**Example Case Study:**

**Request for Approval of a Candidate PM~2.5~ Approved Regional Method
(ARM) Under 40 CFR Part 58, Appendix C**

February 8, 2007

*Contents*

[Utilities]{.underline}

User Notes Page ii

Example Case Study: File name: ***Example Case Study - PM ARM.doc***

Associated resource files: Part 53 Amended Regulatory Language File
name: ***Part 53 Reg amendments.dot***

Part 58 Amended Regulatory Language

File name: ***Part 58 Reg amendments.dot***

ARM comparability data spreadsheet

File name: ***PM ARM test data template.xls***

Test protocol guidance

and related information:
[www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic](http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic) (\> Criteria
Pollutants)

[Example Case Study Application]{.underline}

1.  General Information

2.  Description of the Candidate Method

3.  Description of the Field FRM Comparison Test (Part 53, Subpart C)

4.  Field Comparison Test Data and Test Calculations

5.  Attachments

Prepared for the U.S. EPA/OAQPS by RTI International under EPA Contract
68-D-02-065, WA5-05; RTI Project No. 91U-08637.005.505.

**User Notes**

**1.** This Case Study is intended to serve as an aid to agencies
interested in preparing a request for EPA approval of a candidate
Approved Regional Method (ARM) for PM~2.5~ ambient air monitoring under
new (December 2006) regulations. An ARM is defined as a continuous
PM~2.5~ method that has been approved specifically within a State or
local air monitoring network for purposes of comparison to the NAAQS and
to meet other monitoring objectives. To be approved, an ARM must meet
the same basic performance criteria provided for PM~2.5~ Class III
methods as described in Part 53, Title 40 of the *Code of Federal
Regulations* (40 CFR Part 53, as amended December 18, 2006); however,
the location of test sites, number of FRM and candidate ARM methods to
operate and amount of data to collect are different compared to
candidate Class III methods. Specific requirements for test sites,
number of FRM and candidate ARM methods to operate during testing, and
the amount of data to collect, as well as information on the submittal
process to EPA for a candidate ARM are provided in the regulatory
provisions of Section 2.4 of Appendix C to Part 58, Title 40 of the
*Code of Federal Regulations* (40 CFR Part 58, as amended December 18,
2006). The EPA considers the merits and performance capabilities of a
candidate ARM method based on the information and specific test results
contained in the submitted request. If the candidate method is found to
satisfy all the applicable ARM requirements, the method is approved by
the EPA as an Approved Regional Method under Part 58, Appendix C. A
method approved by the EPA as an ARM may be used, subject to conditions
set forth in Section 2.4, within the State, Local, or Tribal air
monitoring network in which it was tested. An application for a
candidate ARM that has not already been approved in another agencies
network are submitted to EPA's Office of Research and Development
according to the instructions provided for in Appendix C to Part 58.
When an ARM has already been approved by EPA for use in a particular
monitoring network, subsequent applications for approval in another
monitoring network are submitted through the applicable EPA Regional
Office.

**2.** This Case Study includes example paragraphs typical of the types
of specific information, or of the nature of the information, that is
required to be included in an EPA ARM approval request. For an actual
request for an ARM approval, these, or similar, paragraphs should be
revised, rewritten, or augmented and tailored as appropriate to be
specific for the particular subject candidate ARM. In particular, the
\[**bold, green text** **enclosed in brackets**\] is merely
*hypothetical* *example text* and should be replaced with similar,
appropriate text specifically related to the subject candidate method,
or to its associated testing protocol and test results, for which the
request is being prepared.

**3.** The resource files, ***Part 53 Reg amendments.dot*** and ***Part
58 Reg amendments.dot***, provide the formal ARM and approval request
requirements in the actual Parts 53 and 58 regulation language for
convenient reference. The Case Study incorporates convenient
[hyperlinks](#Sec4) to context-specific provisions of these regulations
to confirm a particular requirement and to reference the details of the
more complex requirements. Note that these Part 53 and Part 58 resource
files contain only the new provisions and amendments to 40 CFR Parts 53
and 58 that became effective on December 18, 2007 (unless otherwise
indicated). Generally, these new and amended provisions are the ones
that are of principle concern in the preparation of ARM applications for
Class III candidate methods for PM~2.5~. However, some of the unrevised
sections of Parts 53 and 58 may also be applicable, or may be of
interest, as well. The previously existing versions of Parts 53 and 58
(containing the non-amended sections) are available at
<http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/cfr-table-search.html#page1>. The
complete content of Parts 53 and 58, including the 12/18/06 amendments,
should be available at this web site after July 1, 2007.

**4.** []{#Sec4 .anchor}For the links to the Parts 53 and 58 regulation
language to work, the ***Part 53 Reg amendments.dot*** and ***Part 58
Reg amendments.dot*** resource files must reside in the same folder as
this Case Study file. These resource files (template files) will open
*automatically* in Word when the first link is accessed as second and
third documents along with this Case Study file (the first link that
opens the document may not go to the correct place in the document).
Note: These files contain a small macro, and if you get a macro warning,
you may safely enable the macro. (To avoid the macro warning, you may
set your Word macro security to "low" (Tools\>Options\>Security\>Macro
Security.) For best use of these resource files, the "Document Map"
should be visible on the left side. If the document map is not there
(because the macro was disabled), click on the **View** menu and then on
**Document Map** to activate it. The resource files have an outline
structure, so that the Document Map may be used to go to specific
sections, tables, figures, or equations or to collapse and expand
various sections of the text. It is also presented in a "web layout"
view, so that both an Internet-type tool bar and the outline tool bar
should be present and available for use.

**5.** In the Case Study, section numbers in brackets ( \[[Section
2.4...](../Part%2058%20Reg%20amendments.dot#C2_4)\] ) are hyperlinks
directly to that section of the Part 53 or Part 58 regulation language
on the resource files (*Part 53 Reg amendments.dot* or *Part 58 Reg
amendments.dot*) and usually include tips with additional information.
Other [[]{#BK1 .anchor}underlined blue text](#BK1) also offers tips and
links to pertinent regulatory requirements or other potentially useful
information. After viewing a linked reference to the Part 53 regulation,
the Internet-style "back" button
![](media/image1.png){width="0.22291666666666668in"
height="0.22291666666666668in"} may be used to conveniently return to
this Case Study document. Many links take you to other parts of the Case
Study document; and to get a convenient "back" button
![](media/image1.png){width="0.22291666666666668in"
height="0.22291666666666668in"} to take you back to your previous place
in this document, click on View\>Toolbars and click on "Web."

**6.** If this Case Study is used as a framework for the preparation of
an actual EPA ARM application, it is suggested that one copy of the Case
Study file be kept intact to serve as a reference and model, and a
second copy might be revised and rewritten as necessary to tailor it to
the subject candidate method and applicant. As this is carried out, the
bracketed section references and underlined hyperlinks should, of
course, be deleted.

**7.** The Case Study is structured to provide a basic skeleton to
address the various different types of information required in an
application. No particular format or structure for this information is
mandated by either Part 53 or Part 58, as long as all the required
information is contained in the application and submitted. Although the
body of this Case Study document with the example information paragraphs
is rather modest in length, a substantial amount of other, more detailed
information is required in the application. This includes information
regarding such aspects as the nature and design of the candidate method
and its operating or instruction manual, the location information for
the test site(s), details of the installation, calibration, and
operation of the test instruments or samplers at each test site, the
test data obtained at each test site, and hourly data obtained during
the field tests. The use of attachments to a base application framework,
as suggested by this Case Study, is only one of perhaps other ways that
this more detailed supplemental information may be included in the
application. While most information is typically expected to be in hard
copy, certainly some types of information, *e.g.* test data, certainly
might be better attached and submitted on some form of computer-readable
electronic media.

**8.** Questions regarding the submission of an ARM application or
clarification of the ARM testing or other regulatory requirements should
be directed to the Reference and Equivalent Method Program, MD D205-03,
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
(Phone: 919-541-3737, e-mail: <Hunike.Elizabeth@epa.gov>). See also the
**notice to potential applicants** and the **PM FEM FAQs** as well as
any other information or guidance documents that may be posted from time
to time at [www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic](http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic)
(Criteria Pollutants).

**Request for Approval of a PM~2.5~ Candidate Approved Regional Method
(ARM) Under 40 CFR Parts 58, Appendix C**

1\. [General Information](../Part%2058%20Reg%20amendments.dot#C2_4)

1.1 This request for approval of a candidate [Approved Regional Method
(ARM)](../Part%2058%20Reg%20amendments.dot#ARMdef) is [submitted
to](../Part%2058%20Reg%20amendments.dot#C2_4_5) the Director, National
Exposure Research Laboratory, Reference and Equivalent Method Program
(MD-D205-03), U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina 27711 under 40 CFR Part 58, Appendix C, Sections
2.4.5 and 2.7. The candidate method is a method for PM~2.5~ based on the
\[**Fine Instrument Company's Model XYZ-123 PM~2.5~ Ambient Air
Monitor\]**. At this time, this method \[**has not been designated by
the EPA as a Federal reference method (FRM) or equivalent method (FEM)
under 40 CFR Part 53, and it is our belief that the method has not been
approved as an ARM for any other monitoring agency's monitoring
network.**\] [\[40 CFR 58, Appendix C, Section
2.4\]](../Part%2058%20Reg%20amendments.dot#C2_4)

1.2 This application is submitted by \[**Ms. Zelda E. Arnold**\] under
her signature as \[**Director, Air Quality Division, Department of
Environmental Management, State of Disarray, 41141 State Street, State
Capital, DY 999999**\].

**[\[Zelda E. Arnold\]]{.underline}**

**\[Zelda E. Arnold, Director**\]

1.3 The candidate ARM will be used at \[**three**\] PM~2.5~ monitoring
sites located in \[**Paradise, in the northwestern area of the
State**\]. These monitoring sites are identified and described
completely, along with information describing the nature and character
of the particulate matter that is expected to occur in that area, in
[[]{#At1 .anchor}Attachment 1](#Atach1)**.** \[[Section
2.4.5.1](../Part%2058%20Reg%20amendments.dot#C2_4_5_1)\]

1.4 The candidate ARM for which this request is submitted is the
\[**Fine Instrument Company's Model XYZ-123 PM~2.5~ Ambient Air
Monitor\].** This method is described in [Section 2](#Sec2), below, and
in the associated \[**Model XYZ-123 Operation and Instruction Manual
(configured for PM~2.5~) (**[[]{#At5 .anchor}Attachment
5](#Atach5)**)**\] included as part of this request. \[[Section
2.4.5.2](../Part%2058%20Reg%20amendments.dot#C2_4_5_2)\]

1.5 Approval of an ARM to use at these sites is requested because
\[**the PM~2.5~ concentrations at the proposed ARM sites are quite
variable, and hourly data is needed to help determine the source
apportionment so that control strategy can be developed, while also
obtaining PM~2.5~ data that can be used to determine attainment of the
NAAQS in the area. To date, no continuous PM~2.5~ FEM that can be used
for this purpose has been designated by EPA**\]. \[[Section
2.4.5.3](../Part%2058%20Reg%20amendments.dot#C2_4_5_3)\]

1.6 Special quality assurance procedures have been developed for the
candidate ARM, and these QA procedures will be implemented when the ARM
is used at the proposed monitoring sites. These QA procedures are
described in detail in [Attachment 2](#Atach2). \[[Section
2.4.5.4](../Part%2058%20Reg%20amendments.dot#C2_4_5_4)\]

1.7 Special procedures have also been developed for assessing the
precision and accuracy of PM~2.5~ measurements obtained with the ARM at
the proposed sites. These assessment procedures are also described in
[[]{#At2 .anchor}Attachment 2](#Atach2) and are patterned after those
for similar type automated PM methods given in Appendix A of Part 58.
\[[Section 2.4.5.5](../Part%2058%20Reg%20amendments.dot#C2_4_5_5)\]

1.8 [Comparability tests](../Part%2058%20Reg%20amendments.dot#C2_4_5_6)
of the candidate ARM were carried out at one of the proposed sites at
which the ARM will be used, as required. These tests are described in
Sections 3 and 4, below. \[[Section
2.4.5.6](../Part%2058%20Reg%20amendments.dot#C2_4_5_6)\]

1.9 Descriptions of the test facilities, test configurations, the test
data obtained, test records, calculations, and test results and other
pertinent information are provided in [Section 3](#Sec3), below, and in
\[[[]{#At4 .anchor}Attachment 4](#Atach4)\]. \[[Section
2.4.5.7](../Part%2058%20Reg%20amendments.dot#C2_4_5_7)\]

[]{#Sec2 .anchor}2. Description of the Candidate Method

2.1 \[**The Model XYZ-123 PM Monitor is an automatic beta attenuation
type PM analyzer that can be configured with various inlets and particle
size separators. For this ARM approval request, the candidate analyzer
is configured with a PM~2.5~ particle size separator to provide
near-real time measurements of ambient concentrations of PM~2.5~. This
configuration is identified as the Model XYZ-123 PM~2.5~ Monitor and
described completely in the Model XYZ-123 Operation and Instruction
Manual (configured for PM~2.5~), which is included in this request as**
[[]{#At6 .anchor}Attachment 6](#Atach6)**. No physical or operational
modifications are made to the instrument for the purpose of this ARM
approval request.\]**

2.2 \[**Optional\]** Further, for this candidate ARM approval request,
the PM~2.5~ measurements obtained from the ARM monitors at the two
proposed sites at which the ARMs will be operated will be
[transformed](../Part%2058%20Reg%20amendments.dot#C2_4_1_7) to achieve
improved comparability with FRM measurements at these sites. A complete
description of the ARM data transformations that will be used is
provided in [[]{#At3 .anchor}Attachment 3](#Atach3).

2.3 As noted in paragraph 1.6, above, special quality assurance
procedures, described in detail in [Attachment 2](#Atach2), have been
developed for the candidate ARM. These [QA procedures will be
implemented](../Part%2058%20Reg%20amendments.dot#C2_4_2) when the ARM is
used at the proposed monitoring sites, and the ARMs will be [operated
consistently](../Part%2058%20Reg%20amendments.dot#C2_4_2_1) at \[**the
two sites**\]. Further, the ARM will be operated to provide [hourly
PM](../Part%2058%20Reg%20amendments.dot#C2_4_2_2)~2.5~ data, which will
be aggregated into daily 24-hour average PM~2.5~ concentration
measurements.

2.4 The candidate ARM utilizes \[**the louvered PM~10~ inlet specified
for the PM~2.5~ FRM in 40 CFR 50, Appendix L, Figures L-2 through L-19
also the BGI VSCC™ Very Sharp Cut Cyclone PM~2.5~ particle size
separator, which is also specified as an alternative separator for the
PM~2.5~ FRM in 40 CFR 50, Appendix L (revised December 18, 2006),
Section 7.3.4.4**\]. \[[Section
2.4.2.3](../Part%2058%20Reg%20amendments.dot#C2_4_2_3)\]

2.5 The candidate ARM is fully amenable to flow rate auditing, and
appropriate flow auditing procedures for the method have been developed
and are described in Attachment 2, along with a recommended audit
frequency as specified in Part 58, Appendix A. \[[Section
2.4.2.4](../Part%2058%20Reg%20amendments.dot#C2_4_2_4)\]

2.6 The data transformations that will be used for the ARM monitoring
data at the proposed ARM monitoring sites, as described in Attachment 3,
are fully described in \[**an addendum to this Agency's Quality
Assurance Project Plan (QAPP)**\]. \[**The transformations will be
applied to the raw hourly reading obtained from the ARMs via electronic
transmission, and both the raw and transformed readings will be stored
by the DEM to allow for the possibility of correction in the event that
an error is later discovered in the application of the
transformation**\]. \[[Section
2.4.2.5](../Part%2058%20Reg%20amendments.dot#C2_4_2_5)\]

2.7 As required, special procedures have been developed for assessing
the precision and accuracy of PM~2.5~ measurements obtained with the ARM
at the proposed sites, and these procedures will be implemented at the
ARM monitoring sites. The assessment procedures are described in
[Attachment 3](#Atach3) and are patterned after those for similar type
automated PM methods given in Appendix A of Part 58, with [generally the
same frequencies and
calculation](../Part%2058%20Reg%20amendments.dot#C2_4_4). \[[Section
2.4.3](../Part%2058%20Reg%20amendments.dot#C2_4_3)\]

[]{#Sec3 .anchor}3. Description of the Field FRM Comparison Test (Part
53, [Subpart C](../Part%2053%20Reg%20amendments.dot#Sec53C))

3.1 \[**The Model XYZ-123 PM~2.5~ Monitor**\] [was
tested](../Part%2058%20Reg%20amendments.dot#C2_4_1) for
[comparability](../Part%2053%20Reg%20amendments.dot#Compareability) to
the PM~2.5~ reference method at \[**three (for first ARM application),
or two (for all others)**\] the [monitoring
sites](../Part%2058%20Reg%20amendments.dot#C2_4_1_1) proposed for use of
this ARM. The test site location and the other site location where the
ARM will be used are identified and described in \[[Attachment
1](#Atach1)\], along with pertinent information, data, and a narrative
summary to describe the nature and characteristics of the site.
\[[Sections 2.4.1](../Part%2058%20Reg%20amendments.dot#C2_4_1),
[2.4.1.1](../Part%2058%20Reg%20amendments.dot#C2_4_1_1)\]

3.2 The FRM samplers were installed, calibrated, and subsequently
operated in accordance with 40 CFR Part 50, Appendix L, with its
manufacturer's operation and instruction manual, and with applicable
portions of "[Quality Assurance Document
2.12](../Part%2053%20Reg%20amendments.dot#QA212)." The \[**Model XYZ-123
PM~2.5~ Monitor**\] were setup, calibrated, and operated in accordance
with the \[**Model XYZ-123 Operation and Instruction Manual (configured
for PM~2.5~)**\], a copy of which is included in this application as
[Attachment 6](#Atach6).

3.3 Information regarding the calibration of the FRM sampler and the
candidate ARM, the calibration data, and the calibration standards used
in calibrating the test instruments is contained in [Attachment
4](#Atach4).

3.4 The comparability tests at the test site were conducted over [a one
year](../Part%2058%20Reg%20amendments.dot#C2_4_1_2) period from
\[**March, 2007 to February, 2008**\] with at least 20 valid data points
per season, as required and as shown in the test data presented in
[Attachment 5](#Atach5). \[[Section
2.4.1.2](../Part%2058%20Reg%20amendments.dot#C2_4_1_2)\] \[[Section
2.4.1.6](../Part%2058%20Reg%20amendments.dot#C2_4_1_6)\]

3.5 **Since only one candidate ARM monitor was used in the comparability
tests, no precision could be determined for the candidate method from
the test data. However, QA data obtained from AQS for other monitoring
sites where the candidate method has been operated were used to estimate
precision for the candidate ARM. The same data transformations proposed
for this candidate ARM were applied to these AQS data, and the
procedures and formulas of [Subpart C, section
53.35(f)](../Part%2053%20Reg%20amendments.dot#Prec) were used in
determining the method precision. The precision calculations are
presented in Attachment 5 in the form of a spreadsheet. The precision
thus determined met the [Part 53, Subpart C requirements for candidate
method precision](../Part%2053%20Reg%20amendments.dot#PrecSpec).**
\[[Section 2.4.1.4](../Part%2058%20Reg%20amendments.dot#C2_4_1_4)\]

3.6 As noted in Section 2 above, data transformation of the data from
the candidate ARM are proposed to be used for the monitoring data
obtained at the three proposed monitoring sites, and the data
transformation algorithms are intended as an integral part of the
candidate ARM. Details of the data transformation are presented in
Attachment 3. \[[Section
2.4.1.7](../Part%2058%20Reg%20amendments.dot#C2_4_1_7)\]

4\. Field Comparison Test Data and Test Calculations

4.1 During the full-year field comparison, the ARM operated
continuously, and the FRM sampler was operated \[**every 3rd day. This
resulted in 122 pairs of corresponding ARM and FRM measurements, with at
least 30 in each season of the year.** Therefore, the test data met the
minimum valid data requirements of [Section
2.4.1.5](../Part%2058%20Reg%20amendments.dot#C2_4_1_5), and no data were
excluded because the FRM measurement was [less than 3
μg/m](../Part%2058%20Reg%20amendments.dot#C2_4_1_6)^3^.

4.2 The FRM sampler was operated on the standard midnight-to-midnight,
every-3^rd^-day schedule used at other monitoring sites in the DEM
PM~2.5~ monitoring network. FRM filters were retrieved within the
required filter retrieval period after each sample day, stored and
transported to the Agency's weigh laboratory in an ice cooler, and kept
in refrigerated storage at the weigh laboratory, where they were weighed
periodically along with routine monitoring network FRM samples obtained
from other sites. Filter handling and other aspects of the FRM test
measurements were in accordance with our standard Agency SOPs and in
compliance with the FRM reference method and in general accordance with
"[Quality Assurance Document
2.12](../Part%2053%20Reg%20amendments.dot#QA212)."

4.3 Collocated measurements were obtained by the candidate ARM in
accordance with the \[**Model XYZ-123 Operation and Instruction Manual
(configured for PM~2.5~) (**[Attachment 6](#Atach6)**)**\] and as
described in [Section 3](#Sec3), above. Monitoring data corresponding to
the days that the FRM operated were selected for the comparison study
and entered into an Excel spreadsheet. Both the hourly averages from the
candidate ARM and the derived 24-hour averages \[**for the days that the
FRM operated**\] are included in the spreadsheet. The appropriate
transformation was applied to these 24-hour averages, and the
transformed data were entered into the EPA-provided spreadsheet, ***PM
ARM test data template.xls,*** along with the corresponding FRM data.
All spreadsheets are included in this request as [Attachment
5](#Atach5). Calculations shown in the spreadsheet indicate that the
candidate ARM met the requirements for additive and multiplicative bias
and for correlation during the test period.

5\. Attachments

[]{#Atach1 .anchor}**\[[Attachment 1](#At1) Test site locations and
descriptive information\]**

***\[This attachment should include details and documentation to
describe the nature of the site location(s) where the ARM(s) will be
used, including maps or other information to identify location(s),
photos or other information to describe the nature and character of each
site, and other information as may be appropriate. The latter may
include a narrative description supplemented with recent, nearby
pollutant measurements, weather and climatic data characteristic of the
site, emission inventory data or a description of predominant pollutant
sources in the area, and the influence of particularly nearby sources or
obstructions.\]***

**\[**[[]{#Atach2 .anchor}**Attachment 2**](#At2) **Quality assurance
procedures for the candidate ARM**

***\[This attachment should describe the quality assurance procedures
that have been developed for the candidate ARM and that will be
implemented when the ARM is used at the proposed sites. These QA
procedures should be similar and generally consistent or parallel with
the QA procedures in Appendix A of 40 CFR Part 58. \]***

[]{#Atach3 .anchor}**\[[Attachment 3](#At3) Data transformations**

***\[This attachment should describe in detail any transformations of
the measurement data obtained from the candidate ARM and show exactly
how the transformed measurements will be determined and implemented,
including any additional site condition monitors or other input data
that is used in or is a part of the transformation*.*\]***

[]{#Atach4 .anchor}**\[[Attachment 4](#At4) Instrument calibrations,
calibration data, calibration standards, and other test
documentation\]**

***\[This attachment should contain the documentation of all pertinent
details of the test setup at the test site, including diagrams or other
information on the arrangement and installation of both the candidate
method instrument(s) and the FRM sampler(s), records of the calibration
of each instrument or sampler, certifications of the calibration
standards used, operational protocols for each test instrument and
sampler, qualifications of the instrument operator(s), and full details
and explanation of any malfunctions, service or repair requirements,
unusual circumstances or occurrences, or any events that may have an
effect on the test data obtained and what such effect might be.\]***

**\[**[[]{#Atach5 .anchor}**Attachment 5**](#At5) **Comparability test
data\]**

> ***\[This attachment should contain the actual test data obtained in
> the comparability tests at each site. The data may be submitted on
> paper, but more typically would be submitted in a spreadsheet or other
> appropriate data format on a CD or other electronic medium. It is
> suggested that the EPA-provided spreadsheet (*PM ARM Test data
> template.xls*) be used to submit the test data, using a separate copy
> of the spreadsheet for each site, as this spreadsheet is
> pre-programmed with a suitable data format and also automatically
> carries out some of the required checks and test calculations using
> the test data. This special spreadsheet may be downloaded from the EPA
> website at ***[www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic](http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic)
> ***(Criteria Pollutants) and may be modified, if necessary, to
> accommodate the nature of the test data***. ***If the EPA spreadsheet
> is not used, the various calculations for each test should be carried
> out by other means and reported along with the test data. All
> calculations should be shown in sufficient detail so that they can be
> verified.\]***

[]{#Atach6 .anchor}**\[[Attachment 6](#At6) Model XYZ-123 Operation and
Instruction Manual (configured for PM~2.5~)**\]

***\[The Operation and Instruction Manual is a very important part of
the candidate ARM. Section*
*[53.4(b)(3)](../Part%2053%20Reg%20amendments.dot#Sec53_4b3) of the Part
53 regulation describes the nature and extent of the content material
that this Manual should include.\]***