Response: Section 8.2.2 has been revised to require that the tester define the calibration span such that the majority of measured emission concentrations fall between 20 and 80 percent of the calibration span. With the new definition of calibration span, we have dropped any reference to the emission limit being in the calibration range. We have noted that data generated anywhere in the calibration range, up to and including the calibration span, will be considered valid.

344. Comment: This section does not address leak checks, which are needed to assure sampling system integrity. We propose performing leak checks prior to the first system bias check and following the final system bias check. Acceptable criteria should be established as another QA measure. ( 0044)

Response: Leaks will be detected in the system bias check; a separate leak check requirement is not necessary.

Section 8.2.3 Analyzer Calibration Error Test 345. Comment: It should read " low, mid, and span level gases." What is the zero gas? Its specification is missing ( 0032).

Response: The final rule requires calibration error using low, mid, and high level gases; The Azero gas@ was replaced in the proposal by Alow level <EMAIL_ADDRESS>The low level gas may be a zero gas.

346. Comment: The sentence explaining the calibration error calculation should say that calibration error is " the difference between the measured concentration and the manufacturer certified gas concentration divided by the manufacturer certified gas concentration." The results are supposed to be as a percent of the certified concentration of the calibration gas. ( 0013)

Response: The final rule language of Section 8.2.3 is different from that in the proposal. However, we have revise the proposed calculation of analyzer calibration error to be based on a percentage of the calibration span. 95 347. Comment: The intent seems to be to perform a full 3 point, hands off calibration error test directly after the initial calibration without calibration through the entire sampling system. In what event are you allowed to perform hands on calibration adjustments? We see nothing wrong with the calibration error procedure as it is now is. ( 0038)

Response: The current calibration error procedure has been retained. The calibration error test is done in direct calibration mode and not through the entire sampling system. You may perform hands on calibration adjustments anytime before or after the calibration error test.

Section 8.2.4 NO2 to NO Conversion Efficiency Test 348. Comment: The word principal should be principle ( in two places). ( 0032, 0013)

Response: These corrections have been made through revisions to this section.

Section 8.2.5 Initial Sampling System Bias Check 349. Comment: During all sample runs, calibration checks, interference checks, converter checks, and bias checks, data should be taken from the data recorder and not the analyzer display. ( 0011)

Response: The important thing is to fully document collected data and performance tests as noted in Section 1.0 of the methods.

350. Comments: If a data recording system records data once per second, are only 3 seconds required to show stability. Contrarily, at once/ minute recordings, are 3 full minutes required? Is there a minimum time for the three consecutive readings? Data acquisition systems can take 3 recordings in less than 1 second. When SO2 bias checks are done, it may take up to 10 minutes to achieve stable response while slowly inching towards the final value. In other cases, it may be less than 30 seconds. Section 6.4.1 of the current 6C requires waiting until a stable response is achieved, and this is also used in the proposed Method 7E. The EPA should leave the existing stable response criteria in place. ( 0012, 0016, 0031)

Response: The proposed language attempted to establish a cutoff point for final readings when establishing system response time. We have revised this language to read " Record the time it takes for the measured concentration to increase to a value that is within 95 percent or 0.5 ppm ( whichever is less restrictive) of the certified gas concentration."

351. Comment: Commenters had the following comments about the stable value criteria: a. Should the mean be at least within 3 percent of the certified value? For example, with a 30 ppm certified value, if the analyzer indicates a 34 ppm ( 113 percent of certified value), this is more than 97 percent and is still valid.

b. The Summary Table of QA/ QC allows 5 percent for the sampling bias. We believe 3 percent to be too restrictive, since previously the regulation allowed 5 percent of span. 96 c. The specification seems to add a second bias test result specification of 97 percent of the gas value, which would be too restrictive. ( 0012, 0016, 0031, 0035, 0049)

Response: We have dropped the requirement for successive readings to agree within 0.5% of the certified gas tag value. Rather, determination of stability is left to the judgment of the tester. In the final rule, the response time is defined in the more traditional way, as the time for 95% of a step change in concentration to occur.

352. Comments: Half way through the section, it states to calculate the sampling system bias and see Section 12.5. This should be Section 12.4. ( 0013, 0020, 0025, 0029, 0035)

Response: This section now cites Section 12.4.

353. Comment: Clarification is needed over which gases to use and when. Section 8.2.5 uses span or mid and zero gas, then references Section 13.5, where low and span are used. The Summary Table uses high and zero gases. Further, zero gas is not defined within the method. ( 0025, 0026, 0029, 0041)

Response: We have corrected the inconsistencies and added clarity to the gas specification for the system bias test. The low level gas and the span or mid level gas ( referred to as the upscale gas) whichever most closely approximates the effluent concentration) must be used. We have dropped the use of Azero@ gas and replaced it with Alow level@ gas, although at the tester= s discretion, the low level gas may be a zero gas.

354. Comment: This section refers to zero gas, but, unfortunately, zero gas is undefined. We are still perplexed as to why the low level gas is needed at all. Later, in Section 13.4, we find a specification of 0.25 percent of upper range limit ( assumed to be full scale range) for the analyzer calibration error when using zero gas, even though zero gas had not been mentioned until Section 8.2.3. It is also interesting to note that zero gas is not mentioned in Section 13.5, which is the bias check specification. This creates a serious internal rule conflict that is unnecessary, and is easy to fix by simply referencing all specifications to full scale analyzer range. ( 0038)

Response: See response to Comment 353. Other noted inconsistencies have been corrected.

355. Comment: The Summary Table of QA/ QC and Sections 3.10 and 8.2.6 should be consistent regarding the response time. ( 0035)

Response: Consistency has been added where noted.

356. Comment: System bias checks must be performed with a wetted system. This test should be performed only after the sampling system has been sampling stack gas for a Aseasoning@ period ( e. g. at least a 1 hour period). This allows all of the components to season to the stack conditions. ( 0054) 97 Response: We believe the preconditioning of the system per Section 8.2.2 and the duration of the sampling run are sufficient to Aseason@ the equipment and achieve a wetted system.

357. Comment: This section states that it is necessary to first inject the span gas and then the zero gas during the bias test. However, the order of gas injection does not matter. Any order should be allowed because it may cut down cal time in half. Further, EPA should clarify that all system bias calibrations are to be performed hands off. The EPA should also clarify that for tests following one another closely, the post test bias check for a given run may also serve as the pretest bias check for the next run. ( 0038)

Response: It has been noted that the order of injecting calibration gases for the post run bias checks is not important. However, for the initial pre test bias check, the upscale gas is injected first and the low level ( or zero) gas second, in order to determine the upscale and downscale response times. After that, the injection order is unimportant. Also, the system must be operated at the normal sampling rate and no adjustments may be made other than those necessary to achieve proper calibration gas flow rates at the analyzer. We have explicitly stated that, for tests closely following one another ( less than 2 hours apart), the post test bias check for a previous run may serve as the pre test bias check for the subsequent run.

Section 8.2.6 Measurement System Response Time 358. Comment: How is response time to be determined when taking into account temporal variations in stack concentrations? ( 0004)

Response: Response time is determined outside the stack environment using calibration gases. We do not believe that temporal variations in stack concentrations will affect response times previously determined this way.

359. Comment: Are we correct in our understanding that the response time is determined from the times for the system display exceeds 92.15 percent ( 95 percent of greater than 97 percent) of the certified gas value for 3 consecutive readings? ( 0012)

Response: See the response to Comment 351.

360. Comment: The reference for high level gases should be changed to span level gases. ( 0029)

Response: The final rule now uses the terms, Alow@, Amid@ and Ahigh@ for the three required calibration gas levels.

361. Comment: How is response time to be determined? If there is temporal variability in stack concentrations, then high to stack and zero to stack response times can= t be determined. Can we go from high to zero and zero to high through the entire system? ( 0004) 98 Response: The system response time is determined during the system bias check when low and upscale calibration gases are evaluated in system calibration mode. This involves evaluating the system response as you go from low to upscale gas or vice versa. Temporal variations in stack concentrations do not affect the test.

Section 8.3 Interference Check 362. Comments: Commenters had the following comments about the interference check:

a. Interference gases should be introduced as mixtures ( blended gases) as much as is practical. For example, if ten gases are considered as interfering gases, introducing them separately would require a sensitivity of at least 0.05 ppm at the 0 20 ppm range; each gas can have an interference response of 0.05 ppm. The recorder resolution is specified at 0.5 percent of upper range limit. If this upper range limit is 20 ppm, then the resolution is 0.1 ppm, which is greater than the sensitivity required to measure the interference response of each gas. Shouldn= t there be a procedure for determining the noise level? Otherwise, how would one distinguish interference from noise? To avoid this, it would be better to blend the interfering gases rather than doing them separately and adding up noise level responses.

b. The interference specification is " 2.5 percent of the upper range limit. This limit is a variable as it is defined as anything greater than 5 percent of the span level concentration. If, for example, the upper range limit is 1000 ppm, the interference limit is 25 ppm. If the analyzer is calibrated from 0 to 250 and the measured concentration is 100 ppm, then the interference is 25 percent of the measured concentration. EPA should reconsider the use of upper range limit as a point of reference.

c. According to the directions, all the gases in Table 7E 3 are to be used for the interference check, regardless of whether the gases are present in the source or not. With the problems of sensitivity, generating moisture contents, determining what are interfering gases, frequency of checks, etc., EPA should consider going solely to the dynamic spiking procedure. ( 0032, 0027)

Response: The interference gases may be blended, where practical, to facilitate the interference check. The total interference must not exceed 2.50 percent of the calibration range, instead of upper range limit. The calibration range for the interference test must be between 80 and 100 ppm for measurements greater than 20 ppm and at an appropriate concentration below 20 ppm when emission concentrations less than 20 ppm are routinely measured. Alternative acceptance criteria have been added for checks at the lower concentration range. The results are acceptable if the interference does not exceed 0.5 ppmv for a calibration span of 5 to 10 ppmv, or 0.2 ppmv for a calibration span less than 5 ppmv.

The number of gases needed in a particular interference test will vary according to analyzer type. Each test gas listed in Table 7E 3 may not be appropriate for each analyzer type. The tester or manufacturer must evaluate the potential of the listed test gases or other possible interferences to affect the analyzer performance and plan the test accordingly. 99 363. Comment: This section refers to 16.3 for the primary gas interference recheck, but the requirements are much looser. Why? ( 0035)

Response: The requirement to perform an annual primary gas interference recheck has been dropped. A repeat of the interference check is only required when a major analyzer component has been replaced.

364. Comment: The interference test gases can be introduced ( see Table 7E 3) into the measurement system in system mode, separately or as mixtures. ( 0054)

Response: The interference check is primarily a test of the analyzer. The entire measurement system may be evaluated, but this is not required. The language in Section 8.2.7 has been revised to reflect this.

365. Comment: This section is confusing, incomplete, and probably unnecessary. At a minimum, it should be completely rewritten. This section is very poorly done and needs a complete technical justification. ( 0038)

Response: It would have been helpful if the commenter had made specific recommendations to improve the section. We have reworded some of the language in attempting to add clarity.

Section 8.4 Sample Collection 366. Comment: The requirement to sample within 5 percent of the rate used during the sampling system bias check is unnecessarily restrictive. The sampling rate does not affect the quality of data unless it falls below the analyzer sampling rate. We suggest the requirement be removed or increased to 20 percent. ( 0029)

Response: This requirement has been dropped.

367. Comment: How is this sampling rate measured and recorded? Does it refer to the total sample or the sample of each instrument? ( 0035)

Response: This 5 percent criterion for the sampling rate has been dropped.

Section 8.5 Post Run Sampling System Bias Check 368. Comments: There is a typo half way through the section. " Method? s" should be " method's" ( 0013, 0025)

Response: This is corrected in revisions to the section.

369. Comment: Does the " repeat the sampling system bias check" refer back to Section 8.2.5 Initial Sample System Bias Check? ( 0031) 100 Response: Yes. The system bias check is performed before and after each run following the procedures in Section 8.2.5.

370. Comment: This section refers to Table 7E 2. I assume the second Table 7E 2. ( 0035)

Response: There is only one Table 7E 2. There is a Figure 7E 2.

Section 8.6 Alternative Dynamic Spike Procedure 371. Comment: The proposed procedures for the analyte spike procedures are internally inconsistent in Method 7E. This section states that the tester can use the alternative dynamic spike check ( ADSC) procedure instead of the direct calibration procedure and the pre and postrun sampling system bias tests. In contrast, Section 13.8 allows the ADSC as an alternative to the interference test and the sampling system bias tests. Does the dynamic spike test substitute for the calibration error test or the interference check, or are these two different options? ( 0025, 0032).

Response: This inconsistency has been removed. The dynamic spiking procedure may be used in place of the system bias checks and the interference check.

372. Comment: The reference to Section 16.2 should be Section 16.1. ( 0013, 0025, 0035)

Response: This section has been correctly designated in the final rule.

Section 9. Summary Table of QA/ QC 373. Comments: The last column of the table is for corrective action. This column provides no practical advice. Instead it contains very rudimentary, self evident suggestions that would be obvious to even the most novice tester. If it was the intent of EPA to assist the tester, then this column should be revised to include practical suggestions from actual field experience. The table also contains a status indicator of AA which is unidentified ( 0032, 0035).

Response: This column has been dropped from the table. " AA" has been identified in the footnote.

374. Comments: Analyzer resolution or sensitivity has an acceptance criteria of less than 2 percent of range, but this is not defined in Section 3, nor is there any performance criteria for it in Section 13. ( 0005, 0012)

Response: The criterion for acceptable analyzer resolution or sensitivity is a suggested QA/ QC measure and not a required measure. Therefore, it is not defined in Section 3 nor listed in Section 13.

375. Comment: Data recorder design/ data resolution has an acceptance criteria of less than 1 percent, but Section 6.1.9 indicates no larger than 0.5 percent. ( 0005, 0012) 101 Response: Data recording is now discussed in Section 6.2.9 where we do not list a required resolution. The QA/ QC summary table recommends a data resolution   0.5 percent of full scale range.

376. Comment: In the table, " Data quality assessment using sampling system bias data" has acceptance criterion of < 1.5 ppmv, while Section 13.5 has   0.5 ppmv. The table reference for the system bias calculation in column 4 is wrong. What is " apparent bias" and what is the corrective action if apparent bias is > 5 percent? ( 0005, 0013, 0020, 0026, 0035)

Response: The table has been corrected to list   0.5 ppmv absolute difference as the alternative bias criterion. The table no longer references the equations section nor mentions " apparent bias," which was confusing.

377. Comment: The section to identify the data user is inappropriate, since it is common and efficient to conduct testing to satisfy more than one data user. ( 0012)

Response: The listing is only included as a suggestion to aid the tester in determining the data quality objectives.

378. Comment: Provisions for short term excursions above span level should be made. ( 0012)

Response: In the table, we recommend that all 1 minute average measurements be within the calibration span and require that all run averages be less than or equal to the calibration span.

379. Comment: Under " Interference gas check," remove the words " upper" and " limit." The word range is defined and is all that should be used here. ( 0013)

Response: We now determine interference based on the calibration span. " Upper range limit" has been replaced with " Calibration span."

380. Comment: Under " Sampling system bias," add " or mid level gas" to the list, which is where most calibrations will be performed. Change the word " high level" to " span level" to match the definitions. ( 0013)

Response: The terminology used for the system bias check in the final rule is " low scale" and " upscale" gas. The table has been revised accordingly.

381. Comment: Under " NO2 NO conversion," the frequency should be before initial run and not after every test. ( 0013)

Response: We have corrected it to read " before each test." 102 382. Comment: In the footnotes: S, M, and A do not need superscripts numbers. The description for A is missing, and is probably " alternative." The abbreviation AM A has not been defined. ( 0013, 0025)

Response: The superscript numbers have been removed. " A" has been defined as " alternative." No reference to " AM A" was found in the proposal.

383. Comment: " Equipment type ( condenser or permeation dryer)" is listed under " Moisture removal." However, elsewhere in the method, it only mentions the condenser type. This is inconsistent, and since permeation dryer was added to the QA/ QC table, permeation dryers should be added to the method. Because of the considerable use of dilution in RATAs, dilution should be added as well. ( 0023, 0054)

Response: The " Equipment type" entry has been changed to " equipment efficiency" which does not lists a moisture removal principle. Section 6.2.4 allows any of the noted moisture removal principles to be used.

384. Comment: The required frequency of the dynamic spike test is confusing in the 2nd to last row, which states before and after each test and in place of pre and post run sampling system bias tests and interference check. There should be no need for an interference check with dynamic spiking. ( 0025, 0035)

Response: The dynamic spiking procedure is used in place of, instead of in addition to, the interference check and the system bias check. We have dropped the acceptance criteria from the QA/ QC table because it was unclear in this abbreviated form. The tester can refer to Section 13 for these criteria.

385. Comment: The " Multiple Sample Points" section refers to a rake probe, but this has been specifically forbidden by Part 75 policy manual, and may also conflict with Part 60 regulations. Please clarify. How are multiple sample points simultaneously determined? Is a 24 hole rake acceptable? ( 0025, 0035)

Response: Multi hole probes with verifiable constant flow through all holes within 10 percent of mean flow rate are being allowed. This should not conflict with the Part 60 regulations. However, this option requires Administrative approval for Part 75 applications.

386. Comment: Sample Extraction does not list other metallic materials, such as inconel, as options. Why not make all materials of construction inert to sample or judged by bias, not just the manifold. The probe material in Section 6.1.1 says glass, stainless steel, or equivalent. The table only lists SS as mandatory, although the text refers to Teflon also. The table should be changed to reflect this, since stainless steel is not practical for temporary sampling systems. ( 0031, 0035, 0039)

Response: Except for the calibration valve listing, the sample extraction material must be " inert to sample constituents." 103 387. Comment: Under " Sampling System Bias," the allowance of   0.50 ppmv absolute difference for the bias needs to be extended not only to sources with emission limits of   10 ppmv, but to any bias conducted with cylinder gases   10 ppmv. Also, this criterion should not have a temporary time limit, but should be in effect until such time as to re evaluate the method. ( 0031)

Response: The   0.50 ppmv criterion has been extended to apply in all bias cases. The temporary time limit that was proposed for using this specification has been dropped.

388. Comment: What are the acceptance criteria for Data Quality? ( 0035)

Response: The data quality categories dealt primarily with the uncertainty determination. The uncertainty determination and the data quality categories in the QA/ QC table have been dropped from the final rule.

389. Comment: The " Analyzer response time" listed in the table is < 30 seconds. In Section 13.3, there is no minimum response time. The 30 second requirement will most likely be met when conducting a direct calibration at high concentrations. Low concentration analyzers and full scale ranges can have longer response times ( 2 to 5 minutes). The 30 second requirement cannot be met if it is system response time due to sample line and conditioning system delay. ( 0035, 0038)

Response: The reference to < 30 seconds in the table has been deleted. We do not specify a minimum sample response time.

390. Comment: The listed " Filter temperature" is listed as > 95 ° C, which is different from Section <IP_ADDRESS>, which should be the same as heated sample line. ( 0035, 0038)

Response: In lieu of specifying minimum temperatures, we now require that all system components ( excluding sample conditioning components, if used) must maintain the sample temperature above the moisture dew point.

391. Comment: Under " Analyzer range," this criterion should be referenced to the concentration to be tested, not the span gas value. ( 0038)

Response: We have dropped the use of " analyzer range" and now use " calibration span" as the upper limit of the calibration curve. The calibration span is chosen such that most of the measurements are 20 to 100 percent of the calibration span.

392. Comment: There are various references to " each run" ( Column 5) for the probe material, sample line material, etc. It will not be necessary to inspect the material type after " each run" but rather for " each test."

Response: This correction has been made. 104 393. Comment: Under " Analyzer calibration error," it states that the performance specification for the zero gas is less than 0.25 percent of span. This specification is unusually stringent, and is equal to the zero noise level on some instruments ( e. g., for a NOx analyzer set on a 10 ppm range, this equates to 0.025 ppm which is the zero noise level for a Teco NOx analyzer). This specification is inconsistent with the 2 percent criterion for the span gas calibrations. This specification is also inconsistent with the language in Section 13.4 where the words " upper range limit" are used. ( 0038)

Response: The 0.25 percent specification for a zero gas has been dropped.

394. Comment: " After every test" is used in Column 5, Row 16. For these methods in general, the definition of " test" should be defined. Is it just one unit or emission process? Or is it a series of units under the same test mobilization ( e. g., testing five consecutive units at the same plant during the same week)? Could it even be two separate plants with the same type of unit as long as the exact same analyzer is used? The definition of " test" may have different meanings, depending on the QA/ QC to be performed ( e. g., the required frequency of a direct calibration error test versus the required frequency of a converter check, etc.). ( 0038)

Response: " Test" has been defined in Section 3.19 as the series of runs required by the applicable regulation.

395. Comment: Under " Moisture removal," the "< ± 5 percent target compound removal" requirement should be removed, because there is no way to verify it. Passing the bias test does not verify this criteria. ( 0038)

Response: We agree with the commenter. This requirement has been removed.

396. Comment: In the " Suggested corrective action" column, the word " retest" should not be used because it can be misinterpreted to mean repeat all runs. We suggest that " repeat test run" be used instead. ( 0038)

Response: The " Suggested corrective action" column has been deleted from the table as requested by other commenters.

Section 10.1 Initial Analyzer Calibration 397. Comment: A web site is given for the Traceability Protocol. There is no traceability Protocol at this web site address. ( 0032).

Response: The commenter is correct. The Traceability Protocol has been removed from this website. We are not able at this time to supply another web source for the document.

398. Comments: The section says you must pass the bias test before you start measurements, but the test is based on the emission standard, which may be process based ( i. e. lbs/ ft2). If so, then it is not possible to know if you pass until the test is over and the process rate 105 is measured. We recommend adding an alternative specification, such as 2 percent of span value, in such a case. ( 0026)

Response: We have dropped the proposed determination of system bias based on the emission standard. Bias is now calculated based on the calibration span, which is chosen such that the majority of measurements are between 20 to 100 percent of this calibration span.

399. Comment: Note that low level NO2 calibration gases may not be readily available as EPA Protocol standards. ( 0038)

Response: Alternative means of calibrating analyzers that measure NO and NO2 separately will be considered on a case by case basis.

Section 12.0 Calculations and Data Analysis Section 12.1. Nomenclature 400. Comment: The terms Cdir and Cs both use the wording " reported by the gas analyzer." To be consistent, they should say " reported by the data recorder." ( 0011)

Response: The proposed descriptions of the terms have been revised in the final rule. We now define the terms relative to their application in either direct calibration mode or system calibration mode.

401. Comment: The following terms are missing from the nomenclature: ACE, Mmeas, Mnative, Madded, C, Cm, Cequiv, ENO2, CNO2, R, Y, Estd, R, U, and Qfuel. Where did Section 12.0 ( Nomenclature) come from? Over half the equations contain terms that are not explained in the nomenclature. This needs a total re do. The terms need to be adequately defined with units. ( 0005, 0012, 0013, 0014, 0024, 0026, 0030, 0032, 0035, 0056)

Response: We apologize for these obvious omissions. Section 12.1 has been corrected to include all terms used in the equations and their units.

402. Comment: In the Definition for M, NOx should not be subscript. Ch is listed as the calculated in stack concentration but does not appear in the equations, but Section 12.1.1 uses Cequiv. Should Cequiv be the correct notation? The value of conversion factor K and its= units are undefined. Are the units of B assumed to be percent? For Cadj, was it the intention to make all O2 corrections to 15 percent absolute? A specific number should not be used, since not all regulatory programs use this value as the reference. Does Cm equal analyte spike concentration measured ( ppmv). Add CS to equal the analyte calculated spike value ( ppmv). ( 0009, 0013, 0020, 0025, 0026, 0029, 0035, 0041, 0049, 0054)

Response: See the response to Comment 413. The noted inconsistent and conflicting terminologies have been corrected in the final rule.

Section 12.1.1 Concentration equivalent of the emission standard 106 403. Comment: For the case when the standard is in mass/ unit of electrical output, inclusion of the " Eff" seems to be an error and should be deleted. ( 0029)

Response: Since the performance tests are no longer calculated relative to the emission standard, this section has been dropped.

404. Comment: Emission Standard calculation is incorrect for ppmv at Y percent O2. Y should be in the numerator and percent O2 in the denominator. ( 0030)

Response: See the response to Comment 403.

405. Comment: The terms Cstd, Estd, and Emass in the table and in Equation 7E 16 should be replaced with M as defined in Section 12.1 to allow its use with pollutants other than NOx. I need more information to follow these equations; why not replace K with the appropriate ACV factor? ( 0025, 0029, 0035, 0041)

Response: See the response to Comment 403.

406. Comment: The table should be deleted or corrected. ( 1) No one has actually tried this table; ( 2) The first equation doesn= t mean anything, see Method 20 for the correct equation; ( 3) The other equations don= t mean much without fuel flow data and fuel composition data. ( 0035)

Response: See the response to Comment 403.

407. Comment: How is O2 percent determined for the equations in the table? Is this based on previous stack test results, O2 concentration during the test run, or O2 concentration during a preliminary run? The term GCV/ hr is impossible because the units would be BTU/ lb/ hr. GCV is normally defined as gross calorific value of a fuel, and units vary by fuel type, such as gas: BTU/ scf, oil and coal: BTU/ lb. ( 0038)

Response: See the response to Comment 403.

Section 12.2 Analyzer Calibration Error Test 408. Comment: Equation 7E 1 appears to be incorrect. I believe it should read ACE = ( Cdir  Cv)/ Cv x 100. ( 0005, 0013, 0026, 0035, 0049)

Response: The analyzer calibration error equation has been corrected.

Section 12.3 Alternative Dynamic Spike Recovery 409. Comment: The terms in Equation 7E 2 needs units and definitions. The equation needs a " x 100." ( 0035) 107 Response: The dynamic spiking equation has been corrected.

410. Comment: This entire section needs clarification, especially with regard to how this test is performed. ( 0004)

Response: Clarity has been added to the dynamic spike procedure which is described in Section 16.1.

411. Comments: Was it the intention for mean Mass of NOx to be used, or mass flow controlled NOx, expressed in ppm by volume? ( 0054)

Response: The intent is to use the flow controlled spike gas concentration in ppmv. The equation terms have been revised to reflect this.

Section 12.4 Sampling System Bias Check 412. Comment: Equation 7E 3 should be divided by Ch instead of Cv if there is an emission standard. The equation is correct only when not subject to an emission standard as per Section 13.5. ( 0013, 0022, 0026, 0035, 0039)

Response: The system bias equation has been corrected.

413. Comment: The Oregon DEQ believes in correcting raw field data from pre and post test calibration results. Knowing the range of uncertainty is helpful in determining compliance, but is not an acceptable substitute for a raw data correction. Therefore, we propose including an equation to correct the raw field data, much like equation 6C 1 in existing Method 6C. ( 0044)

Response: We have retained the current equation for correcting the raw for the system bias.

Section 12.5 NO2 NO Conversion Efficiency 414. Comment: Equation 7E 4 needs to be multiplied by 100 for the result to be a percent. ( 0013, 0035)

Response: This correction has been made.

Section 12.6 Uncertainty Estimate 415. Comment: Most of the equation terms are not defined, especially CNO2. Is it simply CNOx  Cno for analyzers that measure NOx and NO independently? We cannot comment on the equation until we have the definitions. ( 0013, 0035)

Response: The proposed requirement to calculate data uncertainty has been dropped and Equation 7E 5 has been dropped. 108 416. Comment: We cannot explain Equations 7E 5 and 6 to testers because we do not understand them. Are they estimated high and low values or the deviations of these from the reported results? We request that the uncertainties be in the bias corrections of raw data that we use as results. ( 0044, 0049)

Response: The proposed requirement to calculate data uncertainty has been dropped and Equations 7E 5 and 7E 6 have been dropped.

417. Comment: These equations assume the concentration of NO2 is known, but some systems do not separately monitor NO2. Thus, the second term should be removed from the equations for these systems. These equations seem to have a typo related to the definitions for NO2 conversion, and need clarity for the use of " Eff" vs. " E." ( 0029, 0039, 0041)

Response: See the response to Comment 416.

418. Comment: Equations 7E 5 and 6 include values from the NOx converter test and for NO2 concentration, neither of which would apply to 3A, 6C, or 10. How would these methods determine uncertainty? ( 0025)

Response: The proposed requirement to calculate data uncertainty has been dropped and Equations 7E 5 and 7E 6 have been dropped.

419. Comment: The uncertainty equation ( Eq. 7E 5) is confusing and we suggest it be rewritten. The entire equation should be replaced with uncertainty techniques developed by ISO and ASTM. This makes no sense. We note that the uncertainty estimates were proposed because many commenters objected to the bias correction equation in the first proposal, and argued it was too complicated. It is assumed the commenters were objecting to the proposed and complicated bias correction equation and not the existing and understood bias correction. A new procedure was not necessary, and EPA should have retained the existing bias correction procedure. ( 0022, 0023, 0035, 0038)

Response: The proposed uncertainty calculation has been dropped in favor of the current bias correct of data.

420. Comment: " ADSC" is not defined until Section 13.8; it should be defined the first time it is used ( 0032, 0029).

Response: We have dropped the acronym " ADSC." We now refer to the procedure as the dynamic spike procedure.

421. Comment: Should there be an acceptable test uncertainty range listed? ( 0054)

Response: The proposed uncertainty calculation has been dropped. 109 Section 12.7 Miscellaneous calculations 422. Comment: The following comments address the miscellaneous calculations in Section 12.7.

a. In Section 12.7.2, if you want to do what it says, go to Section <IP_ADDRESS>. The rest is not needed or desired. ( 0035)

b. Equation 7E 8 is missing. ( 0054)

c. Section <IP_ADDRESS> refers to " equations," but only one equation is listed. ( 0025)

d. Equation 7E 10 does not calculate NOx adjusted to 15 percent O2. Do you mean CO2? ( 0035)

e. Section <IP_ADDRESS> has the wrong narrative. ( 0035)

f. In Section 12.7.3, not all emissions will be corrected to 15 percent oxygen. Utility boilers are still corrected to 3 percent oxygen. The correction should not be only to 15 percent but should rather say the " desired O2 divided by actual O2" to apply to all corrections. ( 0013, 0035)

g. It is recommended to add a Section <IP_ADDRESS> and include an equation to calculate Emass based on flow rates as measured by EPA Methods 1 4. ( 0026)

h. Section 12.7.4 is not the way we currently calculate corrected NOx results. The run average raw NOx and raw O2 are plugged into Equation 7E 11. This equation requires that you calculate corrected NOx at each traverse point, and then average the results. ( 0013)

i. Equation 7E 12 appears to have an additional and unnecessary summation term in the equation. This cancels out the 1/ k averaging term inside the brackets and predicts emissions at the number of points times the actual concentration ( say potentially 12 to 48 times too high). ( 0039)

j. It is unnecessary to individually average each point allowing for response time in between each point. If you allow the appropriate response time before each point and your response time is 1 min or less, then you just average all data collected. ( 0039)

k. Test times should have a set time limit, such as one hour as stated in current Method 20 or Part 75, or other applicable regulation. ( 0039)

l. In Equations 7E 13 through 15, each equation omits the NOx conversion factor from ppm to lb/ scf. ( 0038) 110 m. Equation 7E 13 must be multiplied by the conversion factor CV in Table 7E 2 to be correct. Alternately, the definition of Cd within the nomenclature of Section 12.1 should be modified to include units of ng/ sm3 and lb/ scf. ( 0026)

n. Equation 7E 16 calculates mass emission rate based on fuel usage, but there are no requirements listed for accuracy of the fuel flow monitor. We only allow this approach with Part 75 certified fuel flow monitors, or some other monitor sufficiently accurate, and only when stack gas flow measurements are not possible. ( 0020)

Response: We have dropped the various calculations for correcting emissions data to diluent levels or emission rates to keep the method as brief and simple as possible. These deleted calculations may be accessed in Method 19 or in the applicable regulations.

Section 13.0 Method Performance 423. Comment: I do not understand these procedures or where they came from, and there should be more detail. ( 0004)

Response: This section does not discuss procedures but gives the acceptance criteria for the required performance tests. We have revised the narrative to list these limits as concisely as possible.

424. Comment: Section 13 does not provide any performance specifications for the uncertainty estimate to allow a range for determining validity or rejection of the run. They are listed in the Summary Table, though, along with the undefined term apparent bias and an undefined corrective action when the apparent bias is > 5 percent. ( 0005, 0013)

Response: The proposed approach for calculating data uncertainty has been dropped. The ambiguous term " apparent bias" is no longer used, and the " Suggested corrective action" column of the QA/ QC table has been dropped.

Section 13.1 Analytical Range 425. Comment: Clarification needs to be added on whether a test run is invalid if the analytical range is less than 20 percent or greater than 100 percent. ( 0005)

Response: A test run is valid if the concentration is below 20 percent of the calibration span but in invalid if the concentration is greater than 100 percent of the calibration span.

426. Comment: Analytical range says you must report an exceedance but gives no guidelines on how to assess it. It refers to Section 1.3.1 which says the State may use any data. ( 0035)

Response: We no longer have an Analytical Range section in Section 13. However, in other places in the method, we explain that all run averages that are within the instrument calibration ( between zero and the calibration span) are acceptable. 111 427. Comment: The suggestion that any reading above the calibrated span may be invalid is ridiculous for an analyzer that had exhibited a linear 3 pt cal. All previous reference methods and monitoring regulations have correctly allowed for at least 25 percent extrapolation above the span. This is another example of EPA= s lack of understanding how monitoring systems perform gas concentration measurements. ( 0038)

Response: Measurements taken above an instrument's calibration range are not quality assured and may be suspect. Enforcement data that are not quality assured may not be sustainable in a court of law. We are allowing individual 1 minute data points to exceed the calibration span as long as the run average is within the calibration span. This precludes run invalidation due to minor, short term excursions outside the instrument calibration. The tester should make every effort to properly design a test such that the majority of measurements are within 20 to 80 percent of the calibration span.

428. Comment: Section 13.1 says you must report an exceedance but it gives no guidelines on how to assess it. It refers to Section 1.3.1 which says the State may use any data. ( 0035)

Response: In final Method 7E, 1 minute average pollutant concentrations may exceed the calibration span as long as the run average does not. Runs with concentrations above the calibration span are not valid.

Section 13.2 Sensitivity 429. Comment: This section references Section 1.3.1 for a discussion of sensitivity. However, there is no discussion of sensitivity in Section 1.3.1 nor is it defined in Section 3 definitions. ( 0032).

Response: The final method addresses sensitivity in Section 1.1.

Section 13.3 System Response and Minimum Sampling Times 430. Comment: The requirement to sample at each measurement point for a minimum of two times the response time after first purging the sampling system for twice the system response time a) is not necessary because the concentrations at each point are approximately the same in almost every test, and b) will significantly extend the duration of the tests. These requirements should be eliminated. These requirements conflict with promulgated requirements within certain Part 60 source specific Subparts, Part 60 Appendix B, the Part 75 performance specifications, and other regulations. Together with the proposed sampling point traverses, these onerous and inappropriate requirements encourage testers to revert to clearly inferior wet chemistry test methods to reduce costs and save time ( 0032).

Response: Purging the sampling system for at least twice the system response time ensures that sampling lines and conditioning system are free of diluted sample. We believe that subsequent sampling at each test point for a minimum of twice the system response time is also 112 reasonable. We are not aware of specific subparts in Part 60 that conflict with these requirements. The performance specifications in Parts 60 and 75 apply to the relative accuracy testing of CEMS. In these cases, the sampling point requirements in these performance specifications are followed.

431. Comment: This section states that there is no minimum system response time specified. This differs from the Summary Table of QA/ QC, which lists criteria as less than 30 seconds. ( 0005)

Response: The listing in the QA/ QC table is a mistake. There is no minimum system response time.

432. Comment: The section implies that the purge time is equal to 2x the system response time. However, the system response time is a direct function of the amount of time needed to purge a given system, meaning that the purge time is equal to the system response time. ( 0038)

Response: We do not mean to imply that purge time is two times the system response time by definition, but that the time chosen to purge the system before the test should be twice the system response time.

433. Comment: For multi point traverses, are the data accumulated between sample points ( i. e. due to purging/ system response time) also counted in the final run average? If not, then this further adds to the confusion of the method, and is beyond the data handling capability of most data acquisition systems. ( 0038)

Response: Normally, the data accumulated between sample points is not counted in the final run average, but there is flexibility in this. The requirements we are adding to explain representative sampling should not impose significant burdens on current data acquisition/ handling systems which should already be designed to handle purge times and multipoint testing. Many of these systems are used in RATAs tests which impose the same requirements.

Section 13.4 Analyzer Calibration Error 434. Comment: The zero gas specification is not reflected in Section 8.2.3 ( 0032). There is no zero gas and should not be a separate requirement. The low level gas can be gas with no pollutant in it. ( 0035)

Response: The commenter is correct. Mention of zero gas in this section has been removed.

435. Comment: By revising the specification from 2 percent of span to 2 percent of the manufacturer certified concentration, EPA has made the method more stringent. Does EPA have documentation that supports this change? Are present day instruments capable of meeting 2 percent of the low level ( mid level?) gas concentration? Gases are typically only good to 1 2 113 percent themselves, making this criteria impossible to meet. In addition, if using Method 205 dilution, small errors will make it difficult to meet. Please see the examples and explanations presented in the Calibration Error Worksheet in Attachment 2. ( 0011, 0026, 0027, 0032, 0056)

Response: We agree with the points presented by the commenters and have amended the analyzer calibration error limit to 2.0 percent of the calibration span.

436. Comment: Why was the " 0.25 percent of analyzer upper range limit used rather than " 0.25 percent of span? This may be too tight to meet. The upper range limit is an undefined variable ( anything greater than 5 percent of the span level concentration). If EPA is trying to use a fixed value, then the calibration error should also be based on the emission limit. Note that calibration gases have a range and the absolute amount can vary depending whether the upper or lower limits of the range are selected. Note also that the equivalent ppm concentration varies with the O2 concentration. Perhaps EPA should select a standard O2 concentration for each emission limit in order to fix the level ( 0032, 0012).

Response: The 0.25 percent specification and mention of a zero gas have been deleted from the final method.

437. Comment: The error limit for the zero gas is too difficult, and is less that the 0.5 percent resolution required for the data recorder. I don= t understand the use of 0.25 percent for the zero gas and 2.0 for the low level, which can be zero. ( 0009, 0031, 0035)

Response: See the response to Comment 436.

438. Comment: Remove the words upper and limit. The word range is defined and is all that should be used here. ( 0013)

Response: See the response to Comment 436.

Section 13.5 Sampling System Bias 439. Comment: The last sentence of Section 13.5 and 13.8 states that the provision for low( concentration) standard facilities is valid only for tests completed within 3 years of the effective date of this amendments promulgation. We applaud the offering of alternative provisions, but why are they only valid for 3 years? The EPA should explain what happens after the three year period and what efforts are being undertaken to develop a permanent standard. Operating permits based on such provisions may be impossible to meet if EPA fails to take appropriate actions within the three year period. We believe the is very risky to both EPA and industry, since it suggests that in 3 years, measurement technology will have improved significantly or that EPA is now preparing a replacement provision. We have difficulty believing either one. ( 0009, 0012, 0013, 0025, 0031, 0032, 0035, 0038)

Response: We have removed the 3 year limit on using the alternative bias and dynamic spike recovery limits for low standard facilities. 114 440. Comment: The term " emission standard" is not defined. ( 0012)

Response: Emission standards are not used in the calculations in the final rule.

441. Comment: There is a conflict between thresholds to qualify for low emitter treatment in ( 1) preamble of manufacturer stability test; ( 2) the sampling system bias check in Section 13.5; and ( 3) the interference check of Table 7E 3. Is this intentional and how were they determined? Also note a switch in the term low emitter to low standard. ( 0025)

Response: The noted low level thresholds differ because they came from different sources. We did not adjust these concentrations to make them consistent because we did not know if the data behind each threshold would support such a change.

Section 13.6 Interference Check 442. Comment: The upper range limit should be replaced with emission limit. If the upper range limit is twice that of the emission limit, then the amount of interference response should be 5.0 percent. The use of the upper range limit should be investigated further before promulgation. Maybe this should be " range" or " upper range" instead of " upper range limit?" ( 0013, 0032, 0036)

Response: We agree that " upper range limit" is ambiguous as used. This has been replaced with " calibration span" in the final rule.

443. Comments: A more sensible requirement would be to state that the analyzer must meet interference rejection ratios for certain gases. For example, 30,000: 1, for every 30,000 ppm of CO2 the analyzer response is influenced by 1 ppm of NOx. ( 0011)

Response: Verified interference rejection ratios may be used to show that an instrument meets the requirements of the interference check.

Section 13.8 Alternative Dynamic Spike Check ( ADSC)

444. Comment: Why is the ADSC subject to the manufacturer= s stability test while it is not required for all analyzers in Section 6.1.8. If the analyzer is unstable it will not be able to pass the performance specifications for the before and after spike recoveries ( 0032).

Response: We have dropped the proposed requirement that an analyzer must be certified through the manufacturer's stability test before the interference check and pre and post run system bias tests are waived in the dynamic spike check.

445. Comment: The 0.2 ppm provision is only helpful below a standard of 2 ppm. ( 0035)

Response: The 0.2 ppm provision takes effect at spike concentrations at or below 2 ppm. We believe this is offers fair relief at very low concentration measurements. 115 446. Comment: Does the last sentence refer to the ADSC, the previous sentence, or none of the above? ( 0035)

Response: The last sentence in Section 13.8 referred to the previous sentence which discusses the 0.20 ppmv difference in the calculated and measured spike values.

16.0 Alternative Procedures 447. Comment: I do not understand these procedures or where they came from, and there should be more detail. ( 0004)

Response: We have rewritten the dynamic spike check procedures to make them more understandable.

Section 16.1 Dynamic Spiking Procedure 448. Comment: The procedure does not specify where the spike gases are to be injected... directly at the analyzer or at the probe? ( 0025)

Response: The spike gas is introduced in calibration mode. Method 7E now states that.

449. Comment: Is it the intention to add spike gas different from the native gas or the same as the native gas? The example in 16.1.3 and the directions in 16.1.2 and Equation 7E 2 portray different concepts. ( 0041)

Response: The spike gas is the same as the native gas.

450. Comment: Spiking will not work for any source with significant variability, but may, on the other hand, work fine for duplicate integrated samples. In other words, spiking is not a good idea for instrumental methods, but will work with manual sampling. There is no mention of compounds other than SF6 ( which insinuates that SF6 is the only way to go), no appropriate QA/ QC procedures are mentioned, and that the uncertainty and vagueness of this procedure is vast. ( 0039)

Response: We note in Section 16.1 that best results are obtained for this procedure when source emissions are steady and not varying. Fluctuating emissions may render this alternative procedure difficult to pass. We disagree that spiking is not a good idea for instrumental methods.

Section 16.1.1 ( untitled section)

451. Comment: This section should only require that the tester follow its standard written analyte spike procedure. As written, it requires that one must certify that they have followed a written procedure and have demonstrated ability within the last calendar year to operate the spiking system. Who determines what is acceptable? Do we apply for acceptance in every state? Specific recovery and precision criteria are included for a 30 minute demonstration 116 test including the recovery of 100 ± 5 percent of the mass with a RSD less than 5 percent. The EPA has provided no basis for the arbitrary criteria which are obviously intended to limit the selection of analytical techniques. This is totally inappropriate for inclusion in a test method. The analyte spiking method is self certifying. If the performance requirements are met, then the individual obviously has demonstrated that they can conduct the procedure. Testers do not need to certify that they can conduct the sampling system bias tests or other procedures within the method ( 0032, 0035, 0039).

Response: We have dropped the proposed requirement that testers certify their following of a written procedure and their proficiency with the procedure within the last calendar year. The method now only requires the tester to follow a written procedure.

Section 16.1.2 Spiking procedure requirements 452. Comment: This section has numerous problems and should be completely reworked. It states that the analyte spikes must be added at two ( concentration) levels so that the levels of spike added are 1 to 2 times the native mass and 5 to 10 ( typo?) times the native mass. One does not add mass per se. The spike levels are read in terms of concentration.

Additionally, this section states that the pre test spike does not have to be performed if one can provide a valid certification that the analyzer has been shown to meet the manufacturers stability test in Section 16.2. The manufacturer= s stability test in no way can substitute for an analyte spike. The requirement should be to do both pre and post test analyte spikes.

Finally, this section states that to use the analyte spike option, you must document and confirm that during the entire test you operated within the ambient temperature and pressure and voltage ranges certified by the manufacturer. You must also list all manufacturer fault and alarm codes and identify any that were activated during the test. This makes the analyte spike completely impractical. How are such data to be recorded? The only way is manually. What does this prove? If the analyzer cannot pass the analyte spike criteria there is a problem. Perhaps it is with pressure, voltage etc., but failure of the spike recovery criteria is the proof. If the spike passes, then the results should be acceptable even if the analyzer was operated hotter or colder than the manufacturer= s certification. Continuous measurement, recording the power voltage, etc., just adds more work and expense without significant benefit. We recommend removing this section. ( 0016, 0032)

Response: We agree with the commenters' recommendations. We have corrected the spiking language to reflect concentration instead of mass. We have dropped the option to skip the pre test spike if the manufacturer's stability test is performed. We have also dropped the proposed requirement to document and confirm the test operated within the parameter certified by the manufacturer along with the listing and reporting of manufacturer fault and alarm codes.

453. Comment: A2 time@ should be A2 times.@ ( 0032).

Response: This has been corrected. 117 454. Comment: The section states that if an analyzer meets the MST, the pre test spike is waived. Since the Summary Table says the MST is mandatory, it seems all analyzers could waive the pre test spike, making the pre test spike language unnecessary, and the pre test spike recovery requirement of 100 ± 5 percent irrelevant. ( 0025)

Response: See the response to Comment 504. The QA/ QC summary table has been revised accordingly.

455. Comment: EPA proposes to require an analyzer MST as per Section 16.2 when dynamic spiking is used, which is appropriate for a new analyzer in a stable environment, but is practically meaningless for stack testing, where analyzers are continually shipped across the country and exposed to many environments. ( 0016)

Response: The MST was not meant to be required before using the dynamic spike check in the proposal, but was optional. It is still optional; however, it cannot substitute for the pre test spike as allowed in the proposal.

456. Comment: It is not clear how the passing criteria in Sections 16.1.2 and 16.1.3 relate to the performance criteria in Section 13.8. ( 0025)

Response: Sections 16.1.2 and 16.1.3 have been revised to remove the ambiguity.

457. Comment: Shouldn't " between 5 and 1 times" be " between 5 and 10 times? As stated, the two intervals overlap. The EPA could not have intended that such high concentrations of spike gas are needed to conduct the ADSC. If the native gas concentration doubles, so does the range of the spike gas. ( 0025, 0032, 0035, 0041)

Response: It should have read " between 5 and 10 times." We have revised the two spike levels used. The two spikes must now bracket the average measured pollutant concentration.

Section 16.1.3 Example spiking procedure using a tracer gas 458. Comment: Equation 7E 17 is upside down. Dilution implies a number less than one. A dilution factor is usually expressed as 10: 1 or less for analyte spikes ( 0032).

Response: The example spiking procedure now uses different equations for spike gas concentration and spike recovery than were used in the proposal.

459. Comment: The equations for the spike test passing criteria for low emitters are the only equations not included in Section 12, and perhaps Eq 7E 17 and 18 could be moved to Section 12. ( 0025)

Response: The dynamic spike equations have been revised since the proposal and have been moved to Section 12. 118 460. Comment: How do we measure SF6 in the sampling system? Why not use CO/ SO2 for SO2 and NOx/ SO2 or some other easily measured compound? See Air Tech SBIR proposal. ( 0035)

Response: The proposed spiking system using a tracer gas has been dropped. The final rule gives an example spike procedure that uses the measured pollutant as the spike gas. Other procedures that meet the performance requirements are also acceptable.

Section 16.2 Manufacturer =

s Stability Test 461. Comment: EPA has provided no technical basis or rationale to justify anything included in Section 16.2 or Table 7E 5 and all of this should be deleted ( 0032).

Response: Under the Summary of the preamble to the proposed notice, we noted that " We are also proposing to add   provisions for sampling at low concentrations. We have added the provisions of the MST for instruments that routinely measure emission concentrations less than 15 ppmv.

Section 16.3 Annual Primary Interference Gas Recheck 462. Comment: Why are the criteria between the initial and annual interference tests so different? Looser criteria will lead to a failure of the annual check. ( 0035)

Response: The proposed annual primary interference gas recheck has been dropped.

Tables & Figures 463. Comment: In Table 7E 1, Cv should replace A, Cdir should replace B, the equation for difference should be Cdir Cv, and the percent difference equation should be ( Cdir Cv)/ Cv * 100 ( see Equation 7E 1). The absolute value signs are not needed. The equation for calculating percent difference is incorrect, and needs to be divided by A to be consistent with the language of the method. Actual, not absolute value terms should be used, since it gives an indication of the sign of the error, which is important. ( 0013, 0026, 0039)

Response: The commenters' recommendations are technically correct. However, because we are adding a separate calculation to the final rule for system calibration for dilution sampling systems, we have retained the proposed general terminology which precludes our having to list both sets of terminology. The absolute value signs have been dropped.

464. Comment: What is the required balance gas in Table 7E 3, nitrogen or zero air? In Table 7E 4, what is the total difference used for? Where did the 2.5 percent come from? ( 0013, 0035)

Response: The balance gas may be either nitrogen, zero air, or some other appropriate balance gas. 119 465. Comment: Table 7E 5 is not described anywhere else in the method. What are the requirements? ( 0013)

Response: Table 7E 5 is explained in the cited sections of 40 CFR 53. In the final rule, more explanation of the test parameters is given and the table has been simplified.

466. Comment: Figure 7E 2; arrows at the bottom means you never finish a test run? ( 0035)

Response: We have added a note to Figure 7E 2 to " Continue until test is completed" at the " Proceed to next run" step.

3.17 Specific Comments on Method 10 General Comments 467. Comment: The analyzer calibration error test, sampling system bias test, and the calibration gases now required in Methods 3A, 6C, and 7E should be utilized for Method 10. ( 0021)

Response: These tests and calibration gases are now required in Method 10.

468. Comment: Most NDIR instruments are not stable below 5 ppm. What will this method do for that? ( 0035)

Response: We have removed the requirement that analyzers be strictly NDIR. Current state of the art infrared analyzers are capable of part per billion measurements.

469. Comment: For those sources testing for CO at low limits ( e. g. < 10 ppm), it has been our experience that using a set of calibration gases in the range of 10 ppm has been problematic. This is due to analyzer drift and stability, as well as calibration gas performance. In these cases, using a higher span/ range has been necessary, and was done to improve analyzer performance, not to make the performance specification easier to pass. ( 0038)

Response: State of the art infrared analyzers should offer a stable response even at concentrations below 10 ppm.

Section 2.0 Summary of Method 470. Comment: The vast majority of discrete CO analyzers currently sold and currently used are based on Gas Filter Correlation Infrared ( GFCIR) spectroscopy. In other cases, CO measurements are made using extractive FTIR systems. These analytical techniques are the contemporary methods and should be included in the summary of the method. ( 0032) 120 Response: We have removed the reference to NDIR in the Summary of Method. This gives the tester freedom in choosing the analyzers type without precluding the use of acceptable technologies.

471. Comment: Reference to specific technology should be removed from the method. ( 0009, 0054)

Response: See the response to Comment 470.

Section 3.0 Definitions 472. Comment: Section 3.1 references 7E for the interference check but seems to gives a new ones in Section 4.0. Do we do both? ( 0035)

Response: Any apparent contradiction between proposed Sections 3.1 and 4.0 have been clarified in the final rule. The interference check described in Method 7E is the only one required.

Section 4.0 Interferences 473. Comment: The statement beginning this section, Any substance having a strong absorption of infrared energy will interfere to some extent is blatantly wrong. It is incomprehensible how such a statement could be published in this decade by a group within EPA that also relies on FTIR measurement in other methods ( 0032).

Response: Without being too technical, since the mode of detection with NDIR is absorption of infrared radiation by the sample, it logically follows that any extraneous substance in the sample that strongly absorbs infrared light can, and possibly will, interfere to some extent. The exact wording in the proposal may not have reflected this precisely, and we have tempered the statement in the final rule to say " substances having a strong absorption of infrared energy may interfere to some extent in some analyzers."

474. Comments: The use of ascarite to remove CO2 interferences was appropriate for 1970s vintage NDIR analyzers but was outdated by the mid 1980s due to improvements in interference rejection in NDIR analyzers. The use of ascarite and silica gel interference traps for GFCIR or FTIR systems is entirely inappropriate and it should be specified that they are not required. This section and the interference check procedures specified in Section 7.2 and elsewhere must be completely reworked and updated consistent with contemporary instrumentation and basic scientific principles. If the scrubber trap remains in the regulations, it should be clearly stated that it is only required for instruments that fail the interference check specifications. What about no traps at all when the CO emissions are well within the limitations? Carbon dioxide removal corrections are not necessary if system bias corrections are performed. ( 0034, 0038, 0043, 0048)

Response: The final rule states that instrumental correction may be used to compensate for interferences. We only mention silica gel and ascarite traps as one way to eliminate the 121 interferences. The system bias check does not account for sample volume reduction due to CO2 absorption and is not a substitute for this correction.

475. Comment: Section 4.0 contains a table which presents analyzer ranges and interference ratios. The table shows how the interference ratio can be higher when the measuring device has a low range ( 0 100 ppm). Actually the interference ratio is less. The device range 1500 3000 ppm shows 3.5 percent H2O per 7 ppm CO, and the 0 100 range shows 3.5 percent H2O per 25 ppm. In the first case, for every 35,000 ppm of H2O, the analyzer would show 7 ppm CO, a ratio of 5,000: 1. The later case calculates for every 35,000 ppm of H2O the analyzer would show 25 ppm CO, a ratio 1,400: 1. Current CO analyzers using NDIR principals have much better interference ratios. Depending on the optical filter arrangement and type of detector ( cross flow modulation, luft, gas filter correlation, dual cell, single cell), a minimum interference ratio of 10,000: 1 for both H2O and CO2 can be expected. Most models of analyzers have interference ratios as high as 250,000: 1 for CO2 and 50,000: 1 for H2O. ( 0011)

Response: It appears the interference ratios proposed in the table were outdated. We have therefore dropped the interference ratio table from the final rule.

476. Comments: Unlike the current version of Method 10, no equation or guidance is given to calculate the correction from use of ascarite traps or instrument correction. It is unclear whether the device range/ interference ratio table is a correction factor table or simply an information table. ( 0006, 0038)

Response: The CO2 correction equation is included in the final method but the table of example interference ratios is not. This table was included in the proposal for informational purposes but has been dropped from the final method because the information was shown to be outdated.

477. Comment: It should be stated that the interference test must be performed and tabulated as shown in Method 7E, Tables 7E 3 and 7E 4. ( 0054)

Response: This is stated in Section 8.3.

Section 6.0 Equipment and Supplies 478. Comment: Sampling and analytical procedures for integrated sampling are absent. No storage and transport criteria are listed. The only references to integrated sampling are in Section 6.0 and Figure 10 2. ( 0020)

Response: We have added a new Section 8.4.2 to discuss integrated sampling 479. Comment: Figure 10 1 should be expanded to be consistent with Figure 7E 1, and should include calibration gas injection location, sample pump location, sample gas manifold, bypass vent, etc. As it now is, it would be more appropriately labeled as the conditioning system for the continuous sampling train. ( 0026, 0035, 0043) 122 Response: Figure 10 1 has been dropped in favor of citing Figure 7E 1 of Method 7E.

480. Comment: Figures 10 1, 10 2, and 10 3 are not indicative of normal practice for CO measurement systems. The moisture removal systems are typically a chilled coil condenser type, and not an impinger train containing silica gel and ascarite. A figure similar to that of Figure 7E 1 of Method 7E should be provided. ( 0011, 0038)

Response: We have removed Figures 10 1 and 10 3 but have retained Figure 10 2 since it pertains to integrated bag sampling. We have redesignated Figure 10 2 as Figure 10 1.

Section 6.1 What do I need for the measurement system?

481. Comment: As with other methods, the sampling system requirements adopted by reference to Method 7E should be modified to reflect the fact that CO is a non reactive and nonsoluble gas ( 0032).

Response: Section 6.1 of Method 10 notes that the requirements in Method 7E to use stainless steel, Teflon, or non reactive glass filters do not apply. It also notes that a heated sample line is not required to transport dry gases or for systems that measure the CO concentration on a dry basis.

482. Comment: The word particulate is misspelled. ( 0013)

Response: This has been corrected.

Section 6.2 CO Analyzer 483. Comment: The word principal is misspelled and should be deleted. ( 0013, 0032)

Response: This has been done.

Section 7.1 Calibration Gas 484. Comment: This section does not list the allowed calibration gas combinations, like those shown in 3A and 6C. ( 0038)

Response: Section 7.1 refers to Section 7.1 of Method 7E which states that blended gases meeting the Traceability Protocol are allowed if the additional gas components are shown not to interfere with the analysis. The tester has the flexibility to tailor the gas combinations as needed for the test.

Section 7.2 Interference Check 485. Comment: Gas analyzer manufacturers have done extensive research, development, and testing prior to manufacturing any analyzer. The gas analyzer manufacturers incorporate components such as optical filters, gas filter correlation, and other techniques to create an 123 analyzer that performs to a specific need with minimal interference. The available CO analyzers have already been rigorously evaluated under controlled conditions for their performance. It is unnecessary to repeat gas interference checks on analyzers that have been carefully researched, developed, and tested by the gas manufacturers.

The two prime interfering flue gases for measuring CO with NDIR technology are CO2 and H2O. Water vapor can be easily removed with a moisture removal system. The dew point of a gas at 40 ° F and 29.50 inches Hg calculates to a H2O concentration of 80 ppm. This is insignificant and would not even affect the CO measurements. Most moisture removal systems achieve a 40 ° dew point of the outlet sample gas. An interference ratio of 250,000: 1 for CO2 is typical in most CO NDIR analyzers. It would require a concentration of 25 percent of CO2 to display 1 ppm on the CO analyzer.

There really is no need to conduct interference checks on analyzers as long as the analyzer manufacturer has conducted and discloses the interference ratios in the analyzer operation manual. This method should require as a minimum that the interference ratios for CO2 and H2O be at least 10,000: 1 as this will provide a good margin of safety. ( 0011)

Response: The interference test may be designed and conducted by the manufacturer. Manufacturer verification that potential interferences do not exceed 2.5 percent of the calibration span through the use in interference ratios is an acceptable fulfillment of the interference check requirements.

486. Comment: The prescribed interference tests are not appropriate procedures for contemporary GFCIR CO analyzers. The procedures and referenced test constituents are completely inappropriate for FTIR systems which are in fact designed to measure some of the alleged interfering gases. EPA should completely rework this section to be consistent with common analytical techniques now in use ( 0032).

Response: The test gases listed in Table 7E 3 of proposed Method 7E are now listed as example test gases. Section 7.2 now requires the use of the appropriate test gases listed in Table 7E 3 ( i. e., potential interferents, as identified by the instrument manufacturer) to conduct the interference check.

487. Comment: There is no need to conduct interference checks on analyzers as long as the manufacturer has conducted and discloses the interference ratios. ( 0011)

Response: The use of interference ratios to show that interference effects are accounted for is acceptable.

488. Comment: Reference to table 7E 5 is incorrect, and should refer to table 7E 3. ( 0011, 0013)

Response: This has been corrected. 124 489. Comment: In the last line, the reference should be to Table 7E 4, not Figure 7E 8. ( 0013)

Response: This error has been corrected by abbreviating the section and referencing Section 7.2 of Method 7E.

490. Comment: One of the sentences is wrongly worded. It should be " CO with and without interfering gas." ( 0035)

Response: This has been remedied by abbreviating the section and referencing Section 7.2 of Method 7E.

Section 8.1 Sampling Site and Sampling Points 491. Comment: Carbon monoxide stratification tests using stainless steel at high temperatures can be biased. Two probes/ instruments are needed to account for temporal changes. ( 0035)

Response: This approach to alleviate biases is acceptable 492. Comment: This section does not cover the sampling procedure illustrated in Figure 10 2. ( 0039)

Response: A new Section 8.4.2 for integrated sampling has been added to the method.

Section 8.3 Sample Collection 493. Comment: Should refer to Section 8.4, not 8.1. ( 0013)

Response: This has been clarified in the final rule.

Section 16.0 Alternative Procedures 494. Comment: This section refers to the manufacturer= s stability test and spiking. CO is not subject to scrubbing, and any interferences for CO are usually high instead of low, which spiking cannot identify. ( 0039)

Response: The manufacturer's stability test is a valuable indicator of instrument stability under ambient conditions and low concentration measurements. We are allowing different technologies for the analysis of CO and believe some testers will desire to use the dynamic spike option.

Table 10 1 495. Comment: What is Table 10 1 and what is it used for? ( 0035) 125 Response: The interference table gave example interference ratios for specific interferences at different CO analyzer ranges. The table has been dropped from the final rule.

496. Comment: Table 10 1 should only be used for the integrated bag method. The units of cfm in the table are likely high for this method, perhaps it should read cfh or lpm. ( 0039)

Response: A caption has been added to Table 10 1 to note that it is for integrated sampling. The units have been changed to Lpm.

497. Comment: The field data listed in the table ( i. e. rotometer reading) are not applicable to the instrumental analyzer method for CO. ( 0038)

Response: Table 10 1 is the data sheet for integrated bag sampling, not continuous sampling.

3.18 Specific Comments on Method 20 General Comments 498. Comment: For Method 20 traverses, would stratification tests now have to be performed at each load level, or would the low load O2 traverse still be sufficient for determining sample points? Also, if the stratification test passes the 5 percent criterion, would one sample point be sufficient? ( 0028)

Response: Method 20 traverses may be performed at one load unless otherwise specified in an applicable regulation. When the Method 7E stratification test is used, if the 5 percent criterion is met, a single sample point is sufficient.

499. Comment: Incorporating Method 7E into Method 20 clarifies long standing concerns and confusion with Method 20, and we are in agreement with this revision. Our only suggestion is to include a statement at the beginning of Method 20 that clarifies that the testing requirements can be met by using Method 7E. We appreciate the fact that Method 20 is virtually eliminated and now incorporates Method 7E by reference. The current Method 20 is significantly flawed and somewhat confusing when compared to the current Method 7E. ( 0033, 0038)

Response: Section 2.0 of Method 20 notes that NOx is measured using Method 7E.

500. Comment: Method 7E replaces Method 20 but does not allow for sulfur analysis of gas samples. Why? ( 0035)

Response: The reference to sulfur analysis in fuels has been retained. Specific references to sulfur analysis is also addressed in the applicable regulation ( e. g. Subpart GG of Part 60).

501. Comment: The system bias and interference limits should be 5 percent and 2 percent, adding absolute limits for low NOx measurements. ( 0038) 126 Response: The system bias and interference limits are referenced in Section 13 of Method 7E, and absolute limits have been added for low measurements.

502. Comment: The revised Method 7E only allows the use of chemiluminescence monitors, so the Method 20 discussion regarding interference check procedures for other types of monitors is unnecessary and should be deleted. ( 0038)

Response: Method 7E only lists chemiluminescence as an example mode of detection, not a required type of analyzer.

Section 1.2 Applicability 503. Comment: Section 1.2 appears to be a copy and paste of section 1.2 from Method 6C. This section alludes to Method 6C, when it should reference Method 20. ( 0009, 0025)

Response: You are correct. This section has been corrected.

Section 8.1 Sampling Site and Sampling Points 504. Comment: The stratification test proposed in Method 7E and applied to Method 20 which replaces the oxygen traverse in favor of the generalized procedure, while apparently logical and easier, will not work well for a number of existing simple cycle combustion turbines. Although less common than it used to be, there are still large numbers of simple cycle combustion turbines that have significant diluent stratification. Method 20 was originally designed to accommodate this kind of diluent stratification that is still experienced with some simple cycle combustion turbines by testing at the lowest points of oxygen.

We recommend changing the stratification test and point requirements to be consistent with the requirements of Part 75. For Method 20, as it applies to simple cycle combustion turbines, if the turbine does not meet the stratification criteria for single point sampling, then sample at the lowest 3 points of oxygen, or revert to a 48 or 49 point O2 traverse and the lowest 8 points of O2 for the formal tests. Leaving the Method 20 requirements intact for O2 traverses is not unreasonable and should be considered to get the best data. ( 0039)

Response: In Method 20, the stratification test now uses a 3 or 12 point traverse to determine diluent corrected pollutant concentrations. The criteria in Method 7E is then used to determine the minimum number of test points. We believe this approach is as effective as the old requirement to use 48 or 49 points for the stratification test followed by sample collection at the 8 lowest points of diluent concentration. The current procedures are very similar to what is allowed under Part 75. The tester has the option to test at more points ( per the old Method 20) if desired.

505. Comment: The proposed number of sampling points for this method differs greatly from the currently published version. This method is specific for tests on gas turbines. Due to the nature and configuration of exhaust gases from gas turbines, there is a very good chance of stratification. Many exhaust ducts of gas turbines do not meet the minimum criteria of Method 1 127 for duct diameters downstream or upstream from disturbances. It is necessary to provide direction for selecting sampling points at existing non conforming units. I suggest that if the exhaust ducts do not meet the minimum requirements of Method 1, then the selection of sample points follow the criteria in existing Method 20. ( 0011)

Response: See the response to Comment 504.

506. Comment: To be consistent with other traverse point selection procedures, modify paragraph <IP_ADDRESS> to limit the maximum number of traverse points to 24 or 25. Requiring up to 48 or 49 points is technically unnecessary and burdensome. ( 0038)

Response: See the response to Comment 504.

Other Comments:

507. Comment: Figure 20 1 should include all the same components detailed in Section 6.0 of Method 7E. Specifically, this refers to the sample probe, particulate filter, heated sampling line, moisture removal system, sample pump, flow control, and gas manifold as per Figure 7E 1. The figure shown does not include either an in or out of stack filter, and a figure similar to that of Figure 7E 1, should be provided. ( 0011, 0038)

Response: Proposed Figure 20 1 has been dropped, and Section 6.0 of Method 7E is referenced for equipment and supplies.


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 199 (Monday, October 15, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 62505]
[FR Doc No: 2012-25265]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 2

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

    Docket Numbers: ER12-2653-000.
    Applicants: Public Service Company of Colorado.
    Description: Public Service Company of Colorado submits tariff
filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii: 2012-9-19-PSCo-Lamar Rev Filing to be
effective 11/1/2012.
    Filed Date: 9/19/12.
    Accession Number: 20120919-5042.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/10/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-2654-000.
    Applicants: World Digital Innovations.
    Description: World Digital Innovations submits tariff filing per
35.12: mbr--tar to be effective 9/21/2012.
    Filed Date: 9/19/12.
    Accession Number: 20120919-5043.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/10/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-2655-000.
    Applicants: Public Service Company of Colorado.
    Description: Public Service Company of Colorado submits tariff
filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii: 2012-9-19--NXPM-Limon EP 314 NOC to be
effective 11/19/2012.
    Filed Date: 9/19/12.
    Accession Number: 20120919-5047.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/10/12.

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

    Dated: September 19, 2012.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-25265 Filed 10-12-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: November 30, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 229)]
[Notices]
[Page 71818]
[DOCID:fr30no05-41]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER05-1511-000]

Noble Thumb Windpark I LLC; Notice of Issuance of Order

November 21, 2005.
    Noble Thumb Windpark I LLC (Noble Thumb) filed an application for
market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff. The
proposed rate tariff provides for wholesale sales of energy, capacity
and ancillary services at market-based rates. Noble Thumb also
requested waiver of various Commission regulations. In particular,
Noble Thumb requested that the Commission grant blanket approval under
18 CFR part 34 of all future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability by Noble Thumb.
    On November 17, 2005, the Commission granted the request for
blanket approval under part 34, but stated that:
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest the blanket approval
of issuances of securities or assumptions of liability by Noble Thumb
should file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in
accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice
and Procedure. 18 CFR 385.211, 385.214 (2004).
    Noble Thumb Windpark I LLC, 113 FERC ] 61,156 (2005). Notice is
hereby given that the deadline for filing motions to intervene or
protests, is December 19, 2005.
    Absent a request to be heard in opposition by the deadline above,
Noble Thumb is authorized to issue securities and assume obligations or
liabilities as a guarantor, indorser, surety, or otherwise in respect
of any security of another person; provided that such issuance or
assumption is for some lawful object within the corporate purposes of
Noble Thumb, compatible with the public interest, and is reasonably
necessary or appropriate for such purposes.
    The Commission reserves the right to require a further showing that
neither public nor private interests will be adversely affected by
continued approval of Noble Thumb's issuances of securities or
assumptions of liability.
    Copies of the full text of the Commission's Order are available
from the Commission's Public Reference Room, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426. The Order may also be viewed on the Commission's
Web site at http://www.ferc.gov, using the eLibrary link. Enter the

docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number
filed to access the document. Comments, protests, and interventions may
be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site
under the ``e-Filing'' link. The Commission strongly encourages
electronic filings.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E5-6680 Filed 11-29-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 104 (Monday, June 1, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 31050]
[FR Doc No: 2015-13064]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2005-N-0161]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Announcement of Office
of Management and Budget Approval; Current Good Manufacturing Practices
for Blood and Related Regulations for and Blood Components; and
Requirements for Donor Testing, Donor Notification, and ``Lookback''

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a
collection of information entitled, ``Current Good Manufacturing
Practices for Blood and Related Regulations for and Blood Components;
and Requirements for Donor Testing, Donor Notification, and `Lookback'
'' has been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: FDA PRA Staff, Office of Operations,
Food and Drug Administration, 8455 Colesville Rd., COLE-14526, Silver
Spring, MD 20993-0002<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On March 11, 2015, the Agency submitted a
proposed collection of information entitled, ``Current Good
Manufacturing Practices for Blood and Related Regulations for and Blood
Components; and Requirements for Donor Testing, Donor Notification, and
`Lookback' '' to OMB for review and clearance under 44 U.S.C. 3507. An
Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently
valid OMB control number. OMB has now approved the information
collection and has assigned OMB control number 0910-0116. The approval
expires on May 31, 2018. A copy of the supporting statement for this
information collection is available on the Internet at http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain.

    Dated: May 21, 2015.
Leslie Kux,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2015-13064 Filed 5-29-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 140 (Friday, July 20, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 42625]
[FR Doc No: C1-2012-14544]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2011-1412; Directorate Identifier 2011-NM-158-AD;
Amendment 39-17088; AD 2012-12-08]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes

Correction

    In rule document 2012-14544 appearing on pages 37781-37783 in the
issue of Monday, June 25, 2012 make the following correction:

Sec.  39.13  [Corrected]

    On page 37783, in the first column, in the tenth full paragraph,
under the heading ``(c) Applicability'', the second line should read
``Model 777-200 and -300 series airplanes;''.

[FR Doc. C1-2012-14544 Filed 7-19-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1505-01-D