Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 162 / Thursday, August 21, 2014 / Proposed Rules 49473 

about whether, and what type of 

brokerage window to include in their 

plan? 

34. How often do plan participants 

use an adviser or a provider of managed 

account services to help them make 

investments through a plan brokerage 

window? 

35. Do plans generally make advisers 

or managed account providers available 

to participants for this purpose and, if 

so, do the advisers or managed account 

providers typically contract with the 

plan or with the participant? 

36. How often do plan participants 

independently select advisers or other 

providers to assist with their 

investments through the brokerage 

window? Are plan fiduciaries, 

recordkeepers, or other service 

providers generally aware of these 

arrangements? 

Fiduciary Duties 

In connection with the issuance of 

FAB 2012–02 and FAB 2012–02R, the 

Department became aware of the 

possibility that plan fiduciaries and 

service providers have questions 

regarding the nature and extent of 

ERISA’s fiduciary of duties under 

section 404(a) of ERISA in connection 

with brokerage windows in plans 

intended to be ‘‘ERISA 404(c) plans.’’ 

37. Do these questions indicate a need 

for guidance, regulatory or otherwise, on 

brokerage windows under ERISA’s 

fiduciary provisions? For instance, is 

there a need to clarify the extent of a 

fiduciary’s duties of prudence, loyalty, 

and diversification under section 404(a) 

of ERISA, both with respect to brokerage 

window itself, as a plan feature, and 

with respect to the investments through 

the window? If guidance is needed, 

please try to identify the precise 

circumstances in need of guidance. If no 

guidance is needed, please explain why 

not. 

Annual Reporting and Periodic Pension 

Benefit Statements 

38. The annual reporting 

requirements contain a special 

provision for plans with brokerage 

windows. Specifically, subject to certain 

exceptions, the Schedule H allows plans 

to report certain classes of investments 

made through a brokerage window as an 

aggregate amount under a catch-all 

‘‘other’’ category rather than by type of 

asset on the appropriate line item from 

the asset category, e.g., common stocks, 

mutual funds, employer securities, etc. 

Should this special provision be 

changed to require more detail and 

transparency regarding these 

investments? If so, what level of 

transparency is appropriate, taking into 

account current technology and the 

administrative burdens and costs of 

increased transparency? 

39. ERISA section 105 requires plans 

to furnish benefit statements at least 

quarterly in the case of participantdirected individual account plans. How 

do these benefit statements typically 

reflect investments made through 

brokerage windows? 

Signed at Washington, DC, this 7th day of 

August 2014. 

Phyllis C. Borzi, 

Assistant Secretary, Employee Benefits 

Security Administration, Department of 

Labor. 

[FR Doc. 2014–19832 Filed 8–20–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–29–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–RO1–OAR–2012–0848; A–1–FRL– 

9912–99–Region 1] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; New 

Hampshire; Reasonably Available 

Control Technology for Nitrogen 

Oxides and Volatile Organic 

Compounds 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

revisions submitted by the State of New 

Hampshire. These revisions contain an 

updated New Hampshire regulation 

establishing reasonably available control 

technology (RACT) for sources of 

nitrogen oxides (NOX), RACT orders for 

four facilities, and a request to withdraw 

a previously approved NOX RACT order 

from the SIP. The intended effect of this 

action is to propose approval of this 

updated regulation and four RACT 

orders into the New Hampshire SIP, and 

to propose to withdraw from the SIP a 

previously approved NOX RACT order. 

This action is being taken in accordance 

with the Clean Air Act. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before September 22, 

2014. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. RO1–OAR– 

2012–0848 by one of the following 

methods: 

1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. E-Mail: arnold.anne@epa.gov. 

3. Fax: (617) 918–0047. 

4. Mail: ‘‘EPA–RO1–OAR–2012– 

0848,’’ 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—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. 

Please see the direct final rule which 

is located in the Rules Section of this 

Federal Register for detailed 

instructions on how to submit 

comments. 

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: In the 

Final Rules Section of this Federal 

Register, EPA is approving the State’s 

SIP submittal as a direct final rule 

without prior proposal because the 

Agency views this as a noncontroversial 

submittal and anticipates no adverse 

comments. A detailed rationale for the 

approval is set forth in the direct final 

rule. If no adverse comments are 

received in response to this action rule, 

no further activity is contemplated. If 

EPA receives adverse comments, the 

direct final rule will be withdrawn and 

all public comments received will be 

addressed in a subsequent final rule 

based on this proposed rule. EPA will 

not institute a second comment period. 

Any parties interested in commenting 

on this action should do so at this time. 

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. 

For additional information, see the 

direct final rule which is located in the 

Rules Section of this Federal Register. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

49474 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 162 / Thursday, August 21, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

Dated: July 29, 2014. 

H. Curtis Spalding, 

Regional Administrator, EPA New England. 

[FR Doc. 2014–19517 Filed 8–20–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 

[EPA–R03–OAR–2014–0281; FRL– 9915–49– 

Region–3] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

Maryland; Redesignation Request and 

Associated Maintenance Plan for the 

Maryland Portion of the MartinsburgHagerstown, WV-MD Nonattainment 

Area for the 1997 Annual Fine 

Particulate Matter Standard 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve 

the State of Maryland’s request to 

redesignate to attainment the Maryland 

portion of the Martinsburg-Hagerstown, 

WV-MD Nonattainment Area 

(Martinsburg Area or Area) for the 1997 

annual fine particulate matter (PM2.5) 

national ambient air quality standard 

(NAAQS). The Maryland portion of the 

Martinsburg Area is comprised of 

Washington County, Maryland. EPA has 

determined that the Martinsburg Area 

attained the standard and continues to 

attain the standard. In addition, EPA is 

proposing to approve, as a revision to 

the Maryland State Implementation Plan 

(SIP), the Washington County 

maintenance plan to show maintenance 

of the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS 

through 2025 for the Maryland portion 

of the Area. The maintenance plan 

includes the 2017 and 2025 PM2.5 and 

nitrogen oxides (NOX) mobile vehicle 

emissions budgets (MVEBs) for 

Washington County, Maryland for the 

1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS, which EPA 

is proposing to approve for 

transportation conformity purposes. 

These actions are being taken under the 

Clean Air Act (CAA). 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before September 22, 

2014. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID Number EPA– 

R03–OAR–2014–0281 by one of the 

following methods: 

A. www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

B. Email: fernandez.cristina@epa.gov. 

C. Mail: EPA–R03–OAR–2014–0281, 

Cristina Fernandez, Associate Director, 

Office of Air Program Planning, 

Mailcode 3AP30, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 

Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 

19103. 

D. Hand Delivery: At the previouslylisted EPA Region III address. Such 

deliveries are only accepted during the 

Docket’s normal hours of operation, and 

special arrangements should be made 

for deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R03–OAR–2014– 

0281. 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 information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through www.regulations.gov 

or email. 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 during normal business 

hours at the Air Protection Division, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region III, 1650 Arch Street, 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. 

Copies of the State submittal are 

available at the Maryland Department of 

the Environment, Air and Radiation 

Management Administration, 1800 

Washington Boulevard, Baltimore, 

Maryland 21230. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Marilyn Powers, at (215) 814–2308, or 

by email at powers.marilyn@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

II. EPA’s Requirements 

A. Criteria for Redesignation to Attainment 

B. Requirements of a Maintenance Plan 

III. Summary of Proposed Actions 

IV. Effects of Recent Court Decisions on 

Proposed Actions 

A. Effect of the Supreme Court and D.C. 

Circuit Court’s Decisions Regarding 

EPA’s Cross-State Air Pollution Rule 

(CSAPR) 

B. Effect of the January 4, 2013 D.C. Circuit 

Court Decision Regarding the PM2.5

Implementation Under Subpart 4 of Part 

D of Title I of the CAA 

V. EPA’s Analysis of Maryland’s SIP 

Submittal 

A. Redesignation Request 

B. Maintenance Plan 

C. Transportation Conformity 

VI. Proposed Actions 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background 

The first air quality standards for 

PM2.5 were established on July 18, 1997 

(62 FR 38652). EPA promulgated an 

annual standard at a level of 15 

micrograms per cubic meter (mg/m3), 

based on a three-year average of annual 

mean PM2.5 concentrations (the 1997 

annual PM2.5 standard). In the same 

rulemaking, EPA promulgated a 24-hour 

standard of 65 mg/m3 based on a threeyear average of the 98th percentile of 24- 

hour concentrations. 

On January 5, 2005 (70 FR 944, 1014), 

EPA published air quality area 

designations for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

In that rulemaking action, EPA 

designated the Martinsburg Area as 

nonattainment for the 1997 annual 

PM2.5 NAAQS. The Martinsburg Area is 

comprised of Washington County in 

Maryland and Berkeley County in West 

Virginia. See 40 CFR 81.321 (Maryland) 

and 40 CFR 81.349 (West Virginia). 

On October 17, 2006 (71 FR 61144), 

EPA retained the annual average 

standard at 15 mg/m3, but revised the 24- 

hour standard to 35 mg/m3, based again 

on the three-year average of the 98th 

percentile of the 24-hour concentrations 

(the 2006 annual PM2.5 standard). On 

November 13, 2009 (74 FR 58688), EPA 

published designations for the 2006 24- 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS