FR 2025-01038

The document in question involves an effort by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to renew its existing authority regarding the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR 5), a program designed to monitor specific chemical contaminants that are not currently regulated in public drinking water systems. This submission is intended for approval by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), with the current authorization set to expire by the end of January 2025. Individuals and interested parties have until February 18, 2025, to submit their comments on this renewal request.

General Summary

The Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR 5) is an initiative under the Safe Drinking Water Act aimed at collecting data to help the EPA determine whether certain contaminants should be regulated. This renewal involves monitoring 30 chemical contaminants found in public water systems. The document outlines the procedures and expectations for public water systems required to comply with these testing obligations over the next few years. It invites public commentary on the process, reflecting the EPA’s compliance with federal procedural requirements for information collection.

Significant Issues and Concerns

The document suggests potential issues with public comprehension, given its use of technical jargon such as "ICR," "UCMR 5," "OMB Control Number," and "EPTDS." These terms could confuse a lay audience without additional context or definitions. Furthermore, the document assumes some foundational understanding of the regulatory framework, such as the Safe Drinking Water Act and prior UCMR processes, which might not be universally known.

Additionally, the section on estimated changes in burden and costs might be confusing. Previously incurred expenses and activities from earlier phases of UCMR 5 are contrasted with current estimates, but without clear contextual background, readers may struggle to grasp the reasons behind reported decreases in workload and participant engagement.

Impact on the Public

For the general public, securing safe and clean drinking water is a fundamental concern, and the UCMR 5 program is a critical component of ongoing public health and safety efforts. However, the public might find it challenging to visualize how this program directly affects their lives due to the technical nature of the document. Ensuring broader public understanding of these initiatives could enhance support for such regulatory measures.

Impact on Specific Stakeholders

Public Water Systems (PWSs), states, territories, and tribes form the primary stakeholder group affected by this regulation. While the document highlights a mandatory compliance requirement, it also notes participation by PWSs and state partnerships. Smaller systems might see positive impacts as the EPA helps cover analytical and shipping costs. However, the complexity of implementing the required monitoring practices, especially the variances in frequency and sampling requirements, could pose operational challenges.

Stakeholders might also experience varying degrees of burden. Some states and PWSs are likely to find reduced responsibilities compared to past cycles due to fewer required monitoring activities. On the other hand, advocating for a more comprehensible portrayal of the regulations and their cost implications could bring additional clarity and possibly relieve potential administrative anxieties.

In summary, while this document is an essential step in maintaining regulatory oversight over water safety, the language and structure might benefit from enhanced clarity to ensure that all stakeholders, especially those with limited regulatory backgrounds, can fully understand and engage with the process.

The document in question outlines the financial implications associated with the renewal of the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR 5) under the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The financial references within this document provide insight into the estimated costs and budgetary considerations involved in the implementation of this monitoring initiative.

Financial Summary

The document specifies that during the ICR renewal years of 2025 through 2027, the total estimated cost for States and public water systems (PWSs) is approximately $5,633,415 per year. This figure encompasses several components, including $4,702,003 in annualized capital or operation and maintenance costs. The total costs also cover labor and laboratory analysis (non-labor) expenses. It is noteworthy that the EPA assumes responsibility for analytical and sample shipping costs specifically for small PWSs, defined as those serving 10,000 or fewer people.

Financial Allocation and Identified Issues

The document highlights certain complexities and potential areas of confusion related to its financial discussions. For instance, while it lists the total cost each year, there is a lack of detailed breakdown or justification for how such allocations are precisely distributed among labor, operational, and maintenance activities. A clearer explanation might assist stakeholders in understanding the necessity and utilization of the outlined annual expenditure.

Moreover, the documentation includes various technical phrases and regulatory references, such as "ICR," "UCMR 5," and "OMB Control Number," which could potentially obscure the financial data for readers unfamiliar with these terms. Providing definitions or explanatory notes could render the financial data more transparent.

Additionally, while the document specifies that certain costs are partly defrayed by the EPA, such as analytical costs for small PWSs, this aspect could benefit from further elaboration. Expanding on which costs small PWSs are responsible for might provide a better grasp of the financial burden distribution between these smaller entities and the federal government.

Conclusion

In summary, this Federal Register document clearly states the projected yearly costs associated with executing the UCMR 5 framework through 2027. While the overall financial data is evident, addressing the issues outlined—such as potential confusion over technical terminology and insufficient cost breakdowns—would aid in demystifying the economic implementation of this public health mandate for all audiences, ensuring greater comprehension and transparency.