E 1 Appendix E Saltwater Conversion Factors for Dissolved Values September 26, 2002 U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water Office of Science and Technology Washington, D. C. E 2 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Larry Brooke and Tyler Linton ( primary authors) Great Lakes Environmental Center 1295 King Avenue Columbus, OH 43212 Jennifer Mitchell and Cindy Roberts ( authors and document coordinators) U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Washington, DC E 3 Saltwater Conversion Factors for Converting Nominal or Total Copper Concentrations to Dissolved Copper Concentrations The U. S. EPA changed its policy in 1993 of basing water quality criteria for metals from a total metal criteria to a dissolved metal criteria. The policy states " the use of dissolved metal to set and measure compliance with water quality standards is the recommended approach, because dissolved metal more closely approximates the bioavailable fraction of metal in the water column than does total recoverable metal" ( Prothro 1993). All of the criteria for metals to this date were based upon total metal and very few data were available with dissolved concentrations of the metals. A problem was created by the new policy of how to derive dissolved metal concentrations for studies in which this form of the metal was not measured. The U. S. EPA attempted to develop correction factors for each metal for which criteria exist for both fresh and saltwater ( Lussier et al. 1995; Stephan 1995). In the case of saltwater, a correction for copper was not derived.

Several saltwater studies are available that report nominal, total, and dissolved concentrations of copper in laboratory water ( Table 1) from site specific water effect ratio ( WER) studies. These studies show relatively consistent ratios for the nominal to dissolved concentrations and for the total to dissolved concentrations. Calculation of a mean ratio ( conversion factor) to convert nominal and total copper concentrations to dissolved copper permits the use of the results for critical studies without dissolved copper measurements.

Three studies, each with multiple tests per study, were useful for deriving the conversion factors. One study was conducted for the lower Hudson River in the New York/ New Jersey Harbor ( SAIC 1993). The tests were conducted with harbor site water and with EPA Environmental Research Laboratory  Narragansett water from Narragansett Bay, Massachusetts. Only the tests with laboratory water were used for this exercise. Three series of 48 hour static tests were conducted with various animals. Salinity ranged from 28 to 32 ppt during all the tests. Series 1 tests were not used to calculate ratios for dissolved to total or dissolved to nominal copper concentrations, because in many instances, concentrations of measured copper did not increase as nominal concentrations increased. Of the series 2 tests, only the coot clam ( Mulinia lateralis) tests were successful and used to calculate ratios. Three replicate tests without ultraviolet ( UV) light present and one test with UV light present were reported with total and dissolved copper measurements made at 0 hr and 48 hr ( end) of the tests. Dissolved to total and dissolved to nominal ratios were calculated for the four tests each with two time intervals. The mean ratio for the dissolved tototal measurements is 0.943 and the mean ratio for the dissolved to nominal is 0.917. A third series of static tests was conducted by SAIC and the mussel ( Mytilus sp.) test was the only successful test. Again the tests were conducted as three replicate tests without UV light and a fourth with UV light. The mean test ratio for dissolved to total copper was 0.863 and the dissolved to nominal mean test ratio was 0.906.

The summer flounder ( Paralichthys dentatus) was exposed to copper in laboratory water for 96 hours in a static test ( CH2MHill 1999a). The water was collected from Narragansett Bay and diluted with laboratory reverse osmosis water to dilute the solution to 22 ppt salinity. Three tests were run with copper concentrations measured at the start of the tests as total recoverable and dissolved copper. Five exposure concentrations were used to conduct the tests. Only the two lowest concentrations were used to derive ratios for dissolved to total and dissolved to nominal copper mean ratios. These concentrations were at the approximate 500

g/ L or lower concentrations, and are in the range of most copper concentrations routinely tested in the laboratory. The mean dissolved to total and dissolved to nominal ratios were 0.947 and 0.836, respectively.

Three 48 hour static tests were conducted with the blue mussel ( Mytilus edulis) in water from the same source and treated in the same manner as the summer flounder tests ( CH2MHill 1999b). Salinity was E 4 diluted to 20 ppt. Exposures were made at eight concentrations of copper and total and dissolved copper concentrations were measured only at the start of the tests. Mean ratios for the dissolved to total and dissolved to nominal copper were calculated by combining the ratios calculated for each of the test concentrations. The mean dissolved to total and dissolved to nominal ratios were 0.979 and 0.879, respectively.

A study was conducted by the City of San Jose, CA to develop a WER for San Francisco Bay in which copper was used as a toxicant and the concentrations used in the laboratory exposures were measured as total and dissolved copper ( Environ. Serv. Dept., City of San Jose 1998). Mussels and the purple sea urchin ( Strongylocentrotus purpuratus) were used as the test organisms. Tests were conducted in filtered natural sea water from San Francisco Bay that was diluted to a salinity of 28 ppt. The mussel test was of 48 hour duration and the purple sea urchin test was of 96 hour duration. Five concentrations of copper were used in the toxicity tests with the concentrations measured at the start of each test. ( During each test, a single concentration of copper was measured at the termination of the test and this value was not used in the calculations.) Twenty two tests were conducted during a 13 month period with the mussel and two tests were conducted with the purple sea urchin. The mean dissolved to total and dissolved tonominal ratios for the mussel tests were 0.836 and 0.785, respectively. The mean dissolved to total and dissolved to nominal ratios for the purple sea urchin were 0.883 and 0.702, respectively.

For some of the tests, control concentrations had measured concentrations of total and dissolved copper. These values were not used to calculate ratios for dissolved to total and dissolved to nominal copper concentrations. All mean ratios were calculated as the arithmetic mean and not as a geometric mean of the available ratios. When the data are normally distributed, the arithmetic mean is the appropriate measure of central tendency ( Parkhurst 1998) and is a better estimator than the geometric mean. All concentrations of copper used to calculate ratios should be time weighted averages ( Stephan 1995). In all instances of data used to calculate ratios, the concentrations were identical to time weighted values because either only one value was available or if two were available they were of equal weight.

Based on the information presented above the overall ratio for correcting total copper concentrations to dissolved copper concentrations is 0.909 based upon the results of six sets of studies. This is comparable to its equivalent factor in freshwater, which is 0.960 ± 0.037 ( Stephan 1995). When it is necessary to convert nominal copper concentrations to dissolved copper concentrations the conversion factor is 0.838 based upon the same studies. The means of both conversion factors have standard deviations of less than ten percent of the means ( Table 1). E 5 Table E 1. Summary of Saltwater Copper Ratios Species Mean Dissolved to Total Ratio Mean Dissolved to Nominal Ratio Reference Coot clam, Mulinia lateralis 0.943 0.917 SAIC 1993 Summer flounder, Paralichthys dentatus 0.947 0.836 CH2MHill 1999a Blue mussel, Mytilus sp 0.863 0.906 SAIC 1993 Blue mussel, Mytilus edulis 0.979 0.879 CH2MHill 1999b Blue mussel, Mytilus sp 0.836 0.785 Environ. Serv. Dept., City of San Jose 1998 Purple sea urchin, Strongylocentrotus purpuratus 0.883 0.702 Environ. Serv. Dept., City of San Jose 1998 Arithmetic Mean 0.909 0.838 Standard Deviation ± 0.056 ± 0.082 E 6 References CH2MHill. 1999a. Bioassay report: Acute toxicity of copper to summer flounder ( Paralichthys dentatus). Final report prepared for U. S. Navy. November 1999. CH2MHill, Norfolk, Virginia. 26 p.

CH2MHill. 1999b. Bioassay report: Acute toxicity of copper to blue mussel ( Mytilus edulis). Final report prepared for U. S. Navy. November 1999. CH2MHill, Norfolk, Virginia. 41 p.

Environmental Services Department, City of San Jose. 1998. Development of a site specific water quality criterion for copper in south San Francisco Bay. Environmental Services Department, City of San Jose, San Jose/ Santa Clara Water Pollution Control Plant, 4245 Zanker Road, San Jose, CA. 171 pp. May.

Lussier, S. M., W. S. Boothman, S. Poucher, D. Champlin and A. Helmsteter. 1995. Derivation of conversion factors for dissolved saltwater aquatic life criteria for metals. Draft report to the U. S. EPA, Office of Water. U. S. EPA, Narragansett, RI. March 31, 1995.

Parkhurst, D. F. 1998. Arithmetic versus geometric means for environmental concentration data. Environ. Sci. Technol./ News. 32: 92A 95A.

Prothro, M. 1993. Memorandum concerning " Office of Water Policy and Technical Guidance on Interpretation and Implementation of Aquatic Life Metals Criteria." October 1.

SAIC. 1993. Toxicity testing to support the New York/ New Jersey Harbor site specific copper criteria study. Final Report to U. S. EPA, Office of Wastewater Enforcement and Compliance ( Contract No. 68 C8 0066. Work Assignment C 4 94). Science Applications International Corporation, Narragansett, RI.

Stephan, C. E. 1995. Derivation of conversation factors for the calculation of dissolved freshwater aquatic life criteria for metals. Report. March 11, 1995. U. S. EPA, Duluth, MN.


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 65 (Thursday, April 6, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16823-16824]
[FR Doc No: 2017-06847]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RD16-10-000]

Commission Information Collection Activities (FERC-725e); Comment
Request; Revision

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Department of Energy.

ACTION: Notice of revised information collection and request for
comments.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction
Act the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) is
soliciting public comment on a revision to the information collection,
FERC-725E (Mandatory Reliability Standards for the Western Electric
Coordinating Council) which will be submitted to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for a review of the information collection
requirements.

DATES: Comments on the collection of information are due June 5, 2017.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments (identified by Docket No. RD16-10-
000) by either of the following methods:
     eFiling at Commission's Web site: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp
     Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier: Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20426.
    Instructions: All submissions must be formatted and filed in
accordance with submission guidelines at: http://www.ferc.gov/help/submission-guide.asp. For user assistance contact FERC Online Support
by email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by phone at:<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll-free), or<PHONE_NUMBER> for TTY.
    Docket: Users interested in receiving automatic notification of
activity in this docket or in viewing/downloading comments and
issuances in this docket may do so at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/docs-filing.asp.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ellen Brown may be reached by email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, and fax at (202)
273-0873.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Title: FERC-725E, Mandatory Reliability Standards for the Western
Electric Coordinating Council.
    OMB Control No.: 1902-0246.
    Type of Request: Revision to the FERC-725E information collection
requirements, as discussed in Docket No. RD16-10.
    Abstract: On March 23, 2016 (and supplemented on November 16,
2016), the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) and
Western Electricity Coordinating Council (WECC) filed a joint petition
to retire regional Reliability Standard TOP-007-WECC-1a--System
Operating Limits (``SOL''). The purpose of the proposed retirement is
to shift away from the path-centric model and allow entities in the
Western Interconnection to align their operating practices with the
framework established in the continent-wide TOP/IRO Reliability
Standards approved in Order No. 817,\1\ which, according to NERC and
WECC, achieve the objective of operating within acceptable pre- and
post-contingency reliability criteria (i.e., within SOLs and
Interconnection Reliability Operating Limits (``IROL''). On March 10,
2017, the Commission approved the retirement of regional Reliability
Standard TOP-007-WECC-1a.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The burdens related to Order No. 871 are included in FERC-
725Z (Mandatory Reliability Standards: IRO Reliability Standards,
OMB Control No. 1902-0276), and FERC-725A Mandatory Reliability
Standards for the Bulk-Power System, OMB Control No. 1902-0244).
    \2\ The Delegated Letter Order is posted in FERC's eLibrary at
https://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/common/opennat.asp?fileID=14515285.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The remaining reporting requirements included in FERC-725E are not
being revised.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ In the current OMB-approved inventory for FERC-725E, the
total remaining requirements are estimated annually at 7,038 burden
hours for reporting and 771 burden hours for recordkeeping.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Type of Respondents: Public utilities.
    Estimate of Annual Burden \4\: The Commission estimates the
reduction in the annual public reporting burden for the FERC-725E (due
to the retirement of

regional Reliability Standard TOP-007-WECC-1a) as follows: \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Burden is defined as the total time, effort, or financial
resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or
disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. For
further explanation of what is included in the information
collection burden, refer to 5 Code of Federal Regulations 1320.3.
    \5\ The reductions in burden and cost shown in the table are the
same figures as those in the current OMB-approved inventory for the
reporting and recordkeeping requirements, now being retired.

   FERC-725E, Mandatory Reliability Standards for the Western Electric Coordinating Council, Reductions Due to
                                               Docket No. RD16-10
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Total annual
    Information collection        Number of     Annual number   Total number    Average burden    burden hours &
         requirements            respondents    of responses    of responses   hours & cost per    total annual
                                               per respondent                      response            cost
                                          (1)             (2)     (1) * (2) =  (4).............  (3) * (4) = (5)
                                                                          (3)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reporting Requirement--                     9               3              27  40 hrs.; $2,908.  1,080 hrs.;
 Transmission Operators that                                                                      $78,516.
 operate qualified transfer
 paths \6\.
Recordkeeping Requirement--                 9               1  ..............  12 hrs.; $347...  108 hrs.;
 Transmission Operators that                                                                      $3,124.
 operate qualified transfer
 paths.
                              ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    TOTAL REDUCTION (Due to    ..............  ..............  ..............  ................  1,188 hrs.;
     Docket No. RD16-10).                                                                         $81,640.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comments: Comments are invited on: (1) Whether the collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the Commission, including whether the information will have practical
utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden and
cost of the collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality,
utility and clarity of the information collection; and (4) ways to
minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are
to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or
other forms of information technology.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ This is based on burden estimates taken from the Order in
Docket No. RR07-11-000, P. 130.

    Dated: March 31, 2017.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-06847 Filed 4-5-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 58 (Monday, March 29, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16394-16395]
[FR Doc No: 2021-06386]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

[Docket No. OSHA-2010-0013]

SolarPTL, LLC: Grant of Renewal of Recognition

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In this notice, OSHA announces the final decision to grant
renewal of recognition to SolarPTL, LLC (PTL) as a Nationally
Recognized Testing Laboratory (NRTL).

DATES: The renewal of recognition becomes effective on March 29, 2021.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Information regarding this notice is
available from the following sources:
    Press inquiries: Contact Mr. Frank Meilinger, Director, OSHA Office
of Communications, U.S. Department of Labor, telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    General and technical information: Contact Mr. Kevin Robinson,
Director, Office of Technical Programs and Coordination Activities,
Directorate of Technical Support and Emergency Management, Occupational
Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, phone:
(202) 693-2110 or email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    OSHA hereby gives notice that it is granting the renewal of
recognition of SolarPTL LLC (PTL) as a NRTL under 29 CFR 1910.7.
    OSHA recognition of a NRTL signifies that the organization meets
the requirements in Section 1910.7 of Title 29, Code of Federal
Regulations (29 CFR 1910.7). Recognition is an acknowledgment that the
organization can perform independent safety testing and certification
of the specific products covered within the scope of recognition and is
not a delegation or grant of government authority. As a result of
recognition, employers may use products properly approved by the NRTL
to meet OSHA standards that require testing and certification. OSHA
maintains an informational web page for each NRTL that details the
scope of recognition available at http://www.osha.gov/dts/otpca/nrtl/index.html.
    OSHA processes applications submitted by an NRTL for renewal of
recognition following requirements in Appendix A to 29 CFR 1910.7. OSHA
conducts renewals in accordance with the procedures in 29 CFR 1910.7,
App. A II.C. In accordance with these procedures, NRTLs submit a
renewal request to OSHA between nine months and one year before the
expiration date of the current recognition. A renewal request includes
a request for renewal and any additional information demonstrating
their continued compliance with the terms of the recognition and 29 CFR
1910.7. If OSHA has not conducted an on-site assessment of the NRTL
headquarters and any key sites within the past 18 to 24 months, it will
schedule the necessary on-site assessment prior to the expiration date
of the NRTL's recognition. Upon review of the submitted material and,
as necessary, the successful completion of the on-site assessment, OSHA
announces the preliminary decision to grant or deny renewal in the
Federal Register and solicits comments from the public. OSHA then
publishes a final Federal Register notice responding to any comments
and renewing the NRTL's recognition for a period of five years, or
denying the renewal of recognition.
    PTL initially received OSHA recognition as a NRTL on March 23,

2011 (76 FR 16452). PTL was previously recognized by OSHA as TUV
Rheinland PTL, whose name was changed following a sale to SolarPTL in
October 2018. PTL submitted a timely request for renewal, dated April
2, 2015 (OSHA-2010-0013), and has retained their recognition pending
OSHA's final decision in this renewal process. OSHA conducted on-site
assessments of PTL on February 18-22, 2016, November 14-15, 2017, and
January 30-31, 2019, during which it identified nonconformities with 29
CFR 1910.7. Although PTL worked to resolve these nonconformities, it
took several years for PTL to demonstrate compliance with 29 CFR
1910.7. The current address of the PTL facility recognized by OSHA and
included as part of the renewal request is: SolarPTL, 1007 West
Fairmont Avenue, Tempe, Arizona 85252.
    OSHA evaluated PTL's application for renewal and made a preliminary
determination that PTL can meet the requirements prescribed by 29 CFR
1910.7 for recognition.
    OSHA published the preliminary notice announcing PTL's renewal
application in the Federal Register on February 3, 2021 (86 FR 8042).
The agency requested comments by February 18, 2021, and received no
comments in response to this notice. OSHA is now proceeding with this
final notice to renew PTL's NRTL recognition.
    To obtain or review copies of all public documents pertaining to
the PTL application, go to www.regulations.gov or contact the Docket
Office. Docket No. OSHA-2010-0013 contains all materials in the record
concerning PTL's NRTL recognition. Please note: Due to the COVID-19
pandemic, the Docket Office is closed to the public at this time but
can be contacted at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

II. Final Decision and Order

    OSHA hereby gives notice of the renewal of recognition of PTL as a
NRTL. OSHA examined PTL's renewal application and all pertinent
information related to PTL's request for renewal of NRTL recognition.
Based on this review of the renewal request and other pertinent
information, OSHA finds that PTL meets the requirements of 29 CFR
1910.7 for renewal of recognition as a NRTL, subject to the specified
limitation and conditions. OSHA limits the renewal of PTL's recognition
to include the terms and conditions of PTL's recognition found in 76 FR
16452. The NRTL scope of recognition for PTL is also available on the
OSHA website at: https://www.osha.gov/dts/otpca/nrtl/ptl.html. This
renewal extends PTL's recognition as a NRTL for a period of five years
from March 29, 2021.

A. Conditions

    In addition to those conditions already required by 29 CFR 1910.7,
PTL must abide by the following conditions of recognition:
    1. PTL must inform OSHA as soon as possible, in writing, of any
change of ownership, facilities, or key personnel, and of any major
change in their operations as a NRTL, and provide details of the
change(s);
    2. PTL must agree to increased OSHA oversight of their operations
including:
    (a) More frequent on-site assessments of PTL facilities; and
    (b) PTL shall continue to provide OSHA with written notification of
any new or revised NRTL certificates that it issues, within 7 calendar
days of issuing the certification. This notification shall include:
    (i) Name and address of the applicant;
    (ii) Model number(s) for the certified products;
    (iii) PTL Certification number;
    (iv) PTL Project number;
    (v) Name(s) of PTL staff involved with the project; and
    (vi) Location where the product evaluation and testing took place.
    3. Upon request, PTL must provide copies of the test data,
certification report and other related information for new or revised
certifications to OSHA.
    4. PTL must meet all the terms of their recognition and comply with
all OSHA policies pertaining to this recognition; and
    5. PTL must continue to meet the requirements for recognition,
including all previously published conditions on PTL's scope of
recognition, in all areas for which it has recognition.
    Pursuant to the authority in 29 CFR 1910.7, OSHA hereby renews the
recognition of PTL as a NRTL.

III. Authority and Signature

    Amanda L. Edens, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for
Occupational Safety and Health, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington,
DC 20210, authorized the preparation of this notice. Accordingly, the
agency is issuing this notice pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 657(g)(2)),
Secretary of Labor's Order No. 8-2020 (85 FR 58393, Sept. 18, 2020),
and 29 CFR 1910.7.

    Signed at Washington, DC, on March 18, 2021.
James S. Frederick,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety
and Health.
[FR Doc. 2021-06386 Filed 3-26-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P