77628 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 247 / Tuesday, December 24, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

• 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, Carbon monoxide, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Hydrocarbons, Intergovernmental 

relations, Lead, Nitrogen oxides, Ozone, 

Particulate matter, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur 

oxides, Volatile organic compounds. 

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

Dated: December 16, 2013. 

Ron Curry, 

Regional Administrator, EPA Region 6. 

[FR Doc. 2013–30729 Filed 12–23–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R01–OAR–2012–0661; A–1–FRL– 

9904–44–Region–1] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; New 

Hampshire; Manchester and Nashua 

Carbon Monoxide Limited Maintenance 

Plans 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

revision submitted by the State of New 

Hampshire. This SIP revision 

establishes carbon monoxide (CO) 

limited maintenance plans for the City 

of Manchester, New Hampshire and the 

City of Nashua, New Hampshire. As part 

of its limited maintenance plan, New 

Hampshire will continue year-round CO 

monitoring at the Londonderry Moose 

Hill station in Londonderry, New 

Hampshire with triggers to reestablish 

CO monitoring sites in Manchester and 

Nashua if elevated CO levels are 

recorded in Londonderry. Future carbon 

monoxide transportation conformity 

evaluations for Manchester and Nashua 

would for the length of their limited 

maintenance plans be considered to 

satisfy the regional emissions analysis 

and ‘‘budget test’’ requirements. This 

action is being taken under the Clean 

Air Act. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before January 23, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID Number EPA– 

R01–OAR–2012–0661 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–2012–0661,’’ 

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 to 4:30, excluding legal 

holidays. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID Number EPA–R01–OAR– 

2012–0661. 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, 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 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; Air Resources Division, 

Department of Environmental Services, 

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

NH 03302–0095. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Donald O. Cooke, Air Quality Planning 

Unit, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, EPA New England Regional 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 247 / Tuesday, December 24, 2013 / Proposed Rules 77629 

Office, Office of Ecosystem Protection, 

Air Quality Planning Unit, 5 Post Office 

Square—Suite 100, (Mail code OEP05– 

2), Boston, MA 02109–3912, telephone 

number (617) 918–1668, fax number 

(617) 918–0668, email cooke.donald@

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. Criteria for Limited Maintenance Plan 

Designation 

A. EPA Guidance 

B. Emission Inventory 

C. Demonstration of Maintenance 

D. Monitoring Network and Verification of 

Continued Attainment 

III. Contingency Measures 

IV. State Commitments 

V. Conformity 

VI. Proposed Action 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background and Purpose 

The City of Manchester, New 

Hampshire (Manchester) and the City of 

Nashua, New Hampshire (Nashua) were 

designated nonattainment by EPA for 

carbon monoxide on March 3, 1978 (43 

FR 8962) and April 11, 1980 (45 FR 

24869), respectively. The current 

National Ambient Air Quality Standard 

(NAAQS) for CO is 9.0 parts per million 

(ppm) for an 8-hour average 

concentration and 35 ppm for a 1-hour 

concentration, not to be exceeded more 

than once per calendar year. In 1991, 

following passage of the Clean Air Act 

Amendments of 1990 (CAA), both cities 

were designated ‘‘nonattainment’’ and 

‘‘not classified’’ (November 6, 1991; 56 

FR 56694) although ambient monitoring 

showed NAAQS attainment had been 

achieved by that time. In February 1999, 

the State of New Hampshire submitted 

a formal CO redesignation request and 

a CO maintenance plan for Manchester 

and Nashua. Effective January 29, 2001 

(November 29, 2000; 65 FR 71060), EPA 

redesignated Manchester and Nashua 

from nonattainment to attainment for 

CO and approved New Hampshire’s CO 

maintenance plan. 

On May 30, 2007, the New Hampshire 

Department of Environmental Services 

(NH DES) submitted a SIP revision to 

EPA that contained modifications to 

their CO maintenance plan for the 

Nashua CO maintenance area. These 

modifications which were approved by 

EPA through a direct final rule 

(September 10, 2007; 72 FR 51564) 

changed the triggering mechanism by 

which contingency measures would be 

implemented in Nashua, and allowed 

the State to discontinue CO monitoring 

in the Nashua maintenance area. New 

Hampshire would rely on data from the 

CO monitor in Manchester to determine 

when, and if, monitoring would be 

reestablished in the Nashua 

maintenance area, and, in some 

circumstances, when contingency 

measures would be triggered in the 

Nashua maintenance area. At the time of 

the SIP revision approval, CO 

concentrations measured in Nashua 

were below the NAAQS for nearly 20 

years, and maximum measured 

concentrations were less than 50% of 

the 9 parts per million 8-hour CO 

standard. 

On August 1, 2012, the NH DES 

submitted a limited maintenance plan 

SIP revision for the remainder of 

Manchester and Nashua’s second tenyear maintenance plans (January 29, 

2011 to January 29, 2021). The revision 

also requests discontinuance of CO 

monitoring in Manchester to be replaced 

by a CO monitoring station in 

Londonderry, New Hampshire (mid-way 

between Manchester and Nashua). 

These revisions are the subject of 

today’s notice of proposed rulemaking. 

Under the CO limited maintenance 

plan New Hampshire would continue to 

implement strategies that have helped 

reduce CO emissions in Manchester and 

Nashua. These strategies include: New 

Hampshire’s Vehicle Inspection/

Maintenance On Board Diagnostic (OBD 

II) program; Vehicle Miles Travel 

reductions (implement congestion and 

emission reduction programs such as 

traffic signal coordination, increased 

mass transit, RideShare, anti-idling and 

other traffic mitigation measures); and 

Low Emissions Vehicles Standards. 

New Hampshire has also committed to 

continuing CO monitoring in 

Londonderry with triggers to reestablish 

CO monitoring in Manchester and 

Nashua. In the event monitored carbon 

monoxide concentrations reach or 

exceed the limited maintenance 

eligibility criteria of 7.65 parts per 

million, then the area would revert to a 

full maintenance plan. 

II. Criteria for Limited Maintenance 

Plan Designation 

A. EPA Guidance 

For the Manchester and Nashua areas, 

NH DES’s SIP revision uses EPA’s 

limited maintenance plan approach, as 

detailed in the EPA guidance 

memorandum, ‘‘Limited Maintenance 

Plan Option for Nonclassifiable CO 

Nonattainment Areas’’ from Joseph 

Paisie, Group Leader, Integrated Policy 

and Strategies Group, Office of Air 

Quality and Planning Standards 

(OAQPS), dated October 6, 1995, (the 

Paisie Memorandum, [a copy of which 

is included in the Docket as part of the 

States’ SIP revision]). Pursuant to this 

approach EPA will consider the 

maintenance demonstration satisfied for 

‘‘not classified’’ areas if the monitoring 

data show the design value is at or 

below 7.65 parts per million, or 85 

percent of the level of the 8-hour carbon 

monoxide NAAQS. The design value 

must be based on eight consecutive 

quarters of data. For such areas, there is 

no requirement to project emissions of 

air quality over the maintenance period. 

EPA believes if the area begins the 

maintenance period at, or below, 85 

percent of the CO 8 hour NAAQS, the 

applicability of ‘‘Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration’’ (PSD), the 

control measures already in the SIP, and 

Federal measures (including the Federal 

Motor Vehicle Control Program 

emission standards, limiting CO 

emissions), should provide adequate 

assurance of maintenance over the 

initial 10-year maintenance period. In 

addition, the design value for the area 

must continue to be at or below 7.65 

ppm until the time of final EPA action 

on the redesignation. 

The 8-hour CO design values for each 

of New Hampshire’s CO maintenance 

areas are summarized in Table 1 below. 

In all cases, 8-hour design values are 

significantly less than the 7.65 ppm 

threshold specified in EPA guidance, 

thus making each area potentially 

eligible for the limited maintenance 

plan option. 

TABLE 1—8-HOUR DESIGN VALUES (PPM) BY YEAR FOR MANCHESTER AND NASHUA

Year Manchester 

Bridge Street 

Manchester 

Pearl Street 

Nashua 

Main Street 

2001 ............................................................................................................................................. 3.6 ........................ 4.1 

2002 ............................................................................................................................................. * 2.0 4.0 

2003 ............................................................................................................................................. * 3.4 4.0 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
77630 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 247 / Tuesday, December 24, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 1—8-HOUR DESIGN VALUES (PPM) BY YEAR FOR MANCHESTER AND NASHUA—Continued 

Year Manchester 

Bridge Street 

Manchester 

Pearl Street 

Nashua 

Main Street 

2004 ............................................................................................................................................. * 3.4 4.0 

2005 ............................................................................................................................................. * 1.8 3.2 

2006 ............................................................................................................................................. * 3.0 3.2 

2007 ............................................................................................................................................. * 3.0 2.4 

2008 ............................................................................................................................................. * 3.5 * 

2009 ............................................................................................................................................. * 3.5 * 

2010 ............................................................................................................................................. * 2.4 * 

2011 ............................................................................................................................................. * 2.3 * 

* Monitoring discontinued. 

B. Emission Inventory 

Consistent with EPA’s guidance for 

limited maintenance plans, the State 

developed an attainment emissions 

inventory to identify the level of 

emissions in Hillsborough County, 

which includes Manchester and 

Nashua, sufficient to attain the NAAQS. 

(See Table 2 below.) The State also 

developed an attainment emissions 

inventory identifying the level of 

emissions statewide associated with 

attaining and maintaining the CO 

NAAQS. (See Table 3 below.) These 

inventories are consistent with EPA’s 

most recent guidance on emissions 

inventories for nonattainment areas 

available at the time, and they 

document a downward trend in CO 

emissions during the time period 

associated with the monitoring data 

achieving attainment and continued 

maintenance of the CO NAAQS. 

TABLE 2—CO EMISSIONS FOR HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, 1999–2008 

Category 

CO emissions (tons per year) 

1999 2002 2005 2008 

Point ................................................................................................................. 184 143 191 92 

Area ................................................................................................................. 12,822 12,864 13,210 13,384 

Non-Road Mobile ............................................................................................. 32,162 29,216 26,776 23,259 

On-Road Mobile ............................................................................................... 92,831 58,379 58,666 40,576 

Total .......................................................................................................... 137,999 100,602 98,841 77,311 

TABLE 3—CO EMISSIONS FOR NEW HAMPSHIRE (STATEWIDE), 1999–2008 

Category 

CO emissions (tons per year) 

1999 2002 2005 2008 

Point ................................................................................................................. 4,923 2,724 4,754 3,357 

Area ................................................................................................................. 78,133 74,099 73,706 47,798 

Non-Road Mobile ............................................................................................. 123,530 124,801 119,322 104,887 

On-Road Mobile ............................................................................................... 345,413 294,533 236,990 174,154 

Total .......................................................................................................... 552,000 496,157 434,772 330,196 

C. Demonstration of Maintenance 

The maintenance demonstration 

requirement is considered to be satisfied 

if the monitoring data show that the area 

is meeting the air quality criteria for 

limited maintenance areas (7.65 ppm or 

85% of the CO NAAQS). There is no 

requirement to project emissions over 

the maintenance period. The EPA 

believes since the area is below 85 

percent of exceedance levels, the air 

quality along with the continued 

applicability of PSD requirements, any 

control measures already in the SIP, and 

Federal measures, should provide 

adequate assurance of maintenance over 

the remainder of the 10-year 

maintenance period. 

When EPA approves a limited 

maintenance plan, EPA is concluding 

that an emissions budget may be treated 

as essentially not constraining for the 

length of the maintenance period 

because it is unreasonable to expect that 

such an area will experience so much 

growth in that period that a violation of 

the CO NAAQS would result. 

D. Monitoring Network and Verification 

of Continued Attainment 

In its SIP revision, NH DES commits 

to continue CO monitoring year-round 

at the Londonderry Moose Hill station 

in Londonderry. NH DES worked 

closely with EPA to carefully select this 

site due to its central proximity to 

Manchester and Nashua. The 

Londonderry Moose Hill Station came 

online on January 1, 2011 as a National 

Core (NCore) multi-pollutant monitoring 

station measuring a wide variety of 

pollutants. The Londonderry station 

measures fine particulate (PM2.5), 

nitrogen oxides, ozone, sulfur dioxide 

and carbon monoxide, in addition to 

wind speed, wind direction, and 

relative humidity. 

III. Contingency Measures 

Section 175A(d) of the Act requires 

that a maintenance plan include 

contingency provisions, as necessary, to 

promptly correct any violation of the 

NAAQS that occurs after redesignation 

of the area. Under section 175A(d), 

contingency measures do not have to be 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 247 / Tuesday, December 24, 2013 / Proposed Rules 77631 

fully adopted at the time of 

redesignation. However, the 

contingency plan is considered to be an 

enforceable part of the SIP and should 

ensure that the contingency measures 

are adopted expeditiously once they are 

triggered by a specified event. 

Previously implemented contingency 

measures and emissions reductions 

strategies in New Hampshire have 

proven successful, and will be 

continued through the maintenance 

period. These include: Vehicle 

Inspection/Maintenance (I/M); vehicle 

miles traveled reductions; and other 

emissions reduction programs. 

Vehicle Inspection/Maintenance 

(I/M)—EPA approved New Hampshire’s 

I/M program on January 25, 2013 (78 FR 

5292). In its CO maintenance plan SIP 

revision, NH DES commits to continued 

implementation of this program. 

Vehicle Miles Traveled reductions— 

In its CO maintenance plan SIP revision, 

NH DES commits to continue working 

with the NH Department of 

Transportation and regional 

Metropolitan Planning Organizations 

(MPOs) to identify effective congestion 

and emission reduction project and 

programs such as traffic signal 

coordination, increased mass transit, 

RideShare, anti-idling and other traffic 

management strategies. 

Other emissions reductions 

programs—NH DES and local MPOs are 

actively promoting low emissions 

vehicles and emissions reductions 

strategies such as anti-idling programs 

and park & ride lot construction as part 

of their long range transportation plans. 

IV. State Commitments 

New Hampshire will monitor CO 

levels using the Londonderry Moose 

Hill station and emissions inventories. 

Because New Hampshire proposes to 

discontinue monitoring CO in 

Manchester, it will adopt a more 

stringent contingency threshold or 

‘‘trigger’’ than indicated in the 2007 SIP 

revision. In the event the second highest 

CO concentration in any calendar year 

monitored in Londonderry reaches 50 

percent of the Federal 1-hour or 8-hour 

NAAQS for CO, New Hampshire will, 

within six months of recording such 

concentrations, reestablish the CO 

monitoring site in Manchester 

consistent with EPA siting criteria, and 

resume analyzing and reporting those 

data. If the reestablished Manchester CO 

monitor measures a violation of the 

either the Federal 1-hour or 8-hour 

NAAQS for CO, contingency measures 

will be implemented in Manchester and 

Nashua. Contingency measures in 

Nashua would cease once a 

reestablished CO monitor in Nashua 

shows that the area is in attainment of 

the CO standard. 

V. Conformity 

Section 176(c) of the Act defines 

transportation conformity as conformity 

to the SIP’s purpose of eliminating or 

reducing the severity and number of 

violations of the NAAQS and achieving 

expeditious attainment of such 

standards. The Act further defines 

transportation conformity to mean that 

no Federal transportation activity will: 

(1) Cause or contribute to any new 

violation of any standard in any area; (2) 

increase the frequency or severity of any 

existing violation of any standard in any 

area; or (3) delay timely attainment of 

any standard or any required interim 

emission reductions or other milestones 

in any area. The Federal Transportation 

Conformity Rule, 40 CFR part 93 

subpart A, sets forth the criteria and 

procedures for demonstrating and 

assuring conformity of transportation 

plans, programs and projects which are 

developed, funded or approved by the 

U.S. Department of Transportation, and 

by metropolitan planning organizations 

or other recipients of funds under title 

23 U.S.C. or the Federal Transit Laws 

(49 U.S.C. Chapter 53). The 

transportation conformity rule applies 

within all nonattainment and 

maintenance areas. As prescribed by the 

transportation conformity rule, once an 

area has an applicable State 

Implementation Plan with motor vehicle 

emissions budgets, the expected 

emissions from planned transportation 

activities must be consistent with 

(‘‘conform to’’) such established budgets 

for that area. 

According to EPA’s guidance on 

limited maintenance plans, in the case 

of the Manchester and Nashua New 

Hampshire CO limited maintenance 

plan areas, the emissions budgets may 

be treated as essentially not constraining 

for the length of the maintenance period 

as long as the area continues to meet the 

limited maintenance criteria, because 

there is no reason to expect that these 

areas will experience so much growth in 

that period that a violation of the CO 

NAAQS would result. In other words, 

emissions from on-road transportation 

sources need not be capped for the 

maintenance period because it is 

unreasonable to believe that emissions 

from such sources would increase to a 

level that would threaten the air quality 

in this area for the duration of this 

maintenance period. Therefore, for 

limited maintenance plan CO 

maintenance areas, all Federal actions 

that require conformity determinations 

under the transportation conformity rule 

are considered to satisfy the regional 

emissions analysis and ‘‘budget test’’ 

requirements in 40 CFR 93.118 of the 

rule. 

Since limited maintenance plan areas 

are still maintenance areas, however, 

transportation conformity 

determinations are still required for 

transportation plans, programs and 

projects. Specifically, for such 

determinations, transportation plans, 

transportation improvement programs, 

and projects must still demonstrate that 

they are fiscally constrained (40 CFR 

part 108) and must meet the criteria for 

consultation and Transportation Control 

Measure (TCM) implementation in the 

conformity rule (40 CFR 93.112 and 40 

CFR 93.113, respectively). In addition, 

projects in limited maintenance areas 

will still be required to meet the criteria 

for CO hot spot analyses to satisfy 

‘‘project level’’ conformity 

determinations (40 CFR 93.116 and 40 

CFR 93.123) which must incorporate the 

latest planning assumptions and models 

that are available. All aspects of 

transportation conformity (with the 

exception of satisfying the emission 

budget test) will still be required. 

If the Manchester or Nashua CO 

attainment areas monitor CO 

concentrations at or above the limited 

maintenance eligibility criteria or 7.65 

parts per million, then that maintenance 

area would no longer qualify for a 

limited maintenance plan and would 

revert to a full maintenance plan. In this 

event, the limited maintenance plan 

would remain applicable for conformity 

purposes only until the full 

maintenance plan is submitted and EPA 

has found its motor vehicle emissions 

budgets adequate for conformity 

purposes or EPA approves the full 

maintenance plan SIP revision. Any 

required new conformity determinations 

could not be made until there is an 

adequate budget or approved full 

maintenance plan. At that time, regional 

emissions analyses would resume as a 

transportation conformity criteria. 

VI. Proposed Action 

EPA is proposing to approve 

conversion of the Manchester and 

Nashua current carbon monoxide 

maintenance plans to a limited 

maintenance plan for the remainder of 

the City of Manchester, and the City of 

Nashua, New Hampshire CO 

maintenance plans which terminate on 

January 29, 2021. 

EPA is proposing to approve 

replacement of the CO air quality 

monitoring in Manchester with carbon 

monoxide monitoring at the 

Londonderry Moose Hill station in 

Londonderry, New Hampshire with 

triggers to reestablish CO monitoring 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
77632 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 247 / Tuesday, December 24, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

sites in Manchester and Nashua if 

elevated CO levels are recorded in 

Londonderry. 

VII. 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 

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, Carbon monoxide, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Lead, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

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

Dated: December 10, 2013. 

Michael P. Kenyon, 

Acting Regional Administrator, EPA New 

England. 

[FR Doc. 2013–30576 Filed 12–23–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

Internal Revenue Service 

26 CFR Part 54 

[REG–143172–13] 

RIN 1545–BL90 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Employee Benefits Security 

Administration 

29 CFR Part 2590 

RIN 1210–AB60 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

[CMS–9946–P] 

45 CFR Part 146 

RIN 0938–AS16 

Amendments to Excepted Benefits 

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service, 

Department of the Treasury; Employee 

Benefits Security Administration, 

Department of Labor; Centers for 

Medicare & Medicaid Services, 

Department of Health and Human 

Services. 

ACTION: Proposed rules. 

SUMMARY: This document contains 

proposed rules that would amend the 

regulations regarding excepted benefits 

under the Employee Retirement Income 

Security Act of 1974, the Internal 

Revenue Code, and the Public Health 

Service Act. Excepted benefits are 

generally exempt from the health reform 

requirements that were added to those 

laws by the Health Insurance Portability 

and Accountability Act and the Patient 

Protection and Affordable Care Act. 

DATES: Comments are due on or before 

February 24, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: Written comments may be 

submitted to the Department of Labor as 

specified below. Any comment that is 

submitted will be shared with the other 

Departments and will also be made 

available to the public. Warning: Do not 

include any personally identifiable 

information (such as name, address, or 

other contact information) or 

confidential business information that 

you do not want publicly disclosed. All 

comments may be posted on the Internet 

and can be retrieved by most Internet 

search engines. No deletions, 

modifications, or redactions will be 

made to the comments received, as they 

are public records. Comments may be 

submitted anonymously. 

Comments, identified by ‘‘Excepted 

Benefits,’’ may be submitted by one of 

the following methods: 

Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Mail or Hand Delivery: Office of 

Health Plan Standards and Compliance 

Assistance, Employee Benefits Security 

Administration, Room N–5653, U.S. 

Department of Labor, 200 Constitution 

Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210, 

Attention: Excepted Benefits. 

Comments received will be posted 

without change to www.regulations.gov 

and available for public inspection at 

the Public Disclosure Room, N–1513, 

Employee Benefits Security 

Administration, 200 Constitution 

Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210, 

including any personal information 

provided. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Amy Turner or Beth Baum, Employee 

Benefits Security Administration, 

Department of Labor, at (202) 693–8335; 

Karen Levin, Internal Revenue Service, 

Department of the Treasury, at (202) 

317–5500; Jacob Ackerman, Centers for 

Medicare & Medicaid Services, 

Department of Health and Human 

Services, at (410) 786–1565. 

Customer Service Information: 

Individuals interested in obtaining 

information from the Department of 

Labor concerning employment-based 

health coverage laws, may call the EBSA 

Toll-Free Hotline at 1–866–444–EBSA 

(3272) or visit the Department of Labor’s 

Web site (http://www.dol.gov/ebsa). In 

addition, information from HHS on 

private health insurance for consumers 

can be found on the Centers for 

Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS