[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 45 (Thursday, March 7, 2002)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 10533-10549]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-5447]



[[Page 10531]]

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

Part IV





Environmental Protection Agency





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



40 CFR Part 141



Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation: Approval of Analytical 
Method for Aeromonas; National Primary and Secondary Drinking Water 
Regulations: Approval of Analytical Methods for Chemical and 
Microbiological Contaminants; Proposed Rule

[[Page 10532]]


  Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 45 / Thursday, March 7, 2002 / 
Proposed Rules  
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 141

[FRL-7153-9]


Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation: Approval of 
Analytical Method for Aeromonas; National Primary and Secondary 
Drinking Water Regulations: Approval of Analytical Methods for Chemical 
and Microbiological Contaminants

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: Today's rule proposes the analytical method and an associated 
Minimum Reporting Level (MRL) for the analysis of Aeromonas to support 
the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation's List 2 monitoring 
of 120 large and 180 small public water systems from January 1, 2003 
through December 31, 2003. Only these 300 systems must monitor for 
Aeromonas. Aeromonas hydrophilia is a bacterium that is indigenous to 
natural waters. It has been implicated as a cause of traveler's 
diarrhea and other types of infections. Aeromonas has been observed in 
drinking water distribution systems, especially in locations with low 
residual chlorine levels.
    Additionally, USEPA proposes to approve USEPA Method 515.4 to 
support previously required National Primary Drinking Water Regulation 
(NPDWR) compliance monitoring for 2,4-D (as acid, salts and esters), 
2,4,5-TP (Silvex), dinoseb, pentachlorophenol, picloram and dalapon, 
and USEPA Method 531.2 to support previously required NPDWR monitoring 
for carbofuran and oxamyl.
    Minor formatting changes are being made to the table of methods 
required to be used for required organic chemical NPDWR compliance 
monitoring to improve clarity and to conform to the format of other 
methods tables. In addition, the Presence-Absence (P-A) Coliform Test 
listed in the total coliform methods table was inadvertently identified 
as method 9221. This is being corrected to 9221 D. Also, detection 
limits for ``Cyanide'' are added in the ``Detection Limits for 
Inorganic Contaminants'' table for the two proposed cyanide methods.
    Finally, USEPA proposes to approve eight additional industry 
developed analytical methods to support previously required NPDWR 
compliance monitoring. These eight methods include: a method for the 
determination of atrazine, two methods for the determination of 
cyanide, three methods for the determination of total coliforms, a 
method for the determination of heterotrophic bacteria and a method for 
the determination of turbidity.

DATES: Written comments should be postmarked by midnight, delivered by 
hand, or electronically mailed on or before May 6, 2002.

ADDRESSES: Any person may submit written or electronic comments 
concerning this proposed rule. Please send an original and 3 copies of 
your comments and enclosures (including references) to the W-01-13 
Comment Clerk, Water Docket (MC4101), USEPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, 
NW., Washington, DC 20460. Hand deliveries should be delivered to: 
USEPA's Water Docket at 401 M. St., SW., Room EB57, Washington, DC. 
Comments may also be submitted electronically to [email protected].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information regarding the actions 
included in this proposal contact David J. Munch, USEPA, 26 West Martin 
Luther King Dr. (MLK 140), Cincinnati, Ohio 45268, (513) 569-7843 or e-
mail at [email protected]. General information may also be obtained 
from the USEPA Safe Drinking Water Hotline. Callers within the United 
States may reach the Hotline at (800) 426-4791. The Hotline is open 
Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays, from 9 a.m. to 5:30 
p.m. Eastern Time.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Potentially Regulated Entities

    The only regulated entities are the 300 public water systems 
selected for Aeromonas monitoring; the use of the remaining methods 
proposed for approval in this action is voluntary however, if one of 
these methods is selected for use for the purpose of compliance 
monitoring then, compliance with the procedures specified in the method 
is required. A nationally representative sample of 120 large community 
and non-transient non-community water systems serving more than 10,000 
persons are required to monitor for Aeromonas under the revised UCMR. A 
nationally representative sample of 180 community and non-transient 
non-community systems serving 10,000 or fewer persons are also required 
to monitor for Aeromonas. States, Territories, and Tribes, with primacy 
to administer the regulatory program for public water systems under the 
Safe Drinking Water Act sometimes conduct analyses to measure for 
contaminants in water samples and are affected by this action. 
Categories and entities potentially affected by this action include the 
following:

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

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a 
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this 
action. This table lists the types of entities that USEPA is now aware 
could potentially be regulated by this action. Other types of entities 
not listed in the table could also be regulated. To determine whether 
your facility is potentially regulated by this action concerning the 
monitoring for Aeromonas, you should carefully examine the 
applicability criteria in Sec. 141.35 and Sec. 141.40 of the Code of 
Federal Regulations. A listing of the systems selected to perform 
Aeromonas monitoring is available at http://www.epa.gov/safewater/standard/ucmr/systems.html. To determine whether your facility is 
potentially regulated by the action concerning the use of USEPA Methods 
515.4, 531.2 or the additional industry developed methods being 
proposed, you should carefully examine

[[Page 10533]]

the applicability criteria in Sec. 141.21, Sec. 141.23, Sec. 141.24 and 
Sec. 141.74 of the Code of Federal Regulations. If you have questions 
regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, 
consult the person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT section.

Submitting Comments

    Commentors who want USEPA to acknowledge receipt of their comments 
should enclose a self-addressed, stamped envelope. No facsimiles 
(faxes) will be accepted. Electronic comments must be submitted as an 
ASCII, WP5.1, WP6.1 or WP8 file avoiding the use of special characters 
and forms of encryption. Electronic comments must be identified by the 
docket number W-01-13. Comments and data will also be accepted on disks 
in WP 5.1, 6.1, 8 or ASCII file format. Electronic comments on this 
notice may be filed online at many Federal Depository Libraries. 
Commentors should use a separate paragraph for each issue discussed.
    The record for this proposed rulemaking has been established under 
docket number W-01-13, and includes all of the supporting 
documentation, including copies of all of the analytical methods 
included in this proposed regulation as well as all materials 
referenced. The record is available for inspection from 9 to 4 p.m., 
Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays at the Water Docket, EB 
57, USEPA Headquarters, 401 M. St., SW., Washington, DC. For access to 
docket materials, please call 202/260-3027 to schedule an appointment.

Abbreviations and Acronyms Used in the Preamble and Proposed Rule

2,4-D--2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid
2,4,5-TP--2,4,5 trichlorophenoxyacetic acid
ADA--ampicilin-dextrin
APHA--American Public Health Association
ASTM--American Society for Testing and Materials
CAS--Chemical Abstract Service
CASRN--Chemical Abstract Service Registry Number
CFR--Code of Federal Regulations
CFU/mL--colony forming units per milliliter
DCPA--dimethyl tetrachloroterephthalate, chemical name of the herbicide 
dacthal
ECD--electron capture detector
USEPA--United States Environmental Protection Agency
EPTDS--entry point to the distribution system
ESA--ethanesulfonic acid, a degradation product of alachlor and other 
acetanilide pesticides
et al.--and others
GC--gas chromatograph, a laboratory instrument
GLI method--Great Lakes Instruments method
HRGC--high resolution gas chromatography
HRMS--high resolution mass spectrometer
ICR--information collection request
LD--point of lowest disinfectant residual
MCL--maximum contaminant level
MD--midpoint in the distribution system
MDL--method detection limit
MI--4--methylumbelliferyl--beta--D--galactopyranoside'indoxyl--beta--
D--glucuronide
g/L--micrograms per liter
mg/L--milligram per liter
MPN--most probable number
MR--point of maximum retention
MRL--minimum reporting level
MTBE--methyl tertiary-butyl ether, a gasoline additive
NAICS--National American Industry Classification System
NERL--National Environmental Research Laboratory
nm--nanometers
NPDWR--National Primary Drinking Water Regulation
NTIS--National Technical Information Service
NTNCWS--non-transient non-community water system
NTTAA--National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
OMB--Office of Management and Budget
PCBs--polychlorinated biphenyls pKa--negative logarithm of the acidity 
constant
pKa--negative logarithm of the acidity constant
PT--performance testing
PWS--public water system
RDX--royal demolition explosive, hexahydro-1,3,5-trinitro-1,3,5-
triazine
RFA--Regulatory Flexibility Act
SBREFA--Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
SDWA--Safe Drinking Water Act
UCMR--Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation
UMRA--Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
UV--ultraviolet

Table of Contents

I. Regulatory Background
II. Aeromonas Related Actions
    A. Relation to the UCMR
    B. Contaminant and Analytical Methods
    C. Laboratory Approval and Certification
    D. Summary of USEPA Method 1605
III. Primary and Secondary Drinking Water Regulation Related Actions
    A. Contaminants and Analytical Methods
    B. Summary of Primary and Secondary Drinking Water Regulation 
Methods
IV. Cost of the Rule
V. Administrative Requirements
    A. Executive Order 12866--Regulatory Planning and Review
    B. Executive Order 13045--Protection of Children From 
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
    C. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    D. Paperwork Reduction Act
    E. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as amended by the Small 
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 
U.S.C. 601 et. seq.
    F. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
    G. Executive Order 12898--Federal Actions to Address 
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 
Populations
    H. Executive Order 13132--Federalism
    I. Executive Order 13175--Consultation and Coordination with 
Indian Tribal Governments
    J. Plain Language Directive
    K. Executive Order 13211--Energy Effects
VI. References

I. Regulatory Background

    The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) section 1445(a)(2), as amended 
in 1996, requires USEPA to establish criteria for a program to monitor 
unregulated contaminants and to publish a list of contaminants to be 
monitored. To meet these requirements, USEPA published the Revisions to 
the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation (UCMR) for Public 
Water Systems in (64 FR 50555, September 17, 1999) which substantially 
revised the previous Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Program, 
codified at 40 CFR 141.40. USEPA subsequently published supplements to 
the rule, including analytical methods for conducting analysis of List 
1 and selected List 2 contaminants (65 FR 11372, March 2, 2000 and 66 
FR 2273, January 11, 2001) and technical corrections and other 
supplemental information (66 FR 27215, May 16, 2001 and 66 FR 46221, 
September 4, 2001). The January 11, 2001 rule specified the 
requirements for Aeromonas monitoring in the UCMR; however, an 
analytical method was not approved to support the required monitoring 
for Aeromonas which is scheduled to begin on January 1, 2003. Today's 
rule proposes to amend the UCMR to specify a method and an associated 
Minimum Reporting Level for monitoring Aeromonas on List 2.
    The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), as amended in 1996, requires 
USEPA to promulgate national primary drinking water regulations 
(NPDWRs) which specify maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) or treatment 
techniques for drinking water contaminants (SDWA section 1412 (42 
U.S.C. 300g-1)).

[[Page 10534]]

NPDWRs apply to public water systems pursuant to SDWA section 1401 (42 
U.S.C. 300f(1)(A)). According to SDWA section 1401(1)(D), NPDWRs 
include ``criteria and procedures to assure a supply of drinking water 
which dependably complies with such maximum contaminant levels; 
including quality control and testing procedures.'' In addition, SDWA 
section 1445(a) authorizes the Administrator to establish regulations 
for monitoring to assist in determining whether persons are acting in 
compliance with the requirements of the SDWA. USEPA's promulgation of 
analytical methods is authorized under these sections of the SDWA as 
well as the general rulemaking authority in SDWA section 1450(a), (42 
U.S.C. 300j-9(a)).
    Today's action proposes to approve USEPA Method 515.4 for the 
determination of 2,4-D (as acid, salts and esters), 2,4,5-TP (Silvex), 
dinoseb, pentachlorophenol, picloram and dalapon; USEPA Method 531.2 
for the determination of carbofuran and oxamyl and an additional 
industry developed method for the determination of atrazine in drinking 
water using an immunoassay-based technology and colorimetric 
determination, as required in Sec. 141.24(e) to support monitoring 
required under Sec. 141.24(h). Today's rule also proposes to approve 
seven additional industry developed methods: a method using a micro-
scale hard distillation apparatus followed by colorimetric 
determination of total cyanide and a method using an ultra-violet 
digester system for the determination of total and available cyanide to 
support monitoring required under Sec. 141.23 (k)(1); two methods for 
the determination of the presence or absence of total coliforms and E. 
coli in drinking waters using a liquid culture or membrane filter 
method, a method for the determination of the presence or absence of 
total coliforms and E. coli using a liquid culture enzyme-substrate 
procedure for monitoring required under Sec. 141.21, a method for the 
determination of heterotrophic bacteria for monitoring and a laser 
based nephelometric system for the determination of turbidity for 
monitoring required under Sec. 141.74.
    Please note that USEPA is not requesting comment on any aspect of 
the UCMR other than those changes proposed today. Specifically, USEPA 
is not requesting comment on the UCMR list of contaminants other than 
the use of USEPA Method 1605 for the analysis of Aeromonas and the MRL 
being proposed. USEPA is not seeking comment on any aspect of the 
monitoring required under Sec. 141.24 other than the applicability of: 
USEPA Method 515.4 for the analysis of 2,4-D (as acid, salts and 
esters), 2,4,5-TP (Silvex), dinoseb, pentachlorophenol, picloram and 
dalapon; USEPA Method 531.2 for the analysis of carbofuran and oxamyl; 
or the additional industry developed method for the analysis of 
atrazine. USEPA is not seeking comment on the monitoring required under 
Sec. 141.21, Sec. 141.23 or Sec. 141.74 beyond the applicability of the 
seven additional industry developed methods proposed which include: two 
methods for the determination of cyanide, three methods for the 
determination of total coliforms and E. coli, a method for the 
determination of heterotrophic bacteria and a method for the 
determination of turbidity.

II. Aeromonas Related Actions

A. Relation to the UCMR

    Prior actions (66 FR 2273, January 11, 2001 and 66 FR 46221, 
September 4, 2001), specify the methods to be used for analysis of List 
2 chemicals to be monitored in 2001 and 2002. Today's proposal 
specifies the analytical method and associated MRL for a List 2 
contaminant, Aeromonas. Methods for the other two remaining List 2 
contaminants, RDX and Alachlor ESA and other acetanilide pesticides, 
need to be refined for analysis in treated drinking water and thus may 
be proposed at a later time. The List 2 Rule specified the timing, 
frequency, and other requirements for Aeromonas monitoring. (66 FR 
2273, January 11, 2001) Today's proposal completes the Aeromonas 
monitoring requirements by specifying the analytical method and MRL.
    As specified in these prior actions, USEPA will pay for the 
shipping, analysis and reporting of results for samples from the 180 
small systems serving 10,000 or fewer persons which were selected to 
conduct this monitoring. The 120 large systems selected to perform this 
monitoring must arrange and pay for the monitoring, shipping, analysis 
and reporting of results for Aeromonas samples. Only the 180 small 
systems and the 120 large systems that were selected must monitor for 
Aeromonas. No other systems must monitor for Aeromonas. A listing of 
the systems selected to perform Aeromonas monitoring is available at 
http://www.epa.gov/safewater/standard/ucmr/systems.html.
    As promulgated in the UCMR List 2 Rule (66 FR 2273, January 11, 
2001), large systems must use laboratories approved for this analysis. 
Large PWSs must arrange for the analysis for Aeromonas using USEPA 
Method 1605, as identified in List 2 of Table 1 (today's action), by a 
laboratory certified under Sec. 141.28 for compliance analysis using an 
USEPA-approved membrane filtration method for the analysis of coliform 
indicator bacteria. As required in Sec. 141.40 (a)(5)(ii)(G)(3), 
laboratories performing USEPA Method 1605 must participate in and 
successfully pass one of potentially two performance testing (PT) 
studies, the first to be conducted by USEPA 45 days after promulgation 
of this regulation, and a second to be conducted prior to the start of 
the List 2 Aeromonas monitoring in 2003, time permitting.

B. Contaminant and Analytical Methods

    In today's proposal, USEPA is proposing the use of USEPA Method 
1605 for the monitoring of Aeromonas as specified in List 2 of Table 1 
with an MRL of 0.2 Colony Forming Units (CFU)/100 mL. The proposed MRL 
is based upon precision data derived during the primary laboratory's 
methods development and then verified in a second laboratory. Ten 
laboratories provided precision data using samples, fortified with a 
single strain of Aeromonas, which were provided by USEPA. The mean 
precision reported for reagent water samples analyzed by these 
laboratories was 27% and for finished water samples was 57%.

C. Laboratory Approval and Certification

    This rule proposes that laboratories wishing to analyze samples for 
Aeromonas for the UCMR must use USEPA Method 1605 (described later). 
USEPA has previously specified, in Sec. 141.40 (a)(5)(ii)(G)(3) (66 FR 
2273, January 11, 2001), that Aeromonas analyses must be performed by 
laboratories certified under Sec. 141.28 for compliance analyses of 
coliform indicator bacteria using an USEPA approved membrane filtration 
procedure. Because of differences between USEPA Method 1605 and 
existing membrane filtration methods for coliform indicator bacteria, 
laboratories performing USEPA Method 1605 must also participate in 
performance testing (PT) studies to be conducted by USEPA. Laboratories 
wishing to be approved to use Method 1605 for this monitoring must 
submit a ``request to participate'' letter to USEPA and to analyze 10 
samples for Aeromonas using Method 1605. USEPA has established 45 days 
following the publication of the final rule as the latest date by which 
it will accept the ``request to participate'' letter. A second PT study

[[Page 10535]]

will only be conducted if more than 90 days remain between the 
reporting of the results of the first study and the beginning of 
Aeromonas monitoring, January 2003, to provide utilities with at least 
45 days to contract with laboratories that have received approval. Upon 
completion of the Aeromonas PT Program, USEPA will provide each 
successful laboratory with an approval letter identifying the 
laboratory by name and the approval date. This letter and a copy of the 
laboratory's certification under Sec. 141.28 for compliance analysis of 
coliform indicator bacteria using an USEPA approved membrane filtration 
procedure, may then be presented to any PWS as evidence of laboratory 
approval for Aeromonas analysis supporting the UCMR. Laboratory 
approval is contingent upon the laboratory maintaining certification to 
perform drinking water compliance monitoring using an approved coliform 
membrane filtration method. USEPA intends to post a listing of the 
laboratories that have successfully completed each PT study at 
www.epa.gov/safewater.
    All large and small systems selected for the Screening Survey will 
be notified by their State Drinking Water Authority or USEPA at least 
90 days before the dates established for collecting and submitting UCMR 
field samples to determine the presence of Aeromonas. Large systems 
must send samples to approved laboratories and then report the results 
to USEPA as specified in Sec. 141.35. All small system shipping and 
analytical costs will be paid by USEPA, however, small systems will be 
responsible for collecting these samples.

D. Summary of USEPA Method 1605

    The proposed Aeromonas method for List 2 monitoring is USEPA Method 
1605 ``Aeromonas in Finished Water by Membrane Filtration using 
Ampicillin-Dextrin Agar with Vancomycin (ADA-V),'' October 2001 EPA # 
821-R-01-034 (see www.epa.gov/microbes or the docket for this proposal 
for a copy of the proposed method). This method is a membrane filter 
assay based on the ampicillin-dextrin (ADA) method of Havelaar et al. 
(1987). The ADA medium has been modified by the addition of vancomycin 
to inhibit gram positive bacteria including Bacillus species, that may 
grow on ADA medium, and by the addition of a second stage, which 
includes three tests for confirmation, cytochrome oxidase, trehalose 
fermentation, and the production of indole as determined by Kovac's 
reagent. This method identifies Aeromonas to the genus level and 
detects A. hydrophila and a majority of the other aeromonad species.

III. Primary and Secondary Drinking Water Regulation Related 
Actions

A. Contaminants and Analytical Methods

    In today's action, USEPA is proposing two new USEPA developed 
methods and eight additional industry developed methods, for use in 
National Primary Drinking Water Regulation (NPDWR) monitoring under 
Sec. 141.24. The proposed methods, and the contaminants (analytes), are 
shown in Table 1.

  Table 1.--Regulated Contaminants and Proposed New Analytical Methods
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Contaminant                             Method
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2,4-D (as acid, salts, and esters).....  USEPA Method 515.4.
2,4,5-TP (Silvex)......................  USEPA Method 515.4.
Dinoseb................................  USEPA Method 515.4.
Pentachlorophenol......................  USEPA Method 515.4.
Picloram...............................  USEPA Method 515.4.
Dalapon................................  USEPA Method 515.4.
Carbofuran.............................  USEPA Method 531.2.
Oxamyl.................................  USEPA Method 531.2.
Atrazine...............................  Syngenta AG-625.
Cyanide................................  QuikChem 10-204-00-1-X.
                                         Kelada 01.
Total coliforms........................  Readycult Coliforms
                                          100 Presence/Absence Test.
                                         Membrane Filter Technique using
                                          Chromocult Coliform
                                          Agar.
                                         Colitag Test.
E. coli................................  Readycult Coliforms
                                          100 Presence/Absence Test.
                                         Membrane Filter Technique using
                                          Chromocult Coliform
                                          Agar.
                                         Colitag Test.
Heterotrophic bacteria.................  SimPlate.
Turbidity..............................  Hach FilterTrak 10133.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    USEPA Method 515.4 was previously approved for use for UCMR List 1 
contaminants in Sec. 141.40, Table 1 List 1 (66 FR 2273, January 11, 
2001), but was not approved for monitoring compliance with NPDWRs. 
Also, in a supplemental action (66 FR 46221, September 4, 2001), 
laboratories certified to conduct compliance monitoring using USEPA 
Method 515.3 were automatically approved to use USEPA Method 515.4 for 
UCMR analyses. Approving USEPA Method 515.4 for use in NPDWR compliance 
monitoring will allow public water systems and their laboratories to 
analyze one water sample for both UCMR and NPDWR purposes, reducing 
monitoring costs. It will also provide greater method flexibility for 
monitoring in the long term.
    USEPA Method 531.2 improves the sample preservation procedures 
required in USEPA Method 531.1 and Standard Method 6610 and updates the 
method performance tables using data generated with more up to date 
equipment. Use of USEPA Method 531.2 will improve safety for analysts 
and sample collection personnel by approving the use of a less toxic 
preservation reagent. Accuracy, precision and detection limit data 
generated using USEPA Method 531.2 is superior to that generated with 
either of the currently approved methods. It will also provide greater 
method flexibility for monitoring in the long term.
    For the additional industry developed methods, the submitting 
organization provided data to support the validation of the new or 
modified method. The Agency reviewed these validation packages and is 
proposing those methods that USEPA has determined are satisfactory 
compliance methods,

[[Page 10536]]

capable of providing the quality of monitoring data required.

B. Summary of Primary and Secondary Drinking Water Regulation Methods

1. USEPA Method 515.4
    USEPA Method 515.4 is a gas chromatography (GC) method for the 
determination of chlorinated acids in drinking waters. Accuracy, 
precision, and detection limit data have been generated for the method 
analytes in reagent water and finished ground and surface waters. 
Accuracy, precision, and detection limit data generated using USEPA 
Method 515.4 are equivalent to that generated using USEPA Method 515.3 
which is currently approved to perform this monitoring.
    USEPA Method 515.4 is applicable to the determination of salts and 
esters of analyte acids. The form of each acid is not distinguished by 
this method. Results are calculated and reported for each listed 
analyte as the total free acid. This method is able to quantify the 
mono- and di-acid forms of DCPA (Dacthal) without contribution from the 
parent compound.
    A 40-mL volume of sample is adjusted to pH  12 with 4 
Normal (N) sodium hydroxide and allowed to sit for one hour at room 
temperature to hydrolyze derivatives. Following hydrolysis, a wash step 
using a hexane: methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE) mixture is performed as 
a sample cleanup and to remove Dacthal. The aqueous sample is then 
acidified with sulfuric acid to a pH of less than 1 and extracted with 
4-mL of MTBE. The chlorinated acids that have been partitioned into the 
MTBE are then converted to methyl esters by derivatization with 
diazomethane. The target esters are separated and identified by fast 
capillary column gas chromatography (conditions for standard gas 
chromatography are also included) using an electron capture detector 
(GC/ECD). Peer reviews for USEPA Method 515.4 were conducted both 
within USEPA and by personnel from Montgomery Watson Laboratories, 
Philadelphia Suburban Water Company, and the American Water Works 
Service Company. All of the technical peer review comments were 
positive and the only changes requested were editorial in nature.
    USEPA Method 515.4, ``Determination of Chlorinated Acids in 
Drinking Water by Liquid-Liquid Microextraction, Derivatization and 
Fast Gas Chromatography with Electron Capture Detection,'' Revision 
1.0, April 2000, USEPA #815/B-00/001, is available from the docket for 
this proposal or by requesting a copy from the USEPA Safe Drinking 
Water Hotline at 800-426-4791 (hours are Monday through Friday, 
excluding Federal holidays, from 9 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. Eastern Time). 
Alternatively, the method can be accessed and downloaded directly on-
line at www.epa.gov/safewater/methods/sourcalt.html. Tables of method 
validation data are included in the written method.
2. USEPA Method 531.2
    USEPA Method 531.2 is a high performance liquid chromatographic 
(HPLC) method applicable to the determination of certain N-
methylcarbamoyloximes and N-methylcarbamates in finished drinking 
waters. Accuracy, precision, and detection limit data generated using 
USEPA Method 531.2 are superior to that generated using the currently 
approved methods, USEPA Method 531.1 or Standard Method 6610.
    The water sample is filtered. Method analytes are 
chromatographically separated by injecting an aliquot (400 to 1000 uL) 
into a high performance liquid chromatographic (HPLC) system equipped 
with a reversed phase (C18) column. After elution from the 
column, the analytes are hydrolyzed in a postcolumn reaction with 0.05 
N sodium hydroxide (NaOH) at 80  deg.C to form methyl amine. The methyl 
amine is reacted with o-phthalaldehyde (OPA) and 2-mercaptoethanol (or 
N,N-dimethyl-2-mercaptoethylamine) to form a highly fluorescent 
isoindole which is detected by a fluorescence detector. Analytes are 
quantitated using the external standard technique. A second laboratory 
validation for USEPA Method 531.2 was performed at the American Water 
Works Service Company and demonstrated good agreement with the 
performance data generated during the development of the method.
    USEPA Method 531.2, ``Measurement of N-methylcarbamoyloximes and N-
methylcarbamates in Water by Direct Aqueous Injection HPLC with 
Postcolumn Derivatization,'' Revision 1.0, September 2001, is available 
in the docket for this proposal or by requesting a copy from the USEPA 
Safe Drinking Water Hotline within the United States at 800-426-4791 
(hours are Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays, from 9 
a.m. to 5:30 p.m. Eastern Time). Tables of method validation data are 
included in the written method.
3. Syngenta Method AG-625
    Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc.'s ``Atrazine in Drinking Water by 
Immunoassay'' (Method AG-625) is an additional industry developed 
method that employs immunoassay technology to determine atrazine in 
drinking water. Atrazine is determined by using a color-based 
immunoassay method. Atrazine in a sample is detected by adding sample 
and enzyme conjugate solution to a culture tube that has been pre-
coated with atrazine antibodies. Atrazine competes with the conjugate 
for antibody binding sites. The culture tube is washed, and an enzyme 
substrate solution is added. The substrate is enzymatically converted 
from a colorless to a blue solution, the absorption of which is 
inversely proportional to atrazine concentration.
    Method performance was characterized using data from a 19 
laboratory validation study. Average recovery of atrazine from drinking 
water was 96%, and the relative standard deviation was less than 20%. 
The stated method detection limit is 0.05 ug/L. Based on these results, 
USEPA believes that Method AG-625 is a satisfactory compliance method 
for atrazine in drinking water.
    Method AG-625 is available in the docket for this proposal or from 
Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc. Contact: James Brady, Syngenta Crop 
Protection, Inc., 410 Swing Road, Post Office Box 18300, Greensboro, NC 
27419, telephone (336) 632-6000.
4. QuikChem 10-204-00-1-X
    Lachat Instruments ``Digestion and Distillation of Total Cyanide in 
Drinking and Wastewaters using MICRO DIST and determination of cyanide 
by flow injection analysis'' (QuikChem Method 10-204-00-1-X) is an 
additional industry developed method that determines total cyanide in 
drinking water. The method employs the MICRO DIST apparatus, a reduced 
volume disposable distillation apparatus. MICRO DIST reduces 
distillation time, sample and reagent wastes, and allows for multiple 
distillations simultaneously (one distillation heating block 
accommodates 21 MICRO DIST distillation devices).
    Total cyanide is determined by distilling the sample and measuring 
cyanide generated using colorimetry or some other method for cyanide 
ion detection. Six milliliters of sample are added to a distillation 
tube along with standard cyanide distillation reagents (sulfuric acid, 
magnesium chloride). A cyanide collector tube, which consists of a gas 
permeable membrane and sodium hydroxide absorber solution, is attached 
to the distillation tube; the distillation and collector tubes together 
comprise the MICRO DIST unit. The

[[Page 10537]]

sample is heated for \1/2\ hour, during which hydrogen cyanide gas 
distills from the sample, passes through the gas permeable membrane, 
and collects in the sodium hydroxide absorber solution. Using method 
write-up 10-204-00-1-X, the absorber solution is analyzed using an 
automated colorimeter; however, the absorber solution may be analyzed 
using another procedure (e.g., ion selective electrode) as well, 
provided all precautions in the method write-up are acknowledged (e.g., 
pH of the absorber solution and standards are adjusted to match).
    Method performance was characterized in single laboratory studies, 
and an eight laboratory validation study. Single laboratory studies, 
performed by Lachat and by Research Triangle Institute, demonstrated 
recovery of complex cyanides using MICRO DIST and macro distillations 
were substantially equivalent by measuring a variety of cyanide 
complexes using both distillations. The eight laboratory validation 
study demonstrated that the QuikChem 10-204-00-1-X method is a 
satisfactory compliance method. Based on these results, USEPA believes 
that this method is a satisfactory compliance method for total cyanides 
in drinking water.
    Method 10-204-00-1-X is available in the docket for this proposal 
or from Lachat Instruments, 6645 W. Mill Rd., Milwaukee, WI 53218, USA. 
Phone: 414-358-4200.
5. Kelada 01
    Dr. Nabih Kelada's ``Kelada Automated Test Methods for Total 
Cyanide, Acid Dissociable Cyanide, and Thiocyanate'' (Kelada 01), USEPA 
# 821-B-01-009 is an additional industry developed automated procedure 
that determines total cyanide and acid dissociable cyanide in drinking 
water. The procedure makes use of a two-stage sample digestion system 
to determine total cyanide. A sample is introduced into a flow analysis 
system. The sample then passes through an irradiation coil, where it is 
exposed to intense ultraviolet (UV) light from a 550 Watt UV 
photochemical bulb. The UV light breaks down cyanide complexes (include 
strong ferro- and ferri-cyanide complexes) to free cyanide. The 
irradiated sample containing free cyanide then passes though a 
distillation coil from which the free cyanide is distilled into a flow 
colorimetry system (similar to that used in USEPA Method 335.4) where 
cyanide concentration is determined. All complex cyanides determined 
using total cyanide manual distillations are also determined using the 
Kelada 01 method.
    When the irradiation coil is by--passed ``exposing sample only to a 
distillation coil--``acid dissociable'' cyanide is determined. The 
complexes measured are substantially equivalent to those measured using 
cyanide amenable to chlorination (CATC) or procedures which measure 
available cyanide, according to a single laboratory study performed by 
the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago.
    The Kelada 01method offers advantages over currently approved 
methods. First, it reduces analysis time from 1.5 hours (using manual 
distillation and analysis) to minutes. Second, the method reduces the 
effects of many chemical interferences encountered using traditional 
manual distillation methods.
    The method was validated in both single laboratory and multi-
laboratory validation studies, including studies involving eight 
laboratories which was conducted by the Metropolitan Water Reclamation 
District of Greater Chicago and through a multi-laboratory study 
involving 31 laboratories managed by Environment Canada. Studies showed 
total and acid dissociable cyanide recoveries from samples between 90% 
and 110%, and relative standard deviations of less than 10%. The 
reported lower limit of detection is 0.5 g/L. Based on these 
results, USEPA believes that the Kelada 01method is a satisfactory 
compliance method for total cyanide in drinking water.
    The Kelada 01method is available in the docket for this proposal.
6. Readycult Coliforms 100 Presence/Absence Test
    The Readycult Coliforms 100 Presence/Absence Test 
simultaneously determines the presence of total coliforms and E. coli, 
both of which must be monitored under the Total Coliform Rule at 
Sec. 141.21. The tests involve adding the contents of a blister pack to 
a 100-mL water sample, followed by incubation at 36  
1 deg.C for 24  1 hours. If coliform bacteria are present, 
the medium changes color from slightly yellow to blue-green. In 
addition, if E. coli is present, the medium will emit a bright blue 
fluorescence when subjected to a long wave (366 nm) ultraviolet (UV) 
light, and will form a red ring when indole reagent is added.
    The Readycult test is based upon the detection of three enzymes, 
-galactosidase, which is specific to the total coliform group, 
and -glucuronidase and tryptophanase, both of which are 
characteristic of E. coli. For detection of -galactosidase, 
the medium contains the chromogenic enzyme substrate 5-bromo-4-chloro-
3-indolyl--D-galactopyranoside (X-GAL). Upon hydrolysis by 
-D-galactosidase, X-GAL releases a chromogenic compound 
(indigo-blue) that turns the medium from slightly yellow to a blue-
green color. For detection of -glucuronidase, the medium 
contains the fluorogenic enzyme substrate 4-methyl-umbelliferyl-
-D-glucuronide (MUG). Upon hydrolysis by -
glucuronidase, MUG releases 4-methylumbelliferone that fluoresces when 
exposed to ultraviolet light. For detection of tryptophanase, the 
medium contains the enzyme substrate tryptophan. Upon cleavage by 
tryptophanase, tryptophan releases indole that immediately forms a red 
ring when Kovac's indole reagent is added directly to the broth. The 
presence of this red ring confirms the presence of E. coli
    USEPA has evaluated false positive and false negative data 
submitted by the manufacturer and has determined that results obtained 
with the Readycult test are substantially equivalent to the Agency's 
previously approved reference method for total coliforms and E. coli, 
however, USEPA has not yet determined a fully substantiated false 
negative rate for the USEPA reference method. The manufacturer observed 
a false-positive error of 7% for total coliforms and 5% for E. coli. 
(The false-positive error for total coliforms was based upon whether 
the isolate was also positive in lauryl tryptose broth (LTB) and 
brilliant green lactose bile broth. The false-positive error for E. 
coli was based upon whether the isolate was also positive in LTB and 
EC+MUG.) The false-negative rate, respectively, was 5.1% and 6.86%. 
Based on these results, USEPA believes that the Readycult test is a 
satisfactory compliance method for total coliforms and E. coli in 
drinking water.
    The method description for the Readycult test is available in the 
docket for this proposal or from EM Science (an affiliate of Merck 
KGgA, Darmstadt Germany), 480 S. Democrat Road, Gibbstown, NJ 08027-
1297. Their telephone number is (800) 222-0342.
7. Membrane Filter Technique using Chromocult Coliform Agar
    Chromocult Coliform Agar is a membrane filter medium that 
simultaneously determines the presence of total coliforms and E. coli, 
both of which must be monitored under the Total Coliform Rule at 
Sec. 141.21. For the test, a 100-mL water sample is passed through the 
membrane that retains the bacteria. Following filtration, the

[[Page 10538]]

membrane containing bacterial cells is placed on the media and 
incubated at 36  1 deg.C for 24  1 h. Salmon to 
red colonies are recorded as total coliforms (without E. coli). In 
contrast, dark-blue to violet colonies are recorded as E. coli.
    The membrane filter method using Chromocult Coliform Agar 
is based upon the detection of three enzymes; -galactosidase, 
which is specific to the total coliform group, and -
glucuronidase and tryptophanase, both of which are characteristic of E. 
coli. For detection of -galactosidase, the medium contains the 
chromogenic enzyme substrate 6-chloro-3-indolyl-3--D-
galactopyranoside (SALMON-GAL). Upon hydrolysis by -D-
galactosidase, SALMON-GAL releases a chromogenic compound 
(chloroindigo) that forms salmon to red-colored colonies. For detection 
of -glucuronidase, the medium contains another chromogenic 
enzyme substrate, 5-bromo-4-chloro-3-indoxyl--D-glucuronic 
acid, cyclohexylammonium salt (X-GLUC). Upon hydrolysis by -
glucuronidase, X-GLUC releases a chromogenic compound 
(bromochloroindigo) that forms light-blue to turquoise colonies. E. 
coli produces both -galactosidase and -glucuronidase 
that cleave both SALMON-GAL and X-GLUC, respectively. The simultaneous 
hydrolysis of these chromogenic substrates forms dark-blue to violet 
colonies that are easily distinguished from other coliform colonies. 
For detection of tryptophanase, the medium contains the enzyme 
substrate tryptophan. Upon cleavage by tryptophanase, tryptophan 
releases indole that immediately forms a cherry-red color when Kovac's 
indole reagent is added directly to dark-blue to violet colonies. This 
reaction thus confirms the presence of E. coli in dark-blue to violet 
colonies.
    USEPA has evaluated data submitted by the manufacturer and has 
determined that more positives were reported with Chromocult 
Coliform Agar than the Agency's previously approved reference method 
for total coliforms and E. coli, (USEPA has not yet determined a fully 
substantiated false negative rate for the USEPA reference method, 
however, USEPA believes that it is higher than the false negative rate 
observed for Chromocult Coliform Agar and that this is 
responsible for the observed higher positive rate). The manufacturer 
observed a false-positive error of 13% for total coliforms and 6% for 
E. coli. (The false-positive error for total coliforms was based on 
whether the isolate was also positive in lauryl tryptose broth (LTB) 
and brilliant green lactose bile broth. The false-positive error for E. 
coli was based on whether the isolate was also positive in LTB and 
EC+MUG.) The false-negative rate using the Chromocult 
Coliform Agar was 0% for both total coliforms and E. coli. Based on 
these results, USEPA believes that Chromocult Coliform Agar 
is a satisfactory medium for use under the Total Coliform Rule to 
detect total coliforms and E. coli in drinking water.
    The method description for Chromocult Coliform Agar is 
available in the docket for this proposal or from EM Science (an 
affiliate of Merck KGgA, Darmstadt Germany), 480 S. Democrat Road, 
Gibbstown, NJ 08027-1297. Their telephone number is (800) 222-0342.
8. Colitag Test
    The ``Colitag Product as a Test for Detection and 
Identification of Coliforms and E. coli Bacteria in Drinking Water and 
Source Water as required in National Primary Drinking Water 
Regulations'' is a liquid culture enzyme-substrate procedure that 
simultaneously determines the presence of total coliforms and E. coli, 
both of which must be monitored under the Total Coliform Rule at 
Sec. 141.21. To determine total coliforms, the Colitag test 
medium contains chromogenic enzyme substrate ortho--D-
galactopyranoside (ONPG) for the detection of -galactosidase, 
an enzyme indicative of the coliform group. Upon hydrolysis by 
-galactosidase, ONPG produces a distinct yellow color that can 
be observed visually, indicating the presence of coliforms. To 
determine E. coli, Colitag medium contains chromogenic enzyme 
substrate, 4-methyl-umbelliferyl--D-glucuronide (MUG) for 
detection of -glucuronidase, an enzyme specific to E. coli. 
Upon hydrolysis by -glucuronidase, MUG produces the 
fluorescent compound 4-methylumbelliferone, which fluoresces when 
exposed to ultraviolet light.
    The method differs from currently approved enzymatic methods by the 
addition of trimethylamine-N-oxide (TMAO) to the list of ingredients. 
TMAO allows the pH of the medium to increase from 6.2 to 7.0 during 
incubation, thereby enhancing the recovery of chlorine injured/stressed 
organisms.
    USEPA has evaluated comparability data submitted by the 
manufacturer and has determined that results obtained with the 
Colitag test are statistically equivalent to the Agency's 
reference method for total coliforms and E. coli, however, USEPA has 
not yet determined a fully substantiated false negative rate for the 
USEPA reference method. The manufacturer observed a false-positive 
error of 2.0% for total coliforms and 2.0% for E. coli. The false-
negative rates were 0% and 0%, respectively. Based on these results, 
USEPA believes that the Colitag test is a satisfactory 
compliance method for total coliforms and E. coli in drinking water.
    The method description for the Colitag test is available 
in the docket for this proposal or from CPI, International, Inc., 5580 
Skylane Blvd., Santa Rosa, CA, 95403, telephone (800) 878-7654, Fax 
(707) 545-7901, e-mail www.cpiinternational.com.
9. SimPlate
    Under the Surface Water Treatment Rule (SWTR), Sec. 141, Subpart H, 
a system using surface water or ground water under the direct influence 
of surface water must, among other requirements, maintain a 
disinfectant residual in the distribution system. The disinfectant 
residual in the distribution system cannot be undetectable in more than 
5% of the samples each month, for any two consecutive months that the 
system serves water to the public. However, Sec. 141.72(b)(3) allows a 
system that does not detect a residual at a particular site to 
determine the concentration of heterotrophic bacteria at that site. For 
compliance purposes, a concentration of 500 colonies/mL or fewer, as 
measured by the pour plate method (Standard Method 9215), is considered 
to be equivalent to a detectable disinfectant residual.
    Because the measured density of heterotrophic bacteria is method-
dependent, USEPA to date has only approved one method. Recently, 
however, USEPA has determined that another test for heterotrophic 
bacteria, the SimPlate method, provides results substantially 
equivalent to the pour plate method, given the intended application. 
Consequently, the Agency is proposing to approve the SimPlate method as 
an optional procedure for determining the density of heterotrophic 
bacteria under Sec. 141.72(b)(3).
    SimPlate is a substrate-based medium in which the substrates are 
hydrolyzed by microbial enzymes causing the release of 4-
methylumbelliferone, which fluoresces under 365-nm ultraviolet light. 
The medium is dehydrated when purchased. Two SimPlate formats are 
available: a unit-dose format and a multi-dose format. The unit-dose 
format consists of adding 10-mL of test sample to a test tube 
containing the dehydrated SimPlate medium, and then pouring the 
dissolved mixture to the center of a plate containing 84 small wells. 
In contrast, under the multi-dose format, the dehydrated medium needs 
to be reconstituted first by filling the medium

[[Page 10539]]

vessel to the 100-mL mark with sterile diluent, and shaking to 
dissolve. A 1.0-mL test sample is then pipetted to the center of the 
plate, followed by 9.0 mL of the reconstituted SimPlate medium. The 
plate is then gently swirled to mix the sample and medium. The next 
steps are the same for both formats. The mixture is evenly distributed 
to the 84 wells on the plate, and the excess liquid drained into an 
absorbent pad on the plate. The plate is then inverted (the fluid in 
each well is held in place by surface tension) and incubated for 45-72 
hours at 35 deg.C. Bacterial density is determined by counting the 
number of wells that fluoresce under a 365-nm UV light, and converting 
this value to a Most Probable Number (MPN) using the table provided, 
taking into account any dilution factor that may have been used during 
sample preparation to ensure a proper counting range.
    USEPA has evaluated data submitted by the manufacturer from a side-
by-side comparison of the SimPlate and the USEPA-approved pour plate 
method, and has determined that while statistically significant 
differences were observed in individual matrices those differences were 
acceptable based upon the intended application of the method. Thus, the 
Agency believes that the SimPlate method is satisfactory as an 
additional method for determining the density of heterotrophic bacteria 
in the distribution system under the SWTR (Sec. 141.72(b)(3)).
    The method description for SimPlate is available in the docket for 
this proposal or from IDEXX Laboratories, Inc., One IDEXX Drive, 
Westbrook, Maine 04092. Their telephone number is (800) 321-0207. Their 
website is www.idexx.com.
10. Hach Filter Trak
    Hach Filter Trak (Method 10133) ``Determination of Turbidity by 
Laser Nephelometry'' is an additional industry developed method that 
employs a laser nephelometer to determine the turbidity of finished 
drinking waters. Method 10133 uses the Hach FilterTrak 660 
nephelometer, which functions like a standard nephelometer but has the 
sensitivity of a particle counter. The method can be used both in a 
laboratory and on-line fashion.
    Turbidity is determined by measuring the scatter of a laser beam 
onto a photomultiplier detector whose response spectrum significantly 
overlaps the spectra of the incident light source. Response is compared 
to the response of Hach Stablcal formazin standards to quantify sample 
turbidity. Method 10133's FilterTrak 660 system is designed to reduce 
background light scatter that can artificially raise turbidity 
measurements when using currently approved methods. Method 10133, by 
employing the FilterTrak 660, provides increased sensitivity to 
particle ``events'' (changes in particle concentration). Detection of 
particle ``events'' is critical to assessing performance of the 
filtration systems, which in turn is critical to protecting drinking 
water quality.
    Method performance, laboratory and on-line, was characterized using 
a three laboratory validation study. The method demonstrated good 
correlation to approved methods and reduced interference from 
background light scatter. Also, Method 10133 provides quality control 
requirements to ensure proper operator use. USEPA believes that Method 
10133 is a satisfactory additional method for the measurement of 
turbidity.
    Method 10133 is available in the docket for this proposal or from 
Hach Co., P.O. Box 389, Loveland, Colorado, 80539-0389. Phone: 800-227-
4224.
11. MI Agar Medium for Total Coliforms and E. coli.
    USEPA approved 4-methylumbelliferyl-beta-D-galactopyranoside-
indoxyl-beta-D-glucuronide (MI) agar medium as an alternative membrane 
filter medium for the detection of total coliforms and E. coli under 
the Total Coliform Rule and for enumerating total coliforms under the 
Surface Water Treatment Rule. (64 FR 67450, December 1, 1999) This 
approval is reflected in Sec. 141.21(f)(3) and Sec. 141.21(f)(6)(v) and 
in Sec. 141.74(a)(1). In granting approval, however, USEPA 
inadvertently did not clearly indicate that colony verification on MI 
agar was not required. The false-positive rate for MI agar was 4.9% for 
total coliforms and 4.3% for E. coli. Based on these data, USEPA 
believes that colony verification should not be required and proposes 
to amend the regulatory language in footnote 6 of the table at 
Sec. 141.21(f)(3) and in Sec. 141.74(a)(1) to clarify this point.
    Finally, USEPA is proposing to correct a typographical error found 
in section Sec. 141.21(f) by replacing the citation for the ``Presence-
Absence (P-A) Coliform Test'' which currently reads ``9221'' with 
``9221D.'' USEPA previously proposed for approval and requested comment 
on (52 FR 42224, November 3, 1987) Method 9221D. USEPA approved Method 
9221D on June 29, 1989 (54 FR 27544). The ``D'' was inadvertently 
dropped by a drinking water method update rule published on December 1, 
1999, 64 FR 67450.

IV. Cost of the Rule

    Today's proposed amendment to the UCMR adds Method 1605 for 
analysis of Aeromonas, a UCMR (1999) List 2 contaminant. The monitoring 
requirements for Aeromonas were proposed in June 2000 and subject to 
public comment and review. Following consideration of public comment, 
the requirements were promulgated in the January 11, 2001 UCMR. As 
specified in that rule, 180 small systems and 120 large systems were 
randomly selected to conduct Aeromonas monitoring. These systems were 
selected from the list of systems previously selected to conduct UCMR 
Assessment Monitoring.
    USEPA has estimated system and Agency costs associated with 
Aeromonas monitoring and analysis, based on the burden associated with 
collecting samples and the analytical costs for Method 1605. There are 
no costs that will be incurred by States as a result of today's action. 
State costs attributed to UCMR during this first implementation cycle 
of 2001-2005 were covered within the UCMR (1999) cost estimations (64 
FR 50556, September 17, 1999), and are accounted for in the UCMR 
discussion within the current ICR (OMB No. 2040-0204--Titled: 
``Disinfectants/Disinfection Byproducts, Chemical, and Radionuclides 
Information Collection Request'').
    The collection of Aeromonas will necessitate some minimal 
additional labor burden for participating systems to collect samples. 
In many cases, the Aeromonas samples can be collected at the same time 
and place as other required distribution system sampling (such as that 
for the Total Coliform Rule (TCR)). For coincident monitoring, USEPA 
assumes 0.25 hours per sampling period per system. For monitoring 
periods in which coincident sampling is not possible, USEPA assumes one 
hour of labor per system per period. And finally, for monitoring 
periods in which sampling can only be partially coincident with other 
monitoring (such as for systems that only have to collect only one TCR 
sample per month), USEPA assumes 0.75 hours of labor per system per 
period. In addition, large systems were assumed to incur a small amount 
of labor burden associated with review of monitoring results, as 
reported to USEPA's UCMR database by their analytical laboratories. 
Small system reporting is being handled through USEPA's contract 
laboratories.

[[Page 10540]]

    In addition to labor costs, non-labor costs will be incurred by 
USEPA and by participating large PWSs. Non-labor costs from this rule 
are solely attributed to the laboratory fees that will be charged for 
analysis of Aeromonas and to shipping charges for sending the sample 
bottles to the appropriate laboratory. USEPA will cover these costs for 
small system testing; however, participating large systems will be 
responsible for these analytical and shipping expenses. USEPA estimates 
that the average laboratory fee for Method 1605 will be $25. The 
additional costs for this laboratory analysis are calculated as 
follows: the number of systems multiplied by three sampling points in 
the distribution systems, multiplied by the sampling frequency of six 
times throughout the year 2003, and then multiplied by the $25 cost of 
the analysis. This cost would apply to the 120 large systems and to 
USEPA for the cost analyses for the 180 small systems. USEPA will also 
pay for quality assurance sampling for 10 percent of the small system 
samples.
    In addition, USEPA estimates that Aeromonas will be detected in 10 
percent of samples. Each of these positive Aeromonas samples (i.e., 
estimated as 10 percent of all samples, including the quality assurance 
samples for small systems) would incur an additional $25 cost for 
confirmation tests at the genus level (such tests are part of Method 
1605). This would be the total cost to large systems. For small 
systems, where Aeromonas has been found, USEPA will pay for further 
genotyping at an estimated additional $100 per sample. For the cost 
estimations presented, USEPA assumes it will pay for genotyping for the 
estimated 10 percent of positive small system samples.
    Today's rule also proposes to approve USEPA Methods 515.4 and 531.2 
to support monitoring already required under Phase II/V monitoring 
(Sec. 141.24), and proposes eight additional industry developed 
analytical methods. This part of today's proposed rule merely allows 
for the optional use of additional standardized methods, offering 
systems and their laboratories further operational flexibility. Thus, 
USEPA believes that there is no cost or burden to public water systems 
associated with the addition of these additional methods. These 
additional methods may even reduce costs for the testing and analysis 
of contaminants. However, these potential savings to systems are not 
estimated here, since use of these methods is voluntary. In addition, 
because State adoption of these additional analytical methods is 
voluntary, no costs are estimated for States related to the additional 
analytical methods that are included in today's proposed rule. 
Moreover, States that do adopt additional methods often adopt such 
Federal regulation by reference, or may incorporate these voluntary 
options when the next set of required regulatory revisions are being 
incorporated.
    The details of USEPA's cost assumptions and estimates regarding 
implementation of the Aeromonas Rule can be found in the proposed 
Information Collection Request (ICR) (ICR number 2040-0204). This ICR 
presents estimated cost and burden for the 2001-2005 period. Copies of 
the proposed ICR may be obtained from Susan Auby by mail at: Collection 
Strategies Division; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2822); 1200 
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460, by e-mail at: 
[email protected], or by calling: (202) 260-4901. A copy may also be 
downloaded from the Internet at: 
http://www.epa.gov/icr.
    In preparing these cost estimates, USEPA relied on standard 
assumptions and data sources used in the preparation of other drinking 
water program ICRs. These include the public water system inventory and 
labor rates. USEPA expects that States will incur no additional labor 
or non-labor costs associated with the Screening Survey component of 
the UCMR.
    USEPA estimates that the total cost for one year of Screening 
Survey 2 monitoring for Aeromonas (in 2003) is approximately $247,320. 
These total estimated costs are incurred as follows:

                          Total Estimated Costs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
USEPA...................................  $150,930 (for testing and
                                           sample shipping costs for
                                           small systems).
States..................................  $0 (no additional burden
                                           associated with Screening
                                           Survey component of UCMR).
Small systems...........................  $18,260 (labor only).
Large systems...........................  $78,130 (labor and non-labor
                                           testing and sample shipping
                                           costs).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Over the five year UCMR implementation period of 2001-2005, the 
estimated average annual cost for each of the 120 large systems 
conducting Aeromonas monitoring is $12 (0.5 hours) per year for labor 
costs, and $118 for non-labor costs associated with testing and 
shipping. For the 180 small systems participating in Aeromonas 
monitoring in 2003, the average annual cost per system over that same 
period is $20.30 (0.84 hours) per year for labor costs (USEPA pays for 
all non-labor costs for small systems).

V. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866--Regulatory Planning and Review

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the 
Agency must determine whether a regulatory action is ``significant'' 
and therefore subject to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review 
and the requirements of the Executive Order. The Order defines 
``significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely to result in a 
rule that may:
    (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or 
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the 
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public 
health or safety, or State, local, or Tribal governments or 
communities;
    (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an 
action taken or planned by another agency;
    (3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, 
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients 
thereof; or
    (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal 
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in 
the Executive Order.
    It has been determined that this proposed rule is not a 
``significant regulatory action'' under the terms of Executive Order 
12866 and is therefore not subject to OMB review.

B. Executive Order 13045--Protection of Children From Environmental 
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    Executive Order 13045, ``Protection of Children from Environmental 
Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), applies 
to any rule that: (1) Is determined to be ``economically significant'' 
as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an 
environmental health or safety risk that USEPA has reason to believe 
may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory 
action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental 
health or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain 
why the planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective 
and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.
    This proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because 
it is not ``economically significant'' as defined

[[Page 10541]]

under Executive Order 12866. Further, this proposed rule does not 
concern an environmental health or safety risk that USEPA has reason to 
believe may have a disproportionate effect on children.

C. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public 
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the 
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal 
governments and the private sector. Under UMRA section 202, USEPA 
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit 
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that 
may result in expenditures to State, local, and Tribal governments, in 
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any 
one year. Before promulgating an USEPA rule for which a written 
statement is needed, UMRA section 205 generally requires USEPA to 
identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives 
and adopt the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome 
alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of 
section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable 
law. Moreover, section 205 allows USEPA to adopt an alternative other 
than the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome 
alternative, if the Administrator publishes with the final rule an 
explanation of why that alternative was not adopted. Before USEPA 
establishes any regulatory requirements that may significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, including Tribal governments, it 
must have developed under UMRA section 203 a small government agency 
plan. The plan must provide for notifying potentially affected small 
governments, enabling officials of affected small governments to have 
meaningful and timely input in the development of USEPA regulatory 
proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and 
informing, educating, and advising small governments on compliance with 
the regulatory requirements.
    USEPA has determined that today's proposed rule does not contain a 
Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more 
for State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or for the 
private sector in any one year. Total annual costs of today's rule 
(across the UCMR implementation period of 2001-2005), for State, local, 
and Tribal governments and the private sector, are estimated to be 
$49,500, of which USEPA will pay $30,200, or approximately 61 percent. 
State drinking water programs are assumed to incur no additional costs 
associated with the Aeromonas Screening Survey component of the UCMR. 
No costs are estimated/incurred for the other methods included in this 
proposed rule since they represent additional methods that public water 
systems may elect to use but that are not required. Thus, today's 
proposed rule is not subject to the requirements of UMRA sections 202 
and 205.
    USEPA has determined that this proposed rule contains no regulatory 
requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small 
governments because USEPA will pay for the reasonable costs of sample 
testing for the small PWSs required to sample and test for Aeromonas 
under this proposed rule, including those owned and operated by small 
governments. The only costs that small systems will incur are those 
attributed to collecting the Aeromonas samples and packing them for 
shipping to the laboratory (USEPA will also pay for shipping). These 
costs are minimal. They are not significant or unique. Again, no costs 
are estimated/incurred for the other methods. Thus, today's rule is not 
subject to the requirements of UMRA section 203.

D. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The information collection requirements in this proposed rule have 
been submitted for approval to the OMB under the Paperwork Reduction 
Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. USEPA prepared an Information Collection 
Request (ICR) document (ICR No. 1896.03). A copy may be obtained from 
Susan Auby by mail at Collection Strategies Division; U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency (2822); 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., 
Washington, DC 20460; by e-mail at: [email protected]; or by calling 
(202) 260-2740. A copy may also be downloaded from the internet at: 
http://www.epa.gov/icr.
    The information to be collected under today's proposed rule 
fulfills the statutory requirements of section 1445(a)(2) of the Safe 
Drinking Water Act, as amended in 1996. The data to be collected will 
describe the source water, location, and test results for samples taken 
from PWSs. The rate of occurrence of Aeromonas will be evaluated 
regarding health effects and will be considered for future regulation 
accordingly. Reporting is mandatory. The data are not subject to 
confidentiality protection. The cost estimates described below for 
Aeromonas monitoring are attributed to laboratory fees, shipping costs, 
and some minimal labor burden for reading of requirements and for 
collecting samples. For large systems, labor burden estimates also 
consider activities related to reporting of results to USEPA's UCMR 
database.
    Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources 
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, disclose or provide 
information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed 
to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and use technology 
and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating and verifying 
information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and 
providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any 
previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to 
be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; 
complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or 
otherwise disclose the information.
    Average annual non-labor costs during the five year ICR period 
(2001-2005) are estimated to be: $197 for each large system. USEPA will 
incur no additional labor costs for implementation of today's proposed 
rule. The Agency's annual non-labor costs for the ICR period are 
estimated to be $50,300. These non-labor costs are solely attributed to 
the cost of sample testing and sample kit shipping for the 180 small 
systems. A detailed discussion of these costs is presented in section 
IV.
    Today's rule also proposes to approve USEPA Methods 515.4 and 531.2 
to support monitoring already required under Phase II/V monitoring 
(Sec. 141.24), and proposes eight additional industry developed 
analytical methods. This part of today's proposed rule merely allows 
for the use of additional standardized methods, offering systems and 
their laboratories further operational flexibility. Thus, USEPA 
believes that there is no cost or burden to public water systems 
associated with the addition of these additional methods. In addition, 
because State adoption of analytical methods is voluntary, no costs are 
estimated for States related to the additional analytical methods that 
are included in today's proposed rule.
    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 USEPA's 
regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.
    Comments are requested on the Agency's need for this information, 
the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested 
methods

[[Page 10542]]

for minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of 
automated collection techniques. Send comments on the proposed ICR to 
the Director, Collection Strategies Division; U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency (2822); 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 
20460; and to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office 
of Management and Budget, 725 17th St., NW., Washington, DC 20503, 
marked ``Attention: Desk Officer for USEPA.'' Include the ICR number 
(OMB No. 2040-0204) in any correspondence. Since OMB is required to 
make a decision concerning the ICR between 30 and 60 days after March 
7, 2002, a comment to OMB is best assured of having its full effect if 
OMB receives it by April 8, 2002. The final rule will respond to any 
OMB or public comments on the information collection requirements 
contained in this proposal.

E. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as Amended by the Small Business 
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et 
seq.

    The RFA generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory 
flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment 
rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any 
other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small 
governmental jurisdictions.
    The RFA provides default definitions for each type of small entity. 
It also authorizes an agency to use alternative definitions for each 
category of small entity, ``which are appropriate to the activities of 
the agency'' after proposing the alternative definition(s) in the 
Federal Register and taking comment. 5 U.S.C. 601(3)-(5). In addition 
to the above, to establish an alternative small business definition, 
agencies must consult with SBA's Chief Counsel for Advocacy.
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's proposed rule on 
small entities, USEPA considered small entities to be systems serving 
10,000. This is the cut-off level specified by Congress in the 1996 
Amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act for small system flexibility 
provisions. In accordance with the RFA requirements, USEPA proposed 
using this alternative definition in the Federal Register (63 FR 7620, 
February 13, 1998), requested public comment, consulted with SBA, and 
expressed its intention to use the alternative definition for all 
future drinking water regulations in the Consumer Confidence Reports 
regulation, (63 FR 44511, August 19, 1998). As stated in that final 
rule, the alternative definition would be applied to this regulation as 
well.
    After considering the economic impacts of today's proposed rule on 
small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    As for the UCMR, published on September 17, 1999, USEPA analyzed 
separately the impact on small privately and publicly owned water 
systems because of the different economic characteristics of these 
ownership types. For publicly owned systems, USEPA used the ``revenue 
test,'' which compares a system's annual costs attributed to the rule 
with the system's annual revenues. USEPA used a ``sales test'' for 
privately owned systems, which involves the analogous comparison of 
UCMR-related costs to a privately owned system's sales. Because USEPA 
does not know the ownership types of the systems selected for Aeromonas 
monitoring, the Agency assumes that the distribution of the national 
representative sample of small systems will reflect the proportions of 
publicly and privately owned systems in the national inventory (as 
estimated by USEPA's 1995 Community Water System Survey, http://www.epa.gov/safewater/cwssvr.html). The estimated distribution of the 
sample for today's proposed rule, categorized by ownership type, source 
water, and system size, is presented in the following table.

    Number of Publicly and Privately Owned Small Systems To Participate in Screening Survey Two for Aeromonas
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Publicly owned     Privately      Total--all
                          Size category                               systems      owned systems      systems
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              GROUND WATER SYSTEMS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
500 and under...................................................               8              29              37
501 to 3,300....................................................              35              16              51
3,301 to 10,000.................................................              27               7              34
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Subtotal Ground.............................................              70              52             122
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              SURFACE WATER SYSTEMS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
500 and under...................................................               5              13              18
501 to 3,300....................................................              10               4              14
3,301 to 10,000.................................................              20               6              26
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Subtotal Surface............................................              35              23              58
                                                                 ===============================================
        Total...................................................             105              75             180
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The basis for the UCMR RFA certification for today's proposed rule, 
which approves Method 1605 for the analysis of Aeromonas, was 
determined by evaluating average annual costs as a percentage of system 
revenues/sales. In the worst-case-scenario, the smallest system size 
category (i.e., 500 and under) is estimated to have revenues/sales of 
approximately $16,000 per year. The annual cost related to Aeromonas 
monitoring for these 55 systems represents less than 0.2 percent of 
their annual revenue/sales. The impact for larger systems will be even 
less significant. USEPA specifically structured the rule to avoid 
significantly affecting small entities by assuming all

[[Page 10543]]

costs for laboratory analyses, shipping, and quality control for small 
entities. USEPA incurs the entirety of the non-labor costs associated 
with Aeromonas monitoring, or 89 percent of all costs. Small systems 
only incur labor costs associated with the collection of Aeromonas 
samples, and for reading about their sampling requirements, with an 
average annual labor cost per system over the 5 years of UCMR 
implementation of $20.30. USEPA continues to be interested in the 
potential impacts this proposal has on small entities and welcomes 
comments on issues related to such impacts.

F. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 
note) directs USEPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its 
regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with 
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards 
are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, 
sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or 
adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs 
USEPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency 
decides not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus 
standards.
    The proposed rulemaking involves technical standards. Therefore, 
the Agency conducted a search to identify potentially applicable 
voluntary consensus standards. USEPA identified no voluntary consensus 
standards for Aeromonas. Therefore, USEPA proposes to use USEPA Method 
1605.
    Concerning the approval of USEPA Method 515.4, while the Agency 
identified two new methods (ASTM D5317-98, and SM 6640 B) for the acid 
herbicides as being potentially applicable, we do not propose to 
include them in this rulemaking. USEPA decided not to approve SM 6640 
B. The use of this voluntary consensus standard would have been 
impractical because of significant shortcomings in the sample 
preparation and quality control sections of the method instructions. 
USEPA previously approved ASTM Method D5317-93 for acid herbicides. 
ASTM D5317-98 is an updated version of ASTM D5317-93 with no changes in 
the basic procedure and with limited changes to ``Table 4 Acceptance 
Criteria for Initial Demonstration of Proficiency'' and the addition of 
a table of acceptance criteria for quality control samples. While these 
tables are slightly different than those in ASTM D5317-93, they still 
permit acceptance windows for the initial demonstration of proficiency 
for laboratory fortified blank samples that are as large as 0% to 223% 
recovery for picloram, with tighter criteria for other regulated 
contaminants. When ASTM D5317-93 was originally proposed, a set of 
fixed acceptance limits of 70% to 130% recovery was also proposed. Due 
to adverse public comments concerning the ability of laboratories to 
meet this criteria due to low recovery expectations for picloram (and 
other analytes not currently regulated), this criteria was withdrawn. 
USEPA is currently considering alternate procedures for determining 
useful acceptance criteria for these methods, however, a discussion and 
proposal of those procedures is beyond the scope of this regulation. 
Therefore, USEPA is proposing to add approval only for USEPA Method 
515.4 for the acid herbicides at this time.
    Concerning the approval of USEPA Method 531.2, while the Agency 
identified two new methods (Standard Method 6610, 20th Edition, and 
Standard Method 6610, 20th Supplemental Edition) for the carbamates as 
being potentially applicable, we do not propose to use them in this 
rulemaking. Standard Method 6610, 20th Edition has previously been 
proposed for compliance monitoring in (66 FR 3466, January 16, 2001). 
Since it is currently in the rulemaking process it is not included in 
this regulation. USEPA has concerns about the Standard Method 6610, 
20th Supplemental Edition. This version of Method 6610 permits the use 
of a strong acid, hydrochloric acid (HCL), as a preservative. The 
preservatives in all of the other approved USEPA and Standard Methods 
procedures for these analytes are weak acids that adjust the pH to a 
specific value based upon the pKa of the preservative. The use of HCL 
would require accurate determinations of the pH of the sample in the 
field and could be subject to considerable error and possible changes 
in pH upon storage. Although not observed for oxamyl or carbofuran, 
structurally similar pesticides will degrade over time when kept at pH 
3. Therefore, USEPA is concerned about the use of a strong acid such as 
HCL when positive control of the pH is critical. Therefore, USEPA is 
proposing to add approval only for USEPA Method 531.2 for determining 
oxamyl and carbofuran, at this time.
    The eight analytical methods developed by industry being proposed 
in this regulation are additional analytic methods for use in drinking 
water compliance monitoring proposed to USEPA by industry. These 
industry methods will supplement existing approved methods, some of 
which are voluntary consensus standards.
    USEPA welcomes comments on this aspect of the proposed rulemaking 
and specifically invites the public to identify potentially applicable 
voluntary consensus standards and to explain why such standards should 
be used in this regulation.

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

    Executive Order 12898, ``Federal Actions to Address Environmental 
Justice in Minority Populations and Low--Income Populations'' (February 
11, 1994), focuses Federal attention on the environmental and human 
health conditions of minority and low--income populations with the goal 
of achieving environmental protection for all communities. This 
proposal adds new analytic methods to Part 141. It does not withdraw 
any currently approved methods nor does it add nor alter any current 
monitoring requirement. The purpose of this proposal is to provide 
additional analytical methods for drinking water utilities to use to 
meet the currently existing monitoring requirements. USEPA has 
determined that there are no environmental justice issues in this 
rulemaking.

H. Executive Order 13132--Federalism

    Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August 
10, 1999), requires USEPA to develop an accountable process to ensure 
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the 
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.'' 
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the 
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct 
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national 
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and 
responsibilities among the various levels of government.''
    This proposed rule does not have federalism implications. It will 
not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship 
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution 
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, 
as specified in Executive Order 13132. The objective of this proposed 
rule is to specify

[[Page 10544]]

approved analytical methods, thereby allowing Aeromonas to be included 
in the UCMR Screening Survey program, and to add USEPA Methods 515.4 
and 531.2 and eight additional industry developed methods that public 
water systems may use to conduct analyses previously required. The cost 
to State and local governments is minimal, and the rule does not 
preempt State law. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this 
rule.
    In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with USEPA 
policy to promote communications between USEPA and State and local 
governments, USEPA specifically solicits comment on this proposed rule 
from State and local officials.

I. Executive Order 13175--Consultation and Coordination With Indian 
Tribal Governments

    Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination 
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000), 
requires USEPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful 
and timely input by Tribal officials in the development of regulatory 
policies that have Tribal implications.'' ``Policies that have Tribal 
implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations 
that have ``substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on 
the relationship between the Federal government and the Indian tribes, 
or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the 
Federal government and Indian tribes.''
    This proposed rule does not have Tribal implications. It will not 
have substantial direct effects on Tribal governments, on the 
relationship between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on 
the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal 
government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175. 
The objective of this proposed rule is to specify approved analytical 
methods, thereby allowing Aeromonas to be included in the UCMR 
Screening Survey program and to add USEPA Methods 515.4, 531.2 and 
eight additional industry developed methods that public water systems 
may use to conduct analyses previously required. Only one small Indian 
Tribal system was selected for Aeromonas monitoring. Since this utility 
will be receiving sampling assistance from the State of Montana and the 
USEPA will pay for all shipping and analysis costs, the cost to the 
Tribal government will be minimal. The rule does not preempt Tribal 
law. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule.
    In the spirit of Executive Order 13175, and consistent with USEPA 
policy to promote communications between USEPA and Tribal governments 
USEPA specifically solicits additional comment on this proposed rule 
from Tribal officials.

J. Plain Language Directive

    Executive Order 12866 requires each agency to write all rules in 
plain language. USEPA invites public comment on how to make this 
proposed rule easier to understand. Comments may address the following 
questions and other factors, as well:
    A. Has USEPA organized the material to suit your needs?
    B. Are the requirements in the rule clearly stated?
    C. Does the rule contain technical wording or jargon that is not 
clear?
    D. Would a different format (grouping or order of sections, use of 
headings, paragraphing) make the rule easier to understand?
    E. Would more (but shorter) sections be better?
    F. Could USEPA improve clarity by using additional tables, lists or 
diagrams?
    G. What else could USEPA do to make the rule easier to understand?

K. Executive Order 13211--Energy Effects

    This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions 
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 
Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a 
significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

VI. References

    Abbott, S.L., W.K.W. Cheung, S. Kroske-Bystrom, T. Malekzadeh, and 
J.M. Janda. 1992. Identification of Aeromonas strains to the 
genospecies level in the clinical laboratory. Journal of Clinical 
Microbiology. 30:1262-1266.
    Altwegg, M., A.G. Steigerwalt, R. Altwegg-Bissig, J. Luthy-
Hottenstein, and D.J. Brenner. 1990. Biochemical Identification of 
Aeromonas Genospecies Isolated from Humans. Journal of Clinical 
Microbiology. 28(2):258-264.
    Borrell, N., M.J. Figueras, and J. Guarro. 1998. Phenotypic 
Identification of Aeromonas Genomospecies from Clinical and 
Environmental Sources. Canadian Journal of Microbiology. 44:103-108.
    CPI International, validation report for Colitag for coliforms and 
E. Coli, February 17, 1999.
    Demarta, A., M.Tonolla, A.P. Caminada, N. Ruggeri, and R. Peduzzi. 
1999. Signature region within the 16S rDNA sequence of Aeromonas 
popoffii. FEMS Microbiol. Lett. 172 (2): 239-246.
    Hach Company, ``Hach Method 10133 Determination of Turbidity By 
Laser Nephelometry Validation Study Report'' (Undated).
    Havelaar, A.H., M. During, and J.F.M. Versteegh. 1987. Ampicillin-
Dextrin Agar Medium for the Enumeration of Aeromonas Species in Water 
by Membrane Filtration. Journal of Applied Microbiology. 62:279-287.
    IDEXX Laboratories Inc., ``USEPA Pour Plate vs SimPlate for HPC 
Study'' October 19-23, 1998.
    Janda, J.M. 1991. Recent Advances in the Study of the Taxonomy, 
Pathogenicity, and Infectious Syndromes Associated with the Genus 
Aeromonas. Clinical Microbiology Reviews. 4(4):397-410.
    Kelada, Nabih, validation report for the ``Kelada Automated Test 
Methods for Total Cyanide, and Thiocyanate'' (Undated).
    Lachat Instruments Division, ``Validation Study Report for Tier 3 
for Modification of Part 136 Reference Method 335.2 and Part 141 
Reference Method 335.4'', May 11, 1999
    MERCK Corporation, Readycult and Chromocult Coliform Agar 
Validation Report, March 20, 2000.
    Morgan, D., P.C. Johnson, H.L. DuPont, T.K. Satterwhite, and L.V. 
Wood. 1985. Lack of correlation between known virulence properties of 
Aeromonas hydrophila and enteropathogenicity for humans. Infection and 
Immunity. 50:62-65.
    Novartis Crop Protection, Inc., ``Validation Study of an Atrazine 
immunoassay for Drinking Water Monitoring in Compliance with the Safe 
Drinking Water Act'', May 26, 1999.
    Palumbo, S., G.N. Stelma Jr., and C. Abeyta. 2000. The Aeromonas 
hydrophila group. In: The Microbiological Safety and Quality of Food, 
B.M. Lund, T.C. Baird-Parker, and G.W. Gould (eds.), Aspen Publishers, 
Inc. Gaithersburg, MD.
    USEPA. 2001. Results of the Interlaboratory Validation of Method 
1605: Aeromonas in Finished Water, December 2001, EPA # 821-R-01-038.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 141

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

    Dated: March 1, 2002.
Christine Todd Whitman,
Administrator.
    For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter I of the 
Code

[[Page 10545]]

of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended 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.

    2. Section 141.21 is amended:
    a. By revising the Table in paragraph (f)(3),
    b. By adding paragraphs (f)(6) (viii) through (x).
    The revision and additions read as follows:


Sec. 141.21  Coliform sampling.

* * * * *
    (f) * * *
    (3) * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Organism              Methodology \12\        Citation \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Coliforms \2\.........  Total Coliform        9221 A, B.
                               Fermentation
                               Technique \3,4,5\.
                              Total Coliform        9222 A, B, C.
                               Membrane Filter
                               Technique \6\.
                              Presence-Absence (P-  9221 D.
                               A) Coliform Test
                               \5\,\7\.
                              ONPG-MUG Test \8\...  9223.
                              Colisure Test \9\...
                              E*Colite
                               Test \10\.
                              m-ColiBlue24
                               Test \11\.
                              Readycult
                               Coliforms 100
                               Presence/Absence
                               Test \13\.
                              Membrane Filter
                               Technique using
                               Chromocult
                               Coliform Agar
                               \14\.
                              Colitag
                               Test \15\ .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The procedures shall be done in accordance with the documents listed
  below. The incorporation by reference of the following documents
  listed in footnotes 1, 6, 8, 9, 10 and 11 was approved by the Director
  of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR
  Part 51. Copies of the documents may be obtained from the sources
  listed below. Information regarding obtaining these documents can be
  obtained from the Safe Drinking Water Hotline at 800-426-4791.
  Documents may be inspected at EPA's Drinking Water Docket, 401 M. St.
  SW., Washington, DC 20460 (Telephone: 202-260-3027); or at the Office
  of Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., Suite 700,
  Washington, DC 20408.
\1\ Methods 9221 A, B; 9222 A, B, C; 9221 D and 9223 are contained in
  Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 18th
  edition (1992) and 19th edition (1995) American Public Health
  Association, 1015 Fifteenth Street NW., Washington, DC 20005; either
  edition may be used.
\2\ The time from sample collection to initiation of analysis may not
  exceed 30 hours. Systems are encouraged but not required to hold
  samples below 10 deg. C during transit.
\3\ Lactose broth, as commercially available, may be used in lieu of
  lauryl tryptose broth, if the system conducts at least 25 parallel
  tests between this medium and lauryl tryptose broth using the water
  normally tested, and this comparison demonstrates that the false-
  positive rate and false-negative rate for total coliform, using
  lactose broth, is less than 10 percent.
\4\ If inverted tubes are used to detect gas production, the media
  should cover these tubes at least one-half to two-thirds after the
  sample is added.
\5\ No requirement exists to run the completed phase on 10 percent of
  all total coliform-positive confirmed tubes.
\6\ MI agar also may be used. Preparation and use of MI agar is set
  forth in the article, ``New medium for the simultaneous detection of
  total coliform and Escherichia coli in water'' by Brenner, K.P., et.
  al., 1993, Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 59:3534-3544. Also available from
  the Office of Water Resource Center (RC-4100), 401 M. Street SW.,
  Washington DC 20460, EPA/600/J-99/225. Verification of colonies is not
  required.
\7\ Six-times formulation strength may be used if the medium is filter-
  sterilized rather than autoclaved.
\8\ The ONPG-MUG Test is also known as the Autoanalysis Colilert System.
 
\9\ A description of the Colisure Test, Feb 28, 1994, may be obtained
  from IDEXX Laboratories, Inc., One IDEXX Drive, Westbrook, Maine
  04092. The Colisure Test may be read after an incubation time of 24
  hours.
\10\ A description of the E*Colite Test, ``Presence/Absence
  for Coliforms and E. Coli in Water,'' Dec 21, 1997, is available from
  Charm Sciences, Inc., 36 Franklin Street, Malden, MA 02148-4120.
\11\ A description of the m-ColiBlue24 Test, Aug 17, 1999, is
  available from the Hach Company, 100 Dayton Avenue, Ames, IA 50010.
\12\ EPA strongly recommends that laboratories evaluate the false-
  positive and negative rates for the method(s) they use for monitoring
  total coliforms. EPA also encourages laboratories to establish false-
  positive and false-negative rates within their own laboratory and
  sample matrix (drinking water or source water) with the intent that if
  the method they choose has an unacceptable false-positive or negative
  rate, another method can be used. The Agency suggests that
  laboratories perform these studies on a minimum of 5% of all total
  coliform-positive samples, except for those methods where verification/
  confirmation is already required, e.g., the M-Endo and LES Endo
  Membrane Filter Tests, Standard Total Coliform Fermentation Technique,
  and Presence-Absence Coliform Test. Methods for establishing false-
  positive and negative-rates may be based on lactose fermentation, the
  rapid test for -galactosidase and cytochrome oxidase, multi-
  test identification systems, or equivalent confirmation tests. False-
  positive and false-negative information is often available in
  published studies and/or from the manufacturer(s).
\13\ The Readycult Coliforms 100 Presence/Absence Test is
  described in the document, ``Readycult Coliforms 100
  Presence/Absence Test for Detection and Identification of Coliform
  Bacteria and Escherichia coli in Finished Waters'', November 2000,
  Version 1.0, available from EM Science (an affiliate of Merck KGgA,
  Darmstadt Germany), 480 S. Democrat Road, Gibbstown, NJ 08027-1297.
  Telephone number is (800) 222-0342, e-mail address is:
  [email protected].
\14\ Membrane Filter Technique using Chromocult Coliform Agar
  is described in the document, ``Chromocult Coliform Agar
  Presence/Absence Membrane Filter Test Method for Identification of
  Coliform Bacteria and Escherichia coli in Finished Waters'', November
  2000, Version 1.0, available from EM Science (an affiliate of Merck
  KGgA, Darmstadt Germany), 480 S. Democrat Road, Gibbstown, NJ 08027-
  1297. Telephone number is (800) 222-0342, e-mail address is:
  [email protected].
\15\ Colitag Test is described in the document,
  ``Colitag Product as a Test for Detection and Identification
  of Coliforms and Esherichia coli Bacteria in Drinking Water and Source
  Water as required in National Primary Drinking Water Regulations'',
  available from CPI International, Inc., 5580 Skylane Blvd., Santa
  Rosa, CA 95403, telephone (800) 878-7654, fax (707) 545-7901, internet
  address is www.cpiinternational.com.

* * * * *
    (6) * * *
    (viii) Readycult Coliforms 100 Presence/Absence Test, a 
description of which is cited in footnote 13 to the table at paragraph 
(f)(3) of this section.
    (ix) Membrane Filter Technique using Chromocult Coliform 
Agar, a description of which is cited in footnote 14 to the table at 
paragraph (f)(3) of this section.
    (x) Colitag Test, a description of which is cited in 
footnote 15 to the table at paragraph (f)(3) of this section.
* * * * *
    3. Section 141.23 is amended by revising the entry for ``Cyanide'' 
in the table in paragraph (a)(4)(i) and in the table in paragraph 
(k)(1) to read as follows:


Sec. 141.23  Inorganic chemical sampling and analytical requirements.

* * * * *
    (a) * * *
    (4) * * *
    (i) * * *

[[Page 10546]]



                                   Detection Limits for Inorganic Contaminants
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                     Detection
                Contaminant                    MCL (mg/L)                Methodology               limit  (mg/L)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
*                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *
                                                        *
Cyanide....................................             0.2  Distillation, Spectrophotometric               0.02
                                                              \3\.                                         0.005
                                                             Distillation, Automated,                       0.05
                                                              Spectrophotometric \3\.
                                                             Distillation, Selective Eleectrode
                                                              \3\.
                                                             Distillation, Amenable,                        0.02
                                                              Spectrophotometric \4\.                       0.05
                                                             UV, Distillation,                            0.0006
                                                              Spectrophotometric.
                                                             Distillation, Spectrophotometric...
 
*                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *
                                                        *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *
   *
\3\ Screening method for total cyanides.
\4\ Measures ``free'' cyanides.
*                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *
   *

    (k) *  *  *
    (1) *  *  *

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Contaminant and methodology \13\      EPA              ASTM \3\                   SM \4\                                  Other
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
          *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *
Cyanide: Manual Distillation                    D2036-91A................  4500-CN-C...............
 followed by.
Spectrophotometric, Amenable.......             D2036-91B................  4500-CN-G...............
Spectrophotometric, Manual.........             D2036-91A................  4500-CN-E...............  I-3300-85 \5\
Spectrophotometric, Semi-automated.   \6\335.4  .........................  ........................  ...................................................
Selective Electrode................  .........  .........................  4500-CN-F...............
Distillation/Spectrophotometric....  .........  .........................  ........................  QuikChem 10-204-00-1-X \16\
UV /Distillation/Spectrophotometric  .........  .........................  ........................  Kelada 01 \17\
 
          *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *
\3\ Annual Book of ASTM Standards, 1994 and 1996, Vols. 11.01 and 11.02, American Society for Testing and Materials. The previous versions of D1688-95A,
  D1688-95C (copper), D3559-95D (lead), D1293-95 (pH), D1125-91A (conductivity) and D859-94 (silica) are also approved. These previous versions D1688-
  90A, C; D3559-90D, D1293-84, D1125-91A and D859-88, respectively are located in the Annual Book of ASTM Standards, 1994, Vols. 11.01. Copies may be
  obtained from the American Society for Testing and Materials, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken, PA 19428.
\4\ 18th and 19th editions of Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 1992 and 1995, respectively, American Public Health
  Association; either edition may be used. Copies may be obtained from the American Public Health Association, 1015 Fifteenth Street NW, Washington, DC
  20005.
\5\ Method I-2601-90, Methods for Analysis by the U.S. Geological Survey National Water Quality Laboratory--Determination of Inorganic and Organic
  Constituents in Water and Fluvial Sediments, Open File Report 93-125, 1993; For Methods I-1030-85; I-1601-85; I-1700-85; I-2598-85; I-2700-85; and I-
  3300-85 See Techniques of Water Resources Investigation of the U.S. Geological Survey, Book 5, Chapter A-1, 3rd ed., 1989; Available from Information
  Services, U.S. Geological Survey, Federal Center, Box 25286, Denver, CO 80225-0425.
\6\ ``Methods for the Determination of Inorganic Substances in Environmental Samples'', EPA/600/R-93/100, August 1993. Available at NTIS, PB94-120821.
  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *
\13\ Because MDLs reported in EPA Methods 200.7 and 200.9 were determined using a 2X preconcentration step during sample digestion, MDLs determined when
  samples are analyzed by direct analysis (i.e., no sample digestion) will be higher. For direct analysis of cadmium and arsenic by Method 200.7, and
  arsenic by Method 3120 B sample preconcentration using pneumatic nebulization may be required to achieve lower detection limits. Preconcentration may
  also be required for direct analysis of antimony, lead, and thallium by Method 200.9; antimony and lead by Method 3113 B; and lead by Method D3559-90D
  unless multiple in-furnace depositions are made.
*                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *
\16\ The description for the QuikChem Method 10-204-00-1-X, Revision 2.1, November 30, 2000 for cyanide is available from Lachat Instruments, 6645 W.
  Mill Rd., Milwaukee, WI 53218, USA. Phone: 414-358-4200.
\17\ The description for the Kelada 01 Method, Revision 1.2, August 2001, USEPA # 821-B-01-009 for cyanide is available from the National Technical
  Information Service (NTIS), PB 2001-108275, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161. The toll free telephone number is 800-553-6847.
  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *

    4. Section 141.24 is amended by revising paragraph (e)(1) and by 
revising the table in paragraph (e)(1) to read as follows:


Sec. 141.24  Organic chemical, sampling and analytical requirements

* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (1) The following documents are incorporated by reference. This 
incorporation by reference was approved by the Director of the Federal 
Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR Part 51. Copies 
may be inspected at EPA's Drinking Water

[[Page 10547]]

Docket, 401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460; or at the Office of the 
Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW, Suite 700, Washington, 
DC. Method 508A and 515.1 are in Methods for the Determination of 
Organic Compounds in Drinking Water, EPA/600/4-88-039, December 1988, 
Revised, July 1991. Methods 547, 550 and 550.1 are in Methods for the 
Determination of Organic Compounds in Drinking Water--Supplement I, 
EPA/600-4-90-020, July 1990. Methods 548.1, 549.1, 552.1 and 555 are in 
Methods for the Determination of Organic Compounds in Drinking Water--
Supplement II, EPA/600/R-92-129, August 1992. Methods 502.2, 504.1, 
505, 506, 507, 508, 508.1, 515.2, 524.2 525.2, 531.1, 551.1 and 552.2 
are in Methods for the Determination of Organic Compounds in Drinking 
Water--Supplement III, EPA/600/R-95-131, August 1995. Method 1613 is 
titled ``Tetra-through Octa-Chlorinated Dioxins and Furans by Isotope-
Dilution HRGC/HRMS'', EPA/821-B-94-005, October 1994. These documents 
are available from the National Technical Information Service, NTIS 
PB91-231480, PB91-146027, PB92-207703, PB95-261616 and PB95-104774, 
U.S. Department of Commerce, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, 
Virginia 22161. The toll-free number is 800-553-6847. Method 6651 shall 
be followed in accordance with Standard Methods for the Examination of 
Water and Wastewater, 18th edition, 1992 and 19th edition, 1995, 
American Public Health Association (APHA); either edition may be used. 
Method 6610 shall be followed in accordance with the Supplement to the 
18th edition of Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and 
Wastewater, 1994 or with the 19th edition of Standard Methods for the 
Examination of Water and Wastewater, 1995, APHA; either publication may 
be used. The APHA documents are available from APHA, 1015 Fifteenth 
Street NW, Washington, DC 20005. Other required analytical test 
procedures germane to the conduct of these analyses are contained in 
Technical Notes on Drinking Water Methods, EPA/600/R-94-173, October 
1994, NTIS PB95-104766. EPA Methods 515.3 and 549.2 are available from 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Exposure Research 
Laboratory (NERL)--Cincinnati, 26 West Martin Luther King Drive, 
Cincinnati, OH 45268. ASTM Method D 5317-93 is available in the Annual 
Book of ASTM Standards, 1996, Vol. 11.02, American Society for Testing 
and Materials, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken, PA 19428, or 
in any edition published after 1993. EPA Method 515.4, ``Determination 
of Chlorinated Acids in Drinking Water by Liquid-Liquid 
Microextraction, Derivatization and Fast Gas Chromatography with 
Electron Capture Detection,'' Revision 1.0, April 2000, EPA /815/B-00/
001. Available by requesting a copy from the EPA Safe Drinking Water 
Hotline within the United States at 800-426-4791 (Hours are Monday 
through Friday, excluding Federal holidays, from 9 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. 
Eastern Time). Alternatively, the method can be assessed and downloaded 
directly on-line at www.epa.gov/safewater/methods/sourcalt.html. The 
Syngenta AG-625 is available from Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc., 410 
Swing Road, Post Office Box 18300, Greensboro, NC 27419, Phone number 
(336) 632-6000. Method 531.2 ``Measurement of N-methylcarbamoyloximes 
and N-methylcarbamates in Water by Direct Aqueous Injection HPLC with 
Postcolumn Derivatization,'' Revision 1.0, September 2001. Available by 
requesting a copy from the EPA Safe Drinking Water Hotline within the 
United States at 800-426-4791 (Hours are Monday through Friday, 
excluding Federal holidays, from 9 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. Eastern Time).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Standard
          Contaminant                 EPA method \1\          methods            ASTM                Other
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benzene........................  502.2, 524.2...........
Carbon tetrachloride...........  502.2, 524.2, 551.1....
Chlorobenzene..................  502.2, 524.2...........
1,2-Dichlorobenzene............  502.2, 524.2...........
1,4-Dichlorobenzene............  502.2, 524.2...........
1,2-Dichloroethane.............  502.2, 524.2...........
cis-Dichloroethylene...........  502.2, 524.2...........
trans-Dichloroethylene.........  502.2, 524.2...........
Dichloromethane................  502.2, 524.2...........
1,2-Dichloropropane............  502.2, 524.2...........
Ethylbenzene...................  502.2, 524.2...........
Styrene........................  502.2, 524.2...........
Tetrachloroethylene............  502.2, 524.2, 551.1....
1,1,1-Trichloroethane..........  502.2, 524.2, 551.1....
Trichloroethylene..............  502.2, 524.2, 551.1....
Toluene........................  502.2, 524.2...........
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene.........  502.2, 524.2...........
1,1-Dichloroethylene...........  502.2, 524.2...........
1,1,2-Trichloroethane 5........  502.2, 524.2, 551.1....
Vinyl chloride.................  502.2, 524.2...........
Xylenes (total)................  502.2, 524.2...........
2,3,7,8-TCDD (dioxin)..........  1613...................
2,4-D \4\ (as acid, salts and    515.2, 555, 515.1,       ..............  D5317-93..........
 esters).                         515.3, 515.4.
2,4,5-TP\4\ (Silvex)...........  515.2, 555, 515.1,       ..............  D5317-93..........
                                  515.3, 515.4.
Alachlor \2\...................  507, 525.2, 508.1, 505,
                                  551.1.
Atrazine \2\...................  507, 525.2, 508.1, 505,  ..............  ..................  Syngenta
                                  551.1.                                                      AG-625
Benzo(a)pyrene.................  525.2, 550, 550.1......
Carbofuran.....................  531.1, 531.2...........            6610
Chlordane......................  508, 525.2, 508.1, 505.
Dalapon........................  552.1, 515.1, 552.2,
                                  515.3, 515.4.
Di(2-ethylhexyl)adipate........  506, 525.2.............
Di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate......  506, 525.2.............
Dibromochloropropane (DBCP)....  504.1, 551.1...........
Dinoseb \4\....................  515.2, 555, 515.1,
                                  515.3, 515.4.

[[Page 10548]]

 
Diquat.........................  549.2..................
Endothall......................  548.1..................
Endrin.........................  508, 525.2, 508.1, 505,
                                  551.1.
Ethylene dibromide (EDB).......  504.1, 551.1...........
Glyphosate.....................  547....................            6651
Heptachlor.....................  508, 525.2, 508.1, 505,
                                  551.1.
Heptachlor Epoxide.............  508, 525.2, 508.1, 505,
                                  551.1.
Hexachlorobenzene..............  508, 525.2, 508.l, 505,
                                  551.1.
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene......  508, 525.2, 508.1, 505,
                                  551.1.
Lindane........................  508, 525.2, 508.1, 505,
                                  551.1.
Methoxychlor...................  508, 525.2, 508.1, 505,
                                  551.1.
Oxamyl.........................  531.1, 531.2...........            6610
PCBs \3\ (as                     508A...................
 decachlorobiphenyl).
PCBs \3\ (as Aroclors).........  508.1, 508, 525.2, 505.
Pentachlorophenol..............  515.2, 525.2, 555,       ..............  D5317-93..........
                                  515.1, 515.3, 515.4.
Picloram \4\...................  515.2, 555, 515.1,       ..............  D5317-93..........
                                  515.3, 515.4.
Simazine \2\...................  507, 525.2, 508.1, 505,
                                  551.1.
Toxaphene......................  508, 508.1, 525.2, 505.
Total Trihalomethanes..........  502.2, 524.2, 551.1 ...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For previously approved EPA methods which remain available for compliance monitoring until June 1, 2001, see
  paragraph (e)(2) of this section.
\2\ Substitution of the detector specified in Method 505, 507, 508 or 508.1 for the purpose of achieving lower
  detection limits is allowed as follows. Either an electron capture or nitrogen phosphorous detector may be
  used provided all regulatory requirements and quality control criteria are met.
\3\ PCBs are qualitatively identified as Aroclors and measured for compliance purposes as decachlorobiphenyl.
  Users of Method 505 may have more difficulty in achieving the required detection limits than users of Methods
  508.1, 525.2 or 508.
\4\ Accurate determination of the chlorinated esters requires hydrolysis of the sample as described in EPA
  Methods 515.1, 515.2, 515.3, 515.4 and 555 and ASTM Method D5317-93.

* * * * * * *
    5. Section 141.40 is amended in paragraph (a)(3), table 1, by 
revising the second List 2 table including the title, and by revising 
footnotes f and h, to read as follows:


Sec. 141.40  Monitoring requirements for unregulated contaminants.

    (a) * * *
    (3) * * *

                                           Table 1.--Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation (1999) List
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                             6--Period
                                        2--Identification                               4--Minimum reporting                               during which
            1--Contaminant                    number         3--Analytical methods              level             5--Sampling location     monitoring to
                                                                                                                                           be completed
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                   *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  List 2--Screening Survey Microbiological Contaminants
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aeromonas.............................                NA   EPA Method 1605 \h\......  0.2 CFU/100mL \f\.......  Distribution System \g\.           2003
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Column headings are:
1--Chemical or microbiological contaminant: the name of the contaminants to be analyzed.
2--CAS (Chemical Abstract Service Number) Registry No. or Identification Number: a unique number identifying the chemical contaminants.
3--Analytical Methods: method numbers identifying the methods that must be used to test the contaminants.
4--Minimum Reporting Level: the value and unit of measure at or above which the concentration or density of the contaminant must be measured using the
  Approved Analytical Methods.
5--Sampling Location: the locations within a PWS at which samples must be collected.
6--Years During Which Monitoring to be Completed: the years during which the sampling and testing are to occur for the indicated contaminant.
*                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *
Minimum Reporting Level represents the value of the lowest concentration precision and accuracy determination made during methods development and
  documented in the method. If method options are permitted, the concentration used was for the least sensitive option.
\g\ Three samples must be taken from the distribution system, which is owned or controlled by the selected PWS. The sample locations must include one
  sample from a point (MD from Sec.  141.35(d)(3), Table 1) where the disinfectant residual is representative of the distribution system. This sample
  location may be selected from sample locations which have been previously identified for samples to be analyzed for coliform indicator bacteria.
  Coliform sample locations encompass a variety of sites including midpoint samples which may contain a disinfectant residual that is typical of the
  system. Coliform sample locations are described in 40 CFR 141.21. This same approach must be used for the Aeromonas midpoint sample where the
  disinfectant residual would not have declined and would be typical for the distribution system. Additionally, two samples must be taken from two
  different locations: the distal or dead--end location in the distribution system (MR from Sec.  141.35(d)(3), Table 1), avoiding disinfectant booster
  stations, and from a location where previous determinations have indicated the lowest disinfectant residual in the distribution system (LD from Sec.
  141.35(d)(3), Table 1). If these two locations of distal and low disinfectant residual sites coincide, then the second sample must be taken at a
  location between the MD and MR sites. Locations in the distribution system where the disinfectant residual is expected to be low are similar to TTHM
  sampling points. Sampling locations for TTHMs are described in 63 FR 69468.

[[Page 10549]]

 
\h\ EPA Method 1605 ``Aeromonas in Finished Water by Membrane Filtration using Ampicillin-Dextrin Agar with Vancomycin (ADA-V)'', October 2001, EPA #
  821-R-01-034. Available by requesting a copy from the EPA Safe Drinking Water Hotline within the United States at 800-426-4791 (Hours are Monday
  through Friday, excluding Federal holidays, from 9:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. Eastern Time). Alternatively, the method can be assessed and downloaded
  directly on-line at www.epa.gov/microbes.

* * * * *
    6. Section 141.74 is amended by revising the table in paragraph 
(a)(1) and adding footnotes 11 and 12 to read as follows:


Sec. 141.74  Analytical and monitoring requirements.

    (a) * * *
    (1) * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Organism                Methodology          Citation \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Coliform \2\............  Total Coliform     9221 A, B, C.
                                 Fermentation
                                 Technique \3\ \4
                                 \ \5\.
                                Total Coliform     9222 A, B, C.
                                 Membrane Filter
                                 Technique \6\.
                                ONPG-MUG Test \7\  9223.
Fecal Coliforms \2\...........  Fecal Coliform     9221 E.
                                 Procedure \8\.
                                Fecal Coliforms    9222 D.
                                 Filter Procedure.
Heterotrophic bacteria \2\....  Pour Plate Method  9215 B.
                                SimPlate \11\....
Turbidity.....................  Nephelometric      2130 B.
                                 Method.
                                Nephelometric      180.1 \9\.
                                 Method.
                                Great Lakes        Method 2 \10\.
                                 Instruments.
                                Hach FilterTrak..  10133 \12\.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The procedures shall be done in accordance with the documents
  listed below. The incorporation by reference of the following
  documents listed in footnotes 1, 6, 7, 9 and 10 was approved by the
  Director of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a)
  and 1 CFR part 51. Copies of the documents may be obtained from the
  sources listed below. Information regarding obtaining these documents
  can be obtained from the Safe Drinking Water Hotline at 800-426-4791.
  Documents may be inspected at EPA's Drinking Water Docket, 401 M.
  Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460 (Telephone: 202-260-3027); or at the
  Office of the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW, Suite
  700, Washington, D.C. 20408.
\1\ Except where noted, all methods refer to Standard Methods for the
  Examination of Water and Wastewater, 18th edition, 1992 and 19th
  edition, 1995, American Public Health Association, 1015 Fifteenth
  Street NW, Washington, D.C. 20005; either edition may be used.
\2\ The time from sample collection to initiation of analysis may not
  exceed 8 hours. Systems must hold samples below 10 deg. C during
  transit.
\3\ Lactose broth, as commercially available, may be used in lieu of
  lauryl tryptose broth, if the system conducts at least 25 parallel
  tests between this medium and lauryl tryptose broth using the water
  normally tested, and this comparison demonstrates that the false--
  positive rate and false--negative rate for total coliform, using
  lactose broth, is less than 10 percent.
\4\ Media should cover inverted tubes at least one--half to two--thirds
  after the sample is added.
\5\ No requirement exists to run the completed phase on 10 percent of
  all total coliform--positive confirmed tubes.
\6\ MI agar also may be used. Preparation and use of MI agar is set
  forth in the article, ``New medium for the simultaneous detection of
  total coliform and Escherichia coli in water'' by Brenner, K.P., et.
  al., 1993, Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 59:3534-3544. Also available from
  the Office of Water Resource Center (RC-4100), 401 M. Street SW,
  Washington D.C., 20460, EPA/600/J-99/225. Verification of colonies is
  not required.
\7\ The ONPG--MUG Test is also known as the Autoanalysis Colilert
  System.
\8\ A-1 Broth may be held up to three months in a tightly closed screw
  cap tube at 4 deg. C.
\9\ ``Methods for the Determination of Inorganic Substances in
  Environmental Samples'', EPA/600/R-93/100, August 1993. Available at
  NTIS, PB94-121811.
\10\ GLI Method 2, ``Turbidity'', November 2, 1992, Great Lakes
  Instruments, Inc., 8855 North 55th Street, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53223.
 
\11\ A description of the SimPlate method can be obtained from IDEXX
  Laboratories, Inc., One IDEXX Drive, Westbrook, Maine 04092, telephone
  (800) 321-0207.
\12\ A description of the Hach FilterTrak method 10133 can be obtained
  from; Hach Co., P.O. Box 389, Loveland, Colorado, 80539-0389. Phone:
  800-227-4224.

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 02-5447 Filed 3-6-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P