64704 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 215 / Monday, November 8, 2004 / Proposed Rules 

I. Identify the rulemaking by docket 

number and other identifying 

information (subject heading, Federal 

Register date and page number). 

II. Follow directions—The agency 

may ask you to respond to specific 

questions or organize comments by 

referencing a Code of Federal 

Regulations (CFR) part or section 

number. 

III. Explain why you agree or disagree; 

suggest alternatives and substitute 

language for your requested changes. 

IV. Describe any assumptions and 

provide any technical information and/

or data that you used. 

V. If you estimate potential costs or 

burdens, explain how you arrived at 

your estimate in sufficient detail to 

allow for it to be reproduced. 

VI. Provide specific examples to 

illustrate your concerns, and suggest 

alternatives. 

VII. Explain your views as clearly as 

possible, avoiding the use of profanity 

or personal threats. 

VIII.Make sure to submit your 

comments by the comment period 

deadline identified. 

III. Where Can I Find More Information 

About This Proposal and the 

Corresponding Direct Final Rule? 

For additional information see the 

direct final rule published in the rules 

section of this Federal Register.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Intergovernmental 

relations, Ozone, Volatile organic 

compounds.

Dated: September 16, 2004. 

Norman Niedergang, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.

[FR Doc. 04–24822 Filed 11–5–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 136

[OW–2003–0003; FRL–7834–8] 

Guidelines Establishing Test 

Procedures for the Analysis of 

Pollutants; Procedures for Detection 

and Quantitation

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of document availability.

SUMMARY: EPA uses method detection 

limit (MDL) and minimum level of 

quantitation (ML) procedures to 

establish detection and quantitation 

capabilities of test procedures (i.e., 

analytical methods) under the Clean 

Water Act (CWA). The MDL is used to 

determine the lowest concentration at 

which a substance is detected or is 

‘‘present’’ in a sample. The ML is used 

to describe the lowest concentration of 

a substance in a sample that can be 

measured with a known level of 

confidence. Today’s notice announces 

the availability of a document entitled 

Revised Assessment of Detection and 

Quantitation Approaches. This 

document presents EPA’s revised 

assessment of MDL, ML and other 

detection and quantitation procedures 

for use under the CWA, and EPA’s 

consideration of public comment 

received on an assessment document 

published by EPA in 2003.

ADDRESSES: The docket for today’s 

action is available under Docket ID No. 

OW–2003–0003. All documents in the 

docket are listed in the EDOCKET index 

at http://www.epa.gov/edocket.

Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

i.e., CBI or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the Internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically in 

EDOCKET or in hard copy at the Water 

Docket in the EPA Docket Center, (EPA/

DC) EPA West, Room B102, 1301 

Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, 

DC. This Docket Facility is open from 

8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, excluding legal holidays. The 

telephone number for the Public 

Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, and 

the telephone number for the Water 

Docket is (202) 566–2426.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

William Telliard; Engineering and 

Analysis Division (4303T); Office of 

Science and Technology; Office of 

Water; U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency; Ariel Rios Building; 1200 

Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.; 

Washington, DC 20460, or call (202) 

566–1061 or E-mail at 

telliard.william@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information 

A. How Can I Get Copies of This 

Document and Other Related 

Information? 

1. Docket. EPA has established an 

official public docket for this notice 

under Docket ID No. OW–2003–0003. 

The official public docket consists of the 

documents specifically referenced in 

this notice, public comments received 

on EPA’s assessment presented in the 

February 2003 Technical Support 

Document, and other supporting 

information related to this assessment. 

Information claimed as CBI and other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute, or which is not 

included in the official public docket, 

will not be available for public viewing 

in EPA’s public docket. The official 

public docket is available for public 

viewing at the Water Docket in the EPA 

Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, 

Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., 

NW., Washington, DC 20460. This 

Docket Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. 

to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

excluding legal holidays. The telephone 

number for the Public Reading Room is 

(202) 566–1744, and the telephone 

number for the Water Docket is (202) 

566–2426. 

2. Electronic Access. You may access 

this Federal Register document 

electronically through the EPA Internet 

under the Federal Register listings at 

http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/. An 

electronic version of the public docket 

is available through EPA’s electronic 

public docket and comment system, 

EPA Dockets. You may use EPA Dockets 

at http://www.epa.gov/edocket/ to 

access the index listing of the contents 

of the official public docket, and to 

access those documents in the public 

docket that are available electronically. 

Once in the system, select ‘‘Search,’’

then key in the appropriate docket 

identification number. Information 

claimed as CBI and other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute, 

or which is not included in the official 

public docket, will not be available for 

public viewing in EPA’s electronic 

public docket. EPA’s policy is that 

copyrighted material will not be placed 

in EPA’s electronic public docket but 

will be available only in printed, paper 

form in the official public docket. 

Although not all docket materials may 

be available electronically, you may still 

access any of the publicly available 

docket materials through the docket 

facility identified in I.A.1. 

II. Background 

A. Test Procedures Used for Clean 

Water Act Programs 

EPA proposes and promulgates test 

procedures at 40 CFR part 136 in 

accordance with Section 304(h) of the 

CWA, which requires that the EPA 

Administrator ‘‘promulgate guidelines 

establishing test procedures for the 

analysis of pollutants’’ to be monitored 

and regulated under the National 

Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

(NPDES). Test procedures are also 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 215 / Monday, November 8, 2004 / Proposed Rules 64705

known as analytical methods. EPA 

draws the analytical methods from a 

variety of sources, including methods 

developed by commercial vendors, EPA 

and other government agencies, as well 

as methods from voluntary consensus 

standards bodies such as the American 

Public Health Association, the Water 

Environment Federation, and the 

American Water Works Association, 

which jointly publish Standard 

Methods for the Examination of Water 

and Wastewater; the Association of 

Official Analytical Chemists; and the 

American Society for Testing and 

Materials (ASTM) International. An 

analytical method promulgated by EPA 

under CWA section 304(h) is considered 

approved by EPA for purposes of EPA’s 

NPDES permitting regulations. 

Among considerations for approval of 

an analytical method at 40 CFR part 136 

are the demonstrated performance 

characteristics of precision, bias, and 

sensitivity (i.e., detection and 

quantitation). EPA generally evaluates 

each of these characteristics to 

determine if the analytical method will 

yield results at concentrations of 

concern that are reliable enough to meet 

Agency needs for permitting and 

compliance monitoring under the Clean 

Water Act (CWA). Detection and 

quantitation limits have been the most 

controversial of these characteristics, 

particularly among members of the 

regulated community. 

The method detection limit (MDL), 

which is specified at 40 CFR part 136, 

appendix B, is used to determine the 

lowest concentration at which a 

substance is detected or is ‘‘present’’ in 

a sample. The minimum level of 

quantitation (ML) is used to describe the 

lowest concentration in a sample of a 

substance that can be measured with a 

known level of confidence. The existing 

MDL procedure has been in place since 

1984. Individual MDLs and MLs are 

included in many EPA-approved 

methods at 40 CFR part 136, and have 

provided laboratories and data users 

with limits for evaluating results of 

analytical measurements or analytical 

method selection.

B. EPA’s Initial Assessment 

In 2003, EPA completed an initial 

assessment of approaches for 

determining detection and quantitation 

capabilities of analytical methods and 

their application to CWA programs, and 

published the results in the Technical 

Support Document for the Assessment 

of Detection and Quantitation 

Approaches (EPA–821–R–03–005, 

February 2003). This assessment 

examined EPA’s current MDL and ML 

procedures, as well as alternative 

detection and quantitation concepts and 

procedures. 

A draft of the initial assessment 

document was peer-reviewed in August 

2002. EPA revised the document to 

incorporate comments from the peer 

review. On March 12, 2003 (68 FR 

11791), EPA made Technical Support 

Document for the Assessment of 

Detection and Quantitation Approaches

available to the public and provided for 

150 days for public comment, including 

a 30-day extension of the comment 

period (68 FR 41988, July 16, 2003). 

C. EPA’s Revised Assessment 

Today’s notice announces the 

availability of the document entitled 

Revised Assessment of Detection and 

Quantitation Approaches (the Revised 

Assessment Document), EPA–821–B–

04–005, October 2004. The revised 

assessment examines the procedures 

currently used by the Agency for 

determining detection and quantitation 

levels. It also evaluates alternative 

concepts and procedures, including two 

detailed procedures submitted by the 

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and the 

American Council of Independent 

Laboratories (ACIL). ACIL is an 

organization representing a large group 

of independent commercial laboratories. 

This revised assessment evaluates 

several alternative concepts and 

procedures, some of which were 

submitted during the comment period 

on EPA’s previous assessment. The 

Revised Assessment Document consists 

of the following parts: 

• Chapter 1 provides background 

information regarding EPA’s assessment 

of detection and quantitation 

procedures. 

• Chapter 2 includes a discussion of 

additional concepts and procedures not 

included in Technical Support 

Document for the Assessment of 

Detection and Quantitation 

Approaches, February 2003. 

• Chapter 3 contains a summary of 

and general response to public 

comments received on chemical, 

regulatory, and statistical issues. 

• Chapter 4 addresses public 

comment on the six evaluation criteria 

that EPA used to evaluate each of the 

detection and quantitation procedures. 

• Chapter 5 contains an evaluation of 

detection and quantitation procedures. 

It includes an evaluation of procedures 

suggested by ACIL, USGS, and the Interindustry Analytical Group. 

• Chapter 6 summarizes EPA’s 

findings and outlines steps for a 

continuing dialogue about detection and 

quantitation issues. 

• Appendix A contains a list of 

documents used in the assessment. 

• Appendices B and C present 

analyses of the detection and 

quantitation limit procedures. These 

analyses have been updated to include 

data and comments submitted during 

the comment period on Technical 

Support Document for the Assessment 

of Detection and Quantitation 

Approaches, February 2003. 

The Revised Assessment Document 

addresses comments and concerns from 

stakeholders and peer reviewers. Based 

on this new information, EPA plans to 

continue consideration of alternatives or 

improvements to current detection and 

quantitation procedures and uses. It is 

clear that there is a broad interest in 

improving current procedures and uses, 

but no consensus for a specific 

procedure or procedures has emerged 

among the laboratory, industry, 

regulatory or regulated communities. 

EPA currently is soliciting stakeholders 

to participate in further considerations 

of alternatives or improvements to 

current detection and quantitation 

procedures. 

D. Settlement Agreement 

EPA conducted this revised 

assessment, and took comment on the 

2003 assessment, to partially fulfill the 

requirements of a settlement agreement 

with the Alliance of Automobile 

Manufacturers, et al. The settlement 

agreement required that EPA assess 

existing Agency and alternative 

procedures for determining detection 

and quantitation limits and sign a notice 

for publication in the Federal Register

on or before February 28, 2003, and to 

invite comment on the assessment. On 

March 12, 2003, EPA published: (1) A 

Federal Register notice announcing the 

availability of, and requesting comment 

on, a document describing EPA’s 

assessment (68 FR 11791); and (2) a 

Federal Register notice proposing and 

requesting comment on revisions to the 

MDL definition and procedure at 40 

CFR part 136, appendix B (68 FR 

11770), and a definition and procedure 

for calculation of an ML. EPA is 

discharging its settlement agreement 

obligation today by making available a 

Revised Assessment Document. 

E. Proposed Rule; Withdrawal 

In a separate notice published 

elsewhere in today’s Federal Register, 

EPA is withdrawing the March 12, 2003, 

proposal to revise the MDL definition 

and procedure and to add a definition 

and procedure for calculation of an ML. 

While EPA believes that some revisions 

to the MDL definition and procedure are 

appropriate, the Agency also believes 

that further work, including a 

stakeholder consultation process, is 

64706 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 215 / Monday, November 8, 2004 / Proposed Rules 

needed before EPA can determine how 

best to address the concerns that have 

been raised. EPA is exploring the 

feasibility and design of a process 

through which stakeholders could 

provide their suggestions, ideas and 

recommendations on procedures for the 

development of detection and 

quantitation limits and uses of these 

limits in CWA programs. The Agency 

believes that the body of public 

comment on the proposed rule provides 

a strong starting point for a continued 

consultation with stakeholders 

representing constituencies such as 

citizens, environmental organizations, 

permit writers, regulators and regulated 

industries. In a Federal Register notice 

published on September 15, 2004 (69 FR 

55547), EPA announced that a neutral 

party is seeking a broad group of 

stakeholders willing to work together to 

define and address concerns about the 

way detection and quantitation values 

are calculated and used to support CWA 

programs. Such a process, if feasible, 

could begin as early as December 2004. 

III. Summary of Major Comments 

EPA received many comment letters 

raising issues, concerns or suggestions 

on Technical Support Document for the 

Assessment of Detection and 

Quantitation Approaches. Commenters 

included laboratories, wastewater 

treatment plants, Federal agencies, State 

and county agencies, industrial firms, 

instrument manufacturers, trade 

organizations, and others. A summary of 

public comments and EPA’s responses 

are included in the Response-toComments Document, which is in the 

public docket supporting this notice 

(see Section I.A of this notice). 

A. EPA’s Assessment 

Although several commenters stated 

that EPA clearly put a great deal of effort 

and thought into preparation of the 

initial assessment document and 

commended EPA for its efforts, many 

commenters disagreed with certain 

aspects of the assessment. Some specific 

concerns by commenters are briefly 

discussed in the following paragraphs. 

A more detailed discussion of 

commenters’ concerns and suggestions 

is in the Response-to-Comments 

Document or in the Revised Assessment 

Document.

1. Peer Review 

In August 2002, a draft assessment 

document was peer-reviewed in 

accordance with EPA’s peer review 

policies, which are described in the 

Science Policy Council Handbook (EPA 

100–B–00–001). The draft document 

was reviewed by a panel of four peer 

reviewers, who were selected because of 

their expertise in the fields of statistics 

and/or analytical chemistry and absence 

of conflicts of interest. The peer review 

panel did not include any experts that 

directly or indirectly contributed to the 

development of EPA’s MDL or ML. The 

peer review panel was generally 

supportive of EPA’s approach and 

criteria, and made some suggestions that 

were incorporated into the February 

2003 document. 

2. Evaluation of Data 

Some commenters questioned EPA’s 

analysis of the data used to evaluate 

levels of detection and quantitation. 

They stated that they were unable to 

replicate EPA’s data evaluations and 

expressed confusion regarding certain 

aspects of EPA’s data handling (e.g., 

analytical sequence, data censoring, and 

calculations using their suggested 

quantitation procedure). In response to 

the comments that EPA’s data 

evaluations could not be replicated or 

were confusing, EPA has revised or 

clarified the steps in its data evaluation 

in appendix B of the Revised 

Assessment Document and/or in the 

Response-to-Comments Document. 

Some commenters submitted their 

evaluation of the data used by EPA, 

while others submitted data and 

evaluations from other studies to 

support the premise that their 

evaluations demonstrate that EPA’s 

MDL does not do what it purports to do, 

i.e., provide a one percent (1%) false 

positive rate. In conducting the revised 

assessment, EPA considered this new 

information and agrees that the one 

percent false positive rate appears not to 

be achieved in some circumstances. 

EPA will continue to study this issue 

and notes that other commenters 

submitted a blank correction approach 

that could potentially improve false 

positive rate performance under certain 

conditions, and which we will explore 

in future consultations with 

stakeholders. 

3. Evaluation and Selection of 

Alternative Concepts and Procedures 

Several commenters stated that EPA 

inappropriately evaluated or rejected 

the International Union of Pure and 

Applied Chemistry and the 

International Standards Organization 

(IUPAC/ISO) critical value, and ASTM’s 

Committee D19 on Water Interlaboratory 

Estimate of Detection (IDE) and 

Interlaboratory Estimate of Quantitation 

(IQE). Commenters also criticized EPA’s 

choice of evaluation criteria. EPA agrees 

that some revisions to the evaluation 

criteria may be appropriate and will 

explore this in future discussions with 

stakeholders. 

EPA used the same evaluation criteria 

to evaluate all detection and 

quantitation approaches, including the 

IUPAC/ISO and ASTM IDE/IQE 

approaches. EPA did not reject either 

ASTM’s approach or the concepts 

adopted by IUPAC and ISO. As 

described in the Technical Support 

Document for the Assessment of 

Detection and Quantitation 

Approaches, EPA identified many 

approaches that have been used to 

describe the sensitivity (i.e., the 

detection and quantitation capabilities) 

of analytical methods. EPA had focused 

the 2003 assessment on four sets of 

approaches that were either widely 

referenced or provided detailed 

instructions for use in the laboratory. 

The four approaches were: (1) ASTM’s 

D19 committee IDE and IQE; (2) the 

LOD (limit of detection) and LOQ (limit 

of quantitation) adopted by the 

American Chemical Society; (3) the 

critical value, minimum detectable 

value, and limit of quantitation adopted 

by IUPAC and ISO; and (4) EPA’s MDL 

and ML procedures. For the revised 

assessment, the Agency has expanded 

this evaluation to include three 

additional approaches. These three 

approaches were respectively submitted 

by the Inter-industry Analytical Group, 

U.S. Geological Survey, and the 

American Council of Independent 

Laboratories. The Revised Assessment 

Document also describes a quantitation 

procedure that is being developed by 

EPA’s Office of Ground Water and 

Drinking Water. This quantitation 

procedure is known as the minimum 

reporting level or MRL. The Agency 

anticipates proposing the details of the 

MRL procedure in a rulemaking for 

public comment by mid-2005. 

Several commenters requested that 

EPA continue its assessment by working 

with stakeholders to improve 

procedures for determining the 

detection and quantitation capabilities 

of analytical methods. EPA believes that 

there is benefit in continuing 

discussions and, in section II.E. of this 

notice, describes the beginning of a 

process for a series of discussions about 

these issues with stakeholders, such as 

permitees, permit writers, state 

regulators, nongovernmental 

organizations, and environmental 

groups. 

B. Consensus Principles 

Stakeholders commenting on EPA’s 

2003 assessment of detection and 

quantitation approaches expressed their 

support of a set of ‘‘consensus 

principles’’ submitted by 36 signatories. 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 215 / Monday, November 8, 2004 / Proposed Rules 64707

The ‘‘consensus principles’’ described 

in this letter include the following: 

• The definition of ‘‘quantitation’’

should account for both precision and 

bias. 

• EPA should consider different uses 

of the MDL and ML in the Clean Water 

Act program (as a start-up test for a 

single laboratory, as a figure of merit to 

characterize an analytical method, as a 

permit compliance level, etc.), and 

evaluate the applicability of the MDL 

and ML to these uses. 

• Definitions of and procedures for 

determining quantitation levels should 

take into account their use as regulatory 

compliance levels in NPDES permits, 

and the effects of routine variability 

within a laboratory on the results 

generated by the laboratory. 

EPA notes that some of these 

‘‘consensus principles’’ highlight 

existing aspects of approaches to 

detection and quantitation and provide 

a framework for future discussions with 

stakeholders. A more detailed 

description and additional discussion of 

these ‘‘consensus principles’’ is in 

Chapter 4 of the Revised Assessment 

Document. 

C. Technical Issues 

EPA considered, and is continuing to 

consider, several technical issues 

related to the development of detection 

and quantitation approaches. These 

issues are discussed in chapter 3 of the 

Revised Assessment Document. 

Commenters expressed concern 

regarding EPA’s consideration of several 

of these technical issues, specifically 

how these issues are, or are not, 

addressed by EPA’s MDL and ML. 

Specific concerns or suggestions 

expressed by commenters dealt with 

technical aspects of EPA’s assessment, 

such as treatment of sample blanks, 

instrument data censoring, false positive 

and false negative rates, and calculation 

of MLs. EPA addressed these comments 

in the Revised Assessment Document 

and/or the Response-to-Comments 

Document, and the Agency expects to 

further address these issues in a 

continued consultation with 

stakeholders. 

IV. Next Steps 

It is clear that there is a strong interest 

in improving current procedures and 

uses, but no consensus for a specific 

procedure or procedures has emerged 

among the laboratory, industry, 

regulatory or regulated communities. 

The Agency looks forward to working 

with stakeholders. Based on an analysis 

of comments received on the 2003 

assessment and proposed revisions to 

the MDL procedure, issues for 

consideration in future stakeholder 

consultations may include, but are not 

limited to, development of detection 

and quantitation procedures that: 

• Vary in the nature and extent of 

statistical rigor and laboratory 

performance checks depending on the 

end use of a calculated limit in CWA 

programs; 

• Account for more sources of 

variability, such as the variability 

between and within laboratories; 

• Require more then seven samples 

and collect samples over a long period 

of time; and 

• Use routine blank samples collected 

over long periods of time to account for 

background signals and temporal 

variability. 

EPA has engaged a neutral third party 

to ask stakeholders for suggestions for 

additional issues, and about their 

interest in working with EPA to revise 

existing procedures and/or adopt one or 

more alternative procedures.

Dated: November 1, 2004. 

Benjamin H. Grumbles, 

Acting Assistant Administrator for Water.

[FR Doc. 04–24824 Filed 11–5–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 136

[OW–2003–0002; FRL–7834–9] 

RIN 2040–AD53

Guidelines Establishing Test 

Procedures for the Analysis of 

Pollutants; Procedures for Detection 

and Quantitation

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule; withdrawal.

SUMMARY: On March 12, 2003, EPA 

published a document in the Federal 

Register that proposed revisions to the 

regulations for the definition and 

procedure for EPA’s method detection 

limit (MDL). The document also 

proposed to add to these regulations a 

definition of minimum level of 

quantitation (ML) and a procedure for 

developing it. The proposed rule 

requested comment on the revisions and 

additions. The MDL and ML are used to 

characterize the capabilities of 

analytical test procedures applied under 

the Clean Water Act (CWA). The 

proposed revisions were based on EPA’s 

2003 assessment of approaches to 

determining detection and quantitation 

capabilities of analytical methods. 

Today’s document withdraws the 

proposed revisions. The proposed 

revisions were disfavored by the vast 

majority of commenters on the March 

2003 proposed rule, and the Agency has 

determined that these proposed 

revisions do not represent the most 

effective way to address the public’s and 

EPA’s concerns regarding approaches to, 

and use of, detection and quantitation 

values. The Agency believes, 

preliminarily, that new approaches 

submitted in comments to the proposed 

rule might better address the issues EPA 

sought to address in its proposed 

revisions and that these new approaches 

warrant further consideration and 

refinement. Hence, EPA plans to work 

with stakeholders to evaluate one or 

more approaches to detection and 

quantitation that will satisfy the needs 

of programs, regulations, and initiatives 

at the Federal level for use of detection 

and quantitation procedures, and to 

revise its existing procedures, as 

appropriate.

DATES: For judicial review purposes, 

this action is considered issued as of 

November 8, 2004. Under section 

509(b)(1) of the Clean Water Act, 

judicial review of the Administrator’s 

action regarding guidelines establishing 

test procedures for analysis of pollutants 

can only be had by filing a petition for 

review in the United States Court of 

Appeals within 120 days after the 

decision is considered issued for 

purposes of judicial review. Under 40 

CFR 23.12, if within ten days of the 

issuance date of this action for purposes 

of judicial review EPA’s General 

Counsel receives two or more petitions 

filed in two or more United States 

Courts of Appeals, the General Counsel 

will notify the United States Judicial 

Panel of Multidistrict Litigation of all 

petitions received within the ten day 

period.

ADDRESSES: The docket for today’s 

action is available for public inspection 

under Docket ID No. OW–2003–0002 at 

the Water Docket in the EPA Docket 

Center, (EPA/DC) EPA West, Room 

B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., 

Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

William A. Telliard; Engineering and 

Analysis Division (4303T); Office of 

Science and Technology; Office of 

Water; U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency; Ariel Rios Building; 1200 

Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20460, or call (202) 

566–1061 or E-mail at 

telliard.william@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: