If there is not enough evidence to conclude that the new method is worse than the EPA approved reference method for at least 80% of the matrices for both precision and recovery, the false negative rate and false positive rate should next be compared, based on the methods described in sections <IP_ADDRESS> and <IP_ADDRESS>. If the results of the chi square test indicate that there is not enough evidence to conclude that the false negative rate or false positive rate of the ATP or new method is worse than that of the EPAapproved reference method, this will be interpreted as equal or better performance and might lead to acceptance of the new methods. However, if the results of the chi square test indicate that the false negative rate or false positive rate of the new method is significantly greater than that of the EPAapproved reference method, this will generally be interpreted as worse performance for 100% of the matrices used in the study, and would lead to rejection of the ATP or new method.

For example, suppose side by side testing is done in one laboratory for ten different matrices. For recovery, there is not enough evidence to conclude that the new method is significantly worse than the EPA approved reference method for eight of the ten matrices. For precision, there is not enough evidence to conclude a significant matrix effect, and there is not enough evidence to conclude a significant difference between methods. There is not enough evidence to conclude the false negative rate or false positive rate of the ATP or new method is worse than the EPA approved reference method. Under these circumstances, the ATP or new method may be recommended for approval. However, if there is not enough evidence to conclude that the new method is not worse than the approved method for only seven of ten matrices for recovery, then the ATP or new method will not, generally, be recommended for approval.

8.5.3 QC Acceptance Criteria Based Comparison Studies For methods with QC acceptance criteria, necessary calculations and QC criteria are typically provided in the method. Generally, QC criteria will include both recovery and precision specifications. Recovery criteria take the form of a recovery interval for either a single result or mean of multiple results. Precision EPA Microbiological Alternate Test Procedure ( ATP) Protocol 8 11 criteria will generally be either a maximum standard deviation, RSD, or RPD. Details on calculations that may be necessary for the comparisons are described below.

<IP_ADDRESS> Recovery Recovery results will generally be necessary for data spiked into both reagent water ( IPR, IDC, etc.) and source water ( MS, MSD, etc.). For reagent water, percent recovery should be calculated as follows:

% Recovery = Result * 100 % Spike where Result is the amount recovered from the sample after spiking, and Spike is the estimated amount spiked into the sample.

For source water, percent recovery should be calculated as follows:

% Recovery = Result  Background * 100 % Spike where Result is the amount recovered from the sample after spiking, Spike is the estimated amount spiked into the sample, and Background is the estimated background amount measured in the sample prior to spiking.

For some QC criteria, it may be necessary to calculate the mean of the sample recoveries prior to comparing the results to the criteria. Generally, this will be specified with that given method.

<IP_ADDRESS> Precision Calculation of an RSD, RPD, or standard deviation is generally necessary for precision criteria. For source water data, the calculation should be based on the recovered amount, rather than the percent recovery. This is because the calculated percentage will be inflated if the background amount is large compared to the total amount recovered. For reagent water spiked data, where there the background count is zero, the calculation can be made either using the recovered amount or the percent recovery.

Where the precision criteria is to be based on two results, the precision criterion will generally be an RPD. The equation for an RPD is given below:

RPD = * Amount1  Amount2* * 100 % ( Amount1 + Amount2) / 2 Where Amount1 and Amount2 are the two recovered amounts. EPA Microbiological Alternate Test Procedure ( ATP) Protocol 8 12 Where the precision criterion is to be based on more than two results, the precision criterion will generally be either a standard deviation or RSD. An RSD is calculated based on the equation below:

RSD = SD * 100 % Mean Where SD is the standard deviation of all recovered amounts, and Mean is the mean of all recovered amounts.

<IP_ADDRESS> Presence/ Absence Criteria QC criteria for presence/ absence methods may be defined as false positive and/ or false negative rates, sensitivity and/ or specificity, or as a specified proportion of positive and/ or negative results out of a given number of samples. All calculations should be specific to the given situation and should be defined explicitly therein.

8.6 Method Recommendation and Approval Generally, after completion of the technical and statistical reviews for nationwide use applications, the Director of Analytical Methods, Attn: ATP Program Coordinator ( see Table 2 1 and Appendix E) will prepare a recommendation for approval/ disapproval of the ATP or new method and notify the applicant of the recommendation.

If the data evaluation demonstrates that the applicant's method performs at least as well as the EPAapproved reference method, the Director of Analytical Methods, Attn: ATP Program Coordinator will generally recommend approval to the Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water ( OGWDW) or appropriate office, which begins the regulation development process. Regulation development includes a Federal Register notice proposing to approve an ATP, public comment on the proposed method, and ( depending on public comment) a final rule published in the Federal Register that approves the method. Generally, the regulation development process may take one year or more.

For limited use ambient water or wastewater applications the Regional Administrator ( see Table 2 1 and Appendix E) will generally prepare a recommendation of approval/ disapproval of the ATP or new method and notify the applicant of the recommendation after completion of the technical and statistical reviews. EPA Microbiological Alternate Test Procedure ( ATP) Protocol 9 1 SECTION 9.0 STUDY REPORT Laboratories or other organizations responsible for developing ATPs or new methods should document the results of the side by side comparison study or QC acceptance criteria based comparison study in a formal study report that contains the elements described in this section.

The information and supporting data included in the study report should be sufficient to enable EPA to evaluate the performance of the ATP or new method and make a decision on whether it is comparable to the reference method. The applicant is responsible for ensuring that all method specified criteria are met by the laboratory( ies) involved in the study and that the study report contains all data from the laboratory( ies). A copy of all comparison study data should be maintained at the participant laboratory( ies) or other organization responsible for developing the ATP or new method.

Like the study plan developed and approved by EPA before the study was performed, the study report contains background information and describes the study design. However, the study report also details the process and results of the study, provides an analysis and discussion of the results, and presents study conclusions. The approved study report should also identify and discuss any deviations from the study plan that were made in implementing the study, and the study plan should be appended to and referenced in the study report. Significant deviations from the study plan without prior EPA approval could result in the rejection of the study data.

The study report should be organized into the following sections: ° Background ° Study Objectives and Design ° Study Implementation ° Data Reporting and Validation ° Results ° Data Analysis and Discussion ° Conclusions ° Appendix A  Method ° Appendix B  Study Plan ° Appendix C  Supporting Data ° Appendix D  Supporting References Details on the information that should be included in each of these sections are provided below, in Sections 9.1 through 9.11.

9.1 Background This section of the study report should describe the ATP or new method that was tested, and identify the organization responsible for developing the ATP or new method. The background section of the study report should include the following information: ° A method summary ° The organization, method number, and title for the ATP or new method ° The method number or title and publication number ( given in 40 CFR parts 136, 141, and 405  503) for the EPA approved reference method that is being used for demonstrating method comparability ( i. e., the reference method) ° A description of the nature of the ATP ( e. g., alternate media, alternate concentration technique, etc.) EPA Microbiological Alternate Test Procedure ( ATP) Protocol 9 2 ° The matrices, matrix types, and/ or media to which the ATP or new method is believed to be applicable ° The analyte( s) measured by the ATP or new method, including corresponding CAS Registry or other identification numbers, when available 9.2 Study Objectives and Design This section of the study report should identify the overall objectives and data quality objectives of the study and briefly describe the study design. This information should be consistent with the study objectives and design specified in the approved study plan. Any study limitations should be identified. The approved study plan should be appended to the study report.

9.3 Study Implementation This section of the study report should describe the methodology and approach undertaken in the study. This section should include the following information: ° The organization that was responsible for managing the study ° The laboratories, facilities, and other organizations that participated in the study; describe how participating laboratories were selected; and explain the role of each organization involved in the study ° The type of study performed ( i. e., side by side or QC acceptance criteria based comparison study) ° The study schedule that was followed ° A brief description of how sample matrices were chosen, including, for QC acceptance criteria based comparison studies, a statement of compliance with recommendations for matrix type selection ° A description of any preliminary testing conducted prior to the side by side or QC acceptance criteria based comparison study ( e. g., method validation, physical and chemical assessment of the matrices, preliminary range finding analyses) ° The numbers and types of analyses performed by the participating laboratories ° A description of how samples were collected, distributed, and stored ° The source and strain of the organism used for sample spiking ° If spikes were quantified, a description of how estimated true spike values were determined and provide all supporting data ° The type of water used in the preparation of sample dilutions if not specified by the method ( e. g., reagent water, phosphate buffered water, phosphate buffered saline, etc.) ° Any problems encountered with samples, spiking organisms, equipment, etc. and their subsequent resolution ° Any communications with EPA relevant to the study, such as clarification of the study design or approved changes to the study plan ° Any deviations from the study plan and their impact on study performance and/ or results 9.4 Data Reporting and Validation This section of the study report should describe the procedures that were used to report and validate study data. While EPA generally does not use a standard format for analytical data submission, a list of necessary data elements and an example bench sheet may be found in Appendix D of this document.

9.5 Results This section of the study report presents the study results. Results may be presented in a summary table that lists the recovery or concentration of each sample, by test method, laboratory, and matrix. EPA Microbiological Alternate Test Procedure ( ATP) Protocol 9 3 For QC acceptance criteria based comparison studies, results should indicate the QC test associated with each sample ( e. g. IPR, method blank, MS/ MSD, unspiked matrix sample). Raw data and example calculations should be submitted, and should be included in an appendix to the study report ( see Section 9.10.1).

9.6 Data Analysis and Discussion This section of the study report provides a statistical analysis and discussion of the study results. Recovery, precision, false positive rates, false negative rates, specificity, and sensitivity, as appropriate, should be calculated by test method, laboratory, and matrix, and summarized in a tabular format that includes the mean, standard deviation, and relative standard deviation. The discussion should address any discrepancies between the results and comparability guidelines, or, for QC acceptance criteria based comparison studies, any discrepancies between the results and the QC acceptance criteria of the EPAapproved reference method.

9.7 Conclusions This section of the study report should describe the conclusions drawn from the study based on the data analysis discussion. The section should contain a statement( s) regarding achievement of the study objective( s).

9.8 Appendix A  Method The ATP or new method, prepared in accordance with EPA's Guidelines and Format document ( Section 3.0 and Reference 10.14), should be appended to the study report.

9.9 Appendix B  Study Plan The study plan approved by EPA ( Section 4.0) should be appended to the study report.

9.10 Appendix C  Supporting Data The study report should be accompanied by raw data, quality control information, and example calculations that support the summary results presented in the report.

9.10.1 Raw Data Appendix C of the study report should include sufficient raw data so that an independent reviewer can verify each determination and calculation performed by the laboratory or the study coordinator. This verification consists of tracing all steps of the method to the final result reported. The raw data are, generally, method specific and may include but are not limited to the following: ° Sample numbers or other identifiers used by the laboratory ° Sample collection dates and times ° Verification that method specified QC procedures were met for test samples and all associated QC samples ° Analysis dates and times for all steps in the method ° Sample volume ° Any measurements of ancillary parameters ( i. e., temperature, pH, turbidity, percent solids, etc.) ° Results for all intermediate steps in the method ° Preliminary data steps to determine the final result ° Final result EPA Microbiological Alternate Test Procedure ( ATP) Protocol 9 4 ° If appropriate, quantitation reports, data system outputs, and other data to link the raw data to the results reported ° Laboratory bench sheets and copies of all pertinent logbook pages for all sample preparation and cleanup steps, and for all other parts of the determination ° Temperature logs for waterbaths, incubators, refrigerators, etc. ° Media preparation information ° If appropriate, direct instrument readouts and other data to support the final results Raw data are generally needed for all samples, positive and negative controls, sterility checks, verifications, blanks, matrix spikes and duplicates, and other QC analyses specified in the EPA approved reference method. Data should be organized so that a microbiologist can clearly understand how the analyses were performed. The names, titles, addresses, and telephone numbers of the analysts who performed the analyses and of the quality assurance officer who verified the analyses should be provided. For instruments involving data systems, raw data on magnetic tape or disk should be made available on request.

9.10.2 Electronic Data Reporting In addition to the hard copy raw data, applicants should also submit data in electronic format ( Excel spreadsheet, or equivalent) so that EPA can to create a database of study results. EPA anticipates that this database will facilitate automated review and statistical analysis of study results. The information included in electronic format may include: laboratory, analyst, method, sample type, sample number, date and time of analysis, volume analyzed, replicate number, raw data, and calculated results. The applicant should discuss an appropriate electronic format with EPA prior to data submission.

9.10.3 Example Calculations Generally, the study report should provide example calculations that will allow the data reviewer to determine how the laboratory used the raw data to arrive at the final results. Useful examples include both detected analytes and undetected analytes. If the laboratory or the method employs a standardized reporting level for undetected analytes, this should be made clear in the example, as should adjustments for sample volume, etc.

9.11 Appendix D  Supporting References Hard copies of all references and supporting documentation for the ATP or new method should be attached to the study report as an appendix. The list of references may contain links to web sites, or documents available on line. However, a hard copy should be submitted with the final study report. EPA Microbiological Alternate Test Procedure ( ATP) Protocol 10 1 SECTION 10.0 REFERENCES 10.1 AOAC. 1999. Qualitative and Quantitative Microbiology Guidelines for Methods Validation, Journal of AOAC International, Vol. 82, No. 2.

10.2 APHA. 1998. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater. 20th Edition. American Public Health Association. 1015 15th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20005.

10.3 APHA. 1995. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater. 19th Edition. American Public Health Association. 1015 15th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20005.

10.4 APHA. 1992. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater. 18th Edition. American Public Health Association. 1015 15th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20005.

10.5 ASTM. 1999. D4855 91: Standard Practice for Comparing Test Methods, ASTM Standards on Precision and Bias for Various Applications. 1999 Annual Book of ASTM Standards: Water and Environmental Technology, Volume 7.02. 100 Barr Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken, PA 19428.

10.6 ATCC. http:// www. atcc. org 10.7 Fleiss, J. F. Statistical Methods for Rates and Proportions, 2nd ed., John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY.

10.8 ISO. 2001. CD17994. Water Quality  Criteria for the Establishment of Equivalence Between Microbiological Methods, Final Version, June 15, 2001.

10.9 National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Conference. 2001. National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Conference: Quality Systems. Approved May 25, 2001, effective July 1, 2003 unless otherwise noted. Appendix D  Essential Quality Control Requirements, section D. 3, pp D 15 to D 16.

10.10 Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, Sections 136.4, 136.5, and 141.27.

10.11 USEPA. 2001. EPA Requirements for Quality Management Plans. USEPA Office of Environmental Information. EPA/ 240/ B 01/ 002.

10.12 USEPA. 1999. Environmental Regulations and Technology Control of Pathogens in Vector Attraction in Sewage Sludge. USEPA Office of Research and Development. EPA/ 625/ R 92/ 013, revised October 1999.

10.13 USEPA. 1997. Manual for the Certification of Laboratories Analyzing Drinking Water: Criteria and Procedures Quality Assurance, Fourth Edition. USEPA Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water. EPA 815 B 97 001.

10.14 USEPA. 1996. Guidelines and Format for Methods to be Proposed at 40 CFR Part 136 or Part 141. USEPA Office of Science and Technology. EPA 821 B 96 003. EPA Microbiological Alternate Test Procedure ( ATP) Protocol 10 2 10.15 USEPA. 1995a. Presence/ Absence Membrane Filter Methods for Finished Waters, USEPA Protocol for Alternate Test Procedures for Coliform Bacteria in Compliance with Drinking Water Regulations, Version 1.2, December 1995. USEPA Office of Research and Development, Cincinnati, OH.

10.16 USEPA. 1995b. Quantitative Membrane Filter Methods, USEPA Protocol for Alternate Test Procedures for Coliform Bacteria in Compliance with Water and Wastewater Regulations, Version 1.0, December 1995. USEPA Office of Research and Development. Cincinnati, OH.

10.17 USEPA. 1995c. Presence/ Absence Liquid Culture Methods for Finished Waters, USEPA Protocol for Alternate Test Procedures for Coliform Bacteria in Compliance with Drinking Water Regulations, Version 1.2, December 1995. USEPA Office of Research and Development. Cincinnati, OH.

10.18 USEPA 1989. Memorandum: Analytical Methods for Compliance and Limited Alternate Test Procedures Approvals. December 27, 1989.

10.19 USEPA. 1979. Handbook for Analytical Quality Control in Water and Wastewater Laboratories. EPA 600/ 4 79 019. Environmental Monitoring and Support Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH. March 1979. APPENDIX A GLOSSARY APPENDIX A: GLOSSARY 40 CFR part 136   Title 40, part 136 of the Code of Federal Regulations. This part specifies approved test procedures for the analysis of pollutants regulated under the Clean Water Act.

40 CFR part 141   Title 40, part 141 of the Code of Federal Regulations. This part specifies EPA's National Primary Drinking Water Regulations pursuant to the Safe Drinking Water Act; Subpart C of 40 CFR part 141 lists analytical methods required for monitoring under the Act.

95% confidence interval   A statistical level indicating a 95% probability that the parameter variable is enclosed within the given data interval.

Acceptable version   An acceptable version is a method that is either identical to the approved A method or exercises the flexibility explicitly allowed in the method. See " minor modification."

Accuracy   The degree of agreement between an observed value and an accepted reference value. Accuracy includes random error ( precision) and systematic error ( recovery) that are caused by sampling and analysis.

Aliquot   A representative portion of a sample.

Ambient water   Ambient water refers to any fresh, marine, or estuarine surface water used for recreation; propagation of fish, shellfish, or wildlife; agriculture; industry; navigation; or as source water for drinking water facilities.

Analysis of variance ( ANOVA)   A study of the effect of a set of qualitative variables on a quantitative response variable, based on a decomposition of the variance of the response variable.

Analyte   The target organism or class of organisms that are measured by the method.

Analyte of concern   An analyte designated by EPA to adversely affect or have the potential to adversely affect human health, the environment, aesthetics, or the senses. Analytes of concern are listed in approved methods.

Approved method   A testing procedure ( analytical method) promulgated at 40 CFR parts 136, 141, 405 500, and other parts of the CFR that support EPA's water programs.

Average percent recovery   The average of the recovery, expressed as percent. See recovery.

Bias   A systematic or persistent distortion of a measurement process that deprives the result of B representativeness; i. e., the expected sample measurement is different than the sample's true value. A data quality indicator. ( QAMS)

Blank   See " method blank."

Bulk sample   A large sample that is aliquoted into smaller volumes prior to analyses.

Calibration   The process of establishing the relationship between the concentration or amount C of material introduced into an instrument or measurement process and the output signal.

Calibration verification   Means of establishing that the instrument performance remains within pre established limits. Code of Federal Regulations   A codification of the general and permanent rules published in the Federal Register by the Executive departments and agencies of the Federal Government.

Comparability test   See side by side comparison.

Confidence interval   The numerical interval constructed around a point estimated of a population parameter, combined with a probability statement ( the confidence coefficient) linking it to the population's true parameter value. If the same confidence interval construction technique and assumptions are used to calculate future intervals, they will include the unknown population parameter with the same specified probability. ( EMMC)

Confirmed counts   Organism counts that have been verified to ensure proper identification.

Conover Squared Rank test   A nonparametric test for equality of variability, based on the joint squared ranks of deviations from the means. ( SPRENT)

Contract laboratory   Private, academic, or commercial laboratory under contract to EPA or other organization to perform testing.

D'Agostino test   A statistical test for determining whether a given set of results follow a normal D or log normal distribution. Best used for datasets with at least 50 results. ( GILBERT)

Data quality objective   Qualitative and/ or quantitative statement of the overall level of uncertainty that a decision maker is willing to accept in results or decisions derived from environmental data. Data quality objectives provide the statistical framework for planning and managing environmental data operations consistent with the data user's needs. ( EMMC)

Determinative technique   The physical and/ or chemical process by which measurement of the identity and concentration of an analyte is made.

Differential medium   A solid culture medium that makes it easier to distinguish colonies of the target organism.

Dilution/ rinse water blank   An aliquot of dilution/ rinse water that is treated exactly like a sample and carried through all portions of the procedure until determined to be negative or positive. The dilution/ rinse water blank is used to determine if the sample has become contaminated by the introduction of a foreign microorganism through poor technique.

Discharge   Generally, any spilling, leaking, pumping, pouring, emitting, emptying or dumping ( 40 CFR 109.2; 110.1; 116.3); also, see " discharge of a pollutant" ( 40 CFR 122.2); the medium that is spilled, leaked, pumped, poured, emitted, emptied, or dumped.

Discharge of pollutant   Any addition of any pollutant or combination of pollutants to ( 1) waters of the U. S. from any point source or ( 2) to the waters of the contiguous zone or the ocean from any point source other than a vessel or other floating craft which is being used as a means of transportation ( 40 CFR 122.2; 401.11)

Duplicate   A second sample collected from the same sampling point at the same time the original sample is collected and analyzed exactly like the original sample. Duplicate samples can be used as a measure of sample variability.

Effluent   A medium that flows out of a point source, e. g., the discharge from a sewage E treatment plant. Enrichment   Using a culture medium to enhance growth of the target organism prior to isolation of that organism.

Explicit flexibility   Modifications that are explicitly allowed in an approved method.

F distribution   A type of sampling distribution for a random variable. The ratio of 2 chi square F distributions, each divided by their respective degrees of freedom.

F test   In an Analysis of Variance, a test for the equality of factor level means ( such as for different methods) or for the presence of an interaction between two factors ( such as method and matrix). ( RICE) ( ASTM)

Facility   A plant or group of plants within a single location that is regulated under the CWA and/ or SDWA. A single facility may have multiple water supplies, discharges, waste streams, or other environmental media that are subject to compliance monitoring. For example, a single facility within the Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard industrial category may have a direct discharge, an indirect discharge, and an in process waste stream, all of which are subject to compliance monitoring.

False negative   A target organism incorrectly identified as a non target organism or not identified at all using the method of interest.

False positive   A non target organism incorrectly identified as the target organism using the method of interest.

False negative error rate   The proportion of target organisms incorrectly identified as a nontarget organism or not identified at all using the method of interest, equal to ( 1  Sensitivity). In statistical testing, the rate at which one falsely accepts a statistical hypothesis ( such as that a difference between methods does not exist) based on a statistical test, when the hypothesis is actually false. Abbreviated as $, and also referred to as the Type II error rate. ( ASTM)

False positive error rate   The proportion of non target organisms incorrectly identified as the target organism using the method of interest, equal to ( 1  Specificity). In statistical testing, the rate at which one falsely rejects a statistical hypothesis ( such as that a difference between methods does not exist) based on a statistical test, when the hypothesis is actually true. Abbreviated as ", and also referred to as the Type I error rate. ( ASTM)

Federal Register   A daily publication that provides a uniform system for publishing Presidential and Federal agency documents. Documents published in the Federal Register make changes to the CFR to keep the CFR current. ( OFR) Guidelines and Format   The document titled Guidelines and Format for Methods to be G Proposed at 40 CFR Parts 136 and 141; available from the National Technical Information Service ( NTIS), U. S. Department of Commerce, Springfield, Virginia, 22161 ( 703 487 4600) as NTIS publication PB96 210448.

Histogram   A bar diagram of the distribution of a set of analytical results. The range of values H is categorized into sets of subintervals, or bins, and the number of results within each bin are displayed as the height of the bars. ( BERRY)

Industrial category   A category listed in 40 CFR parts 405 503. I Industrial subcategory   A subcategory defined at 40 CFR parts 405 503.

Initial demonstration of capability   A test performed to establish the ability to demonstrate control over the analytical system and to demonstrate acceptable performance. Initial precision and recovery   The analysis of a minimum of four spiked reagent water samples under the same conditions as will be used for analysis of environmental samples. The IPR is used to demonstrate that a laboratory is able to produce reliable results with the method prior to analysis of environmental samples.

Interaction   The situation where the effect of one variable ( such as method type) on a dependent variable ( such as recovery) is affected by the value of a third variable ( such as matrix).

Interference   A positive or negative effect on a measurement caused by a substance other than the one being investigated. ( QAD)

Interlaboratory   Occurring in multiple laboratories.

Intralaboratory   Occurring within a single laboratory.

J Kolmogorov Smirnov test   A statistical test for determining whether a given set of K results follow a normal distribution, or any other specified distribution. ( GILBERT)

Limited use   Use of a method by a single regulated entity or laboratory for analysis of one or L more matrix types.

Log normal   A distribution of a random variable X such that the natural logarithm of X is normally distributed.

Log phase   Bacterial growth phase in which the logarithm of the bacterial biomass increases linearly with time.

Main effect   Situation where a variable ( such as method type) has a consistent effect on a M dependent variable ( such as recovery).

Matrix   The component or substrate that contains the analytes of interest.

Matrix effect   Variability in the analytical performance of a method that can be attributed to the type of sample analyzed.

Matrix spike   A sample prepared by adding a known mass of target analyte to a specified amount of a sample matrix for which an independent estimate of target analyte concentration is available. A matrix spike is used, for example, to determine the effect of the matrix on a method's recovery efficiency. ( QAMS)

Matrix spike duplicate   A replicate of the matrix spike to test precision. The MS/ MSD are used in combination to test the precision of an analysis. ( QAD)

Matrix type   A sample medium with common characteristics across a given industrial category or subcategory. For example, C stage effluents from chlorine bleach mills, effluent from the continuous casting subcategory of the iron and steel industrial category, POTW sludge, and inprocess streams in the Atlantic and Gulf Coast Hand shucked Oyster Processing subcategory are each a matrix type. For the purposes of this initiative all drinking waters constitute a single matrix type.

May   This action, activity, or procedural step is neither required nor prohibited.

May not   This action, activity, or procedural step is prohibited. Measurement quality   Critical level which, if exceeded, is considered to append objective additional, and possibly unacceptable, measurement uncertainty to the corresponding data.

Method   A body of procedures and techniques for performing a task ( e. g. sampling, characterization, quantitation) systematically presented in the order in which they are to be executed. ( QAD)

Method blank   An aliquot of reagent water or designated matrix that is treated exactly as a sample, including exposure to all glassware, equipment, solvents, and procedures that are used with samples. The method blank is used to determine if analytes or interferences are present in the laboratory environment, the reagents, or the apparatus.

Method defined analyte   An analyte without a specific, known composition where the analytical result depends totally on the measurement procedure.

Method modification   A change made to an approved method.

Method validation   A process by which a laboratory or vendor establishes the performance of a new method or substantiates the performance of a method modification.

Methods and Criteria   The document titled: Analysis of Pollutants in Municipal Water and Industrial Wastewater: Test Procedures and Quality Control Acceptance Criteria; available from the National Technical Information Service ( NTIS), U. S. Department of Commerce, Springfield, Virginia, 22161 ( 703 487 4600) as NTIS publication PB96 210463, and incorporated by reference into this part.

Mid point response factor   The response factor at the concentration at which calibration is verified.

Minor modification   A modified method that has been reviewed by EPA and has been determined to be technically equivalent to a method approved for use in compliance monitoring. A minor modification employs the same chemistry and/ or biological principles as the approved method to determine the presence/ absence or to quantify the amount of the target organism in a sample. Supporting data may be necessary to demonstrate that a minor modification will yield results equivalent to those obtained using the approved method but does not require approval as an alternate test procedure through proposal and promulgation in the Federal Register.

Modified method   An approved method that has been modified to change a front end technique. EPA will judge a modified method to be: 1) an acceptable version or minor modification of a previously promulgated method, which does not require approval as an ATP or 2) a significantly different method which requires an application for an ATP approval.

Nationwide use   Use of a method by all regulated entities and laboratories for analysis of one N or more matrix types.

Navigable waters   All waters of the United States, including the territorial seas. ( 40 CFR 110.1)

Negative control   A non target organism processed to ensure the laboratories are familiar with the identification of the target organism and to ensure that confirmation test results are appropriate. New method   A method that employs a determinative technique for an analyte of concern that differs from determinative techniques employed for that analyte in methods previously approved at 40 CFR part 136 or 141.

Nonparametric   A type of statistical analysis for which no assumptions about the underlying distribution of the data are necessary.

Non selective media   An enrichment media that allows most bacteria to grow.

Normal probability plot   A graphical depiction of the distribution of a set of analytical results. A normal probability plot is a scatterplot depicting the observed results compared to the expected results based on a normal distribution. If the observed data follow a normal distribution, the graph will display a line at a 45 degree angle from the x axis. Also known as a Q Q plot.

Ongoing demonstration of capability   The laboratory needs to demonstrate that the analytical O system is in control on an ongoing basis through the analysis of ODC samples ( positive control/ positive control duplicate).

Ongoing precision and recovery   A reagent water sample method blank spiked with known quantities of analytes. The OPR is analyzed exactly like a sample. Its purpose is to assure that the results produced by the laboratory remain within the limits specified within the method for precision and recovery.

Other approved methods   Promulgated methods that are not designated as a reference method, but continue to carry the same regulatory status.

Physical phase   The physical phase of a sample matrix ( e. g., air, water, soil). P Positive control   A target organism that is analyzed to ensure that the laboratory is performing the method acceptably and that the media is providing appropriate results.

Power   The probability that a statistical test will conclude that a difference ( for example, between methods) exists, when a difference truly does exist. Equal to 1  $.

Precision   The degree to which a set of observations or measurements of the same property, usually obtained under similar conditions, conform to themselves; a data quality indicator. Precision is usually expressed as standard deviation, variance, or range, in either absolute or relative terms.

The precision obtainable from an environmental measurement method may be estimated from replicate analyses of subsamples taken from the same ( homogenous) sample. Generally speaking, the more carefully one executes the various steps of a method and controls the variables affecting the method's capability, the more precise will be the results. The use of a nonhomogeneous sample will compound the precision estimate with the sample variability.

Preparation   Processing performed on a sample prior to analysis, e. g. extraction, concentration, cleanup, etc.

Presumptive counts   Numbers of organisms based on results that have not been confirmed or verified.

Procedures   A set of systematic instructions for performing an activity. ( QAD) Promulgated method   A method that has been published or incorporated by reference into 40 CFR parts 136, 141, 405 500, or other parts that support EPA's water programs ( i. e., an approved method).

Promulgation   Publication of a final rule in the FR.

Public water system ( PWS)   A system for the provision to the public of piped water for human consumption, if such system has at least fifteen service connections or regularly serves an average of at least twenty five individuals daily at least 60 days out of the year. Such term includes ( 1) any collection, treatment, storage, and distribution facilities under control of the operator of such system and used primarily in connection with such system, and ( 2) any collection or pretreatment storage facilities not under such control which are used primarily in connection with such system. A public water system is either a " community water system" or a " noncommunity water system."

Quality assurance   An integrated system of activities involving planning, quality control, Q quality assessment, reporting, and quality improvement to ensure that a product or service meets defined standards of quality with a stated level of confidence. ( QAD)

Quality control   The overall system of technical activities whose purpose is to measure and control the quality of a product or service so that it meets the needs of users. The aim is to provide quality that is satisfactory, adequate, dependable, and economical. ( QAD)

QC acceptance criteria   Performance specifications developed from validation data and used to control the limits within which an analytical method is operated.

QC acceptance criteria based comparison study   A study performed to evaluate the performance of a modified method against the quality control acceptance criteria of a reference method.

Range finding   Preliminary analyses conducted to assess the ambient concentration of the R target organism in a matrix to be used in a study or preliminary analyses of spiked samples involving few, if any, replicates, to assess method performance to identify the spike dose to be used in a study.

Raw data   Data that have not been processed.

Reagent water   Water conforming to Specification D 1193, Annual Book of ASTM Standards, or specifications in Standard Methods 9020B. 4. d.

Recovery   The total amount of the analyte found in the sample divided by the amount of the analyte added into the sample as a spike.

Reference method   A method that serves as a standard against which method modifications can be compared.

Regulated entity   Permittees, PWSs, POTWs, and other entities responsible for compliance with provisions of the CWA or SDWA. Relative percent difference ( RPD)   An estimate of the variability of two numbers expressed in relative terms. Calculated as the absolute value of the difference of the two numbers, divided by their mean:

RPD A B A B =

+ 1 2 100% *( ) *

Equal to the relative standard deviation of the two numbers multiplied by the square root of 2.

Relative standard deviation ( RSD)   The standard deviation expressed as a percentage of the mean ( 100F/ X); i. e., the coefficient of variation.

Replicate   Multiple samples collected from the same sampling point at the same time and analyzed exactly the same way. Replicate samples can be used as a measure of sample variability.

Sample matrix   See " matrix." S Sample preparation technique   Any technique in the analytical process that precedes the determinative technique, including all procedures, equipment, solvents, etc. that are used in the preparation and cleanup of a sample for analysis. Sample preparation techniques do not include conditions and/ or procedures for the collection, preservation, shipment, and storage of the sample.

Sensitivity   In presence/ absence testing, sensitivity is the proportion of target organisms in the sample that were correctly detected by the method of interest.

Shapiro Wilk test   A statistical test for determining whether a given set of results follow a normal or log normal distribution. Best used for datasets with at most 50 results. ( GILBERT)

Side by side comparison   Parallel testing of a new or modified method and a reference method to determine whether the performance of the new or modified method is acceptable compared to the reference method.

Specificity   In presence/ absence testing, the proportion of non target organisms in the sample that were correctly identified as not being the target organism by the method of interest.

Spike   The process of adding a known amount of target analyte to a sample; used to determine the recovery efficiency of the method. ( QAD)

Spiking suspension   Diluted stock suspension containing the organism( s) of interest at a concentration appropriate for spiking samples.

Standard deviation ( F)   The measure of the dispersion of observed values expressed as the positive square root of the sum of the squares of the difference between the individual values of a set and the arithmetic mean of the set, divided by one less than the number of values in the set. For a total of n numbers:

SD n X Mean i i n =

=   1 1 2 1 ( )

Statistical power   See power. Stem and leaf plot   A graphical depiction of a set of analytical results, that conveys information about the shape of the distribution while retaining the numerical information. The stem and leaf plot separates the digits of the values as leaves ( the last digit of the values) and stems ( the remaining digit of the values). The individual results are grouped according to the stems, and the leaves are listed separately in a format similar to a histogram. ( RICE)

Stock suspension   A concentrated suspension containing the organism( s) of interest that is obtained from a source that will attest to the host source, purity, authenticity, and viability of the organisms.

Study plan   A study design submitted for EPA review, comment, and approval prior to conducting the side by side or QC acceptance criteria based method comparability study. This process protects the applicant by providing written approval of the study design before resources are spent to conduct the study. Data from studies conducted without EPA review and approval may not adequately address the applicant's study objectives. A detailed procedure for the ATP or new method should be included as an attachment to the study plan. EPA will evaluate the study plan to verify that the appropriate data quality objectives identified in this protocol are defined and addressed. EPA comments are incorporated into the study design and this review process is repeated until EPA has approved the study design.

Study report   A formal report developed by laboratories or other organizations responsible for developing ATPs or new methods documenting the results of the side by side or QC acceptance criteria based method comparability study. The information and supporting data needed in the study report should be sufficient to enable EPA to evaluate the performance of the ATP or new method and make a decision on whether it is comparable or superior to the reference method. The approved study report should also identify and discuss any deviations from the study plan that were made in implementing the study, and the approved study plan should be appended to and referenced in the study report.

Summary results   Overall study statistics ( not sample specific results).

Target organism   The organism the method is designed to detect. T U Validate   Reliably assess the performance ( bias and precision) of a method in a reference V matrix ( such as reagent water) and the matrix in which the validated method will be used ( such as drinking water, surface water, or municipal wastewater effluent).

Validation, single laboratory   Assessment of method performance ( see " validate") in one laboratory.

Validation, interlaboratory   Assessment of method performance ( see " validate") at multiple laboratories.

Variance   A measure of the dispersion of a set of values. The sum of the squares of the difference between the individual values of a set and the arithmetic mean of the set, divided by one less than the number of values in the set. ( The square of the sample standard deviation) ( QAD) Wilcoxon Mann Whitney ( WMW) test   A nonparametric analysis used to determine whether W the medians from two levels of a given factor ( such as method) differ from each other, based on the ranks of all results. ( SPRENT)

XYZ The above definitions are referenced to the following organizations:

ASTM ASTM D 4855 91. Standard Practice for Comparing Test Methods.

BERRY Berry, D. A. and B. Lindgren. Statistics Theory and Methods. Wardsworth, Belmonst, CA, 1990.

EMMC Environmental Monitoring Management Council GILBERT Gilbert, R. O. Statistical Methods for Environmental Pollution Monitoring. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, 1987.

NELAC QS National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Conference, Quality Systems OFR Office of Federal Register QAD Quality Assurance Division, National Center for Environmental Research and Quality Assurance, Office of Research and Development, USEPA RICE Rice, J. A. Mathematical Statistics and Data Analysis, Second Edition. Wadsworth, Belmont, CA, 1995.

SPRENT Sprent, P. Applied Nonparametric Statistical Methods, Second Edition. Chapman & Hall, London, 1993. APPENDIX B ATP APPLICATION FORM EPA Office of Water Alternate Test Procedure or New Method Preliminary Application Form for Microbiological Analytes Applicant Name and Address: EPA Use Only ATP Case Number:

Date Application Submitted:

Type of Application: Circle appropriate application type Alternate Test Procedure New Method Method Number Title of Method Revision Date EPA Approved Reference Method:

Analyte( s):

Applicable Matrices: Circle all that apply Ambient Water Biosolids Drinking Water Wastewater Level of Use: Limited Use Nationwide Study Design: Circle appropriate study design Side by Side Comparison Study QC Acceptance Criteria Based Comparison Study FOR LIMITED USE APPLICATIONS ONLY ID Number of Existing or Pending Permit:

Issuing Agency:

Type of Permit:

Discharge Serial Number:

Attachments Check all that apply G Justification for ATP G Alternate Test Procedure or New Method ( in standard EPA format)

G Method Comparison Table G Study Plan G Other:

Submit Application and Attachments in Triplicate EPA Office of Water Alternate Test Procedure or New Method Final Application Form for Microbiological Analytes Applicant Name and Address: EPA Use Only ATP Case Number:

Date Application Submitted:

Type of Application: Circle appropriate application type Alternate Test Procedure New Method Method Number Title of Method Revision Date EPA Approved Reference Method:

Analyte( s):

Applicable Matrices: Circle all that apply Ambient Water Biosolids Drinking Water Wastewater Level of Use: Limited Use Nationwide Study Design: Circle appropriate study design Side by Side Comparison Study QC Acceptance Criteria Based Comparison Study FOR LIMITED USE APPLICATIONS ONLY ID Number of Existing or Pending Permit:

Issuing Agency:

Type of Permit:

Discharge Serial Number:

Attachments Check all that apply G Justification for ATP G Alternate Test Procedure or New Method ( in standard EPA format)

G Method Comparison Table G Study Plan G Study Report G Other:

Submit Application and Attachments in Triplicate APPENDIX C APPLICATION INVENTORY FORM 1. Completed application form.

Includes the name and address of the applicant; the date of submission of the application; the method number, title, and revision date; the EPA approved reference method; the analyte( s) for which the ATP or new method is proposed; the type of application; applicable matrices; study design; level of use; NPDES permit information, if applicable; and the attachments submitted with the application. Section 2.2 Appendix C G 2. Justification for ATP or new method.

Brief justification for why the ATP or new method is being proposed. Section 2.3 G 3. Method in EPA format.

Scope and application Section 3.1 G Summary of method Section 3.2 G Definitions of method Section 3.3 G Interferences Section 3.4 G Safety Section 3.5 G Equipment and supplies Section 3.6 G Reagents and standards Section 3.7 G Sample collection, preservation, and storage Section 3.8 G Quality control Section 3.9 G Calibration and standardization Section 3.10 G Procedure Section 3.11 G Data analysis and calculations Section 3.12 G Method performance Section 3.13 G Pollution prevention Section 3.14 G Waste management Section 3.15 G References Section 3.16 G Tables, diagrams, flowcharts, and validation data Section 3.17 G 4. Method comparison table.

A two column table comparing the proposed ATP or new method with the EPA approved reference method. This table should include the number and title of each method, the latest revision date of the ATP or new method, and a detailed discussion of each of the method sections listed in Section 3.0. Each topic should be discussed in a separate row of the table and the applicant should highlight any differences between the ATP or new method and the EPA approved reference method. Section 2.5 G 5. Study plan.

Background Section 4.1 G Objectives Section 4.2 G Study design Section 4.3 G Coordination Section 4.4 G Data reporting Section 4.5 G 6. Study report.

Background Section 9.1 G Study objectives and design Section 9.2 G Study implementation Section 9.3 G Data reporting and validation Section 9.4 G Results Section 9.5 G Data analysis and discussion Section 9.6 G Conclusions Section 9.7 G Appendix A: Method Section 9.8 G Appendix B: Approved study plan Section 9.9 G Appendix C: Supporting data Section 9.10 G Appendix D: Supporting references Section 9.11 G APPENDIX D DATA ELEMENTS AND EXAMPLE BENCH SHEETS Data Elements The data elements listed below should be reported on the bench sheets or in the lab notebook for each method, as applicable. EPA will review the information during the data validation process to ensure the method specific QC measures are met, as agreed to in the approved study plan. ° Laboratory name ° Method number ° Media ° Procedure ° Matrix ° Sample collection date/ time ° Dates and times for all method steps associated with holding times or incubation times ° Analyst initials for each processing step in the method ° Presumptive results for all applicable media ° Confirmed/ completed results for all applicable media ° All measured volumes ° Dilution information ° Final result per units of measurement Example Benchsheets Example bench sheets for the following EPA approved reference methods are included in this appendix: ° Aeromonas ( USEPA Method 1605) ° Cryptosporidium ( USEPA Methods 1622 and 1623) ° E. coli ( SM 9221F, SM 9222G) ° Enterococci ( SM 9230C) ° Fecal coliforms ( SM 9221E, 9222D) ° Fecal streptococcus ( SM 9230B, SM 9230C) ° Giardia ( USEPA Method 1623) ° Total coliforms ( SM 9221B, SM 9222B)

Note: Additional example bench sheets or electronic copies of the attached bench sheets are available upon request. Laboratory: Sample Collection Time:

Sample Collection Date: Sampling Point:

Analyst Initials Read Temp 10 mL 1.0 mL 0.1 mL 0.01 mL 0.001 mL Analyst Initials Read Temp 10 mL 1.0 mL 0.1 mL 0.01 mL 0.001 mL Analyst Initials Read Temp 10 mL 1.0 mL 0.1 mL 0.01 mL 0.001 mL 24 hr fecal read ( From 24 hr LTB)

24 hr fecal read ( From 48 hr LTB)

24 hr E. coli read ( From 24 hr LTB)

LTB start 24 hr E. coli read ( From 48 hr LTB)

LTB 24 hr read Final tube combination: Total coliforms/ 100 mL: Fecal tube combination: Fecal/ 100 mL:

E. coli tube combination: E. coli/ 100 mL:

Analyst Initials Read Temp 10 mL 1.0 mL 0.1 mL 0.01 mL 0.001 mL Analyst Initials Read Temp 10 mL 1.0 mL 0.1 mL 0.01 mL 0.001 mL BGB 48 hr read ( from 48 hr LTB) 24 hr fecal read ( From 24 hr LTB)

24 hr fecal read ( From 48 hr LTB)

24 hr E. coli read ( From 24 hr LTB)

Analyst Initials Read Temp 10 mL 1.0 mL 0.1 mL 0.01 mL 0.001 mL 24 hr E. coli read ( From 48 hr LTB)

Final tube combination: Total coliforms/ 100 mL: Fecal tube combination: Fecal/ 100 mL:

E. coli tube combination: E. coli/ 100 mL:

Analyst Initials Read Temp 10 mL 1.0 mL 0.1 mL 0.01 mL 0.001 mL Analyst Initials Read Temp 10 mL 1.0 mL 0.1 mL 0.01 mL 0.001 mL Analyst Initials Read Temp 10 mL 1.0 mL 0.1 mL 0.01 mL 0.001 mL 24 hr fecal read ( From 24 hr LTB)

24 hr fecal read ( From 48 hr LTB)

24 hr E. coli read ( From 24 hr LTB)

24 hr E. coli read ( From 48 hr LTB)

Final tube combination: Total coliforms/ 100 mL: Fecal tube combination: Fecal/ 100 mL:

E. coli tube combination: E. coli/ 100 mL:

Comments: 24 hr / 48 hr BGB read ( From 48 hr LTB)

LTB: Replicate 3 BGB: Replicate 3 LTB: Replicate 2 24 hr / 48 hr LTB read BGB: Replicate 2 24 hr / 48 hr BGB read ( From 24 hr LTB)

Multiple Tube Fermentation: Total Coliform, Fecal Coliform, E. coli ( SM 9221B, SM 9221E, SM 9221F)

24 hr / 48 hr BGB read ( From 24 hr LTB)

LTB: Replicate 1 BGB: Replicate 1 EC MUG: Replicate 1 24 hr / 48 hr LTB read 24 hr / 48 hr BGB read ( From 48 hr LTB)

Please enter date and time for the following: LTB 48 hr read,

BGB 24 hr read ( from 24 hr LTB),

ECMUG 24 hr read ( from 24 hr LTB) EC MUG: Replicate 3 24 hr / 48 hr BGB read ( From 24 hr LTB) EC MUG: Replicate 2 BGB 48 hr read ( from 24 hr LTB),

BGB 24 hr read ( from 48 hr LTB),

ECMUG 24 hr read ( from 48 hr LTB) 24 hr / 48 hr BGB read ( From 48 hr LTB)

24 hr / 48 hr LTB read Laboratory: Sample collection time:

Sample collection date: Sampling point:

mEndo incubation start temperature ( oC): mEndo incubation start date/ time:

mEndo incubation end temperature ( oC): mEndo incubation end date/ time:

NA MUG incubation start temperature ( oC): NA MUG incubation start date/ time:

NA MUG incubation end temperature ( oC): NA MUG incubation end date/ time:

Replicate number 1 Analyst initials Sample volume filtered No. colonies per filter Total Coliforms per 100 mL E. coli per 100 mL 100 mL 10.0 mL 1.0 mL 0.1 mL Replicate number 2 Analyst initials Sample volume filtered No. colonies per filter Total Coliforms per 100 mL E. coli per 100 mL 100 mL 10.0 mL 1.0 mL 0.1 mL Replicate number 3 Analyst initials Sample volume filtered No. colonies per filter Total Coliforms per 100 mL E. coli per 100 mL 100 mL 10.0 mL 1.0 mL 0.1 mL E. coli Total coliforms E. coli No. colonies per filter Membrane Filtration: mEndo/ NA MUG ( SM 9222B/ SM 9222G)

Total coliforms E. coli No. colonies per filter No. colonies per filter Total coliforms Laboratory: Sample collection time:

Sample collection date: Sampling point:

mFC incubation start temperature ( oC): mFC incubation start date/ time:

mFC incubation end temperature ( oC): mFC incubation end date/ time:

NA MUG incubation start temperature ( oC): NA MUG incubation start date/ time:

NA MUG incubation end temperature ( oC): NA MUG incubation end date/ time:

Replicate number 1 Analyst initials Sample volume filtered No. colonies per filter Fecal coliforms per 100 mL E. coli per 100 mL 100 mL 10.0 mL 1.0 mL 0.1 mL Replicate number 2 Analyst initials Sample volume filtered No. colonies per filter Fecal coliforms per 100 mL E. coli per 100 mL 100 mL 10.0 mL 1.0 mL 0.1 mL Replicate number 3 Analyst initials Sample volume filtered No. colonies per filter Fecal coliforms per 100 mL E. coli per 100 mL 100 mL 10.0 mL 1.0 mL 0.1 mL E. coli No. colonies per filter No. colonies per filter Fecal coliforms E. coli No. colonies per filter Membrane Filtration: mFC/ NA MUG ( SM 9222D/ SM 9222G)

Fecal coliforms E. coli Fecal coliforms Laboratory: Sample collection time:

Sample collection date: Sampling point:

mTEC incubation start temperature ( oC): mTEC incubation start date/ time:

mTEC incubation end temperature ( oC): mTEC incubation end date/ time:

Urease substrate incubation start date/ time: Urease substrate incubation end date/ time:

Replicate number 1 Analyst initials Replicate number 2 Analyst initials Replicate number 3 Analyst initials E. coli E. coli Sample volume filtered 100 mL 10.0 mL 1.0 mL E. coli Membrane Filtration: mTEC ( EPA 1103.1, SM 9213D)

10.0 mL 1.0 mL 100 mL 10.0 mL 1.0 mL 0.1 mL E. coli per 100 mL Sample volume filtered No. colonies per filter E. coli per 100 mL E. coli Sample volume filtered No. colonies per filter E. coli per 100 mL 100 mL 0.1 mL 0.1 mL No. colonies per filter Laboratory: Sample collection time:

Sample collection date: Sampling point:

modified mTEC incubation start temperature ( oC):

modified mTEC incubation end temperature ( oC):

Replicate number 1 Analyst initials Replicate number 2 Analyst initials Replicate number 3 Analyst initials 100 mL E. coli E. coli 0.1 mL 100 mL 10.0 mL 1.0 mL 10.0 mL 1.0 mL E. coli per 100 mL E. coli per 100 mL No. colonies per filter 1.0 mL 0.1 mL 10.0 mL E. coli Membrane Filtration: Modified mTEC ( EPA 1603)

Sample Volume filtered No. colonies per filter E. coli per 100 mL modified mTEC incubation start date/ time:

modified mTEC incubation end date/ time:

E. coli 100 mL No. colonies per filter 0.1 mL Sample Volume filtered Sample Volume filtered Sample Collection time:

Sampling point: ADB incubation start date/ time:

10 mL 1.0 mL 0.1 mL 0.01 mL 0.001 mL 10 mL 1.0 mL 0.1 mL 0.01 mL 0.001 mL 24 hr ADB read 24 hr BEA read from 24 hr ADB Start temp:

48 hr ADB read 24 hr BEA read from 48 hr ADB ADB incubation end date/ time:

Final tube combination: Fecal streptococcus/ 100 mL:

10 mL 1.0 mL 0.1 mL 0.01 mL 0.001 mL 10 mL 1.0 mL 0.1 mL 0.01 mL 0.001 mL Start temp:

24 hr ADB read 24 hr BEA read from 24 hr ADB 48 hr ADB read 24 hr BEA read from 48 hr ADB Final tube combination: Fecal streptococcus/ 100 mL: End temp:

Start temp:

10 mL 1.0 mL 0.1 mL 0.01 mL 0.001 mL 10 mL 1.0 mL 0.1 mL 0.01 mL 0.001 mL 24 hr ADB read 24 hr BEA read from 24 hr ADB 48 hr ADB read 24 hr BEA read from 48 hr ADB End temp:

Final tube combination: Fecal streptococcus/ 100 mL:

Multiple Tube Fermentation: Fecal streptococcus ( SM 9230B) BEA incubation end date/ time:

( From 48 hr ADB)

End temp:

BEA incubation start date/ time:

( From 24 hr ADB)

BEA incubation end date/ time:

( From 24 hr ADB)

BEA incubation start date/ time:

( From 48 hr ADB)

Replicate Number 2 BEA Plates Laboratory:

Sample Collection Date: Analyst Initials Replicate Number 1 Comments: BEA Plates Comments: Azide Dextrose Broth ( ADB)

Azide Dextrose Broth ( ADB)

Analyst Initials Analyst Initials Analyst Initials Analyst Initials Replicate Number 3 Comments: Azide Dextrose Broth ( ADB)

Analyst Initials BEA Plates Laboratory: Sample collection time:

Sample collection date: Sampling point:

mEnterococcus incubation start temperature ( oC): mEnterococcus incubation start date/ time:

mEnterococcus incubation end temperature ( oC): mEnterococcus incubation end date/ time:

Replicate number 1 Analyst initials Replicate number 2 Analyst initials Replicate number 3 Analyst initials Fecal streptococcus Fecal streptococcus Fecal streptococcus 1.0 mL 0.1 mL Sample volume filtered 100 mL 10.0 mL 100 mL 10.0 mL 1.0 mL 0.1 mL Sample volume filtered 0.1 mL Sample volume filtered 100 mL 10.0 mL 1.0 mL No. colonies per filter Membrane Filtration: Fecal Streptococcus ( SM 9230C)

Fecal streptococcus per 100 mL Fecal streptococcus per 100 mL Fecal streptococcus per 100 mL No. colonies per filter No. colonies per filter Laboratory: Sample collection time:

Sample collection date: Sampling point:

mE incubation start temperature ( oC): mE incubation start date/ time:

mE incubation end temperature ( oC): mE incubation end date/ time:

EIA incubation start temperature ( oC): EIA incubation start date/ time:

EIA incubation end temperature ( oC): EIA incubation end date/ time:

Replicate number 1 Analyst initials Replicate number 2 Analyst initials Replicate number 3 Analyst initials Enterococcus Enterococcus Enterococcus 0.1 mL 0.1 mL Volume filtered 100 mL 10.0 mL 0.1 mL Volume filtered 1.0 mL Enterococci per 100 mL 100 mL 10.0 mL 1.0 mL No. colonies per filter Membrane Filtration: Enterococcus ( mE EIA) ( EPA 1106.1, SM 9230C)

Enterococci per 100 mL Enterococci per 100 mL No. colonies per filter Volume filtered 100 mL No. colonies per filter 10.0 mL 1.0 mL Laboratory: Sample collection time:

Sample collection date: Sampling point:

mEI incubation start temperature ( oC):

mEI incubation end temperature ( oC):

Replicate number 1 Analyst initials Replicate number 2 Analyst initials Replicate number 3 Analyst initials Enterococcus 0.1 mL 100 mL 10.0 mL 1.0 mL 0.1 mL Enterococcus Volume filtered No. colonies per filter Enterococcus per 100 mL 100 mL 10.0 mL Volume filtered 100 mL 10.0 mL 1.0 mL No. colonies per filter Enterococcus per 100 mL Membrane Filtration: Enterococcus ( mEI) ( EPA 1600)

Enterococcus per 100 mL No. colonies per filter mEI incubation start date/ time:

mEI incubation end date/ time:

Enterococcus Volume filtered 1.0 mL 0.1 mL Laboratory name:

Section 1. Media Preparation Information 1 2 Oxidase dry slides expiration date 3 4 5 6 Section 2: Sample Processing Information 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Section 3: Sample Analysis Information 15 16 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 Batch specific Cover Sheet: Method 1605 ( Aeromonas)  ADA with Vancomycin Note: Please complete one sheet per week of analysis.

Sample spiking date Dilution preparation time ( for IDC, ODC, and MS/ MSD samples)

Analyst preparing dilutions for IDC, ODC, and MS/ MSD samples) Date nutrient agar slants for positive controls and matrix spikes were inoculated Kovac's expiration date Date of nutrient agar slant preparation Time nutrient agar slants for positive controls and matrix spikes were inoculated Date of nutrient agar plate preparation Sample spiking time Nutrient agar plate incubation start date / time Nutrient agar plate read date / time Funnel decontamination method Analyst performing filtration Analyst spiking samples ADA V read analyst Incubator temperature at read date Incubator temperature at start date ADA V read date / time ADA V incubation start date / time oC oC Dilution preparation date ( for IDC, ODC, and MS/ MSD samples)

Trehalose incubation start date / time Oxidase confirmation date / time Nutrient agar plate read analyst Tryptone ( indole) read date / time Trehalose read date / time Trehalose read analyst Oxidase read analyst Tryptone ( indole) read analyst Tryptone ( indole) incubation start date / time Laboratory name:

Batch identification:

Did the unspiked reagent water sample exhibit the appropriate response? Yes No Did negative controls for oxidase, trehalose, and indoleexhibit the appropriate responses? Yes No QC Checklist: Method 1605 ( Aeromonas)  ADA with Vanomycin Note: Please complete one sheet per week of analysis. Please circle the appropriate response and provide supporting information as necessary.

If no, please explain. If no, please list contaminated method blank( s) and associated samples. 1 Yes No Did all method blanks ( dilution/ rinse water) exhibit the appropriate response?

2 Yes No If no, please explain. Did ADA V media sterility check exhibit the appropriate response?

3 Did nutrient agar plate media sterility check exhibit the appropriate response? Yes No 4 Did nutrient agar slant media sterility check exhibit the appropriate response? Yes No If no, please explain.

5 Did trehalose media sterility check exhibit the appropriate response? Yes No If no, please explain.

If no, please explain. 7 If no, please explain. No If no, please explain. 6 Did tryptone media sterility check exhibit the appropriate response? Yes 8 Laboratory name:

Section 1: Sample information 1 Sample number: 5 Volume ( mL) of spike ( QC samples only):

2 Utility: 6 Volume filtered ( mL):

3 Sampling point: 7 Dilution bottle ( for laboratory prepared QC samples only, plea D D2 sterility check, direct streak, streak with filter reagent, finished, dilution/ rinse Section 2: Sample results Color Morphology* size ( mm) Color Morphology* size ( mm)

1 pale yellow 1358 2 4 mm 60 off white 1358 2 4 mm 2 of 2 2 of 2 2 dark yellow 1358 1 3 mm 5 off white 1358 1 2 mm 1 of 1 1 of 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 D1= 30 D2= 5 D3= D4= D5=

Sample specific Data Report Form:

Method 1605 ( Aeromonas)  ADA With Vanomycin ADA V colony description ( this section is optional) No. of presumptive positive colonies for this colony type Please note: It is important to record the number of colonies for each presumptively positive morphological type so that the final density of Aeromonas per sample can be reported based on percent confirmation of each colony type.

Nutrient agar colony description ( this section is optional) No. oxidase positive per colony type No. trehalose positive per colony type No. Indole positive per colony type No. of presumptive colonies submitted to confirmation for this colony type 8 4 QC Analysis or Matrix filtered ( please circle one): If this report form is for a method blank,

please indicate samples that are associated with this method blank:

A No. presumptive positive colonies for each colony type B No. of each colony type submitted to confirmation C How many submitted colonies per colony type confirmed ( oxidase positive, ferments trehalose, and produces indole)? D1 + D2 + D3 + D4 + D5 Total confirmed Aeromonas per sample A * ( C/ B) = D Calculated no. of confirmed Aeromonas per colony type 60 2 1 5 1 1 Section 5: Comments Section 3: Calculations ( Use one row for each presumptive positive colony color and morphology. If more than five colony types, please attach another sheet.)

* Morphology choices ( list all that apply) : ( 1) Round, ( 2) oval, ( 3) symmetric, ( 4) asymmetric, ( 5) shiny, ( 6) dull, ( 7) translucent, ( 8) opaque, ( 9) grainy, ( 10) fuzzy, ( 11) other 2 1 30 + 5 = 35 1 of 2 1 of 1 Laboratory name:

Section 1: Sample information 1 Sample number: 5 Volume ( mL) of spike ( QC samples only):

2 Utility: 6 Volume filtered ( mL):

3 Sampling point: 7 Dilution bottle ( for laboratory prepared QC samples only, please circle one): D D2 sterility check, direct streak, streak with filter reagent, finished, dilution/ rinse Section 2: Sample results Color Morphology* size ( mm) Color Morphology* size ( mm)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 D1= D2= D3= D4= D5=

Sample specific Data Report Form:

Method 1605 ( Aeromonas)  ADA With Vanomycin No. of presumptive colonies submitted to confirmation for this colony type Section 5: Comments Section 3: Calculations ( Use one row for each presumptive positive colony color and morphology. If more than five colony types, please attach another sheet.)

* Morphology choices ( list all that apply): ( 1) Round, ( 2) oval, ( 3) symmetric, ( 4) asymmetric, ( 5) shiny, ( 6) dull, ( 7) translucent, ( 8) opaque, ( 9) grainy, ( 10) fuzzy, ( 11) other A No. presumptive positive colonies for each colony type B No. of each colony type submitted to confirmation C How many submitted colonies per colony type confirmed ( oxidase positive, ferments trehalose, and produces indole)? D1 + D2 + D3 + D4 + D5 Total confirmed Aeromonas per sample A * ( C/ B) = D Calculated no. of confirmed Aeromonas per colony type 8 4 QC Analysis or Matrix filtered ( please circle one): If this report form is for a method blank, please indicate samples that are associated with this method blank:

ADA V colony description ( this section is optional) No. of presumptive positive colonies for this colony type Please note: It is important to record the number of colonies for each presumptively positive morphological type so that the final density of Aeromonas per sample can be reported based on percent confirmation of each colony type.

Nutrient agar colony description ( this section is optional) No. oxidase positive per colony type No. trehalose positive per colony type No. Indole positive per colony type HV= high volume IPR= initial precision and recovery MS= matrix spike June 15, 2001, Revision  Draft NTU= nephelometric turbidity unit OPR= ongoing precision and recover PT= performance test Laboratory name: Laboratory ID:

Method 1622/ 23 Bench Sheet 1. Client sample number 2. Internal laboratory sample ID ( if applicable)

3. Date and time of sample receipt 4. Received by 5. Temperature of sample and condition of sample upon arrival 6. Storage location and storage temperature 7. Sample turbidity, in NTU 8. Sample type ( IPR, method blank, field sample, OPR, MS, PT sample)

9. Spiking suspension number ( for IPR, OPR, MS, and PT samples only)

10. Estimated number of oocysts/ cysts spiked ( for IPR, OPR, MS, and PT samples only) Crypto Giardia 11. Spiking date and time 12. Sample volume spiked, in L 13. Sample filtration start date and time 14. Type of filter used ( Envirochek, Envirochek HV, FiltaMax, CrypTest, other [ specify]) and lot number:

15. Name of analyst performing filtration 16. Sample volume filtered, to nearest ¼ L ( do not include rinse volume)

17. Did filter clog?

18. Elution date and time ( must be performed within 96 hours of sample collection/ filtration)

These steps must be completed in one working day 19. Elution procedure: 9 wrist shaker 9 FiltaMax wash station 9 stomacher 9 backflush/ sonication 20. Name of analyst performing elution 21. Elution buffer:_________________________ Elution buffer lot number and expiration date:

22. Concentration procedure ( centrifugation, FiltaMax concentrator, other [ specify])

23. Name of analyst performing concentration 24. Pellet volume after concentration, in mL 25. ( a) Total volume of resuspended concentrate; ( b) volume transferred to IMS ( in mL) ( a) ( b)

26. Number of subsamples processed independently through the remainder of the method 27. IMS system used ( Dynal anti Cryptosporidium, Dynal GC Combo, other [ specify]) and lot number 27. Name of analyst performing IMS procedure 28. Slide( s) used ( Meridian, Dynal, other [ specify]) and lot number 29. Date and time sample applied to slide( s) to dry ( must be completed same working day as Row 18)

30. Detection kit used ( Merifluor, AquaGlo, Crypt a Glo, Giardi a Glo, other [ specify]) and lot number 31. Analyst performing staining procedure 32. Staining completion date and time ( must be complete within 72 hours of Row 29)

33. Total number of oocysts and cysts counted in sample ( sum of counts in subsamples, if applicable) Crypto Giardia Comments: June 15, 2001, Revision  Draft Laboratory name: Laboratory ID:

Method 1622/ 1623 Cryptosporidium Report Form Client sample number: Internal laboratory sample ID ( if applicable):

10 mL subsample ID ( if packed pellet > 0.5 mL): Volume examined ( in L) on this slide:

Analyst: Positive staining control acceptable 9 YES 9 NO Negative staining control acceptable 9 YES 9 NO Object located by FA No. Shape ( oval or round) Size L x W ( Fm) DAPI  DAPI + D. I. C.

Light blue internal staining, no distinct nuclei,

green rim ( A) Intense blue internal staining ( B) Number of nuclei stained sky blue ( C) Empty oocysts ( D) Oocysts with amorphous structure ( E) Oocysts with internal structure ( F)

Number of sporozoites 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Total FA number from this slide: Examination completion date:

Examination completion time ( must be complete within 7 days of staining):

DAPI : Total number ( A): D. I. C.  Total number of empty oocysts ( D):

DAPI +: Total number ( B): D. I. C.  Total number of oocysts with amorphous structure ( E):

DAPI +: Total number ( C): D. I. C.  Total number of oocysts with internal structure ( F):

Total count DAPI + ( C) that show structure by D. I. C. ( F): June 15, 2001, Revision  Draft Laboratory name: Laboratory ID ( if applicable):

Method 1623 Giardia Report Form Client sample number: Internal laboratory sample ID ( if applicable):

10 mL subsample ID ( if packed pellet > 0.5 mL): Volume examined ( in L) on this slide:

Analyst: Pos. staining control acceptable 9 YES 9 NO Neg. staining control acceptable 9 YES 9 NO Object located by FA No. Shape ( oval or round) Size L x W ( Fm) DAPI  DAPI + D. I. C.

Light blue internal staining,

no distinct nuclei, green rim ( A) Intense blue internal staining ( B) Number of nuclei stained sky blue ( C) Empty cysts ( D) Cysts with amorphous structure ( E) Cysts with internal structure ( F)

Number of nuclei Median body Axonemes 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Total FA number from this slide: Examination completion date:

Examination completion time ( must be complete within 7 days of staining):

DAPI: Total number ( A): D. I. C.: Total number of empty cysts ( D):

DAPI+: Total number ( B): D. I. C.: Total number of cysts with amorphous structure ( E):

DAPI+: Total number ( C): D. I. C.: Total number of cysts with one internal structure ( F):

Total number DAPI + ( C) that show structure by D. I. C. ( F): D. I. C.: Total number of cysts with > one internal structure ( F): APPENDIX E EPA HEADQUARTERS AND REGIONAL ATP CONTACTS Headquarters William Telliard Director, Analytical Methods Attn: ATP Program Coordinator Mail Code 4303T U. S. EPA Office of Water, Office of Science and Technology 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20460 Region 1 Arthur Clark QA Chemist USEPA Region 1 EQA 60 Westview Street Lexington, MA 02173 Region 2 Carol Lynes ATP Program Coordinator USEPA Region 2 Division of Science and Monitoring 2890 Woodbridge Avenue ( MS 220) Building 10 Edison, NJ 08837 3679 Region 3 Charles Jones Regional QA Officer USEPA Region 3 Environmental Assessment and Protection Division 1650 Arch Street, 3ES 10 Philadelphia, PA 19103 2029 Region 4 Wayne Turnbull Chemist/ ATP Program Coordinator USEPA Region 4 Room: SESD 960 College Station Road Athens, GA 30605 2720 Region 5 Kenneth Gunter ATP Program Coordinator USEPA Region 5 77 W. Jackson Blvd., WT 15J Chicago, IL 60604 Region 6 David Stockton USEPA Region 6 Laboratory Houston Branch 10625 Fallstone Road ( 6MD HI) Houston, TX 77099 Region 7 Doug Brune ATP Program Coordinator USEPA Region 7 726 Minnesota Avenue, ENSV/ QA Kansas City, KS 66101 Region 8 Rick Edmonds Regional Quality Assurance Officer USEPA Region 8 999 18th Street  Suite 500 ( 8TMS L) Denver, CO 80202 2466 Region 9 Roseanne Sakamoto ATP Program Coordinator USEPA Region 9 75 Hawthorne Street, PMD 3 San Francisco, CA 94105 Region 10 Bruce Woods QAO USEPA Region 10 200 Sixth Avenue, OEA 095 Seattle, WA 98101


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 31 (Wednesday, February 14, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6555-6557]
[FR Doc No: 2018-03005]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos: CP18-39-000; CP18-40-000]

Questar Southern Trail Pipeline Company, Navajo Tribal Utility
Authority; Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Assessment for
the Proposed Southern Trail Pipeline Abandonment Project Request for
Comments on Environmental Issues

    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or
Commission) will prepare an environmental assessment (EA) that will
discuss the environmental impacts of the Southern Trail Pipeline
Abandonment Project (Project) involving abandonment in place and by
sale of facilities by Questar Southern Trail Pipeline Company
(Questar). On December 22, 2017, Questar Southern Trails Pipeline
Company (Questar), filed an application, in Docket No. CP18-39-000,
pursuant to section 7(b) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) to abandon its
certificate of public convenience and necessity, including its blanket
certificate authorities. Questar also requests to abandon, part by sale
and part in-place, all of its certificated facilities dedicated to
providing jurisdictional transportation service including approximately
488 miles of natural gas pipeline and related facilities located in
California, Arizona, Utah, and New Mexico.
    In a related filing, on December 22, 2017, the Navajo Tribal
Utility Authority (NTUA), filed an application, in Docket No. CP18-40-
000, pursuant to section 7(f) of the NGA and Part 157 of the
Commission's regulations, requesting a service area determination
within which NTUA may, without further Commission authorization,
enlarge or expand its natural gas distribution facilities and a waiver
of all reporting, accounting, and other rules and regulations normally
applicable to natural gas companies. NTUA would utilize those acquired
facilities to provide its own service, replacing the service
historically provided to it by Questar. The remaining facilities not
sold to the NTUA would be abandoned in-place.
    About 220 miles of pipeline facilities that would be abandoned in
place are in San Bernardino County, California; Mohave, Yavapai,
Coconino and Apache Counties, Arizona; and San Yuan, Utah. About 268
miles would be abandoned by sale and are in Coconino, Navajo and Apache
Counties, Arizona; San Yuan County, Utah; and San Yuan County, New
Mexico. The Commission will use this EA in its decision-making process
to determine whether the project is in the public convenience and
necessity.
    This notice announces the opening of the scoping process the
Commission will use to gather input from the public and interested
agencies on the project. You can make a difference by providing us with
your specific comments or concerns about the project. Your comments
should focus on the potential environmental effects, reasonable
alternatives, and measures to avoid or lessen environmental impacts.
Your input will help the Commission staff determine what issues they
need to evaluate in the EA. To ensure that your comments are timely and
properly recorded, please send your comments so that the Commission
receives them in Washington, DC on or before March 5, 2018.
    If you sent comments on this project to the Commission before the
opening of this docket on December 22, 2017, of the CP filing, you will
need to file those comments in Docket No. CP18-39-000 and CP18-40-000
to ensure they are considered as part of this proceeding.
    This notice is being sent to the Commission's current environmental
mailing list for this project. State and local government
representatives should notify their constituents of this proposed
project and encourage them to comment on their areas of concern.
    If you are a landowner receiving this notice, a pipeline company
representative may contact you about the abandonment by sale and in
place of the proposed facilities. The company would seek to negotiate a
mutually acceptable agreement.
    Questar provided landowners with a fact sheet prepared by the FERC
entitled ``An Interstate Natural Gas Facility On My Land? What Do I
Need To Know?'' This fact sheet addresses a number of typically asked
questions, including how to participate in the Commission's
proceedings. It is also available for viewing on the FERC website
(www.ferc.gov).

Public Participation

    For your convenience, there are three methods you can use to submit
your comments to the Commission. The Commission encourages electronic
filing of comments and has expert staff available to assist you at
(202) 502-8258 or [email protected]. Please carefully follow
these instructions so that your comments are properly recorded.
    (1) You can file your comments electronically using the eComment
feature on the Commission's website (www.ferc.gov) under the link to
Documents and Filings. This is an easy method for submitting brief,
text-only comments on a project;
    (2) You can file your comments electronically by using the eFiling
feature on the Commission's website (www.ferc.gov) under the link to
Documents and Filings. With eFiling, you can provide comments in a
variety of formats by attaching them as a file with your submission.
New eFiling users must first create an account by clicking on
eRegister. If you are filing a comment on a particular project, please
select ``Comment on a Filing'' as the filing type; or
    (3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to
the following address. Be sure to reference the project docket number
(CP18-39-000 and CP18-40-000 with your submission: Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE,
Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.

Summary of the Proposed Project

    The Project would consist of abandonment by sale approximately 268
miles of pipeline facilities and abandon in-place another approximately
220 miles of pipeline facilities, totaling approximately 488 miles of
existing mainline natural gas pipeline located between the Essex Meter
Facility with Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) in San

Bernardino County, California and extending northeast to the Milagro
Plant in San Juan County, New Mexico. Specifically Questar proposes to:
     Abandon in place the following:

--About 220 miles of 16-inch diameter pipeline extending northeast from
the current Questar Essex metering and regulating (M&R) Facility with
PG&E in San Bernardino County, California to its Grey Mountain main
line block valve in Coconino County, Arizona.
--Mohave Valley Compressor Station in Mohave County, Arizona;
--two delivery interconnects and associated M&R facilities, and all
other appurtenant facilities, as necessary; and
--affiliated facilities in San Bernardino County, California; Mohave,
Yavapai, Coconino and Apache Counties, Arizona; and San Yuan, Utah.

    Abandon by sale to NTUA approximately 268 miles of its interstate
pipeline, three compressor stations, and related facilities.
Specifically, Questar proposes to:
     Abandon by sale the following:

--approximately 41.3 miles of 20-inch diameter pipeline extending east
from Quastar's Chinde Wash Launcher and Receiver facility in San Juan
County, New Mexico to its Milagro Plant Interconnect in San Juan
County, New Mexico;
--about 58.9 miles of 12-inch diameter pipeline extending southeast
from Questar's Red Mesa Compressor Station in San Juan County Utah to
its Chinde Wash Launcher and Receiver facility in San Juan County, New
Mexico;
--about 168.0 miles of 16-inch diameter pipeline extending northeast
from Questar's Grey Mountain block valve in Coconino County, Arizona to
its Red Mesa Compressor Station in San Juan County, Utah;
--three compressor stations including Shiprock Compressor Station in
San Juan County, New Mexico; Red Mesa Compressor Station in San Juan
County, Utah; Cameron Compressor Station in Coconino County, Arizona;
and
--six interconnects: three receipt point interconnects and three
delivery point interconnects with associated M&R facilities, and other
appurtenant facilities, as necessary.

    The general location of the project facilities is shown in appendix
1.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The appendices referenced in this notice will not appear in
the Federal Register. Copies of appendices were sent to all those
receiving this notice in the mail and are available at www.ferc.gov
using the link called eLibrary or from the Commission's Public
Reference Room, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, or call
(202) 502-8371. For instructions on connecting to eLibrary, refer to
the last page of this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Land Requirements for Construction

    There is no construction involved in this project. About 27.25
acres of land would be disturbed during removal of minor aboveground
facilities and all work would be limited to existing permanent right-of
way and existing access roads. All disturbed areas would be restored to
preexisting conditions.

The EA Process

    The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires the
Commission to take into account the environmental impacts that could
result from an action whenever it considers the issuance of a
Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity. NEPA also requires us
\2\ to discover and address concerns the public may have about
proposals. This process is referred to as scoping. The main goal of the
scoping process is to focus the analysis in EA. We will consider all
filed comments during the preparation of the EA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ We, us, and our refer to the environmental staff of the
Commission's Office of Energy Projects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the EA we will discuss impacts that could occur as a result of
the facilities to be abandoned in place and removal of minor facilities
proposed under these general headings:
     Geology and soils;
     land use;
     water resources, fisheries, and wetlands;
     cultural resources;
     vegetation and wildlife;
     air quality and noise;
     endangered and threatened species;
     public safety; and
     cumulative impacts.
    We will also evaluate reasonable alternatives to the proposed
project or portions of the project and make recommendations on how to
lessen or avoid impacts on the various resource areas.
    The EA will present our independent analysis of the issues. The EA
will be available in the public record through eLibrary. Depending on
the comments received during the scoping process, we may also publish
and distribute the EA to the public for an allotted comment period. We
will consider all comments on the EA before making our recommendations
to the Commission. To ensure we have the opportunity to consider and
address your comments, please carefully follow the instructions in the
Public Participation section, beginning on page 2.
    With this notice, we are asking agencies with jurisdiction by law
and/or special expertise with respect to the environmental issues of
this project to formally cooperate with us in the preparation of the
EA.\3\ Agencies that would like to request cooperating agency status
should follow the instructions for filing comments provided under the
Public Participation section of this notice. Currently, no agency has
expressed intention to participate as a cooperating agency in the
preparation of the EA to satisfy its NEPA responsibilities related to
this project.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Council on Environmental Quality regulations addressing
cooperating agency responsibilities are at Title 40, Code of Federal
Regulations, Part 1501.6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Consultations Under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act

    In accordance with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
implementing regulations for section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act, we are using this notice to initiate consultation
with the applicable State Historic Preservation Office(s) (SHPO), and
to solicit their views and those of other government agencies,
interested Indian tribes, and the public on the project's potential
effects on historic properties.\4\ We will define the project-specific
Area of Potential Effects (APE) in consultation with the SHPO(s) as the
project develops. On natural gas facility projects, the APE at a
minimum encompasses all areas subject to ground disturbance (examples
include construction right-of-way, contractor/pipe storage yards,
compressor stations, and access roads). Our EA for this project will
document our findings on the impacts on historic properties and
summarize the status of consultations under section 106.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's regulations
are at Title 36, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 800. Those
regulations define historic properties as any prehistoric or
historic district, site, building, structure, or object included in
or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic
Places.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Environmental Mailing List

    The environmental mailing list includes federal, state, and local
government representatives and agencies; elected officials;
environmental and public interest groups; Native American Tribes; other
interested parties; and local libraries and newspapers. This list also
includes all affected landowners (as defined in the Commission's
regulations) who are potential right-of-way grantors, whose property
may be used temporarily for project purposes, or who own homes within
certain distances of aboveground

facilities, and anyone who submits comments on the project. We will
update the environmental mailing list as the analysis proceeds to
ensure that we send the information related to this environmental
review to all individuals, organizations, and government entities
interested in and/or potentially affected by the proposed project.
    If we publish and distribute the EA, copies/Copies of the EA will
be sent to the environmental mailing list for public review and
comment. If you would prefer to receive a paper copy of the document
instead of the CD version or would like to remove your name from the
mailing list, please return the attached Information Request (appendix
2).

Becoming an Intervenor

    In addition to involvement in the EA scoping process, you may want
to become an intervenor which is an official party to the Commission's
proceeding. Intervenors play a more formal role in the process and are
able to file briefs, appear at hearings, and be heard by the courts if
they choose to appeal the Commission's final ruling. An intervenor
formally participates in the proceeding by filing a request to
intervene. Instructions for becoming an intervenor are in the
``Document-less Intervention Guide'' under the ``e-filing'' link on the
Commission's website. Motions to intervene are more fully described at
http://www.ferc.gov/resources/guides/how-to/intervene.asp.

Additional Information

    Additional information about the project is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the
FERC website at www.ferc.gov using the eLibrary link. Click on the
eLibrary link, click on General Search and enter the docket number,
excluding the last three digits in the Docket Number field (i.e., CP18-
39 or CP18-40). Be sure you have selected an appropriate date range.
For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
[email protected] or toll free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or for TTY,
contact<PHONE_NUMBER>. The eLibrary link also provides access to the
texts of formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders,
notices, and rulemakings.
    In addition, the Commission offers a free service called
eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances
and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time
you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with
notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to
the documents. Go to www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp.
    Finally, public sessions or site visits will be posted on the
Commission's calendar located at www.ferc.gov/EventCalendar/EventsList.aspx along with other related information.

    Dated: February 8, 2018.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-03005 Filed 2-13-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 220 (Tuesday, November 15, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 70716-70717]
[FR Doc No: 2011-29394]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER10-1734-002.
    Applicants: MXenergy Electric Inc.
    Description: Notice of Change in Status of MXenergy Electric Inc.
    Filed Date: 11/04/2011.
    Accession Number: 20111104-5079.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET on 11/25/2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-3420-003.
    Applicants: Gridway Energy Corp.
    Description: Supplemental Change in Status Notice to be effective
11/4/2011.
    Filed Date: 11/04/2011.
    Accession Number: 20111104-5023.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET on 11/25/2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-4658-001.
    Applicants: E Minus LLC.
    Description: Amended Rate Schedule to be effective 11/4/2011.
    Filed Date: 11/03/2011.
    Accession Number: 20111103-5126.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET on 11/25/2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-4665-002.
    Applicants: North Branch Resources, LLC.
    Description: Supplement to Category 1 Status Designation Request to
be effective 11/4/2011.
    Filed Date: 11/04/2011.
    Accession Number: 20111104-5025.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET on 11/25/2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-4721-001.
    Applicants: New Hope Power Partnership.
    Description: Revised New Hope FERC Electric Tariff Baseline Filing
to be effective 11/4/2011.
    Filed Date: 11/04/2011.
    Accession Number: 20111104-5054.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET on 11/25/2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-347-000.
    Applicants: DB Energy Trading LLC.
    Description: Rate Schedule FERC No. 1 Revision to be effective 11/
3/2011.
    Filed Date: 11/03/2011.
    Accession Number: 20111103-5092.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET on 11/25/2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-348-000.
    Applicants: Mercuria Energy America, Inc.
    Description: FERC Electric Baseline Tariff Filing to be effective
12/1/2011.
    Filed Date: 11/03/2011.
    Accession Number: 20111103-5093.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET on 11/25/2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-349-000.
    Applicants: Atlantic Path 15, LLC.
    Description: Appendix I--Annual Update of the TRBAA to be effective
1/1/2012.
    Filed Date: 11/03/2011.
    Accession Number: 20111103-5125.

    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET on 11/25/2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-350-000.
    Applicants: Wolverine Trading, LLC.
    Description: Wolverine Trading, LLC, FERC Electric MBR Tariff to be
effective 11/4/2011.
    Filed Date: 11/03/2011.
    Accession Number: 20111103-5127.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET on 11/25/2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-351-000.
    Applicants: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.
    Description: 11-03-11 MRES Attachments O, GG, and MM to be
effective 1/1/2012 under ER12-351.
    Filed Date: 11/03/2011.
    Accession Number: 20111103-5131.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET on 11/25/2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-352-000.
    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.
    Description: SGIA WDT SERV AG SCE-Littlerock SGF1 Project to be
effective 11/5/2011.
    Filed Date: 11/04/2011.
    Accession Number: 20111104-5005.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET on 11/25/2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-353-000.
    Applicants: Sconza Candy Company.
    Description: Notice of cancellation of Sconza Candy Company.
    Filed Date: 11/03/2011.
    Accession Number: 20111103-5166.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET on 11/25/2011.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: November 4, 2011.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-29394 Filed 11-14-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P