, January 2015, 
EPA/600/R-14/442. Available on the Internet at https://www.epa.gov/water-research/epa-drinking-water-research-methods.
    (x) EPA Method 541: ``Determination of 1-Butanol, 1,4-Dioxane, 2-
Methoxyethanol and 2-Propen-1-ol in Drinking Water by Solid Phase 
Extraction and Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry,'' November 2015, 
EPA 815-R-15-011. Available on the Internet at https://www.epa.gov/water-research/epa-drinking-water-research-methods.
    (xi) Method 544 ``Determination of Microcystins and Nodularin in 
Drinking Water by Solid Phase Extraction and Liquid Chromatography/
Tandem Mass Spectrometry (LC/MS/MS),'' Version 1.0, February 2015, EPA 
600-R-14/474. Available on the Internet at https://www.epa.gov/water-research/epa-drinking-water-research-methods.
    (xii) EPA Method 545: ``Determination of Cylindrospermopsin and 
Anatoxin-a in Drinking Water by Liquid Chromatography Electrospray 
Ionization Tandem Mass Spectrometry (LC/ESI-

[[Page 92692]]

MS/MS),'' April 2015, EPA 815-R-15-009. Available on the Internet at 
https://www.epa.gov/dwanalyticalmethods.
    (xiii) EPA Method 546: ``Determination of Total Microcystins and 
Nodularins in Drinking Water and Ambient Water by Adda Enzyme-Linked 
Immunosorbent Assay,'' August 2016, EPA-815-B-16-011. Available on the 
Internet at https://www.epa.gov/dwanalyticalmethods.
    (xiv) Method 552.3 ``Determination of Haloacetic Acids and Dalapon 
in Drinking Water by Liquid-Liquid Microextraction, Derivatization, and 
Gas Chromatography with Electron Capture Detection,'' Revision 1.0, 
July 2003, EPA 815-B-03-002. Available on the Internet at https://www.epa.gov/dwanalyticalmethods.
    (xv) EPA Method 557: ``Determination of Haloacetic Acids, Bromate, 
and Dalapon in Drinking Water by Ion Chromatography Electrospray 
Ionization Tandem Mass Spectrometry (IC-ESI-MS/MS),'' Version 1.0, 
September 2009, EPA 815-B-09-012. Available on the Internet at https://www.epa.gov/dwanalyticalmethods.
    (2) American Public Health Association--Standard Test Method for 
Elements in Water by Inductively Coupled Plasma-Mass Spectrometry,'' 
approved August 1, 2010. Available for purchase on the Internet at 
http://www.astm.org/Standards/D5673.htm.
    (i) ``Standard Methods for the Examination of Water & Wastewater,'' 
21st edition (2005).
    (A) SM 3125 ``Metals by Inductively Coupled Plasma/Mass 
Spectrometry.''
    (B) SM 5310B ``Total Organic Carbon (TOC): High-Temperature 
Combustion Method.''
    (C) SM 5310C ``Total Organic Carbon (TOC): Persulfate-UV or Heated-
Persulfate Oxidation Method.''
    (D) SM 5310D ``Total Organic Carbon (TOC): Wet-Oxidation Method.''
    (ii) The following methods are from ``Standard Methods Online.,'' 
approved 2000 (unless noted). Available for purchase on the Internet at 
http://www.standardmethods.org.
    (A) SM 3125 ``Metals by Inductively Coupled Plasma/Mass 
Spectrometry'' Editorial revisions, 2011 (SM 3125-09).
    (B) SM 5310B ``Total Organic Carbon: High-Temperature Combustion 
Method,'' (5310B-00).
    (C) SM 5310C ``Total Organic Carbon: Persulfate-UV or Heated-
Persulfate Oxidation Method,'' (5310C-00).
    (D) SM 5310D ``Total Organic Carbon: Wet-Oxidation Method,'' 
(5310D-00).
    (3) ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken, 
PA 19428-2959.
    (i) ASTM D5673-10 ``Standard Test Method for Elements in Water by 
Inductively Coupled Plasma-Mass Spectrometry,'' approved August 1, 
2010. Available for purchase on the Internet at http://www.astm.org/Standards/D5673.htm.
    (ii) ASTM D6581-12 ``Standard Test Methods for Bromate, Bromide, 
Chlorate, and Chlorite in Drinking Water by Suppressed Ion 
Chromatography,'' approved March 1, 2012. Available for purchase on the 
Internet at http://www.astm.org/Standards/D6581.htm.

[FR Doc. 2016-30469 Filed 12-19-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P