[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 149 (Wednesday, August 3, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 51081-51084]
[FR Doc No: 2016-18449]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 25

[Docket No. FAA-2016-5909; Special Conditions No. 25-626-SC]

Special Conditions: The Boeing Company Model 787-9 Series
Airplane; Dynamic Test Requirements for Single-Occupant Oblique (Side-
Facing) Seats With Inflatable and 3-Point Restraint Systems

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final special conditions; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: These special conditions are issued for The Boeing Company
(Boeing) Model 787-9 series airplane. This airplane, as modified by
Boeing, will have novel or unusual design features when compared to the
state of technology envisioned in the airworthiness standards for
transport-category airplanes. These design features are single-occupant
oblique (side-facing) seats with inflatable and 3-point restraint
systems requiring dynamic testing. The applicable airworthiness
regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for
these design features. These special conditions contain the additional
safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to
establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the
existing airworthiness standards.

DATES: This action is effective on Boeing on August 3, 2016. We must
receive your comments by September 19, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2016-5909
using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRegulations Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov/and follow the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30, U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room
W12-140, West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket
Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Privacy: The FAA will post all comments it receives, without
change, to http://www.regulations.gov/, including any personal
information the commenter provides. Using the search function of the
docket Web site, anyone can find and read the electronic form of all
comments received into any FAA docket, including the name of the
individual sending the comment (or signing the comment for an
association, business, labor union, etc.). DOT's complete Privacy Act
Statement can be found in the Federal Register published on April 11,
2000 (65 FR 19477-19478), as well as at http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov/ gov/.
    Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at
http://www.regulations.gov/ at any time. Follow the online instructions
for accessing the docket or go to Docket Operations in Room W12-140 of
the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeff Gardlin, FAA, Airframe and Cabin
Safety branch, ANM-115, Transport

Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service, 1601 Lind Avenue
SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; facsimile
425-227-1320.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA has determined that notice of, and
opportunity for prior public comment on, these special conditions is
impracticable because these procedures would significantly delay
issuance of the design approval and thus delivery of the affected
airplane.
    In addition, the substance of these special conditions has been
subject to the public comment process in several prior instances with
no substantive comments received. The FAA therefore finds that good
cause exists for making these special conditions effective upon
publication in the Federal Register.

Comments Invited

    We invite interested people to take part in this rulemaking by
sending written comments, data, or views. The most helpful comments
reference a specific portion of the special conditions, explain the
reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data.
    We will consider all comments we receive by the closing date for
comments. We may change these special conditions based on the comments
we receive.

Background

    On January 29, 2016, Boeing applied for a change to type
certificate no. T00021SE to install single-occupant oblique (side-
facing) seats with inflatable and 3-point restraint systems in the
Model 787-9 airplane.
    This airplane is a twin-engine transport-category airplane. It has
a 420-passenger capacity and a maximum takeoff weight of 553,000 lbs.

Type Certification Basis

    Under the provisions of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14
CFR), 21.101, Boeing must show that the Model 787-9 airplane meets the
applicable provisions of the regulations listed in type certificate no.
T00021SE, or the applicable regulations in effect on the date of
application for the change, except for earlier amendments as agreed
upon by the FAA.
    If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness
regulations (i.e., 14 CFR part 25) do not contain adequate or
appropriate safety standards for the Model 787-9 airplane because of a
novel or unusual design feature, special conditions are prescribed
under the provisions of Sec.  21.16.
    In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special
conditions, the Model 787-9 airplane must comply with the fuel-vent and
exhaust-emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34 and the noise-
certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36.
    The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in 14 CFR 11.19, in
accordance with Sec.  11.38, and they become part of the type
certification basis under Sec.  21.101.

Novel or Unusual Design Features

    The Model 787-9 airplane will incorporate the following novel or
unusual design features:
    Single-occupant oblique (side-facing) seats with inflatable and 3-
point restraint systems requiring dynamic testing.

Discussion

    Amendment 25-15 to part 25, dated October 24, 1967, introduced the
subject of side-facing seats and a requirement that each occupant in a
side-facing seat must be protected from head injury by a safety belt
and a cushioned rest that will support the arms, shoulders, head, and
spine.
    Subsequently, Amendment 25-20, dated April 23, 1969, clarified the
definition of side-facing seats to require that each occupant of a seat
that is positioned at more than an 18-degree angle to the vertical
plane containing the airplane centerline must be protected from head
injury by a safety belt and an energy-absorbing rest that supports the
arms, shoulders, head, and spine; or by a safety belt and shoulder
harness that prevents the head from contacting injurious objects. The
FAA concluded that a maximum 18-degree angle would provide an adequate
level of safety based on tests that were performed at the time, and
thus adopted that standard.
    Amendment 25-64, dated June 16, 1988, revised the emergency-landing
conditions that must be considered in the design of the airplane. It
revised the static-load conditions in 14 CFR 25.561 and added a new
Sec.  25.562, requiring dynamic testing for all seats approved for
occupancy during takeoff and landing. The intent was to provide an
improved level of safety for occupants on transport-category airplanes.
Because most seating on transport-category airplanes is forward-facing,
the pass/fail criteria developed in Amendment 25-64 focused primarily
on forward-facing seats. Therefore, the testing specified in the rule
did not provide a complete measure of occupant injury in seats that are
not forward-facing; although Sec.  25.785 does require that occupants
of all seats that are occupied during taxi, takeoff, and landing not
suffer serious injury as a result of the inertia forces specified in
Sec. Sec.  25.561 and 25.562.
    To address recent research findings and accommodate commercial
demand, the FAA developed a methodology to address all fully side-
facing seats (i.e., seats oriented in the airplane with the occupant
facing 90-degrees to the direction of airplane travel) and has
documented those requirements in a set of proposed new special
conditions. The FAA issued policy statement PS-ANM-25-03-R1 on November
12, 2012, titled, ``Technical Criteria for Approving Side-Facing
Seats,'' which conveys the injury criteria to be used in the special
conditions. Some of those criteria are applicable to oblique seats but
others are not, because the motion of an occupant in an oblique seat is
different from the motion of an occupant in a fully side-facing seat
during emergency landing conditions.
    For shallower installation angles, the FAA has granted equivalent
level of safety (ELOS) findings for oblique seat installations on the
premise that an occupant's kinematics in an oblique seat during a
forward impact would result in the body aligning with the impact
direction. We predicted that the occupant response would be similar to
an occupant of a forward-facing seat, and would produce a level of
safety equivalent to that of a forward-facing seat. These ELOS findings
were subject to many conditions that reflected the injury-evaluation
criteria and mitigation strategies available at the time of issuance of
the ELOS. However, review of dynamic test results for many of these
oblique seat installations raised concerns that the premise was not
correct. Potential injury mechanisms exist that are unique to oblique
seats and are not mitigated by the ELOS self-alignment approach even if
the occupant appears to respond similarly to a forward-facing seat.
    The proposed Model 787 airplane oblique business-class seat
installations are novel such that the current Model 787 airplane
certification basis does not adequately address occupant protection
expectations with regard to the occupant's neck and spine for seat
configurations that are oriented at an angle greater than 18-degrees
from the airplane centerline. The FAA has previously issued special
conditions no. 25-580-SC for the 787, which reflected the best
available criteria at the time. However, as the FAA continues research
into the injury mechanisms associated with obliquely oriented seats and
the means to measure those injuries, the criteria evolve. These special
conditions

therefore reflect refinements beyond special conditions no. 25-580-SC,
and that incorporate the knowledge gained from research. The intent of
the special conditions is unchanged. These special conditions contain
the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers
necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established
by the existing airworthiness standards.
    Boeing proposes to install on Model 787-9 airplanes 3-point
restraint systems and airbag devices as a means to protect each
occupant from serious injury in the event of an emergency landing, as
required by Sec.  25.562(c)(5). Shoulder harnesses have been widely
used on attendant seats, flight-deck seats, business jets, and general-
aviation airplanes to reduce occupant head injury in the unlikely event
of an emergency landing. A passenger-seat 3-point restraint system is
defined as a safety belt (pelvic restraint), a single-belt shoulder
harness, and the seat structure associated with the harness attachment
points. The 3-point restraint system is intended to protect the
occupant from serious injury, and the means of protection must take
into consideration a range of occupant stature, ranging from a 2-year
old child to a 95th percentile male, in addition to the oblique seat
orientation. The use of 3- point restraint systems on transport-
category airplane passenger seats is rare; however, existing
regulations provide an adequate safety standard for these
installations. The FAA has issued advisory material on acceptable means
of compliance for combined shoulder-harness and safety-belt restraint
systems, such as the 3-point restraint system.
    Inflatable airbag devices are designed to limit occupant forward
excursion in the event of an accident. This will reduce the potential
for head injury, thereby reducing the head injury criteria (HIC)
measurement. While inflatable airbags are now standard in the
automotive industry, the use of an inflatable airbag device is novel
for commercial aviation. Special conditions exist for airbags installed
on seat belts, known as inflatable lapbelts, which have been installed
on Boeing passenger seats. The FAA has also issued special conditions
for structure-mounted airbags on the Model 787-9 that are similar to
those for inflatable lapbelts, but that account for the differences
between the two types of airbag installations.

Applicability

    These special conditions are applicable to the following Boeing
Model 787-9 airplanes: AAL ZB 446 (Project PS15-0762), AMX ZB 676
(Project PS15-0588), XIA ZB 812 (Project PS16-0060), and JAL ZB 424
(Project PS15-0723).

Conclusion

    This action affects only certain novel or unusual design features
on one model of airplanes. It is not a rule of general applicability.
    The substance of these special conditions has been subject to the
public-comment process in several prior instances with no substantive
comments received. Therefore, because a delay would significantly
affect the certification of the airplane, the FAA has determined that
prior public notice and comment are unnecessary and impracticable, and
good cause exists for adopting these special conditions upon
publication in the Federal Register. The FAA is requesting comments to
allow interested persons to submit views that may not have been
submitted in response to the prior opportunities for comment described
above.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25

    Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

    The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702, 44704.

The Special Conditions

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the following special conditions are issued as part of
the type certification basis for Boeing Model 787-9 airplanes.
    In addition to the requirements of Sec.  25.562:

1. Head-Injury Criteria

    Compliance with Sec.  25.562(c)(5) is required, except that, if the
anthropomorphic test device (ATD) has no apparent contact with the
seat/structure but has contact with an airbag, a HIC unlimited score in
excess of 1000 is acceptable, provided the HIC15 score (calculated in
accordance with 49 CFR 571.208) for that contact is less than 700.

2. Body-to-Wall/Furnishing Contact

    If a seat is installed aft of structure (e.g. interior wall or
furnishings) that does not provide a homogenous contact surface for the
expected range of occupants and yaw angles, then additional analysis
and/or tests may be required to demonstrate that the injury criteria
are met for the area which an occupant could contact. For example, if
an airbag device is present, different yaw angles could result in
different airbag-device performance, and additional analysis or
separate tests may be necessary to evaluate performance.

3. Neck Injury Criteria

    The seating system must protect the occupant from experiencing
serious neck injury. If an airbag device is present, the assessment of
neck injury must be conducted with the airbag device activated, unless
there is reason to also consider that the neck-injury potential would
be higher for impacts below the airbag-device deployment threshold.
    a. The Nij (calculated in accordance with 49 CFR
571.208) must be below 1.0, where Nij = Fz/
Fzc + My/Myc, and Nij
critical values are:

i. Fzc = 1530 lb for tension
ii. Fzc = 1385 lb for compression
iii. Myc = 229 lb-ft in flexion
iv. Myc = 100 lb-ft in extension

    b. In addition, peak upper-neck Fz must be below 937 lb
of tension and 899 lb of compression.
    c. Rotation of the head about its vertical axis, relative to the
torso, is limited to 105 degrees in either direction from forward-
facing.
    d. The neck must not impact any surface that would produce
concentrated loading on the neck.

4. Spine and Torso Injury Criteria

    a. The lumbar spine tension (Fz) cannot exceed 1200 lb.
    b. Significant concentrated loading on the occupant's spine, in the
area between the pelvis and shoulders during impact, including rebound,
is not acceptable. During this type of contact, the interval for any
rearward (X direction) acceleration exceeding 20g must be less than 3
milliseconds as measured by the thoracic instrumentation specified in
49 CFR part 572, subpart E, filtered in accordance with SAE
International (SAE) J211-1.
    c. The occupant must not interact with the armrest or other seat
components in any manner significantly different than would be expected
for a forward-facing seat installation.

5. Pelvis Criteria

    Any part of the load-bearing portion of the bottom of the ATD
pelvis must not translate beyond the edges of the seat bottom seat-
cushion supporting structure.

6. Femur Criteria

    Axial rotation of the upper leg (about the z-axis of the femur per
SAE Recommended Practice J211-1) must be limited to 35 degrees from the
nominal

seated position. Evaluation during rebound does not need to be
considered.

7. ATD and Test Conditions

    Longitudinal tests conducted to measure the injury criteria above
must be performed with the FAA Hybrid III ATD, as described in SAE
1999-01-1609. The tests must be conducted with an undeformed floor, at
the most-critical yaw cases for injury, and with all lateral structural
supports (e.g., armrests or walls) installed.

Structure-Mounted Airbag and Inflatable Lapbelt Special Conditions

    When present, the structure-mounted airbag device must meet special
conditions no. 25-605-SC, ``Boeing Model 787-9 Airplane; Structure-
Mounted Airbags.'' When present, the inflatable lapbelt(s) must meet
special conditions no. 25-431-SC, ``Boeing Model 787 Series Airplanes;
Seats with Inflatable Lapbelts.''

    Note:  As indicated in the special conditions above, airbags and
inflatable lapbelts must be shown to not affect emergency-egress
capabilities in the main aisle, cross-aisle, and passageway.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on July 27, 2016.
Victor Wicklund,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-18449 Filed 8-2-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 172 (Friday, September 5, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 53060-53061]
[FR Doc No: 2014-21160]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2337-076-Oregon]

PacifiCorp Energy; Notice of Proposed Restricted Service List for
a Programmatic Agreement for Managing Properties Included in or
Eligible for Inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places

    Rule 2010 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's
(Commission) Rules of Practice and Procedure provides that, to
eliminate unnecessary expense or improve administrative efficiency, the
Secretary may establish a restricted service list for a particular
phase or issue in a proceeding.\1\ The restricted service list should
contain the names of persons on the service list who, in the judgment
of the decisional authority establishing the list, are active
participants with respect to the phase or issue in the proceeding for
which the list is established.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 18 CFR 385.2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission staff is consulting with the Oregon State Historic
Preservation Officer (hereinafter, SHPO), and the Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation (hereinafter, Council) pursuant to the Council's
regulations, 36 CFR part 800, implementing section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act, as amended, (16 U.S.C. section 470 f), to
prepare and execute a programmatic agreement for managing properties
included in, or eligible for inclusion in, the National Register of
Historic Places at the Prospect No. 3 Hydroelectric Project (Project
No. 2337-076).
    The programmatic agreement, when executed by the Commission and the
SHPO would satisfy the Commission's section 106 responsibilities for
all individual undertakings carried out in accordance with the license
until the license expires or is terminated (36 CFR 800.13[e]). The
Commission's responsibilities pursuant to section 106 for the Prospect
No. 3 Project would be fulfilled through the programmatic agreement,
which the Commission proposes to draft in consultation with certain
parties listed below. The executed programmatic agreement would be
incorporated into any Order issuing a license.
    PacifiCorp Energy, as the licensee for the Prospect No. 3
Hydroelectric Project, and the Rouge River-Siskiyou National Forest and
Cow Creek Band of Umpqua Tribe of Indians have expressed an interest in
this preceding and are invited to participate in consultations to
develop the programmatic agreement.
    For purposes of commenting on the programmatic agreement, we
propose to restrict the service list for the aforementioned project as
follows:

John Eddins or Representative, Office of Planning and Review, Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation, 1100 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Suite
809, Washington, DC 20004
Dan Courtney or Representative, Cow Creek Band of Umpqua Tribe of
Indians, 2371 NE Stephens Street, Ste. 100, Roseburg, OR 97470
Steve Albertelli or Representative, PacifiCorp Energy, 925 South Grape
Street, Building 5, Medford, OR 97501
Dennis Griffin or Representative, Oregon Heritage, Oregon Parks and
Recreation Department, 725 Summer St. NE, Suite C, Salem, OR 97301
Mellissa Schroeder or Representative, Rouge River-Siskiyou Nation
Forest, 3040 Biddle Road, Medford, OR 97504

    Any person on the official service list for the above-captioned
proceeding may request inclusion on the restricted service list, or may
request that a restricted service list not be established, by filing a
motion to that effect within 15 days of this notice date. In a request
for inclusion, please identify the reason(s) why there is an interest
to be included. Also please identify any concerns about historic
properties, including Traditional Cultural Properties. If historic
properties are to be identified within the motion, please use a
separate page, and label it NON-PUBLIC Information.
    Any such motions may be filed electronically via the Internet. See
18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web
site (http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ferconline.asp) under the
``eFiling'' link. For a simpler method of submitting text only
comments, click on ``Quick Comment.'' For assistance, please contact
FERC Online Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>call toll-free at<PHONE_NUMBER>; or, for
TTY, contact<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Although the Commission strongly encourages electronic filing,
documents

may also be paper-filed. To paper-file, mail an original and seven
copies to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. Please put the
project number (P-2337-076) on the first page of the filing.
    If no such motions are filed, the restricted service list will be
effective at the end of the 15 day period. Otherwise, a further notice
will be issued ruling on any motion or motions filed within the 15 day
period.

    Dated: August 27, 2014.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-21160 Filed 9-4-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: August 6, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 152)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 45624-45629]
[DOCID:fr06au08-14]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0484; FRL-8375-5]

Difenoconazole; Pesticide Tolerances for Emergency Exemptions

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes time-limited tolerances for
residues of difenoconazole, 1-[2-[2-chloro-4-(4-chlorophenoxy)phenyl]-
4-methyl-1,3-dioxolan-2-ylmethyl]-1H-1,2,4-triazole in or on almond,
almond hulls, cantaloupe, cucumber, and watermelon. This action is in
response to EPA's granting crisis exemptions to the California
Environmental Protection Agency and the Georgia Department of
Agriculture under section 18 of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) authorizing use of the pesticide on almond,
almond hulls, cantaloupe, cucumber, and watermelon. This regulation
establishes a maximum permissible level for residues of difenoconazole
in these food commodities. The time-limited tolerances expire and are
revoked on December 31, 2011.

DATES: This regulation is effective August 6, 2008. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before October 6, 2008,
and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40
CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0484. 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. All documents in the docket are listed in the
docket index available in regulations.gov. Although listed in the
index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential
Business Information (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 Office of Pesticide Programs (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<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stacey Groce, Registration Division
(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
    This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides
a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this
action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be
affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS)
codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining
whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you have any
questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular
entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT.

B. How Can I Access Electronic Copies of this Document?

    In addition to accessing an electronic copy of this Federal
Register document through the electronic docket at http://
www.regulations.gov, you may access this Federal Register document
electronically through the EPA Internet under the ``Federal Register''
listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr. You may also access a
frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR part 180 through the
Government Printing Office's pilot e-CFR site at http://
www.gpoaccess.gov/ecfr.

C. Can I File an Objection or Hearing Request?

    Under section 408(g) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
(FFDCA), as amended by the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 (FQPA),
any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and
may also request a hearing on those objections. The EPA procedural
regulations which govern the submission of objections and requests for
hearings appear in 40 CFR part 178. You must file your objection or
request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the
instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by
EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0484 in the
subject line on the first page of your submission. All requests must be
in writing, and must be mailed or delivered to the Hearing Clerk on or
before October 6, 2008.
    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the
Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of
the filing that does not contain any CBI for inclusion in the public
docket that is described in ADDRESSES. Information not marked
confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA
without prior notice. Submit your copies, identified by docket ID
number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0484, 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>.

II. Background and Statutory Findings

    EPA, on its own initiative, in accordance with sections 408(e) and
408(l)(6) of FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 346a(e) and 346a(1)(6), is establishing
time-limited tolerances for residues of the fungicide difenoconazole,
in or on almond at 0.05 parts per million (ppm), almond, hulls at 5.0
(ppm), cantaloupe at 1.0 (ppm), cucumber at 1.0 (ppm), and watermelon
at 1.0 (ppm). These time-limited tolerances expire and are revoked on
December 31, 2011. EPA will publish a document in the Federal Register
to remove the revoked tolerances from the CFR.
    Section 408(l)(6) of FFDCA requires EPA to establish a time-limited
tolerance or exemption from the requirement for a tolerance for
pesticide chemical residues in food that will result from the use of a
pesticide under an emergency exemption granted by EPA under section 18
of FIFRA. Such tolerances can be established without providing notice
or period for public comment. EPA does not intend for its actions on
section 18 related time-limited tolerances to set binding precedents
for the application of section 408 of FFDCA to other tolerances and
exemptions. Section 408(e) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a tolerance
or an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance on its own
initiative, i.e., without having received any petition from an outside
party.
    Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a
tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a
food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is ``safe.'' Section
408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines ``safe'' to mean that ``there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure
to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary
exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable
information.'' This includes exposure through drinking water and in
residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure.
Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special
consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide
chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to ``ensure that there
is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and
children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. . .
.''
    Section 18 of FIFRA authorizes EPA to exempt any Federal or State
agency from any provision of FIFRA, if EPA determines that ``emergency
conditions exist which require such exemption.'' EPA has established
regulations governing such emergency exemptions in 40 CFR part 166.

III. Emergency Exemptions for Difenoconazole on Various Commodities:
Almond, Almond Hulls, Cantaloupe, Cucumber, and Watermelon and FFDCA
Tolerances

    The California Environmental Protection Agency, Department of
Pesticide Regulation, requested an

emergency exemption for difenoconazole on almond and almond hulls to
control Alternaria leaf blight disease, and issued a crisis exemption
for this use pursuant to 40 CFR part 166, subpart C. Alternaria leaf
spot disease is caused by a common fungus that results in premature
defoliation and interference with hull split and nut removal of
almonds. Further, it appears that in California a significant portion
of the spores that cause Alternaria leaf blight disease has developed
resistance against registered alternative fungicides.
    In addition, the Georgia Department of Agriculture requested a
specific emergency exemption and subsequently issued a crisis exemption
for the use of difenoconazole on cucurbits (cucumber, cantaloupe, and
watermelon) as a tank mixture with cyprodinil to control gummy stem
blight disease (caused by Didymella bryonia).
    After having reviewed the submissions, EPA determined that the
conditions described by the California Department of Environmental
Protection and the Georgia Department of Agriculture meet the criteria
for emergency exemptions. EPA authorized under FIFRA section 18 the use
of difenoconazole on almond, and almond, hulls for control of
Alternaria leaf and stem blight in California, and on cantaloupe,
cucumber, and watermelon in Georgia to control Gummy stem blight
disease.
    As part of its evaluation of the emergency exemption applications,
EPA assessed the potential risks presented by residues of
difenoconazole in or on almond, cantaloupe, cucumber, and watermelon.
In doing so, EPA considered the safety standard in section 408(b)(2) of
FFDCA, and EPA decided that the necessary tolerances under section
408(l)(6) of FFDCA would be consistent with the safety standard and
with FIFRA section 18. Consistent with the need to move quickly on the
emergency exemptions in order to address urgent non-routine situations
and to ensure that the resulting food is safe and lawful, EPA is
issuing these tolerances without notice and opportunity for public
comment as provided in section 408(l)(6) of FFDCA. Although these time-
limited tolerances expire and are revoked on December 31, 2011, under
section 408(l)(5) of FFDCA, residues of the pesticide not in excess of
the amounts specified in the tolerances remaining in or on almond,
cantaloupe, cucumber, and watermelon after that date will not be
unlawful, provided the pesticide was applied in a manner that was
lawful under FIFRA, and the residues do not exceed a level that was
authorized by these time-limited tolerances at the time of that
application. EPA will take action to revoke these time-limited
tolerances earlier if any experience with, scientific data on, or other
relevant information on this pesticide indicate that the residues are
not safe.
    Because these time-limited tolerances are being approved under
emergency conditions, EPA has not made any decisions about whether
difenoconazole meets FIFRA's registration requirements for use on
almond, cantaloupe, cucumber, and watermelon or whether permanent
tolerances for these uses would be appropriate. Under these
circumstances, EPA does not believe that these time-limited tolerance
decisions serve as a basis for registration of difenoconazole by a
State for special local needs under FIFRA section 24(c). Nor do these
tolerances serve as the basis for persons in any State other than
California and Georgia to use this pesticide on the applicable crops
under FIFRA section 18 absent the issuance of an emergency exemption
applicable within that State. For additional information regarding the
emergency exemption for difenoconazole contact the Agency's
Registration Division at the address provided under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.

IV. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

    Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a
tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a
food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is ``safe.'' Section
408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines ``safe'' to mean that ``there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure
to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary
exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable
information.'' This includes exposure through drinking water and in
residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure.
Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special
consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide
chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to ``ensure that there
is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and
children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. . .
.''
    Consistent with the factors specified in section 408(b)(2)(D) of
FFDCA, EPA has reviewed the available scientific data and other
relevant information in support of these actions. EPA has sufficient
data to assess the hazards of and to make a determination on aggregate
exposure expected as a result of these emergency exemption requests and
the time-limited tolerances for residues of difenoconazole on almond at
0.05 ppm, almond, hulls at 5.0 ppm, cantaloupe at 1.0 ppm, cucumber at
1.0 ppm, and watermelon at 1.0 ppm. EPA's assessment of exposures and
risks associated with establishing these time-limited tolerances
follows.

A. Toxicological Endpoints

    For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no
appreciable risk, a toxicological point of departure (POD) is
identified as the basis for derivation of reference values for risk
assessment. The POD may be defined as the highest dose at which no
adverse effects are observed (the NOAEL) in the toxicology study
identified as appropriate for use in risk assessment. However, if a
NOAEL cannot be determined, the lowest dose at which adverse effects of
concern are identified (the LOAEL) or a Benchmark Dose (BMD) approach
is sometimes used for risk assessment. Uncertainty/safety factors (UFs)
are used in conjunction with the POD to take into account uncertainties
inherent in the extrapolation from laboratory animal data to humans and
in the variations in sensitivity among members of the human population
as well as other unknowns. Safety is assessed for acute and chronic
dietary risks by comparing aggregate food and water exposure to the
pesticide to the acute population adjusted dose (aPAD) and chronic
population adjusted dose (cPAD). The aPAD and cPAD are calculated by
dividing the POD by all applicable UFs. Aggregate short-, intermediate-
, and chronic-term risks are evaluated by comparing food, water, and
residential exposure to the POD to ensure that the margin of exposure
(MOE) called for by the product of all applicable UFs is not exceeded.
This latter value is referred to as the Level of Concern (LOC).
    For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes that any amount of
exposure will lead to some degree of risk. Thus, the Agency estimates
risk in terms of the probability of an occurrence of the adverse effect
greater than that expected in a lifetime. For more information on the
general principles EPA uses in risk characterization and a complete
description of the risk assessment process, see http://www.epa.gov/
pesticides/factsheets/riskassess.htm.
    A summary of the toxicological endpoints for difenoconazole used
for human risk assessment can be found at http://www.regulations.gov in
the November 9, 2007 document: Difenoconazole in/on Fruiting
Vegetables, Pome Fruit, Sugar Beets,

Tuberous and Corn Vegetables, and Imported Papaya. Health Effects
Division (HED) Revised Risk Assessment, pages 13 and 14 of 57 in docket
ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0484.

B. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary
exposure to difenoconazole, EPA considered exposure under the time-
limited tolerances established by this action as well as all existing
difenoconazole tolerances in (40 CFR 180.475). EPA assessed dietary
exposures from difenoconazole in food as follows:
    i. Acute exposure. In estimating acute dietary exposure, EPA used
food consumption information from the United States Department of
Agriculture (USDA) 1994-1996 and 1998 Nationwide Continuing Surveys of
Food Intake by Individuals (CSFII). As to residue levels in food, EPA's
acute dietary analysis assumed tolerance-level residues and 100% crop
treated (PCT) for all registered and proposed crops. Tolerance-level
residues were also assumed for all livestock tissues in this
assessment. Experimental processing factors were used for apple juice
(0.04x), potato chips (0.5x), potato granules/flakes (0.5x), sugar beet
molasses (0.6x), sugar beet refined sugar (0.6x), tomato paste (1.6x),
and tomato puree (0.5x). The Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model
(DEEM)\TM\ version 7.76 default processing factors were assumed (when
appropriate) for other processed commodities. The resulting acute
dietary (food + water) exposure estimates are not of concern to the
Agency (<100% of the aPAD at the 95\th\ percentile of the exposure
distribution for the U.S. general population (2.9% aPAD) and all
population subgroups.
    ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure
assessment EPA used the food consumption data from the USDA 1994-1996
and 1998 CSFII. As to residue levels in food, EPA's chronic dietary
analysis assumed tolerance-level residues and 100 PCT for all
registered and proposed crops. Tolerance level residues were also
assumed for all livestock tissues in this assessment. Experimental
processing factors were used for apple juice (0.04x), potato chips
(0.5x), potato granules/flakes (0.5x), sugar beet molasses (0.6x),
sugar beet refined sugar (0.6x), tomato paste (1.6x), and tomato puree
(0.5x). The DEEM\TM\ version 7.76 default processing factors were
assumed (when appropriate) for other processed commodities. The
resulting chronic dietary (food + water) exposure estimates are not of
concern to the Agency (<100% of the cPAD for the U.S. general
population (23% cPAD) and all population subgroups.
    iii. Cancer. A cancer dietary assessment was not conducted for
difenoconazole because the cancer no-observable-adverse-effect level
(NOAEL) is higher than the chronic reference dose (RfD); therefore, the
chronic dietary risk estimate is protective of any cancer effects.
    iv. Anticipated residue and percent crop treated (PCT) information.
EPA did not use anticipated residue and/or PCT information in the
dietary assessment for difenoconazole. Tolerance level residues and/or
100 PCT were assumed for all food commodities.
    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The Agency used screening
level water exposure models in the dietary exposure analysis and risk
assessment for difenoconazole in drinking water. These simulation
models take into account data on the physical, chemical, and fate/
transport characteristics of difenoconazole. Further information
regarding EPA drinking water models used in pesticide exposure
assessment can be found at http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/
index.htm.
    Based on the Pesticide Root Zone Model/Exposure Analysis Modeling
System (PRZM/EXAMS) and Screening Concentration in Ground Water (SCI-
GROW) models, the estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) of
difenoconazole for acute exposures are estimated to be 13.3 parts per
billion (ppb) for surface water and 0.00128 ppb for ground water and
for chronic exposures for non-cancer assessments are estimated to be
9.43 ppb for surface water and 0.00108 ppb for ground water.
    Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly
entered into the dietary exposure model. In this assessment, 1-in-10-
year annual peak (13.3 ppb) and 1-in-10-year annual mean (9.43 ppb)
residue values were used for acute and chronic dietary exposure
assessments respectively.
    3. From non-dietary exposure. The term ``residential exposure'' is
used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary
exposure (e.g., for lawn and garden pest control, indoor pest control,
termiticides, and flea and tick control on pets).
    Difenoconazole is currently registered for ornamental foliar
treatment that could result in residential exposure. EPA assessed
residential exposure using the following assumptions: Residential
pesticide handlers will be exposed to short-term duration (1 to 30
days) only. The dermal and inhalation (short-term) residential exposure
was assessed for homeowners (mixer/loader/applicator) wearing short
pants and short-sleeved shirts as well as shoes plus socks using garden
hose-end sprayer, pump-up compressed air sprayer, and backpack sprayer.
With regard to residential post-application exposures, no significant
post application exposure is anticipated from ornamentals by residents.
Therefore, no residential post-application assessment was conducted.
    4. Cumulative effects from substances with a common mechanism of
toxicity. Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when
considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the
Agency consider ``available information'' concerning the cumulative
effects of a particular pesticide's residues and ``other substances
that have a common mechanism of toxicity.''
    Difenoconazole is a member of the triazole-containing class of
pesticides. Although conazoles act similarly in plants (fungi) by
inhibiting ergosterol biosynthesis, there is not necessarily a
relationship between their pesticidal activity and their mechanism of
toxicity in mammals. Structural similarities do not constitute a common
mechanism of toxicity. Evidence is needed to establish that the
chemicals operate by the same, or essentially the same, sequence of
major biological events. In conazoles, however, a variable pattern of
toxicological responses is found. Some are hepatotoxic and
hepatocarcinogenic in mice. Some induce thyroid tumors in rats. Some
induce developmental, reproductive, and neurological effects in
rodents. Furthermore, the conazoles produce a diverse range of
biochemical events including altered cholesterol levels, stress
responses, and altered DNA methylation. It is not clearly understood
whether these biochemical events are directly connected to their
toxicological outcomes. Thus, there is currently no evidence to
indicate that conazoles share common mechanisms of toxicity and EPA is
not following a cumulative risk approach based on a common mechanism of
toxicity for the conazoles.
    However, this class of compounds can form the common metabolite
1,2,4-triazole and two triazole conjugates (triazolylalanine and
triazolylacetic acid). To support existing tolerances and to establish
new tolerances for triazole-derived pesticides, including
difenoconazole, EPA conducted a human health risk assessment for
exposure to 1,2,4-triazole, triazolylalanine, and triazolylacetic acid
resulting from the use of all current and pending uses of any triazole-
derived

fungicide. The risk assessment is a highly conservative, screening-
level evaluation in terms of hazards associated with common metabolites
(e.g., use of a maximum combination of UFs) and potential dietary and
non-dietary exposures (i.e., high-end estimates of both dietary and
non-dietary exposures). In addition, the Agency retained the additional
10X FQPA safety factor for the protection of infants and children. The
assessment included evaluations of risks for various subgroups,
including those comprised of infants and children. The Agency's
complete risk assessment can be found in the propiconazole
reregistration docket at http://www.regulations.gov, (Docket ID number
EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0497).
    For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which
chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the
cumulative effects of such chemicals, see the policy statements
released by EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs concerning common
mechanism determinations and procedures for cumulating effects from
substances found to have a common mechanism on EPA's website at http://
www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative.

C. Safety Factor for Infants and Children

    1. In general. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA provides that EPA
shall apply an additional tenfold (10X) margin of safety for infants
and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal
and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the database on toxicity
and exposure unless EPA determines based on reliable data that a
different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. This
additional margin of safety is commonly referred to as the FQPA safety
factor (SF). In applying this provision, EPA either retains the default
value of 10X, or uses a different additional SF when reliable data
available to EPA support the choice of a different factor.
    2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. Developmental toxicity
studies showed no increased sensitivity in fetuses as compared to
maternal animals following in utero exposures in rats and rabbits, and
prenatal/postnatal exposure in the 2-generation toxicity study in arts.
There was no evidence of abnormalities in the development of the fetal
nervous system in the prenatal/postnatal studies.
    3. Conclusion. EPA has determined that reliable data show that the
safety of infants and children would be adequately protected if the
FQPA SF were reduced to 1X. That decision is based on the following
findings:
    i. The toxicity database for difenoconazole is complete.
    ii. There is no indication that difenoconazole is a neurotoxic
chemical and there is no need for a developmental neurotoxicity study
or additional UFs to account for neurotoxicity.
    iii. There is no evidence that difenoconazole results in increased
susceptibility in in utero rats or rabbits in the prenatal
developmental studies or in young rats in the 2-generation reproduction
study.
    iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure
databases. The dietary food exposure assessments were performed based
on 100 PCT and tolerance-level residues. EPA made conservative
(protective) assumptions in the ground and surface water modeling used
to assess exposure to difenoconazole in drinking water. EPA used
similarly conservative assumptions to assess post-application exposure
of children as well as incidental oral exposure of toddlers. These
assessments will not underestimate the exposure and risks posed by
difenoconazole.

D. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety

    EPA determines whether acute and chronic pesticide exposures are
safe by comparing aggregate exposure estimates to the aPAD and cPAD.
The aPAD and cPAD represent the highest safe exposures, taking into
account all appropriate SFs. EPA calculates the aPAD and cPAD by
dividing the POD by all applicable UFs. For linear cancer risks, EPA
calculates the probability of additional cancer cases given the
estimated aggregate exposure. Short-, intermediate-, and chronic-term
risks are evaluated by comparing the estimated aggregate food, water,
and residential exposure to the POD to ensure that the MOE called for
by the product of all applicable UFs is not exceeded.
    1. Acute risk. Using the exposure assumptions discussed in this
unit for acute exposure, the acute dietary exposure from food and water
to difenoconazole will occupy 9% of the aPAD for (the population group
all infants (< 1 year old)) the population group receiving the greatest
exposure.
    2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this
unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that chronic exposure to
difenoconazole from food and water will utilize 65% of the cPAD for
(children 1-2 years old) the population group receiving the greatest
exposure. Based on the residential use patterns, chronic residential
exposure to residues of difenoconazole is not expected.
    3. Short-term risk. Short-term aggregate exposure takes into
account short-term residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food
and water (considered to be a background exposure level).
    Difenoconazole is currently registered for an ornamental foliar use
that could result in short-term residential exposure and the Agency has
determined that it is appropriate to aggregate chronic exposure through
food and water with short-term residential exposures to difenoconazole.
    Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for short-
term exposures, EPA has concluded the combined short-term food, water,
and residential exposures aggregated result in aggregate MOEs of
greater than or equal to 170. Therefore, short-term aggregate exposure
to difenoconazole is not of concern.
    4. Intermediate-term risk. Intermediate-term aggregate exposure
takes into account intermediate-term non-dietary, non-occupational
exposure plus chronic exposure to food and water (considered to be a
background exposure level). The Agency believes residential pesticide
handlers will be exposed to short-term duration (1-30 days) only.
Therefore, intermediate and long-term aggregate risks are not of
concern.
    Difenoconazole is not registered for any use patterns that would
result in intermediate-term residential exposure. Therefore, the
intermediate-term aggregate risk is the sum of the risk from exposure
to difenoconazole through food and water, which has already been
addressed, and will not be greater than the chronic aggregate risk.
    5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population.The chronic dietary
risk assessment is protective of carcinogenic effects of
difenoconazole. The cancer NOAEL is higher than the chronic RfD.
    6. Determination of safety. Based on these risk assessments, EPA
concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result
to the general population, or to infants and children, from aggregate
exposure to difenoconazole residues.

V. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    Adequate enforcement methodology (Method AG-575B) is available to
enforce the tolerance expression. The method may be requested from:
Chief, Analytical Chemistry Branch, Environmental Science Center, 701
Mapes Rd., Ft. Meade, MD 20755-5350;

telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
B. International Residue Limits

    There are no Codex, Canadian, or Mexican Maximum Residue Limits
(MRLs) for difenoconazole.

VI. Conclusion

    Therefore, time-limited tolerances are established for residues of
difenoconazole, 1-[2-[2-chloro-4-(4-chlorophenoxy) phenyl]-4-methyl-
1,3-dioxolan-2-ylmethyl]-1H-1,2,4-triazole, in or on almond at 0.05
parts per million (ppm), almond, hulls at 5.0 (ppm), and cantaloupe at
1.0 (ppm), cucumber at 1.0 (ppm), and watermelon at 1.0 (ppm). These
tolerances expire and are revoked on December 31, 2011.

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This final rule establishes tolerances under sections 408(e) and
408(l)(6) of FFDCA in response to a petition submitted to the Agency.
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of
actions from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled Regulatory
Planning and Review (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this final
rule has been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this
final rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning
Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or
Use (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled
Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
(62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This final rule does not contain any
information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork
Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., nor does it require any
special considerations under Executive Order 12898, entitled Federal
Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    Since tolerances and exemptions that are established in accordance
with sections 408(e) and 408(l)(6) of FFDCA, such as the tolerances in
this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the
requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.) do not apply.
    This final rule directly regulates growers, food processors, food
handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this
action alter the relationships or distribution of power and
responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions
of section 408(n)(4) of FFDCA. As such, the Agency has determined that
this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or
tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government
and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between
the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has
determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled Federalism (64 FR
43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled
Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR
67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this final rule. In addition,
this final rule does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any
unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Public Law 104-4).
    This action does not involve any technical standards that would
require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant
to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272
note).

VIII. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to
the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report
containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate,
the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the
United States prior to publication of this final rule in the Federal
Register. This final rule is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5
U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: July 25, 2008.
Lois Rossi,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

0
Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

PART 180--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.

0
2. Section 180.475 is amended by adding text to paragraph (b) to read
as follows:

Sec.  180.475  Difenoconazole; tolerances for residues.

* * * * *
    (b) Section 18 emergency exemptions. Time-limited tolerances
specified in the following table are established for residues of the
fungicide difenoconazole in or on the specified agricultural
commodities, resulting from use of the pesticide pursuant to FIFRA
section 18 emergency exemptions. The tolerances expire and are revoked
on the date specified in the table.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Expiration/
                   Commodity                     Parts per    revocation
                                                  million        date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Almond........................................         0.05     12/31/11
Almond, hulls.................................          5.0     12/31/11
Cantaloupe....................................          1.0     12/31/11
Cucumber......................................          1.0     12/31/11
Watermelon....................................          1.0     12/31/11
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. E8-17937 Filed 8-5-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


Method 101C  Determination of Elemental and Oxidized Mercury ( Hg) from Stationary Sources ( Instrumental Analyzer Procedure) ( Draft  For Review and Comment) RMB Consulting & Research  10/ 23/ 04 1. APPLICABILITY AND PRINCIPLE 1.1 Applicability. This method is applicable to the determination of elemental ( Hgo) and oxidized ( Hg+ 2) mercury concentrations in emissions from stationary sources only when specified within the regulations.

1.2 Principle. A gas sample is continuously extracted from the effluent stream; a portion of the sample stream is conveyed to an instrumental analyzer for determination of Hgo and Hg+ 2 concentrations using a cold vapor atomic absorption ( CVAAS), cold vapor atomic fluorescence ( CVAFS), ultraviolet differential optical absorption ( UVDOAS), atomic emission ( AES), or x ray fluorescence ( XRFS) spectrometer. Performance specifications and test procedures are provided to ensure reliable data.

2. RANGE AND SENSITIVITY 2.1 Analytical Range. The analytical range is determined by the instrumental design. For this method, a portion of the analytical range is selected by choosing the span of the monitoring system. The span of the monitoring system shall be selected such that the pollutant gas concentration being measured is not less than 30 percent of the span. If at any time during a run the measured gas concentration exceeds the span, then the run shall be considered invalid.

2.2 Sensitivity. The minimum detectable limit depends on the analytical range, span, and signalto noise ratio of the measurement system. For a well designed system, the minimum detectable limit should be less than 2 percent of the span.

3. DEFINITIONS 3.1 Measurement System. The total equipment required for the determination of Hgo and Hg+ 2 concentrations. The measurement system consists of the following major subsystems:

3.1.1 Sample Interface. That portion of a system used for one or more of the following: sample acquisition, sample transport, sample conditioning, or protection of the analyzers from the effects of the stack effluent.

3.1.2 Gas Analyzer. That portion of the system that senses the gas to be measured and generates an output proportional to its concentration. 3.1.3 Data Recorder. A digital computer/ recorder for recording measurement data from the analyzer output.

3.1.4 Hg+ 2 to Hgo Converter. A device that converts the oxidized mercury ( Hg+ 2) in the sample gas to elemental mercury ( Hgo).

3.2 Span. The upper limit of the gas concentration measurement range determined by the calibration gas.

3.3 Calibration Gas. A known concentration of a gas in an appropriate diluent gas.

3.4 Analyzer Calibration Error. The difference between the gas concentration exhibited by the gas analyzer and the known concentration of the calibration gas when the calibration gas is introduced directly to the analyzer.

3.5 Sampling System Bias. The difference between the gas concentrations exhibited by the measurement system when a known concentration gas is introduced at the outlet of the sampling probe and when the same gas is introduced directly to the analyzer.

3.6 Zero Drift. The difference in the measurement system output reading from the initial calibration response at the zero concentration level after a stated period of operation during which no unscheduled maintenance, repair, or adjustment took place.

3.7 Calibration Drift. The difference in the measurement system output reading from the initial calibration response at the span value after a stated period of operation during which no unscheduled maintenance, repair, or adjustment took place.

3.8 Response Time. The amount of time required for the measurement system to display 95 percent of a step change in gas concentration on the data recorder.

3.9 Interference Response. The output response of the analyzer system to a component in the sample gas, other than the gas component being measured.

3.10 Interference Test. The comparative result of three coordinated test runs at a particular source category between the response of a particular sampling system and analyzer model and the measured result from an ASTM D6784 02 ( i. e., Ontario Hydro) sampling train. A unique source category is defined 1) by the type of fuel combusted by the source ( e. g., oil, natural gas, anthracite, lignite or bituminous coal) and 2) by any additive emission controls downstream of the emission source and upstream of the sample location ( e. g., wet or dry scrubber to control SO2 emissions, selective catalytic reduction ( SCR) or selective non catalytic reduction ( SNCR) unit to control NOx emissions). ( Note: I believe this language covers " unique source" but we may have to be more specific.)

4. MEASUREMENT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE SPECIFICATIONS ( Note: The percent values are just placeholders  we do not know if they can be achieved.)

4.1 Analyzer Calibration Error. Less than

2 percent of the span for the zero, mid range, and high range calibration gases.

4.2 Sampling System Bias. Less than

5 percent of the span for the zero and mid range calibration gases.

4.3 Zero Drift. Less than

3 percent of the span over the period of each run.

4.4 Calibration Drift. Less than

3 percent of the span over the period of each run.

4.5 Interference Response. Less than 2 percent of span.

4.6 Interference Test. Less than

10 percent of the ASTM D6784 02 ( i. e., Ontario Hydro) average result for each three run series.

5. APPARATUS AND REAGENTS 5.1 Measurement System. Use any measurement system for Hgo and Hg+ 2 that meets the specifications of this method. A schematic of an acceptable measurement system is shown in Figure 101C 1 of this method. The essential components of the measurement system are described below:

5.1.1 Sample Probe. Glass, stainless steel? ( Is stainless acceptable?), teflon or equivalent, of sufficient length to traverse the sample points. The sampling probe shall be heated to prevent condensation.

5.1.2 Sample Line. Heated ( sufficient to prevent condensation and/ or sublimation) Teflon tubing, to transport the sample gas to the moisture removal system.

5.1.3 Sample Transport Lines. Teflon tubing, to transport the sample from the moisture removal system to the sample pump, sample flow rate control, and sample gas manifold.

5.1.4 Calibration Valve Assembly. A three way valve assembly, or equivalent, for blocking the sample gas flow and introducing calibration gases to the measurement system at the outlet of the sampling probe when in the calibration mode.

5.1.5 Moisture Removal System. A refrigerator type condenser or similar device ( e. g., permeation dryer or thermoelectric peltier chiller), to remove condensate continuously from the sample gas while maintaining minimal contact between the condensate and the sample gas. The moisture removal system is not necessary for analyzers that can measure gas concentrations on a wet basis; for these analyzers, ( 1) heat the sample line and all interface components up to the inlet of the analyzer sufficiently to prevent condensation, and ( 2) determine the moisture content and correct the measured gas concentrations to a dry basis using appropriate methods, subject to the approval of the Administrator. The determination of sample moisture content is not necessary for pollutant analyzers that measure concentrations on a wet basis when ( 1) a wet basis CO2 analyzer operated according to Method 3A is used to obtain simultaneous measurements, and ( 2) the pollutant/ CO2 measurements are used to determine emissions in units of the standard. ( Note  This will be problematic if EPA sets any Hg standard on a dry basis. Error propagation from moisture measurement on wet stacks will cause serious problems.)

5.1.6 Particulate Filter. An in stack or heated ( sufficient to prevent water condensation) outof stack filter. The filter shall be borosilicate or quartz glass wool, or glass fiber mat. Additional filters at the inlet or outlet of the moisture removal system and inlet of the analyzer may be used to prevent accumulation of particulate material in the measurement system and extend the useful life of the components. All filters shall be fabricated of materials that are nonreactive to the gas being sampled.

5.1.7 Sample Pump. A leak free pump, to pull the sample gas through the system at a flow rate sufficient to minimize the response time of the measurement system. The pump may be constructed of any material that is nonreactive to the gas being sampled.

5.1.8 Sample Flow Rate Control. A sample flow rate control valve and rotameter, or equivalent, to maintain a constant sampling rate within 10 percent. ( Note: The tester may elect to install a back pressure regulator to maintain the sample gas manifold at a constant pressure in order to protect the analyzer( s) from overpressurization, and to minimize the need for flow rate adjustments.)

5.1.9 Sample Gas Manifold. A sample gas manifold, to divert a portion of the sample gas stream to the analyzer and the remainder to the by pass discharge vent. The sample gas manifold should also include provisions for introducing calibration gases directly to the analyzer. The manifold may be constructed of any material that is nonreactive to the gas being sampled.

5.1.10 Data Recorder. A digital computer/ recorder, for recording measurement data. The data recorder resolution ( i. e., readability) shall be 0.5 percent of span. Alternatively, a digital meter having a resolution of 0.5 percent of span may be used to obtain the analyzer responses and the readings may be recorded manually. If this alternative is used, the readings shall be obtained at equally spaced intervals over the duration of the sampling run. For sampling run durations of less than 1 hour, measurements at 1 minute intervals or a minimum of 30 measurements, whichever is less restrictive, shall be obtained. For sampling run durations greater than 1 hour, measurements at 2 minute ( may need to be as long as 6 minutes) intervals or a minimum of 96 measurements, whichever is less restrictive, may be obtained. Digital data collection systems may be able to collect considerably more data than the minimum requirements described above. This is acceptable so long as the data collected are equally spaced in time.

5.1.11 Hg+ 2 to Hgo Converter. That portion of the system that converts Hg+ 2 in the sample gas to Hgo.

5.1.12 Hgo Analyzer. A cold vapor atomic absorption ( CVAAS), cold vapor atomic fluorescence ( CVAFS), ultraviolet differential optical absorption ( UVDOAS), atomic emission ( AES), or x ray fluorescence ( XRFS) spectrometer, to determine continuously the Hgo concentration in the sample gas stream. The analyzer shall meet the applicable performance specifications of Section 4. A means of controlling the analyzer flow rate and a device for determining proper sample flow rate ( e. g., precision rotameter, pressure gauge downstream of all flow controls, etc.) shall be provided at the analyzer. ( Note: Housing the analyzer( s) in a clean, thermally stable, vibration free environment will minimize drift in the analyzer calibration.)

5.2 Hgo and Hg+ 2 Calibration Gases. The calibration gases for the Hgo analyzer shall be Hgo and HgCl2. ( Note  May need to come up with calibration gas mixture standards for fluorescence based analyzers.) Alternative Hg0 and Hg+ 2 calibration devices that are traceable to NIST with an accuracy of 2% or better may also be used instead of calibration gases in pressurized cylinders. Use three calibration gases or a calibration device to provide calibration levels as specified below:

5.2.1 High Range Gas. Concentration equivalent to 80 to 100 percent of the span.

5.2.2 Mid Range Gas. Concentration equivalent to 40 to 60 percent of the span.

5.2.3 Zero Gas. Concentration of less than 0.25 percent of the span. Purified ambient air may be used for the zero gas by passing air through an activated charcoal filter.

6. MEASUREMENT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE TEST PROCEDURES Perform the following procedures before measurement of emissions ( Section 7).

6.1 Calibration Gas Concentration Verification. ( Note  This requires additional development for Hg+ 2 . In fact, we may want to eliminate the entire section and just replace it with the alternative Section 6.1 below.) There are two alternatives for establishing the concentrations of calibration gases. Alternative No. 1 is preferred Alternative 6.1 Calibration Gas Concentration Verification The calibration gases used for Hg0 and Hg+ 2 must be a NIST/ EPA approved certified reference material, standard reference material or Protocol 1 calibration gas certified by the vendor to be within 2% of the tag value. Alternatively, the calibration gases may be generated by a device traceable to NIST certified to deliver calibration gases within 2% accurate. The manufacturer of the calibration device is responsible for providing documentation and certification of NIST traceability. Operate the calibration devices in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions.

6.1.1 Alternative No. 1 Use of calibration gases that are analyzed following the Environmental Protection Agency Traceability Protocol No. 1 ( see Citation 1 in Bibliography). Obtain a certification from the gas manufacturer that Protocol No. 1 was followed.

6.1.2 Alternative No. 2 Use of calibration gases not prepared according to Protocol No. 1. If this alternative is chosen, obtain gas mixtures with a manufacturer's tolerance not to exceed

2 percent of the tag value. Within 6 months before the emission test, analyze each of the calibration gases in triplicate using an ASTM D6784 02 or Method 29 sampling train. Record the results on a data sheet. Each of the individual Hg analytical results for each calibration gas shall be within 5 percent of the triplicate set average, otherwise, discard the entire set and repeat the triplicate analyses. If the average of the triplicate analyses is within 5 percent of the calibration gas manufacturer's cylinder tag value, use the tag value; otherwise, conduct at least three additional analyses until the results of six consecutive runs agree within 5 percent of the average. Then use this average for the cylinder value. 6.2 Interference Response. Conduct an interference response test of the analyzer prior to its initial use in the field. Thereafter, recheck the measurement system if changes are made in the instrumentation that could alter the interference response ( e. g., changes in the gas detector). Conduct the interference response in accordance with procedures below:

6.2.1 Introduce the gaseous components listed in Table 101C 3 directly into the analyzer system ( analyzer plus Hg converter) separately, or as gas mixtures. For analyzer systems that will be used with dilution probes, correct the concentrations in Table 101C 3 consistent with the dilution ratio. Determine the total interference output response of the system to these components in concentration units; record the values on a form similar to Figure 101C 4. If the sum of the interference responses of the test gases for either the Hgo or Hg2+ analysis is greater than 2 percent of the applicable span value, take corrective measures on the measurement system.

6.2.2 Conduct an interference response test of each analyzer before its initial use in the field. Thereafter, recheck the measurement system if changes are made in the instrumentation that could alter the interference response, e. g., changes in the type of gas detector.

6.2.3 In lieu of conducting the interference response test, instrument vendor data, which demonstrate that for the test gases of Table 101C 3 the interference performance specification is not exceeded, are acceptable.

6.3 Measurement System Preparation. Assemble the measurement system by following the manufacturer's written instructions for preparing and preconditioning the gas analyzer and, as applicable, the other system components. Introduce the Hg0 calibration gases in any sequence, and make all necessary adjustments to calibrate the analyzer and the data recorder. Adjust system components to achieve correct sampling rates.

6.4 Analyzer Calibration Error. Conduct the analyzer calibration error check by introducing calibration gases to the measurement system at any point upstream of the gas analyzer as follows:

6.4.1 After the measurement system has been prepared for use, introduce the zero, mid range, and high range Hg0 gases to the analyzer. During this check, make no adjustments to the system except those necessary to achieve the correct calibration gas flow rate at the analyzer. Record the analyzer responses to each calibration gas on a form similar to Figure 101C 5. Note: A calibration curve established prior to the analyzer calibration error check may be used to convert the analyzer response to the equivalent gas concentration introduced to the analyzer. However, the same correction procedure shall be used for all effluent and calibration measurements obtained during the test.

6.4.2 The analyzer calibration error check shall be considered invalid if the gas concentration displayed by the analyzer exceeds

2 percent of the span for any of the calibration gases. If an invalid calibration is exhibited, take corrective action and repeat the analyzer calibration error check until acceptable performance is achieved.

6.5 Sampling System Bias Check. Perform the sampling system bias check by introducing Hg0 calibration gases at the calibration valve installed at the outlet of the sampling probe. A zero gas and either the mid range or high range gas, whichever most closely approximates the effluent concentrations, shall be used for this check as follows:

6.5.1 Introduce the upscale calibration gas, and record the gas concentration displayed by the analyzer on a form similar to Figure 101C 6. Then introduce zero gas, and record the gas concentration displayed by the analyzer. During the sampling system bias check, operate the system at the normal sampling rate, and make no adjustments to the measurement system other than those necessary to achieve proper calibration gas flow rates at the analyzer.

6.5.2 The sampling system bias check shall be considered invalid if the difference between the gas concentrations displayed by the measurement system for the analyzer calibration error check and for the sampling system bias check exceeds

5 percent of the span for either the zero or upscale calibration gases. If an invalid calibration is exhibited, take corrective action, and repeat the sampling system bias check until acceptable performance is achieved. If adjustment to the analyzer is required, first repeat the analyzer calibration error check and then repeat the sampling system bias check.

Alternately introduce the zero and upscale gases until a stable response is achieved. The tester shall determine the measurement system response time by observing the times required to achieve a stable response for both the zero and upscale gases. Note the longer of the two times as the response time.

6.6 Hg+ 2 to Hgo Conversion Efficiency. Introduce the Hg+ 2 calibration gas into the analyzer's Hg+ 2   Hgo converter until the analyzer's response stabilizes. Then, record the instrument response and calculate converter efficiency. If the instrument indicates at least 95 ( 90?) percent Hg+ 2 to Hgo conversion, the converter is acceptable. If the instrument response indicates less than 95 percent Hg+ 2 to Hgo conversion, the converter is unacceptable and repair or replacement is required before repeating the check. Conversion efficiency tests shall be conducted prior to beginning any reference method test series or once a day, whichever is most frequent.

6.7 Interference Test ( if performed). If an interference test has not previously been performed on any unique source category, this test must be performed prior to the use of a given analyzer system as a reference method. This test is intended to demonstrate that the analyzer system accurately represents the Hg measurement in the presence of the unique source's flue gas matrix. A unique source category is defined 1) by the type of fuel combusted by the source ( e. g., oil, natural gas, anthracite, lignite or bituminous coal) and 2) by any additive emission controls downstream of the emission source and upstream of the sample location ( e. g., wet or dry scrubber to control SO2 emissions, selective catalytic reduction ( SCR) or selective non catalytic reduction ( SNCR) unit to control NOx emissions). To conduct the test, perform three comparative, coordinated test runs at a particular source category using a particular sampling system and analyzer model, operated as a reference method, and an ASTM D6784 02 ( i. e., Ontario Hydro) sampling train. For this interference test traversing is not required for either the instrumental reference method or the Ontario Hydro method. It is recommended that the sampling probes for both methods be located as close as possible to each other, but at least 1 meter from the stack wall. Recover and analyze the contents of the ASTM D6784 02 sampling train for each run, and determine the Hgo and Hg+ 2 gas concentrations using the procedures in ASTM D6784 02. Determine the average gas concentration exhibited by the analyzer system for each run. Average the results of the three analyzer system runs and the three ASTM D6784 02 runs. If the Hg0 plus Hg+ 2 gas concentrations provided by the analyzer system and the ASTM D6784 02 sampling train differ by more than 10 percent from the average ASTM D6784 02 result, the analyzer system does not pass the interference check test and cannot be used to perform reference method tests on the unique source category.

7. EMISSION TEST PROCEDURE 7.1 Selection of Sampling Site and Sampling Points. Select a measurement site and sampling points using the same criteria that are applicable to tests performed using ASTM D6784 02.

7.3 Sample Collection. Position the sampling probe at the first measurement point, and begin sampling at the same rate as used during the response time test. Maintain constant sampling rate ( i. e.,

10 percent) during the entire run. The sampling time per run shall be at least 30 minutes plus twice the average system response time. For each run, use only those measurements obtained after twice the response time of the measurement system has elapsed to determine the average effluent concentration.

7.4 Zero and Calibration Drift Test. Immediately preceding and following each run, or if adjustments are necessary for the measurement system during the run, repeat the sampling system bias check procedure described in Section 6.5. ( Make no adjustments to the measurement system until after the drift checks are completed.) Record the analyzer's responses on a form similar to Figure 101C 6.

7.4.1 Sample System Bias. If either the zero or upscale calibration value exceeds the sampling system bias specification ( i. e., 5% of span from the last analyzer calibration error check response), then the run is considered invalid. Repeat both the analyzer calibration error check procedure ( Section 6.4) and the sampling system bias check procedure ( Section 6.5) before repeating the run. If both the zero and upscale calibration values are within the sampling system bias specification, then use the average of the pre test run and post test run bias check values to calculate the gas concentration for the run.

7.4.2 Analyzer Drift. If the difference between either the pre test and post test run sample system bias test zero or upscale calibration value exceeds the bias test drift limit ( i. e., 3% of span, pre test compared to post test), then repeat both the analyzer calibration error check procedure ( Section 6.4) and the sampling system bias check procedure ( Section 6.5) before conducting additional runs.

8. EMISSION CALCULATION The average gas effluent concentration is determined from the average gas concentration displayed by the gas analyzer and is adjusted for the zero and upscale sampling system bias checks, as determined in accordance with Section 7.4. The average gas concentration displayed by the analyzer may be determined by averaging all of the effluent measurements. Alternatively, the average may be calculated from measurements recorded at equally spaced intervals over the entire duration of the run. For sampling run durations of less than 1 hour, measurements at 1 minute intervals or a minimum of 30 measurements, whichever is less restrictive, may be used. For sampling run durations greater than 1 hour, measurements at 2 minute intervals ( may need to increase these time intervals) or a minimum of 96 measurements, whichever is less restrictive, shall be used. Calculate the effluent gas concentration using Equation 101C 1 below.

( ) C C C C C C gas o ma m o =

Equation 101C 1 Where: Cgas = Effluent gas concentration, ppm. ( µ g/ m3) Cavg = Average gas concentration indicated by gas analyzer, ppm. ( µ g/ m3) Co = Average of initial and final system calibration bias check responses for the zero gas, ppm. ( µ g/ m3) Cm = Average of initial and final system calibration bias check responses for the upscale calibration gas, ppm. ( µ g/ m3) Cma = Actual concentration of the upscale calibration gas, ppm. ( µ g/ m3)

BIBLIOGRAPHY 1. Traceability Protocol for Establishing True Concentrations of Gases Used for Calibrations and Audits of Continuous Source Emission Monitors: Protocol Number 1. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Quality Assurance Division. Research Triangle Park, N. C. June 1978.

2. Westlin, Peter R. and John W. Brown. Methods for Collecting and Analyzing Gas Cylinder Samples. Source Evaluation Society Newsletter. 3( 3): 5 15. September 1978. Figure 101C 1. Measurement System Schematic. Ice Water Bath Midget Impingers Dry Gas Meter Rotameter Drying Tube Needle Valve 3% H O ( 15 ml each) 2 2 Excess Sample Vent Sample By pass Vent Figure 101C 2. Interference Check Sampling Train. Table 101C 3. Interference Test Gas Concentrations CO 500 ± 50ppm CO2 10 ± 1%

SO2 200 ± 20ppm O2 20.9 ± 1% ppm Date of Test: _____________

Analyzer Type: _______________________________________________________

Serial Number: _______________________________________________________

Test Gas Type Concentration ppm Analyzer Output Response % of Span % of span = Analyzer Output Response Instrument Span X 100 Figure 101C 4. Interference Response Source Identification: Runs:

Test Personnel: Span:

Date:

Analyzer Calibration Data for Sampling Cylinder Value ( indicate units) Analyzer Calibration Response ( indicate units) Absolute Difference ( indicate units) Difference ( percent of span)

Zero Gas Mid Range Gas High Range Gas Figure 101C 5. Analyzer Calibration Data.

Source Identification: Run Number:

Test Personnel: Span:

Date:

Initial Values Final Values Analyzer Calibration Response System Calibration Response System Cal. Bias ( percent of span) System Calibration Response System Cal. Bias ( percent of span) Drift ( percent of span)

Zero Gas Upscale Gas System Calibration Bias = System Cal. Response  Analyzer Cal. Response Span Drift = Final System Cal. Response  Initial System Cal. Response Span X X 100 100 Figure 101C 6. System Calibration Bias and Drift Data.