25666 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 102 / Friday, May 29, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

p.m. through 9:45 p.m.; on June 10, 

2009 from 9:15 p.m. through 9:45 p.m.; 

on June 17, 2009 from 9:15 p.m. through 

9:45 p.m.; on June 24, 2009 from 9:15 

p.m. through 9:45 p.m. 

(3) Navy Pier Saturday Fireworks; on 

May 23, 2009 from 10 p.m. through 

10:40 p.m.; on May 30, 2009 from 10 

p.m. through 10:40 p.m.; on June 6, 

2009 from 10 p.m. through 10:40 p.m.; 

on June 13, 2009 from 10 p.m. through 

10:40 p.m.; on June 20, 2009 from 10 

p.m. through 10:40 p.m.; on June 27, 

2009 from 10 p.m. through 10:40 p.m. 

All vessels must obtain permission 

from the Captain of the Port or his 

designated representative to enter, move 

within or exit the safety zone. Vessels 

and persons granted permission to enter 

the safety zone shall obey all lawful 

orders or directions of the Captain of the 

Port or a designated representative. 

While within a safety zone, all vessels 

shall operate at the minimum speed 

necessary to maintain a safe course. 

This notice is issued under authority 

of 33 CFR 165.931 Safety Zone, Chicago 

Harbor, Navy Pier Southeast, Chicago, 

IL. (published on June 13, 2007 at 72 FR 

32520) and 5 U.S.C. 552 (a). In addition 

to this notice in the Federal Register, 

the Coast Guard will provide the 

maritime community with advance 

notification of these enforcement 

periods via broadcast Notice to Mariners 

or Local Notice to Mariners. The 

Captain of the Port will also issue a 

Broadcast Notice to Mariners notifying 

the public when enforcement of the 

safety zone established by this section is 

suspended. The Captain of the Port may 

be contacted via U.S. Coast Guard 

Sector Lake Michigan on channel 16, 

VHF–FM. 

Dated: May 14, 2009. 

Bruce C. Jones, 

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the 

Port Lake Michigan. 

[FR Doc. E9–12602 Filed 5–28–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–15–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 60 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2002–0071; FRL–8910–5] 

RIN 2060–AP13 

Update of Continuous Instrumental 

Test Methods; Correction 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule; correction. 

SUMMARY: EPA published a final rule in 

the Federal Register on May 22, 2008, 

that made technical corrections to five 

test methods. Inadvertent printing errors 

were made in the publication. Text 

insertions were misplaced, duplicate 

insertions were made, and the definition 

for system bias was inadvertently 

revised. The purpose of this action is to 

correct these errors. 

DATES: This correction is effective on 

June 29, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Foston Curtis, Air Quality Assessment 

Division, Office of Air Quality Planning 

and Standards (E143–02), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 

27711; telephone number (919) 541– 

1063; fax number (919) 541–0516; email address: curtis.foston@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Summary of Amendment 

EPA promulgated revisions to 

continuous instrumental test methods 

on May 22, 2008, where a number of 

technical amendments were made to 

five test methods. Several of the 

revisions were added to the text in the 

wrong places and in some cases 

duplicate insertions were made. The 

definition for system bias was also 

inadvertently revised. This action 

corrects those publication errors. 

Section 553 of the Administrative 

Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 

553(b)(3)(B), provides that, when an 

Agency for good cause finds that notice 

and public procedure are impracticable, 

unnecessary, or contrary to the public 

interest, the Agency may issue a rule 

without providing notice and an 

opportunity for public comment. We 

have determined that there is good 

cause for making this technical 

correction final without prior proposal 

and opportunity for comment because 

only simple publication errors are being 

corrected that do not substantially 

change the Agency actions taken in the 

final rule. Thus, notice and public 

procedure are unnecessary. We find that 

this constitutes good cause under 5 

U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B). (See also the final 

sentence of section 307(d)(1) of the 

Clean Air Act (CAA), 42 U.S.C. 

307(d)(1), indicating that the good cause 

provisions in subsection 553(b) of the 

APA continue to apply to this type of 

rulemaking under section 307(d) of the 

CAA. 

II. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under Executive Order 12866, 

Regulatory Planning and Review (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993), this action is 

not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ and 

is therefore not subject to review by the 

Office of Management and Budget. This 

action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined 

by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). The technical 

corrections do not impose an 

information collection burden under the 

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction 

Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). 

Because EPA has made a ‘‘good 

cause’’ finding that this action is not 

subject to notice and comment 

requirements under the APA or any 

other statute (see Section II), it is not 

subject to the regulatory flexibility 

provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act [5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.], or to sections 

202 and 205 of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) [Pub. L. 

104–4]. In addition, this action does not 

significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments or impose a significant 

intergovernmental mandate, as 

described in sections 203 and 204 of the 

UMRA. 

This action also does not significantly 

or uniquely affect the communities of 

Tribal governments, as specified by 

Executive Order 13175, Consultation 

and Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments (65 FR 67249, November 

9, 2000). This correction also is not 

subject to Executive Order 13045, 

Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health and Safety Risks 

(62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) because 

it is not economically significant. 

This technical correction does not 

involve changes to the technical 

standards related to test methods or 

monitoring requirements; thus, the 

requirements of section 12(d) of the 

National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 

272) do not apply. 

This technical correction also does 

not involve special consideration of 

environmental justice-related issues as 

required by Executive Order 12898, 

Federal Actions to Address 

Environmental Justice in Minority 

Populations and Low-Income 

Populations (59 FR 7629, February 16, 

1994). 

The Congressional Review Act (CRA), 

5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the 

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 

generally provides that before a rule 

may take effect, the Agency 

promulgating the rule must submit a 

rule report, which includes a copy of 

the rule, to each House of the Congress 

and to the Comptroller General of the 

U.S. Section 808 allows the issuing 

Agency to make a rule effective sooner 

than otherwise provided by the CRA if 

the Agency makes a good cause finding 

that notice and public procedure is 

impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary 

to the public interest. This 


tjames on PRODPC75 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 102 / Friday, May 29, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 25667 

determination must be supported by a 

brief statement. 5 U.S.C. 808(2). As 

stated previously, EPA has made such a 

good cause finding, including the 

reasons therefor, and established an 

effective date of June 29, 2009. The EPA 

will submit a report containing this final 

action and other required information to 

the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 

Representatives, and the Comptroller 

General of the United States prior to 

publication of this action in the Federal 

Register. This action is not a ‘‘major 

rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). The 

final rule will be effective June 29, 2009. 

This technical correction does not 

have substantial direct effects on the 

States, or on the relationship between 

the national Government and the States, 

or on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of Government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132, Federalism (64 

FR 43255, August 10, 1999). 

This technical correction is not 

subject to Executive Order 13211, 

Actions Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use (66 FR 28355, May 

22, 2001) because this action is not a 

significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 60 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedures, 

Air pollution control, Intergovernmental 

relations, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Dated: May 22, 2009. 

Lisa P. Jackson, 

Administrator. 

■ For the reasons set out in the 

preamble, title 40, chapter I of the Code 

of Federal Regulations is amended as 

follows: 

PART 60—STANDARDS OF 

PERFORMANCE FOR NEW 

STATIONARY SOURCES 

■ 1. The authority citation for Part 60 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 23 U.S.C. 101; 42 U.S.C. 7401– 

7671q. 

Appendix A–2— [Amended] 

■ 2. Method 3A is amended by revising 

Section 7.1 to read as follows: 

Method 3A—Determination of Oxygen 

and Carbon Dioxide Concentrations in 

Emissions From Stationary Sources 

(Instrumental Analyzer Procedure) 

* * * * * 

7.1 Calibration Gas. What 

calibration gasses do I need? Refer to 

Section 7.1 of Method 7E for the 

calibration gas requirements. Example 

calibration gas mixtures are listed 

below. Precleaned or scrubbed air may 

be used for the O2 high-calibration gas 

provided it does not contain other gases 

that interfere with the O2 measurement. 

(a) CO2 in nitrogen (N2). 

(b) CO2 in air. 

(c) CO2/SO2 gas mixture in N2. 

(d) O2/SO2 gas mixture in N2. 

(e) O2/CO2/SO2 gas mixture in N2. 

(f) CO2/NOX gas mixture in N2. 

(g) CO2/SO2/NOX gas mixture in N2. 

The tests for analyzer calibration error 

and system bias require high-, mid-, and 

low-level gases. 

* * * * * 

Appendix A–4— [Amended] 

■ 3. Method 7E is amended as follows: 

■ a. By revising section 3.12. 

■ b. By revising section 3.16. 

■ c. By revising section 7.1. 

■ d. By revising section 8.1.2. 

■ e. By revising section 8.2.1. 

■ f. By revising section 8.2.4. 

■ g. By revising the Summary Table of 

QA/QC in Section 9.0. 

■ h. By revising section 12.11. 

■ i. By revising section 16.2.2. 

Method 7E—Determination of Nitrogen 

Oxides Emissions From Stationary 

Sources (Instrumental Analyzer 

Procedure) 

* * * * * 

3.12 Low-Concentration Analyzer 

means any analyzer that operates with 

a calibration span of 20 ppm NOX or 

lower. Each analyzer model used 

routinely to measure low NOX

concentrations must pass a 

manufacturer’s stability test (MST). An 

MST subjects the analyzer to a range of 

line voltages and temperatures that 

reflect potential field conditions to 

demonstrate its stability following 

procedures similar to those provided in 

40 CFR 53.23. Ambient-level analyzers 

are exempt from the MST requirements 

of Section 16.3. A copy of this 

information must be included in each 

test report. Table 7E–5 lists the criteria 

to be met. 

* * * * * 

3.16 System Bias means the 

difference between a calibration gas 

measured in direct calibration mode and 

in system calibration mode. System bias 

is determined before and after each run 

at the low- and mid- or highconcentration levels. For dilution-type 

systems, pre- and post-run system 

calibration error is measured rather than 

system bias. 

* * * * * 

7.1 Calibration Gas. What 

calibration gases do I need? Your 

calibration gas must be NO in N2 and 

certified (or recertified) within an 

uncertainty of 2.0 percent in accordance 

with ‘‘EPA Traceability Protocol for 

Assay and Certification of Gaseous 

Calibration Standards’’ September 1997, 

as amended August 25, 1999, EPA–600/ 

R–97/121. Blended gases meeting the 

Traceability Protocol are allowed if the 

additional gas components are shown 

not to interfere with the analysis. If a 

zero gas is used for the low-level gas, it 

must meet the requirements under the 

definition for ‘‘zero air material’’ in 40 

CFR 72.2. The calibration gas must not 

be used after its expiration date. Except 

for applications under part 75 of this 

chapter, it is acceptable to prepare 

calibration gas mixtures from EPA 

Traceability Protocol gases in 

accordance with Method 205 in 

appendix M to part 51 of this chapter. 

For part 75 applications, the use of 

Method 205 is subject to the approval of 

the Administrator. The goal and 

recommendation for selecting 

calibration gases is to bracket the 

sample concentrations. The following 

calibration gas concentrations are 

required: 

* * * * * 

8.1.2 Determination of Stratification. 

Perform a stratification test at each test 

site to determine the appropriate 

number of sample traverse points. If 

testing for multiple pollutants or 

diluents at the same site, a stratification 

test using only one pollutant or diluent 

satisfies this requirement. A 

stratification test is not required for 

small stacks that are less than 4 inches 

in diameter. To test for stratification, 

use a probe of appropriate length to 

measure the NOX (or pollutant of 

interest) concentration at twelve 

traverse points located according to 

Table 1–1 or Table 1–2 of Method 1. 

Alternatively, you may measure at three 

points on a line passing through the 

centroidal area. Space the three points 

at 16.7, 50.0, and 83.3 percent of the 

measurement line. Sample for a 

minimum of twice the system response 

time (see Section 8.2.6) at each traverse 

point. Calculate the individual point 

and mean NOX concentrations. If the 

concentration at each traverse point 

differs from the mean concentration for 

all traverse points by no more than: (a) 

± 5.0 percent of the mean concentration; 

or (b) ± 0.5 ppm (whichever is less 

restrictive), the gas stream is considered 

unstratified and you may collect 

samples from a single point that most 

closely matches the mean. If the 5.0 

percent or 0.5 ppm criterion is not met, 

but the concentration at each traverse 

point differs from the mean 


tjames on PRODPC75 with RULES
25668 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 102 / Friday, May 29, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

concentration for all traverse points by 

no more than: (a) ± 10.0 percent of the 

mean; or (b) ± 1.0 ppm (whichever is 

less restrictive), the gas stream is 

considered to be minimally stratified, 

and you may take samples from three 

points. Space the three points at 16.7, 

50.0, and 83.3 percent of the 

measurement line. Alternatively, if a 

twelve-point stratification test was 

performed and the emissions were 

shown to be minimally stratified (all 

points within ± 10.0 percent of their 

mean or within ± 1.0 ppm), and if the 

stack diameter (or equivalent diameter, 

for a rectangular stack or duct) is greater 

than 2.4 meters (7.8 ft), then you may 

use 3-point sampling and locate the 

three points along the measurement line 

exhibiting the highest average 

concentration during the stratification 

test, at 0.4, 1.0 and 2.0 meters from the 

stack or duct wall. If the gas stream is 

found to be stratified because the 10.0 

percent or 1.0 ppm criterion for a 3- 

point test is not met, locate twelve 

traverse points for the test in accordance 

with Table 1–1 or Table 1–2 of Method 

1. 

* * * * * 

8.2.1 Calibration Gas Verification. 

How must I verify the concentrations of 

my calibration gases? Obtain a 

certificate from the gas manufacturer 

documenting the quality of the gas. 

Confirm that the manufacturer 

certification is complete and current. 

Ensure that your calibration gas 

certifications have not expired. This 

documentation should be available onsite for inspection. To the extent 

practicable, select a high-level gas 

concentration that will result in the 

measured emissions being between 20 

and 100 percent of the calibration span. 

* * * * * 

8.2.4 NO2 to NO Conversion 

Efficiency Test. Before or after each field 

test, you must conduct an NO2 to NO 

conversion efficiency test if your system 

converts NO2 to NO before analyzing for 

NOX. You may risk testing multiple 

facilities before performing this test 

provided you pass this test at the 

conclusion of the final facility test. A 

failed final conversion efficiency test in 

this case will invalidate all tests 

performed subsequent to the test in 

which the converter efficiency test was 

passed. Follow the procedures in 

Section 8.2.4.1, or 8.2.4.2. If desired, the 

converter efficiency factor derived from 

this test may be used to correct the test 

results for converter efficiency if the 

NO2 fraction in the measured test gas is 

known. Use Equation 7E–8 in Section 

12.8 for this correction. 

* * * * * 

9.0 Quality Control * * * 

SUMMARY TABLE OF AQ/QC 

Status Process or element QA/QC specification Acceptance criteria Checking frequency 

S ................. Identify Data User ......... Regulatory Agency or other primary end user of 

data.

Before designing test. 

S ................. Analyzer Design ............ Analyzer resolution or 

sensitivity.

< 2.0% of full-scale range .................................... Manufacturer design. 

M ................ Interference gas check Sum of responses ≤ 2.5% of calibration span Alternatively, sum of responses: 

≤ 0.5 ppmv for calibration spans of 5 to 10 ppmv.

≤ 0.2 ppmv for calibration spans < 5 ppmv.

See Table 7E-3.

M ................ Calibration Gases ......... Traceability protocol 

(G1, G2).

Valid certificate required Uncertainty ≤ 2.0% of 

tag value.

M ................ High-level gas ............... Equal to the calibration span ............................... Each test. 

M ................ Mid-level gas ................. 40 to 60% of calibration span .............................. Each test. 

M ................ Low-level gas ................ < 20% of calibration span .................................... Each test. 

S ................. Data Recorder Design .. Data resolution .............. ≤ 0.5% of full-scale range .................................... Manufacturer design. 

S ................. Sample Extraction ......... Probe material .............. SS or quartz if stack > 500° F ............................. East test. 

M ................ Sample Extraction ......... Probe, filter and sample 

line temperature.

For dry-basis analyzers, keep sample above the 

dew point by heating, prior to sample conditioning.

Each run. 

For wet-basis analyzers, keep sample above 

dew point at all times, by heating or dilution.

S ................. Sample Extraction ......... Calibration valve material.SS ......................................................................... Each test. 

S ................. Sample Extraction ......... Sample pump material .. Inert to sample constituents ................................. Each test. 

S ................. Sample Extraction ......... Manifolding material ...... Inert to sample constituents ................................. Each test. 

S ................. Moisture Removal ......... Equipment efficiency ..... < 5% target compound removal ........................... Verified through system 

bias check. 

S ................. Particulate Removal ...... Filter inertness .............. Pass system bias check ....................................... Each bias check. 

M ................ Analyzer & Calibration 

Gas Performance.

Analyzer calibration 

error (of 3-point system calibration error 

for dilution systems).

Within ± 2.0 percent of the calibration span of 

the analyzer for the low-, mid-, and high-level 

calibration gases.

Before initial run and 

after a failed system 

bias test or drift test. 

Alternative specification: ≤ 0.5 ppmv absolute difference.

M ................ System Performance .... System bias (or preand post-run 2-point 

system calibration 

error for dilution (Systems).

Within ± 5.0% of the analyzer calibration span 

for low-sacle and upscale calibration gases.

Before and after each 

run. 

Alternative specification: ≤ 0.5 ppmv absolute difference.

M ................ System Performance .... System response time .. Determines minimum sampling time per point ..... During initial sampling 

system bias test. 

M ................ System Performance .... Drift ............................... ≤ 3.0% of calibration span for low-level and midor high-level gases.After each test run. 


tjames on PRODPC75 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 102 / Friday, May 29, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 25669 

SUMMARY TABLE OF AQ/QC—Continued 

Status Process or element QA/QC specification Acceptance criteria Checking frequency 

Alternative specification: ≤ 0.5 ppmv absolute difference.

M ................ System Performance .... NO2-NO conversion efficiency.≥ 90% of certified test gas concentration ............. Before or after each 

test. 

M ................ System Performance .... Purge time .................... ≥ 2 times system response time .......................... Before starting the first 

run and when probe 

is removed from and 

re-inserted into the 

stack. 

M ................ System Performance .... Minimum sample time at 

each point.

Two times the system response time .................. Each sample point. 

M ................ System Performance .... Stable sample flow rate 

(surrogate for maintaining system response time).

Within 10% of flow rate established during system response time check.Each run. 

M ................ Sample Point Selection Stratification test ........... All points within: Prior to first run. 

± 5% of mean for 1-point sampling.

± 10% of mean for 3-point.

Alternatively, all points within: 

± 0.5 ppm of mean for 1-point sampling.

± 1.0 ppm of mean for 3-point sampling.

A ................. Multiple sample points 

simultaneously.

No. of openings in 

probe.

Multi-hole probe with verifiable constant flow 

through all holes within 10% of mean flow rate 

(requires Administrative approval for Part 75).

Each run. 

M ................ Data Recording ............. Frequency ..................... ≤ 1 minute average .............................................. During run. 

S ................. Data Parameters ........... Sample concentration 

range.

All 1-minute averages within calibration span ..... Each run. 

M ................ Date Parameters ........... Average concentration 

for the run.

Run average ≤ calibration span ........................... Each run. 

S = Suggest. 

M = Mandatory. 

A = Alternative. 

Agency. 

* * * * * 

12.11 Calculated Spike Gas 

Concentration and Spike Recovery for 

the Example Alternative Dynamic 

Spiking Procedure in Section 16.1.3. 

Use Equation 7E–11 to determine the 

calculated spike gas concentration. Use 

Equation 7E–12 to calculate the spike 

recovery. 

C

C Q

Q Calc

Spike Spike

Total

= ( )( ) Eq. 7E-11

R

DF C C C

C

ss native native

Spike

= ( ) − +× 100 Eq. 7E-12

* * * * * 

16.2.2 Tedlar Bag Procedure. 

Perform the analyzer calibration error 

test to document the calibration (both 

NO and NOX modes, as applicable). Fill 

a Tedlar bag approximately half full 

with either ambient air, pure oxygen, or 

an oxygen standard gas with at least 

19.5 percent by volume oxygen content. 

Fill the remainder of the bag with midto high-level NO in N2 (or other 

appropriate concentration) calibration 

gas. (Note that the concentration of the 

NO standard should be sufficiently high 

enough for the diluted concentration to 

be easily and accurately measured on 

the scale used. The size of the bag 

should be large enough to accommodate 

the procedure and time required.) 

(1) Immediately attach the bag to the 

inlet of the NOX analyzer (or external 

converter if used). In the case of a 

dilution-system, introduce the gas at a 

point upstream of the dilution assembly. 

Measure the NOX concentration for a 

period of 30 minutes. If the NOX

concentration drops more than 2 

percent absolute from the peak value 

observed, then the NO2 converter has 

failed to meet the criteria of this test. 

Take corrective action. The highest NOX

value observed is considered to be 

NOXPeak. The final NOX value observed 

is considered to be NOXfinal. 

(2) [Reserved] 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. E9–12565 Filed 5–28–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 73 

[DA 09–413; MB Docket No. 08–68; RM– 

11421] 

Radio Broadcasting Services; Beatty 

and Goldfield, NV 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Audio Division grants a 

Petition for Rule Making issued at the 

request of Keilly Miller, proposing the 

allotments of Channel 259A at Beatty, 

Nevada, and Channel 262C1 at 

Goldfield, Nevada, as first local FM 

transmission services. A staff 


tjames on PRODPC75 with RULESER29MY09.008</MATH> ER29MY09.009</MATH>