Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 205 / Wednesday, October 23, 2013 / Notices 63185 

63. Because Virginia incorporated 40 CFR 

Part 63 by reference, Virginia should also no 

longer allow sources to use the former SSM 

exemption from the General Provisions of 40 

CFR Part 63 due to the Court’s ruling in 

Sierra Club vs. EPA. 

EPA appreciates Virginia’s continuing 

NESHAP and NSPS enforcement efforts, and 

also Virginia’s decision to take automatic 

delegation of additional and more recent 

NESHAP and NSPS by adopting them by 

reference. 

Sincerely, 

Diana Esher, 

Director, Air Protection Division. 

This notice acknowledges the update 

of Virginia’s delegation of authority to 

implement and enforce NESHAP and 

NSPS. 

Dated: September 18, 2013. 

Diana Esher, 

Director, Air Protection Division, Region III. 

[FR Doc. 2013–24880 Filed 10–22–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[FRL–9901–74–Region 5] 

Public Hearing and Request for 

Comments on Proposed Revisions to 

Michigan’s Clean Water Act (CWA) 

Program 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice of proposed revisions to 

Michigan’s CWA Section 404 program, 

public hearing and request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: EPA requests comments on 

proposed revisions to Michigan’s CWA 

Section 404 permitting program 

resulting from the recent enactment of 

Michigan Public Act 98 (PA 98). EPA 

will hold a public hearing in Lansing, 

Michigan, on December 11, 2013, to take 

comments on the proposed program 

revisions. Under Section 404 of the 

CWA, permits are required for activities 

involving discharges of dredged or fill 

material to waters of the United States, 

including wetlands, lakes and streams. 

In 1984, Michigan assumed Section 404 

permitting authority for its inland 

waters and wetlands. PA 98 amended 

the wetlands and the inland lakes and 

streams provisions of the Michigan’s 

Natural Resources and Environmental 

Protection Act to address areas, as 

identified by EPA in a 2008 program 

review, where the state’s Section 404 

program did not comply with CWA 

requirements. In addition to changes to 

address issues identified in EPA’s 

program review, PA 98 included: (1) 

Changes to the definition of contiguous 

wetlands regulated by Michigan’s 

Section 404 program; (2) the addition of 

new exemptions from permitting; and 

(3) changes to the requirements for 

mitigating the effects of filling wetlands 

and other waters of the United States. 

Under federal regulations, substantial 

changes to state CWA Section 404 

programs do not become effective until 

program revisions are approved by EPA. 

Information about PA 98, the resulting 

proposed revisions to Michigan’s 

Section 404 program, the public 

hearing, and procedures for submitting 

comments is available at: 

www.regulations.gov/ (insert: EPA–HQ– 

OW–2013–0710 in the search field). 

DATES AND LOCATION: On December 11, 

2013, at 7:00 p.m. EST, EPA will hold 

a public hearing to take oral and written 

comments at the Crowne Plaza Lansing 

West (formerly known as the Lexington 

Lansing Hotel), 925 South Creyts Road, 

Lansing, Michigan 48917. The formal 

hearing will be preceded by an 

informational session at 6:00 p.m. EST. 

Written comments will also be accepted 

until December 18, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, 

referencing Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OW–2013–0710, online using 

www.regulations.gov (the preferred 

method); by email to owdocket@epa.gov; or by mail to: EPA 

Docket Center, Environmental 

Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 

1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., 

Washington, DC 20460. All comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes profanity, threats, 

information claimed to be Confidential 

Business Information, or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

further information, call toll-free, 800– 

621–8431, weekdays, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 

p.m., central time, or contact Sue Elston, 

at the EPA Docket Center address noted 

above. 

Dated: September 27, 2013. 

Timothy C. Henry, 

Acting Director, Water Division, EPA 

Region 5. 

[FR Doc. 2013–24841 Filed 10–22–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[EPA–HQ–RCRA–2012–0072; FRL–9901–86– 

OSWER] 

Waste Management System; Testing 

and Monitoring Activities; Update V of 

SW–846 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA or the Agency) is 

providing notice of the availability of 

‘‘Update V’’ to the Third Edition of EPA 

publication SW–846, ‘‘Test Methods for 

Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/

Chemical Methods.’’ Update V contains 

23 new and revised analytical methods 

that the Agency has evaluated, and 

determined to be appropriate and which 

may be used for monitoring or 

complying with the Resource 

Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) 

hazardous and non-hazardous waste 

regulations. Because the analytical 

methods contained in Update V are not 

required by the RCRA hazardous waste 

regulations, EPA is issuing this update 

as guidance. In addition, the Agency is 

also taking comment on revisions to 

Chapters One through Five of EPA 

publication SW–846, an ORCR Policy 

Statement, and other guidance. The 

Agency is seeking public comment on 

Update V, and after consideration of the 

public comments, will place these new 

and revised methods, guidance, and 

chapters in the SW–846 methods 

compendium. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before January 21, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

RCRA–2012–0072, by one of the 

following methods: 

• www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Email: RCRA-docket@epa.gov, 

Attention Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

RCRA–2012–0072. 

• Fax: Fax comments to: 202–566– 

9744, Attention Docket ID No. EPA– 

HQ–RCRA–2012–0072. 

• Mail: Send comments to: OSWER 

Docket, EPA Docket Center, Mail Code 

28221T, Environmental Protection 

Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue 

NW., Washington, DC 20460, Attention 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–RCRA–2012– 

0072. Please include two copies of your 

comments. 

• Hand Delivery: Deliver two copies 

of your comments to: Environmental 

Protection Agency, EPA Docket Center, 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with NOTICES
63186 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 205 / Wednesday, October 23, 2013 / Notices 

Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue 

NW., Washington DC, Attention Docket 

ID No. EPA–HQ–RCRA–2012–0072. 

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 

EPA–HQ–RCRA–2012–0072. 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 email. The 

www.regulations.gov Web site 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 email comment directly 

to EPA without going through 

www.regulations.gov, your email 

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. For additional information 

about EPA’s public docket, visit the EPA 

Docket Center homepage at http://

www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the www.regulations.gov 

index. 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, will be publicly 

available only in hard copy. Publicly 

available docket materials are available 

either electronically in 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the OSWER Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West, 

Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. 

NW., Washington, DC. The Public 

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

4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

excluding legal holidays. The telephone 

number for the Public Reading Room is 

(202) 566–1744, and the telephone 

number for the OSWER Docket is (202) 

566–0270. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kim 

Kirkland, Materials Recovery and Waste 

Management Division, Office of 

Resource Conservation and Recovery, 

Office of Solid Waste and Emergency 

Response (5304P), Environmental 

Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania 

Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; 

telephone number: 703–308–8855; fax 

number: 703–308–0522; email address: 

kirkland.kim@epa.gov. 

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 you if you conduct 

waste sampling and analysis for RCRArelated activities. This might include 

any entity that generates, treats, stores, 

or disposes of hazardous or 

nonhazardous solid waste and is subject 

to RCRA subtitle C or D sampling and 

analysis requirements, and might also 

include any laboratory that conducts 

waste sampling and analyses for such 

entities. 

B. What should I consider as I prepare 

my comments for EPA? 

1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this 

information to EPA through 

www.regulations.gov or email. Clearly 

mark the part or all of the information 

that you claim to be CBI. For CBI 

information on 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 the procedures set 

forth in 40 CFR part 2. 

2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. 

When submitting comments, remember 

to: 

• Identify the rulemaking by docket 

number and other identifying 

information (subject heading, Federal 

Register date and page number). 

• Follow directions—The agency may 

ask you to respond to specific questions 

or organize comments by referencing a 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 

or section number. 

• Explain why you agree or disagree; 

suggest alternatives and substitute 

language for your requested changes. 

• Describe any assumptions and 

provide any technical information and/ 

or data that you used. 

• If you estimate potential costs or 

burdens, explain how you arrived at 

your estimate in sufficient detail to 

allow for it to be reproduced. 

• Provide specific examples to 

illustrate your concerns, and suggest 

alternatives. 

• Explain your views as clearly as 

possible, avoiding the use of profanity 

or personal threats. 

• Make sure to submit your 

comments by the comment period 

deadline identified. 

C. How can I get copies of Update V and 

the Third Edition of SW–846 as 

amended by its Final Updates? 

Update V is available in the RCRA 

docket and the final version will be 

available on-line after all comments 

have been addressed. The Third Edition 

of SW–846, as amended by Final 

Updates I, II, IIA, IIB, III, IIIA, IIIB, IVA, 

and IVB, is available in portable 

document format (PDF) on EPA’s Office 

of Resource Conservation and Recovery 

(ORCR) Web page at: http://

www.epa.gov/SW-846. 

D. How is the rest of this notice 

organized? 

The rest of this Notice includes the 

following 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 Update V contain? 

A. OSWER/ORCR Policy Statement 

B. Changes to QA/QC Guidance 

V. Summary 

II. What is the subject and purpose of 

this notice? 

The Agency is announcing the 

availability of and inviting public 

comment on Update V to ‘‘Test Methods 

for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/

Chemical Methods’’, EPA Publication 

SW–846. Update V of SW–846 contains 

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. Because the analytical 

methods contained in Update V are not 

required by the RCRA hazardous waste 

regulations, EPA 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 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 205 / Wednesday, October 23, 2013 / Notices 63187 

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 

EPA’s ORCR Web page at: http://

www.epa.gov/SW-846. 

III. Why is the Agency releasing Update 

V to SW–846? 

The Agency revises the content of 

SW–846 over time as new information 

and data become available. We 

continually review advances in 

analytical instrumentation and 

techniques and periodically incorporate 

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. These updates improve 

analytical method performance and cost 

effectiveness. Since the publication of 

the Methods Innovation Rule (MIR) (70 

FR 34537, June 14, 2005), the Agency no 

longer needs to use a rulemaking 

process for publication of an update to 

SW–846, as long as the update does not 

contain a method required by the RCRA 

regulations (e.g., Method-Defined 

Parameter (MDP), such as the Toxicity 

Characteristic Leaching Procedure 

(TCLP) (Method 1311)), see 40 CFR 

260.11. The Agency instead can make 

an 

SW–846 update available to the public 

more efficiently through a Federal 

Register notice announcing its 

availability and inviting public 

comment on the update. 

In addition, the MIR allows flexibility 

in method selection and use for meeting 

the analytical needs of the RCRA 

program, with the exception of those 

methods specifically required by the 

RCRA regulations. This approach is 

consistent with the Agency’s 

commitment to fully implement a 

performance-based measurement system 

(PBMS), whereby the analytical focus is 

on measurement objectives and 

performance rather than specific 

measurement technologies. 

Furthermore, the Agency’s PBMS 

approach has evolved resulting in the 

Agency adopting the new ‘‘Flexible 

Approaches to Environmental 

Measurement—The Evolution of the 

Performance Approach’’ as developed 

by the Forum on Environmental 

Measurements (FEM) at the direction of 

EPA’s Science Policy Council (i.e., now 

the Science and Technology Policy 

Council (STPC)). One of the main goals 

of the Performance Approach is to 

increase flexibility in choosing sampling 

and analytical approaches to meet 

regulatory requirements for 

measurements. For more information on 

the Performance Approach, see: http:// 

www.epa.gov/fem/approach.htm. 

In using the SW–846 methods, the 

regulated entity need only demonstrate 

that an analytical method generates data 

that meet the project-specific data 

quality objectives (DQOs) and 

performance acceptance criteria. The 

Agency finds this flexible approach to 

be particularly useful, and sufficient in 

most cases, during the characterization 

of the complex matrices of RCRArelated wastes. Thus, a method user can 

modify an SW–846 method (provided it 

is not one specifically required by 

regulation, e.g., 40 CFR 260.11), in order 

to best meet a waste matrix-specific 

analytical need, as long as the 

modifications meet the project-specific 

DQOs and performance acceptance 

criteria. The public should note that in 

some cases the method established 

certain requirements (e.g., conducting a 

calibration curve, using specific 

reagents, analyzing a Quality Control 

(QC) check sample to demonstrate 

precision and accuracy). While these 

standard principles are not regulatory 

requirements, they are necessary to 

yield data of acceptable quality as 

intended and are called for by sound 

science. (The public can obtain more 

information about the MIR and PBMS at 

the Agency’s Web site dedicated to SW– 

846 and the testing of RCRA-regulated 

wastes: http://www.epa.gov/SW-846.) 

The subject of today’s notice, Update 

V to SW–846, contains 23 new and 

revised analytical methods and revises 

Chapters One through Five of SW–846. 

After the comment period, and based on 

the Agency’s evaluation of the 

comments received, the new and 

revised methods and revised chapters 

will be formally included in the SW– 

846 methods compendium. Most of the 

Update V methods previously resided 

under the heading ‘‘New Methods’’ at 

EPA’s SW–846 Web site as either 

revised versions of existing SW–846 

methods or as new methods that the 

Agency planned to add to SW–846. 

Although these methods were not yet 

part of an official update to any edition 

of the SW–846 manual at the time of 

their posting on the Web site, the 

Agency wanted to make these Agencyevaluated methods available for use and 

comment as soon as possible. The 

Agency believed that public access to 

these new and revised methods, for 

guidance purposes, would assure that 

reliable and innovative methods are 

provided to the regulated community in 

a timely and cost-effective manner. 

Therefore, these methods could be used 

for any RCRA applications, other than 

one specifically required by regulation, 

for which their performance could be 

demonstrated to be appropriate and 

meet project-specific DQOs, and thus be 

consistent with implementation and 

promotion of a flexible and 

performance-based approach to RCRArelated analyses. 

The Agency is also responding to 

concerns expressed by the 

Environmental Laboratory Advisory 

Board (ELAB), a Federal Advisory 

Committee Act (FACA) committee that 

advises the Agency on measurement, 

monitoring, and laboratory science 

issues, who contacted EPA’s FEM with 

several issues regarding the use of SW– 

846. The ELAB specifically contacted 

EPA regarding which version of a 

revised method is recommended. 

Historically, as noted above, the Agency 

has posted new and revised methods on 

the SW–846 Web site under the ‘‘New 

Test Methods Online’’ (at: http://

www.epa.gov/epawaste/hazard/

testmethods/sw846/new_meth.htm), for 

use by the laboratory community, the 

States, and the regulated community 

pending publication of these methods in 

the Federal Register. The Agency was 

subsequently contacted by the ELAB, 

who identified several concerns 

regarding the process for updating and 

posting updates on the ‘‘New Test 

Methods Online’’ link on the SW–846 

Web site. 

ELAB requested that EPA clarify those 

issues that caused some confusion with 

some entities of the user community. 

Specifically, confusion existed when a 

method had multiple versions available 

on the web. For example, Method 

8000C, on the ’’New Test Methods 

Online’’ link has quality control (QC) 

guidelines that differ from Method 

8000B (the official version) in the 

SW–846 compendium. The public was 

confused by the difference in QC 

guidelines in the two available versions 

of the method. The Agency 

subsequently decided that the revisions 

to Method 8000C were more significant 

than those previously posted, and has 

decided to replace Method 8000C with 

Method 8000D, and is issuing Method 

8000D as part of Update V. 

In response to ELAB’s concerns, 

ORCR prepared a Policy Statement that 

identifies the status of methods (e.g., 

validated methods, final methods, etc.), 

and provides the rationale for 

identifying when changes to methods 

are significant, through a letter 

designation and by noting the date the 

method was revised by ORCR. For more 

information on the ORCR Policy 

Statement, see section IV of this Notice. 

Finally, the Agency is requesting 

public comment on the Update V 

methods and the other relevant updated 

materials presented in this Notice for 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with NOTICES
63188 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 205 / Wednesday, October 23, 2013 / Notices 

inclusion in the SW–846 manual (i.e., 

Table of Contents and Chapters One 

through Five). See the ADDRESSES

section of this notice for the procedure 

for submitting comments. The Agency 

will consider public comments 

submitted on or before the comment 

period deadline and subsequently 

finalize Update V as an official part of 

SW–846. In addition, the EPA SW–846 

Web site contains an updated version of 

the ‘‘Method Status Table for SW–846,’’ 

which identifies the update history for 

each document in SW–846. 

The Agency strongly recommends the 

use of the latest version of an SW–846 

method, especially for new analyte 

monitoring situations. The Agency, 

however, is not imposing restrictions on 

the use of earlier versions of nonrequired 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 than 

necessary for meeting project-specific 

objectives. In the future, the Agency 

plans to make electronic copies of 

earlier versions of SW–846 methods 

available through a separate hyperlink 

from the SW–846 Web site. 

The Agency hopes that the posting of 

this information on the Web site for 

immediate public access will mitigate 

any remaining confusion regarding the 

use of SW–846 methods. In addition, 

the public can also access the Methods 

Information Communication Exchange 

(MICE) for answers to their questions or 

concerns regarding SW–846 methods. 

MICE can be accessed by phone at (703) 

818–3238, by fax at (703) 818–8813, or 

by email at mice@techlawinc.com. 

IV. What does Update V contain? 

Update V contains 23 new and 

revised analytical methods, revised 

versions of Chapters One through Five 

of EPA publication SW–846, the ORCR 

Policy Statement, and other guidance 

(e.g., quality assurance/quality control 

(QA/QC) guidance on lower limit of 

quantitation (LLOQ), relative standard 

error (RSE), initial demonstration of 

proficiency (IDP), etc.), each dated 

October 2012 and identified as ‘‘Update 

V’’ in the document footer. For the 

convenience of the reader, EPA has 

identified key areas of interest in the 

sections below, but all the methods and 

other information for which the Agency 

is seeking comments are contained in 

the docket for this Notice. Table 1 

(included at the end of this Notice) 

provides a listing of the five revised 

chapters and twenty-three methods 

(eight new and fifteen revised methods) 

in Update V. After consideration of 

comments received from publication of 

this Notice, Update V, including the 

revised versions of Chapters One 

through Five, will be incorporated into 

the SW–846 methods compendium. 

A. OSWER/ORCR Policy Statement 

In 2008, ELAB requested that ORCR 

describe their plan for releasing Updates 

to SW–846, as well as clarify the status 

of deleted, obsolete, previous versions 

or revised methods, and a statement 

regarding the status of previous versions 

of methods. In addition, ELAB raised 

the following additional concerns and 

suggestions: 

• Clarification is needed regarding 

which method is the final version in 

SW–846. 

• Many states are not adopting the 

final version of new methods. 

• States may not have the resources to 

certify multiple versions of final 

methods. 

• Some of the regulated community 

doesn’t know how the method revision 

varied. 

EPA has engaged in several face-toface meetings with the ELAB at national 

conferences to address their requests 

and resolve their concerns and 

suggestions. As a result of those 

meetings, ORCR developed a policy 

statement intended to clarify the basic 

terminology used in SW–846 regarding 

the status of methods and how the SW– 

846 Methods program develops and 

releases methods to the public. That 

policy statement, entitled ‘‘USEPA 

Office of Resource Conservation and 

Recovery Policy on the Use of Test 

Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, 

Physical/Chemical Methods (SW–846)’’ 

provides background on SW–846, 

general guidance on the procedures for 

adopting methods into SW–846, and 

defines key terms used to identify the 

status of methods in SW–846. Below is 

the ORCR Policy Statement, a copy of 

which has also been placed in the 

docket associated with this Federal 

Register Notice: 

USEPA Office of Solid Waste and 

Emergency Response/Office of Resource 

Conservation and Recovery Policy on 

the Use of ‘‘Test Methods for Evaluating 

Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical 

Methods’’ (SW–846) 

The United States Environmental 

Protection Agency’s (EPA) Office of 

Resource Conservation and Recovery 

(ORCR) provides analytical and 

sampling methods to assist the regulated 

and regulatory community and others in 

implementing the Resource 

Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). 

These methods are published in the Test 

Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, 

Physical/Chemical Methods (SW–846) 

and are available on the ORCR Web site 

(www.epa.gov./epawaste/hazard/

testmethods/index.htm). With the 

exception of those particular methods 

which are promulgated in the 

regulations to implement RCRA (see 40 

CFR 260.11), the remaining methods are 

considered guidance, and users may 

select any scientifically appropriate 

method when conducting analyses to 

comply with the RCRA regulatory 

program. 

The Methods Innovation Rule (MIR) 

published on June 14, 2005 (70 FR 

34538), reemphasized the flexible 

approach in method selection, when 

appropriate, when testing for 

compliance, under RCRA. Since the 

publication of this rule, ORCR no longer 

uses a formal rulemaking process for 

publication of method updates to SW– 

846. EPA informs the regulated and 

regulatory community of new methods 

and updates to SW–846 and solicits 

comments on them through a Notice of 

Availability published in the Federal 

Register. This approach is consistent 

with ORCR’s commitment to fully 

implement the Agency’s performancebased measurement system (PBMS) 

approach to regulation. 

A new effort was developed and 

approved to reinvigorate the goals of 

PBMS with the versatility of each of our 

program’s needs. It is called the Flexible 

Approaches to Environmental 

Measurements—The Evolution of the 

Performance Approach which the 

Science and Technology Policy Council 

(STPC) approved on February 15, 2008. 

In 2009, ORCR subsequently adopted 

the new ‘‘Performance Approach’’ as 

defined by the Forum on Environmental 

Measurements (FEM). The FEM is a 

standing committee of senior EPA 

Environmental Protection managers 

established to develop policies to guide 

the Agency’s measurement community 

in: validating and disseminating 

methods for sample collection and 

analysis; for ensuring that monitoring 

studies are scientifically rigorous, 

statistically sound, and yield 

representative measurements; and for 

employing a quality systems approach 

that ensures that the data gathered and 

used by the Agency are of known and 

documented quality. 

After shortening the name of the 

PBMS effort to the ‘‘Performance 

Approach,’’ the FEM’s Performance 

Approach Action Team took a look at 

the issues surrounding the lack of the 

program’s progress with the ultimate 

conclusion that the ‘‘one size fits all’’ 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 205 / Wednesday, October 23, 2013 / Notices 63189 

approach does not work for the 

diversely different programs and 

authorities each of our major program 

offices (i.e., air, pesticides, waste, and 

water) has in carrying out their work. To 

avoid the proliferation of terminology, 

ORCR has adopted the ‘‘Flexible 

Approach’’ which is consistent with 

ORCR’s approach to environmental 

management, based on the goals and 

statutes of EPA program offices. 

Under the PBMS approach for RCRA, 

when labs conducted regulatory 

required monitoring, the regulated 

community had to either employ a 

scientifically appropriate method 

published in SW–846 or use any other 

scientifically appropriate method from 

another reliable source. This is still true 

under the Flexible Approach. However, 

when choosing a reliable alternative 

source, the focus should be on 

measurement objectives, rather than on 

measurement technologies. In all cases, 

the user must demonstrate the method 

selected generates data that are 

appropriate for the intended use. 

Although both approaches are 

applicable for RCRA, ORCR had 

dropped the term PBMS, and strongly 

supports the use of the new Flexible 

Approach to be consistent with the 

Agency’s new guidance that allows each 

program to determine program specific 

flexibility when addressing waste 

analysis issues. 

ORCR strongly recommends that 

persons use the latest version of a 

SW–846 method whenever possible, 

especially in new monitoring situations, 

since updated versions of the methods 

EPA publishes generally are in the 

Agency’s view less subject to 

misinterpretation, yield improved 

precision and/or bias, or provide for the 

use of newer and, often, more costeffective technologies. In situations 

where it may not be appropriate to use 

the latest method in SW–846, earlier 

versions may be used. These situations 

may include, but are not limited to, 

those where an earlier version of a 

method is required for existing permits, 

consent decrees, waste analysis plans or 

sampling analysis plans. In addition, 

laboratories, especially small 

laboratories, may find a previous 

version of a SW–846 method 

appropriate if it is more cost-effective in 

meeting the project-specific objectives. 

The Agency is not imposing restrictions 

on the use of earlier versions of nonrequired methods contained in SW–846 

or precluding the use of previous 

guidance. Nonetheless, the adoption of 

the latest method version is 

recommended and should be 

accomplished as soon as possible, as 

appropriate. When methods are 

employed, it is the responsibility of the 

user to ensure that the method yields 

data of a quality appropriate for the 

particular application for which it is 

being used. 

EPA views the methods in the 

SW–846 compendium as tools for the 

user to employ in developing individual 

standard operating procedures to meet 

the goals and objectives of specific 

projects. This approach enables the user 

to optimize and modify methods for 

effective performance on unique 

projects. The SW–846 methods are for 

most applications considered as 

guidance with the exception of those 

methods required by the RCRA 

regulations (i.e., Method-Defined 

Parameters (MDPs), see 40 CFR 260.11). 

In situations where the user is not 

certain whether the selected method or 

method modification is appropriate, 

EPA recommends regulated entities 

contact and seek approval as needed 

from the appropriate regulatory agency 

(e.g., Federal or State/local government) 

before applying any method on a 

specific project, including situations 

where the method is used verbatim. 

EPA may publish new methods, 

revise existing methods, or withdraw 

methods from the SW–846 compendium 

whenever it deems it appropriate. For 

example, methods may be updated in 

order to reflect new advancements in 

technology, to reflect the addition of 

new performance data, or to clarify 

areas of the procedure that experience 

indicates may be misunderstood. 

Methods may also be revised to reflect 

new EPA policy regarding the use of 

certain chemicals and reagents. In other 

cases, methods are removed if the 

technology is no longer available or 

applicable. ORCR has developed 

specific procedures for releasing 

updates, revisions, or withdrawing 

methods, which are designed to 

minimize disruption to regulatory 

processes. Specific definitions for the 

terms associated with a method’s status, 

which support the change procedures, 

have been developed and provided 

below. 

The Agency will only post the most 

recent version of a final SW–846 

method on the ORCR Web page as part 

of the SW–846 methods compendium 

(www.epa.gov./epawaste/hazard/

testmethods/index.htm). Prior versions 

of methods formerly contained in 

SW–846 and still considered 

appropriate for use will be available 

through a separate hyperlink in the 

future. EPA’s objective is to identify and 

make available on the Agency’s SW–846 

Web site the latest information 

regarding the methodologies that 

generate effective data at minimum 

costs in response to new technological 

or scientific advancements, while, at the 

same time, making available earlier 

versions for those situations where such 

methods may be needed or appropriate 

(e.g., to determine how a particular 

analysis had been performed, to 

determine how to comply with a 

specific permit requirement, etc.). 

SW–846 Methods Status Definitions 

Analytical methods are officially 

made a part of the SW–846 manual 

through a rigorous process of technical 

evaluation both within the Agency and 

through external review. Methods are 

also revised as needed after a formal 

evaluation process by analytical experts 

(e.g., SW–846 work and focus groups) 

and an announcement of method 

availability and request for public 

comment in the Federal Register as a 

Notice of Availability. During the 

method development/evaluation 

process, the methods go through various 

stages of review and revision. The 

methods are officially included as part 

of an update to the most current edition 

of SW–846 at the conclusion of this 

process. 

ORCR employs a specific naming 

convention (i.e., method number and 

letter suffix) when publishing methods. 

The naming convention is intended to 

minimize confusion within the user 

community regarding a method’s 

developmental status. The method 

number designates the underlying 

technology (e.g., 8000 series methods 

designate determinative procedures for 

organic compounds). A revision to a 

method where the underlying 

technology does not change is indicated 

by continued use of the same method 

number and letter, but with a new 

issuance date. If the revision retains the 

underlying technology, but does not 

affect the precision and/or accuracy of 

the data, the revision is considered to be 

minor or nonsignificant and the method 

number and letter is not changed or 

sequenced. 

If, on the other hand, the revision 

retains the underlying technology, but 

changes the precision and/or accuracy 

of the data, the change is considered to 

be significant and is indicated by a 

subsequent letter suffix (e.g., changes 

from 8270C to 8270D) and a new 

issuance date. For example, if the 

quality control recommendations are 

changed in a manner that improves the 

bias or precision of the method, but 

does not change the underlying 

technology (e.g., a tightening of the 

calibration acceptance criteria), the 

method number stays the same, but the 

letter suffix is sequenced to the next 

letter. The differences between the 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with NOTICES
63190 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 205 / Wednesday, October 23, 2013 / Notices 

earlier and later versions of a method 

are detailed in the method summary 

section of the revised version regardless 

of the type of change. 

Examples of changes that may be 

considered minor or nonsignificant 

include, but are not limited to: Language 

added to a method to provide increased 

clarity or guidance; expansion of lists of 

acceptable instrumentation, 

applicability of the method to a matrix 

not previously referenced, adding new 

compounds to the list of applicable 

compounds, or changes to instrument 

specifications which do not result in an 

existing acceptable instrument being 

rendered unacceptable; or formatting 

and editorial changes that are designed 

to improve readability or correct 

spelling or grammatical errors. 

ORCR has defined a ‘‘significant 

change’’ as a change that results in 

improved analytical results (e.g., 

changes that result in reducing 

analytical bias or improving data 

precision). Examples of significant 

changes may include, but are not 

limited to: a change in the operating 

parameter which reduces analytical 

flexibility; a change in instrumentation 

specification which minimizes 

interference and/or optimizes 

instrument performance (if the use of 

such interference reduction technique 

or performance enhancement is 

required); a change in calibration 

guidance which results in more 

restrictive recommendations; a change 

that institutes tighter QC 

recommendations; or a change in the 

reagents that are required by the 

method. 

ORCR understands revisions are 

sometimes necessary to either enhance 

the performance of the method or to 

allow flexibilities due to the complexity 

of sample matrices. In situations where 

the user is not certain whether the 

selected method, method modification 

or modification to their plan is 

appropriate, EPA recommends the 

regulated community seek approval 

from the appropriate regulatory agency 

(e.g., Federal or State/local government, 

client) before their use of a revised 

method; amend their plan (e.g., Project 

Plan, Quality Assurance Project Plan 

(QAPP), Sampling and Analysis Plan 

(SAP), Standard Operating Procedure 

(SOP)); and properly document the 

change when reporting analytical 

results. 

The following method status 

definitions reflect the current method 

development process and have been 

developed to add clarity for the method 

users. ORCR uses these definitions and 

the terms may vary for other program 

offices. 

Final Method—A method that has 

been formally adopted into the most 

recent version of the SW–846 

compendium. Before a method becomes 

final, the validated version would have 

been made available for public review 

and comment in a Notice of Availability 

(NOA) or a proposed rulemaking, as 

appropriate. 

Validated Method—A method that 

has undergone development and 

technical review by EPA, but has not 

been formally adopted into the SW–846 

method compendium and published 

through a Federal Register Notice. Since 

this review includes technical work 

group approval and/or inter-laboratory 

validation, validated methods are 

included on the Agency Web site for 

evaluation and use by the public and as 

a means of soliciting comment from the 

broader scientific community. The 

public may use a validated method prior 

to its inclusion in the SW–846 

compendium, provided that the users 

demonstrate that it generates data that 

are appropriate for the intended use. 

Revised Method—A method included 

in SW–846 that has been updated to 

reflect changes that may be editorial in 

nature and do not impact data or 

performance comparability, that 

broaden the method to introduce new 

technologies that may increase 

productivity, but do not change the 

fundamental technology, or that change 

the quality control requirements to 

increase bias or precision. 

The number of a method that has been 

revised does not change, but the method 

may receive a subsequent letter suffix. If 

the revision is a significant one (as 

defined above) then both the letter 

suffix and the issuance date are 

updated. If, on the other hand, the 

revision is editorial in nature, or 

consists of the addition of new 

performance data, then only the 

issuance date is changed. Previous 

versions are not precluded from being 

used provided that the users 

demonstrate that it generates data that 

are appropriate for the intended use. 

Draft Method—A new method that is 

being evaluated for possible inclusion 

into SW–846. It represents the latest 

innovative technological advancements 

in scientific methodology, but has not 

completed technical review by EPA nor 

been subject to notice and comment in 

the Federal Register. 

Superseded Method—A superseded 

method is an earlier version of an SW– 

846 method or other guidance that is no 

longer included in the SW–846 

compendium and has been replaced by 

a newer version. Revised versions of 

Superseded methods should be viewed 

as the preferred method. Methods in 

this category are removed from the 

compendium, but remain available on 

line and are not precluded for use where 

required for existing projects or where 

an adequate justification for use exists. 

The term ‘‘Superseded’’ is documented 

in the method title as listed on the EPA 

Web site for prior versions of final 

methods followed by the date it was 

superseded. 

Withdrawn Method—A method or 

other guidance that EPA strongly 

recommends not be used, (e.g., cyanide 

and sulfide reactivity guidance 

withdrawn, June 14, 2005). EPA has 

determined that such procedures or 

methods, for the use or technical 

objectives for which they were 

originally published, are technically 

inadequate and/or no longer meet such 

use or technical objectives. This does 

not mean, however, that there would be 

no situations under which the 

procedures or methods may be 

appropriate. In any situation in which a 

person may believe that the withdrawn 

method is appropriate, we strongly 

encourage consultation with applicable 

regulatory agencies at the state or 

federal level. The prospective user of 

the method will need to demonstrate the 

old method is, indeed, appropriate. Any 

use of these methods, without any such 

consultation and demonstration, will be 

done at the user’s risk. 

The Agency understands that earlier 

versions of the SW–846 methods that 

aren’t required may still be in use to 

meet project specific criteria (e.g., 

permits, sampling plans, Consent 

Decrees, etc.). Permits and other plans 

formally approved by regulatory 

authorities that specify the use of 

particular methods for required analysis 

continue in effect unless they are 

changed. However, the Agency 

encourages the regulated community to 

use the latest version of SW–846, when 

applicable. EPA will continue to update 

the Methods Status Table to inform the 

public as to the status of methods in 

SW–846 and the Policy Statement will 

be added to the SW–846 methods 

compendium when the Update V 

package is finalized. 

[end of policy statement] 

B. Changes to Chapters One Through 

Five and QA/QC Guidance (Chapter 

One and Individual Methods) in 

SW–846 

In general, EPA’s revisions to 

Chapters One through Five to EPA 

publication SW–846 reflects the new 

method style guide format and added all 

the Update V methods and new letters/ 

version to the appropriate related 

method sections. Specifically: 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 205 / Wednesday, October 23, 2013 / Notices 63191 

• Chapter One of SW–846 was 

revised to make it more user friendly 

and to be more consistent with the 

Agency’s official guidance on QA/QC 

implementation and procedures (e.g., 

Quality Assurance Project Plans 

(QAPPS), Data Quality Objectives 

(DQOs), and the Flexible Approach to 

Environmental Measurement). 

• Chapter Two now includes a Table 

of Contents to make finding the 

information easier. In addition, a 

typographical error was found for bis(2- 

chloroisopropyl) ether and was 

corrected to bis(2-chloro-1-methylethyl) 

ether in Tables 2–1, 2–4, 2–15, 2–22, 

and 2–34. Furthermore, Table 2–40(A) 

was revised to reflect 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 

analyze immediately, if styrene and 

vinyl chloride are analytes of interest) 

and Table 2–40(B) was revised to 

include Mercury Speciation hold times 

in addition to totals. 

• Chapter Three was revised so that 

the definition for instrument detection 

limit (IDL) is consistent with the revised 

methods 6010D and 6020B. In addition, 

the term ‘‘accuracy’’ was replaced by 

‘‘bias’’ where appropriate; the definition 

for linear range was revised to be 

consistent with methods 6010D and 

6020B; the definition of interference 

check sample (ICS) was replaced with 

the spectral interference check (SIC) 

solution to be consistent with methods 

6010D and 6020B; and the definition of 

‘‘laboratory control sample’’ was revised 

to recommend the use of a spiking 

solution from the same source as the 

calibration standards. Also, the 

collision/reaction cell technology was 

added to Sections 3.6 and 3.7 as an 

effective method for removing isobaric 

interferences when analyzing by ICP– 

MS and a minimum collection mass of 

100 g was added to Table 3–2 for solid 

samples collected for sulfide analysis. 

• Chapter Four (see Table 4–1) was 

reformatted and updated by removing 

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. 

• Chapter 5 had no significant 

changes outside of general ones 

specified above (e.g., updated format 

changes and method reference to 

chapters). 

In addition, EPA is incorporating 

three new and revised QC features in 

Chapter One and the Update V methods, 

where appropriate, for RCRA 

compliance monitoring which warrant 

further discussion here. A summary of 

changes to chapters in SW–846 are 

provided in Appendix A of each 

chapter. 

The new and revised features that 

have been added to Chapter One 

(Quality Control) and individual 

methods (where appropriate) are: 

• Lower Limit of Quantitation 

(LLOQ)—References to the Method 

Detection Limit (MDL) have been 

replaced with the LLOQ. It is 

recommended to establish 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. 

Why is MDL removed and replaced by 

LLOQ for SW–846? 

ORCR has removed references to the 

MDL procedure (i.e., 40 CFR 136, 

Appendix B) beginning with Update IV 

and from the revised and new Update V 

methods and has recommended 

establishing the LLOQ. We continue to 

refine the procedure for establishing the 

LLOQ. The refined procedure considers 

sample matrix effects; provides 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. (Note: The agency 

understands that previous versions of 

methods published in SW–846 may 

contain the MDL reference. However, as 

methods are updated, EPA will remove 

the reference to the MDL, and will 

remove the reference in older methods 

that have not yet been updated, as time 

and resources allow. Therefore, ORCR 

recommends that LLOQ be used, as 

appropriate, for the methods that have 

not yet been updated. See the 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.) 

ORCR understands that other EPA 

programs may continue to use MDLs to 

meet their program use and needs (e.g., 

the National Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System (NPDES) permit 

program). However, ORCR has found 

that the procedure in 40 CFR 136, 

Appendix B, for the determination of 

MDLs, developed for the Clean Water 

Act (CWA) program uses a clean matrix 

(e.g., 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. The procedure outlined 

in Part 136 is generally not suitable for 

RCRA wastes or materials because the 

MDL approach generally yields 

unrealistic and/or unachievable method 

detection limits for the complex 

matrices (e.g., soils, sludges, wipes, and 

spent materials) encountered under the 

RCRA program. The MDLs are normally 

calculated from analysis of a sample 

that does not cause matrix interferences 

(typically determined using spiked 

reagent water). However, most wastes 

evaluated for compliance with RCRA 

consist of complex matrices. The LLOQ 

considers the effect of sample matrix 

(e.g., components of a sample other than 

the analyte) by taking the sample 

through the entire analytical process, 

including sample preparation, clean up 

(to remove sample interferences), and 

determinative procedures. Also, if 

method users choose, the LLOQ sample 

can be included at the end of the run 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. 

SW–846 methods are being used by 

various programs in implementing 

various statutes, including RCRA, the 

Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation and Liability 

Act (CERCLA), the Toxic Substances 

Control Act (TSCA), and Homeland 

Security Presidential Directives, for 

waste and materials characterization, 

compliance testing, site/incident 

characterization and risk assessment for 

protection of human health and the 

environment, and better management 

and use of wastes and materials, for a 

wide range of difficult matrices. ORCR 

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 Agency’s 

program needs. 

Establishing 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 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with NOTICES
63192 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 205 / Wednesday, October 23, 2013 / Notices 

samples provide an initial statement of 

precision and bias at the LLOQ. In most 

cases, the mean recovery should be 

±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 projectrequired acceptance limits, for precision 

and bias to verify the data reporting 

limits. Until the laboratory has 

sufficient data to determine acceptance 

limits statistically, a limit of 20% +/¥ 

the Laboratory Control Sample (LCS) 

criteria may be used for the LLOQ 

acceptance criteria. 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 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, the 

limits of acceptance (for precision and 

bias) are established by a lab with 

sufficient data to demonstrate that they 

can report down to the LLOQ with a 

certain level of confidence. The 

acceptance limits (for precision and 

bias) for LLOQ may be established by 

the laboratory or at the project level 

through the data quality objectives in a 

quality assurance project plan. 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. 

How is LLOQ used? 

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 remediation 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 laboratory 

must make an initial demonstration of 

ability to generate results with 

acceptable accuracy and precision for 

each preparation and determinative 

method they perform. This 

demonstration should be performed 

prior to independently analyzing real 

sample matrices by each analytical 

method and should be repeated if other 

changes occur (e.g., significant change 

in procedure, new staff are trained, etc.). 

Documentation of the IDP should be 

maintained by the Quality Assurance 

Manager. Each laboratory should have a 

training program documenting that a 

new analyst is capable of performing the 

method or portion of the method for 

which the analyst is responsible. This 

demonstration should document that 

the new analyst is capable of 

successfully following the standard 

operating procedure (SOP) based on the 

laboratory’s IDP policy. 

For Update V, changes to the IDP have 

been specified in the individual Update 

V methods where appropriate (e.g., 

screening method where there is not a 

quantitative reporting limit such as a 

bioassay method). The IDP changes 

allow laboratories to use their time and 

resources effectively, especially for the 

organic analyses. 

Key Changes in the IDP for the 

Determination of Organic Analytes: 

The IDP section was expanded to 

describe two situations: 

When a significant change to 

instrumentation or procedure occurs: 

Reliable performance of the methods is 

dependent on careful adherence to the 

instructions in the written method, and 

aspects of the method are mandatory to 

ensure that 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. EPA considers 

conducting IDPs as part of good 

laboratory practice procedures and has 

already included these procedures in 

EPA’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 the analyst 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 mix of 

Aroclor 1016 and 1260 for Method 

8082) for each preparation method the 

analyst will be performing. The 

instrument analyst being trained will 

need to analyze prepared samples (e.g., 

semi-volatile extracts). 

• Relative Standard Error (RSE)— 

ORCR evaluated and included, as the 

analytical community recommended, 

RSE as an option (in addition to 

calculation of the % error) in SW–846 

for the determination of the 

acceptability for a linear or non-linear 

calibration curve. 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. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 205 / Wednesday, October 23, 2013 / Notices 63193 

Where: 

xi = True amount of analyte in calibration 

level i, in mass or concentration units. 

x ́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. 

V. Summary 

EPA believes that these changes in 

Update V will assist the method users 

to demonstrate method competency and 

generate better quality data. For the 

convenience of the analytical 

community, the Agency will revise the 

OSWER Methods’ Team homepage on 

EPA’s Web site with updated 

information to better communicate new 

policy and analytical procedures, and 

will include Update V and selected 

documents at that Web site after Update 

V is finalized. 

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 twenty-three 

methods (eight new and fifteen revised 

methods) in Update V. 

TABLE 1—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. 

Methods Status Table. 

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® 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 Methods. 

Dated: September 27, 2013. 

Barnes Johnson, 

Acting Director, Office of Resource 

Conservation and Recovery. 

[FR Doc. 2013–24852 Filed 10–22–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FARM CREDIT ADMINISTRATION 

Farm Credit Administration Board; 

Sunshine Act; Regular Meeting 

AGENCY: Farm Credit Administration. 

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given, 

pursuant to the Government in the 

Sunshine Act, of the regular meeting of 

the Farm Credit Administration Board 

(Board). 

DATE AND TIME: The regular meeting of 

the Board will be held at the offices of 

the Farm Credit Administration in 

McLean, Virginia, on October 10, 2013, 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with NOTICESEN23OC13.003</GPH>