Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 51 / Thursday, March 15, 2012 / Proposed Rules 15329 

Note: Because the agenda will be organized 

based on subject matter, the Office cannot 

guarantee that it can accommodate requests 

to testify on particular dates (apart from the 

Technology Hearing). Depending on the 

number and nature of the requests to testify, 

it is possible that the Office will not be able 

to accommodate all requests to testify. All 

persons who submit a timely request to 

testify will receive confirmation by email or 

telephone. The Office will notify all 

witnesses of the date and expected time of 

their appearance, and the time allocated for 

their testimony. 

Addresses for requests to testify: 

Requests to testify must be submitted 

via the Office’s Web site form located at 

http://www.copyright.gov/1201/ and 

must be received by 5 p.m. E.D.T. on 

Monday, April 2, 2012. Persons who are 

unable to send requests via the Web site 

should contact Ben Golant, Assistant 

General Counsel, Office of the General 

Counsel at (202) 707–8380 to make 

alternative arrangements for submission 

of their requests to testify. 

Form and limits on testimony at 

public hearings: There will be time 

limits on the testimony allowed for 

persons testifying that will be 

established after receiving all requests to 

testify. In order to avoid duplicative and 

cumulative testimony and to ensure that 

all relevant issues and viewpoints are 

addressed, the Office encourages parties 

with similar interests to select common 

representatives to testify on behalf of a 

particular position. A timely request to 

testify does not guarantee an 

opportunity to testify at these hearings. 

The Office stresses that factual 

arguments are at least as important as 

legal arguments. The hearings provide 

an opportunity to explain and, in some 

cases, demonstrate the factual basis of 

an argument. The Office encourages 

persons who wish to testify to provide 

demonstrations of particular problems 

or solutions as supplements to 

testimony. While testimony from 

attorneys who can articulate legal 

arguments in support of or in opposition 

to a proposed exempted class of works 

is useful, testimony from witnesses who 

can explain and demonstrate pertinent 

facts is strongly encouraged by the 

Office. 

If audiovisual demonstrations or 

handouts will be used at any hearing, 

the Office requires submission of such 

materials to the Copyright Office 7 days 

prior to the hearing in order to make 

this information available to the other 

witnesses on the same panel. For the 

Technology Hearing, if a demonstration 

will consist of proprietary hardware or 

software, witnesses may need to provide 

representative handouts to be 

distributed to other witnesses prior to 

the hearing. Witnesses should assume 

that they will have to provide whatever 

electronic or audiovisual equipment is 

necessary for their presentations, 

although in particular cases the Office 

may be able to provide basic equipment 

(e.g., a personal computer and a large 

monitor) or software. Persons intending 

to bring such equipment into the Library 

of Congress, e.g., laptops, slide 

projectors, etc., are encouraged to give 

the Office advance notice and to arrive 

early in order to clear security screening 

by the Library police. 

The Office intends to organize 

individual sessions of the hearings 

around particular or related classes of 

works proposed for exemption. If a 

request to testify involves more than one 

proposed exemption or related 

exemption, please specify, in order of 

preference, the proposed exemptions on 

which you would prefer to testify. 

Following receipt of the requests to 

testify, the Office will prepare an agenda 

of the hearings which will be posted at: 

http://www.copyright.gov/1201/. The 

Office will also provide additional 

information on directions and parking 

for all persons testifying at the Los 

Angeles, CA round of hearings. To 

facilitate this process, it is essential that 

all of the required information listed 

above be included in a request to testify. 

Dated: March 12, 2012. 

Maria A. Pallante, 

Register of Copyrights. 

[FR Doc. 2012–6333 Filed 3–14–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 1410–30–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R01–OAR–2009–0696; A–1–FRL– 

9647–6] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; Maine; 

Reasonably Available Control 

Technology (RACT) for the 1997 8– 

Hour Ozone Standard 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing to 

approve several State Implementation 

Plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the 

State of Maine Department of 

Environmental Protection. These SIP 

revisions consist of a demonstration that 

Maine meets the requirements of 

reasonably available control technology 

(RACT) for oxides of nitrogen (NOX) and 

volatile organic compounds (VOCs) set 

forth by the Clean Air Act (CAA) with 

respect to the 1997 8-hour ozone 

standard as well as several new and 

revised VOC regulations. The intended 

effect of this action is to propose 

approval of Maine’s RACT 

demonstration for satisfying the State’s 

RACT SIP revision obligation as of 

September 15, 2006 and to propose 

approval of Maine’s other submitted SIP 

regulations. This action is being taken in 

accordance with the CAA. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before April 16, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID Number EPA– 

R01–OAR–2009–0696 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–2009–0696,’’ 

Anne Arnold, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, EPA New England 

Regional Office, Office of Ecosystem 

Protection, Air Quality Planning Unit, 

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, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

EPA New England Regional Office, 

Office of Ecosystem Protection, Air 

Quality Planning Unit, 5 Post Office 

Square—Suite 100, (mail code OEP05– 

2), 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 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding 

legal holidays. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R01–OAR–2009– 

0696. 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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
15330 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 51 / Thursday, March 15, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

1Today’s action is in respect to the 1997 8-hour 

ozone standard and does not address the 2008 

ozone standard. 

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, Office of Ecosystem 

Protection, Air Quality Planning Unit, 5 

Post Office Square—Suite 100, Boston, 

MA. EPA requests that if at all possible, 

you contact the 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 a.m. to 

4:30 p.m., 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: the Bureau of Air Quality 

Control, Department of Environmental 

Protection, First Floor of the Tyson 

Building, Augusta Mental Health 

Institute Complex, Augusta, ME 04333– 

0017. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Ariel Garcia, 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– 

1660, fax number (617) 918–0660, email 

garcia.ariel@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 Maine’s SIP Revisions 

III. EPA’s Evaluation of Maine’s SIP 

Revisions 

IV. Proposed Action 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background and Purpose 

In 1997, EPA revised the health-based 

NAAQS for ozone, setting it at 0.08 

parts per million (ppm) averaged over 

an 8-hour time frame.1 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 1-hour ozone 

standard was set. EPA determined that 

the 8-hour ozone 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 23857), EPA 

finalized its attainment/nonattainment 

designations for areas across the country 

with respect to the 8-hour ozone 

standard. These designations became 

effective on June 15, 2004. In Maine, 

EPA designated two areas as 8-hour 

ozone nonattainment based on air 

quality monitoring data from 2001– 

2003. One area, the Portland 

nonattainment area located in southern 

Maine consisted of 57 coastal towns and 

cities located in York County (partial), 

Cumberland County (partial), Sagadahoc 

County (full) along with Durham, 

Maine, a town in Androscoggin County. 

The other area, the Midcoast area was 

located north of the Portland area and 

consists of 55 coastal towns and islands 

in Hancock, Knox, Lincoln, and Waldo 

Counties (all are partial Counties). 

Subsequently, on August 3, 2006, 

Maine requested redesignation to 

attainment for the 8-hour ozone 

standard for the both areas. The 

redesignation request included three 

years of complete, quality-assured data 

for the period of 2003 through 2005, 

indicating the 8-hour NAAQS for ozone 

had been achieved for the both areas. 

On December 11, 2006 (71 FR 71489), 

EPA approved ME DEP’s redesignation 

request and as such the entire state was 

then designated attainment for the 1997 

8-hour NAAQS. 

Additionally, the entire State of 

Maine is part of the Ozone Transport 

Region (OTR) under Section 184(a) of 

the CAA. Section 184 of the CAA 

requires states in the OTR to submit a 

revision to their applicable State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) to include 

provisions that require the 

implementation of reasonably available 

control technology (RACT) for sources 

covered by a Control Techniques 

Guideline (CTG) and for all major 

sources. A CTG is a document issued by 

EPA which establishes a ‘‘presumptive 

norm’’ for RACT for a specific VOC 

source category. 

EPA requires under the 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS that states meet the CAA RACT 

requirements, either through a 

certification that previously adopted 

RACT controls in their SIP approved by 

EPA under the 1-hour ozone NAAQS 

represent adequate RACT control levels 

for 8-hour attainment purposes, or 

through the establishment of new or 

more stringent requirements that 

represent RACT control levels. See 

‘‘Final Rule To Implement the 8-Hour 

Ozone National Ambient Air Quality 

Standard—Phase 2.’’ 70 FR 71612 (Nov. 

29, 2005). EPA has determined that 

States that have RACT provisions 

approved in their SIPs for the 1-hour 

ozone standard have several options for 

fulfilling the RACT requirements for the 

8-hour ozone NAAQS. If a State meets 

certain conditions, it may certify that 

previously adopted 1-hour ozone RACT 

controls in the SIP continue to represent 

RACT control levels for purposes of 

fulfilling 8-hour ozone RACT 

requirements. Alternatively, a State may 

establish new or more stringent 

requirements that represent RACT 

control levels, either in lieu of or in 

conjunction with a certification. In 

addition, a State may submit a negative 

declaration if there are no CTG sources 

or major sources of VOC and NOX

emissions in lieu of or in addition to a 

certification. 

As noted in the Phase 2 Rule, the 

RACT submittal for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone standard was due from Maine on 

September 15, 2006. On March 24, 2008 

(73 FR 15416), EPA issued Maine a 

finding of failure to submit for the 1997 

8-hour ozone RACT requirement, 

essentially determining that Maine had 

failed to submit by the September 15, 

2006 deadline a SIP revision 

demonstrating that sources specified 

under the CAA were subject to RACT. 

This finding started an 18-month 

sanctions clock, as well as a 24 month 

Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) 

clock. Maine submitted its SIP revision 

on August 27, 2009, and EPA 

determined the submittal to be complete 

on September 18, 2009, stopping the 18- 

month finding sanctions clock. Pursuant 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 51 / Thursday, March 15, 2012 / Proposed Rules 15331 

2Maine subsequently submitted a SIP revision on 

September 11, 2009 consisting of amendments to 

CMR Chapter 131, Cutback Asphalt and Emulsified Asphalt, and EPA is proposing approval of the 

revised rule in today’s action. 

to a consent decree entered in Sierra 

Club v. Jackson in the United States 

District Court for the District of 

Columbia (Civ. No. 1:11–cv–00035–GK), 

EPA shall, no later than May 31, 2012, 

sign a notice of the Agency’s final rule 

promulgating a FIP addressing the 

RACT requirements for VOCs and NOX

as they relate to the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS for Maine (except for the NOX

RACT requirement in Northern Maine) 

addressing any VOC and NOX RACT SIP 

revision for which the State was 

required to submit to EPA by the 

September 15, 2006 deadline and for 

which EPA has not signed an approval 

notice by May 31, 2012. The approvals 

proposed here with respect to Maine’s 

RACT SIP revision obligation as of 

September 15, 2006, once finalized, will 

accomplish Condition 5 of the consent 

decree. 

In addition, 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 new CTGs which 

states were required to address by 

October 9, 2008 (72 FR 57215). 

Furthermore, on October 7, 2008, EPA 

issued four new CTGs which states were 

required to address by October 7, 2009 

(73 FR 58841). 

II. Summary of Maine’s SIP Revision 

On August 27, 2009, Maine submitted 

a SIP revision documenting RACT 

requirements for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

standard. In this SIP revision, Maine 

certifies that RACT requirements are 

being met for all non-CTG major 

stationary sources of VOCs and NOX

(those sources exceeding 50 tons per 

year (tpy) of VOCs, and 100 tpy of NOX), 

and all pre-2006 CTGs with the 

exception of one category, cutback 

asphalt.2 Maine’s submittal states that 

the Maine regulations which have been 

approved by EPA as RACT for the 1- 

hour ozone standard also represent 

RACT for the 8-hour ozone standard, 

including any subsequent revisions to 

the ozone standard that maintain an 8- 

hour averaging period. The CTG 

categories, Maine’s regulations 

including Code of Maine Rules citation, 

and the citations to EPA’s prior 

approval of these rules are shown in 

Table 1. 

TABLE 1—MAINE RACT CERTIFICATION

CTG Maine regulation EPA approval citation 

Design Criteria for Stage 1 Vapor Control Systems— 

Gasoline Service Stations (November 1975, no EPA 

number).

CMR Chapter 118, Gasoline Dispensing Facilities 

Vapor Control.

60 FR 33730; June 25, 1995. 

Control of Volatile Organic Emissions From Existing 

Stationary Sources—Volume II: Surface Coating of 

Cans, Paper, and Fabrics (May 1977, EPA–450/2– 

77–008).

CMR Chapter 129, Surface Coating Facilities .............. 59 FR 31154; June 17, 1994. 

CMR Chapter 123, Paper Coating Regulation ............. 57 FR 3946; February 3, 

1992. 

Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Solvent 

Metal Cleaning (November 1977, EPA–450/2–77– 

022).

CMR Chapter 130, Solvent Cleaners ........................... 70 FR 30367; May 26, 2005. 

Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Existing 

Stationary Sources—Volume VI: Surface Coating of 

Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products (June 1978, 

EPA–450/2–78–015).

CMR Chapter 129, Surface Coating Facilities .............. 59 FR 31154; June 17, 1994. 

Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Existing 

Stationary Sources—Volume VII: Factory Surface 

Coating of Flat Wood Paneling (June 1978, EPA– 

450/2–78–032).

CMR Chapter 129, Surface Coating Facilities .............. 59 FR 31154; June 17, 1994. 

Control of Hydrocarbons from Tank Truck Gasoline 

Loading Terminals (October 1977, EPA–450/2–77– 

026).

CMR Chapter 112, Bulk Terminal Petroleum Liquid 

Transfer Requirements.

61 FR 53636; October 15, 

1996. 

Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Existing 

Stationary Sources—Volume III: Surface Coating of 

Metal Furniture (December 1977, EPA–450/2–77– 

032).

CMR Chapter 129, Surface Coating Facilities .............. 59 FR 31154; June 17, 1994. 

Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Existing 

Stationary Sources—Volume VIII: Graphic Arts-Rotogravure and Flexography (December 1978, EPA– 

450/2–78–033).

CMR Chapter 132, Graphic Arts-Rotogravure and 

Flexography.

59 FR 31154; June 17, 1994. 

Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Bulk Gasoline Plants (December 1977, EPA–450/2–77–035).CMR Chapter 133, Petroleum Liquids Transfer Vapor 

Recovery at Bulk Gasoline Plants.

60 FR 33730; June 29, 1995. 

Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Storage of 

Petroleum Liquids in Fixed-Roof Tanks (December 

1977, EPA–450–2–77–036).

CMR Chapter 111, Petroleum Liquid Storage Vapor 

Control.

57 FR 3946; February 3, 

1992. 

Control of Volatile Organic Compounds Leaks from 

Gasoline Tank Trucks and Vapor Collection Systems 

(December 1978, EPA–450/2–78–051).

CMR Chapter 120, Gasoline Tank Truck Tightness 

Self-Certification.

60 FR 33730; June 29, 1995. 

Control Techniques Guidelines for Shipbuilding and 

Ship Repair Operations (61 FR 44050, August 27, 

1996).

CMR Chapter 134, Reasonably Available Control 

Technology for Facilities That Emit Volatile Organic 

Compounds.

65 FR 20749; April 18, 2000. 

Addressed by single source SIPs for Portsmouth 

Naval Shipyard.

65 FR 20749; April 18, 2000. 

Addressed by single source SIPs for Bath Iron Works 67 FR 35439; May 20, 2002. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
15332 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 51 / Thursday, March 15, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 1—MAINE RACT CERTIFICATION—Continued 

CTG Maine regulation EPA approval citation 

Control of Volatile Organic Compounds Emissions 

from Wood Furniture Manufacturing Operations 

(April 1996, EPA–453/R–96–007).

CMR Chapter 134, Reasonably Available Control 

Technology for Facilities That Emit Volatile Organic 

Compounds.

65 FR 20749; April 18, 2000. 

Addressed by single source SIPs for Moosehead 

Manufacturing’s Facilities in Dover-Foxcroft and 

Monson.

67 FR 35439; May 20, 2002. 

Control of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from 

Coating Operations at Aerospace Manufacturing and 

Rework Operations (December 1997, EPA–453/R– 

97–004).

CMR Chapter 134, Reasonably Available Control 

Technology for Facilities That Emit Volatile Organic 

Compounds.

65 FR 20749; April 18, 2000. 

Addressed by a single source SIP for Pratt and Whitney.67 FR 35439; May 20, 2002. 

Regarding non-CTG sources, Maine is 

also certifying that the State’s adopted 

VOC RACT regulation, CMR Chapter 

134, Reasonably Available Control 

Technology for Facilities That Emit 

Volatile Organic Compounds, approved 

into the Maine SIP on April 18, 2000 (65 

FR 20749) represents RACT for major 

non-CTG sources under the 1997 8-Hour 

ozone standard. For major sources of 

NOx, Maine is certifying that the State’s 

adopted NOx RACT regulations CMR 

Chapter 138, Reasonably Available 

Technology for Facilities That Emit 

Nitrogen Oxides, approved into the 

Maine SIP on September 9, 2002 (67 FR 

57148), represent RACT for major NOx 

sources under the 1997 8-hour ozone 

standard, and that CMR Chapter 148, 

Emissions From Smaller-Scale Electric 

Generating Resources, approved into the 

Maine SIP on May 26, 2006 (70 FR 

30376), represents NOx RACT for the 

subject sources under the 1997 8-hour 

ozone standard. 

Maine’s August 27, 2009 SIP 

submittal also states that the State has 

determined that there are no applicable 

stationary sources of VOC in Maine and 

makes a negative declaration for the 

following CTG categories identified by 

EPA in CTG documents issued prior to 

2006: 

1. Surface Coating of Coils (May 1977, 

EPA–450/2–77–008) 

2. Surface Coating for Insulation of 

Magnet Wire (December 1977, EPA– 

450/2–77–033) 

3. Surface Coating of Automobiles and 

Light Duty Trucks (May 1977, EPA–450/ 

2–77–008) 

4. Surface Coating of Large 

Appliances (December 1977, EPA–450/ 

2–77–034) 

5. Refinery Vacuum Producing 

Systems, Wastewater Separators, and 

Process Unit Turnarounds (October 

1977, EPA–450/2–77–025) 

6. Manufacture of Synthesized 

Pharmaceutical Products (December 

1978, EPA–450/2–78–029) 

7. Large Petroleum Dry Cleaners 

(September 1982, EPA–450/3–82–009) 

8. Leaks from Synthetic Organic 

Chemical and Polymer Manufacturing 

Equipment (March 1984, EPA–450/3– 

83–006) 

9. Air Oxidation Processes in 

Synthetic Organic Chemical 

Manufacturing Industry (December 

1984, EPA–450/3–84–015) 

10. Reactor Processes and Distillation 

Operations in Synthetic Organic 

Chemical Manufacturing Industry 

(August 1993, EPA–450/4–91–031) 

11. Petroleum Refinery Equipment 

(June 1978, EPA–450/2–78–036) 

12. Petroleum Liquid Storage in 

External Floating Roof Tanks (December 

1978, EPA–450/2–78–047) 

13. Manufacture of Vegetable Oils 

(June 1978, EPA–450/2–78–035) 

14. Manufacture of Pneumatic Rubber 

Tires (December 1978, EPA–450/2–78– 

030) 

15. Equipment Leaks from Natural 

Gas/Gasoline Processing Plants 

(December 1983, EPA–450/2–83–007) 

16. Manufacture of High-Density 

Polyethylene, Polypropylene, and 

Polystyrene Resins (November 1983, 

EPA–450/3–83–008). 

In addition to the items discussed 

above, Maine’s August 27, 2009 SIP 

submittal included a list of Maine’s 

major sources of VOC and NOX and the 

source’s applicable RACT regulations. 

Maine has determined that all major 

sources of VOC and NOX are meeting 

RACT. The submittal also included, as 

a single-source VOC RACT SIP, an 

amendment (A–459–71–D–A, also 

referred to as ‘‘Amendment #2’’) to the 

Air Emission License A–459–72–B–R 

issued to the McCain Foods USA, Inc., 

Tatermeal facility (Tatermeal) for 

incorporation into the Maine SIP. 

Amendment #2 incorporates by 

reference the conditions found in the 

Air Emission License A–459–72–B–R 

and amendment A–459–71–C–M to that 

License, which were issued to the 

Tatermeal facility by Maine pursuant to 

an EPA-approved SIP permitting 

program. While Maine’s August 27, 

2009 SIP submittal did not include 

copies of the Tatermeal Air Emission 

License A–459–72–B–R and amendment 

A–459–71–C–M to that License as 

elements of the State’s SIP revision, EPA 

has added them to the administrative 

record supporting this proposed action. 

On September 11, 2009, Maine 

submitted adopted amendments to CMR 

Chapter 131, Cutback Asphalt and 

Emulsified Asphalt, to EPA as a SIP 

revision. The amendments to CMR 

Chapter 131 were based on control 

measures recommended by the Ozone 

Transport Commission (OTC). Maine 

has determined that the amended CMR 

Chapter 131 was the only regulation 

required to be amended to fulfill 

Maine’s RACT requirements for the 

1997 8-hour ozone standard. 

In addition to the items discussed 

above, Maine has also adopted several 

regulations based on model rules 

developed by the OTC. Maine believes 

these regulations establish a benchmark 

for RACT for the relevant source 

categories. EPA has previously 

approved the following regulations into 

the Maine SIP: (1) CMR Chapter 151, 

Control of VOC emissions from 

Architectural and Industrial 

Maintenance (AIM) Coatings, approved 

into the Maine SIP on March 17, 2006 

(71 FR 13767); (2) CMR Chapter 153, 

Control of VOC emissions from Mobile 

Equipment Repair and Refinishing, 

approved into the Maine SIP on May 26, 

2005 70 FR 30367); and (3) CMR 

Chapter 155, Control of VOC emissions 

from Portable Fuel Containers, approved 

into the Maine SIP on February 7, 2005 

(70 FR 6352). Maine has determined 

that these regulations, as previously 

approved into the Maine SIP, still 

constitute as RACT for the respective 

source categories. Another such 

regulation, CMR Chapter 152, Control of 

Volatile Organic Compounds from 

Consumer Products, previously 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 51 / Thursday, March 15, 2012 / Proposed Rules 15333 

3EPA’s March 24, 2008 failure to submit finding 

did not address Maine’s obligation to submit RACT 

SIP revisions addressing the Metal Furniture 

Coating CTG and the Paper, Film, Foil Coating CTG 

(which were due October 9, 2008) nor the 

Lithographic Printing Materials and Letterpress 

Printing Materials CTG and the Flat Wood Paneling 

Coatings CTG (which were due October 5, 2007). 

Thus, EPA’s actions regarding these CTGs today are 

in addition to EPA’s action regarding Maine’s 

submittal for the purpose of meeting the State’s 

RACT SIP revision obligation as of September 15, 

2006. 

approved into the Maine SIP on October 

24, 2005 (70 FR 61382), has been 

determined to no longer represent 

RACT, and thus has been amended and 

was submitted to EPA as a SIP revision 

on February 28, 2008. Furthermore, 

Maine has made SIP submittals 

addressing some of the eleven new 

CTGs that have been issued since 2006. 

In this rulemaking, EPA is acting on 

Maine’s submittal for the purpose of 

determining the State’s compliance with 

its RACT SIP revision obligation as of 

September 15, 2006 in relation to the 

1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. In addition, 

EPA is acting on the following received 

SIP submittals: 3

1. On June 1, 2010, Maine submitted 

amendments to CMR Chapter 123, 

Control of Volatile Organic Compounds 

from Paper, Film and Foil Coating 

Operations, which addresses the Paper, 

Film, and Foil Coatings CTG (September 

2007, EPA–453/R–07–003); 

2. On October 26, 2010, Maine 

submitted newly adopted regulation 

CMR Chapter 161, Graphic Arts— 

Lithography and Letterpress Printing, 

which addresses the Offset Lithographic 

Printing and Letterpress Printing CTG 

(September 2006, EPA–453/R–06–002); 

and 

3. On May 3, 2011, Maine submitted 

amendments to CMR Chapter 129, 

Surface Coating Facilities, which 

addresses the Flat Wood Paneling 

Coatings CTG (September 2006, EPA– 

453/R–06–004) and the Metal Furniture 

Coatings CTG (September 2007, EPA– 

453/R–07–005). 

III. EPA’s Evaluation of Maine’s SIP 

Revision 

EPA has evaluated Maine’s VOC and 

NOX regulations which the state 

certifies as meeting RACT for the 1997 

8-hour ozone standard, and has found 

that they are generally consistent with 

the respective EPA guidance 

documents, and/or OTC model rules, 

referenced above. EPA previously 

approved the Maine rules, with the 

exception of the revised asphalt paving 

regulation, as meeting RACT for the 1- 

hour ozone standard (see 57 FR 3946, 59 

FR 31154 and 60 FR 33730). In the 

absence of any information to the 

contrary, EPA agrees with Maine’s 

determination that these rules continue 

to meet RACT for the 1997 ozone 

standard with the exception of the 

asphalt paving category. 

Maine’s Chapter 131, Cutback Asphalt 

and Emulsified Asphalt, initially 

incorporated the requirements of the 

Cutback Asphalt CTG (December 1977, 

EPA–450/2–77–037) and prohibited the 

use of cutback asphalt on public roads 

during the ozone season, but allowed for 

a number of exemptions. EPA 

previously approved Maine’s Chapter 

131 into the SIP on June 17, 1994 (59 

FR 31154). Maine’s revisions to Chapter 

131 limit the VOC content of cutback 

and emulsified asphalt, eliminate 

exempted uses of cutback asphalt, and 

extend the scope of the regulation to all 

asphalt paving activities. The 

amendments to CMR Chapter 131 were 

based on control measures 

recommended by the OTC. EPA has 

evaluated Maine’s rule and has found 

that it is consistent with EPA’s 1977 

cutback asphalt CTG, similar regulations 

adopted by other states in the region, 

and the recommended control measures 

of the OTC for emulsified and cutback 

asphalt paving. Therefore, EPA finds the 

revised Chapter 131 constitutes RACT 

for the 1997 ozone standard. Also, 

because the revised Chapter 131 rule is 

more stringent than the previously 

approved cutback and emulsified 

asphalt VOC requirements, the revised 

regulation satisfies the section 110(l) 

anti-backsliding requirements of the 

CAA. 

EPA has evaluated Amendment #2, 

the single-source VOC RACT Air 

Emission License amendment for the 

McCain Foods USA, Inc., Tatermeal 

facility (Tatermeal) that Maine 

submitted for incorporation into the 

State’s SIP. EPA finds that Amendment 

#2 is consistent with EPA guidance for 

major stationary sources of VOC (see 

EPA–450/2–78–022, May 1978 and 

EPA–453/R–95–010, April 1995). The 

Tatermeal permit covers the potato 

waste drying operations at the McCain 

Foods USA, Inc., Tatermeal facility in 

Presque Isle, ME. The air pollution 

sources at the facility consist of three 

dryers that dehydrate potato wastes to 

produce a material for use as a binder 

and nutritional supplement in animal 

feed. These dryers combust #6 fuel oil, 

a process that generates minimal VOC 

emissions. The drying of the potato 

waste, in contrast, generates a 

significant amount of VOC emissions, 

over 205 tons per year. Maine also 

estimates that a small amount of VOC 

emission results from the use of VOCbased solvent degreasers for cleaning 

equipment. The Tatermeal facility uses 

no more than 50 gallons of such solvent 

per year, which Maine has determined 

would result in approximately 0.2 tons 

of VOC per year. The Tatermeal facility 

is subject to the requirements of Maine’s 

CMR Chapter 134, due to Tatermeal’s 

potential to emit more than the CMR 

Chapter 134 applicability threshold of 

40 tons of VOC per calendar year. The 

Tatermeal facility is meeting the RACT 

requirements of CMR Chapter 134 

Section 3(A)(3) Option C, which 

consists of an examination of the 

technical and economical feasibility of 

control device equipment and pollution 

prevention options capable of reducing 

VOC emissions equivalent to or greater 

than a VOC reduction achieved by CMR 

Chapter 134 Section 3(A)(1) or Section 

3(A)(2) and implementation of a 

program pursuant to CMR Chapter 134 

Section 3(B)(3). As part of this 

examination, various VOC control 

options were considered, including a 

number of methods of incineration, 

condensation, wet and dry scrubbing, 

and biological treatment. All of the 

incineration methods considered were 

found to be technically or economically 

unfeasible. For example, the analysis 

performed by McCain Foods concluded 

that for incineration using a regenerative 

thermal oxidizer, the cost effectiveness 

would be almost $18,000 per ton of VOC 

removed. Similarly, the various 

methods of condensation, wet and dry 

scrubbing, and biological treatment 

considered were all found to be either 

technically or economically infeasible, 

with cost effectiveness ranging from 

about $8,600 to about $23,000 per ton of 

VOC removed. EPA agrees with Maine’s 

determination that the installation and 

operation of add-on control equipment 

is not cost-effective for the potato drying 

operation. 

Amendment #2 of the Tatermeal Air 

Emission License A–459–72–B–R 

restricts the facility’s total annual VOC 

emissions to 208 tons per year on a 

twelve-month rolling total basis and 

limits the annual fuel use to 2,628,000 

gallons of #6 fuel oil, with a sulfur 

content of no greater than 2.0% sulfur 

by weight, based on a twelve-month 

rolling total. Given that the installation 

of add-on control equipment is not costeffective for the potato drying operation, 

EPA agrees that the provisions in 

Amendment #2 of the Tatermeal Air 

Emission License A–459–72–B–R 

constitute RACT for the Tatermeal 

facility. 

As with the other SIP revisions in 

Maine’s submittals that we propose to 

approve today, Amendment #2 satisfies 

EPA’s enforceability analysis. We note, 

in particular, that although Amendment 

#2 incorporates two documents that 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
15334 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 51 / Thursday, March 15, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

were not included in Maine’s August 

27, 2009 SIP submittal, Air Emission 

License A–459–72–B–R and 

Amendment A–459–71–C–M, EPA’s 

evaluation of these documents indicates 

that they are consistent with the terms 

of Amendment #2. Additionally, 

although Amendment #2 only restricts 

the total annual amount and not the 

type of fuel oil combusted by the 

Tatermeal facility, enforceability of the 

VOC emission limitation in Amendment 

#2 is not affected because Tatermeal is 

required to use only #6 fuel oil under 

Condition 12(f) of Air Emission License 

A–459–72–B–R—a condition derived 

from a Best Practicable Treatment 

determination made pursuant to an 

EPA-approved SIP permitting program. 

With respect to the CTGs issued in 

2006 and later, Maine has submitted a 

number of regulations addressing some 

of these 11 CTGs. In this rulemaking, 

EPA is proposing to approve two 

amended regulations and one newly 

adopted regulation, covering a total of 

four of the 11 CTGs issued since 2006. 

The state must still address the 

remaining seven CTGs. EPA’s 

evaluation of these regulations is 

presented below. 

1. Maine’s CMR Chapter 123, Paper 

Coating Regulation, was approved into 

the Maine SIP on February 3, 1992 (57 

FR 3946), as meeting the May 1977 CTG 

requirements for controlling VOC 

emissions from surface coating of paper 

(Control of Volatile Organic Emissions 

from Stationary Sources—Volume II: 

Surface Coating of Cans, Coils, Paper, 

Fabrics, Automobiles and Light-Duty 

Trucks, EPA–450/2–77–008). Maine’s 

revised CMR Chapter 123, Control of 

Volatile Organic Compounds from 

Paper, Film and Foil Coating 

Operations, submitted to EPA as a SIP 

revision on June 1, 2010, adds VOC 

emissions control requirements for film 

and foil surface coatings, as well as 

incorporating work practices to 

minimize VOC emissions. EPA finds 

that this regulation is generally 

consistent with the relevant EPA 

guidance (Control Techniques Guideline 

for Paper, Film, and Foil Coatings; 

September 2007, EPA–453/R–07–003). 

Also, because the revised Chapter 123 

rule is more stringent than the 

previously approved paper, film, and 

foil coating operations VOC 

requirements, the revised regulation 

satisfies the section 110(l) antibacksliding requirements of the CAA. 

2. Maine’s newly adopted CMR 

Chapter 161, Graphic Arts—Offset 

Lithography and Letterpress Printing, 

submitted on October 26, 2010, requires 

offset lithography and letterpress 

printing operations to control VOC 

emissions from inks, fountain solutions, 

and cleaning materials used in graphic 

arts. EPA finds that the emission limits, 

work practices, test methods, record 

keeping, and monitoring requirements 

in the rule are consistent with the 

relevant EPA guidance (Control 

Techniques Guideline for Offset 

Lithographic Printing and Letterpress 

Printing, September 2006, EPA–453/R– 

06–002). 

3. Maine’s CMR Chapter 129, Surface 

Coating Facilities, was approved into 

the Maine SIP on June 17, 1994 (59 FR 

31154), as meeting RACT requirements 

under the 1-hour ozone standard for 

several CTG surface coating categories. 

CMR Chapter 129 addressed the 

requirements of the June 1978 flat wood 

paneling CTG (June 1978, EPA–450/2– 

78–032) and the requirements of the 

December 1977 metal furniture coatings 

CTG (December 1977, EPA–450/2–77– 

032). The amended CMR Chapter 129 

rule was submitted to EPA as a SIP 

revision on May 3, 2011 to address the 

updated Flat Wood Paneling Coatings 

CTG, issued in September 2006 

(September 2006, EPA–453/R–06–004), 

by expanding the type of paneling 

regulated, covering exterior siding and 

tileboard, lowering the applicability 

threshold of the rule, and clarifying the 

units of measurements by which VOC 

emission limits are expressed. The 

amended CMR Chapter 129 also 

addresses the Metal Furniture Coatings 

CTG, issued in September 2007 

(September 2007, EPA–453/R–07–005), 

by specifying VOC limits for eight types 

of coatings used on metal furniture and 

lowering the applicability threshold of 

the rule. EPA finds that Maine’s 

amended CMR Chapter 129 regulation is 

consistent with the updated CTGs for 

flat wood paneling and metal furniture 

coatings. Also, because the revised 

Chapter 129 rule is more stringent than 

the previously approved flat wood 

paneling and metal furniture coatings 

VOC requirements, the revised 

regulation satisfies the section 110(l) 

anti-backsliding requirements of the 

CAA. 

EPA has also evaluated Maine’s 

amended CMR Chapter 152 regulation, 

Control of VOC emissions from 

Consumer Products. CMR Chapter 152, 

as approved on October 24, 2005 (70 FR 

61382), was based on an OTC model 

rule developed in 2001. This regulation 

initially limited the VOC content of 

consumer products in approximately 80 

categories. The amended CMR Chapter 

152 regulation reflects a more recent 

model rule developed by the OTC in 

2006, which includes 18 additional 

categories of regulated consumer 

products, places limits on certain toxic 

compounds in some consumer products, 

streamlines the reporting requirements, 

and clarifies the sell-through period for 

products manufactured prior to the 

rule’s effective date. EPA finds that the 

amended CMR Chapter 152 rule is 

consistent with EPA guidance and the 

2006 OTC model rule for consumer 

products. In addition, because the 

revised Chapter 152 rule is more 

stringent than the previously approved 

consumer products VOC requirements, 

the revised regulation satisfies the antibacksliding requirements of the CAA 

section 110(l). 

IV. Proposed Action 

EPA’s review of Maine’s SIP revisions 

indicates that these regulations and 

Amendment #2 of the Tatermeal Air 

Emission License A–459–72–B–R 

constitute RACT. EPA is proposing to 

approve Maine’s RACT demonstration 

for meeting the State’s SIP revision 

obligation as of September 15, 2006 in 

relation to the 1997 8-hour ozone 

standard. EPA is also proposing to 

approve the following Maine regulations 

and incorporate them into the Maine 

SIP: revised CMR Chapter 131, Cutback 

Asphalt and Emulsified Asphalt 

Regulation; revised CMR Chapter 123, 

Control of Volatile Organic Compounds 

from Paper, Film and Foil Coating 

Operations; revised CMR Chapter 129, 

Surface Coating Facilities; revised CMR 

Chapter 152, Control of Volatile Organic 

Compounds from Consumer Products; 

and newly adopted CMR Chapter 161, 

Graphic Arts—Lithography and 

Letterpress Printing. Finally, EPA is 

proposing to approve Amendment #2 of 

the Air Emission License A–459–72–B– 

R for the Tatermeal facility and 

incorporate Amendment #2 into the 

Maine SIP. 

EPA is soliciting public comments on 

the issues discussed in this notice or on 

other relevant matters. These comments 

will be considered before taking final 

action. Interested parties may 

participate in the Federal rulemaking 

procedure by submitting written 

comments to the EPA New England 

Regional Office listed in the ADDRESSES

section of this Federal Register. 

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 proposed action 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 51 / Thursday, March 15, 2012 / Proposed Rules 15335 

merely approves state law as meeting 

Federal requirements and does not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by state law. For that 

reason, this proposed 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. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Volatile organic 

compounds. 

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

Dated: March 8, 2012. 

H. Curtis Spalding, 

Regional Administrator, EPA Region 1. 

[FR Doc. 2012–6274 Filed 3–14–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 141 and 142 

[FRL–9645–8 ] 

Notice of Public Meetings: Arsenic 

Small Systems Compliance and 

Alternative Affordability Criteria 

Working Group 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice of Public Meetings. 

SUMMARY: EPA is holding three meetings 

of the Arsenic Small Systems Working 

Group to discuss barriers to the use of 

arsenic treatment technologies and 

alternative affordability criteria. The 

first and second of these meetings will 

be held via Webcast. The third meeting 

will be held in Arlington, Virginia. 

Interested members of the public may 

participate in the two Webcasts via the 

Internet and may attend the third 

meeting in person. 

DATES: The Working Group Webcast 

meetings will be held on March 20, 

2012 (11:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. Eastern 

Time (ET)), and March 22, 2012 (1 p.m. 

to 5 p.m. ET). The third meeting will be 

held on April 4, 2012, at 9 a.m. ET and 

conclude on April 5, 2012, at 4 p.m. ET. 

ADDRESSES: The first two meetings will 

be held via the Internet using a Webcast 

and teleconference. Persons wishing to 

participate in the Webcasts must register 

in advance as described in the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section. 

Registrants will receive an Internet 

access link and dial in number upon 

registration for the Webcast. The third 

meeting will be held at Potomac Yards 

South, first floor conference room 

located at 2777 South Crystal Drive 

Arlington, VA 22202. A government 

issued photo ID is required to obtain 

access to the building. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

questions about these specific meetings, 

contact Russ Perkinson, Office of 

Ground Water and Drinking Water, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency; 

telephone (202) 564–4901 or by email to 

perkinson.russ@epa.govmailto:. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Congressional language contained in the 

Conference Report (H.R. 2055) 

accompanying the Consolidated 

Appropriations Act of 2012 directs the 

Environmental Protection Agency to 

convene an Arsenic Small Systems 

Working Group composed of 

representatives from States, small 

publicly owned water systems, local 

public health officials, drinking water 

consumers and treatment manufacturers 

to provide individual input and 

recommendations on barriers to the use 

of point-of-use and point-of-entry 

treatment units, package plant, and 

modular units, as well as alternative 

affordability criteria that give extra 

weight to small, rural, and lower income 

communities. Based upon input from 

the working group, the EPA will submit 

to Congress a report on actions to make 

alternative compliance methods more 

accessible to water systems and a report 

on alternative affordability criteria. 

To participate in the Webcasts, you 

must register in advance at the 

following Web address: https:// 

www3.gotomeeting.com/register/ 

127876830 for the March 20 Webcast on 

barriers to the use of arsenic treatment 

technologies; and https:// 

www3.gotomeeting.com/register/ 

796765574 for the March 22 Webcast on 

alternative affordability criteria. The 

number of connections available for the 

Webcast is limited and will be available 

on a first come, first served basis. To 

participate in the April 4 through 5 

meeting, you must register in advance 

no later than 5 p.m. ET on April 2, 2012, 

by email to perkinson.russ@epa.gov or 

phone at (202) 564–4901. Seating for the 

public is limited and will be available 

on a first come, first served basis for 

those persons registered. During the 

Webcasts and meetings, a public 

comment period will be held for those 

wishing to speak who have registered in 

advance. Individual comments should 

be limited to no more than three 

minutes and we ask that only one 

person present the statement on behalf 

of a group or organization. Individuals 

wishing to speak during the public 

comment period or individuals without 

Internet access seeking alternative 

means to participate in the Webcasts 

must contact Russ Perkinson at (202) 

564–4901 or by email to 

perkinson.russ@epa.gov no later than 5 

p.m. two business days prior to the 

meeting. Please specify the date of the 

meeting(s) to which the request applies. 

Special Accommodations 

To request special accommodations 

for individuals with disabilities, please 

contact Russ Perkinson at (202) 564– 

4910 or by email to 

perkinson.russ@epa.gov. Please allow at 

least five business days prior to the 

meeting to allow time to process your 

request. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1