[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 156 (Thursday, August 13, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48522-48528]
[FR Doc No: 2015-20030]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-RCRA-2012-0072; FRL-9929-37-OSWER]

Waste Management System; Testing and Monitoring Activities;
Notice of Availability of Final Update V of SW-846

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or Agency) is
providing notice of the availability of ``Final Update V'' to the Third
Edition of the manual, ``Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste,
Physical/Chemical Methods,'' EPA publication SW-846. Final Update V
contains analytical methods, of which 8 are new and 15 are revised. The
methods in Update V may be used in monitoring or complying with the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) hazardous waste
regulations. This action includes revisions to the methods in response
to comments received on a Notice published in the Federal Register on
October 23, 2013 and finalizes the methods and guidance. In addition,
the Agency is also finalizing revisions to Chapters One through Five of
SW-846 and an Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery (ORCR)
policy statement in the SW-846 methods compendium. The Agency is
issuing this Update as guidance since the changes in this document to
the SW-846 analytical methods are not required by RCRA's hazardous
waste regulations. Any required analytical methods have not been
changed.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kim Kirkland, Office of Resource
Conservation and Recovery (5304P), Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460-0002; telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>, email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    This notice is directed to the public in general. It may, however,
be of particular interest to those conducting waste sampling and
analysis for RCRA-related activities. This universe might include any
entity that generates, treats, stores, or disposes of hazardous or
nonhazardous solid waste and might also include any laboratory that
conducts waste sampling and analyses for such entities.

B. How can I get copies of Final Update V and other related
information?

    1. The Agency has established a docket for this action under Docket
ID No. EPA-RCRA-2012-0072; FRL-9901-86-OSWER and FRL-9929-37-OSWER.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
through www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the OSWER RCRA Docket in
the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room 3334, and 1301
Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public
Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public
Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the OSWER
RCRA Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

C. How can I get copies of the Third Edition of SW-846 its updates?

    The Third Edition of SW-846, as amended by Final Updates I, II,
IIA, IIB, III, IIIA, IIIB, IVA, IVB, and V, is available in pdf format
on the Internet at http://www.epa.gov/SW-846.

D. How is the rest of this Notice organized?

Sections:
II. What is the subject and purpose of this Notice?
III. Why is the Agency releasing Update V to SW-846?
IV. What does final Update V contain?
V. What revisions are discussed in this Notice?
VI. Summary

II. What is the subject and purpose of this Notice?

    The Agency is announcing publication of Final Update V to ``Test
Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods,'' EPA
publication SW-846, which is now part of the SW-846 methods compendium.
Specifically, Update V of SW-846 contains revisions to the first five
chapters of SW-846 and 23 new and modified analytical methods that the
Agency has evaluated, and/or revised and determined to be appropriate
and may be used for monitoring or complying with the RCRA hazardous
waste regulations. Eight of the 23 methods are new methods that have
been fully validated, i.e., they have completed technical and Agency
workgroup review and approval. In addition these eight new methods are
being announced in the Federal Register through this notice. Since the
methods have completed the approval process, they will be removed from
the ``Validated Methods'' link at: http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/hazard/testmethods/sw846/new_meth.htm and incorporated in the SW-846 methods
compendium at: http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/hazard/testmethods/sw846/online/index.htm.
    The 15 revised methods have replaced the previous versions in the
final update package and will also be placed into the SW-846 methods
compendium. Because the RCRA hazardous waste regulations do not require
the analytical methods contained in Update V, the Agency is issuing
this update as guidance. This guidance does not add or change the RCRA
regulations, and does not have any impact on existing rulemakings
associated with the RCRA program. To date, the Agency has finalized
Updates I, II, IIA, IIB, III, IIIA, IIIB, IVA, and IVB to the SW-846
manual, which can be found on the Agency's ORCR Web page at: http://www.epa.gov/SW-846.

III. Why is the Agency releasing final Update V to SW-846?

    SW-846 is revised over time as new information and data become
available. The Agency continually reviews advances in analytical
instrumentation and techniques and periodically incorporates such
advances into SW-846 as method updates by adding new methods to the
manual, and replacing existing methods with revised versions of the
same method. On October 23,

2013, the Agency published a FR Notice (78 FR 63185), announcing the
availability of Update V to SW-846. When the comment period closed on
January 23, 2014, the Agency received a total of 111 technical and
general comments on the Update. The Agency revised the methods and
chapters based on comments received, when it was appropriate to do so.
    Revisions made were either editorial for clarity or technical for
accuracy. A summary of significant changes are noted in Appendix A of
each revised method.\1\ In addition, significant revisions to the
chapters are discussed in Section V of this Notice. These methods can
be used for any RCRA applications, other than those specifically
required by regulation. In cases that the regulation does not specify
the method, the analyst should select an appropriate method in which
the performance can be demonstrated and meet project-specific Data
Quality Objectives (DQOs). On a related matter, the Agency is also
finalizing an ORCR Policy Statement that responds to concerns the
Environmental Laboratory Advisory Board (ELAB) has expressed regarding
the official version and status of various methods. ELAB is a committee
established under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) that
advises the Agency on measurement, monitoring, and laboratory science
issues. The ELAB contacted the Agency's Forum on Environmental
Measurements (FEM) \2\ with several issues regarding the use of SW-846,
specifically seeking clarification about which versions of a revised
method are recommended, and seeking clarification in defining
terminology used to identify the category of methods.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Specifically, this summary of significant changes (Appendix
A) is included in each newly-revised method referenced in this
notice, to assist users in identifying changes from the prior
version of the method. EPA also intends to include such summaries in
future method revisions.
    \2\ The FEM is a standing committee of senior EPA managers
established in 2003 to promote consistency and consensus within the
EPA on measurement issues, and provide an internal and external
contact point for addressing measurement methodology, monitoring,
and laboratory science issues with multi-program impacts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Agency did not receive any comments regarding the content of
the ORCR Policy Statement and has finalized it without change. As a
reminder, the Agency strongly recommends the use of the latest version
of an SW-846 method. The Agency, however, is not imposing restrictions
on the use of earlier versions of non-required SW-846 methods or
precluding the use of previous guidance, if such use is appropriate.
For example, earlier versions of an SW-846 method may be more
appropriate for regulatory purposes (e.g., for compliance with an
existing permit or consent decree), or when new method versions may be
more costly to run or perform, than necessary for meeting project-
specific objectives.

IV. What does final Update V contain?

    Final Update V contains revisions to Chapters One through Five of
EPA's publication SW-846. As noted above, no changes are made to Method
Defined Parameters (MDPs), which are required by the RCRA regulation
and must be followed prescriptively. Also, no changes were made to
general sections of SW-846 to the extent they apply to MDPs. The
analytical methods in Update V are considered guidance, provide a basic
standard operating procedure, and may be modified where appropriate.
    In addition, included in the original Update V Notice, was ``The
ORCR Policy Statement,'' which was developed as a result of
stakeholders' discussions regarding a need for clarification of the
status and definitions (e.g., validated, final, superseded) of methods
in SW-846. For example, the policy statement is clear that ``the most
recent version'' of an approved method in SW-846, should be used,
unless an existing permit, consent decree, etc.) This policy statement
appeared in the original Update V Federal Register Notice. See: October
23, 2013 (78 FR 63188-63190), and has been inserted in SW-846 in the
table of contents after the Preface. For more information on the policy
statement see: http://www.epa.gov/wastes/hazard/testmethods/sw846/online/index.htm. The Agency further notes that its Quality Assurance/
Quality Control (QA/QC) guidance (e.g., lower limit of quantitation
(LLOQ), relative standard error (RSE), initial demonstration of
proficiency (IDP), etc.), while it appears in Chapter One, is also
discussed in appropriate sections of the individual methods. Updated V
documents are dated July 2014, even though this Update is announced
publicly in this 2015 Federal Register Notice. The July 2014 documents
are identified as ``Update V'' in the document footer.
    Table 1 provides a listing of the five revised chapters and 23
methods in this Update V.

                         Table 1--Final Update V
                    [Methods, Chapters and Guidance]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Analytical method No.               Method or chapter title
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Table of Contents.
                                         Chapter One--Quality Control.
                                         Chapter Two--Choosing the
                                          Correct Procedure.
                                         Chapter Three--Inorganic
                                          Analytes.
                                         Chapter Four--Organic Analytes.
                                         Chapter Five--Miscellaneous
                                          Test Methods.
1030...................................  Ignitability of Solids.
3200 *.................................  Mercury Species Fractionation
                                          and Quantification by
                                          Microwave-Assisted Extraction,
                                          Selective Solvent Extraction
                                          and/or Solid Phase Extraction.
3511 *.................................  Organic Compounds in Water by
                                          Microextraction.
3572 *.................................  Extraction of Wipe Samples for
                                          Chemical Agents.
3620C..................................  Florisil Cleanup.
4025 *.................................  Screening for Polychlorinated
                                          Dibenzodioxins and
                                          Polychlorinated Dibenzofurans
                                          (PCDD/Fs) by Immunoassay.
4430 *.................................  Screening for Polychlorinated
                                          Dibenzo-p-Dioxins and Furans
                                          (PCDD/Fs) by Aryl Hydrocarbon
                                          Receptor PCR Assay.
4435 *.................................  Method for Toxic Equivalent
                                          (TEQS) Determination for
                                          Dioxin-Like Chemical Activity
                                          With the CALUX[supreg]
                                          Bioassay.

5021A..................................  Volatile Organic Compounds in
                                          Various Sample Matrices Using
                                          Equilibrium Headspace
                                          Analysis.
6010D..................................  Inductively Coupled Plasma-
                                          Atomic Emission Spectrometry.
6020B..................................  Inductively Coupled Plasma-Mass
                                          Spectrometry.
6800...................................  Elemental and Speciated Isotope
                                          Dilution Mass Spectrometry.
8000D..................................  Determinative Chromatographic
                                          Separations.
8021B..................................  Aromatic and Halogenated
                                          Volatiles by Gas
                                          Chromatography Using
                                          Photoionization and/or
                                          Electrolytic Conductivity
                                          Detectors.
8111...................................  Haloethers by Gas
                                          Chromatography.
8270D..................................  Semivolatile Organic Compounds
                                          by Gas Chromatography/Mass
                                          Spectrometry.
8276 *.................................  Toxaphene and Toxaphene
                                          Congeners by Gas
                                          Chromatography/Negative Ion
                                          Chemical Ionization Mass
                                          Spectrometry (GC-NICI/MS).
8410...................................  Gas Chromatography/Fourier
                                          Transform Infrared
                                          Spectrometry for Semivolatile
                                          Organics: Capillary Column.
8430...................................  Analysis of Bis(2-
                                          Chloroethyl)Ester and
                                          Hydrolysis Products by Direct
                                          Aqueous Injection.
9013A..................................  Cyanide Extraction Procedure
                                          for Solids and Oils.
9014...................................  Titrimetric and Manual
                                          Spectrophotometric
                                          Determinative Methods for
                                          Cyanide.
9015 *.................................  Metal Cyanide Complexes by
                                          Anion Exchange Chromatography
                                          and UV Detection.
9320...................................  Radium 228.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* New Method

V. What revisions are discussed in this notice?

A. SW-846 Chapters One Through Five and QA/QC Guidance

    SW-846 contains the following 13 chapters, which provide additional
guidance when conducting sample collection, preparation, treatment and
disposal. The first five chapters were revised and/or updated in
accordance with Update V method revisions. All the chapter titles for
SW-846 are listed in Table 2.

                        Table 2--SW-846 Chapters
------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHAPTER ONE.......................  QUALITY CONTROL.
CHAPTER TWO.......................  CHOOSING THE CORRECT PROCEDURE.
CHAPTER THREE.....................  INORGANIC ANALYTES.
CHAPTER FOUR......................  ORGANIC ANALYTES.
CHAPTER FIVE......................  MISSCELLANEOUS TEST METHODS.
CHAPTER SIX.......................  PROPERTIES.
CHAPTER SEVEN.....................  CHARACTERISTIC INTRODUCTION AND
                                     REGUALTORY DEFINITIONS.
CHAPTER EIGHT.....................  METHODS FOR DETERMINING
                                     CHARACTERISTICS.
CHAPTER NINE......................  SAMPLING PLAN.
CHAPTER TEN.......................  SAMPLING METHODS.
CHAPTER ELEVEN....................  GROUND WATER MONITORING.
CHAPTER TWELVE....................  LAND TREATMENT MONITORING.
CHAPTER THIRTEEN..................  INCINERATION.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The date that the technical workgroup officially updated the
methods is also displayed in the footer of Update V methods and
chapters. Specifically, discussion of the comments and the Agency's
responses follow:
Chapter One (Quality Control)
    The Agency received 20 comments on Chapter One. Most comments were
favorable. For those that were not, the comments mainly focused on the
interpretation of terminology used (e.g., Field Blank, Sensitivity,
Limit of Quantitation (LOQ), Reproducibility, etc.). Changes to this
terminology have been added to the glossary section. The Agency has
revised Chapter One for clarity of terminology. The final guidance is
more user friendly and more consistent with the Agency's official
guidance on QA/QC implementation and procedures (e.g., Quality
Assurance Project Plans (QAPPs), DQOs, and the Flexible Approach to
Environmental Measurement), located at: http://www.epa.gov/quality/qa_docs.html#noneparqt. Revisions were also made to improve and clarify
the language on LLOQ and blank contamination. In addition, EPA added
and revised several QA/QC concepts in Chapter One. The concepts are now
included in Chapter One (Quality Control) and individual methods where
appropriate. These changes are described below:
    Lower Limit of Quantitation (LLOQ)--The Agency received 35 comments
on the LLOQ concept. Most comments were favorable. As discussed in the
October 2013 Federal Register notice, the Agency recommends
establishing the LLOQ as the lowest point of quantitation, which in
most cases is the concentration of the lowest calibration standard in
the calibration curve that has been adjusted for the preparation mass
and/or volume. The LLOQ value is a function of both the analytical
method and the sample being evaluated.
    The Method Detection Limit (MDL) procedure in 40 CFR part 136,
Appendix B, for the determination of MDLs developed for the Clean Water
Act (CWA) program uses a clean matrix (i.e., reagent water for
preparing ``spiked'' samples, or samples with known constituent
concentrations). Analytical laboratories often have difficulty
demonstrating they can meet

the MDL established using Part 136 when evaluating complex matrices,
such as wastes (e.g., soils, sludges, wipes, and spent materials). This
MDL approach generally yields unrealistic and/or unachievable method
detection limits for these complex matrices. Since the current Part 136
procedure is generally not suitable for RCRA wastes or materials
encountered under the RCRA program, the Agency has chosen to finalize
the LLOQ for SW-846. The procedure outlined in Part 136 is currently
under review and is being revised for consideration in a future
rulemaking effort. The LLOQ considers the effect of sample matrix
(e.g., components of a sample other than the analyte) by taking the
LLOQ sample through the entire analytical process, including sample
preparation, clean up (to remove sample interferences), and
determinative procedures. Lastly, results above the LLOQ are
quantifiable within acceptable precision and bias. Thus, the LLOQ
approach better suits the needs of the RCRA program, because it
provides reliable and defensible results, especially at the lower level
of quantitation, and can be reported with a known level of confidence
for the complex matrices being evaluated. The Agency uses MDLs in some
of the MDPs and understands that other Agency programs may continue to
use MDLs to meet their program use and needs (e.g., the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program).
    Since the current MDL procedure is not suitable for complex
matrices found in RCRA waste, references to the MDL have been replaced
with the LLOQ for non-regulatory methods (guidance). As the regulations
are revised, the RCRA program will remove the MDL reference from the
MDPs and replace it with the LLOQ concept where appropriate.
    The Agency refined the procedure for establishing the LLOQ. This
refinement considers sample matrix effects; includes a provision to
verify the reasonableness of the reported quantitation limit (QL); and
recommends a frequency of LLOQ verification (found in Chapter One and
each method) to be balanced between rigor and practicality.
    The Agency understands that previous versions of methods published
in SW-846 may contain the MDL reference and as methods are updated, the
Agency will remove references to the MDLs. The Agency will also remove
MDL references in older methods that have not yet been updated, as time
and resources allow. References in MDPs will be revised in a future
effort since they can only be revised through a notice and comment
rulemaking effort. The Agency recommends the use of LLOQ, as
appropriate, for the non-MDP methods that have not yet been updated.
See Section 9.8 in Method 6020B for Inorganic analytes and Section 9.7
in Method 8000 for Organic analytes on LLOQ for further information on
implementation. Also, if method users choose to run the LLOQ sample, it
must be run with each batch to see if it meets the established
acceptance criteria. Lastly, results above the LLOQ are quantifiable
within an acceptable precision and bias. Thus, the LLOQ approach better
suits the needs of the RCRA program, because it provides reliable and
defensible results, especially at the lower level of quantitation, and
can be reported with a known level of confidence for the complex
matrices being evaluated. Various programs use SW-846 methods in
implementing different statutes, including RCRA, the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), the
Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), the Oil Pollution Act, Homeland
Security Presidential Directives and Presidential Policy Directives,
for waste and materials characterization, compliance testing, site/
incident characterization and extent of contamination, risk assessment,
and remediation for protection of human health and the environment, and
better management and use of wastes and materials, for a wide range of
difficult matrices. The Agency believes that the LLOQ approach is an
important improvement and supports the essential need to provide data
that are verified to meet the precision and accuracy requirements of
the RCRA program.
    Establishing the LLOQ for Inorganic Analytes--When performing
methods for inorganic analyses, the LLOQ should be verified by the
analysis of at least seven replicate samples (prepared in a clean
matrix or control material) and spiked at the LLOQ and processed
through all preparation and analysis steps of the method. The mean
recovery and relative standard deviation (RSD) of these samples provide
an initial statement of precision and bias at the LLOQ. In most cases,
the mean recovery should be no more than 35% of the true
value and the RSD should be <=20%. Ongoing LLOQ verification, at a
minimum, is on a quarterly basis to validate quantitation capability at
low analyte concentration levels. This verification may be accomplished
either with clean control material (e.g., reagent water, method blanks,
Ottawa sand, diatomaceous earth, etc.) or a representative sample
matrix free of target compounds. Optimally, the LLOQ should be less
than the desired regulatory action levels based on the stated project-
specific requirements. For more information, please see the individual
methods (e.g., Methods 6010 and 6020) and Chapter One of SW-846.
    Establishing LLOQ for Organic Analytes--When performing methods for
organic analyses, the LLOQ should be verified using either a clean
control material (e.g., reagent water, method blanks, Ottawa sand,
diatomaceous earth, etc.) or a representative sample matrix free of
target compounds. Optimally, the LLOQ should be less than the desired
regulatory action levels based on the stated project-specific
requirements.
    For organic analyses, the acceptable recovery ranges of target
analytes will vary more than for other types of analyses, such as
inorganics. The recovery of target analytes in the LLOQ check sample
should be within established limits, or other such project-required
acceptance limits, for precision and bias to verify the data reporting
limits. Until the laboratory has sufficient data to determine
acceptance limits statistically, the laboratory control sample (LCS)
criterion, +20% (i.e., lower limit minus 20% and upper limit plus 20%)
may be used for an acceptable range for the LLOQ. This approach
acknowledges the poorer overall response at the low end of the
calibration curve. Historically based LLOQ acceptance criteria should
be determined as soon as practical once sufficient data points have
been acquired.
    In-house limits (which a laboratory establishes) for bias (e.g., %
Recovery) and precision (e.g., Relative Percent Difference (%RPD)) of
the LLOQ for a particular sample matrix may be calculated when
sufficient data points exist. The laboratory should have a documented
procedure for establishing its in-house acceptance ranges. Sometimes
the laboratory instrument and/or analyst performance vary or test
samples cause problems with the detector (e.g., samples may have
interferences; may clog the instruments cells, wall or tube; may cause
contamination; etc.). Therefore, a laboratory establishes the limits of
acceptance (for precision and bias) with sufficient data to demonstrate
that they can report down to the LLOQ with a certain level of
confidence. As an alternative, a QAPP may include the acceptance limits
(for precision and bias) for LLOQ at the project level through the DQOs
it includes. The

frequency of the LLOQ check is not specified for organic analytes.

    Note:  The LLOQ check sample should be spiked with the analytes
of interest at the predicted LLOQ concentration levels and carried
through the same preparation and analysis procedures as
environmental samples and other QC samples. For more information,
please see individual methods (e.g., Method 8000) and Chapter One of
SW-846.

    Use of the LLOQ--The RCRA program deals with complex wastes and
materials that are managed or used in many different ways (e.g.,
landfilling, land application, incineration, recycling). The thresholds
(e.g., action or clean up levels) for data users (e.g., engineers or
risk assessors) to make their decisions, therefore, vary. Method users
will need to properly plan their analytical strategy to ensure the
LLOQs for targeted analytes are lower than the thresholds needed to
generate data used to determine how waste or materials can be properly
managed or used.
    Initial Demonstration of Performance (IDP)--The IDP serves as a
procedure that the laboratory conducts to demonstrate the ability to
generate results with acceptable accuracy and precision for each
preparation and determinative method they perform. Detailed discussion
can be found in the October 23, 2013 Federal Register notice.
    The Agency did not receive any comments on the IDP, and has
finalized the language as presented in the original notice. Language
regarding the IDP has been specified in the individual Update V methods
where appropriate (e.g. Methods 6010D, 6020B, 8000D and many others).
The IDP changes allow laboratories to use their time and resources
effectively, especially for the organic analyses. The IDP section for
the Determination of Organic Analytes was expanded to describe two
situations: When a significant change to instrumentation or procedure
occurs: Reliable performance of the methods depends on careful
adherence to the instructions in the written method because many
aspects of the method are mandatory to ensure the method performs as
intended.
    Therefore, if a major change to the sample preparation procedure is
made (e.g., a change of solvent), the IDP must be repeated for that
preparation procedure to demonstrate the laboratory technician's
continued ability to reliably perform the method. The Agency considers
conducting IDPs as part of good laboratory practice procedures and has
already included these procedures in the Agency's laboratories'
practices. Alterations in instrumental procedures only (e.g., changing
Gas Chromatograph (GC) temperature programs or High Performance Liquid
Chromatography (HPLC) mobile phases or the detector interface), require
a new calibration, but not a new IDP because the preparation procedure
is unchanged.
    When new staff members are trained: A new analyst needs to be
capable of performing the method, or portion of the method, for which
he/she is responsible. For example, when analysts are trained for a
subset of analytes for an 8000 series method, the new sample
preparation analyst should prepare reference samples for a
representative set of analytes (e.g., the primary analyte mix for
Method 8270, or a mixture of Aroclor 1016 and 1260 for Method 8082) for
each preparation method the analyst will perform. The instrument
analyst being trained will need to analyze the prepared samples (e.g.,
semi-volatile extracts). After several training opportunities, the
analyst will be expected to perform the preparation and determinative
step on his/her own and meet the acceptable QA/QC criteria.
    Blank Contamination--Another area that affects sample results and
is expanded upon in this notice and addressed in Chapter One and the
individual methods is blank contamination. The results from analyzing
blanks are generally considered to be acceptable if target analyte
concentrations are less than \1/2\ the LLOQ or are less than project-
specific requirements. Blanks may contain analyte concentrations
greater than acceptance limits if the associated samples in the batch
are unaffected (i.e., targets are not present in samples or sample
concentrations are >=10X the blank). Other criteria may be used
depending on the needs of the project. For method specific details see
Methods 6010 and 6020 for inorganics and Method 8000 for organics.
    Relative Standard Error (RSE)--The Agency included RSE as an option
(in addition to calculation of the % error) in Update V of SW-846 for
the determination of the acceptability for a linear or non-linear
calibration curve. The Agency received several comments from two
commenters on RSE. The Agency agrees that Method 8000D, Section
<IP_ADDRESS> on RSE should not be grouped with RSD and r\2\ (Regression
Coefficient) but with % Error. Standard deviation (SD) and r\2\ are
indicators for checking the validity of different calibration methods
of response factor and least square linear regression techniques,
respectively. RSE is not equivalent or similar to RSD or r\2\, but
similar to % Error and may be used to evaluate the ``goodness of fit''
of a calibration curve.
    To avoid confusion with RSD, RSE has been moved to Section <IP_ADDRESS>
of Method 8000D. In addition, the first sentence in Section <IP_ADDRESS> of
Method 8000D has been changed to read as follows: ``Corrective action
may be needed if the calibration criteria (RSD/r\2\ and % Error/RSE)
are not met.'' Some corrective actions may include running a new
calibration, preparing fresh standards or performing instrument
maintenance. The laboratory's SOPs should address how to handle and
document these types of problems when encountered.
    RSE refits the calibration data back to the calibration model and
evaluates the difference between the measured and the true amounts or
concentrations used to create the model.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN13AU15.000

Where:

xi = True amount of analyte in calibration level i, in
mass or concentration units.
x[acute]i = Measured amount of analyte in calibration
level i, in mass or concentration units.
p = Number of terms in the fitting equation (average = 1, linear =
2, quadratic = 3, cubic = 4)
n = Number of calibration points.

    The RSE acceptance limit criterion for the calibration model is the
same as the RSD limit in the determinative method.
    If the RSD limit is not defined in the determinative method, the
RSE limit should be set at <=20% for good performing compounds and
<=30% for poor performing compounds.

Chapter Two (Choosing the Correct Procedure)

    The Agency received 12 comments on Chapter Two. Most comments were
favorable, and others were editorial in nature. Therefore, the Agency
has revised and finalized the Table of Contents to add the new and
revised methods from Update V to the SW-846 compendium. Method titles
from the 8000 series were added to Section 2.2.3 for completeness.
Other tables were revised to include additional analytes as
appropriate. In addition, a typographical error for bis(2-
chloroisopropyl) ether was corrected to bis(2-chloro-1-methylethyl)
ether in Tables 2-1, 2-4, 2-15, 2-22, and 2-34. This correction is
consistent with the most common way to identify this compound. New
compounds were also added to Tables 2-1, 2-6, 2-20, 2-23A, 2-29A, 2-30,
2-31, 2-35A, 2-36A, 2-41, 2-45 and 2-46.

Furthermore, Table 2-40(A) includes the current sample preservation
guidance for styrene and vinyl chloride in aqueous samples (i.e.,
deletion of previously recommended practice of collecting a second set
of samples without acid preservatives and analyzing immediately, if
styrene and vinyl chloride are analytes of interest), and Table 2-40(B)
includes Mercury Speciation hold times in addition to totals. Figure 2-
2 was updated to include the most up-to-date guidance and to streamline
the flowchart.

Chapter Three (Inorganic Analytes)

    The Agency received six comments on Chapter Three. Most comments
were favorable, and the Agency made the appropriate editorial and
clarification changes (e.g., removed reference to trip blank in Section
3.3.2, title change to Table 3-2 Digestion Volume/Mass, etc.). The
change included finalizing the revised definition for Instrument
Detection Limit (IDL) to be consistent with the revised Methods 6010D
and 6020B. In addition, the term ``bias'' has replaced ``accuracy''
where appropriate; the definition for linear range is now consistent
with Methods 6010D and 6020B. The definition for the spectral
interference check (SIC) solution has replaced the definition for the
interference check sample (ICS) and is consistent with Methods 6010D
and 6020B. The definition of LCS (laboratory control sample) recommends
the use of a spiking solution from the same source as the calibration
standards. Sections 3.6 and 3.7 were finalized to include the
collision/reaction cell technology as an effective method for removing
isobaric interferences when analyzing by ICP-MS. Table 3-2 now includes
a minimum mass of 100 g for solid samples collected for sulfide
analysis.

Chapter Four (Organic Analytes)

    The Agency received nine comments on Chapter Four. Most comments
focused on Table 4-1, which has now been finalized to exclude the
recommendation to collect a second set of samples without adding an
acid preservative and analyze in a shorter time frame if vinyl chloride
and styrene are analytes of concern for aqueous samples. A study showed
that there were no significant differences in sample recovery of those
samples preserved with acid versus those not preserved. Other comments
were minor, and appropriate revisions have been made adding additional
methods to section 4.3.3.

Chapter Five (Miscellaneous Test Methods)

    The Agency did not receive any comments on Chapter Five. Chapter
5's changes were general (i.e., updated format changes and method
reference to chapters), and it was finalized as appropriate.

Chapter Nine (Sampling Plan)

    The Agency also received comments on Chapter Nine, which was not
open for comment. However, the Agency will consider those comments in a
future update.

B. Methods Revisions

    Significant revisions were finalized regarding Methods 6010D,
6020B, and 8000D, and are discussed in this notice. Many methods were
revised based on technical and editorial comments received during the
comment period. More detailed discussions and responses to all comments
received on Update V can be found in the Response to Comments
Background Document in the RCRA Docket at: (EPA-HQ-RCRA-2012-0072). A
summary of significant comments has been provided.
    Method 6010D (Inductively Coupled Plasma--Atomic Emission
Spectrometry)--The Agency received 12 comments on Method 6010D. Most
comments were favorable and applauded consistency revisions between
methods and chapters. Several commenters requested that the guidance
should clarify how to establish the LLOQ for inorganic methods in
instances when regulatory limits are much lower than the lowest
calibration standard. In response, the Agency added language to address
the reporting of flagged data and other options in interpreting data
when the desired LLOQ has not been met. In addition, revisions were
made where technical and editorial comments were appropriate (e.g.,
title changes and relevant information specific to inorganics or
organics). See section 9.8 of the method for more information on
interpreting the LLOQ.
    In addition, the Agency received other comments regarding
clarification of the method blank acceptance criteria and definitions
(such as Instrument Detection Limit procedure (IDL)) which can be found
in detail in Method 6010D.
    Method 6020B (Inductively Coupled Plasma-Mass Spectrometry)--The
Agency received nine comments on Method 6020B. Many comments pertained
to the Initial Calibration Blank (ICB), when multi-calibration
standards are used, and the LLOQ. The Agency agreed with the commenter
and revised the appropriate section in Method 6020 to read as follows:
``If the ICB consistently has target analyte concentrations greater
than half the LLOQ, the LLOQ should be re-evaluated.'' In addition, the
Agency has clarified the statement that if there is no regulatory limit
and the method blank is >10% of the lowest sample concentration, then
the method blank may be considered to be acceptable if 10X the concentration in the blank. The data
may also be reported with flags, which is a new option in this version
of Method 8000.
    Seven comments were related to QC sample frequency and control
limits. One commenter requested that a numerical limit for LLOQ
standard recovery be used. The users are encouraged to develop
statistical acceptance limits rather than to default to a set of
numerical limits in the method. The suggested criteria remain 20% of the laboratory's control sample (LCS) limits. Another
commenter objected to removal of the word ``must'' from some
calibration criteria (such as calibration coefficients). The Agency
confirmed the intention to allow the project requirements to be
flexible. The laboratories are also instructed to perform corrective
actions whenever calibration criteria for their project requirements
are not met. Some other suggestions were not adopted (such as a
requirement to run an end continuing calibration verification (CCV) for
every 8000 series method or to require all extraction QC from a batch
to be run on the same instrument as every sample and/or dilutions
thereof). The Agency's view is that the methods should remain flexible
and more restrictive QC requirements (where needed) should be listed in
the determinative methods.

    One commenter requested the inclusion of an additional reference
(the Department of Defense Quality Systems Manual, Version 5.0 (DOD QSM
5.0)) as The Agency used it in developing Update V. The Agency agrees,
and added the reference.
    Methods 8021B (Aromatic and Halogenated Volatiles by Gas
Chromatography Using Photoionization and/or Electrolytic Conductivity
Detectors), 8111 (Haloethers by Gas Chromatography), and 8430 (Analysis
of Bis(2-chloroethyl) Ether and Hydrolysis Products by Direct Aqueous
Injection GC/FT-IR)--The Agency received the same two comments for
these three methods. Both comments concurred with the nomenclature
change for bis(2-chloro-1-methylethyl)ether, which alleviated
confusion.
    Method 8270D (Semivolatile Organic Compounds by Gas Chromatography/
Mass Spectrometry (GC/MS))--The Agency received two comments which
concurred with the nomenclature change for bis(2-chloro-1-
methylethyl)ether. Method 8270D also received one comment asking about
the possibility of reporting flagged data from calibrations where some
compounds were outside the specified criteria. The Agency's RCRA
Organic Workgroup is discussing this issue and intends to address it in
Update VI.
    Method 8410D Gas Chromatography/Fourier Transform Infrared (GC/FT-
IR) Spectrometry for Semivolatile Organics: Capillary Column--The
Agency received two comments on Method 8410D which concurred with the
nomenclature change for bis(2-chloro-1-methylethyl)ether. Method 8410D
also received one comment discussing the acceptable temperature range
of samples for preservation. The Agency accepted the updated change.
    Method 9014 (Titrimetric and Manual Spectrophotometric
Determinative Methods for Cyanide)--Detailed information on calibration
models and their acceptance criteria are not included in each SW-846
method. This is because these methods are intended as general guidance,
as are all of the methods discussed in this notice. For any test method
which is not a method-defined parameter (MDP), the intention is to
allow the laboratory flexibility under the Methods Innovation Rule
(MIR).\3\ The details of how a laboratory will conduct and approve
calibrations should be included in the individual laboratory's Quality
Management Plan (QMP) or in its Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for
each method.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See 70 FR 34537, June 14, 2005 Federal Register.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Method 9040 (pH Electrometric Measurement)--This method is a Method
Defined Parameter (MDP) and the Agency cannot revise an MDP through a
Notice of Availability, but instead must use notice-and-comment
rulemaking procedures. During a future rulemaking effort, the Agency
will consider those comments on MDPs that may require rulemaking.

V. Summary

    These changes in Update V will assist method users in demonstrating
method competency and in generating better quality data. For the
convenience of the analytical community, the Agency will revise the
OSWER Methods' Team homepage on The Agency's Web site to include the
final Update V. Also, please see the Web site: http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/hazard/testmethods/index.htm for more information. Table 1
provides a listing of the five chapters and 23 methods (8 new methods
and 15 revised methods) in Update V.

    Dated: July 22, 2015.
Barnes Johnson,
Director, Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery.
[FR Doc. 2015-20030 Filed 8-12-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 137 (Monday, July 18, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 46669-46670]
[FR Doc No: 2016-16896]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CD16-15-000]

City of Sheridan, WY; Notice of Preliminary Determination of a
Qualifying Conduit Hydropower Facility and Soliciting Comments and
Motions To Intervene

    On July 6, 2016, the City of Sheridan, WY filed a notice of intent
to construct a qualifying conduit hydropower facility, pursuant to
section 30 of the Federal Power Act (FPA), as amended by section 4 of
the Hydropower Regulatory Efficiency Act of 2013 (HREA). The proposed
Beckton Hall Road PRV Vault Project would have an installed capacity of
240 kilowatts (kW) and would be located within the Beckton Hall Road
PRV Vault, which is part of the City of Sheridan's existing raw water
transmission system. The project would be located near the City of
Sheridan in Sheridan County, Wyoming.
    Applicant Contact: Dan Roberts, City of Sheridan, 55 Grinnell
Plaza, Sheridan, WY 82801, Phone No.<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    FERC Contact: Robert Bell, Phone No.<PHONE_NUMBER>, email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Qualifying Conduit Hydropower Facility Description: The proposed
project would consist of: (1) A proposed 240-kW turbine placed inside a
30-inch-diameter pipeline, with the facility entirely housed within the
Beckton Hall Road PRV Vault, and (2) appurtenant facilities. The
proposed project would have an estimated annual generating capacity of
836.5 megawatt-hours.
    A qualifying conduit hydropower facility is one that is determined
or deemed to meet all of the criteria shown in the table below.

      Table 1--Criteria for Qualifying Conduit Hydropower Facility
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Satisfies  (Y/
      Statutory provision              Description              N)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FPA 30(a)(3)(A), as amended by   The conduit is a                     Y
 HREA.                            tunnel, canal,
                                  pipeline, aqueduct,
                                  flume, ditch, or
                                  similar manmade water
                                  conveyance that is
                                  operated for the
                                  distribution of water
                                  for agricultural,
                                  municipal, or
                                  industrial
                                  consumption and not
                                  primarily for the
                                  generation of
                                  electricity.
FPA 30(a)(3)(C)(i), as amended   The facility is                      Y
 by HREA.                         constructed,
                                  operated, or
                                  maintained for the
                                  generation of
                                  electric power and
                                  uses for such
                                  generation only the
                                  hydroelectric
                                  potential of a non-
                                  federally owned
                                  conduit.
FPA 30(a)(3)(C)(ii), as amended  The facility has an                  Y
 by HREA.                         installed capacity
                                  that does not exceed
                                  5 megawatts.

FPA 30(a)(3)(C)(iii), as         On or before August 9,               Y
 amended by HREA.                 2013, the facility is
                                  not licensed, or
                                  exempted from the
                                  licensing
                                  requirements of Part
                                  I of the FPA.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Preliminary Determination: Based upon the above criteria,
Commission staff has preliminarily determined that the proposal
satisfies the requirements for a qualifying conduit hydropower facility
under 16 U.S.C. 823a, and is exempted from the licensing requirements
of the FPA.
    Comments and Motions to Intervene: The deadline for filing comments
contesting whether the facility meets the qualifying criteria is 45
days from the issuance date of this notice.
    The deadline for filing motions to intervene is 30 days from the
issuance date of this notice.
    Anyone may submit comments or a motion to intervene in accordance
with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR
385.210 and 385.214. Any motions to intervene must be received on or
before the specified deadline date for the particular proceeding.
    Filing and Service of Responsive Documents: All filings must (1)
bear in all capital letters the ``COMMENTS CONTESTING QUALIFICATION FOR
A CONDUIT HYDROPOWER FACILITY'' or ``MOTION TO INTERVENE,'' as
applicable; (2) state in the heading the name of the applicant and the
project number of the application to which the filing responds; (3)
state the name, address, and telephone number of the person filing; and
(4) otherwise comply with the requirements of sections 385.2001 through
385.2005 of the Commission's regulations.\1\ All comments contesting
Commission staff's preliminary determination that the facility meets
the qualifying criteria must set forth their evidentiary basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 18 CFR 385.2001-2005 (2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
motions to intervene and comments using the Commission's eFiling system
at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit
brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration,
using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact information at the
end of your comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online
Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(866) 208-3676 (toll free), or
(202) 502-8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper
copy to: Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. A copy of all other filings in
reference to this application must be accompanied by proof of service
on all persons listed in the service list prepared by the Commission in
this proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR 4.34(b) and 385.2010.
    Locations of Notice of Intent: Copies of the notice of intent can
be obtained directly from the applicant or such copies can be viewed
and reproduced at the Commission in its Public Reference Room, Room 2A,
888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. The filing may also be
viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp using
the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number (e.g., CD16-15-000) in
the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, call
toll-free 1-866-208-3676 or email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For TTY,
call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: July 12, 2016.
Kimberly Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-16896 Filed 7-15-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: April 2, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 64)]
[Notices]
[Page 17971-17973]
[DOCID:fr02ap08-53]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0156; FRL-8354-8]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection;
Comment Request; Use of Consumer Research in Developing Improved
Labeling for Pesticide Products; EPA ICR No. 2297.01, OMB Control No.
2070-new

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), this document announces that EPA is planning to
submit a request approval for a new Information Collection Request
(ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). This ICR, entitled:
``Use of Consumer Research in Developing Improved Labeling for
Pesticide Products'' and identified by EPA ICR No. 2297.01 and OMB
Control No. 2070-new. Before submitting the ICR to OMB for review and
approval, EPA is soliciting comments on specific aspects of the
proposed information collection.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 2, 2008.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0156, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.

     Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public
Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
     Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P),
Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South
Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation (8:30 a.m. to 4
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays). Special
arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. The
Docket Facility telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-
2008-0156. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the docket without change and may be made available on-line at
http://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 regulations.gov or e-
mail. The 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 regulations.gov,
your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part
of the comment that is placed in the 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 docket are listed in the docket index
available in regulations.gov. To access the electronic docket, go to
http://www.regulations.gov, select ``Advanced Search,'' then ``Docket
Search.'' Insert the docket ID number where indicated and select the
``Submit'' button. Follow the instructions on the regulations.gov
website to view the docket index or access available documents.
Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly
available, e.g., 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 in the electronic docket at http://
www.regulations.gov, or, if only available in hard copy, at the OPP
Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.),
2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The hours of operation of this
Docket Facility are from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. The Docket Facility telephone number is (703)
305-5805.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cameo G. Smoot, Field and External
Affairs Division (7506P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-
0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-
mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. What Information is EPA Particularly Interested in?

    Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of PRA, EPA specifically solicits
comments and information to enable it to:
    1. Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is
necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency,
including whether the information will have practical utility.
    2. Evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimates of the burden of
the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used.
    3. Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to
be collected.
    4. Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those
who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or
other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic
submission of responses. In particular, EPA is requesting comments from
very small businesses (those that employ less than 25) on examples of
specific additional efforts that EPA could make to reduce the paperwork
burden for very small businesses affected by this collection.

II. What Should I Consider when I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

    You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your
comments:
    1. Explain your views as clearly as possible and provide specific
examples.
    2. Describe any assumptions that you used.
    3. Provide copies of any technical information and/or data you used
that support your views.
    4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you
arrived at the estimate that you provide.
    5. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns.
    6. Offer alternative ways to improve the collection activity.
    7. Make sure to submit your comments by the deadline identified
under DATES.
    8. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, be sure to identify the docket
ID number assigned to this action in the subject line on the first page
of your response. You may also provide the name, date, and Federal
Register citation.

III. What Information Collection Activity or ICR Does this Action Apply
to?

    Affected entities: Entities potentially affected by this action are
members of the general public.
    Title: Use of Consumer Research in Developing Improved Labeling for
Pesticide Products.
    ICR numbers: EPA ICR No. 2297.01, OMB Control No. 2070-new.
    ICR status: This ICR is for a new information collection activity.
An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to, a collection of information, unless it displays a currently
valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations
in title 40 of the CFR, after appearing in the Federal Register when
approved, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, are displayed either by
publication in the Federal Register or by other appropriate means, such
as on the related collection instrument or form, if applicable. The
display of OMB control numbers in certain EPA regulations is
consolidated in 40 CFR part 9.
    Abstract: EPA is proposing to initiate a new information collection
activity. EPA intends to initiate a voluntary information collection
for consumer research involving the conduct of surveys, focus groups,
and one-on-one interviews to test various versions of pesticide product
labels and other informational materials developed for the general
public. The pesticide label

provides critical information about how to handle and safely use the
pesticide product and avoid harm to human health and the environment.
Every pesticide product must bear a label containing the information
specified by the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
(FIFRA) as established in EPA's labeling regulations at 40 CFR 156.10.
The purpose for such consumer research is to identify the consumer's
understanding of the information on a pesticide product label. EPA
would use this information to formulate decisions and policies
affecting the labeling of pesticide products. The ultimate goal of this
activity is to assure that the consumer can effectively use this
information to select the pesticide product most likely to meet their
needs and readily understand label instructions regarding product use.
The collected information would be used to revise pesticide product
labels and to create other user friendly consumer information
materials. It is anticipated that several surveys, focus groups, and/or
one-on-one interviews would be conducted over the life of the ICR.
    Burden statement: The annual public burden for this collection of
information is estimated to average 2.9 hours per response. There are
no recordkeeping burdens associated with this collection. Burden means
the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to
generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or
for a Federal Agency. This includes the time needed to review
instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and
systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying
information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and
providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any
previously applicable instructions and requirements which have
subsequently changed; train personnel to be able to respond to a
collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the
collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the
information.
    The ICR provides a detailed explanation of this estimate, which is
only briefly summarized here:
    Estimated total number of potential respondents: 3,072.
    Frequency of response: On occasion.
    Estimated total average number of responses for each respondent: 1.
    Estimated total annual burden hours: 381.34 hours.
    Estimated total annual costs: $9,594.35. There are no capital
expenditures or operational costs associated with this collection
activity.

IV. What is the Next Step in the Process for this ICR?

    EPA will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as
appropriate. The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for
review and approval pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.12. EPA will issue another
Federal Register notice pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.5(a)(1)(iv) to announce
the submission of the ICR to OMB and the opportunity to submit
additional comments to OMB. If you have any questions about this ICR or
the approval process, please contact the person listed under FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: March 24, 2008.
James B. Gulliford,
Assistant Administrator, Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic
Substances.

[FR Doc. E8-6671 Filed 4-1-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 199 (Friday, October 14, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 63934-63935]
[FR Doc No: 2011-26641]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[Docket No. USCG-2011-0204]

Navigation Safety Advisory Council

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of Federal Advisory Committee Meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Navigation Safety Advisory Council (NAVSAC) will meet on
November 1-2, 2011, in San Diego, California to discuss matters
relating to maritime collisions, rammings, groundings, Inland and
International Rules of the Road, navigation regulations and equipment,
routing measures, marine information, diving safety, and aids to
navigation systems. The meeting will be open to the public.

DATES: NAVSAC will meet Tuesday, November 1, 2011, from 8 a.m. to 5
p.m., and Wednesday, November 2, 2011, from 8 a.m. to 1 p.m. Please
note that the meeting may close early if the committee has completed
its business.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Catamaran Resort Hotel and
Spa, 3999 Mission Boulevard, San Diego, California 92109.
    For information on facilities or services for individuals with
disabilities or to request special assistance at the meeting, contact
the persons listed in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT as soon as
possible.
    To facilitate public participation, we are inviting public comment
on the issues to be considered by the committee as listed in the
``Agenda'' section below. You may submit presentations and/or written
comments no later than October 24, 2011, and they must be identified by
USCG-2011-0204 using one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments (preferred method to
avoid delays in processing).
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department
of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand delivery: Same as mail address above, between 9 a.m.
and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The
telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the words
``Department of Homeland Security'' and the docket number for this
action. Comments received will be posted without alteration at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided. You
may review a Privacy Act notice regarding our public dockets in the
January 17, 2008, issue of the Federal Register (73 FR 3316).
    Docket: For access to the docket to read documents or comments
related to this notice, go to http://www.regulations.gov., click on the
``read comments'' box, which will then become highlighted in blue. In
the ``Keyword'' box insert ``USCG-2011-0204'' and click ``Search.''
Click the ``Open Docket Folder'' in the ``Actions'' column. If you do
not have access to the internet, you may view the docket online by
visiting the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground
floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. We have an agreement
with the Department of Transportation to use the Docket Management
Facility.
    Public comments may be taken by the DFO throughout the conduct of
the meeting. Additionally, a public presentation/comment period will be
held during the meeting on November 1, 2011, from 3 p.m. to 4 p.m., and
November 2, 2011, from 12 p.m. to 1 p.m. Speakers are requested to
limit their presentations/comments to 10 minutes. Please note that the
public comment period may end before the time indicated, following the
last call for comments. Contact either of the individuals listed in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT to submit written comments to appear on
the agenda.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about this
meeting, please contact Mr. Mike Sollosi, the NAVSAC Alternate
Designated Federal Officer (ADFO), at telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or Mr. Dennis Fahr, at telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>
or e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing or
submitting material to the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program
Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice of this meeting is given under the
Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C. App. (Pub. L. 92-463).
    The NAVSAC is an advisory committee authorized in 33 U.S.C. 2073
and chartered under the provisions of the FACA. NAVSAC provides advice
and recommendations to the Secretary, through the Commandant of the
U.S. Coast Guard, on matters relating to maritime collisions, rammings,
and groundings, Inland and International Rules of the Road, navigation
regulations and equipment, routing measures, marine information, diving
safety, and aids to navigation systems.

Agenda

    The NAVSAC will meet to review, discuss and formulate
recommendations on the following topics:

Tuesday, November 1, 2011

    (1) Navigation Rules Regulatory Project. This topic will address
the Coast Guard's progress toward implementing NAVSAC approved changes
to the Inland Navigation Rules.
    (2) E-Navigation Strategy. Under the auspices of the Committee on
the Marine Transportation System, the Coast Guard and other agencies
have developed a National e-Navigation Strategy that will establish a
framework for data exchange between and among ships and shore
facilities. The Council will be updated on that effort.
    (3) Electronic Chart Display and Information System
(ECDIS)Anomalies.

Mandatory carriage of ECDIS will be phased in beginning in 2012. This
series of presentations will inform the Council of developments and
difficulties encountered in deploying ECDIS, including accuracy of
charted positions, the range of vessels to be impacted, and training
requirements for ECDIS.
    The following tasks will also be discussed and further action
contemplated by work groups assigned for each task:
    (1) NAVSAC Task 11-01 Kite Propulsion Systems (Sky Sails). The use
of Sky Sails to augment propulsion on vessels is a real possibility.
This task will address whether there should be restrictions on their
use.
    (2) NAVSAC Task 11-02 Proximity of Offshore Energy Installations
(OREI) to established ships' routing measures. The Council will be
asked to complete the discussion on the need for ``buffer zones''
around offshore renewable energy.
    (3) NAVSAC Task 11-03 RACONS. The Council will be asked to discuss
and provide an opinion on the continued used of radar beacons (RACONS)
as aids to navigation.
    (4) NAVSAC Task 11-04 Sound Signals. The Council will be asked to
discuss and provide an opinion on the continued use of sound signals as
aids to navigation.
    (5) NAVSAC Task 11-05 ECDIS Anomalies. The Council will be advised
of the current status of Electronic Chart Display and Information
Systems (ECDIS) and of the types of anomalies being discovered as more
ECDIS enter into use.
    (6) NAVSAC Task 11-06 e-Nav Strategy. The Council will be advised
of the current status of the United States' e-Navigation Strategy
development.
    (7) NAVSAC Task 11-07 Virtual Aids to Navigation Aids. Navigation
authorities are considering deploying virtual aids to navigation as an
alternative to physical lights, daybeacons and buoys under certain
circumstances. This topic will inform the Council on virtual aids and
discuss their possible use in United States' waters.
    (8) NAVSAC Task 11-08 Crew Fatigue. The Council will discuss the
unintended consequences some regulations are causing regarding crew
endurance and crew fatigue.
    A public presentation/comment period will be held from 3 to 4 p.m.
Speakers' presentations/comments are limited to 10 minutes each.

Wednesday, November 2, 2011

    (1) Task Working Group Discussions continue from November 1, 2011.
    (2) Working Group Reports presented to council.
    (3) New Business:
    a. IMO Safety Navigation Subcommittee.
    The Coast Guard will update the Council on recent decisions and
planned outputs of the IMO Safety Navigation Subcommittee.
    b. Summary of NAVSAC Action Items.
    c. Schedule Next Meeting Date--Spring 2012.
    d. Committee discussion of new tasks.
    (4) A public presentation/comment period will be held after the
discussion of new tasks. Speakers' presentations/comments are limited
to 10 minutes each.

    Dated: October 11, 2011.
Dana A. Goward,
Director, Marine Transportation Systems Management U.S. Coast Guard.
[FR Doc. 2011-26641 Filed 10-13-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 126 (Tuesday, June 30, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 39187-39188]
[FR Doc No: 2020-14034]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt
wholesale generator filings:

    Docket Numbers: EG20-197-000.
    Applicants: Deuel Harvest Wind Energy LLC.
    Description: Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale
Generator Status of Deuel Harvest Wind Energy LLC.
    Filed Date: 6/24/20.
    Accession Number: 20200624-5035.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/15/20.

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

    Docket Numbers: ER20-2144-000.
    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.
    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: Letter Agreement IP
Oberon, LLC SA No. 248, TOT910 to be effective 6/25/2020.
    Filed Date: 6/24/20.
    Accession Number: 20200624-5005.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/15/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-2145-000.
    Applicants: ISO New England Inc., New England Power Pool
Participants Committee.
    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: ISO-NE and NEPOOL;
Revisions to Tariff Related to FAP Enhancements to be effective 9/10/
2020.
    Filed Date: 6/24/20.
    Accession Number: 20200624-5025.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/15/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-2146-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: 2020-06-24_SA 2884 OTP-
Crowned Ridge 3rd Rev GIA (G736 J442) to be effective 6/10/2020.
    Filed Date: 6/24/20.
    Accession Number: 20200624-5032.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/15/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-2147-000.
    Applicants: Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association, Inc.
    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: Rate Schedule FERC No. 283
between Tri-State and Continental to be effective 6/25/2020.
    Filed Date: 6/24/20.
    Accession Number: 20200624-5034.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/15/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-2148-000.
    Applicants: Lexington Chenoa Wind Farm LLC.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Reactive Power Compensation
Filing to be effective 8/23/2020.
    Filed Date: 6/24/20.
    Accession Number: 20200624-5048.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/15/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-2149-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: Original WMPA, Service
Agreement No. 5666; Queue No. AF1-033 to be effective 5/28/2020.
    Filed Date: 6/24/20.
    Accession Number: 20200624-5054.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/15/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-2150-000.
    Applicants: Alcoa Power Generating Inc.
    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: Fourth Supplemental
Transmission Services Agreement to be effective 7/1/2020.
    Filed Date: 6/24/20.
    Accession Number: 20200624-5138.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/15/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-2151-000.
    Applicants: Morris Cogeneration, LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing: Morris Cogeneration, LLC Revised
MBR Tariff Filing to be effective 6/25/2020.

    Filed Date: 6/24/20.
    Accession Number: 20200624-5151.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/15/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-2152-000.
    Applicants: EF Kenilworth LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing: EF Kenilworth LLC Revised MBR
Tariff Filing to be effective 6/25/2020.
    Filed Date: 6/24/20.
    Accession Number: 20200624-5154.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/15/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-2153-000.
    Applicants: Sanford Airport Solar, LLC.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Sanford Airport Solar, LLC
Application for MBR Authority to be effective 8/24/2020.
    Filed Date: 6/24/20.
    Accession Number: 20200624-5155.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/15/20.

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

    Docket Numbers: ES20-45-000.
    Applicants: Indianapolis Power & Light Company.
    Description: Application Under Section 204 of the Federal Power Act
for Authorization to Issue Securities of Indianapolis Power & Light
Company.
    Filed Date: 6/24/20.
    Accession Number: 20200624-5108.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/29/20.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: June 24, 2020.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-14034 Filed 6-29-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 109 (Thursday, June 6, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 34095]
[FR Doc No: 2013-13449]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-R10-OAR-2013-0386; FRL-9820-6]

Adequacy Status of the Idaho, Northern Ada County PM10
State Implementation Plan for Transportation Conformity Purposes

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of adequacy determination.

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

SUMMARY: In this notice, the EPA is notifying the public of its finding
that the motor vehicle emissions budgets (MVEBs) for particulate matter
with an aerodynamic diameter of a nominal 10 microns or less
(PM10), nitrogen oxides (NOx), and volatile organic
compounds (VOC) for the years 2008, 2015 and 2023 in the Northern Ada
County PM10 State Implementation Plan, Maintenance Plan:
Ten-Year Update (Maintenance Plan Update) are adequate for
transportation conformity purposes. The Maintenance Plan Update was
submitted to the EPA by the State of Idaho Department of Environmental
Quality (IDEQ or the State) on March 11, 2013, with a clarification to
the MVEB submitted on April 16, 2013. As a result of this finding, the
Community Planning Association of Southwest Idaho, the Idaho
Transportation Department and the U.S. Department of Transportation
will be required to use these MVEBs for future transportation
conformity determinations.

DATES: This finding is effective June 21, 2013.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The finding will be available at the
EPA's conformity Web site: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/adequacy.htm. You may also contact Claudia Vergnani Vaupel,
U.S. EPA, Region 10 (OAWT-107), 1200 Sixth Ave., Suite 900, Seattle WA
98101;<PHONE_NUMBER> or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This action provides notice of the EPA's
adequacy finding regarding the MVEBs in the Maintenance Plan Update in
Northern Ada County. The EPA's finding was made pursuant to the
adequacy review process for implementation plan submissions delineated
at 40 CFR 93.118(f)(1) under which the EPA reviews the adequacy of an
implementation plan submission prior to the EPA's final action on the
implementation plan.
    The IDEQ submitted the Maintenance Plan Update to the EPA on March
11, 2013, with a clarification to the MVEBs submitted on April 16,
2013. Pursuant to 40 CFR 93.118 (f)(1), the EPA notified the public of
its receipt of this plan that would be reviewed for an adequacy
determination on the EPA's Web site and requested public comment by no
later than May 15, 2013. The EPA received no comments on the plan
during that comment period. As part of our review, we also reviewed
comments submitted to the IDEQ during the State's public hearing
process and the State's response to those comments. One comment related
to the MVEBs was submitted during the State's public hearing process.
The commenter requested an explanation of the differences in the
State's current and previous PM10 emission budgets, and a
justification for the State's reliance on an emission factor that
differed from the factor previously relied-upon in the State's emission
budget. The EPA finds that the State addressed the discrepancy
identified by the commenter and adequately explained the derivation of
the State's current PM10 emission budget.
    The EPA Region 10 sent a letter to the IDEQ on May 17, 2013
(adequacy letter), subsequent to the close of the EPA comment period,
stating that the EPA found the new MVEBs in the submitted Maintenance
Plan Update to be adequate for use in transportation conformity. A copy
of the adequacy letter and its enclosure is available at the EPA's
conformity Web site: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/adequacy.htm. The new MVEBs that the EPA determined to be adequate for
purposes of transportation conformity are listed in the following
table.

           MVEBs for Northern Ada County PM10 Maintenance Area
                             [tons per day]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Budget year                   PM10       NOX        VOC
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2008...................................       31.0       29.5       12.6
2015...................................       42.9       29.5       12.6
2023...................................       60.1       34.2       17.2
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Transportation conformity is required by section 176(c) of the
Clean Air Act. The EPA's conformity rule requires transportation plans,
programs, and projects to conform to state implementation plans (SIPs)
and establishes the criteria and procedures for determining whether or
not they do. Conformity to a SIP means that transportation activities
will not produce new air quality violations, worsen existing
violations, or delay timely attainment of the national ambient air
quality standards.
    The minimum criteria by which we determine whether a SIP's MVEBs
are adequate for conformity purposes are specified at 40 CFR
93.118(e)(4). The EPA's analysis of how the State's submission
satisfies these criteria is found in the adequacy letter. The EPA's
MVEB adequacy review is separate from the EPA's SIP completeness review
and it also should not be used to prejudge the EPA's ultimate approval
of the SIP. Even if we find the budget adequate, the SIP could later be
disapproved.

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.

    Dated: May 23, 2013.
Dennis J. McLerran,
Regional Administrator, Region 10.
[FR Doc. 2013-13449 Filed 6-5-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 21 (Thursday, January 31, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 880-881]
[FR Doc No: 2019-00566]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Noise Exposure Map Notice; Hartsfield-Jackson International
Airport, Atlanta, GA

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) announces its
determination that the Noise Exposure Maps submitted by City of
Atlanta/Department of Aviation for Hartsfield-Jackson International
Airport Airport under the provisions of 49 U.S.C. 47501 et seq.
(Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement Act) and 14 CFR part 150 are in
compliance with applicable requirements.

DATES: The date of the FAA's determination on the noise exposure maps
is December 19, 2018.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Felicia Reeves, Federal Aviation
Administration, Southern Region/Atlanta Airports District Office, 1701
Columbia Ave., Room 220, College Park, GA 30337,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This notice announces that the FAA finds
that the Noise Exposure Maps submitted for Hartsfield-Jackson
International Airport are in compliance with applicable requirements of
Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 150, effective December
19, 2018. Under 49 U.S.C. 47503 of the Aviation Safety and Noise
Abatement Act (the Act), an airport operator may submit to the FAA
Noise Exposure Maps which meet applicable regulations and which depict
non-compatible land uses as of the date of submission of such maps, a
description of projected aircraft operations, and the ways in which
such operations will affect such maps. The Act requires such maps to be
developed in consultation with interested and affected parties in the
local community, government agencies, and persons using the airport. An
airport operator who has submitted Noise Exposure Maps that are found
by FAA to be in compliance with the requirements of 14 CFR part 150,
promulgated pursuant to the Act, may submit a Noise Compatibility
Program for FAA approval which sets forth the measures the airport
operator has taken or proposes to take to reduce existing non-
compatible uses and prevent the introduction of additional non-
compatible uses.
    The FAA has completed its review of the Noise Exposure Maps and
accompanying documentation submitted by the City of Atlanta/Department
of Aviation. The documentation that constitutes the ``Noise Exposure
Maps'' as defined in 14 CFR 150.7 includes: Map A--Existing (Year 2017)
Noise Exposure Map, Map B--Future (Year 2022), Flight Track System-
Generated Flight Tracks, 2017 East/West Flow Corridors and Departure
Profiles. The FAA has determined that these Noise Exposure Maps and
accompanying documentation are in compliance with applicable
requirements. This determination is effective on December 19, 2018.
    FAA's determination on the airport operator's Noise Exposure Maps
is limited to a finding that the maps were developed in accordance with
the procedures contained in Appendix A of 14 CFR part 150. Such
determination does not constitute approval of the airport operator's
data, information or plans, or a commitment to approve a Noise
Compatibility Program or to fund the implementation of that Program. If
questions arise concerning the precise relationship of specific
properties to noise exposure contours depicted on a Noise Exposure Map
submitted under Section 47503 of the Act, it should be noted that the
FAA is not involved in any way in determining the relative locations of
specific properties with regard to the depicted noise exposure
contours, or in interpreting the Noise Exposure Maps to resolve
questions concerning, for example, which properties should be covered
by the provisions of Section 47506 of the Act. These functions are
inseparable from the ultimate land use control and planning
responsibilities of local government. These local responsibilities are
not changed in any way under 14 CFR part 150 or through FAA's review of
Noise Exposure Maps. Therefore, the responsibility for the detailed
overlaying of noise exposure contours onto the map depicting properties
on the surface rests exclusively with the airport operator that
submitted those maps, or with those public agencies and planning
agencies with which consultation is required under Section 47503 of the
Act. The FAA has relied on the certification by the airport operator,
under 14 CFR 150.21, that the statutorily required consultation has
been accomplished.

    Copies of the full Noise Exposure Maps documentation and of the
FAA's evaluation of the maps are available for examination by
appointment at the following locations: Federal Aviation
Administration, Atlanta Airports District Office, 1701 Columbia Ave.,
Room 220, College Park GA 30337.
    To arrange an appointment to review the documents and any questions
may be directed to the individual named above under the heading, FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    Issued in Atlanta Airports District Office, College Park, GA on
December 19, 2018.
Jesse Carriger,
ASO-610 Branch Manager, Southern Region Airports Division.
[FR Doc. 2019-00566 Filed 1-30-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P