Guidelines Establishing Test Procedures for the Analysis of Pollutants Under the Clean Water Act; National Primary Drinking Water Regulations; Notice of Data Availability, 7909-7912 [05-2988]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 16, 2005 / Proposed Rules
emission limitation, and/or pollution
control device that would be more
useful?
Question: What kinds of revisions or
improvements would you suggest be
made to improve inadequate monitoring
in underlying Federal rules? Types of
revisions or improvements that could be
made through rulemaking include, but
are not limited to: (1) Establishing
periodic testing or monitoring for each
emission limitation, (2) more frequent
monitoring using existing monitoring
methods, (3) the collection of data that
is more representative of control device
operation or of the industrial process,
(4) switching from monitoring methods
that provide an indication of
compliance to those that measure the
pollutant of interest more directly, and
(5) a combination of the above. In your
comments, please provide any available
information about cost, accuracy,
feasability, or any other factors that you
consider relevant to the revised or
improved monitoring.
Question: What kinds of
programmatic or other changes would
you suggest be used to make changes to
improve inadequate monitoring?
Options include conducting rulemaking
to revise emissions standards, issuing
guidance or policy, or other approaches.
Please be specific on which option(s)
you prefer and provide reasons for your
preference(s).
Question: Do the categories of
potential monitoring inadequacies
identified above also appear in SIP rules
such that you believe the monitoring to
be inadequate? If so, identify such SIP
rules. Do you believe there to be other
categories of inadequate monitoring in
SIP’s, and if so, what are they? How
would you suggest we go about
identifying the specific standards or
rules in specific implementation plans
that contain potential monitoring
inadequacies? Please specify what you
believe to be the standards, the
inadequate monitoring, and the type(s)
of improvements necessary to correct
any potential inadequacies you identify.
In your comments, please provide any
available information about cost,
accuracy, feasability, or any other
factors that you consider relevant to the
revised or improved monitoring. What
programmatic changes would be best to
effect these changes (e.g., EPA or State
rulemaking, SIP calls, voluntary
programs, issuing guidance or policy, or
other means)?
Question: Is opacity an effective
means of determining compliance with
PM limits in pre-1990 applicable
requirements such as NSPS and
NESHAP? Are other monitoring
technologies more effective in assuring
VerDate jul<14>2003
11:18 Feb 15, 2005
Jkt 205001
compliance with PM limits? Please
specify situations where other
monitoring approaches would be more
appropriate and effective as indicators
of compliance with PM limits. What
new technologies may serve as costeffective and reliable means of
determining compliance with those PM
limits (e.g., bag leak detectors which
detect problems that may lead to a
deviation or continuous emissions
monitoring systems that directly
monitor PM emissions)? Please specify
when such new technologies may be
warranted, including the standards, the
current monitoring, and the more
appropriate monitoring technology.
In this ANPR we are only seeking
comments to identify potential
monitoring inadequacies in the Federal
rules identified in section III of this
ANPR (i.e., NSPS under 40 CFR part 60
and NESHAP under 40 CFR part 61
promulgated prior to 1990) and SIP
rules, and to suggest ways to correct any
such inadequacies we may later
determine to exist with respect to
section 114(a)(3) of the Act and the
monitoring requirements in title V of the
Act. We have not opened for comment
any provisions of the operating permits
program rules in 40 CFR parts 70 and
71, the CAM rule in 40 CFR part 64, any
post-1990 NESHAP or any other post1990 Federal rules or any issues related
to State, local, tribal, or EPA
implementation of permitting programs
approved under or based on those rules.
V. What Additional Steps Are Expected
After EPA Reviews Comments
Received?
Once EPA receives comments on our
preliminary analysis of potential
monitoring inadequacies and
suggestions on methods to correct such
inadequacies, we will determine the
appropriate next steps. The EPA
believes, at this time, the next steps will
likely include rulemakings to improve
monitoring requirements in some
Federal rules. We are open to comments
and have made no decisions as to which
Federal rules, have inadequate
monitoring, nor on how to proceed to
correct any such monitoring. Any
rulemakings we may decide to
undertake in the future will be
conducted using notice and comment
procedures. In addition, prior to
finalizing any changes to Federal rules,
we will consider all specific facts
associated with the upgrades we
propose for each standard and conduct
any required analyses of burdens,
including economic impacts, necessary
to satisfy statutory and other
requirements.
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
7909
Dated: February 9, 2005.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 05–2995 Filed 2–15–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 136 and 141
[Docket Number OW–2003–0070; FRL–
7873–3]
[RIN 2040–AD71]
Guidelines Establishing Test
Procedures for the Analysis of
Pollutants Under the Clean Water Act;
National Primary Drinking Water
Regulations; Notice of Data Availability
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice of data availability.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: On April 6, 2004, EPA
proposed to approve a number of new
analytical methods for measuring
pollutants in wastewater and drinking
water, and proposed to withdraw
approval of Syngenta Method AG–625
for determination of atrazine by
immunoassay. Today’s action
announces the availability of new data
regarding these changes, and updates to
three proposed methods. EPA is
soliciting comment only on the data and
methods updates cited in today’s notice.
DATES: Comments must be postmarked,
delivered by hand, or electronically
mailed on or before March 18, 2005.
Comments provided electronically will
be considered timely if they are
submitted electronically by 11:59 p.m.
Eastern Standard Time on March 18,
2005.
ADDRESSES: Comments may be
submitted by mail to Water Docket, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency
(4101T), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue,
NW., Washington DC 20460, or
electronically through EPA Dockets at
https://www.epa.gov/edocket/, Attention
Docket ID No. OW–2003–0070. See
Subsection C of the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section for additional ways
to submit comments and more detailed
instructions.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
information regarding the proposed
changes to wastewater methods, contact
Marion Kelly, Engineering and Analysis
Division (4303T), USEPA Office of
Science and Technology, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington,
DC 20460, (202) 566–1045 (e-mail:
Kelly.Marion@epa.gov). For information
regarding the proposed changes to
E:\FR\FM\16FEP1.SGM
16FEP1
7910
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 16, 2005 / Proposed Rules
drinking water methods, contact Herbert
J. Brass, Technical Support Center (MC
140), USEPA, Office of Ground Water
and Drinking Water, 26 West Martin
Luther King Drive, Cincinnati, OH
45268, (513) 569–7936 (e-mail:
Brass.Herb@epa.gov).
I. General Information
A. How Can I Get Copies of This
Document and Other Related
Information?
1. Docket. EPA has established an
official public docket for this action
under Docket ID No. OW–2003–0070.
The official public docket consists of the
documents specifically referenced in
this action, any public comments
received, and other information related
to this action. Although part of the
official docket, the public docket does
not include Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
The official public docket is the
collection of materials that is available
for public viewing at the Water Docket
in the EPA Docket Center, EPA West
Building, Room B102, 1301 Constitution
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. The
EPA Docket Center Public Reading
Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding
legal holidays. The telephone number
for the Public Reading Room is (202)
566–1744, and the telephone number for
the Water Docket is (202) 566–2426. For
access to docket materials, please call
ahead to schedule an appointment.
Every user is entitled to copy 93 pages
per day before incurring a charge. The
Docket may charge 15 cents per page for
each page over the page limit plus an
administrative fee of $14.00.
2. Electronic Access. You may access
this Federal Register document
electronically through the Internet
under the ‘‘Federal Register’’ listings at
https://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/. An
electronic version of the public docket
is available through EPA’s electronic
public docket and comment system,
EPA Dockets. You may use EPA Dockets
at https://www.epa.gov/edocket/ to
submit or view public comments, access
the index listing of the contents of the
official public docket, or to access those
documents in the public docket that are
available electronically. Once in the
system, select ‘‘search,’’ then key in the
appropriate docket identification
number.
Certain types of information will not
be placed in EPA Dockets. Information
claimed as CBI and other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute,
which is not included in the official
public docket, will not be available for
VerDate jul<14>2003
15:09 Feb 15, 2005
Jkt 205001
public viewing in EPA’s electronic
public docket. EPA’s policy is that
copyrighted material will not be placed
in EPA’s electronic public docket but
will be available only in printed, paper
form in the official public docket.
Although not all docket materials may
be available electronically, you may still
access any of the publicly available
docket materials through the docket
facility identified in section B.1.
For public commenters, it is
important to note that EPA’s policy is
that public comments, whether
submitted electronically or in paper,
will be made available for public
viewing in EPA’s electronic public
docket as EPA receives them and
without change, unless the comment
contains copyrighted material, CBI, or
other information for which disclosure
is restricted by statute. When EPA
identifies a comment containing
copyrighted material, EPA will provide
a reference to that material in the
version of the comment that is placed in
EPA’s electronic public docket. The
entire printed comment, including the
copyrighted material, will be available
in the public docket.
Public comments submitted on
computer disks that are mailed or
delivered to the docket will be
transferred to EPA’s electronic public
docket. Public comments that are
mailed or delivered to the Docket will
be scanned and placed in EPA’s
electronic public docket. Where
practical, physical objects will be
photographed, and the photograph will
be placed in EPA’s electronic public
docket along with a brief description
written by the docket staff.
B. How and To Whom Do I Submit
Comments?
You may submit comments
electronically, by mail, or through hand
delivery/courier. To ensure proper
receipt by EPA, identify the appropriate
docket identification number in the
subject line on the first page of your
comment. Please ensure that your
comments are submitted within the
specified comment period. Comments
received after the close of the comment
period will be marked ‘‘late.’’ EPA is not
required to consider these late
comments.
1. Electronically. If you submit an
electronic comment as prescribed
below, EPA recommends that you
include your name, mailing address,
and an e-mail address or other contact
information in the body of your
comment. Also include this contact
information on the outside of any disk
or CD ROM you submit, and in any
cover letter accompanying the disk or
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
CD ROM. This ensures that you can be
identified as the submitter of the
comment and allows EPA to contact you
in case EPA cannot read your comment
due to technical difficulties or needs
further information on the substance of
your comment. EPA’s policy is that EPA
will not edit your comment, and any
identifying or contact information
provided in the body of a comment will
be included as part of the comment that
is placed in the official public docket,
and made available in EPA’s electronic
public docket. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties
and cannot contact you for clarification,
EPA may not be able to consider your
comment.
i. EPA Dockets. Your use of EPA’s
electronic public docket to submit
comments to EPA electronically is
EPA’s preferred method for receiving
comments. Go directly to EPA Dockets
at https://www.epa.gov/edocket, and
follow the online instructions for
submitting comments. Once in the
system, select ‘‘search,’’ and then key in
Docket ID No. OW–2003–0070. The
system is an ‘‘anonymous access’’
system, which means EPA will not
know your identity, e-mail address, or
other contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment.
ii. E-mail. Comments may be sent by
electronic mail (e-mail) to: OWdocket@epamail.epa.gov, Attention
Docket ID No. OW–2003–0070. In
contrast to EPA’s electronic public
docket, EPA’s e-mail system is not an
‘‘anonymous access’’ system. If you
send an e-mail comment directly to the
Docket without going through EPA’s
electronic public docket, EPA’s e-mail
system automatically captures your email address. E-mail addresses that are
automatically captured by EPA’s e-mail
system are included as part of the
comment that is placed in the official
public docket, and made available in
EPA’s electronic public docket.
iii. Disk or CD ROM. You may submit
comments on a disk or CD ROM that
you mail to the mailing address
identified in section B.2. These
electronic submissions will be accepted
in WordPerfect or ASCII file format.
Avoid the use of special characters and
any form of encryption.
2. By Mail. Send an original and three
copies of your comments to Water
Docket, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (4101T), 1200 Pennsylvania
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460,
Attention Docket ID No. OW–2003–
0070.
3. By Hand Delivery or Courier.
Deliver your comments to the Water
Docket in the EPA Water Center, EPA
West Building, Room B102, 1301
E:\FR\FM\16FEP1.SGM
16FEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 16, 2005 / Proposed Rules
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington,
DC, Attention Docket ID No. OW–2003–
0070. Such deliveries are only accepted
during the Docket’s normal hours of
operation as identified in section A.1.
C. How Should I Submit CBI to the
Agency?
Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI electronically
through EPA’s electronic public docket
or by e-mail. You may claim
information that you submit to EPA as
CBI by marking any part or all of that
information as CBI (if you submit CBI
on disk or CD ROM, mark the outside
of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then
identify electronically within the disk or
CD ROM the specific information that is
CBI). Information so marked will not be
disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
In addition to one complete version of
the comment that includes any
information claimed as CBI, a copy of
the comment that does not contain the
information claimed as CBI must be
submitted for inclusion in the public
docket and EPA’s electronic public
docket. If you submit the copy that does
not contain CBI on disk or CD ROM,
mark on the outside of the disk or CD
ROM clearly that it does not contain
CBI. Information not marked as CBI will
be included in the public docket and
EPA’s electronic public docket without
prior notice. If you have any questions
about CBI or the procedures for claiming
CBI, please consult the person identified
in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section.
D. What Should I Consider as I Prepare
My Comments for EPA?
You may find the following
suggestions helpful for preparing your
comments:
1. Explain your views as clearly as
possible.
2. Describe any assumptions that you
made.
3. Provide any technical information
and/or data you used that support your
views.
4. If you estimate potential burden or
costs, explain how you arrived at your
estimate.
5. Provide specific examples to
illustrate your concerns.
6. Offer alternatives.
7. Make sure to submit your
comments by the comment period
deadline.
8. To ensure proper receipt by EPA,
identify the appropriate docket
identification number in the subject line
on the first page of your response. It
would also be helpful if you provided
VerDate jul<14>2003
11:18 Feb 15, 2005
Jkt 205001
the name, date, and Federal Register
citation related to your comments.
II. Summary of New Information
On April 6, 2004, EPA proposed the
approval of new methods for National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) monitoring, and National
Primary Drinking Water Regulations
(NPDWR) compliance monitoring, at 40
CFR parts 136 and 141, respectively (69
FR 18166). In this same proposal, EPA
proposed to withdraw approval of
Syngenta Method AG–625 for
determination of atrazine by
immunoassay in drinking water at 40
CFR part 141. Today, EPA is providing
notice of additional information and
data regarding the proposal. EPA is also
announcing recent additions to the
Docket regarding EPA evaluations of
atrazine immunoassay kits. Lastly,
today’s notice includes revised versions
of three methods that were proposed for
approval. These versions are similar to
the proposed versions, but contain some
changes to quality control and
procedural requirements.
EPA is soliciting comment only on the
additional information and data cited in
this notice and the updated revisions of
the proposed methods described below.
EPA is not requesting comment on other
methods or on other aspects of the April
6, 2004, proposal.
A. Available Data
EPA received additional analytical
and cost data, references to journal
articles, and study reports regarding a
number of the proposed changes to
analytical methods. EPA has placed this
data and information and other relevant
information in the docket for this rule.
Today’s notice solicits comment on
these data and information.
1. NPDES Data
EPA received data and information on
cyanide methods in comments OW–
2003–0070–234, 237, 272, 314, 315, and
319. After the close of the comment
period, EPA received additional data
regarding the use of the proposed
MICRO DIST cyanide method in
recovering particulate cyanide. EPA has
added these data to the docket as
document numbers OW–2003–0070–
0351, 0352, 0353, and will consider
them together with the data received
during the comment period.
EPA also received data and
information regarding total Kjeldahl
nitrogen (TKN) analyses (OW–2003–
0070–272, 327); mercury methods (OW–
2003–0070–246, 284, and 320); total
suspended solids methods (OW–2003–
0070–226); Microtox (OW–2003–0070–
260, 263, 265, 280, 292, 294, 297, 307,
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
7911
311, 329); EPA Method 624 (OW–2003–
0070–274); Waters Method D6508, Rev.
2 (OW–2003–0070–300); updated
versions of currently-approved EPA
Methods (OW–2003–0070–272, 288);
and metals sampling methods (OW–
2003–0070–295).
2. NPDWR Data
Some of the data and information
listed above regarding cyanide methods
(OW–2003–0070–234, 237, 272) and
Waters Method D6508, Rev. 2 (OW–
2003–0070–300) are also applicable to
proposed NPDWR methods. EPA also
received data and information in
comments regarding the withdrawal of
Syngenta Method AG–625 (OW–2003–
0070–291, 317). After the close of the
comment period, EPA also received a
pre-publication version of an American
Water Works Association (AWWA)
journal article that evaluated the
performance of Syngenta AG–625 (OW–
2003–0070–0355), correspondence from
AWWA and Syngenta (OW–2003–0070–
0354, 357); data generated by Dr. Craig
Adams (under a project sponsored by
AWWA) using atrazine test kits, (OW–
2003–0070–0347); and a final report
from Syngenta regarding Method AG–
625 that contains data generated by
using a modified atrazine test kit, for the
method, distributed by Beacon
Analytical (OW–2003–0070–356). An
interim version of this final report was
submitted during the comment period
for the April 2004 proposed rule.
In addition, EPA added a series of
reports and summaries regarding the
evaluation of atrazine immunoassay test
kits by EPA’s Environmental
Technology Verification (ETV) Program.
Kits that EPA evaluated include the
Abraxis, LLC Atrazine ELISA Kit (OW–
2003–0070–0339,0343); Beacon
Analytical Systems, Inc. Atrazine Tube
Kit (OW–2003–0070–0340, 0344); Silver
Lake Research, Corp. Watersafe
Pesticide Kit (OW–2003–0070–0342,
0346); and, Strategic Diagnostics RaPID
Assay Kit (OW–2003–0070–0341,
0345).
EPA will evaluate the above
information relative to the Agency’s
proposed withdrawal of Syngenta
Method AG–625 and will assess the
effectiveness of the modified test kit
(i.e., the effectiveness of that kit in
eliminating the method interference that
prompted the proposed withdrawal of
Method AG–625). Based upon that
evaluation, and based on its review of
comments pursuant to this notice, EPA
may approve the use of the alternative
kit via the final rule. EPA invites
comments on the extent to which the
new information supports the
withdrawal of Method AG–625 or the
E:\FR\FM\16FEP1.SGM
16FEP1
7912
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 16, 2005 / Proposed Rules
approval of a modified method using
the alternative kit.
B. Revised Methods
In the April 6, 2004, proposal, EPA
proposed changes to approved
analytical methods for use in Clean
Water Act and Safe Drinking Water Act
programs. The proposed changes
included methods that employ new
technologies and updated versions of
previously approved methods. Among
these changes, EPA proposed to approve
a number of ASTM International
methods, including ASTM Method
D6888–03 for determining available
cyanide in wastewater and drinking
water, ASTM Method D5673–02 for
determining various metals in
wastewater, and ASTM Method D4658–
92 for determining sulfide in
wastewater. Since publication of the
proposal, EPA has received revised
versions of these three methods and has
added them to the docket for public
comment: (1) D6888–04 Standard Test
Method for Available Cyanide with
Ligand Displacement and Flow Injection
Analysis (FIA) Utilizing Gas Diffusion
Separation and Amperometric Detection
(an update of proposed version: D6888–
03); (2) D5673–03 Standard Test Method
for Elements in Water by Inductively
Coupled Plasma—Mass Spectrometry
(an update of proposed version: D5673–
02); and (3) D4658–03 Standard Test
Method for Sulfide Ion in Water (and
update of proposed version: D4658–
92(1996)). Method D6888–04 contains a
new on-line sulfide removal procedure,
and Methods D5673–03 and D4658–03
have added standardized quality control
requirements and criteria. The methods
added to the Docket represent
refinements to the proposed versions,
and are not significant variations of
those versions. EPA may promulgate
some or all of these revised versions in
a final rule, and requests comment on
each. These methods are included in the
docket at OW–2003–0070–0348, 0349,
0350), respectively, and may be ordered
from ASTM International, 100 Barr
Harbor Drive, P.O. Box C700, West
Conshohocken, PA 19428–2959, United
States, or at https://www.astm.org.
In the April 6, 2004 proposal, EPA
proposed a method for the measurement
of Radium-226 and Radium-228 by
Gamma Spectroscopy in drinking water.
This method has been modified in
several ways and EPA seeks comment
on these modifications. The changes to
the method include the following:
correction of minor typographical
errors, minor editorial changes such as
the addition of chemical abstract
numbers for Radium-226 and Radium228; the addition of a description of the
VerDate jul<14>2003
11:18 Feb 15, 2005
Jkt 205001
dangers regarding the use of diethyl
ether; minor changes to the equations
for activity, detection limit, and
uncertainty made as a result of public
comment; minor changes to the QC
section of the method; the addition of a
description of ‘‘mixed wastes’’ (i.e.,
waste that contains both hazardous
waste and radioactive waste); and the
addition of a reference to ASTM added
to describe Type 2 Reagent Water.
In the April 6, 2004 proposal, EPA
concluded that the proposed rule would
not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities
(69 FR 18188). Adoption of the
refinement to the three methods for
which EPA is requesting comment today
would not change the Agency’s decision
to certify the proposal under the
Regulatory Flexibility Act. In addition,
as explained above, Methods D6888–04,
D5673–03 and D4658–03, like the
earlier proposed versions of these
methods, represent methods from
voluntary consensus standards bodies.
Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 directs EPA to use voluntary
standards in its regulatory activities as
discussed in more detail in the proposal
at 69 FR 18189–18190.
Dated: February 9, 2005.
Benjamin H. Grumbles,
Assistant Administrator, Office of Water.
[FR Doc. 05–2988 Filed 2–15–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 180
[OPP–2004–0413; FRL–7691–9]
Lignosulfonates; Exemptions from the
Requirement of a Tolerance
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The Agency is proposing to
establish 44 exemptions from the
requirement of a tolerance for residues
of various lignosulfonate chemicals in
or on raw agricultural commodities
when used as inert ingredients in
pesticide formulations applied to
growing crops or to raw agricultural
commodities after harvest, or to animals
under the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), as amended by
the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996
(FQPA). This regulation eliminates the
need to establish a maximum
permissible level for residues of these
lignosulfonate chemicals.
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Comments, identified by docket
identification (ID) number OPP–2004–
0413, must be received on or before
April 18, 2005.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by docket ID number OPP–
2004–0413, by one of the following
methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov/. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
• Agency Website: https://
www.epa.gov/edocket/. EDOCKET,
EPA’s electronic public docket and
comment system, is EPA’s preferred
method for receiving comments. Follow
the on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
• E-mail: Comments may be sent by
e-mail to opp-docket@epa.gov,
Attention: Docket ID Number OPP–
2004–0413.
• Mail: Public Information and
Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB)
(7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs
(OPP), Environmental Protection
Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460–0001, Attention:
Docket ID Number OPP–2004–0413.
• Hand delivery: Public Information
and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB),
Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP),
Environmental Protection Agency, Rm.
119, Crystal Mall #2, 1801 S. Bell St.,
Arlington, VA, Attention: Docket ID
Number OPP–2004–0413. Such
deliveries are only accepted during the
Docket’s normal hours of operation, and
special arrangements should be made
for deliveries of boxed information.
Instructions: Direct your comments to
docket ID number OPP–2004–0413.
EPA’s policy is that all comments
received will be included in the public
docket without change and may be
made available online at https://
www.epa.gov/edocket/, including any
personal information provided, unless
the comment includes information
claimed to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise
protected through EDOCKET,
regulations.gov, or e-mail. The EPA
EDOCKET and the regulations.gov
websites are ‘‘anonymous access’’
systems, which means EPA will not
know your identity or contact
information unless you provide it in the
body of your comment. If you send an
e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through EDOCKET or
regulations.gov, your e-mail address
will be automatically captured and
included as part of the comment that is
DATES:
E:\FR\FM\16FEP1.SGM
16FEP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 31 (Wednesday, February 16, 2005)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 7909-7912]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-2988]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 136 and 141
[Docket Number OW-2003-0070; FRL-7873-3]
[RIN 2040-AD71]
Guidelines Establishing Test Procedures for the Analysis of
Pollutants Under the Clean Water Act; National Primary Drinking Water
Regulations; Notice of Data Availability
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice of data availability.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On April 6, 2004, EPA proposed to approve a number of new
analytical methods for measuring pollutants in wastewater and drinking
water, and proposed to withdraw approval of Syngenta Method AG-625 for
determination of atrazine by immunoassay. Today's action announces the
availability of new data regarding these changes, and updates to three
proposed methods. EPA is soliciting comment only on the data and
methods updates cited in today's notice.
DATES: Comments must be postmarked, delivered by hand, or
electronically mailed on or before March 18, 2005. Comments provided
electronically will be considered timely if they are submitted
electronically by 11:59 p.m. Eastern Standard Time on March 18, 2005.
ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted by mail to Water Docket, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (4101T), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,
Washington DC 20460, or electronically through EPA Dockets at https://
www.epa.gov/edocket/, Attention Docket ID No. OW-2003-0070. See
Subsection C of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for additional
ways to submit comments and more detailed instructions.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information regarding the proposed
changes to wastewater methods, contact Marion Kelly, Engineering and
Analysis Division (4303T), USEPA Office of Science and Technology, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, (202) 566-1045 (e-mail:
Kelly.Marion@epa.gov). For information regarding the proposed changes
to
[[Page 7910]]
drinking water methods, contact Herbert J. Brass, Technical Support
Center (MC 140), USEPA, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water, 26
West Martin Luther King Drive, Cincinnati, OH 45268, (513) 569-7936 (e-
mail: Brass.Herb@epa.gov).
I. General Information
A. How Can I Get Copies of This Document and Other Related Information?
1. Docket. EPA has established an official public docket for this
action under Docket ID No. OW-2003-0070. The official public docket
consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, any
public comments received, and other information related to this action.
Although part of the official docket, the public docket does not
include Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. The official public docket
is the collection of materials that is available for public viewing at
the Water Docket in the EPA Docket Center, EPA West Building, Room
B102, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket
Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday
through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the
Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the
Water Docket is (202) 566-2426. For access to docket materials, please
call ahead to schedule an appointment. Every user is entitled to copy
93 pages per day before incurring a charge. The Docket may charge 15
cents per page for each page over the page limit plus an administrative
fee of $14.00.
2. Electronic Access. You may access this Federal Register document
electronically through the Internet under the ``Federal Register''
listings at https://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/. An electronic version of the
public docket is available through EPA's electronic public docket and
comment system, EPA Dockets. You may use EPA Dockets at https://
www.epa.gov/edocket/ to submit or view public comments, access the
index listing of the contents of the official public docket, or to
access those documents in the public docket that are available
electronically. Once in the system, select ``search,'' then key in the
appropriate docket identification number.
Certain types of information will not be placed in EPA Dockets.
Information claimed as CBI and other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute, which is not included in the official public
docket, will not be available for public viewing in EPA's electronic
public docket. EPA's policy is that copyrighted material will not be
placed in EPA's electronic public docket but will be available only in
printed, paper form in the official public docket. Although not all
docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access
any of the publicly available docket materials through the docket
facility identified in section B.1.
For public commenters, it is important to note that EPA's policy is
that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper,
will be made available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public
docket as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment
contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information for which
disclosure is restricted by statute. When EPA identifies a comment
containing copyrighted material, EPA will provide a reference to that
material in the version of the comment that is placed in EPA's
electronic public docket. The entire printed comment, including the
copyrighted material, will be available in the public docket.
Public comments submitted on computer disks that are mailed or
delivered to the docket will be transferred to EPA's electronic public
docket. Public comments that are mailed or delivered to the Docket will
be scanned and placed in EPA's electronic public docket. Where
practical, physical objects will be photographed, and the photograph
will be placed in EPA's electronic public docket along with a brief
description written by the docket staff.
B. How and To Whom Do I Submit Comments?
You may submit comments electronically, by mail, or through hand
delivery/courier. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the
appropriate docket identification number in the subject line on the
first page of your comment. Please ensure that your comments are
submitted within the specified comment period. Comments received after
the close of the comment period will be marked ``late.'' EPA is not
required to consider these late comments.
1. Electronically. If you submit an electronic comment as
prescribed below, EPA recommends that you include your name, mailing
address, and an e-mail address or other contact information in the body
of your comment. Also include this contact information on the outside
of any disk or CD ROM you submit, and in any cover letter accompanying
the disk or CD ROM. This ensures that you can be identified as the
submitter of the comment and allows EPA to contact you in case EPA
cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties or needs further
information on the substance of your comment. EPA's policy is that EPA
will not edit your comment, and any identifying or contact information
provided in the body of a comment will be included as part of the
comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made
available in EPA's electronic public docket. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment.
i. EPA Dockets. Your use of EPA's electronic public docket to
submit comments to EPA electronically is EPA's preferred method for
receiving comments. Go directly to EPA Dockets at https://www.epa.gov/
edocket, and follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
Once in the system, select ``search,'' and then key in Docket ID No.
OW-2003-0070. The system is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means
EPA will not know your identity, e-mail address, or other contact
information unless you provide it in the body of your comment.
ii. E-mail. Comments may be sent by electronic mail (e-mail) to:
OW-docket@epamail.epa.gov, Attention Docket ID No. OW-2003-0070. In
contrast to EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's e-mail system is not
an ``anonymous access'' system. If you send an e-mail comment directly
to the Docket without going through EPA's electronic public docket,
EPA's e-mail system automatically captures your e-mail address. E-mail
addresses that are automatically captured by EPA's e-mail system are
included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public
docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket.
iii. Disk or CD ROM. You may submit comments on a disk or CD ROM
that you mail to the mailing address identified in section B.2. These
electronic submissions will be accepted in WordPerfect or ASCII file
format. Avoid the use of special characters and any form of encryption.
2. By Mail. Send an original and three copies of your comments to
Water Docket, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (4101T), 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460, Attention Docket ID No.
OW-2003-0070.
3. By Hand Delivery or Courier. Deliver your comments to the Water
Docket in the EPA Water Center, EPA West Building, Room B102, 1301
[[Page 7911]]
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC, Attention Docket ID No. OW-
2003-0070. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal
hours of operation as identified in section A.1.
C. How Should I Submit CBI to the Agency?
Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI
electronically through EPA's electronic public docket or by e-mail. You
may claim information that you submit to EPA as CBI by marking any part
or all of that information as CBI (if you submit CBI on disk or CD ROM,
mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify
electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific information that
is CBI). Information so marked will not be disclosed except in
accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes
any information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not
contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion
in the public docket and EPA's electronic public docket. If you submit
the copy that does not contain CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark on the
outside of the disk or CD ROM clearly that it does not contain CBI.
Information not marked as CBI will be included in the public docket and
EPA's electronic public docket without prior notice. If you have any
questions about CBI or the procedures for claiming CBI, please consult
the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
D. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?
You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your
comments:
1. Explain your views as clearly as possible.
2. Describe any assumptions that you made.
3. Provide any technical information and/or data you used that
support your views.
4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you
arrived at your estimate.
5. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns.
6. Offer alternatives.
7. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline.
8. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the appropriate docket
identification number in the subject line on the first page of your
response. It would also be helpful if you provided the name, date, and
Federal Register citation related to your comments.
II. Summary of New Information
On April 6, 2004, EPA proposed the approval of new methods for
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) monitoring, and
National Primary Drinking Water Regulations (NPDWR) compliance
monitoring, at 40 CFR parts 136 and 141, respectively (69 FR 18166). In
this same proposal, EPA proposed to withdraw approval of Syngenta
Method AG-625 for determination of atrazine by immunoassay in drinking
water at 40 CFR part 141. Today, EPA is providing notice of additional
information and data regarding the proposal. EPA is also announcing
recent additions to the Docket regarding EPA evaluations of atrazine
immunoassay kits. Lastly, today's notice includes revised versions of
three methods that were proposed for approval. These versions are
similar to the proposed versions, but contain some changes to quality
control and procedural requirements.
EPA is soliciting comment only on the additional information and
data cited in this notice and the updated revisions of the proposed
methods described below. EPA is not requesting comment on other methods
or on other aspects of the April 6, 2004, proposal.
A. Available Data
EPA received additional analytical and cost data, references to
journal articles, and study reports regarding a number of the proposed
changes to analytical methods. EPA has placed this data and information
and other relevant information in the docket for this rule. Today's
notice solicits comment on these data and information.
1. NPDES Data
EPA received data and information on cyanide methods in comments
OW-2003-0070-234, 237, 272, 314, 315, and 319. After the close of the
comment period, EPA received additional data regarding the use of the
proposed MICRO DIST cyanide method in recovering particulate cyanide.
EPA has added these data to the docket as document numbers OW-2003-
0070-0351, 0352, 0353, and will consider them together with the data
received during the comment period.
EPA also received data and information regarding total Kjeldahl
nitrogen (TKN) analyses (OW-2003-0070-272, 327); mercury methods (OW-
2003-0070-246, 284, and 320); total suspended solids methods (OW-2003-
0070-226); Microtox (OW-2003-0070-260, 263, 265, 280, 292, 294, 297,
307, 311, 329); EPA Method 624 (OW-2003-0070-274); Waters Method D6508,
Rev. 2 (OW-2003-0070-300); updated versions of currently-approved EPA
Methods (OW-2003-0070-272, 288); and metals sampling methods (OW-2003-
0070-295).
2. NPDWR Data
Some of the data and information listed above regarding cyanide
methods (OW-2003-0070-234, 237, 272) and Waters Method D6508, Rev. 2
(OW-2003-0070-300) are also applicable to proposed NPDWR methods. EPA
also received data and information in comments regarding the withdrawal
of Syngenta Method AG-625 (OW-2003-0070-291, 317). After the close of
the comment period, EPA also received a pre-publication version of an
American Water Works Association (AWWA) journal article that evaluated
the performance of Syngenta AG-625 (OW-2003-0070-0355), correspondence
from AWWA and Syngenta (OW-2003-0070-0354, 357); data generated by Dr.
Craig Adams (under a project sponsored by AWWA) using atrazine test
kits, (OW-2003-0070-0347); and a final report from Syngenta regarding
Method AG-625 that contains data generated by using a modified atrazine
test kit, for the method, distributed by Beacon Analytical (OW-2003-
0070-356). An interim version of this final report was submitted during
the comment period for the April 2004 proposed rule.
In addition, EPA added a series of reports and summaries regarding
the evaluation of atrazine immunoassay test kits by EPA's Environmental
Technology Verification (ETV) Program. Kits that EPA evaluated include
the Abraxis, LLC Atrazine ELISA Kit (OW-2003-0070-0339,0343); Beacon
Analytical Systems, Inc. Atrazine Tube Kit (OW-2003-0070-0340, 0344);
Silver Lake Research, Corp. Watersafe[reg] Pesticide Kit (OW-2003-0070-
0342, 0346); and, Strategic Diagnostics RaPID Assay[reg] Kit (OW-2003-
0070-0341, 0345).
EPA will evaluate the above information relative to the Agency's
proposed withdrawal of Syngenta Method AG-625 and will assess the
effectiveness of the modified test kit (i.e., the effectiveness of that
kit in eliminating the method interference that prompted the proposed
withdrawal of Method AG-625). Based upon that evaluation, and based on
its review of comments pursuant to this notice, EPA may approve the use
of the alternative kit via the final rule. EPA invites comments on the
extent to which the new information supports the withdrawal of Method
AG-625 or the
[[Page 7912]]
approval of a modified method using the alternative kit.
B. Revised Methods
In the April 6, 2004, proposal, EPA proposed changes to approved
analytical methods for use in Clean Water Act and Safe Drinking Water
Act programs. The proposed changes included methods that employ new
technologies and updated versions of previously approved methods. Among
these changes, EPA proposed to approve a number of ASTM International
methods, including ASTM Method D6888-03 for determining available
cyanide in wastewater and drinking water, ASTM Method D5673-02 for
determining various metals in wastewater, and ASTM Method D4658-92 for
determining sulfide in wastewater. Since publication of the proposal,
EPA has received revised versions of these three methods and has added
them to the docket for public comment: (1) D6888-04 Standard Test
Method for Available Cyanide with Ligand Displacement and Flow
Injection Analysis (FIA) Utilizing Gas Diffusion Separation and
Amperometric Detection (an update of proposed version: D6888-03); (2)
D5673-03 Standard Test Method for Elements in Water by Inductively
Coupled Plasma--Mass Spectrometry (an update of proposed version:
D5673-02); and (3) D4658-03 Standard Test Method for Sulfide Ion in
Water (and update of proposed version: D4658-92(1996)). Method D6888-04
contains a new on-line sulfide removal procedure, and Methods D5673-03
and D4658-03 have added standardized quality control requirements and
criteria. The methods added to the Docket represent refinements to the
proposed versions, and are not significant variations of those
versions. EPA may promulgate some or all of these revised versions in a
final rule, and requests comment on each. These methods are included in
the docket at OW-2003-0070-0348, 0349, 0350), respectively, and may be
ordered from ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, P.O. Box C700,
West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959, United States, or at https://
www.astm.org.
In the April 6, 2004 proposal, EPA proposed a method for the
measurement of Radium-226 and Radium-228 by Gamma Spectroscopy in
drinking water. This method has been modified in several ways and EPA
seeks comment on these modifications. The changes to the method include
the following: correction of minor typographical errors, minor
editorial changes such as the addition of chemical abstract numbers for
Radium-226 and Radium-228; the addition of a description of the dangers
regarding the use of diethyl ether; minor changes to the equations for
activity, detection limit, and uncertainty made as a result of public
comment; minor changes to the QC section of the method; the addition of
a description of ``mixed wastes'' (i.e., waste that contains both
hazardous waste and radioactive waste); and the addition of a reference
to ASTM added to describe Type 2 Reagent Water.
In the April 6, 2004 proposal, EPA concluded that the proposed rule
would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities (69 FR 18188). Adoption of the refinement to the three
methods for which EPA is requesting comment today would not change the
Agency's decision to certify the proposal under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act. In addition, as explained above, Methods D6888-04,
D5673-03 and D4658-03, like the earlier proposed versions of these
methods, represent methods from voluntary consensus standards bodies.
Section 12(d) of the National TechnoAdvancement Act
of 1995 directs EPA to use voluntary standards in its regulatory
activities as discussed in more detail in the proposal at 69 FR 18189-
18190.
Dated: February 9, 2005.
Benjamin H. Grumbles,
Assistant Administrator, Office of Water.
[FR Doc. 05-2988 Filed 2-15-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P