[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 40 (Thursday, February 28, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Page 6846]
[FR Doc No: 2019-03466]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-85179; File No. SR-C2-2018-021]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe C2 Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Deemed Approval of a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendments
No. 1 and 2, To Allow the Post Only Order Instruction on Complex Orders

February 22, 2019.
    On October 1, 2018, Cboe C2 Exchange, Inc. (``C2'') filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission''), pursuant to
Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\
and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to allow the Post
Only order instruction on complex orders that route to its electronic
book.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change was published for comment in the Federal
Register on October 16, 2018.\3\ On November 20, 2018, C2 filed
Amendment No. 1 to the proposal.\4\ On November 27, 2018, pursuant to
Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,\5\ the Commission designated a longer
period within which to approve the proposed rule change, disapprove the
proposed rule change, or institute proceedings to determine whether to
disapprove the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1.\6\
On December 14, 2018, C2 filed Amendment No. 2 to the proposal.\7\ The
Commission received no comment letters on the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 84399 (October 10,
2018), 83 FR 52253.
    \4\ The text of Amendment No. 1 is available at https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-c2-2018-021/src22018021-4668149-176527.pdf.
    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 84662, 83 FR 62396
(Dec. 3, 2018). The Commission designated January 14, 2019, as the
date by which it should approve, disapprove, or institute
proceedings to determine whether to disapprove the proposed rule
change.
    \7\ The text of Amendment No. 2 is available at https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-c2-2018-021/src22018021-4778855-176825.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As of January 14, 2019, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(D) of the
Act,\8\ the proposed rule change (SR-C2-2018-021), as modified by
Amendments No. 1 and 2, was deemed to have been approved by the
Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(D).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-03466 Filed 2-27-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 53 (Tuesday, March 21, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 14488-14490]
[FR Doc No: 2017-05160]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2017-0194; Directorate Identifier 2017-CE-006-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; PILATUS AIRCRAFT LTD. Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
PILATUS AIRCRAFT LTD. Model PC-12/47E airplanes. This proposed AD
results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI)
originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and
correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes
the unsafe condition as an error within the flight management system
caused by installing Primus APEX software Build 10 or 10.9, which could
cause deviation from the correctly calculated barometric vertical
navigation nominal glide path. We are issuing this proposed AD to
require actions to address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by May 5, 2017.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
PILATUS AIRCRAFT LTD., Customer Support PC-12, CH-6371 Stans,
Switzerland; phone: +41 41 619 33 33; fax: +41 41 619 73 11; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet: www.pilatus-aircraft.com.
You may review this referenced service information at the FAA, Small
Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (816)
329-4148.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-
0194; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments
received, and other information. The street address for the Docket
Office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments
will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Doug Rudolph, Aerospace Engineer, FAA,
Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri
64106; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2017-0194;
Directorate Identifier 2017-CE-006-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD because of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA
AD No. 2017-0024, dated February 13, 2017 (referred to after this as
``the MCAI''), to

correct an unsafe condition for PILATUS AIRCRAFT LTD. Model PC-12/47E
airplanes and was based on mandatory continuing airworthiness
information originated by an aviation authority of another country. The
MCAI states:

    An occurrence was reported of a split between the vertical
guidance data and the flight director steering commands during a
Vertical Glide Path (VGP) approach. Subsequent investigation
identified an error within the Flight Management System (FMS) that
was introduced into Primus APEX software (S/W) Build 10 and S/W
Build 10.9.
    This condition, if not corrected, could lead to loss of control
of the aeroplane.
    To address this potential unsafe condition, Pilatus issued
Temporary Revision (TR) No. 38 to the PC-12/47E Pilot's Operating
Handbook, (POH) Report No: 02277 (hereafter referred to as ``POH TR
38'' in this AD), limiting VGP Approach mode sourced on baro
Vertical Navigation (VNAV) to visual meteorological conditions (VMC)
only, and providing procedures applicable in case of VGP deviation
occurring during baro VNAV approaches.
    For the reason described above, this AD requires amendment of
the applicable Aircraft Flight Manual (AFM).

You may examine the MCAI on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov
by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-0194.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    PILATUS AIRCRAFT LTD. has issued Temporary Revision No. 38 to PC-
12/47E Pilot's Operating Handbook, Report No: 02277, Section 2--
Limitations, dated February 8, 2017. The service information describes
procedures for limiting the use of the autopilot and flight director to
day visual meteorological conditions (VMC) during barometric vertical
navigation (baro VNAV) during a vertical glide path approach (VGP).
This service information is reasonably available because the interested
parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by
the means identified in the ADDRESSES section of this NPRM.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to our bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, they
have notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and
service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because
we evaluated all information and determined the unsafe condition exists
and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type
design.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD will affect 350 products of U.S.
registry. We also estimate that it would take about 1 work-hour per
product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The
average labor rate is $85 per work-hour.
    Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this proposed AD on
U.S. operators to be $29,750, or $85 per product.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. ``Subtitle VII: Aviation
Programs,'' describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's
authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
``Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, section 44701: General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed
regulation:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

    1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

    2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new AD:

PILATUS AIRCRAFT LTD.: Docket No. FAA-2017-0194; Directorate
Identifier 2017-CE-006-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by May 5, 2017.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to PILATUS AIRCRAFT LTD. Model PC-12/47E
airplanes, all serial numbers, that:
    (1) have Primus APEX Software Build 10 with Honeywell part
number (P/N) EB60000487-0110 or Primus APEX Software Build 10.9 with
Honeywell P/N EB60000487-0112 installed; and
    (2) are certificated in any category.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 34: Navigation.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by mandatory continuing airworthiness
information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another
country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation
product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as an error within
the flight management system caused by installing Primus APEX
software Build 10 or 10.9, which could cause deviation from the
correctly calculated barometric vertical navigation nominal guide
path. We are issuing this AD to prevent the pilot from following
incorrect data from the flight management system, which could result
in loss of control.

(f) Actions and Compliance

    Unless already done, within 30 days after the effective date of
this AD, insert Temporary Revision No. 38 to PC-12/47E Pilot's
Operating Handbook, Report No: 02277, Section 2--Limitations, dated
February 8, 2017, into PILATUS Airplane Flight Manual 02277, Section
2--Limitations.
    Note 1 to paragraph (f) of this AD: For airplanes affected by
this AD, the Pilot's

Operating Handbook and the Airplane Flight Manual are the same
document with the Report No.: 02277.

(g) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
Standards Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this
AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send
information to ATTN: Doug Rudolph, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small
Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri
64106; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane
to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal
inspector (PI) in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO),
or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.

(h) Related Information

    Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD No.
2017-0024, dated February 13, 2017, for related information. You may
examine the MCAI on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by
searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-0194. For service
information related to this AD, contact PILATUS AIRCRAFT LTD.,
Customer Support PC-12, CH-6371 Stans, Switzerland; phone: +41 41
619 33 33; fax: +41 41 619 73 11; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet: www.pilatus-aircraft.com. You may review
this referenced service information at the FAA, Small Airplane
Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
(816) 329-4148.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on March 7, 2017.
Pat Mullen,
Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2017-05160 Filed 3-20-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


	ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

	40 CFR Part 52

	[EPA-R03-OAR-2008-0694; FRL-        ]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; West
Virginia; Ambient Air Quality Standards

AGENCY:  Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION:  Proposed rule.

SUMMARY:  EPA is proposing to approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP)
revision submitted by the State of West Virginia.  This revision
pertains to establishing ambient air

quality standards for sulfur oxides, particulate matter, carbon
monoxide, ozone, nitrogen dioxide, and lead equivalent to the national
primary and secondary ambient air quality standards.  This action is
being taken under the Clean Air Act (CAA).

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before [insert date 30
days from date of publication].

ADDRESSES:  Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number
EPA-R03-OAR-

2008-0694 by one of the following methods:

 www.regulations.gov.  Follow the on-line instructions for submitting
comments.

     B.    E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
     C.    Mail:   EPA-R03-OAR-2008-0694, Cristina Fernandez, Chief, Air
Quality Planning, Mailcode 3AP21, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.

     D.   Hand Delivery:  At the previously-listed EPA Region III
address.  Such deliveries are

only accepted during the Docket(s normal hours of operation, and special
arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.

Instructions:  Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-
R03-OAR-2008-0694.  EPA's policy is that all comments received will be
included in the public docket without change, and may be made available
online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or
e-mail.  The www.regulations.gov website is an (anonymous access(
system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact
information unless you provide it in the body of your comment.  If you
send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through
www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be automatically captured
and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket
and made available on the Internet.  If you submit an electronic
comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact
information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you
submit.  If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties
and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to
consider your comment.  Electronic files should avoid the use of special
characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or
viruses.

Docket:  All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.  Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form.  Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy during normal business hours at the Air Protection
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch
Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the State submittal
are available at the West Virginia Department of Environmental
Protection, Division of Air Quality, 601 57th Street SE, Charleston,
West Virginia 25304

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Gobeail McKinley,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
by e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:  On April 25, 2008, the West Virginia
Department of Environmental Protection submitted a revision to its State
Implementation Plan.  The SIP revision restructures and consolidates all
of the West Virginia ambient air quality standards into Rule 45CSR8 to
be consistent with 40 CFR Part 50.

I.   Summary of SIP Revision

On April 25, 2008, the State of West Virginia submitted as a SIP
revision Rule 45CSR8 - Ambient Air Quality Standards, which updates and
incorporates all six criteria pollutants to be equivalent to the NAAQS
in 40 CFR Part 50.  The revision repeals rules 45CSR9 - Ambient Air
Quality Standards for Carbon Monoxide and Ozone, and 45CSR12 - Ambient
Air Quality Standard for Nitrogen Dioxide, and moves these ambient air
quality standards into Rule 45CSR8.  The revision includes a correction
of the sulfur dioxide annual primary standard from 0.003 to 0.030 ppm;
removes the annual PM10 standard, and incorporates the annual PM2.5
standard, the 24-hour PM2.5 standard of 35 µg/m3, the primary and
secondary standards for lead, and the primary and secondary 1-hour and
8-hour ozone standards.  The SIP revision includes the revocation of the
1-hour ozone standard except for Berkeley and Jefferson Counties and it
identifies the 1-hour ozone maintenance areas.  The SIP revision also
adds new reference conditions for PM2.5 and measurement methods for
PM2.5 and lead.

II.   Proposed Action

EPA is proposing to approve the West Virginia SIP revision for
establishing ambient air quality standards for sulfur oxides,
particulate matter, carbon monoxide, ozone, nitrogen dioxide, and lead.
EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this
document.  These comments will be considered before taking final action.

III.  Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations.  42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).  Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.  Accordingly,
this action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law.  For that reason, this proposed action:

is not a "significant regulatory action” subject to review by the
Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR
51735, October 4, 1993);

does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of
the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);

is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);

does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely
affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4);

does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order
13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);

is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or
safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23,
1997);

is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211
(66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);

is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note)
because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the
Clean Air Act; and

does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as
appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects,
using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order
12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

In addition, this proposed rule, establishing ambient air quality
standards in West Virginia, does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides.

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

___October 20, 2008___________           _____________/s/_______________

Dated:                                                      Donald S.
Welsh,

Regional Administrator,

                                                                 Region
III.

 PAGE

 PAGE   2

 PAGE  6


                              EPA Office of Water
                          New Method Application Form
                             For Chemical Analytes
                                                    Applicant Name and Address:
Hach Company
5600 Lindbergh Drive
Loveland, Colorado 80539
Attn: Cary B. Jackson
970 669-3050
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                 EPA Use Only
Case No.
                                                    Date Application Submitted:
February 2012
                                                       Method Number and Title:
Hach Method 10206  -  Hach Method 10206 TNTplus 835/836 Spectrophotometric Measurement of Nitrate in Water and Wastewater
                                                                   Analytes(s):
Nitrate, Nitrite/Nitrate
                                                          Type (WW, DW, WW/DW):
WW Tier 3
                                                                  Level of Use:
                                                                     (LU or NW)
NW
Attachments:
Validation Study Report/Justification for New Method
Method in standard EPA format
Digital Attachments

Revised Report of Hach Method 10206 Spectrophotometric Measurement of Nitrate in Water and Wastewater
                               October 12, 2012

Acknowledgments

	This report was prepared under the direction of Dr. Cary B. Jackson, Director of Regulatory Affairs for Hach Company.  Contributors to this study include Dave MacDonald, Scott Tucker, and Tom Haukebo of Hach Company; Lemuel Walker, USEPA Engineering and Analysis Division; and Dr. Richard Burrows et al. of Test America laboratories.

Questions or comments concerning this report should be addressed to:

Dr. C. B. Jackson
Director of Regulatory Affairs
Hach Company
5600 Lindbergh Drive
Loveland, Colorado 80539
970 669-3050
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Preface

This document is a revision (October 12, 2012) to the Report of the Hach Method 10206 Spectrophotometric Measurement of Nitrate in Water and Wastewater, which was submitted on December 16, 2011 to Mr. Lemuel Walker, Clean Water Act ATP Coordinator, United Sates Environmental Protection Agency, Engineering and Analysis Division.  During the EPA review of the ATP application and Report, it was determined that several statistical calculations were detected.  This revision report contains the corrections to the statistical calculations, with all other document- content remaining identical to the original report submission.

Document Changes From Original Report

Section 2.7.3, paragraph #1, sentence #3, - Change from: "5.3". Change to: "5.4".

Section 2.7.3, paragraph #1, sentence #4, - Change from: "11.7". Change to: "11.4".

Table 5, Standard Deviation of Means % Recovery across Labs  -  Change from: "5.3" Change to: "5.4".

Table 5, Standard Deviation of Means % Recovery across Labs  -  Change from: "11.7" Change to: "11.3".

Table of Contents																							Page
Report												1

Section 1	Introduction									2
Section 2	Multi-laboratory Validation Study						3

Section 2.1	Study Objectives								3
Section 2.2	Sample Source								3
Section 2.3	Sample Collection and Handling Activities					4
Section 2.4	Analytical Study Design							4

Section 2.4.1	MDL and ML Test Description						4
Section 2.4.2	IPR Test Description								5
Section 2.4.3 	Matrix Spike and Matrix Spike Duplicate Test Description			5

Section 2.5	Data Validation Description							5
Section 2.6	Analytical Results								5
Section 2.7	Discussion of Results								6

Section 2.7.1	MDL and ML Test								6
Section 2.7.2	IPR Test									6
Section 2.7.3	MS and MSD Test Results							6

Section 2.8	Validation Conclusions							7

Tables												8

Table 1 and 2	Method Detection Limit and Method Limit					9
Table 3 and 4	Initial Precision and Recovery						10
Table 5 and 6	Matrix Spike and Matrix Spike Duplicate Recovery				11
Table 7	Pooled Multi-laboratory Quality Control Performance Results		12

Appendices											13

Appendix A	Wastewater Source								14
Appendix B	Testing laboratories								15
Appendix C	Screening Results								16
Appendix D	Hach Method 10206  -  EPA Format						17
Appendix E	Hach Method 10206- Hach Procedure					18
Appendix F	Laboratory Standard Operating Procedure					19

Appendix G	New Method Data Form and Laboratory Bench Sheets			20Report

Section 1
Introduction

	Hach Method 10206, TNTplus 835/836(TM) Nitrate using dimethylphenol chemistry is a green chemistry alternative to that of EPA Reference EPA Method 353.2, 300.1 and the approved alternative methods of SM4500-NO3[-] E.  The TNTplus Nitrate chemistry follows classical electrophillic aromatic substitution in that nitrate in the presence of sulfuric acid yields a nitronium ion ([+]NO2) and HSO4[-].  Nitronium ions are electrophiles that attack the aromatic ring of the dimethylphenol reagent to form intermediate nitro-carbonium ions.  The basic HSO4[-] ion then extracts a hydrogen ion from the nitro-carbonium intermediate to yield a stable substitution product (o, or p-nitro-dimethylphenol). The nitrodimethylphenol product is a highly colored (directly related to the nitro functional group), quantifiable by its visible absorption spectra.

	The quality control (QC) requirements incorporated into Hach Method 10206 exceed and improve upon that of the currently approved 40 CFR part 136 nitrate methods.  The QC acceptance criteria in this method were derived from the results of an interlaboratory study conducted by 9 laboratories and 9 different matrices.  This report gives the details of the validation study and associated results.

Section 2
Multi-laboratory Validation Study

	This section of the report provides the details of the multi-laboratory validation study conducted by Hach Company for the determination of comparability of measurement of nitrate-N and nitrite/nitrate-N with Hach Method 10206 to EPA Reference Methods 353.2, 300.0, and SM4500-NO3 E.

2.1	Study Objectives

	The purposes of the multi-laboratory study were to:

   *          Validate the Hach Method 10206 according to the Protocol for EPA Approval of New Methods for Organic and Inorganic Analytes in Wastewater and Drinking Water (USEPA, 1999).
   *          Submission of validation study report to USEPA for ultimate approval and use in 40 CFR part 136 NPDES program monitoring of nitrate and nitrite/nitrate nitrogen.

2.2	Sample Source

	The multi-laboratory validation study required collection of a variety of industrial, municipal, and treated drinking water samples in order to assess the effect of sample type on the dimethylphenol chemistry of the Hach Nitrate Method.  When selecting these sites, various factors were considered and included the following criteria:

   * The expected range of nitrate-N concentrations, with a range of 0.20  -  35 mg/L

   * Industrial categories with existing nitrate effluent limitations

   * Waste streams that have measurable quantities of nitrate and nitrite

   * Accessibility of waste streams

	Representatives of candidate facilities were initially contacted to request cooperation, verify plant and waste stream characteristics, and to coordinate sampling schedules.  Facilities volunteering to participate were selected from EPA Region VIII for industrial samples, Regions IV, V, and X for drinking water samples, and Regions II, VIII, and IX for municipal samples.  A summary of the wastewater sources is presented in Appendix A, which shows the facility types, industrial categories, and waste streams included in the study.

2.3	Sample Collection and Handling Activities

	At each site, sample material was collected in clean polyethylene containers. Industrial and municipal waste samples were collected, preserved, and shipped to the study sponsor facility (Hach Company) according to the specifications in 40 CFR part 136, Table II.  Aliquots were preserved on-site with H2SO4 to a pH of less than 2, shipped overnight to the sponsor facility at a temperature not greater than 6[o] C., but not less than 1[o] C. Drinking Water sample matrices were collected at the testing laboratory tap, then immediately preserved.  The testing laboratories for this validation study are listed in Appendix B.

	Upon receipt of collected industrial and municipal wastes samples to the sponsor facility, each matrix was screened by the Hach 10206 procedure to determine the background concentration of nitrate.  Where concentrations of screened analytes exceeded the range of the test procedure, a dilution was prepared and re-preserved to a pH of less than 2, then shipped overnight to the validation study laboratory at a temperature not greater than 6[o] C., but not less than 1[o] C.  Screening results and dilution preparation information are presented in Appendix C and D.

2.4	Analytical Study Design

	The multi-laboratory validation study consisted of three parts tests, the method detection limit (MDL) and minimum limit (ML) tests, an initial precision and recovery  (IPR) test, and a matrix and matrix spike duplicate test.  The participating validation laboratories are to perform these tests for the proposed Hach Method 10206 and either of the EPA Reference Methods 353.2, 300.0 or SN 4500--NO3[-] E.  The Validation Study Protocol is described in Appendix E

2.4.1	MDL and ML Test Discription

	The MDL is defined as the minimum concentration of a substance that can be measured and reported with 99 percent confidence that the analyte concentration is greater than zero.  To determine the MDL, the laboratories were required to follow the procedure in Appendix B to 40 CFR part 136. This procedure consists of the analysis of seven aliquots of reagent water that are spiked with nitrate-N. The MDL is calculated by multiplying the standard deviation of the seven replicate analyses by the student's t value for (n-1) degrees of freedom, where n equals the number of replicates.

	The ML is defined as the level at which the entire analytical system produces a recognizable signal and an acceptable calibration point, and is determined by multiplying the MDL by 3.18 and rounding the result to the nearest factor of 10 multiple of 1, 2, or 5.  The value 3.18 represents the ration between the student t multiplier used to determine the MDL and the 10 times multiplier used in the American Chemical Society (ACS) limit of quantity (LOQ) calculations (i.e. 10 / 3.143 = 3.18).  For example, if the calculated MDL is 5.8, the resulting ML will be equal to 5.8 times 3.18, or 18.4.  Rounding to the nearest factor of 10 multiple of 1, 2, or 5 then establishes the ML at 20.
2.4.2	IPR Test Description

	The IPR test is used for initial demonstration of a laboratory's capability to produce results that are at least as precise and accurate as results from practice of the method by other laboratories. The IPR test also is used to demonstrate that a new method or method modification will produce results that are as precise and accurate as the reference method.  The IPR test consists of analyzing at least four replicate aliquots of a reference matrix spiked with the analytes of interest and with either surrogate compounds or, for isotope dilution analysis, labeled compounds. The concentration of the target analytes in the spike solution may vary between one and five times the concentration used to establish the lowest calibration point (e.g., one to five times the ML). The spiked aliquots are carried through the entire analytical process.  Specifications are developed for the permissible range of recovery for each analyte and for an upper limit on the standard deviation or RSD of recovery.

2.4.3 	Matrix, Matrix Spike and Matrix Spike Duplicate Test

	The matrix and matrix spike/matrix spike duplicate (MS/MSD) test is used to assess method performance in the sample matrix. Analytes of interest are added to a field sample aliquot that is then thoroughly homogenized and split into two spiked replicate aliquots.  One of these replicates is identified as the matrix spike sample and the other is identified as the matrix spike duplicate sample. The recoveries of the analytes, relative to the spike, are determined in each sample.  The precision of the determinations also is assessed by measuring the relative percent difference (RPD) between the analyte concentrations measured in the MS and MSD.

2.5	Data Validation

	Data generated from this study were reviewed and validated according to the previously referenced USEPA validation protocol (Protocol for EPA Approval of , 1999 Methods for Organic and Inorganic Analytes in Wastewater and Drinking Water).  Final results, including all calculations, were verified from the raw data and bench sheets provided.  All quality control requirements in the study plan and draft version of Hach Method 10206 and USEPA Reference Methods 353.2, 300.0 or SM 4500-NO3 E were met, and all data reviewed were determined to be of acceptable quality.

2.6 	Results

	Nine laboratories submitted results for nitrate determination for each of the three performance tests (MDL/ML, IPR, Matrix and MS/MSD), by the proposed Hach Method 10206 and USEPA Reference Method 353.2, 300.0, or SM 4500-NO E.  For each reference matrix (reagent water) and field sample, the analytical results were subjected to statistical evaluation as described in section 2.4 above.  The statistical performance calculations of analytical results from each laboratory are summarized in Tables 1 through 6.    The pooled multi-laboratory validation results are summarized in Table 7.

2.7	Discussions

2.7.1	 MDL and ML Test

	All nine laboratories were successful with the analysis of the MDL samples. The overall pooled MDL with Hach Method 10206 was determined to be 0.05 mg/L and 0.02 mg/L for the USEPA Reference Methods.  Likewise, the pooled and rounded ML for each method was determined to be 0.20 and 0.10, respectively mg/L.

	This similarity in MDL and ML results indicates Hach Method 10206 is equally effective and comparable to USEAP Method 353.2, 300.0, and SM4500-NO3 E with respect to method detection in the standard reference matrix of reagent water.

2.7.2	IPR Test

	All nine laboratories were successful with the analysis of IPR samples.  There were no outliers and all data points were used to determine precision and accuracy in the standard reference matrix of reagent water.  The mean percent recovery and standard deviation of mean percent recoveries across laboratories with Hach Method 10206 was determined to be 98.6 and 1.3, respectively.  The mean percent recovery and standard deviation of mean percent recoveries across laboratories with USEPA Reference Methods was determined to be 101 and 4.7, respectively.

	The Hach Method 10206 results of mean percent recovery, standard deviation of mean percent recoveries, further indicates equal effectiveness and comparability to USEPA Reference Methods in the standard reference matrix of reagent water.

2.7.3	Matrix Spike Matrix Spike Duplicate Test

	All nine laboratories were successful with the analysis of field matrix spike and matrix spike duplicate samples.  There were no outliers and all data points were used to determine precision and accuracy in the standard reference matrix of reagent water.  The mean percent recovery and standard deviation of mean percent recoveries across laboratories with Hach Method 10206 was determined to be 95.6 and 5.4, respectively.  The mean percent recovery and standard deviation of mean percent recoveries across laboratories with USEPA Reference Methods was determined to be 102 and 11.3, respectively.

	The Hach Method 10206 results of mean percent recovery, standard deviation of mean percent recoveries across labs further indicates equal effectiveness and comparability to USEPA Reference Methods in various matrices of drinking water, treated wastewater from POTWs, and industrial treated wastewater effluents.

2.8 	Validation Conclusions

	A nation-wide multi-laboratory validation study was successfully completed using nine highly-centralized commercial testing laboratories, each laboratory analyzing a different matrix with Hach Method 10206 and EPA Reference Method 353.2, 300.0, or SM 4500-NO3 E, for the measurement of total nitrate (nitrite-nitrate nitrogen).   Based on the comparative side-by-side results of all laboratories and all matrices, Hach Method 10206, for the measurement of nitrate nitrogen equaled or provided better performance to that of the EPA Reference Methods.

Tables

                                    Table 1
                      Multi-laboratory Validation Results
                       Method Detection and Method Limit
                               Hach Method 10206
                               Nitrate-N (mg/L)

                                    Lab #1
                                    Lab #2
                                    Lab #3
                                    Lab #4
                                    Lab #5
                                    Lab #6
                                    Lab #7
                                    Lab #8
                                    Lab #9
                                    Rep #1
                                     0.325
                                     0.322
                                     0.225
                                     0.299
                                     0.261
                                     0.218
                                     0.244
                                     0.276
                                     0.239
                                    Rep #2
                                     0.320
                                     0.341
                                     0.225
                                     0.345
                                     0.233
                                     0.225
                                     0.254
                                     0.239
                                     0.272
                                    Rep #3
                                     0.271
                                     0.269
                                     0.246
                                     0.264
                                     0.230
                                     0.237
                                     0.262
                                     0.270
                                     0.247
                                    Rep #4
                                     0.280
                                     0.266
                                     0.259
                                     0.260
                                     0.236
                                     0.241
                                     0.246
                                     0.331
                                     0.240
                                    Rep #5
                                     0.285
                                     0.284
                                     0.244
                                     0.260
                                     0.227
                                     0.230
                                     0.248
                                     0.254
                                     0.232
                                    Rep #6
                                     0.253
                                     0.324
                                     0.244
                                     0.284
                                     0.238
                                     0.239
                                     0.251
                                     0.231
                                     0.231
                                    Rep #7
                                     0.260
                                     0.313
                                     0.239
                                     0.288
                                     0.245
                                     0.226
                                     0.248
                                     0.252
                                     0.239
                              Standard Deviation
                                     0.028
                                     0.030
                                     0.012
                                     0.030
                                     0.011
                                     0.008
                                     0.006
                                     0.033
                                     0.014
                                      MDL
                                     0.088
                                     0.093
                                     0.038
                                     0.095
                                     0.036
                                     0.027
                                     0.019
                                     0.102
                                     0.045
                                      ML
                                     0.279
                                     0.295
                                     0.121
                                     0.302
                                     0.115
                                     0.085
                                     0.060
                                     0.325
                                     0.142
                                  ML (Rounded
                                     0.28
                                     0.30
                                     0.12
                                     0.30
                                     0.12
                                     0.09
                                     0.070
                                     0.33
                                     0.14

                                    Table 2
                      Multi-laboratory Validation Results
                       Method Detection and Method Limit
                    USEPA Method 353.2/300.0/SM 4500-NO3 E
                               Nitrate-N (mg/L)

                                    Lab #1
                                    Lab #2
                                    Lab #3
                                    Lab #4
                                    Lab #5
                                    Lab #6
                                    Lab #7
                                    Lab #8
                                    Lab #9
                                    Rep #1
                                     0.279
                                     0.069
                                     0.577
                                     0.097
                                     0.108
                                     0.078
                                     0.019
                                     0.031
                                     0.020
                                    Rep #2
                                     0.285
                                     0.072
                                     0.585
                                     0.036
                                     0.110
                                     0.072
                                     0.019
                                     0.039
                                     0.019
                                    Rep #3
                                     0.274
                                     0.074
                                     0.588
                                     0.048
                                     0.109
                                     0.071
                                     0.019
                                     0.039
                                     0.020
                                    Rep #4
                                     0.279
                                     0.074
                                     0.576
                                     0.050
                                     0.109
                                     0.075
                                     0.018
                                     0.037
                                     0.018
                                    Rep #5
                                     0.278
                                     0.072
                                     0.576
                                     0.050
                                     0.107
                                     0.078
                                     0.018
                                     0.035
                                     0.020
                                    Rep #6
                                     0.287
                                     0.073
                                     0.586
                                     0.051
                                     0.107
                                     0.076
                                     0.019
                                     0.041
                                     0.023
                                    Rep #7
                                     0.257
                                     0.071
                                     0.586
                                     0.049
                                     0.106
                                     0.082
                                     0.018
                                     0.035
                                     0.023
                              Standard Deviation
                                     0.010
                                     0.002
                                     0.005
                                     0.019
                                     0.001
                                     0.004
                                     0.001
                                     0.003
                                     0.002
                                      MDL
                                     0.031
                                     0.005
                                     0.017
                                     0.061
                                     0.003
                                     0.012
                                     0.002
                                     0.011
                                     0.006
                                      ML
                                     0.098
                                     0.017
                                     0.054
                                     0.195
                                     0.011
                                     0.038
                                     0.007
                                     0.034
                                     0.019
                                  ML (Rounded
                                     0.10
                                     0.02
                                     0.05
                                     0.20
                                     0.01
                                     0.40
                                     0.01
                                     0.03
                                     0.02

                                    Table 3
                      Multi-laboratory Validation Results
                        Initial Precision and Recovery
                               Hach Method 10206
                          Nitrate-N Percent Recovery

                                    Rep #1
                                    Rep #2
                                    Rep #3
                                    Rep #4
                           Average Percent Recovery
                                      Std
                                   Deviation
                                    Lab #1
                                     99.6
                                     97.8
                                     98.2
                                     98.4
                                     98.5
                                      0.8
                                    Lab #2
                                     99.6
                                     98.6
                                     98.2
                                     99.8
                                     99.1
                                      0.8
                                    Lab #3
                                     98.8
                                     98.6
                                     98.6
                                     98.2
                                     98.6
                                      0.3
                                    Lab #4
                                      100
                                     99.4
                                     99.2
                                     99.0
                                     99.5
                                      0.6
                                    Lab #5
                                     99.0
                                     98.6
                                     98.4
                                     99.6
                                     98.9
                                      0.5
                                    Lab #6
                                     96.0
                                     96.4
                                     97.0
                                     94.4
                                     96.0
                                      1.1
                                    Lab #7
                                      100
                                     99.6
                                     99.0
                                     99.2
                                     99.5
                                      0.4
                                    Lab #8
                                      100
                                      100
                                     99.6
                                      100
                                      100
                                      0.3
                                    Lab #9
                                     97.2
                                     97.0
                                     97.4
                                     96.6
                                     97.1
                                      0.3

Mean % Recovery across Labs				       98.6

Std. Deviation of Mean % Recoveries across Labs	        			1.3

                                    Table 4
                      Multi-laboratory Validation Results
                        Initial Precision and Recovery
                    USEPA Method 353.3/300.0/SM 4500-NO3 E
                          Nitrate-N Percent Recovery

                                    Rep #1
                                    Rep #2
                                    Rep #3
                                    Rep #4
                           Average Percent Recovery
                                      Std
                                   Deviation
                                    Lab #1
                                      100
                                     99.4
                                     99.2
                                      101
                                      100
                                      0.8
                                    Lab #2
                                     91.2
                                      102
                                      102
                                      102
                                     99.0
                                      5.2
                                    Lab #3
                                      104
                                      104
                                      104
                                      104
                                      104
                                      0.0
                                    Lab #4
                                      108
                                      107
                                      107
                                      108
                                      108
                                      0.7
                                    Lab #5
                                      107
                                      106
                                      105
                                      103
                                      105
                                      1.5
                                    Lab #6
                                     94.9
                                     95.9
                                     95.2
                                     96.5
                                     95.6
                                      0.7
                                    Lab #7
                                      101
                                      103
                                      103
                                      103
                                      103
                                      1.1
                                    Lab #8
                                     92.5
                                     92.7
                                     92.5
                                     93.1
                                     92.7
                                      0.3
                                    Lab #9
                                     98.6
                                      102
                                     99.6
                                     99.7
                                      100
                                      1.5

Mean % Recovery across Labs				       101
Std. Deviation of Mean % Recoveries across Labs	       			4.7

                                    Table 5
                      Multi-laboratory Validation Results
               Matrix Spike and Matrix Spike Duplicate Recovery
                               Hach Method 10206
                          Nitrate-N Percent Recovery

                                 Matrix Spike
                            Matrix Spike Duplicate
                             Mean Percent Recovery
                                      Std
                                  Deviation
                                    Lab #1
                                     92.2
                                     91.6
                                     91.9
                                      0.4
                                    Lab #2
                                     88.8
                                     93.4
                                     91.1
                                      3.3
                                    Lab #3
                                     96.3
                                     93.9
                                     95.1
                                      1.7
                                    Lab #4
                                     96.2
                                     95.8
                                     96.0
                                      0.3
                                    Lab #5
                                     99.0
                                     99.0
                                     99.0
                                      0.0
                                    Lab #6
                                     99.2
                                     99.0
                                     99.1
                                      0.1
                                    Lab #7
                                     84.4
                                     82.4
                                     83.4
                                      1.4
                                    Lab #8
                                      102
                                      102
                                      102
                                      0.0
                                    Lab #9
                                     97.0
                                     99.2
                                     98.1
                                      1.6

Mean % Recovery across Labs		               95.1
Std. Dev. of Mean % Recoveries across Labs              		5.6

                                    Table 6
                      Multi-laboratory Validation Results
               Matrix Spike and Matrix Spike Duplicate Recovery
                    USEPA Method 353.2/300.0/SM 4500-NO3 E
                          Nitrate-N Percent Recovery

                                 Matrix Spike
                            Matrix Spike Duplicate
                           Average Percent Recovery
                                      Std
                                   Deviation
                                    Lab #1
                                     96.8
                                     96.8
                                     96.8
                                      0.0
                                    Lab #2
                                     93.0
                                      112
                                      102
                                     13.3
                                    Lab #3
                                      102
                                      102
                                      102
                                      0.0
                                    Lab #4
                                      109
                                      109
                                      109
                                      0.0
                                    Lab #5
                                     95.4
                                     89.6
                                     92.5
                                      4.1
                                    Lab #6
                                     81.9
                                     83.7
                                     82.8
                                      1.3
                                    Lab #7
                                      100
                                      108
                                      104
                                      5.4
                                    Lab #8
                                      123
                                      126
                                      124
                                      2.3
                                    Lab #9
                                     97.2
                                      106
                                      102
                                      6.5

Mean % Recovery across Labs		               102
Std. Dev. of Mean % Recoveries across Labs               		11.3

                                    Table 7
          Pooled Multi-laboratory Quality Control Performance Results

                           Quality Control Parameter
                               Hach Method 10206
                      EPA Method 353.2/300.0/SM4500-NO3 E
Pooled MDL (mg/L)
                                     0.05
                                     0.02
Pooled ML (mg/L)
                                     0.17
                                     0.06
Rounded ML (mg/L)
                                     0.20
                                     0.10
IPR RSDMax
                                     0.011
                                     0.033
IPR Limit of Recovery Range (%)
                                 95.4  -  102
                                 89.4  -  112
Matrix Spike RPDMax
                                     0.048
                                     0.173
Matrix Spike Limit of Recovery Range (%)
                                 90.5  -  101
                                  89.6 - 114

Appendices

Appendix A
Wastewater Sources

Matrix Category - Public Owned Treatment Works
Colorado, California, New York

Matrix Category  -  Industrial
Food Processing, Dairy processing, Beef Slaughter and Processing

Matrix Category  -  Treated Drinking Water
Florida, Indiana, Oregon,

Appendix B
Testing Laboratories/Matrices

Hach Company  -  Screening Laboratory

Lab #1:  Hach Company  -  Validation Laboratory/DSRWWTP
Lab #2:  Test America Cedar Fall  -  Validation Laboratory/DW
Lab #3:  Test America Phoenix  -  Validation Laboratory/DW
Lab #4:  Test America Watertown  -  Validation Laboratory/DW
Lab #5:  Test America Portland  -  Validation Laboratory/FTCWWTP
Lab #6:  Test America Valparaiso  -  Validation Laboratory/LPWWTP
Lab #7:  Test America Tallahassee  -  Validation Laboratory/Industrial KFE
Lab #8:  Test America Houston  -  Validation Laboratory/Industrial DFAE
Lab #9:  Test America Dayton  -  Validation Laboratory/CWWTP

Appendix C
Industrial and Municipal Nitrate-N Screening Results

Appendix D
Hach Method 10206  -  EPA Format

Appendix E
Hach Method 10206 Procedure

Appendix F
Laboratory Standard Operating Procedure

Appendix G
New Method Data Form/Laboratory Bench Sheets

                             New Method Data Form

Method Title:	Hach Method 10206 Spectrophotometric Measurement of Nitrate in Water and Wastewater

Validation Laboratory:	Hach Company
Matrix:  DSRWWTP

                       Method Detection Limit (MDL) Data

Spiking Concentration:  0.30 mg/L
MDL Data:  0.325, 0.320, 0.271, 0.280, 0.285, 0.253, 0.260

                      Initial Precision and Recovery Data

Spiking Concentration: 5.0 mg/L
IPR Data:  4.98, 4.89, 4.91, 4.92

               Matrix Spike/Matrix Spike Duplicate (MS/MSD) Data

Spiking Concentration:  5.0 mg/L
MS Concentration: 2.49
MSD Concentration:  7.10
Background Concentration:  7.07

                        New Method Acceptance Criteria

IPR Recovery:  95.4  -  102
Precision:  0.011

MS/MSD Recovery:  90.5  -  101
RPD:  0.048

                             New Method Data Form

Method Title:	Hach Method 10206 Spectrophotometric Measurement of Nitrate in Water and Wastewater

Validation Laboratory:  Test America Cedar Falls
Matrix:  Drinking Water

                       Method Detection Limit (MDL) Data

Spiking Concentration:  0.30 mg/L
MDL Data:  0.322, 0.341, 0.269, 0.266, 0.284, 0.324, 0.313

                      Initial Precision and Recovery Data

Spiking Concentration: 5.0 mg/L
IPR Data:  4.98, 4.93, 4.91, 4.99

               Matrix Spike/Matrix Spike Duplicate (MS/MSD) Data

Spiking Concentration:  5.0 mg/L
MS Concentration:  4.90
MSD Concentration:  5.13
Background Concentration: 0.46

                        New Method Acceptance Criteria

IPR Recovery:  95.4  -  102
Precision:  0.011

MS/MSD Recovery:  90.5  -  101
RPD:  0.048

                             New Method Data Form

Method Title:	Hach Method 10206 Spectrophotometric Measurement of Nitrate in Water and Wastewater

Validation Laboratory:  Test America Phoenix
Matrix:  Drinking Water

                       Method Detection Limit (MDL) Data

Spiking Concentration:  0.30 mg/L
MDL Data:  0.225, 0.225, 0.246, 0.259, 0.244, 0.244, 0.239

                      Initial Precision and Recovery Data

Spiking Concentration: 5.0 mg/L
IPR Data:  4.98, 4.93, 4.91, 4.99

               Matrix Spike/Matrix Spike Duplicate (MS/MSD) Data

Spiking Concentration:  5.0 mg/L
MS Concentration:  5.12
MSD Concentration:  5.00
Background Concentration:  0.307

                        New Method Acceptance Criteria

IPR Recovery:  95.4  -  102
Precision:  0.011

MS/MSD Recovery:  90.5  -  101
RPD:  0.048

                             New Method Data Form

Method Title:	Hach Method 10206 Spectrophotometric Measurement of Nitrate in Water and Wastewater

Validation Laboratory:  Test America Watertown
Matrix:  Drinking Water

                       Method Detection Limit (MDL) Data

Spiking Concentration:  0.30 mg/L
MDL Data:  0.299, 0.345, 0.264, 0.260, 0.260, 0.284, 0.288

                      Initial Precision and Recovery Data

Spiking Concentration: 5.0 mg/L
IPR Data:  5.02, 4.97, 4.96, 4.95

               Matrix Spike/Matrix Spike Duplicate (MS/MSD) Data

Spiking Concentration:  5.0 mg/L
MS Concentration:  4.81
MSD Concentration:  4.79
Background Concentration:  non detect

                        New Method Acceptance Criteria

IPR Recovery:  95.4  -  102
Precision:  0.011

MS/MSD Recovery:  90.5  -  101
RPD:  0.048

                             New Method Data Form

Method Title:	Hach Method 10206 Spectrophotometric Measurement of Nitrate in Water and Wastewater

Validation Laboratory:  Test America Portland
Matrix:  FTCWWTP

                       Method Detection Limit (MDL) Data

Spiking Concentration:  0.30 mg/L
MDL Data:  0.261, 0.233, 0.230, 0.236, 0.227, 0.238, 0.245

                      Initial Precision and Recovery Data

Spiking Concentration: 5.0 mg/L
IPR Data:  4.95, 4.93, 4.92, 4.98

               Matrix Spike/Matrix Spike Duplicate (MS/MSD) Data

Spiking Concentration:  5.0 mg/L
MS Concentration:  6.20
MSD Concentration:  6.20
Background Concentration:  1.25

                        New Method Acceptance Criteria

IPR Recovery:  95.4  -  102
Precision:  0.011

MS/MSD Recovery:  90.5  -  101
RPD:  0.048

                             New Method Data Form

Method Title:	Hach Method 10206 Spectrophotometric Measurement of Nitrate in Water and Wastewater

Validation Laboratory:  Test America Valparaiso
Matrix:  LPWWTP

                       Method Detection Limit (MDL) Data

Spiking Concentration:  0.30 mg/L
MDL Data:  0.218, 0.225, 0.237, 0.241, 0.230, 0.239, 0.226

                      Initial Precision and Recovery Data

Spiking Concentration: 5.0 mg/L
IPR Data:  4.80, 4.82, 4.85, 4.72

               Matrix Spike/Matrix Spike Duplicate (MS/MSD) Data

Spiking Concentration:  5.0 mg/L
MS Concentration:  4.99
MSD Concentration:  4.98
Background Concentration:  0.032

                        New Method Acceptance Criteria

IPR Recovery:  95.4  -  102
Precision:  0.011

MS/MSD Recovery:  90.5  -  101
RPD:  0.048

                             New Method Data Form

Method Title:	Hach Method 10206 Spectrophotometric Measurement of Nitrate in Water and Wastewater

Validation Laboratory:  Test America Tallahassee
Matrix:  Industrial KFE

                       Method Detection Limit (MDL) Data

Spiking Concentration:  0.30 mg/L
MDL Data:  0.244, 0.254, 0.262, 0.246, 0.248, 0.251, 0.248

                      Initial Precision and Recovery Data

Spiking Concentration: 5.0 mg/L
IPR Data:  5.00, 4.98, 4.95, 4.96

               Matrix Spike/Matrix Spike Duplicate (MS/MSD) Data

Spiking Concentration:  5.0 mg/L
MS Concentration:  11.4
MSD Concentration:  11.3
Background Concentration:  7.18

                        New Method Acceptance Criteria

IPR Recovery:  95.4  -  102
Precision:  0.011

MS/MSD Recovery:  90.5  -  101
RPD:  0.048

                             New Method Data Form

Method Title:	Hach Method 10206 Spectrophotometric Measurement of Nitrate in Water and Wastewater

Validation Laboratory:  Test America Houston
Matrix:  Industrial DFAE

                       Method Detection Limit (MDL) Data

Spiking Concentration:  0.30 mg/L
MDL Data:  0.276, 0.293, 0.270, 0.331, 0.254, 0.231, 0.252

                      Initial Precision and Recovery Data

Spiking Concentration: 5.0 mg/L
IPR Data:  5.02, 4.98, 4.95, 4.96

               Matrix Spike/Matrix Spike Duplicate (MS/MSD) Data

Spiking Concentration:  5.0 mg/L
MS Concentration:  7.88
MSD Concentration:  7.84
Background Concentration:  2.76

                        New Method Acceptance Criteria

IPR Recovery:  95.4  -  102
Precision:  0.011

MS/MSD Recovery:  90.5  -  101
RPD:  0.048

                             New Method Data Form

Method Title:	Hach Method 10206 Spectrophotometric Measurement of Nitrate in Water and Wastewater

Validation Laboratory:  Test America Dayton
Matrix:  CWWTP

                       Method Detection Limit (MDL) Data

Spiking Concentration:  0.30 mg/L
MDL Data:  0.239, 0.272, 0.247, 0.240, 0.232, 0.231, 0.239

                      Initial Precision and Recovery Data

Spiking Concentration: 5.0 mg/L
IPR Data:  4.86, 4.85, 4.87, 4.83

               Matrix Spike/Matrix Spike Duplicate (MS/MSD) Data

Spiking Concentration:  5.0 mg/L
MS Concentration:  7.06
MSD Concentration:  7.17
Background Concentration:  2.21

                        New Method Acceptance Criteria

IPR Recovery:  95.4  -  102
Precision:  0.011

MS/MSD Recovery:  90.5  -  101
RPD:  0.048


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 203 (Wednesday, October 21, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 63731-63734]
[FR Doc No: 2015-26779]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0032; FRL-9935-29]

Receipt of Several Pesticide Petitions Filed for Residues of
Pesticide Chemicals in or on Various Commodities

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of filing of petitions and request for comment.

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

SUMMARY: This document announces the Agency's receipt of several
initial filings of pesticide petitions requesting the establishment or
modification of regulations for residues of pesticide chemicals in or
on various commodities.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before November 20, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number and the pesticide petition number (PP) of interest as shown
in the body of this document, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute.
     Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC
20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html.
    Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along
with more information about dockets generally is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Susan Lewis, Registration Division
(RD) (7505P), main telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>The mailing address for each contact person is:
Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. As part of the
mailing address, include the contact person's name, division, and mail
code. The division to contact is listed at the end of each pesticide
petition summary.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
The following list of North American Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them.
Potentially affected entities may include:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
    If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this
action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT for the division listed at the end of the
pesticide petition summary of interest.

B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that

you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD-ROM that you
mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then
identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific
information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version
of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the
comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be
submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked
will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in
40 CFR part 2.
    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When preparing and submitting
your comments, see the commenting tips at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/comments.html.
    3. Environmental justice. EPA seeks to achieve environmental
justice, the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of any group,
including minority and/or low-income populations, in the development,
implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and
policies. To help address potential environmental justice issues, the
Agency seeks information on any groups or segments of the population
who, as a result of their location, cultural practices, or other
factors, may have atypical or disproportionately high and adverse human
health impacts or environmental effects from exposure to the pesticides
discussed in this document, compared to the general population.

II. What action is the Agency taking?

    EPA is announcing its receipt of several pesticide petitions filed
under section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA),
21 U.S.C. 346a, requesting the establishment or modification of
regulations in 40 CFR part 180 for residues of pesticide chemicals in
or on various food commodities. The Agency is taking public comment on
the requests before responding to the petitioners. EPA is not proposing
any particular action at this time. EPA has determined that the
pesticide petitions described in this document contain the data or
information prescribed in FFDCA section 408(d)(2), 21 U.S.C.
346a(d)(2); however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the
submitted data at this time or whether the data support granting of the
pesticide petitions. After considering the public comments, EPA intends
to evaluate whether and what action may be warranted. Additional data
may be needed before EPA can make a final determination on these
pesticide petitions.
    Pursuant to 40 CFR 180.7(f), a summary of each of the petitions
that are the subject of this document, prepared by the petitioner, is
included in a docket EPA has created for each rulemaking. The docket
for each of the petitions is available at http://www.regulations.gov.
    As specified in FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), EPA
is publishing notice of the petition so that the public has an
opportunity to comment on this request for the establishment or
modification of regulations for residues of pesticides in or on food
commodities. Further information on the petition may be obtained
through the petition summary referenced in this unit.

New Tolerances

    1. PP 4E8300. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0685). Tea Association of the
U.S.A., Inc., 362 5th Avenue, Suite 801, New York, New York 10001,
requests to establish a tolerance in 40 CFR part 180 for residues of
the fungicide propiconazole in or on tea at 4 parts per million (ppm).
The HPLC/UV Method AG-671A is used to measure and evaluate the chemical
propiconazole. Contact: RD.
    2. PP 4E8319. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0822). Interregional Research
Project Number 4 (IR-4), 500 College Road East, Suite 201 W.,
Princeton, NJ 08540, requests to establish tolerances for residues of
azoxystrobin (methyl (E)-2-{2-[6-(2-cyanophenoxy)pyrimidin-4-
yloxy]phenyl{time} -3-methoxyacrylate) and the Z isomer of
azoxystrobin, (methyl (Z)-2-{2-[6-(2- cyanophenoxy)pyrimidin-4-
yloxy]pheny1{time} -3-methoxyacrylate) in or on the raw agricultural
commodities Ti palm, leaves at 50 part per million (ppm); Ti palm,
roots at 0.5 ppm; Fruit, stone, group 12-12 at 2.0 ppm; Nut, tree,
group 14-12 at 0.02 ppm; and Quinoa, grain at 3.0 ppm. An adequate
analytical method, gas chromatography with nitrogen-phosphorus
detection (GC-NPD) or in mobile phase by high performance liquid
chromatography with ultra-violet detection (HPLC-UV), is available for
enforcement purposes with a limit of detection that allows monitoring
of food with residues at or above the levels set in these tolerances.
Contact: RD.
    3. PP 4E8321 (EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0788). IR-4 Project Headquarters,
Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, 500 College Road East,
Suite 201 W., Princeton, NJ 08540, requests to establish tolerances in
40 CFR 180.434 for residues of the fungicide, propiconazole, 1-[[2-
(2,4-dichlorophenyl)-4-propyl-1,3-dioxolan-2-yl] methyl]-1H11,2,4-
triazole and its metabolites determined as 2,4-dichlorobenzoic acid
(2,41DCBA), expressed as the stoichiometric equivalent of
propiconazole, in or on the raw agricultural commodities: Dill, fresh
at 30 ppm; dill, dried at 80 ppm; dill, seed at 15 ppm; leafy Brassica
greens, subgroup 5B at 20 ppm; quinoa, grain, at 3.0 ppm; radish, tops
at 0.2 ppm; radish, roots at 0.04 ppm; Ti palm, leaves at 10 ppm; Ti
palm, roots at 0.3 ppm, watercress at 6 ppm, fruit, stone, group 12-12,
except plum at 4 ppm and nut, tree, group 14-12 at 0.1 ppm. Analytical
methods AG-626 and AG-454A were developed for the determination of
residues of propiconazole and its metabolites containing the DCBA
moiety. Analytical method AG-626 has been accepted and published by EPA
as the tolerance enforcement method for crops. The limit of
quantitation (LOQ) for the method is 0.05 ppm. Contact: RD.
    4. PP 4E8337. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0030). Interregional Research
Project Number 4 (IR-4), 500 College Road East, Suite 201 W.,
Princeton, NJ 08540, requests to establish a tolerance in 40 CFR part
180 for residues of carfentrazone-ethyl (ethyl-alpha-2-dichloro-5-[4-
(difluoromethyl)-4,5-dihydro-3-methyl-5-oxo-1H-1,2,4-triazol-1-yl]-4-
fluorobenzene-propanoate) and the metabolite carfentrazone-ethyl
chloropropionic acid ([alpha], 2-dichloro-5-[4-(difluoromethyl)-4,5-
dihydro-3-methyl-5-oxo-1H-1,2,4-triazol-1-yl]-4-fluorobenzenepropanoic
acid)] in or on the raw agricultural commodity quinoa, grain at 0.10
ppm and psyllium, seed at 0.10 ppm. There is a practical analytical
method for detecting and measuring levels of carfentrazone-ethyl and
its metabolite in or on food with a limit of quantitation that allows
monitoring of food with residues at or above the levels set or proposed
in the tolerances. Contact: RD.
    5. PP 5E8382. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0559). Interregional Research
Project Number 4 (IR-4), requests to establish a tolerance in 40 CFR
part 180 for residues of the fungicide penflufen, (1H-Pyrazole-4-
carboxamide, N-[2-(1,3-dimethylbutyl)phenyl]-5-fluoro-1,3-dimethyl-) in
or on Onion, bulb, subgroup 3-07A at 0.01 parts per million (ppm); and
Onion, green, subgroup 3-07B at 0.015 ppm. The high performance liquid
chromatography-electrospray ionization/tandem mass spectrometry (LC/MS/
MS) is used to measure and evaluate the chemical penflufen. Contact:
RD.
    6. PP 5E8384. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0569). Interregional Research
Project

Number 4 (IR-4), 500 College Road East, Suite 201 W., Princeton, NJ
08540, requests to establish a tolerance in 40 CFR part 180 for
residues of fluensulfone equivalents (i.e., the sum of thiazole
sulfonic acid (TSA) and butene sulfonic acid (BSA) expressed as total
fluensulfone equivalents) in or on the raw agricultural commodity
Vegetable, tuberous and corm, subgroup 1C at 0.6 ppm. Adequate
analytical methods for determining fluensulfone in/on appropriate raw
agricultural commodities and processed commodities have been developed
and validated, including LC-MS/MS methods. The analytical procedures
have been successfully validated in terms of specificity, linearity,
precision, accuracy and LOQ. Contact: RD.
    7. PP 5E8395. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0629). Interregional Research
Project Number 4 (IR-4), 500 College Road East, Suite 201 W.,
Princeton, NJ 08540, requests to establish a tolerance in 40 CFR part
180 for residues of fomesafen, 5-[2-cloro-4-(trifluoromethyl)phenoxy]-
N-(methylsulfonyl)-2-nitrobenzamide in or on the raw agricultural
commodities Vegetable, tuberous and corm, subgroup 1C at 0.025 parts
per million (ppm), Berry, low growing subgroup 13-07G, except cranberry
at 0.02 ppm, and Vegetable, legume group 6 at 0.05 ppm. An analytical
method using chemical derivatization followed by gas chromatography
with Nitrogen-Phosphorus detection (NPD) has been developed and
validated for residues of fomesafen in snap/dry beans, cotton seed and
cotton gin byproducts, as well as for other crops. Contact: RD.
    8. PP 5F8358. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0646). Syngenta Crop Protection,
LLC, P.O. Box 18300, Greensboro, NC 27419-8300, requests to establish a
tolerance in 40 CFR part 180 for residues of the fungicide cyprodinil,
4-cyclopropyl-6-methyl-N-phenyl-2-pyrimidinamine, in or on vegetable,
tuberous and corm, subgroup 1C at 0.01 parts per million (ppm) and
potato, wet peel at 0.03 ppm. The High Performance Liquid
Chromatography (HPLC) with Column Switching (Method AG-631B), and High
Performance Liquid with Mass Spectrometry (HPLC/MS) methods were used
to measure and evaluate the chemical cyprodinil and its metabolite CGA-
304075. Contact: RD.

Amended Tolerances

    1. PP 4E8319. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0822). Interregional Research
Project Number 4 (IR-4), IR-4 Project, 500 College Road East, Suite
201W., Princeton, NJ 08540, requests to amend the tolerances in 40 CFR
180.507 for residues of azoxystrobin: (methyl (E)-2-{2-[6-(2-
cyanophenoxy)pyrimidin-4-yloxy]phenyl{time} - 3-methoxyacrylate) and
the Z isomer of azoxystrobin, (methyl (Z)-2-{2-[6-(2-
cyanophenoxy)pyrimidin-4-yloxy]pheny1{time} -3-methoxyacrylate) by
removing the tolerances in or on the raw agricultural commodities
Fruit, stone, group 12 at 1.5 ppm; and Nut, tree, group 14 at 0.02 ppm.
An adequate analytical method, gas chromatography with nitrogen-
phosphorus detection (GC-NPD) or in mobile phase by high performance
liquid chromatography with ultra-violet detection (HPLC-UV), is
available for enforcement purposes with a limit of detection that
allows monitoring of food with residues at or above the levels set in
these tolerances. Contact: RD.
    2. PP 4E8321 (EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0788). IR-4 Project Headquarters,
Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, 500 College Road East,
Suite 201 W., Princeton, NJ 08540, requests upon establishment of new
propiconazole tolerances above, removing tolerances in 40 CFR 180.434
for residues of the fungicide, propiconazole, 1-[[2-(2,4-
dichlorophenyl)-4-propyl-1,3-dioxolan-2-yl] methyl]-1H-1,2,4-triazole
and its metabolites determined as 2,4-dichlorobenzoic acid (2,4-DCBA),
expressed as the stoichiometric equivalent of propiconazole, in or on
fruit, stone, group 12 except plum at 4.0 ppm and nut, tree, group 14
at 0.1 ppm to eliminate redundancies. Analytical methods AG-626 and AG-
454A were developed for the determination of residues of propiconazole
and its metabolites containing the DCBA moiety. Analytical method AG-
626 has been accepted and published by EPA as the tolerance enforcement
method for crops. The limit of quantitation (LOQ) for the method is
0.05 ppm. Contact: RD.
    3. PP 5E8395. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0629). Interregional Research
Project Number 4 (IR-4), IR-4 Project, 500 College Road East, Suite 201
W., Princeton, NJ 08540, requests to amend the tolerances in 40 CFR
180.433 for residues of fomesafen, 5-[2-cloro-4-
(trifluoromethyl)phenoxy]-N-(methylsulfonyl)-2-nitrobenzamide by
removing the tolerances on the raw agricultural commodities Bean, dry
at 0.05 ppm; Bean, snap, succulent at 0.05 ppm; Bean Lima, succulent at
0.05 ppm; Pea, succulent at 0.025 ppm; Potato at 0.025 ppm; Soybean at
0.05 ppm; and Soybean, vegetable succulent at 0.05 ppm. An analytical
method using chemical derivatization followed by gas chromatography
with Nitrogen-Phosphorus detection (NPD) has been developed and
validated for residues of fomesafen in snap/dry beans, cotton seed and
cotton gin byproducts, as well as for other crops. Contact: RD.
    4. PP 5F8369. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0561). ISK Biosciences Corporation,
7470 Auburn Road, Suite A, Concord, Ohio 44077, requests to amend the
tolerances in 40 CFR 180.613 for residues of the insecticide flonicamid
[(N-(cyanomethyl)-4-trifluoromethyl)-3-pyridinecarboxamide) or (N-
cyanomethyl-4-trifluoromethylnicotinamide (IUPAC))], including its
metabolites, TFNA [4-trifluoromethylnicotinic acid], TFNA-AM [4-
trifluoromethylnicotinamide], and TFNG [N-(4-
trifluoromethylnicotinoyl)], in or on the raw agricultural commodity
Crop Group 14-12, Tree Nuts from 0.15 ppm to 0.3 ppm and the existing
tolerance in or on the raw agricultural commodity hops from 7.0 ppm to
30 ppm. An analytical method using LC-MS/MS has been developed to
determine the residues of flonicamid and its metabolites, TFNA, TFNA-
AM, and TFNG on tree nuts and hops. Contact: RD.
    5. PP 5F8374. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0560). Syngenta Crop Protection,
LLC, P.O. Box 18300, Greensboro, NC 27419-8300, requests to amend 40
CFR part 180.682 for residues of the herbicide, Bicyclopyrone: 4-
hydroxy-3-{2-[(2-methoxyethoxy) methyl{time} -6-(trifluoromethyl)-3-
pyridylcarbonyl{time}  bicyclo oct-3-en-2-one, in or on the raw
agricultural commodities: Wheat, forage at 0.50 parts per million
(ppm); wheat, grain, at 0.04 ppm; wheat, hay at 0.9 ppm; wheat, straw
at 0.50 ppm; wheat, bran at 0.15 ppm; wheat, germ at 0.10 ppm; wheat,
aspirated grain fractions at 0.50 ppm; barley, grain, at 0.07 ppm,
barley, hay at 0.3 ppm; barley, straw at 0.50 ppm; barley, bran at 0.15
ppm; and barley, germ at 0.10 ppm. Adequate analytical methodology is
available for data collection enforcement of bicyclopyrone residues.
Analytical methods GRM030.05A and GRM030.08A have also undergone
independent laboratory validation (ILV) to demonstrate the suitability
of the methods for the monitoring of residues of bicyclopyrone in crops
and animal tissues. All study methods and validation reports have been
found acceptable by the EPA. Contact: RD.

 New Tolerance Exemptions

    1. PP IN-10836. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0630). Spring Trading Company, 203
Dogwood Trail, Magnolia, Texas 77354-5201, on behalf of Lamberti USA,
Inc., 14622 Exxon Road, Conroe, Texas 77302, requests to establish an
exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of 2-
propenoic

acid, homopolymer, ester with [alpha]-[2,4,6-tris(1-
phenylethyl)phenyl]-[omega]-hydroxypoly(oxy-1,2- ethanediyl), compd.
with 2,2',2''-nitrilotris[ethanol] (CAS Reg. No. 1477613-46-9) when
used as an inert ingredient in pesticide formulations under 40 CFR
180.960. The petitioner believes no analytical method is needed because
it is not required for an exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance. Contact: RD.
    2. PP IN-10838. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0631). Bayer Healthcare, LLC,
Animal Health Division, P.O. Box 390, Shawnee Mission, KS 66201,
requests to establish an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance
for residues of di-n-butyl adipate (CAS Reg. No. 105-99-7) when used as
an inert ingredient (component of plastic container strips) in
pesticide formulations applied to the entrance to bee hives to control
varroa mites under 40 CFR 180.910. The petitioner believes no
analytical method is needed because it is not required for an exemption
from the requirement of a tolerance. Contact: RD.
    3. PP IN-10854. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0655). SciReg., Inc., 12733
Director's Loop, Woodbridge, VA 22192, on behalf of Taminco U.S., Inc.,
Subsidiary of Eastman Chemical Co., Two Windsor Plaza, Suite 400, 7540
Windsor Drive, Allentown, PA 18195, requests to establish an exemption
from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of 2-pyrrolidinone, 1-
butyl- (CAS Reg No. 3470-98-2) when used as an inert ingredient in
pesticide formulations (solvent/co-solvent) in pesticide formulations
applied to growing crops only under 40 CFR 180.920. The petitioner
believes no analytical method is needed because the request is for an
exemption from the requirement of a tolerance. Contact: RD.

    Authority: 21 U.S.C. 346a.

    Dated: October 14, 2015.
Susan Lewis,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
[FR Doc. 2015-26779 Filed 10-20-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 20 (Tuesday, January 31, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 6254]
[FR Doc No: 2023-01934]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. AD22-11-000, AD21-9-000]

Office of Public Participation Fundamentals for Participating in
FERC Matters; Notice of Virtual Workshop: WorkshOPP on Tips for
Powerful Comments

    Take notice that Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission)
staff will convene, in the above-referenced proceeding, a virtual
workshop on February 23, 2023, from 1:00 p.m. to 2:30 p.m. Eastern
time, to discuss tips for writing comments. Commissioner James Danly
and Commission staff will share their views on the role of comments in
Commission decision-making to facilitate increased and effective public
participation. The workshop will be held virtually.
    The workshop will be open for the public to attend, and there is no
fee for attendance. Further details on the workshop can be found on the
FERC's Office of Public Participation website. Information about the
workshop will also be posted on the Calendar of Events on the
Commission's website, www.ferc.gov, prior to the event.
    The workshop will be accessible under section 508 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations, please
send an email to [email protected] or call toll free 1-866-208-
3372 (voice) or<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY)or send a FAX to<PHONE_NUMBER> with
the required accommodations.
    For more information about the workshop, please contact Amanda
Bradshaw of the Commission's Office of Public Participation at 202-502-
6543 or send an email to [email protected].

    Dated: January 25, 2023.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-01934 Filed 1-30-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P