31616 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 3, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this action and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, 

petitions for judicial review of this 

action must be filed in the United States 

Court of Appeals for the appropriate 

circuit by August 4, 2008. Filing a 

petition for reconsideration by the 

Administrator of this final rule does not 

affect the finality of this action for the 

purposes of judicial review nor does it 

extend the time within which a petition 

for judicial review may be filed, and 

shall not postpone the effectiveness of 

such rule or action. This action may not 

be challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements. (See section 

307(b)(2).) 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Lead. 

Dated: May 12, 2008. 

Bharat Mathur, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

■ For the reasons stated in the preamble, 

part 52, chapter I, of title 40 of the Code 

of Federal Regulations is amended as 

follows: 

PART 52—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

Subpart Y—Minnesota 

■ 2. In § 52.1220 the table in paragraph 

(e) is amended by adding an entry for 

‘‘Lead Maintenance Plan’’ to read as 

follows: 

§ 52.1220 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

EPA-APPROVED MINNESOTA NONREGULATORY PROVISIONS

Name of nonregulatory 

SIP provision Applicable geographic nonattainment area State submittal date/ effective date EPA approved date Comments 

* * * * * * * 

Lead Maintenance 

Plan.

Dakota County ............................................... 11/18/2002 and 11/19/ 

2007.

8/4/2008, [Insert page 

number where the 

document begins].

Maintenance plan update. 

* * * * * * * 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. E8–12240 Filed 6–2–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 141 

[EPA–HQ–OW–2006–0958; FRL–8573–7] 

Expedited Approval of Alternative Test 

Procedures for the Analysis of 

Contaminants Under the Safe Drinking 

Water Act; Analysis and Sampling 

Procedures 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This action announces the 

Environmental Protection Agency’s 

(EPA’s) approval of alternative testing 

methods for use in measuring the levels 

of contaminants in drinking water and 

determining compliance with national 

primary drinking water regulations. The 

Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) 

authorizes EPA to approve the use of 

alternative testing methods through 

publication in the Federal Register. EPA 

is using this streamlined authority to 

make 99 additional methods available 

for analyzing drinking water samples 

required by regulation. This expedited 

approach provides public water 

systems, laboratories, and primary 

agencies with more timely access to new 

measurement techniques and greater 

flexibility in the selection of analytical 

methods, thereby reducing monitoring 

costs while maintaining public health 

protection. 

DATES: This action is effective June 3, 

2008. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Patricia Snyder Fair, Technical Support 

Center, Office of Ground Water and 

Drinking Water (MS 140), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 26 

West Martin Luther King Drive, 

Cincinnati, OH 45268; telephone 

number: (513) 569–7937; e-mail address: 

fair.pat@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information 

A. Does This Action Apply to Me? 

Public water systems are the regulated 

entities required to measure 

contaminants in drinking water 

samples. In addition, EPA Regions as 

well as States and Tribal governments 

with authority to administer the 

regulatory program for public water 

systems under SDWA may also measure 

contaminants in water samples. When 

EPA sets a monitoring requirement in its 

national primary drinking water 

regulations for a given contaminant, the 

Agency also establishes in the 

regulations standardized test procedures 

for analysis of the contaminant. This 

action makes alternative testing 

methods available for particular 

drinking water contaminants beyond the 

testing methods currently established in 

the regulations. Starting today, public 

water systems required to test water 

samples have a choice of using either a 

test procedure already established in the 

existing regulations or an alternative test 

procedure that has been approved in 

this action (or that is approved in 

similar future actions). Categories and 


ebenthall on PRODPC60 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 3, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 31617 

entities that may ultimately be affected 

by this action include: 

Category Examples of potentially regulated entities NAICS1

State, Local, & Tribal Governments.States, local and tribal 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.

924110 

Industry ...................................... Private operators of community and non-transient non-community water systems required to 

monitor.

221310 

Municipalities .............................. Municipal operators of community and non-transient non-community water systems required to 

monitor.

924110 

1 North American Industry Classification System. 

This table is not intended to be 

exhaustive, but rather provides a guide 

for readers regarding entities likely to be 

affected by this action. This table lists 

the types of entities that EPA is now 

aware could potentially be affected by 

this action. Other types of entities not 

listed in the table could also be 

impacted. To determine whether your 

facility is affected by this action, you 

should carefully examine the 

applicability language at 40 CFR 141.2 

(definition of public water system). 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. 

B. How Can I Get Copies of This 

Document and Other Related 

Information? 

1. Docket. EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–HQ–OW–2006–0958. Publicly 

available docket materials are available 

either electronically through http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Water Docket in the EPA Docket 

Center, (EPA/DC) EPA West, Room 

3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., 

Washington, DC. Copyrighted materials 

are available only in hard copy. The 

EPA Docket Center Public Reading 

Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 

p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding 

legal holidays. The telephone number 

for the Public Reading Room is (202) 

566–1744, and the telephone number for 

the Water Docket is (202) 566–2426. 

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/. 

Abbreviations and Acronyms Used in 

This Action 

APHA: American Public Health Association 

ASDWA: Association of State Drinking Water 

Administrators 

ATP: Alternate Test Procedure 

AVICP-AES: Axially Viewed Inductively 

Coupled Plasma-Atomic Emission 

Spectrometry 

CFR: Code of Federal Regulations 

EPA: Environmental Protection Agency 

FEM: Forum on Environmental 

Measurements 

GWR: Ground Water Rule 

HPLC: High-Performance Liquid 

Chromatography 

ITS: Industrial Test Systems, Inc. 

LT2ESWTR: Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface 

Water Treatment Rule 

NEMI: National Environmental Method Index 

SDWA: Safe Drinking Water Act 

VCSB: Voluntary Consensus Standard Body 

Table of Contents 

I. General Information 

A. Does This Action Apply to Me? 

B. How Can I Get Copies Of This Document 

and Other Related Information? 

II. Background 

A. What Is the Purpose of This Action? 

B. What is the Basis for This Action? 

C. Solicited Comments 

D. Additional Comments 

III. Summary of Approvals 

A. Methods from Voluntary Consensus 

Standard Bodies (VCSB) 

B. Methods developed by EPA 

C. Methods developed by Vendors 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

V. References 

II. Background 

A. What Is the Purpose of This Action? 

In this action, EPA is approving 99 

analytical methods for determining 

contaminant concentrations in samples 

collected under SDWA. Regulated 

parties who are required to sample and 

monitor may do so by using either the 

testing methods already established in 

existing regulations or the alternative 

testing methods being approved in this 

action. The new methods are listed in 

Appendix A to Subpart C in 40 CFR 141 

and on EPA’s drinking water methods 

Web site at http://www.epa.gov/ 

safewater/methods/expedited.html. A 

hard copy of the list of methods is also 

available by calling the Safe Drinking 

Water Hotline at (800) 426–4791. 

B. What Is the Basis for This Action? 

When EPA determines that an 

alternative analytical method is 

‘‘equally effective’’ (i.e., as effective as a 

method that has already been 

promulgated in the regulations), SDWA 

allows EPA to approve the use of the 

alternative method through publication 

in the Federal Register. See section 

1401(1) of SDWA. EPA is using this 

streamlined approval authority today to 

make 99 additional methods available 

for determining contaminant 

concentrations in samples collected 

under SDWA. EPA has determined that, 

for each contaminant or group of 

contaminants listed below, the 

additional testing methods being 

approved in this action are equally as 

effective as one or more of the testing 

methods already established in the 

regulations for those contaminants. 

Section 1401(1) states that the newly 

approved methods ‘‘shall be treated as 

an alternative for public water systems 

to the quality control and testing 

procedures listed in the regulation.’’

Accordingly, this action makes these 

additional (and optional) 99 analytical 

methods legally available for meeting 

monitoring requirements. 

This action does not add regulatory 

language, but does, for informational 

purposes, add an appendix to the 

regulations at 40 CFR part 141 that lists 

the newly approved methods. 

Accordingly, while this action is not a 

rule, it is adding CFR text and therefore 

is being published in the ‘‘Final Rules’’

section of this Federal Register. 

EPA described this expedited 

methods approval process in an April 

10, 2007, Federal Register notice (72 FR 

17902) (USEPA 2007a) and announced 

its intent to begin using the process. 

EPA also solicited public comments on 

some of the implementation aspects of 

the process. EPA received comments 

from seven States, two water systems, 

the Association of Public Health 

Laboratories, the Association of State 

Drinking Water Administrators 

(ASDWA), American Water Works 

Association, a commercial vendor, a 

manufacturing company, and an 

anonymous person. The comments were 

very supportive of the new approval 

process. A summary of the most 

significant public comments is 


ebenthall on PRODPC60 with RULES
31618 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 3, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

presented in Section II.C and D. The 

public docket for this action includes 

the Agency’s complete response to 

comments (USEPA, 2008). 

C. Solicited Comments 

1. Location of the comprehensive list 

of methods approved under the 

expedited process. In the April 10, 2007, 

Federal Register notice (72 FR 17902) 

(USEPA 2007a), EPA suggested three 

potential places for listing all of the 

alternative methods that EPA has 

approved using this expedited process. 

Public comments supported the use of 

all three approaches (i.e., publishing as 

an appendix in the Code of Federal 

Regulations (CFR), posting on the EPA 

Web site, and making available from a 

designated Agency contact). The 

National Environmental Method Index 

(NEMI) was mentioned as an additional 

mechanism for making the list available. 

EPA is providing the list in all of the 

suggested locations. First, this action 

adds Appendix A to Subpart C of Part 

141 (titled ‘‘Alternative Testing Methods 

Approved for Analyses Under the Safe 

Drinking Water Act’’) to the CFR. The 

appendix provides the States with a 

reference they can cite in their 

regulations, as was requested by 

ASDWA and others. EPA intends to 

update the appendix each time 

additional methods are approved using 

the expedited process. 

The EPA drinking water methods Web 

site contains a new page that focuses on 

the expedited methods approval process 

http://www.epa.gov/safewater/methods/ 

expedited.html. The page contains a 

link that allows users to download a 

copy of the list of methods approved 

using this process. The revision date 

and reference to the CFR citation are 

included on the list. Hard copies of the 

list are also available from the Safe 

Drinking Water Hotline. 

EPA will continue to provide the 

managers of NEMI with the information 

needed to incorporate newly approved 

methods into the NEMI database. EPA 

methods are available for download 

from the NEMI Web site (http:// 

www.nemi.gov) and information is 

provided on the sources of any methods 

that must be purchased. 

2. Type of information included with 

expedited approval decisions published 

in the Federal Register. Almost 

everyone who commented requested 

that EPA provide information beyond a 

listing of methods and the regulations to 

which the methods apply. A summary 

of the method, the method citation, and 

the source for obtaining the method 

were of greatest interest. EPA is 

including the method citation and 

source in the footnote section of the 

table that lists methods approved under 

the expedited process. This format 

ensures that the information is always 

available with the list. EPA plans to 

provide a summary of each new method 

as part of the discussion in the Federal 

Register that approves the method, 

unless the method is an updated version 

of a previously approved method (e.g., 

published in an earlier edition of 

Standard Methods for the Analysis of 

Water and Wastewater). In the latter 

case, the original method will have 

already been described. The approvals 

are effective on the date of publication 

in the Federal Register. 

EPA intends to provide additional 

information concerning the method 

approval as part of the supporting 

material in the docket for each action 

that approves additional, alternative 

methods using the expedited process. A 

copy of each method being approved 

will be included in the docket for the 

action. Additional information will 

generally include: 

• The Alternative Test Procedures 

(ATP) summary report for methods 

evaluated under the ATP process; 

• EPA method development report for 

EPA methods (summary of experiments 

conducted during method 

development); 

• A description of changes to the 

original method for modified methods; 

and 

• Rationale for approval including: 

• Summary of the performance 

characteristics that relate to approval; 

• Detection limits and/or minimum 

reporting levels (MRLs) when they are a 

regulatory requirement; and 

• Benefits provided by the new 

method. 

In some cases, EPA may have already 

promulgated more than one analytical 

method for a particular contaminant. In 

considering a new method for approval, 

EPA may find that the new method has 

performance characteristics that fall 

within the range of more than one of the 

existing promulgated methods. In those 

cases, EPA may approve the new 

method under the expedited process by 

comparing its effectiveness to the group 

of existing promulgated methods rather 

than by reference to a single existing 

method. 

3. Amending regulatory text to 

describe where the list of methods 

approved using the expedited process is 

found. Most commenters indicated it 

would be helpful if the methods tables 

in the regulations include a reference to 

the list of additional, alternative 

methods approved under the expedited 

process. The commenters provided 

mixed reactions to adding the same 

information at 40 CFR 141.27. EPA is 

considering adding the requested 

references to the CFR text as part of a 

future regulatory action. 

Some commenters wanted EPA to 

publish a comprehensive list of all 

approved drinking water methods. A 

few suggested that EPA incorporate the 

alternative methods approved under the 

expedited method approval process into 

the regulations when the methods tables 

are updated. 

EPA understands the desire to have 

all methods listed together. As a result, 

EPA is revising the drinking water 

methods Web site (http://www.epa.gov/ 

safewater/methods/methods.html) to 

address this request. The user will be 

able to download comprehensive lists 

organized by regulation/monitoring 

requirement (e.g., Ground Water Rule, 

Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring 

Rule, Organic Contaminant Monitoring, 

etc.). Each list will include the drinking 

water methods authorized in the 

regulation and the alternative methods 

approved via the expedited process. The 

revision date and CFR citations will be 

included on each list. EPA believes that 

making the comprehensive lists 

available on the Internet provides more 

timely access to the information in the 

requested format than amending the 

methods tables in the regulations would 

provide. 

4. Format of the table that lists 

methods approved using the expedited 

approval process. Most commenters 

indicated the table format presented in 

the April 10, 2007, Federal Register 

notice (72 FR 17902) (USEPA 2007a) is 

acceptable. One commenter suggested 

that the contaminants be listed 

alphabetically in the first column of the 

table in order to be consistent with the 

methods tables in the regulation, while 

also providing a listing of all methods 

for a single contaminant together. The 

commenter also requested that the table 

be completely updated each time new 

approvals are made instead of 

appending new approvals to the end of 

the table. 

EPA is incorporating several of the 

suggestions into the final table format. 

The table is organized by contaminant 

in order to improve stakeholder access 

to the information. The table is divided 

into sections so that the format mimics 

the methods tables in 40 CFR 141 and 

143. In future expedited method 

approval actions, EPA will also 

incorporate new methods into the table 

rather than appending them onto the 

end in order to maintain the format. 

Appendix A to Subpart C of Part 141 

contains the same type of information as 

was presented in the April 10, 2007, 

notice. Additional information 

regarding the newly approved, 


ebenthall on PRODPC60 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 3, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 31619 

alternative methods is included in the 

Federal Register preamble and in the 

docket as part of the background 

information concerning the approvals. 

In the future, if EPA withdraws 

approval for a method that was 

approved via the expedited process, the 

Agency intends to update the table at 

Appendix A to Subpart C of Part 141 to 

reflect both the approval and 

withdrawal dates for the method in 

question. 

5. State implementation of methods 

approved under the expedited process. 

States’ approaches to allowing use of 

methods approved under the expedited 

process will vary. Some States will need 

to incorporate the expedited process 

into their regulations while other States 

may allow the use of the methods as 

soon as laboratories become certified to 

use them. Some State certification 

programs are able to adopt methods as 

soon as EPA approves them. This 

variability in implementation 

approaches means some States will be 

able to adopt methods approved under 

the expedited process more quickly than 

other States. Although this variability 

was mentioned in the comments, this 

situation is not unique to methods 

approved using the expedited process; it 

is also a factor for methods approved via 

rulemaking. 

One approach that EPA is using to 

assist States is to add an appendix in the 

CFR that lists all alternative methods 

approved using the expedited process. 

States can cite this appendix (Appendix 

A to Subpart C in 40 CFR 141) when 

they update their regulations. 

EPA is also making a copy of the 

appendix available on a Web page 

http://www.epa.gov/safewater/methods/ 

expedited.html. Some States may be 

able to cite the URL as a source for 

alternative methods approved under the 

expedited process. 

Some States requested early access to 

information about methods that are 

under consideration for approval in 

order to provide more time to adopt 

EPA-approved methods. EPA will 

consider this request as it implements 

the expedited process. Early sharing of 

information with States would give 

them additional time to prepare for 

adopting new analytical methods after 

they are published in the Federal 

Register. 

State adoption of alternative methods 

approved under the expedited process is 

optional. States may choose to allow 

only a more limited set of methods to 

be used for compliance. States that 

choose to allow the alternative methods 

approved through this expedited 

process will be consistent with the 

requirement that States must have 

programs at least as stringent as the 

Federal drinking water program in order 

to have primary enforcement 

responsibility for the drinking water 

program. 

When the regulation requires that the 

laboratory be certified to perform 

analyses of samples for a specific 

contaminant, then this requirement 

extends to the use of methods approved 

through the expedited process. This 

means the States that choose to allow 

these alternative methods will need to 

develop certification criteria, train 

auditors, and evaluate laboratory 

capabilities for using the newly 

approved methods. EPA expects that 

State certification programs will 

incorporate methods approved using the 

expedited process into their programs in 

the same manner as methods that are 

approved using rulemaking. If the 

method is an updated version or a slight 

modification of a previously approved 

method, then an abbreviated 

certification process may be applicable. 

The approval of methods, whether 

under rulemaking or the expedited 

approach, presents similar challenges to 

the Agency and the States. The approval 

decisions must be conveyed to the 

appropriate persons within the States. 

EPA plans to disseminate information 

concerning future method approvals 

using several approaches. A copy of the 

Federal Register action will be sent to 

the State drinking water certification 

and program offices. The Safe Drinking 

Water Hotline will have information 

concerning the approvals and 

information will be posted on EPA’s 

drinking water methods Web page. 

Withdrawal of method approval is a 

rare event under the regulatory process 

and EPA expects its occurrence under 

the expedited process will also be very 

limited. Methods will generally be 

withdrawn using the same process as 

was used for their approval. Methods 

approved via the expedited process will 

generally be withdrawn using the 

expedited process; methods approved 

under rulemaking will be withdrawn 

using rulemaking. Soliciting public 

comment through a rule proposal and 

issuing a final rule after taking those 

comments into consideration provides 

the States with time to withdraw the 

methods from their programs. In order 

to provide a comparable timeframe 

under the expedited process, EPA plans 

to consult with the States prior to 

establishing effective dates for 

withdrawal of methods under the 

expedited process. It is important that 

the effective date provide time for the 

States to implement withdrawal, so that 

States will not be in a position of 

allowing methods that were 

disapproved by EPA. The appendix in 

the CFR will reflect both the approval 

and withdrawal dates for any method 

that is withdrawn using the expedited 

process. Citing both dates will eliminate 

any confusion as to when/whether a 

method approval is in effect. 

D. Additional Comments 

The April 10, 2007, Federal Register 

notice solicited comments on the 

process used by EPA to announce the 

approval of alternative methods to the 

methods listed in regulation. EPA also 

received comments that are indirectly 

related to the expedited method 

approval process. Brief discussions of 

the major topics are presented below. 

All of the comments and the Agency’s 

response to comments (USEPA 2008) 

are available in the docket for this 

action. 

1. EPA evaluation process. The 

expedited approval process allows EPA 

to approve methods more quickly and 

commenters support more timely 

approval of methods. However, 

shortening the approval process raised 

the question about whether EPA is 

changing the way that it evaluates 

methods prior to issuing approval 

decisions. Some commenters asked that 

EPA maintain its high standards for 

evaluating methods. Other commenters 

provided recommendations for changing 

the review process in order to both 

streamline and strengthen it. 

The evaluation process is separate 

from the expedited approval process. 

EPA is open to improving our 

evaluation process and to making the 

process as transparent as possible. EPA 

appreciates the suggestions and will 

consider them with any future 

evaluation of potential improvements to 

the ATP program. EPA notes that some 

of the requested changes are already 

included in our current evaluation 

protocol. For example, minor 

modifications to existing methods 

generally do not require extensive data 

submissions in order to demonstrate 

acceptable method performance. 

2. Prioritization of method 

evaluations. EPA recognizes that the 

ability to approve methods more quickly 

may result in an increase in the number 

of methods that are submitted to EPA 

for evaluation. It was suggested that 

EPA prioritize method reviews so that 

methods that provide the greatest 

benefit are evaluated first. EPA agrees 

with this approach and intends to give 

new methods that provide significant 

advantages over currently approved 

methods higher priority in the review 

process. Improvements may be in areas 

such as waste minimization, reduced 

analysis time, cost reduction, increased 


ebenthall on PRODPC60 with RULES
31620 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 3, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

method flexibility, introduction of an 

innovative technology, etc. 

Implementation of this approach means 

that new methods will not necessarily 

be reviewed/approved in the order in 

which they are submitted to the Agency. 

3. Public comment as part of the 

method approval process. EPA 

understands the desire for the public to 

have an opportunity to comment on 

methods approved under the expedited 

approval process. However, introducing 

a comment period on these alternative 

methods is not consistent with the 

expedited process intended by 

Congress; as a result, EPA does not 

generally plan to solicit comment on 

these alternative method approval 

decisions. 

The purpose of this alternative 

procedure is to identify and allow the 

use of methods that are equally as 

effective as methods already approved 

in prior regulations. As a result, the 

benchmark for these alternatives has 

already been provided through noticeand-comment rulemaking on the 

original method(s). In addition, this 

expedited approval process simply 

provides a broader set of compliance 

opportunities for water systems. Finally, 

EPA expects to use the expedited 

process only for those alternative 

methods that are clearly equally 

effective relative to methods already 

approved through regulation and that 

have performance that has been fully 

evaluated and well documented, as 

discussed below. 

EPA methods undergo peer review 

prior to publication. The experimental 

results obtained during method 

development are usually summarized in 

a report that is included in the docket 

when the method is approved. The EPA 

method development research is often 

published in a peer reviewed journal. In 

addition, new chemical and 

radiochemical methods developed by 

EPA are evaluated according to Agency 

guidance adopted by the EPA Forum on 

Environmental Measurements (FEM). 

(USEPA 2005, 2006a) The method 

validation principles are based on 

current, international approaches and 

guidelines for intralaboratory (single 

laboratory) and interlaboratory (multiple 

laboratory) method validation studies. 

The Agency is developing similar 

guidance for validation of 

microbiological methods and that 

guidance will be adopted when it 

becomes available. 

EPA plans to extend the use of the 

FEM guidance to methods that are 

reviewed under the ATP program. EPA 

encourages method developers to 

consult with the ATP coordinator 

during the development of their ATP 

study plans so that the experimental 

designs incorporate the appropriate 

tests. EPA intends to work with method 

developers during this consultation 

process to be sure that their ATP study 

plans address the principles outlined in 

the validation guidance. In addition, 

EPA plans to solicit external scientific 

review for ATP methods that involve 

new technology. The docket will 

contain the ATP study summary report 

and the external scientific review 

comments in order to document the 

basis for EPA’s approval decision. If the 

method developer submits confidential 

business information as part of the ATP 

review process, the information will not 

be included in the docket. 

Generally-accepted validation 

principles are usually followed for 

methods that are developed by 

Voluntary Consensus Standard Bodies 

(VCSBs), such as Standard Methods and 

ASTM, International. When a new 

method is adopted by a VCSB, EPA 

reviews the data generated during 

development and validation to verify 

the method is suitable for analyzing 

drinking water samples. EPA plans to 

use the expedited method approval 

process for methods that perform as 

well as the regulatory methods. The 

supporting data that EPA uses to make 

the approval determination will be 

placed in the docket so that the 

information is publically available. 

In unique cases in which EPA 

believes public comment is warranted 

prior to approval, EPA may solicit 

comment through a notice and then 

issue its decision on approving the 

alternative method after taking the 

comments into consideration. 

4. Methods recommended for 

approval. In the April 10, 2007, Federal 

Register notice (72 FR 17902) (USEPA 

2007a), EPA included two examples of 

methods that were being considered for 

approval using the expedited approval 

process. Commenters supported the 

approval of these methods (i.e., EPA 

Method 200.5 and Standard Method 

6610–04). They also recommended 

additional methods for consideration. 

EPA has enough information to make 

approval determinations for many of the 

methods that were listed in the public 

comments. In those cases, EPA is 

approving them as part of this action. 

Additional approval decisions are 

pending submission of data that will 

allow EPA to further compare the new 

methods’ performance to that obtained 

by the regulatory methods. 

III. Summary of Approvals 

EPA is approving 99 methods, 85 of 

which are identical to previously 

approved methods from earlier 

publications and 14 of which represent 

new or modified methods. EPA notes 

that the approval for all of these 

methods, including the 85 ‘‘identical’’

methods previously required a noticeand-comment rulemaking action. 

A. Methods From Voluntary Consensus 

Standard Bodies (VCSB) 

1. Standard Methods. EPA approved 

73 methods in ‘‘Standard Methods 

Online’’ as part of a ‘‘Methods Update 

Rule’’ issued on March 12, 2007 (72 FR 

11200) (USEPA 2007b). Identical 

versions of these methods are also 

published in the 21st edition of 

Standard Methods for the Analysis of 

Water and Wastewater (Walker and 

Wendelken 2007). EPA recognizes that 

some States and laboratories prefer the 

hardcopy version to the electronic 

version that was previously approved. 

Since the 21st edition versions of these 

methods are equally effective relative to 

the online versions, EPA is approving 

the 73 methods from the 21st edition in 

this action. The 21st edition (APHA 

2006) can be purchased from American 

Public Health Association (APHA), 800 

I Street, NW., Washington, DC 20001–

3710. 

Six methods were published in 

‘‘Standard Methods Online’’ too late to 

be included in the March 12, 2007, 

Methods Update Rule. These methods 

are also included in the 21st edition of 

Standard Methods for the Analysis of 

Water and Wastewater (APHA 2006). 

Four of the methods are unchanged and 

the other two updated methods reflect 

minor editorial changes to the versions 

published in the 20th edition of 

Standard Methods which are approved 

at 40 CFR 141.23 and 143.4 (Fair 2008a). 

EPA is approving the following methods 

because they are equally effective 

relative to the currently approved 

versions: 

SM (21st ed) 

(APHA 2006) Standard methods online Contaminant Regulation 

4500–P E ......................... 4500–P E–99 (APHA 1999) .................................... Orthophosphate ...................... 40 CFR 141.23(k)(1). 

4500–P F ......................... 4500–P F–99 (APHA 1999) .................................... Orthophosphate ...................... 40 CFR 141.23(k)(1). 


ebenthall on PRODPC60 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 3, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 31621 

SM (21st ed) 

(APHA 2006) Standard methods online Contaminant Regulation 

4500–SO4

¥2 C ................ 4500–SO4¥2 C–97 (APHA 1997a) ......................... Sulfate .................................... 40 CFR 143.4(b). 

4500–SO4

¥2 D ................ 4500–SO4¥2 D–97 (APHA 1997a) ......................... Sulfate .................................... 40 CFR 143.4(b). 

4500–SO4

¥2 E ................ 4500–SO4¥2 E–97 (APHA 1997a) ......................... Sulfate .................................... 40 CFR 143.4(b). 

4500–SO4

¥2 F ................. 4500–SO4¥2 F–97 (APHA 1997a) .......................... Sulfate .................................... 40 CFR 143.4(b). 

The 21st edition can be obtained from 

APHA, 800 I Street, NW., Washington, 

DC 20001–3710 and the Online methods 

can be purchased at http:// 

www.standardmethods.org. 

The November 8, 2006, Ground Water 

Rule (GWR) (71 FR 65653) (USEPA 

2006b) approved Colilert and Colisure 

media (Standard Method 9223 B, 20th 

Edition) for determining the presence of 

E. coli. Those two E. coli media, along 

with a third medium, Colilert-18 (all 

part of SM 9223B), were listed in Table 

IV–1 of the preamble as being approved 

in the rule. However, due to a 

publication oversight, the Colilert-18 

methodology was omitted in the table at 

40 CFR 141.402(c)(2). EPA is using this 

expedited approval action to correct the 

inconsistency between the preamble 

and rule language and clarify the status 

of Colilert-18 as an approved 

methodology. Colilert-18, as described 

in Standard Method 9223 B and 

published in the 20th edition of 

Standard Methods for the Analysis of 

Water and Wastewater (APHA 1998), is 

equally as effective as the previously 

promulgated Colilert and Colisure 

media in Standard Method 9223 B (page 

65593 of the GWR preamble, USEPA 

2006c) and is therefore approved in this 

action. Accordingly, EPA is adding the 

Colilert-18 methodology to the list of 

approved methods in Appendix A to 

Subpart C of Part 141. 

Identical versions of Standard Method 

9223 B are published in the 20th and 

21st editions of Standard Methods for 

the Analysis of Water and Wastewater 

and in ‘‘Standard Methods Online’’ (Fair 

2008a). Because the methods from all 

three sources are equally effective, EPA 

is approving the 21st edition and the 

1997 online version of Method 9223 B 

for the Colilert, Colisure, and Colilert-18 

methodologies. These newer versions 

are equally effective relative to the 

methods cited at 40 CFR 141.402(c)(2). 

The 21st edition of Standard Methods 

(APHA 2006) can be obtained from 

APHA, 800 I Street, NW., Washington, 

DC 20001–3710 and Standard Method 

9223 B–97 (APHA 1997b) can be 

purchased at http:// 

www.standardmethods.org. 

EPA approved Standard Method 9230 

B in the 20th edition of Standard 

Methods for the Analysis of Water and 

Wastewater as one of the methods for 

determining Enterococci under the GWR 

(71 FR 65653) (USEPA 2006b). The 

online version of this method (9230 B–

04) is identical to the version published 

in the 20th edition (Fair 2008a). EPA is 

approving Standard Method 9230 B–04 

(APHA 2004b) for Enterococci 

detection, because it is equally effective 

relative to the methods cited at 

141.402(c)(2). The online method can be 

purchased at http:// 

www.standardmethods.org. 

The January 5, 2006, Long Term 2 

Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule 

(LT2ESWTR) (71 FR 654) (USEPA 

2006c) established source water 

monitoring requirements for E. coli. It 

approved the same methods for E. coli 

that are approved for ambient water 

monitoring under 40 CFR 136.3. The 

preamble in the LT2ESWTR proposal 

(68 FR 47640, August 11, 2003) (USEPA 

2003a) listed the E. coli methods in the 

same format as they were presented in 

the proposed Guidelines Establishing 

Test Procedures for the Analysis of 

Pollutants; Analytical Methods for 

Biological Pollutants in Ambient Water 

(66 FR 45811, August 30, 2001) (USEPA 

2001a). Two membrane filter methods 

(Standard Methods 9222 B and 9222 D) 

used in conjunction with Standard 

Method 9222 G to enumerate E. coli 

were listed in both proposals. When the 

final Guidelines Establishing Test 

Procedures for the Analysis of 

Pollutants; Analytical Methods for 

Biological Pollutants in Ambient Water 

(68 FR 43272, July 21, 2003) (USEPA 

2003b) was published, the methods 

table at 40 CFR 136.3 was published in 

a different format from the proposal. 

Standard Method 9222 D/9222 G was 

listed as two step membrane filtration in 

the table of approved methods and 

footnote 19 in the table indicated other 

membrane filter procedures could be 

used prior to Standard Method 9222 G. 

Since Standard Method 9222 D is not 

explicitly listed in the final rule, there 

is some confusion as to whether 

Standard Method 9222 D is acceptable 

for the membrane filtration step. The 

July 21, 2003, preamble (USEPA 2003b) 

stated that the final rule was 

promulgating the test methods 

described in the proposed rule, and 

there was no reason presented to 

exclude Standard Method 9222 D 

published in the 20th edition of 

Standard Methods for the Analysis of 

Water and Wastewater (APHA 1998) as 

an approved method. Therefore, EPA is 

using this expedited method approval 

process to clarify that Standard Method 

9222 D in combination with 9222 G is 

approved for enumerating E. coli under 

the LT2ESWTR. Standard Method 9222 

D/9222 G is equally as effective as other 

promulgated methods for enumerating 

E. coli (USEPA 2001a). Accordingly, 

EPA is adding Standard Method 9222 D/ 

9222 G published in the 20th edition of 

Standard Methods for the Analysis of 

Water and Wastewater (APHA 1998) to 

the list of approved methods in 

Appendix A to Subpart C of Part 141. 

The April 10, 2007, Federal Register 

notice (72 FR 17902) (USEPA 2007a) 

listed Standard Method 6610–04 (APHA 

2004a) as a potential candidate for 

approval under the expedited approval 

process. This new Standard Method 

uses high-performance liquid 

chromatography (HPLC) with postcolumn derivatization and fluorescence 

detection to determine carbamate 

pesticide concentrations in drinking 

water. After the addition of a surrogate 

compound and filtration, water samples 

are injected directly onto an HPLC and 

separated by use of a gradient and a C18

column. The 11 carbamate pesticides 

that are analyzed by this method are 

generally classified as phenyl and oxime 

carbamates and have an N-methyl group 

in common. After chromatographic 

separation, the compounds are 

hydrolyzed with 0.05N sodium 

hydroxide at 80 to 95 °C, yielding a 

methyl amine which is then reacted 

with o-phthalaldehyde and 2- 

mercaptoethanol to form a highly 

fluorescent isoindole that is detected 

instrumentally. The method is 

applicable to carbofuran and oxamyl, 

which are regulated in drinking water. 

The method uses the same chemistry 

and quality control criteria as EPA 

Method 531.2 (USEPA 2001b), which is 

approved for analyzing compliance 

samples for carbofuran and oxamyl (40 

CFR 141.24(e)(1)). EPA is approving 

Standard Method 6610–04 (APHA 

2004a) for the analysis of compliance 

samples for carbofuran and oxamyl, 

because it is equally effective relative to 

EPA Method 531.2 (Fair 2008a). EPA is 

also approving the identical version of 

Standard Method 6610 that is published 


ebenthall on PRODPC60 with RULES
31622 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 3, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

in the 21st edition of Standard Methods 

for the Analysis of Water and 

Wastewater (APHA 2006). EPA 

recognizes that this method may be used 

to determine concentrations of 

additional compounds for which there 

are no Federal monitoring requirements. 

2. ASTM International. EPA 

compared new versions of six ASTM 

methods to the most recent versions of 

those methods cited in 40 CFR 141 and 

143. The new versions included changes 

such as: 

• More detailed quality control 

sections (D 512–04 B and D 1179–04 B); 

• Additional choices in equipment or 

reagents (D 859–05, D 1179–04 B, and 

D 2036–06 A and B); 

• More stringent reagent water 

specifications (D 512–04 B and D 859–

05); 

• Additional instructions for 

handling interferences (D 2036–06 A 

and B); 

• Modifications to allow analysis of 

additional types of samples (D 5673–

05); and 

• Editorial changes in all methods 

(changes in references, reorganization, 

corrections of errors). 

Data generated using the new 

methods are comparable to data 

obtained using the previous versions 

because the chemistry and samplehandling protocols are unchanged. The 

new versions are equally effective 

relative to the version cited in 

regulation. (Fair, 2008a) Thus, EPA is 

approving the use of these six ASTM 

methods: 

ASTM method Contaminant Regulation 

D512–04 B (ASTM International 2004a) ........................................................ Chloride ............................................. 40 CFR 143.4(b). 

D859–05 (ASTM International 2005a) ........................................................... Silica .................................................. 40 CFR 141.23(k)(1). 

D1179–04 B (ASTM International 2004b) ...................................................... Fluoride .............................................. 40 CFR 141.23(k)(1). 

D2036–06 A (ASTM International 2006) ........................................................ Cyanide .............................................. 40 CFR 141.23(k)(1). 

D2036–06 B (ASTM International 2006) ........................................................ Cyanide .............................................. 40 CFR 141.23(k)(1). 

D5673–05 (ASTM International 2005b) ......................................................... Uranium ............................................. 40 CFR 141.25(a). 

The ASTM methods are available from 

ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor 

Drive, West Conshohocken, PA 19428–

2959 or http://www.astm.org. 

B. Methods Developed by EPA 

1. EPA Method 200.5, Revision 4.2. 

EPA described this method as a 

candidate for approval under the 

expedited approval program in the April 

10, 2007, Federal Register notice (72 FR 

17902) (USEPA 2007a). Commenters 

were universally supportive of method 

approval. 

EPA Method 200.5 (USEPA 2003c) 

uses axially viewed inductively coupled 

plasma-atomic emission spectrometry 

(AVICP–AES) to determine 

concentrations of 22 trace elements and 

contaminants in drinking water. The 

method involves the following steps: 

• Sample digestion; 

• Volume reduction to provide a 2X 

concentration; and 

• Multi-elemental determinations by 

axially viewed inductively coupled 

plasma-atomic emission spectrometry 

(AVICP–AES) using sequential or 

simultaneous instruments. The 

instruments measure characteristic 

atomic-line emission spectra by optical 

spectrometry. 

Approved methods for 19 of the EPA 

Method 200.5 analytes are listed at 40 

CFR 141.23(k)(1) and 40 CFR 143.4. The 

performance characteristics of EPA 

Method 200.5, Revision 4.2 were 

compared to the characteristics of the 

methods listed at 40 CFR 141.23(k)(1) 

for antimony, arsenic, barium, 

beryllium, cadmium, calcium, 

chromium, copper, lead, magnesium, 

nickel, selenium, silica, and sodium. 

The performance characteristics of EPA 

Method 200.5, Revision 4.2 were 

compared to the characteristics of the 

methods listed at 40 CFR 143.4 for 

aluminum, iron, manganese, silver, and 

zinc (Fair 2008b). Since EPA Method 

200.5 is equally effective relative to the 

methods already promulgated in the 

regulations, EPA is approving it for 

determining aluminum, antimony, 

arsenic, barium, beryllium, cadmium, 

calcium, chromium, copper, iron, lead, 

magnesium, manganese, nickel, 

selenium, silica, silver, sodium, and 

zinc concentrations in drinking water to 

comply with 40 CFR 141.23 and 143.4. 

EPA Method 200.5, Revision 4.2 

(USEPA 2003c) can be accessed and 

downloaded directly on-line at http:// 

www.epa.gov/nerlcwww/ordmeth.htm. 

C. Methods Developed by Vendors 

1. Method D99–003, Revision 3.0. If 

approved by the State, 40 CFR 

141.74(a)(2) allows the use of DPD 

colorimetric test kits to determine 

disinfectant residuals. Evaluation of the 

free chlorine test strip method, Method 

D99–003 (Industrial Test Systems, Inc. 

2003), under the ATP program 

demonstrated performance 

characteristics similar to those obtained 

using DPD colorimetric test kits. As a 

result, the March 12, 2007, Methods 

Update Rule (72 FR 11200) (USEPA 

2007b) added language at 40 CFR 

141.74(a)(2) to allow the use of Method 

D99–003 developed by Industrial Test 

Systems, Inc. (ITS) to determine free 

chlorine residuals in drinking water, if 

approved by the State. This approval 

was specified for systems monitoring 

under the requirements of 40 CFR 141 

Subpart H. 

In a similar manner, 40 CFR 

141.131(c)(2) allows the State to 

approve the use of DPD colorimetric test 

kits for monitoring requirements 

specified at 40 CFR 141.132(c)(1). The 

free chlorine test strip method is not 

listed. As noted, however, evaluation of 

the chlorine test strip method has 

demonstrated performance 

characteristics similar to those obtained 

using DPD colorimetric test kits. 

Accordingly, the chlorine test strip 

method is an equally effective 

methodology, and there is no technical 

reason to withhold approval under one 

rule while allowing its use under a 

separate regulation. Therefore, EPA is 

using this action to approve the use of 

Method D99–003 (ITS 2003) to meet free 

chlorine residual monitoring 

requirements specified at 40 CFR 

141.132(c)(1), if approved by the State. 

Method D99–003, Revision 3.0, titled 

‘‘Free Chlorine Species (HOCl¥ and 

OCl¥) by Test Strip,’’ November 21, 

2003, is available from Industrial Test 

Systems, Inc., 1875 Langston St., Rock 

Hill, SC 29730. The ATP report on this 

method is contained in the docket for 

the March 12, 2007, Methods Update 

Rule. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

As noted above, under the terms of 

SDWA Section 1401(1), this streamlined 

method approval action is not a rule. 

Accordingly, the Congressional Review 

Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by 

the Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, does 

not apply because this action is not a 

rule for purposes of 5 U.S.C. 804(3). 

Similarly, this action is not subject to 

the Regulatory Flexibility Act because it 

is not subject to notice and comment 


ebenthall on PRODPC60 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 3, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 31623 

requirements under the Administrative 

Procedure Act or any other statute. In 

addition, because this approval action is 

not a rule but simply makes alternative 

(optional) testing methods available for 

monitoring under SDWA, EPA has 

concluded that other statutes and 

executive orders generally applicable to 

rulemaking do not apply to this 

approved action. 

V. References 

APHA. 1997a. Standard Method 4500–

SO4

¥2–97. Sulfate. Approved by Standard 

Methods Committee 1997. Standard Methods 

Online. (Available at http:// 

www.standardmethods.org.). 

APHA. 1997b. Standard Method 9223 B–

97. Enzyme Substrate Coliform Test. 

Approved by Standard Methods Committee 

1997. Standard Methods Online. (Available 

at http://www.standardmethods.org.). 

APHA. 1998. Twentieth Edition of 

Standard Methods for the Examination of 

Water and Wastewater, American Public 

Health Association, 800 I Street, NW, 

Washington, DC 20001–3710. 

APHA. 1999. Standard Method 4500–P–99. 

Phosphorus. Approved by Standard Methods 

Committee 1999. Standard Methods Online. 

(Available at http:// 

www.standardmethods.org.) 

APHA. 2004a. Standard Method 6610–04. 

Carbamate Pesticides—High-Performance 

Liquid Chromatographic Method. Approved 

by Standard Methods Committee 2004. 

Standard Methods Online. (Available at 

http://www.standardmethods.org.) 

APHA. 2004b. Standard Method 9230 B–

04. Fecal Enterococcus/Streptococcus 

Groups—Multiple-Tube Technique. 

Approved by Standard Methods Committee 

2004. Standard Methods Online. (Available 

at http://www.standardmethods.org.) 

APHA. 2006. Twenty-first Edition of 

Standard Methods for the Examination of 

Water and Wastewater, American Public 

Health Association, 800 I Street, NW., 

Washington, DC 20001–3710. 

ASTM International. 2004a. Method D 

512–04 B. Standard Test Method for Chloride 

Ion in Water by Silver Nitrate Titration. 

ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, 

West Conshohocken, PA 19428–2959. 

(http://www.astm.org) 

ASTM International. 2004b. Method D 

1179–04B. Standard Test Method for 

Fluoride Ion in Water by Ion Selective 

Electrode. ASTM International, 100 Barr 

Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken, PA 

19428–2959. (http://www.astm.org) 

ASTM International. 2005a. Method D 

859–05. Standard Test Method for Silica in 

Water. ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor 

Drive, West Conshohocken, PA 19428–2959. 

(http://www.astm.org) 

ASTM International. 2005b. Method D 

5673–05. Standard Test Method for Elements 

in Water by Inductively Coupled PlasmaMass Spectrometry. ASTM International, 100 

Barr Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken, PA 

19428–2959. (http://www.astm.org) 

ASTM International. 2006. Method D 

2036–06. Standard Test Method for Cyanides 

in Water. ASTM International, 100 Barr 

Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken, PA 

19428–2959. (http://www.astm.org) 

Fair, P., 2008a. Memo to the record 

describing basis for approving methods from 

Standard Methods and ASTM International. 

April 2008. 

Fair, P., 2008b. Memo to the record 

describing basis for approving EPA Method 

200.5. April 2008. 

Industrial Test Systems, Inc. 2003. Method 

D99–003. Free Chlorine Species (HOCl 

and OCl ) by Test Strip, Revision 3.0, 

November 21, 2003. Industrial Test Systems, 

Inc., 1875 Langston St., Rock Hill, SC 29730. 

USEPA. 2001a. Guidelines Establishing 

Test Procedures for the Analysis of 

Pollutants; Analytical Methods for Biological 

Pollutants in Ambient Water; Proposed Rule. 

66 FR 45811. August 30, 2001. 

USEPA. 2001b. EPA Method 531.2. 

Measurement of N-methylcarbamoyloximes 

and N-methylcarbamates in Water by Direct 

Aqueous Injection HPLC with Postcolumn 

Derivatization. Revision 1.0. EPA 815–B–01–

002 (Available at http://www.epa.gov/ 

safewater/methods/sourcalt.html.) 

USEPA. 2003a. National Primary Drinking 

Water Regulations: Long Term 2 Enhanced 

Surface Water Treatment Rule; Proposed 

Rule. 68 FR 47640. August 11, 2003. 

USEPA. 2003b. Guidelines Establishing 

Test Procedures for the Analysis of 

Pollutants; Analytical Methods for Biological 

Pollutants in Ambient Water; Final Rule. 68 

FR 43272. July 21, 2003. 

USEPA. 2003c. EPA Method 200.5. 

Determination of Trace Elements in Drinking 

Water by Axially Viewed Inductively 

Coupled Plasma-Atomic Emission 

Spectrometry. Revision 4.2. EPA/600/R–06/ 

115. (Available at http://www.epa.gov/ 

nerlcwww/ordmeth.htm.) 

USEPA. 2005. Validation and Peer Review 

of U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Chemical Methods of Analysis, FEM 

Document Number 2005–01, October 2005. 

USEPA. 2006a. Validation and Peer Review 

of U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Radiochemical Methods of Analysis, FEM 

Document Number 2006–01, August 2006. 

USEPA. 2006b. National Primary Drinking 

Water Regulations: Ground Water Rule. 71 

FR 65574. November 8, 2006. 

USEPA. 2006c. National Primary Drinking 

Water Regulations: Long Term 2 Enhanced 

Surface Water Treatment Rule; Final Rule. 71 

FR 654. January 5, 2006. 

USEPA. 2007a. Expedited Approval of Test 

Procedures for the Analysis of Contaminants 

Under the Safe Drinking Water Act; Analysis 

and Sampling Procedures. 72 FR 17902. 

April 10, 2007. 

USEPA. 2007b. Guidelines Establishing 

Test Procedures for the Analysis of Pollutants 

Under the Clean Water Act; National Primary 

Drinking Water Regulations; and National 

Secondary Drinking Water Regulations; 

Analysis and Sampling Procedures; Final 

Rule. 72 FR 11200. March 12, 2007. 

USEPA. 2008. Response to Comments 

Document for Expedited Approval of Test 

Procedures for the Analysis of Contaminants 

Under the Safe Drinking Water Act; Analysis 

and Sampling Procedures (72 FR 17902. 

April 10, 2007). May 2008. 

Walker, L. and Wendelken, S., 2007. Letter 

to S. Posavec, Standard Methods Manager, 

April 11, 2007. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 141 

Environmental protection, Chemicals, 

Indians-lands, Intergovernmental 

relations, Radiation protection, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Water supply. 

Dated: May 20, 2008. 

Benjamin H. Grumbles, 

Assistant Administrator, Office of Water. 

■ For the reasons stated in the preamble, 

40 CFR part 141 is 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, 300j–4, 

and 300j–9. 

■ 2. Subpart C is amended by adding 

Appendix A to read as follows: 

Appendix A to Subpart C of Part 141—

Alternative Testing Methods Approved 

for Analyses Under the Safe Drinking 

Water Act. 

Only the editions stated in the following 

table are approved. 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


ebenthall on PRODPC60 with RULES
31624 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 3, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 


ebenthall on PRODPC60 with RULESER03JN08.000</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 3, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 31625 


ebenthall on PRODPC60 with RULESER03JN08.001</GPH>
31626 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 3, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 


ebenthall on PRODPC60 with RULESER03JN08.002</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 3, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 31627 


ebenthall on PRODPC60 with RULESER03JN08.003</GPH>
31628 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 3, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 


ebenthall on PRODPC60 with RULESER03JN08.004</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 3, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 31629 


ebenthall on PRODPC60 with RULESER03JN08.005</GPH>
31630 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 3, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 


ebenthall on PRODPC60 with RULESER03JN08.006</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 3, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 31631 


ebenthall on PRODPC60 with RULESER03JN08.007</GPH>
31632 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 3, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 


ebenthall on PRODPC60 with RULESER03JN08.008</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 3, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 31633 

[FR Doc. E8–12198 Filed 6–2–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–C 


ebenthall on PRODPC60 with RULESER03JN08.009</GPH>