66388 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 214 / Monday, November 5, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

(3) Diversification requirements of 

your liquidity reserve portfolio; 

(4) Maturity limits and credit quality 

standards for non-program investments 

used to meet the minimum liquidity 

reserve requirement of paragraph (a) of 

this section; 

(5) The minimum and target (or 

optimum) amounts of liquidity that the 

board believes are appropriate for 

Farmer Mac; 

(6) The maximum amount of nonprogram investments that can be held 

for meeting Farmer Mac’s liquidity 

needs, as expressed as a percentage of 

program assets and program obligations; 

(7) Exception parameters and post 

approvals needed; 

(8) Delegations of authority; and 

(9) Reporting requirements. 

(f) Liquidity reserve reporting— 

periodic reporting requirements. At least 

quarterly, Farmer Mac’s management 

must report to the Corporation’s board 

of directors or a designated 

subcommittee of the board describing, at 

a minimum, liquidity reserve 

compliance with the Corporation’s 

policy and this section. Any deviations 

from the board’s liquidity reserve policy 

(other than requirements specified in 

§ 652.20(e)(5)) must be specifically 

identified in the report and approved by 

the board of directors. 

(g) Liquidity reserve reporting— 

special reporting requirements. Farmer 

Mac’s management must immediately 

report to its board of directors any 

noncompliance with board policy 

requirements that are specified in 

§ 652.20(e)(5). Farmer Mac must report, 

in writing, to FCA’s Office of Secondary 

Market Oversight no later than the next 

business day following the discovery of 

any breach of the minimum liquidity 

reserve requirement at § 652.20(a). 

§ 652.40 [Reserved] 

§ 652.45 Temporary regulatory waivers or 

modifications for extraordinary situations. 

Whenever the FCA determines that an 

extraordinary situation exists that 

necessitates a temporary regulatory 

waiver or modification, the FCA may, in 

its sole discretion: 

(a) Modify or waive the minimum 

liquidity reserve requirement in 

§ 652.40 of this subpart; 

(b) Modify the amount, qualities, and 

types of eligible investments that you 

are authorized to hold pursuant to 

§ 652.20 of this subpart; and/or 

(c) Take other actions as deemed 

appropriate. 

Dated: October 25, 2012. 

Dale L. Aultman, 

Secretary, Farm Credit Administration Board. 

[FR Doc. 2012–26805 Filed 11–2–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6705–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R01–OAR–2009–0451; A–1–FRL– 

9748–2] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; New 

Hampshire; Reasonably Available 

Control Technology for the 1997 

8-Hour Ozone Standard 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is approving State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions 

submitted by the State of New 

Hampshire. These revisions consist of a 

demonstration that New Hampshire 

meets the requirements of reasonably 

available control technology for oxides 

of nitrogen and volatile organic 

compounds set forth by the Clean Air 

Act with respect to the 1997 8-hour 

ozone standard, and revisions to 

existing rules controlling these 

pollutants, and source-specific orders 

for fifteen individual sources. This 

action is being taken in accordance with 

the Clean Air Act. 

DATES: This direct final rule will be 

effective January 4, 2013, unless EPA 

receives adverse comments by 

December 5, 2012. If adverse comments 

are received, EPA will publish a timely 

withdrawal of the direct final rule in the 

Federal Register informing the public 

that the rule will not take effect. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by the Docket ID Number 

EPA–R01–OAR–2009–0451 by one of 

the following methods: 

1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. Email: arnold.anne@epa.gov 

3. Fax: (617) 918–0047. 

4. Mail: ‘‘Docket Identification 

Number EPA–R01–OAR–2009–0451,’’ 

Anne Arnold, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, EPA New England 

Regional Office, 5 Post Office Square, 

Suite 100 (mail code: OEP05–2), Boston, 

MA 02109–3912. 

5. Hand Delivery or Courier. Deliver 

your comments to: Anne Arnold, 

Manager, Air Quality Planning Unit, 

Office of Ecosystem Protection, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, EPA 

New England Regional Office, 5 Post 

Office Square, 5th Floor, Boston, MA 

02109–3912. Such deliveries are only 

accepted during the Regional Office’s 

normal hours of operation. The Regional 

Office’s official hours of business are 

Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, 

excluding legal holidays. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R01–OAR–2009– 

0451. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit through 

www.regulations.gov, or email, 

information that you consider to be CBI 

or otherwise protected. The 

www.regulations.gov Web site is an 

‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an email comment directly 

to EPA without going through 

www.regulations.gov your email address 

will be automatically captured and 

included as part of the comment that is 

placed in the public docket and made 

available on the Internet. If you submit 

an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. 

Docket: All documents in the 

electronic docket are listed in the 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

is not placed on the Internet and will be 

publicly available only in hard copy 

form. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in www.regulations.gov or 

in hard copy at Office of Ecosystem 

Protection, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, EPA New England 

Regional Office, 5 Post Office Square, 

5th Floor, Boston, MA. EPA requests 

that if at all possible, you contact the 

WREIER-AVILES on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 214 / Monday, November 5, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 66389 

1New Hampshire’s submittal is for the 1997 8- 

hour ozone standard and does not address the 0.075 

ppm 2008 ozone standard. 

contact listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section to 

schedule your inspection. The Regional 

Office’s official hours of business are 

Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, 

excluding legal holidays. 

In addition, copies of the state 

submittal are also available for public 

inspection during normal business 

hours, by appointment, at the State Air 

Agency, as follows: Air Resources 

Division, Department of Environmental 

Services, 6 Hazen Drive, P.O. Box 95, 

Concord, NH 03302–0095. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bob 

McConnell, Air Quality Planning Unit, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

EPA New England Regional Office, 5 

Post Office Square, Suite 100 (mail 

code: OEP05–2), Boston, MA 02109– 

3912, telephone number (617) 918– 

1046, fax number (617) 918–0046, email 

mcconnell.robert@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document whenever 

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean 

EPA. Organization of this document. 

The following outline is provided to aid 

in locating information in this preamble. 

I. Background and Purpose 

II. Summary of New Hampshire’s SIP 

Revisions 

III. Evaluation of New Hampshire’s SIP 

Submittals 

A. Evaluation of RACT Certification 

B. Evaluation of Revised New Hampshire 

Rules 

1. Revisions to VOC Rules and Single 

Source VOC RACT Orders 

2. Revisions to NOX Rules and Single 

Source NOX RACT Orders 

3. Revisions to Testing and Monitoring 

Procedures 

4. Revisions to Recordkeeping and 

Reporting Requirements 

IV. Final Action 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background and Purpose 

In 1997, EPA revised the health-based 

national ambient air quality standard 

(NAAQS) for ozone, setting it at 0.08 

parts per million (ppm) averaged over 

an 8-hour time frame. EPA set the 8- 

hour ozone standard based on scientific 

evidence demonstrating that ozone 

causes adverse health effects at lower 

ozone concentrations and over longer 

periods of time than was understood 

when the pre-existing one-hour ozone 

standard was set. EPA determined that 

the 8-hour standard would be more 

protective of human health, especially 

with regard to children and adults who 

are active outdoors, and individuals 

with a pre-existing respiratory disease 

such as asthma. 

On April 30, 2004 (69 FR 23951), EPA 

designated portions of New Hampshire 

located in the southern part of the state 

as nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone standard. These areas were 

classified as moderate, and are located 

within portions of Hillsborough, 

Merrimack, Rockingham, and Strafford 

counties. See 40 CFR 81.330. The use of 

reasonably available control technology 

(RACT) by certain stationary sources is 

specified by sections 172(c)(1) and 

182(b)(2) of the Clean Air Act (CAA, or 

‘‘the Act’’) in nonattainment areas 

classified as moderate or higher. 

Additionally, section 184(b)(1)(B) of the 

Act requires RACT controls in states 

located in the ozone transport region 

(OTR). Although most of central and 

northern New Hampshire were not 

designated nonattainment for the 1997 

8-hour ozone standard, all parts of the 

state are within the OTR and therefore 

all parts of New Hampshire are required 

to implement RACT. 

Specifically, these areas are required 

to implement RACT on all sources 

covered by a Control Techniques 

Guideline (CTG) document and on all 

major sources of volatile organic 

compounds (VOCs) and nitrogen oxide 

(NOX) emissions. A CTG is a document 

issued by EPA which establishes a 

‘‘presumptive norm’’ for RACT for a 

specific VOC source category. A similar 

set of documents exists for NOX control 

requirements; these are referred to as 

Alternative Control Techniques (ACT) 

documents. States are required to 

submit rules or negative declarations for 

CTG source categories, but not for 

sources in ACT categories although 

RACT must be imposed on major 

sources of NOX, and some of those 

major sources may be within a sector 

covered by an ACT document. 

On November 29, 2005, EPA 

published a final rule in the Federal 

Register that outlined requirements for 

areas found to be in nonattainment of 

the 1997 8-hour ozone standard (see 70 

FR 71612). This rule, referred to as the 

‘‘Phase 2 Implementation rule,’’ 

contains a description of what EPA’s 

expectations are for states with RACT 

obligations. The Phase 2 

Implementation rule indicated that 

states could meet RACT either through 

a certification that previously adopted 

RACT controls in its SIP-approved by 

EPA under the one-hour ozone NAAQS 

represent adequate RACT control levels 

for 8-hour attainment planning 

purposes, or through the establishment 

of new or more stringent requirements 

that represent RACT control levels. 

On January 28, 2008, the State of New 

Hampshire submitted a formal revision 

to its State Implementation Plan (SIP). 

The SIP revision consisted of 

information documenting how the State 

complied with RACT requirements for 

the 1997 8-hour ozone standard.1

Several of the source-specific RACT 

orders relied on in New Hampshire’s 

January 28, 2008 submittal have been 

updated since that time as noted in 

section III of this action. 

On October 5, 2006, EPA issued four 

new CTGs which states were required to 

address by October 5, 2007 (71 FR 

58745). Also, on October 9, 2007, EPA 

issued three more CTGs which states 

were required to address by October 9, 

2008 (72 FR 57215). Furthermore, on 

October 7, 2008, EPA issued four 

additional CTGs which states were 

required to address by October 7, 2009 

(73 FR 58841). New Hampshire’s 

January 28, 2008 SIP revision and 

today’s action do not address the state’s 

obligations with regard to EPA’s 2006, 

2007, and 2008 CTGs. EPA intends to 

address those CTG obligations in a 

separate action in the near future. 

II. Summary of New Hampshire’s SIP 

Revisions 

On January 28, 2008, New Hampshire 

submitted a demonstration that its 

regulatory framework for stationary 

sources met the criteria for RACT as 

defined in EPA’s Phase 2 

Implementation rule. The state held a 

public hearing on its RACT certification 

finding on October 20, 2006. New 

Hampshire’s RACT submittal notes that 

the State’s former status as a 

nonattainment area for the one-hour 

ozone standard resulted in the adoption 

of stringent controls for sources of VOC 

and NOX including RACT level controls. 

Therefore, much of New Hampshire’s 

submittal consists of a review of RACT 

controls adopted under the one hour 

ozone standard and an evaluation of 

whether those previously adopted 

controls still represent RACT. 

The state’s submittal identifies the 

specific control measures that have been 

previously adopted to control emissions 

from sources of VOC and NOX

emissions, and also describes updates 

made to existing rules to strengthen 

them so that they will continue to 

represent RACT. Additionally, section 

3.3 of New Hampshire’s RACT submittal 

identifies the CTG categories for which 

facilities do not exist within the state, 

and makes a negative declaration for 

these categories. The CTG categories for 

which New Hampshire makes a negative 

declaration are as follows: 

1. Aerospace coatings 

2. Organic waste process vents 

3. Polystyrene foam manufacturing 

4. Industrial wastewater 

WREIER-AVILES on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES

66390 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 214 / Monday, November 5, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

5. Refinery vacuum producing systems, 

wastewater separators, and process 

unit turnarounds 

6. Surface coating of large appliances 

7. Factory surface coating of flat wood 

paneling 

8. VOC leaks from petroleum refinery 

equipment 

9. Manufacture of synthesized 

pharmaceutical products 

10. Manufacture of pneumatic rubber 

tires 

11. Large petroleum dry cleaners 

12. Manufacture of high density 

polyethylene, polypropylene, and 

polystyrene resins 

13. VOC equipment leaks from natural 

gas/gasoline processing plants 

14. VOC fugitive emissions from 

synthetic organic chemical polymer 

and resin equipment 

15. VOC emissions from air oxidation 

processes in synthetic organic 

chemical mfg. industry 

16. Synthetic organic chemical mfg. 

industry distillation and reactor 

processes 

17. Shipbuilding and ship repair 

operations 

Regarding items 6 and 7 above, we 

note that New Hampshire’s negative 

declarations for these sectors is with 

regard to the CTG’s issued in 1977 for 

large appliances (EPA–450/2–77–034, 

1977/12) and in 1978 for flat wood 

paneling (EPA–450/2–78–032, 1978/06). 

EPA updated the flat wood paneling 

CTG in 2006, and the large appliance 

surface coating CTG in 2007, and New 

Hampshire subsequently addressed 

these updated CTGs. However, in this 

rulemaking we are only acting on New 

Hampshire’s negative declarations for 

the 1977 and 1978 versions of these 

CTGs. 

Appendix A of New Hampshire’s 

submittal contains a summary of 

information for each of EPA’s CTG 

categories, and identifies the specific 

state rule, where relevant, that is in 

place, the effective date for each rule, 

and the date that EPA approved the rule 

into the New Hampshire SIP. Appendix 

B identifies the major VOC and NOX

sources in the state that are not covered 

by an ACT or CTG document, but are 

subject to RACT via source-specific 

RACT orders issued by the New 

Hampshire Department of 

Environmental Services (NH–DES). The 

state has issued source-specific orders 

containing control requirements for 

these facilities. The table within 

Appendix B identifies the effective date 

for each RACT order, and an indication 

of whether or not EPA had approved the 

order into the New Hampshire SIP. 

Table 1 below contains a list of the 

single source RACT orders that New 

Hampshire has adopted and submitted 

to EPA, but that we had not yet acted 

on as of the date of the state’s RACT 

certification submittal. We note that the 

table within Appendix B of New 

Hampshire’s submittal did not include 

an effective date for the order for 

Newington Energy LLC, as that order 

had not yet been issued when the state 

held the public hearing on its RACT 

certification in 2006. That order was 

subsequently issued by NH–DES with 

an effective date of June 20, 2007. 

TABLE 1—RACT ORDERS NOT YET APPROVED INTO THE NH SIP 

Company name Pollutant Final RACT order 

effective date 

Concord Litho Group, Inc. ...................................................................... VOC ............................................... 9/17/2007. 

Hitchiner Manufacturing, Milford ............................................................. VOC ............................................... 6/20/2002. 

Hutchinson Sealing Systems, Inc. .......................................................... VOC ............................................... 8/8/2002 (Updated 3/23/2012). 

Kalwall Corp.—Manchester .................................................................... VOC ............................................... 11/20/2001. 

Mectrol Corporation ................................................................................ VOC ............................................... 6/16/2003 (Withdrawn 7/2/2009). 

Metal Works, Inc. .................................................................................... VOC ............................................... 12/22/2004. 

Parker Hannifin Corporation, Chomerics ................................................ VOC ............................................... 7/17/2002. 

Polyonics ................................................................................................. VOC ............................................... 12/28/2007. 

Sturm, Ruger & Company ...................................................................... VOC ............................................... 10/13/2003. 

Textile Tapes Corp. (amended orders) .................................................. VOC ............................................... 4/19/2002; 8/10/2007. 

TFX Medical, Inc. .................................................................................... VOC ............................................... 8/7/2007. 

Webster Valve, Inc. ................................................................................ VOC ............................................... 4/20/2007. 

Anheuser Busch ..................................................................................... NOX ................................................ 5/9/2005. 

Newington Energy, LLC .......................................................................... NOX ................................................ 6/20/2007. 

PSNH, Schiller Station ............................................................................ NOX ................................................ 8/4/2006. 

Waste Management of NH ..................................................................... NOX ................................................ 8/26/2002. 

We provide a brief summary of each 

of the orders in Table 1, and identify the 

action we are taking on them in Section 

III.B of this direct final rule. 

New Hampshire’s certification notes 

that the RACT requirements apply to 

sources that have the potential to emit 

50 tons per year or more of NOX, and 

to sources with potential VOC emissions 

of between 10 and 50 tons per year or 

greater depending on the source 

category. Figures one and two of the 

state’s submittal document the 

significant reduction in emissions that 

has occurred at sources subject to RACT 

in the state. NOX and VOC emissions 

have fallen 77 percent and 59 percent, 

respectively, from stationary point 

sources since the RACT requirements 

contained within the CAA amendments 

of 1990 were promulgated. 

New Hampshire’s submittal notes that 

for the years 2003 through 2005 the state 

did not record any violations of the 

1997 ozone standard, and the state’s 

submittal concludes that tighter NOX

and VOC controls are therefore not 

necessary to bring the area into 

attainment. 

On March 12, 2003, New Hampshire 

submitted revised versions of Env–A 

800, Testing and Monitoring 

Procedures, Env–A 1204, VOC RACT, 

and Env–A 1211, NOX RACT, to EPA 

and requested that these revised rules be 

incorporated into the New Hampshire 

SIP. Additional modifications to each of 

these rules were submitted to EPA as a 

SIP revision request on July 9, 2007. 

On November 14, 2003, New 

Hampshire submitted a revised version 

of Env–A 900, Recordkeeping and 

Reporting Obligations, to EPA as a SIP 

revision request. More recently, on July 

6, 2012, New Hampshire submitted an 

updated, revised version of Env–A 900 

to EPA as a SIP revision request. On 

September 26, 2012, New Hampshire 

withdrew its November 2003 

submission since its July 2012 

submission of a revised version of Env– 

A 900 entirely superseded the earlier 

version of Env–A 900 included in its 

November 2003 submission. 

WREIER-AVILES on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 214 / Monday, November 5, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 66391 

III. Evaluation of New Hampshire’s SIP 

Submittals 

A. Evaluation of RACT Certification 

EPA has evaluated the VOC and NOX

stationary source control regulations 

that New Hampshire cites as meeting 

RACT for the 1997 8-hour standard and 

agrees that the state’s regulations are 

satisfactorily meeting EPA’s RACT 

requirements for purposes of the 1997 8- 

hour ozone standard. EPA previously 

approved these NOX and VOC RACT 

requirements into the New Hampshire 

SIP (See 62 FR 17087, April 9, 1997 for 

NOX; See 63 FR 11600, March 10, 1998 

and 67 FR 48033, July 23, 2002 for 

VOC), and in today’s direct final 

rulemaking we are approving updates to 

several of these rules, and also 

approving single source RACT 

determinations for fifteen major sources 

of VOC and NOX in the state. 

We are determining that these 

regulatory elements and the resulting 

reduction in VOC and NOX emissions 

from sources demonstrate that a RACT 

level of control has been implemented 

in the state. Additionally, we are 

approving the negative declarations 

New Hampshire submitted for the 

source categories identified in Section II 

of this document. 

EPA published a clean data 

determination for New Hampshire’s 

only 8-hour ozone nonattainment area 

in the Federal Register that documents 

that air quality monitoring data in the 

state currently meets EPA’s 1997 ozone 

standard. The determination for the 

Boston-Manchester-Portsmouth 

moderate area was published on March 

18, 2011 (76 FR 14805). The 

improvements in air quality represented 

by this clean data determination were 

brought about, in part, by the RACT 

program implemented by New 

Hampshire. Additional information 

about the revisions to New Hampshire’s 

rules and the single source RACT orders 

we are approving today is contained 

below in section III.B and III.C. 

B. Evaluation of Revised New 

Hampshire Rules 

1. Revisions to VOC Rules and Single 

Source VOC RACT Orders 

On March 12, 2003, New Hampshire 

submitted a revised version of its VOC 

RACT regulation, Env–A 1204, to EPA 

as a SIP revision request. The revised 

version of the VOC RACT rules removed 

provisions relating to petroleum 

refineries, as there are no such facilities 

in the state. Additionally, the state 

removed a section regarding an 

equivalent substitute control technique 

because a similar provision that requires 

submittal to EPA exists and was 

retained in the rule. Several minor 

updates to references and correction of 

errors were also made within the March 

12, 2003 submittal. 

On July 9, 2007, New Hampshire 

submitted additional updates to its VOC 

RACT regulations to EPA as a SIP 

revision request. The July 9, 2007 

submittal consisted primarily of updates 

to the state’s existing requirements for 

solvent metal cleaning that were made 

to match requirements recommended 

within a model rule adopted by the 

Ozone Transport Commission (OTC). 

The primary changes made to the rule 

consisted of adoption of expanded 

applicability of the state’s existing rule 

to include anyone who sells VOC 

containing solvent for use in a cold 

cleaning machine, and a prohibition 

was added preventing certain items 

from being cleaned in a cold cleaning 

machine. In keeping with the model 

rule adopted by the OTC, New 

Hampshire’s rule prohibits the use of 

solvents with a vapor pressure greater 

than 1.0 millimeter of mercury in cold 

cleaning operations. The addition of a 

vapor pressure limit makes the revised 

rule more stringent than the previous 

version of the rule approved by EPA 

into the New Hampshire SIP in 2002 (67 

FR 48033), thus satisfying the antibacksliding requirements of section 

110(l) of the CAA. A number of minor 

updates and renumbering changes were 

also included in the July 9, 2007 

submittal. We are approving New 

Hampshire’s updated VOC RACT 

regulations as submitted to EPA on 

March 12, 2003, and modified on July 

9, 2007. 

As previously mentioned, on March 

10, 1998 (63 FR 11600), EPA approved 

New Hampshire’s VOC RACT 

requirements that the state had adopted 

in 1995 as part of its emission control 

strategy for the one-hour ozone 

standard. However, our March 10, 1998 

action provided only a limited approval 

of Env–A 1204.27, the state’s rule for 

major sources that are not covered by 

one of EPA’s CTG documents. A final, 

full approval of Env–A 1204.27 was 

issued on July 23, 2002 (67 FR 48033), 

although that approval was limited to 

portions of the state located in the New 

Hampshire portion of the eastern 

Massachusetts serious one-hour ozone 

nonattainment area. Approval of Env– 

A–1204.27 in the remainder of the state 

was not granted at that time because 

New Hampshire had not issued single 

source RACT orders for all major 

sources of VOC and NOX in the 

remainder of the state. 

New Hampshire has now adopted 

RACT for all major sources, and we are 

approving those orders and providing a 

full statewide approval of New 

Hampshire’s requirements for 

miscellaneous and multi-category 

sources within this direct final rule. 

A brief description of the single 

source VOC RACT orders that we are 

approving in today’s action is provided 

below. A number of these orders contain 

provisions for complying with RACT via 

purchase of, or generation of, emission 

reduction credits. New Hampshire has 

an adopted emissions credit trading 

rule, Env–A 3100, Discrete Emission 

Reduction Trading Program. However, 

EPA has not approved Env–A 3100 into 

the New Hampshire SIP. Therefore, we 

have evaluated the generation and use 

of DERs in each of these cases and 

believe that they represent a legitimate 

option for sources to comply with 

RACT. We are therefore approving their 

use as outlined in the individual orders 

being approved in this action. 

Additionally, any purchased credits 

used for RACT compliance must come 

from a source whose order is also 

federally approved. 

Concord Litho Group 

The Concord Litho Group operates a 

facility in Concord, New Hampshire 

where it uses an offset lithographic 

printing operation to produce greeting 

cards, brochures, magazines, and direct 

mail inserts. The company operates two 

regenerative thermal oxidizers to control 

VOC emissions from five of the seven 

printing presses at the facility. On 

September 17, 2007, NH–DES issued 

VOC RACT order ARD 07–003 to the 

company. The order requires that the 

VOC emissions from the dryer exhaust 

of the heat-set web offset lithographic 

presses either be reduced by 90% or 

have a total organics level of 20 parts 

per million or less. The company will 

meet these requirements by controlling 

VOC emissions with their two 

recuperative thermal oxidizers. The 

order allows the facility to comply by 

purchasing DERs during times that 

maintenance is being performed, or 

when an oxidizer malfunctions. 

Hitchiner Manufacturing 

The Hitchiner Manufacturing 

Company operates a casting foundry 

and ceramics molding operation in 

Milford, New Hampshire. In 2002, the 

facility ceased operation of a VOC 

emitting operation referred to as the 

Plant 2 ceramics molding process and 

was granted 29 tons in VOC emission 

reduction credits (ERCs) by NH–DES for 

this shutdown. NH–DES issued VOC 

RACT order ARD–02–001 to the facility 

on June 21, 2002. The order requires 

that the facility reduce its VOC 

WREIER-AVILES on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES

66392 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 214 / Monday, November 5, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

emissions by 81%, and caps annual 

VOC emissions at less than 50 tons per 

year. The facility will meet these 

obligations primarily by use of the ERCs 

generated by the shutdown of the Plant 

2 ceramics molding process. 

Hutchinson Sealing Systems, Inc. 

Hutchinson Sealing Systems located 

in Newfields, New Hampshire, operates 

a facility that produces sealing systems, 

body seals, and rubber glass-run 

channels used in the automotive and 

other industries. On August 8, 2002, 

NH–DES issued VOC RACT order ARD– 

01–002 to the facility, and submitted it 

as a revision to the state’s SIP on this 

same day. On March 23, 2012, NH–DES 

submitted an updated VOC RACT order 

identified as ARD–11–001 that replaced 

the prior order issued to the facility in 

2002. The updated order indicates that 

the company will install and operate a 

catalytic oxidizer to control VOC 

emissions from some of the process 

lines at the facility. The updated order 

contains VOC content limits for motor 

vehicle weather-strip adhesive coatings, 

and an allowance for compliance to be 

met by using either DERs or ERCs. The 

company must also continue to research 

and test water based and/or high solids 

coatings as new products become 

available. 

Kalwall Corporation 

The Kalwall Corporation located in 

Manchester, New Hampshire, 

manufactures energy efficient window 

like structural components out of 

specially formulated, fiberglass 

reinforced material. The NH–DES 

developed VOC RACT order ARD–95– 

010 for the facility and submitted it to 

EPA on September 10, 1996, and we 

approved that order into the New 

Hampshire SIP in our March 10, 1998 

final rulemaking mentioned elsewhere 

in this document. On June 25, 1999, 

NH–DES submitted an updated VOC 

RACT order for Kalwall numbered 

ARD–99–001 to replace the previously 

issued order, and requested the order be 

approved into the New Hampshire SIP. 

A minor update to this order was 

submitted to EPA on November 20, 

2001, and we are approving that version 

of ARD–99–001 via this final 

rulemaking. The major aspects of the 

updated order establish VOC content 

limits for bonding agents used on IBSS 

process lines 1 and 2, for coatings used 

in the KWS process, for clear or 

transparent topcoats used in the KCRF 

process, and for pretreatment primers 

applied in the KCRF process. VOC 

RACT order ARD–99–001 also allows 

the company to comply by purchasing 

DERs as provided for by Env–A 3100 of 

New Hampshire’s air regulations. 

Mectrol Corporation 

On June 16, 2003, NH–DES issued 

VOC RACT order ARD–03–002 to the 

Mectrol Corporation located in Salem, 

New Hampshire and submitted it to 

EPA as a SIP revision request. However, 

by letter dated July 2, 2009, NH–DES 

subsequently withdrew this request 

because the coating units that had been 

the subject of the order had been 

removed from the facility. Therefore, we 

are taking no action with regard to New 

Hampshire’s June 16, 2003 SIP 

submittal request. 

Metal Works, Inc 

Metal Works, Inc., operates a facility 

in Londonderry, New Hampshire, where 

it is primarily engaged in the fabrication 

of sheet metal. The facility operates 5 

spray booths, and these booths are the 

primary source of VOC emissions at the 

facility. On December 22, 2004, NH– 

DES issued VOC RACT order ARD–05– 

001. The order contains the following 

VOC content limits: for clear and 

transparent top coats 4.3 lbs VOC per 

gallon of coating, as applied, excluding 

water and exempt coatings; for coatings 

used in extreme environmental 

conditions, and for air dried coatings, 

3.5 lbs VOC per gallon of coating; and 

for all other coatings, 3.0 lbs VOC per 

gallon of coating. The order also allows 

the company to comply with VOC 

RACT by using DERs. 

Parker-Hanifan Corporation, Chomerics 

Division 

The Chomerics Division of the Parker 

Hanifan Corporation located in Hudson, 

New Hampshire, produces coated 

fabrics, films, and other substrates for 

use in the electronics industry. NH–DES 

issued VOC RACT order ARD–03–001 to 

the company on July 18, 2002. The 

facility operates four continuous web 

coaters, and the VOC emissions from 

each are captured within a permanent 

total enclosure that meets the 

requirements of EPA Method 204. 

Exhaust from dryers on each line is fed 

to a catalytic oxidizer that is required to 

achieve a minimum destruction and 

removal efficiency for VOCs of 93%. 

The order contains monitoring and 

recordkeeping requirements for the 

catalytic oxidizer. The order also allows 

the company to comply by generating 

and using emission credits for 

compliance, and to comply via the 

purchase of DERs. 

Polyonics 

The Polyonics facility located in 

Westmoreland, New Hampshire, 

manufactures pressure sensitive tagging 

and labeling materials. The company 

operates a catalytic oxidizer to control 

VOC emissions from its two web 

gravure coaters. On December 28, 2007, 

NH–DES issued VOC RACT order ARD 

07–004 to the company. The order 

requires that the company comply with 

a VOC content limit of 2.9 lbs VOC per 

gallon for its paper, fabric, film and foil 

coating operations. Alternatively, the 

company is allowed to comply by using 

the catalytic oxidizer, by averaging 

coating limits such that the weighted 

average complies with the 2.9 lbs VOC 

per gallon coating limit, or by using 

DERs. 

Sturm, Ruger & Company 

Sturm, Ruger & Company located in 

Newport, New Hampshire, produces a 

variety of steel investment castings in 

the manufacture of firearms. NH–DES 

issued VOC RACT order ARD–03–001 to 

the facility on October 13, 2003, and reissued it in amended form shortly 

thereafter on December 1, 2003. The 

order contains VOC limits for coatings 

used in the facility’s woodworking 

spray booths and paint mixing rooms, 

and also contains a number of work 

practice and housekeeping standards to 

minimize emissions. The order also 

contains a 10 gallon daily maximum use 

amount for touch-up and repair 

finishing materials, compliance 

standards for cold cleaning operations at 

the facility, and a 1.0 lb VOC per gallon 

limit for metal parts coating operations 

other than rust-proofing. The VOC 

emission rate from the company’s rustproofing operation is limited to 3.5 lbs 

VOC per gallon of coating, excluding 

water and exempt compounds. The 

company is also required to achieve an 

81% reduction in VOC emissions from 

its flash de-wax process. 

Textile Tapes Corporation 

The Textile Tapes Corporation located 

in Gonic, New Hampshire, operates two 

coating lines that coat woven and nonwoven materials with adhesive in the 

production of tapes and coated 

products. The NH–DES issued an initial 

VOC RACT order to the facility on 

December 9, 1996, and EPA approved 

that order into the New Hampshire SIP 

on March 10, 1998 (63 FR 11600). On 

August 31, 2007, NH–DES submitted an 

amended VOC RACT order to EPA as a 

SIP revision request. Since the initial 

order was issued in 1996, a number of 

revisions have been made to the order, 

as follows. In 1998, the company 

requested and was granted permission 

to use a generic release coating that had 

not been addressed in the order issued 

in 1996. In 1999, the company requested 

WREIER-AVILES on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 214 / Monday, November 5, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 66393 

permission to install a recuperative 

thermal oxidizer and to replace the 

dryer on coating line 1B. NH–DES 

granted permission for these 

modifications and issued an amended 

order to Textile Tapes on April 19, 

2002, and submitted the amended order 

to EPA as a SIP revision request. 

In 2006, Textile Tapes requested 

permission to use a coating that exceeds 

the 2.9 lb/gal emission limit required by 

Env–A 1204.10(c) of New Hampshire’s 

air pollution control regulations. NH– 

DES required the company to purchase 

DER credits as provided for within Env– 

A 3100 of New Hampshire’s air 

pollution control regulations. The 

facility complied by purchasing 4 DER 

credits from the Public Service 

Company of New Hampshire on October 

3, 2006. New Hampshire issued 

amended order ARD–96–001 to Textile 

Tapes with an effective date of August 

10, 2007. The amended order allows the 

company to self-generate DER credits 

needed to compensate for their noncompliant coating via the over-control 

achieved by the recuperative thermal 

oxidizer. New Hampshire submitted the 

amended order to EPA as a SIP revision 

request on August 31, 2007, and we are 

approving the amended order into the 

New Hampshire SIP in this direct final 

rulemaking. 

TFX Medical Incorporated 

TFX Medical Incorporated operates a 

facility in Jaffrey, New Hampshire, 

where it manufactures tubing for 

automotive and medical applications 

and devices. The manufacturing process 

involves extruding a mixture of 

polytetrafluoroethylene resin with a 

hydrocarbon solvent and then curing 

the tubing in ovens. The facility 

operates a recuperative thermal oxidizer 

to control VOC emissions from the 

extruder lines and curing ovens. On 

August 7, 2007, NH–DES issued VOC 

RACT order ARD 07–002 to the 

company. The order requires the 

company to reduce VOC emissions by a 

minimum of 81%, and the company 

achieves this obligation primarily by use 

of the thermal oxidizer. During times 

that the thermal oxidizer is not able to 

meet this control requirement, the order 

allows the company to comply by using 

DERs. 

Webster Valve, Incorporated 

Webster Valve, Incorporated operates 

a facility in Franklin, New Hampshire, 

that is engaged in the manufacture of 

valves, regulators, and backflow 

prevention devices for plumbing, 

heating, and water quality applications. 

There are 6 spray booths at the facility 

where various coatings are applied to 

the product. On March 21, 2007, NH– 

DES issued VOC RACT order ARD 07– 

001 to the company. The order contains 

the following VOC content limits: for 

clear and transparent top coats 4.3 lbs 

VOC per gallon of coating, as applied, 

excluding water and exempt coatings; 

for coatings used in extreme 

environmental conditions, and for air 

dried coatings, 3.5 lbs VOC per gallon 

of coating; and for all other coatings, 3.0 

lbs VOC per gallon of coating. The order 

also allows the company to comply with 

VOC RACT by using DERs. 

EPA agrees with New Hampshire’s 

RACT determinations for the eleven 

sources listed above, and therefore we 

are approving the single source VOC 

RACT orders for these sources, with the 

exception of the order for the Mectrol 

Corporation, as NH–DES requested 

withdrawal of the SIP revision for that 

facility. In instances where New 

Hampshire has required air pollution 

capture and control equipment, a 

minimum 81% reduction has been 

required to be achieved. The VOC RACT 

orders contain acceptable levels of 

monitoring, recordkeeping and 

reporting provisions to enable the state 

to effectively track compliance at these 

facilities. Additionally, we are also fully 

approving Env–A 1204.27, New 

Hampshire’s requirements for 

miscellaneous and multi-category 

sources, for all parts of the state. 

2. Revision to NOX Rules and Single 

Source NOX RACT Orders 

On March 12, 2003, New Hampshire 

submitted a revised version of its NOX

RACT regulation, Env–A 1211, to EPA 

as a SIP revision request. As compared 

to the previous, SIP-approved version of 

the rule, the version submitted in 2003 

contained lower NOX limits for gas-fired 

combustion turbines, and revisions 

applicable to emergency generators. The 

main update made to the rule consisted 

of a change made to the NOX RACT 

requirements for gas-fired turbines 

constructed after May 27, 1999. A 

change was made to account for 

certifications that facilities were 

obtaining from manufacturers that these 

units emitted NOX at levels less than 

New Hampshire’s NOX RACT limits. 

New Hampshire, therefore, made its 

emission limits for these units more 

restrictive. The new NOX emissions 

limits for these units are found at Env– 

A 1211.06(d), and limit average hourly 

NOX emissions to 25 parts per million, 

corrected to 15% oxygen, or 

alternatively, 0.092 pounds per million 

British thermal unit (BTU). Since the 

revised rule’s NOX limits for gas-fired 

turbines constructed after May 25, 1999 

are more stringent than the previous 

SIP-approved version, the antibacksliding requirements of section 

110(l) of the CAA are satisfied. 

Regarding the emergency generator 

related revisions, the state noted that 

after the initial provisions for 

emergency generators were adopted in 

1994, NH–DES received numerous 

complaints that an aspect of the rule 

regarding ignition timing was causing 

many facilities to encounter difficulty 

ensuring that a continuous supply of 

electricity could be provided by the 

generator. New Hampshire prepared an 

analysis of the emissions impact that 

removal of this provision would cause 

and determined that the impact would 

be minimal, and so a change was made 

to the emergency generator regulation 

providing relief from this provision. 

On July 9, 2007, New Hampshire 

submitted additional revisions to Env– 

A 1211 as a SIP revision request. The 

revisions included a change to the 

testing requirements for auxiliary 

boilers with a heat input of between 5 

million and 50 million BTUs, removed 

a provision that had allowed such 

boilers to meet a less stringent NOX

emission limit once emissions exceeded 

50 tons per year, and removed a 

requirement that continuous emission 

monitors (CEMs) be used on small 

boilers. 

In today’s action, we are approving 

the updated version of Env–A 1211 that 

New Hampshire submitted on March 12, 

2003, and updated on July 9, 2007, into 

the New Hampshire SIP. It should be 

noted that additional NOX requirements 

within Env–A 1211 were subsequently 

submitted by NH–DES and approved by 

EPA as part of New Hampshire’s 

Regional Haze SIP (77 FR 50602, August 

22, 2012). 

Additionally, we are approving NOX

RACT orders for four facilities. A brief 

description of each order is provided 

below. 

Anheuser Busch 

Anheuser Busch operates a brewery in 

Merrimack, New Hampshire. The 

significant NOX emitting devices at the 

facility consist of three oil and natural 

gas-fired boilers, and also an open flare. 

On May 9, 2005, NH–DES issued NOX

order ARD–05–001 to the company. The 

order requires that the company comply 

with a NOX limit of 0.068 lbs NOX per 

million BTUs for the open flare. 

Regarding the boilers, the order requires 

an emission rate of 0.25 lbs NOX per 

million BTU on a 24-hour average when 

burning natural gas or a combination of 

natural gas and biogas. An emission rate 

of 0.40 lbs NOX per million BTU on a 

24-hour average must be met when oil 

or a combination of oil and biogas is 

WREIER-AVILES on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES

66394 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 214 / Monday, November 5, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

2On September 26, 2012, New Hampshire 

withdrew its November 2003 submission. 

being used. Additionally, the order 

requires testing of a bio energy recovery 

system the facility intends to install at 

the facility. 

Newington Energy, LLC 

Newington Energy operates a 525 

megawatt combined cycle electric 

generation facility in Newington, New 

Hampshire. Other equipment at the 

facility includes a natural gas-fired 

auxiliary boiler, eight natural gas-fired 

fuel gas heaters, one diesel fired 

emergency generator, and one diesel 

fired firewater pump. On June 20, 2007, 

NH–DES issued NOX RACT order ARD– 

04–001 to the company. The order 

requires the company to install and 

operate low NOX burners on six fuel gas 

heaters, and to also comply with a NOX

emission concentration of 9.9 ppm and 

an emission rate of 0.012 lbs NOX per 

million BTU for these gas heaters. 

PSNH, Schiller Station 

The Public Service Company of New 

Hampshire’s (PSNH) Schiller Station is 

a 153 megawatt fossil fuel fired electric 

generating station located in 

Portsmouth, New Hampshire. Electric 

power is produced at the facility by 

three utility boilers, one combustion 

turbine that operates as a load shaving 

unit, and one emergency generator. On 

August 4, 2006, NH–DES issued NOX

RACT order ARD–06–001 to the 

company. The order requires that the 

boiler equipped with a circulating 

fluidized bed install and operate a 

selective non-catalytic reducing (SNCR) 

control device to meet an emission limit 

of 0.975 lbs NOX per million BTU. 

Additionally, the order requires that the 

facility continue to comply with 

conditions D.1.c and D.1.d of NOX

RACT order ARD–98–001 pertaining to 

a non-ozone season NOX cap of 8,208 

tons and an ozone season NOX cap of 

3,727 tons for the combined emissions 

from units identified as MK1, MK2, 

NT1, SR4, SR5, and SR6. 

Waste Management 

Waste Management operates a facility 

in Rochester, New Hampshire that 

consists of two, closed municipal solid 

waste landfills, one active municipal 

solid waste landfill, a materials recovery 

facility, a leachate treatment plant, and 

two landfill gas to energy plants. On 

August 26, 2002, NH–DES issued NOX

RACT order ARD 01–001. New 

Hampshire submitted an updated order 

to EPA as a SIP revision request on 

August 2, 2012. We are approving the 

updated order in today’s action. The 

order provides performance standards 

for the three flares at the facility, and 

also provides testing, recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements for the facility to 

follow. 

EPA agrees that the NOX provisions in 

the orders for the four facilities outlined 

above constitute RACT for these 

facilities. 

3. Revisions to Testing and Monitoring 

Procedures 

On March 15, 1983, EPA approved 

New Hampshire’s Env–A 800, testing 

and monitoring requirements for air 

pollution sources into the New 

Hampshire SIP. Additional updates to 

these requirements were subsequently 

incorporated in the New Hampshire SIP 

as noted within 40 CFR 52.1525. 

On March 12, 2003, New Hampshire 

submitted revisions to Env–A 800 to 

EPA as a SIP revision request. The 

revisions include simplifications to 

some procedures and delineates what 

methods should be used when 

monitoring emissions and checking the 

accuracy of CEM systems. Additionally, 

the amended rule contains a 

requirement that a relative accuracy test 

audit (RATA) be performed annually on 

each CEM system. If the system does not 

pass the RATA, the new rule requires 

that another full audit be conducted, 

whereas the prior version of the rule 

only required a partial audit be done in 

such circumstances. The state submitted 

additional revisions to Env–A 800 to 

EPA as a SIP revision request on July 9, 

2007. The July 9, 2007 submittal 

contained revisions to Env–A 803.03 

and Env–A 803.04, primarily with 

regard to requirements for small boilers 

and emergency generators. We are 

approving New Hampshire’s revised 

version of Env–A 800 as submitted on 

March 12, 2003 and revised on July 9, 

2007, with the exception of Env–A 807 

pertaining to requirements regarding 

testing and monitoring for opacity. We 

are taking no action with regard to 

Env–A 807. 

4. Revisions to Recordkeeping and 

Reporting Requirements 

On March 15, 1983, EPA approved 

Env–A 900, recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements for air pollution sources, 

into the New Hampshire SIP. Additional 

updates to these requirements were 

subsequently incorporated in the New 

Hampshire SIP as noted within 40 CFR 

52.1525. 

On November 14, 2003, New 

Hampshire submitted an updated 

version of Env–A 900, Owner or 

Operator Recordkeeping and Reporting 

Obligations, to EPA as a SIP revision 

request. New Hampshire’s submittal 

was prompted by their re-adoption of 

the rule with amendments. The 

amendments included clarifying 

language, a re-alignment of the reporting 

date for the annual emission statement 

requirement, a repeal of a provision 

requiring reporting of malfunctions and 

replacement of that provision with a 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirement for permit deviations, and 

a re-organization of the previously 

adopted rule. 

On July 6, 2012, New Hampshire 

submitted an updated version of Env–A 

900, Owner or Operator Recordkeeping 

and Reporting Obligations, to EPA as a 

SIP revision request. The revised 

version of Env–A 900 completely 

supersedes the older version of Env–A 

900 that New Hampshire had submitted 

in 2003.2 The revisions included 

clarification to a number of 

recordkeeping provisions, and also 

amended the requirements for fuel-users 

regarding fuel sulfur content records. 

Additionally, the general reporting 

requirements for Title V sources that 

previously had been stated in each 

permit were added to Env–A 900. New 

Hampshire requested that all portions of 

the revised Env–A 900 be incorporated 

into its SIP with the exception of certain 

provisions that are required by 40 CFR 

Part 70 for Title V sources. 

At this time, we are not taking action 

on Env–A 912 (Alternative Time 

Periods), nor on the provisions required 

relating to Title V sources that New 

Hampshire requested not be 

incorporated into its SIP. 

In today’s action, we are approving 

New Hampshire’s July 6, 2012 revised 

version of Env–A 900, with the 

exceptions of (1) the provisions relating 

to 40 CFR Part 70 contained within 

Env–A 907 and Env–A 911, and (2) the 

provisions of Env–A 912 (Alternative 

Time Periods). 

IV. Final Action 

EPA is approving SIP revisions 

submitted by the State of New 

Hampshire. EPA is approving New 

Hampshire’s January 28, 2008 RACT 

certification and negative declarations 

as meeting RACT for the 1997 8-hour 

standard. Additionally, we are 

approving the following portions of 

New Hampshire’s air pollution control 

requirements: Env–A 800, Testing and 

Monitoring Procedures, with the 

exception of Env–A 807, Testing for 

Opacity of Emissions; Env–A 900, 

Owner or Operator Recordkeeping and 

Reporting Obligations, with the 

exceptions of certain provisions within 

Env–A 907 and Env–A 911, and the 

entirety of Env–A 912; Env–A 1200, 

Volatile Organic Compound RACT; and, 

WREIER-AVILES on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 214 / Monday, November 5, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 66395 

Env–A 1211, Nitrogen Oxide RACT. 

Additionally, we are approving 

individual VOC RACT orders for the 

Concord Litho Group, Hitchiner 

Manufacturing, Hutchinson Sealing 

Systems, Kalwall Corporation, Metal 

Works Incorporated, Parker Hannifin 

Corporation, Polyonics, Sturm Ruger & 

Company, Textile Tapes Corporation, 

TFX Medical, and Webster Valve 

Incorporated. NOX RACT orders are 

being approved for Anheuser Busch, 

Newington Energy, PSNH-Schiller 

Station, and Waste Management of New 

Hampshire. 

The EPA is publishing this action 

without prior proposal because the 

Agency views this as a noncontroversial 

amendment and anticipates no adverse 

comments. However, in the proposed 

rules section of this Federal Register 

publication, EPA is publishing a 

separate document that will serve as the 

proposal to approve the SIP revision 

should relevant adverse comments be 

filed. This rule will be effective January 

4, 2013 without further notice unless 

the Agency receives relevant adverse 

comments by December 5, 2012. 

If the EPA receives such comments, 

then EPA will publish a notice 

withdrawing the final rule and 

informing the public that the rule will 

not take effect. All public comments 

received will then be addressed in a 

subsequent final rule based on the 

proposed rule. The EPA will not 

institute a second comment period on 

the proposed rule. All parties interested 

in commenting on the proposed rule 

should do so at this time. If no such 

comments are received, the public is 

advised that this rule will be effective 

on January 4, 2013 and no further action 

will be taken on the proposed rule. 

Please note that if EPA receives adverse 

comment on an amendment, paragraph, 

or section of this rule and if that 

provision may be severed from the 

remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt 

as final those provisions of the rule that 

are not the subject of an adverse 

comment. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the Clean Air Act, the 

Administrator is required to approve a 

SIP submission that complies with the 

provisions of the Act and applicable 

Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 

40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP 

submissions, EPA’s role is to approve 

state choices, provided that they meet 

the criteria of the Clean Air Act. 

Accordingly, this action merely 

approves state law as meeting Federal 

requirements and does not impose 

additional requirements beyond those 

imposed by state law. For that reason, 

this action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; 

and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this rule does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the state, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

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

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, 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 United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this 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 the rule in 

the Federal Register. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

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

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean 

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of 

this action must be filed in the United 

States Court of Appeals for the 

appropriate circuit by January 4, 2013. 

Filing a petition for reconsideration by 

the Administrator of this final rule does 

not affect the finality of this action for 

the purposes of judicial review nor does 

it extend the time within which a 

petition for judicial review may be filed, 

and shall not postpone the effectiveness 

of such rule or action. Parties with 

objections to this direct final rule are 

encouraged to file a comment in 

response to the parallel notice of 

proposed rulemaking for this action 

published in the proposed rules section 

of today’s Federal Register, rather than 

file an immediate petition for judicial 

review of this direct final rule, so that 

EPA can withdraw this direct final rule 

and address the comment in the 

proposed rulemaking. This action may 

not be challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements. (See section 

307(b)(2).) 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 

Incorporation by reference, Nitrogen 

dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Dated: October 19, 2012. 

H. Curtis Spalding, 

Regional Administrator, EPA New England. 

Part 52 of chapter I, title 40 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations is amended 

as follows: 

PART 52—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

Subpart EE—New Hampshire 

■ 2. § 52.1520 is amended by: 

■ a. In the table in paragraph (c), 

revising entries to existing state 

citations for Env–A 800, Env–A 900, 

and Env–A 1200. 

■ b. Adding 15 new entries to the end 

of the table in paragraph (d). 

■ c. Adding one new entry to the end of 

the table in paragraph (e). 

WREIER-AVILES on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES

66396 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 214 / Monday, November 5, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows. 

§ 52.1520 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) EPA approved regulations. 

EPA APPROVED NEW HAMPSHIRE REGULATIONS

State citation Title/subject State effective date EPA approval date 1 Explanations 

*******

Env–A 800 ......................... Testing and Monitoring 

Procedures.

10/31/2002; 12/22/2004 .... 11/5/2012 [Insert Federal 

Register page number 

where the document begins].

Approved Sections Env–A 

801 through 806, 808 

and 809 of New Hampshire’s air emission testing and monitoring requirements. 

Env–A 900 ......................... Owner or Operator Obligations.04/21/2007 ........................ 11/5/2012 [Insert Federal 

Register page number 

where the document begins].

Approved Env–A 900 

through 906, 907.01(a) 

and (b)(1) through 

(b)(4), 907.02 and .03, 

908 through 910, and 

911.01 through 911.04. 

*******

Env–A 1200 ....................... Prevention, Abatement, 

and Control of Stationary Source Air Pollution.

10/31/2002; 12/22/2004; 

02/26/2005.

11/5/2012 [Insert Federal 

Register page number 

where the document begins].

Approved Env–A 1200, 

containing New Hampshire’s VOC and NOX

RACT requirements. 

* * * * * * * 

1 In order to determine the EPA effective date for a specific provision listed in this table, consult the Federal Register notice cited in this column for the particular provision. 

(d) EPA-approved State Source 

specific requirements. 

EPA-APPROVED NEW HAMPSHIRE SOURCE SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS

Name of source Permit No. State effective date EPA approval date 2 Additional explanations/ 

§ 52.1535 citation 

*******

Concord Litho Group ......... ARD–07–003 .................... 9/17/2007 .......................... 11/5/2012 [Insert Federal 

Register page number 

where the document begins].

Single source VOC RACT 

order for facility in Concord, NH. 

Hitchiner Manufacturing ..... ARD–02–001 .................... 6/21/2002 .......................... 11/5/2012 [Insert Federal 

Register page number 

where the document begins].

Single source VOC RACT 

order for facility in Milford, NH. 

Hutchinson Sealing Systems.ARD–01–002 .................... 8/8/2002 ............................ 11/5/2012 [Insert Federal 

Register page number 

where the document begins].

Single source VOC RACT 

order for facility in 

Newfields, NH. 

Kalwall Corporation ............ ARD–99–001 .................... 11/20/2011 ........................ 11/5/2012 [Insert Federal 

Register page number 

where the document begins].

Single source VOC RACT 

order for facility in Manchester, NH. 

Metal Works ....................... ARD–05–001 .................... 12/22/2004 ........................ 11/5/2012 [Insert Federal 

Register page number 

where the document begins].

Single source VOC RACT 

order for facility in Londonderry, NH. 

Parker-Hanifan Corporation ARD–03–001 .................... 7/18/2002 .......................... 11/5/2012 [Insert Federal 

Register page number 

where the document begins].

Single source VOC RACT 

order for facility in Hudson, NH. 

Polyonics ............................ ARD–99–001 .................... 12/28/2007 ........................ 11/5/2012 [Insert Federal 

Register page number 

where the document begins].

Single source VOC RACT 

order for facility in Westmoreland, NH. 

Sturm, Ruger & Company ARD–03–001 .................... 12/1/2003 .......................... 11/5/2012 [Insert Federal 

Register page number 

where the document begins].

Single source VOC RACT 

order for facility located 

in Newport, NH. 

WREIER-AVILES on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 214 / Monday, November 5, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 66397 

EPA-APPROVED NEW HAMPSHIRE SOURCE SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS—Continued 

Name of source Permit No. State effective date EPA approval date 2 Additional explanations/ 

§ 52.1535 citation 

Textile Tapes Corporation ARD–96–001 .................... 8/10/2007 .......................... 11/5/2012 [Insert Federal 

Register page number 

where the document begins].

Single source VOC RACT 

order for facility in 

Gonic, NH. 

TFX Medical Incorporated ARD–07–002 .................... 8/7/2007 ............................ 11/5/2012 [Insert Federal 

Register page number 

where the document begins].

Single source VOC RACT 

order for facility in 

Jaffrey, NH. 

Webster Valve .................... ARD–07–001 .................... 3/21/2007 .......................... 11/5/2012 [Insert Federal 

Register page number 

where the document begins].

Single source VOC RACT 

order for facility in 

Franklin, NH. 

Anheuser Busch ................. ARD–05–001 .................... 5/9/2005 ............................ 11/5/2012 [Insert Federal 

Register page number 

where the document begins].

Single source NOX RACT 

order for facility in 

Merrimack, NH. 

Newington Energy, LLC ..... ARD–04–001 .................... 6/20/2007 .......................... 11/5/2012 [Insert Federal 

Register page number 

where the document begins].

Single source NOX RACT 

order for facility in 

Newington, NH. 

PSNH, Schiller Station ....... ARD–06–001 .................... 8/4/2006 ............................ 11/5/2012 [Insert Federal 

Register page number 

where the document begins].

Single source NOX RACT 

order for facility in Portsmouth, NH. 

Waste Management ........... ARD–01–001 .................... 8/26/2002 .......................... 11/5/2012 [Insert Federal 

Register page number 

where the document begins].

Single source NOX RACT 

order for facility in Rochester, NH. 

******* 2 In order to determine the EPA effective date for a specific provision listed in this table, consult the Federal Register notice cited in this column for the particular provision. 

(e) Nonregulatory. 

NEW HAMPSHIRE NON REGULATORY

Name of non regulatory 

SIP provision 

Applicable 

geographic or 

nonattainment 

area 

State submittal date/ 

effective date 

EPA 

approved date 3 Explanation 

*******

Certification for RACT for 

the 1997 8-Hour Ozone 

Standard.

Statewide .......................... 1/28/2008 .......................... 11/5/2012 [Insert Federal 

Register page number 

where the document begins].

New Hampshire submitted 

documentation that 

RACT requirements 

were in place for 

sources of VOC and 

NOX for purposes of the 

1997 8-hour ozone 

standard. 

******* 3 In order to determine the EPA effective date for a specific provision listed in this table, consult the Federal Register notice cited in this column for the particular provision. 

WREIER-AVILES on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES

66398 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 214 / Monday, November 5, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

1The 8-hour averaging period replaced the 

previous 1-hour averaging period, and the level of 

the NAAQS was changed from 0.12 parts per 

million (ppm) to 0.08 ppm (62 FR 38856). 

2The annual PM2.5 standard was set at 15 

micrograms per cubic meter (mg/m3), based on the 

3-year average of annual arithmetic mean PM2.5

concentrations from single or multiple communityoriented monitors and the 24-hour PM2.5 standard 

was set at 65 mg/m3, based on the 3-year average of 

the 98th percentile of 24-hour PM2.5 concentrations 

at each population-oriented monitor within an area 

(62 FR 38652). 

3The final rule revising the 24-hour NAAQS for 

PM2.5 from 65 mg/m3 to 35 mg/m3 was published in 

the Federal Register on October 17, 2006 (71 FR 

61144). 

4EPA previously approved an earlier interstate 

transport submittal by Arizona for the 1997 ozone 

and 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS at 72 FR 41629 (July 31, 

2007). 

5 In a separate rulemaking, EPA proposed to fully 

approve Arizona’s SIP to address the requirements 

regarding air pollution emergency episodes in CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(G) for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS. 77 FR 21911 (April 12, 2012). The final 

rule for this action was signed on July 26, 2012. 

While we are awaiting publication in the Federal 

Register, a prepublication copy of that final rule is 

available in the docket for today’s rulemaking. 

6On June 14, 2012 ADEQ submitted a letter 

requesting withdrawal of several statutes included 

in the June 1, 2012 proposed SIP revision. See letter 

dated June 14, 2012 from Eric C. Massey, Air 

Quality Director, Arizona Department of 

Environmental Quality, to Jared Blumenfeld, 

Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9. 

7Each of our three proposed rules had an 

associated TSD available at www.regulations.gov 

under docket ID number EPA–R09–OAR–2012– 

0398. The three TSDs are as follows: (1) ‘‘Technical 

Support Document: Evaluation of Arizona’s 

Infrastructure SIP for the 1997 8-hour Ozone, the 

1997 PM2.5, and the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS,’’ June 15, 

2012 (document ID number EPA–R09–OAR–2012– 

0398–0003); (2) ‘‘Technical Support Document for 

EPA’s Proposed Action on the State of Arizona’s 

2009 Infrastructure State Implementation Plan 

(Transport Portion) for the 2006 24-hour Fine 

Particulate (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality 

Standard,’’ July 2012 (document ID number EPA– 

R09–OAR–2012–0398–0033); and (3) ‘‘Technical 

Support Document: EPA Evaluation of Arizona 

Provisions for Section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii)/Section 128 

Conflict of Interest Requirements,’’ July 2012 

(herein, ‘‘Section 128 TSD’’) (document ID number 

EPA–R09–OAR–2012–0398–0075). 

[FR Doc. 2012–26759 Filed 11–2–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2012–0398; FRL–9745–8] 

Partial Approval and Disapproval of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; Arizona; 

Infrastructure Requirements for Ozone 

and Fine Particulate Matter 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is approving in part and 

disapproving in part State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions 

submitted by the state of Arizona 

pursuant to the requirements of the 

Clean Air Act (CAA) for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone national ambient air quality 

standards (NAAQS) and the 1997 and 

2006 NAAQS for fine particulate matter 

(PM2.5). 

The Clean Air Act requires that each 

State adopt and submit a SIP for the 

implementation, maintenance, and 

enforcement of each NAAQS 

promulgated by the EPA. Arizona has 

met most of the applicable 

requirements. Where EPA is 

disapproving, in part, Arizona’s SIP 

revisions, several of the deficiencies 

have already been addressed by a 

federal implementation plan (FIP). The 

remaining deficiencies are subject to a 

two-year deadline for EPA to 

promulgate a FIP, unless EPA approves 

an adequate SIP revision prior to that 

time. EPA remains committed to 

working with Arizona to develop such 

a SIP revision. 

DATES: Effective Date: This final rule is 

effective on December 5, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action, identified by 

Docket ID Number EPA–R09–OAR– 

2012–0398. The index to the docket for 

this action is available electronically at 

www.regulations.gov and in hard copy 

at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, 

San Francisco, California. While all 

documents in the docket are listed in 

the index, some information may be 

publicly available only at the hard copy 

location (e.g., copyrighted material), and 

some may not be publicly available in 

either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the 

hard copy materials, please schedule an 

appointment during normal business 

hours with the contact listed directly 

below. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jeffrey Buss, Air Planning Office (AIR– 

2), U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region IX, (415) 947–4152, 

buss.jeffrey@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, the terms 

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

II. EPA’s Response to Comments 

III. Final Action 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background 

On July 18, 1997, EPA issued a 

revised NAAQS for ozone 1 and a new 

NAAQS for fine particulate matter 

(PM2.5).2 EPA subsequently revised the 

24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS on September 

21, 2006.3 Each of these actions 

triggered a requirement for states to 

submit an infrastructure SIP to address 

the applicable requirements of section 

110(a)(2) within three years of issuance 

of the new or revised NAAQS. 

On June 27, 2012 (77 FR 38239), EPA 

proposed to approve in part and 

disapprove in part several SIP revisions 

submitted by the Arizona Department of 

Environmental Quality (ADEQ) to 

address the infrastructure requirements 

of CAA section 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 

1997 ozone, 1997 PM2.5, and 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS. Additionally, on July 30, 2012 

(77 FR 44551), EPA proposed to approve 

the portion of the Arizona Infrastructure 

SIP pertaining to section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) concerning interstate 

transport for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS.4 Also on July 30, 2012 (77 FR 

44555), EPA proposed to partially 

approve and partially disapprove the 

portion of the Arizona Infrastructure SIP 

pertaining to the conflict of interest 

provision in section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii). 

ADEQ submitted SIP revisions to EPA 

on September 18, 2008 (‘‘2008 

Infrastructure Analysis’’) and October 

14, 2009 (‘‘2009 Infrastructure 

Analysis’’) to address all of the CAA 

section 110(a)(2) requirements, except 

for section 110(a)(2)(G),5 and a proposed 

SIP revision submitted on June 1, 2012.6

The proposed SIP served as a 

supplement to the prior two 

infrastructure SIP revisions and was 

submitted under the parallel processing 

mechanism provided by 40 CFR Part 51, 

Appendix V, Section 2.3. The final 

version of the June 1, 2012 proposed SIP 

revision was adopted on August 24, 

2012 and submitted to EPA on the same 

day (‘‘2012 Submittal’’). 

We are taking final action on all three 

submittals because they collectively 

address the applicable infrastructure SIP 

requirements for the 1997 ozone, 1997 

PM2.5, and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. We refer 

to them collectively herein as 

‘‘Arizona’s Infrastructure SIP 

Submittals.’’ 

The rationale supporting EPA’s 

actions, including the scope of 

infrastructure SIPs in general, is 

explained in the Notices of Proposed 

Rulemakings (NPRs) and associated 

technical support documents (TSDs) 7

and will not be restated here. The TSDs 

are available online at 

www.regulations.gov, Docket ID number 

EPA–R09–OAR–2012–0398. 

II. EPA’s Response to Comments 

The public comment period for our 

proposal published in the Federal 

Register on June 27, 2012 (77 FR 38239) 

started at publication and closed on July 

27, 2012. The public comment period 

for our proposals of July 30, 2012 (77 FR 

44551, concerning interstate transport 

WREIER-AVILES on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES