Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 170 / Wednesday, September 3, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 52201 

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 

Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation 

(water), Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Security measures, and 

Waterways. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 

CFR Part 165 as follows: 

PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION 

AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 165 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. 

Chapter 701; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 

1.05–1(g), 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5; Pub. L. 

107–295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of 

Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 

■ 2. Add temporary § 165.T11–652 to 

read as follows: 

§ 165.T11–652 Safety zone; Urban Shield 

2014, South San Francisco Bay, Oakland, 

CA. 

(a) Location. This temporary safety 

zone will encompass the navigable 

waters of the South San Francisco Bay 

within an area connecting the following 

points: 37°41′57′′ N, 122°13′17′′ W; 

37°41′49′′ N, 122°17′42′′ W; 37°40′16′′ N, 

122°17′42′′ W; 37°40′27′′ N, 122°14′49′′ 

W; thence back to the point of origin 

(NAD 83), as depicted in National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration (NOAA) Chart 18651. 

(b) Enforcement Period. The zone 

described in paragraph (a) of this 

section will be enforced from 8 a.m. 

until 7 p.m. on September 6 and 7, 

2014. The Captain of the Port San 

Francisco (COTP) will notify the 

maritime community of periods during 

which this zone will be enforced via 

Broadcast Notice to Mariners in 

accordance with 33 CFR 165.7. 

(c) Definitions. As used in this 

section, ‘‘designated representative’’ 

means a Coast Guard Patrol 

Commander, including a Coast Guard 

coxswain, petty officer, or other officer 

on a Coast Guard vessel or a Federal, 

State, or local officer designated by or 

assisting the COTP in accordance with 

a memorandum of understanding in the 

enforcement of the safety zone. 

(d) Regulations. (1) Under the general 

regulations in 33 CFR part 165, subpart 

C, entry into, transiting or anchoring 

within this safety zone is prohibited 

unless authorized by the COTP or a 

designated representative. 

(2) The safety zone is closed to all 

vessel traffic, except as may be 

permitted by the COTP or a designated 

representative. 

(3) Vessel operators desiring to enter 

or operate within the safety zone must 

contact the COTP or a designated 

representative to obtain permission to 

do so. Vessel operators given permission 

to enter or operate in the safety zone 

must comply with all directions given to 

them by the COTP or a designated 

representative. Persons and vessels may 

request permission to enter the safety 

zone on VHF–23A or through the 24- 

hour Command Center at telephone 

(415) 399–3547. 

Dated: August 18, 2014. 

Gregory G. Stump, 

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

Port San Francisco. 

[FR Doc. 2014–20958 Filed 9–2–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 62 

[EPA–R01–OAR–2012–0260; A–1–FRL– 

9915–71–Region 1] 

Approval and Promulgation of State 

Plans for Designated Facilities and 

Pollutants: New Hampshire; Revised 

State Plan for Large and Small 

Municipal Waste Combustors 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is approving the Clean 

Air Act section 111(d)/129 State Plan 

revisions for Large and Small Municipal 

Waste Combustors (MWCs) submitted 

by the New Hampshire Department of 

Environmental Services (DES) on 

January 29, 2009 with amendments 

submitted on February 13, 2009. The 

revised State Plan is in response to 

amended emission guidelines (EGs) and 

new source performance standards 

(NSPS) for Large MWCs promulgated by 

EPA on May 10, 2006 and the 

strengthening of emission limits on 

Small MWCs as enacted by the New 

Hampshire General Court in 2005. New 

Hampshire DES’s State Plan is for 

implementing and enforcing provisions 

at least as protective as the EPA EGs 

applicable to existing Large and Small 

MWC units. 

DATES: This direct final rule will be 

effective November 3, 2014, unless EPA 

receives adverse comments by October 

3, 2014. If adverse comments are 

received, EPA will publish a timely 

withdrawal of the direct final rule in the 

Federal Register informing the public 

that the rule will not take effect. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID Number EPA– 

R01–OAR–2012–0260 by one of the 

following methods: 

1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. Email: mcdonnell.ida@epa.gov 

3. Fax: (617) 918–0653. 

4. Mail: ‘‘Docket Identification 

Number EPA–R01–OAR–2012–0260,’’ 

Ida E. McDonnell U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, EPA New England 

Regional Office, Office of Ecosystem 

Protection, Air Permits, Toxics, and 

Indoor Programs Unit, 5 Post Office 

Square—Suite 100, (Mail code OEP05– 

2), Boston, MA 02109–3912. 

5. Hand Delivery or Courier. Deliver 

your comments to: Ida E. McDonnell, 

EPA New England Regional Office, 

Office of Ecosystem Protection, Air 

Permits, Toxics, and Indoor Programs 

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–2012– 

0260. 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 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
52202 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 170 / Wednesday, September 3, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

1U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Mercury 

Report to Congress, Volume V: Health Effects of 

Mercury and Mercury Compounds (EPA–452/R–97– 

007) and Volume VI: An Ecological Assessment for 

Anthropogenic Mercury Emissions in the United 

States (EPA–452/R–97–008). U.S. EPA Office of Air 

Quality, Planning, and Standards and Office of 

Research and Development. Washington, DC, 1997. 

2U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

Integrated Science Assessment for Particulate 

Matter (EPA/600/R–08/139F). U.S. EPA Office of 

Air and Radiation. Washington, DC, 2009. 

3U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) on 

Hydrogen Chloride. U.S EPA National Center for 

Environmental Assessment and Office of Research 

and Development. Washington, DC, 1999. 

4U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Health 

Assessment Document for 2,3,7,8- 

Tetrachlorodibenzo-P-Dioxin (TCDD) and Related 

Compounds (EPA/600/BP–92/001a). U.S. EPA 

Office of Research and Development. Washington, 

DC, 1994. 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. 

Docket: All documents in the 

electronic docket are listed in the 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

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

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

is not placed on the Internet and will be 

publicly available only in hard copy 

form. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in www.regulations.gov or 

in hard copy at Office of Ecosystem 

Protection, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, EPA New England 

Regional Office, 5 Post Office Square— 

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 New 

Hampshire Department of 

Environmental Services, Air Resources 

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

Concord, NH 03302–0095. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Patrick Bird, Air Permits, Toxics, & 

Indoor Programs Unit, Air Programs 

Branch, Office of Ecosystem Protection, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 1, 5 Post Office Square, Mail 

Code: OEP05–2, Boston, MA, 02109– 

0287. The telephone number is (617) 

918–1287. Mr. Bird can also be reached 

via electronic mail at bird.patrick@

epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document whenever 

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

EPA. 

The following outline is provided to 

aid in locating information in this 

preamble. 

I. What Is a State Plan? 

II. Why Does EPA Need To Approve State 

Plans? 

III. Why Does EPA Regulate Air Emissions 

From MWCs? 

IV. What History Does New Hampshire DES 

Have With MWC State Plans? 

V. Why Did New Hampshire DES Submit a 

Revised MWC State Plan? 

VI. What Revisions Have Been Made to the 

State Plan? 

VII. Why Is EPA Approving New Hampshire 

DES’s Revised State Plan? 

VIII. Final Action 

IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What is a State plan? 

Clean Air Act (CAA) section 111, 

which Congress enacted as part of the 

1970 CAA Amendments, establishes 

mechanisms for controlling emissions of 

air pollutants from stationary sources. 

This provision requires EPA to 

promulgate a list of categories of 

stationary sources that the 

Administrator, in his or her judgment, 

finds ‘‘causes, or contributes 

significantly to, air pollution which may 

reasonably be anticipated to endanger 

public health or welfare.’’ Once EPA 

lists a source category, EPA must, under 

CAA section 111(b)(1)(B), establish 

‘‘standards of performance’’ for 

emissions of air pollutants from new 

sources in the source category. These 

standards are known as new source 

performance standards (NSPS), and they 

are national requirements that apply 

directly to the sources subject to them. 

When the EPA establishes NSPS for 

new sources in a particular source 

category, the EPA is also required, 

under CAA section 111(d)(1), to 

prescribe regulations for states to submit 

plans regulating existing sources in that 

source category for any air pollutant 

that, in general, is not regulated under 

the CAA section 109 requirements for 

the national ambient air quality 

standards (NAAQS) or regulated under 

the CAA section 112 requirements for 

hazardous air pollutants (HAP). In 

contrast with CAA section 111(b), 

which provides for direct federal 

regulation of new sources, section 

111(d)’s mechanism for regulating 

existing sources provides that states will 

submit plans that establish ‘‘standards 

of performance’’ for the affected existing 

sources and that contain other measures 

to implement and enforce those 

standards. 

II. Why does EPA need to approve State 

plans? 

Under section 129 of the CAA, EGs 

are not federally enforceable. Section 

129(b)(2) of the CAA requires states to 

submit state plans to EPA for approval. 

Each state must show that its state plan 

will carry out and enforce the EGs. State 

plans must be at least as protective as 

the EGs and will become federally 

enforceable upon EPA’s approval. The 

procedures for adopting and submitting 

state plans are in 40 CFR Part 60, 

Subpart B. 

III. Why does EPA regulate air 

emissions from MWCs? 

When burned, municipal solid wastes 

emit various air pollutants, including 

hydrochloric acid, dioxin/furan, toxic 

metals (lead, cadmium, and mercury) 

and particulate matter. Mercury is 

highly hazardous and is of particular 

concern because it persists in the 

environment and bioaccumulates 

through the food web. Serious human 

health effects, primarily to the nervous 

system, have been associated with 

exposures to mercury. Harmful effects 

in wildlife have also been reported; 

these include nervous system damage 

and behavioral and reproductive 

deficits. Human and wildlife exposure 

to mercury occur mainly through eating 

of fish. When inhaled, mercury vapor 

attacks the lung tissue and is a 

cumulative poison. Short-term exposure 

to mercury in certain forms can cause 

hallucinations and impair 

consciousness. Long-term exposure to 

mercury in certain forms can affect the 

central nervous system and cause 

kidney damage.1

Exposure to particulate matter can 

aggravate existing respiratory and 

cardiovascular disease and increase risk 

of premature death.2 Hydrochloric acid 

is a clear colorless gas. Chronic 

exposure to hydrochloric acid has been 

reported to cause gastritis, chronic 

bronchitis, dermatitis, and 

photosensitization. Acute exposure to 

high levels of chlorine in humans may 

result in chest pain, vomiting, toxic 

pneumonitis, pulmonary edema, and 

death. At lower levels, chlorine is a 

potent irritant to the eyes, the upper 

respiratory tract, and lungs.3

Exposure to dioxin and furan can 

cause skin disorders, cancer, and 

reproductive effects such as 

endometriosis.4

IV. What history does New Hampshire 

DES have with MWC State plans? 

On August 16, 2002, New Hampshire 

Department of Environmental Services 

(DES) submitted a CAA section 111(d)/ 

129 State Plan for implementing and 

enforcing EGs for existing large and 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 170 / Wednesday, September 3, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 52203 

small municipal waste combustors 

(MWCs) pursuant to 40 CFR Part 60, 

Subpart Cb and BBBB, respectively. 

New Hampshire DES combined the 

requirements of 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart 

Cb and BBBB into a single plan and 

enforceable mechanism, New 

Hampshire Code of Administrative 

Rules Env-A 3300 Municipal Waste 

Combustion (Env-A 3300), which 

included the differing emissions limits 

for large and small MWCs. 

New Hampshire DES’s State Plan was 

analyzed by EPA. The Plan included all 

necessary elements of an approvable 

CAA section 111(d)/129 state plan, 

including: identification of legal 

authority; identification of enforceable 

state mechanisms for implementing 

plan; inventory of affected sources; 

inventory of emissions from affected 

sources; emissions limitations for 

affected sources; compliance schedule; 

and testing, monitoring, recordkeeping, 

and reporting requirements. EPA 

approved the New Hampshire DES State 

Plan on February 10, 2003 (68 FR 6630). 

V. Why did New Hampshire DES 

submit a revised MWC State plan? 

Section 129(a)(5) of the CAA requires 

EPA to conduct a 5-year review of NSPS 

and EGs for solid waste incinerators and 

amend standards and requirements as 

appropriate. Accordingly, EPA 

promulgated amended standards and 

requirements for Large MWCs on May 

10, 2006 (71 FR 27324). This rulemaking 

included revised limits for dioxin/furan 

(only for units equipped with 

electrostatic precipitators), mercury, 

cadmium, lead, particulate matter, and 

nitrogen oxides (for some types of 

units). It also contained revisions to the 

compliance testing provisions to require 

increased data availability from 

continuous emissions monitoring 

systems (CEMS). CEMS are required to 

generate at least ninety-five percent 

(95%) data availability on a calendar 

year basis and at least ninety percent 

(90%) data availability on a calendar 

quarter basis. The compliance testing 

provisions have also been revised to 

allow the optional use of CEMS to 

monitor particulate matter and mercury. 

Other revisions include: 

• Operator stand-in provisions to 

clarify how long a shift supervisor is 

allowed to be off site when a 

provisionally certified control room 

operator is standing in; 

• An eight-hour block average for 

measuring activated carbon injection 

rate; 

• A provision for waiver of operating 

parameter limits during the mercury 

performance test and for two weeks 

preceding the test, as is already allowed 

for dioxin testing; 

• A revision to relative accuracy 

criteria for sulfur dioxide and carbon 

monoxide CEMS; 

• Flexibility to the annual 

compliance testing schedule so that a 

facility tests once per calendar year, but 

no less than nine months and no more 

than 15 months since the previous test; 

• Allowing use of parametric 

monitoring limits from an exceptionally 

well-operated MWC unit to be applied 

to all identical units at the same plant 

site without retesting for dioxin; 

• The option of monitoring the 

activated carbon injection pressure or 

equivalent parameter; and 

• Clarifying the exclusion of 

monitoring data from compliance 

calculations. 

In addition to EPA’s amended 

standards and requirements for Large 

MWCs, the New Hampshire General 

Court enacted more stringent emission 

limits for Small MWCs, codified at New 

Hampshire Revised Statutes Annotated 

125–C:10-a, in 2005. The limits took 

effect January 1, 2006. 

In response to the actions described 

above, New Hampshire DES submitted a 

revised State Plan to EPA on January 29, 

2009. The formal submittal was 

accompanied by minor technical 

amendments submitted to EPA on 

February 13, 2009. EPA is taking action 

on the January 29, 2009 State Plan 

revision and the February 13, 2009 

amendments in today’s Federal 

Register. 

VI. What revisions have been made to 

the State plan? 

New Hampshire DES amended the 

emission limits for Large MWCs in EnvA 3300 to be consistent with EPA’s 

amended EGs. Amendments to 

operating practices, training and 

certification, testing and monitoring, 

and reporting and recordkeeping were 

incorporated into Env-A 3300 by 

reference, as Env-A 3300 references 

specific citations in EPA’s Large MWC 

EGs. 

Sections of Env-A 3300 were revised 

to reflect name/numbering changes 

made to other New Hampshire DES 

rules cross-referenced in Env-A 3300. 

Instances where reference was made to 

Env-Wm 2705.07 and Env-Wm 3300 

were changed to Env-Sw 1005.07 and 

Env-Sw 1600, respectively. These 

changes account for the name/

numbering changes in the crossreferenced sections. 

Env-A 3306.01 was revised to make 

reference to Env-A 808, Continuous 

Emission Monitoring, which has the 

effect of increasing the minutes of data 

for a valid hourly average beyond what 

is required in EPA’s Large MWC EGs. 

This revision strengthens the 

requirements of the Plan’s enforceable 

mechanism. 

New Hampshire DES also submitted 

revised emission limits for Small 

MWCs, which are more stringent than 

the federal limits pursuant to 40 CFR 

part 60, Subpart BBBB. The New 

Hampshire General Court enacted the 

more stringent emission limits, codified 

at New Hampshire Revised Statutes 

Annotated 125–C:10–a, in 2005. The 

emission limits took effect January 1, 

2006. New Hampshire DES submitted 

the more stringent emission limits as 

part of its revised State Plan. 

New Hampshire DES’s January 29, 

2009 submittal did not change the NOx 

emission standard for mass burn rotary 

waterwall MWCs in Env-A 3300 as there 

is no such facility within the 

jurisdiction of New Hampshire DES that 

operates with this specified technology. 

As such, on February 13, 2009, New 

Hampshire DES submitted an 

amendment to the State Plan for MWCs, 

which redacted the NOx standards for 

mass burn rotary waterwall units in 

Env-A 3300. 

New Hampshire DES’s final revised 

State Plan for MWCs includes all 

revisions submitted on January 29, 2009 

and the amendment submitted on 

February 13, 2009. 

VII. Why is EPA approving New 

Hampshire DES’s revised State plan? 

EPA has evaluated the revised State 

Plan for MWCs submitted by New 

Hampshire DES for consistency with the 

CAA and EPA guidelines and policies. 

EPA has determined that New 

Hampshire DES’s State Plan for Large 

and Small MWCs meets or exceeds all 

requirements and, therefore, EPA is 

approving New Hampshire DES’s State 

Plan to implement and enforce the EGs, 

as they apply to existing Large and 

Small MWCs within the jurisdiction of 

New Hampshire DES. 

EPA’s approval of New Hampshire’s 

State Plan is based on our findings that: 

1. New Hampshire DES provided 

adequate public notice of public 

hearings for the proposed rulemaking 

that allows New Hampshire to carry out 

and enforce provisions that are at least 

as protective as the EGs for Large and 

Small MWCs, and; 

2. New Hampshire DES demonstrated 

legal authority to adopt emission 

standards and compliance schedules 

applicable to the designated facilities; 

enforce applicable laws, regulations, 

standards and compliance schedules; 

seek injunctive relief; obtain 

information necessary to determine 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
52204 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 170 / Wednesday, September 3, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

compliance; require record keeping; 

conduct inspections and tests; require 

the use of monitors; require emission 

reports of owners and operators; and 

make emission data publicly available. 

VIII. Final Action 

EPA is approving New Hampshire’s 

revised State Plan for existing Large and 

Small MWCs. EPA is publishing this 

action without prior proposal because 

the Agency views this as a 

noncontroversial amendment and 

anticipates no adverse comments. 

However, in the proposed rules section 

of this Federal Register publication, 

EPA is publishing a separate document 

that will serve as the proposal to 

approve the State Plan should relevant 

adverse comments be filed. This rule 

will be effective November 3, 2014 

without further notice unless the 

Agency receives relevant adverse 

comments by October 3, 2014. 

If the EPA receives such comments, 

then EPA will publish a notice 

withdrawing the final rule and 

informing the public that the rule will 

not take effect. All public comments 

received will then be addressed in a 

subsequent final rule based on the 

proposed rule. The EPA will not 

institute a second comment period on 

the proposed rule. All parties interested 

in commenting on the proposed rule 

should do so at this time. If no such 

comments are received, the public is 

advised that this rule will be effective 

on November 3, 2014 and no further 

action will be taken on the proposed 

rule. Please note that if EPA receives 

adverse comment on an amendment, 

paragraph, or section of this rule and if 

that provision may be severed from the 

remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt 

as final those provisions of the rule that 

are not the subject of an adverse 

comment. 

IX. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve 111(d)/129 plan 

submissions that comply with the 

provisions of the CAA and applicable 

Federal regulations. 40 CFR 62.02(a). 

Thus, in reviewing 111(d)/129 plan 

submissions, EPA’s role is to approve 

state choices, provided that they meet 

the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, 

this action merely approves state law as 

meeting Federal requirements and does 

not impose additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by state law. For 

that reason, this action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

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

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

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

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

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

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

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

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; 

and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this rule does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the State 

Plan is not approved to apply in Indian 

country located in the state, and EPA 

notes that it will not impose substantial 

direct costs on tribal governments or 

preempt tribal law. 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

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

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this action and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

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

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

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

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of 

this action must be filed in the United 

States Court of Appeals for the 

appropriate circuit by November 3, 

2014. Filing a petition for 

reconsideration by the Administrator of 

this final rule does not affect the finality 

of this action for the purposes of judicial 

review nor does it extend the time 

within which a petition for judicial 

review may be filed, and shall not 

postpone the effectiveness of such rule 

or action. Parties with objections to this 

direct final rule are encouraged to file a 

comment in response to the parallel 

notice of proposed rulemaking for this 

action published in the proposed rules 

section of today’s Federal Register, 

rather than file an immediate petition 

for judicial review of this direct final 

rule, so that EPA can withdraw this 

direct final rule and address the 

comment in the proposed rulemaking. 

This action may not be challenged later 

in proceedings to enforce its 

requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).) 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 62 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Administrative 

practice and procedure, 

Intergovernmental relations, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur 

oxides, Waste treatment and disposal. 

Dated: July 11, 2014. 

H. Curtis Spalding, 

Regional Administrator, EPA New England. 

Part 62 of chapter I, title 40 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations is amended 

as follows: 

PART 62—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF STATE PLANS 

FOR DESIGNATED FACILITIES AND 

POLLUTANTS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 62 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q. 

Subpart EE—New Hampshire 

■ 2. Section 62.7325 is amended by 

adding paragraph (b)(4)(i) and (ii) to 

read as follows: 

§ 62.7325 Identification of Plan. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(4) * * * 

(i) Revised State Plan for Large and 

Small Municipal Waste Combustors was 

submitted on January 29, 2009, with a 

technical amendment submitted on 

February 13, 2009. Revisions included 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 170 / Wednesday, September 3, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 52205 

1See 76 FR 72097, November 22, 2011. 

2See 40 CFR 81.303 for a legal description of the 

boundary of the Hayden area. 

3Because of the form of the 2008 Pb NAAQS, one 

3-month average ambient air concentration over 

0.15 mg/m3 is enough to cause a violation of the Pb 

NAAQS. ADEQ’s Globe Highway monitor registered 

four violations in 2011; however, at the time of 

designation the data had not been quality assured 

and certified and therefore we did not rely on them 

as the basis for a nonattainment designation. 

4Letter from Lisa P. Jackson, Administrator, U.S. 

EPA, to Janice K. Brewer, Governor of Arizona, 

dated November 8, 2011. 

5The ADEQ Globe Highway monitor recorded 

three violations of the Pb NAAQS in 2012. Threemonth rolling average values violated the Pb 

standards for February–April, March–May, and 

April–June 2012. 

amendments to New Hampshire Code of 

Administrative Rules Env-A 3300 

Municipal Waste Combustion in 

response to amended emission 

guidelines for Large MWCs (40 CFR Part 

60, Subpart Cb) published on May 10, 

2006 and emission limits for Small 

MWCs enacted by the New Hampshire 

General Court in 2005 and codified at 

New Hampshire Revised Statutes 

Annotated 125–C:10–a. 

(ii) [Reserved] 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2014–20803 Filed 9–2–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 81 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2014–0266; FRL–9916–11– 

Region 9] 

Designation of Areas for Air Quality 

Planning Purposes; State of Arizona; 

Pinal County and Gila County; Pb 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with section 

107(d)of the Clean Air Act (CAA), the 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

is redesignating the Hayden area, which 

encompasses portions of southern Gila 

and eastern Pinal counties, Arizona, 

from ‘‘unclassifiable’’ to 

‘‘nonattainment’’ for the 2008 national 

ambient air quality standards 

(‘‘NAAQS’’ or ‘‘standards’’) for lead 

(Pb). EPA’s redesignation of the Hayden 

area is based on recorded violations of 

the Pb standards at the Arizona 

Department of Environmental Quality’s 

(ADEQ’s) Globe Highway monitoring 

site, located near the towns of Hayden 

and Winkleman, Arizona, and 

additional relevant air quality 

information. The effect of this action 

will be to redesignate the Hayden area 

to nonattainment for the Pb standards 

and thereby to impose certain planning 

requirements on the State of Arizona to 

reduce Pb concentrations within the 

Hayden area, including, but not limited 

to, the requirement to submit, within 18 

months of redesignation, a revision to 

the Arizona state implementation plan 

(SIP) that provides for attainment of the 

Pb standards as expeditiously as 

practicable, but no later than five years 

after the effective date of this 

redesignation. 

DATES: This rule is effective on October 

3, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–R09–OAR–2014–0266. 

Generally, documents in the docket for 

this action are available electronically at 

www.regulations.gov and in hard copy 

at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, 

San Francisco, California. While 

documents in the docket are listed at 

www.regulations.gov, some information 

may be publicly available only at the 

hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted 

material, large maps), and some may not 

be publicly available in either location 

(e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard copy 

materials, please schedule an 

appointment during normal business 

hours with the contact listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Ginger Vagenas, Air Planning Office 

(AIR–2), U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region IX, (415) 972–3964, 

vagenas.ginger@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, whenever 

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

EPA. This supplementary information 

section is arranged as follows: 

Table of Contents 

I. Background and Summary of EPA’s 

Proposed Action 

II. Response to Comments on the Proposed 

Rule 

III. Final Action 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background and Summary of EPA’s 

Proposed Action 

EPA revised the primary (healthbased) Pb NAAQS on October 15, 2008, 

lowering it from the 1.5 micrograms per 

cubic meter (mg/m3) level set in 1978 to 

a level of 0.15 mg/m3. The secondary 

(welfare-based) standard was revised to 

be identical in all respects to the 

primary standard. See 73 FR 66964, 

November 12, 2008. An area violates the 

revised standards if any arithmetic 3- 

month mean (hereafter referred to as 

‘‘average’’) concentration measured 

within the preceding three years is 

greater than 0.15 mg/m3. EPA also 

expanded the Pb monitoring network by 

requiring new monitors to be sited near 

sources emitting one ton or more of Pb 

per year by January 1, 2010 and in 

certain non-source oriented locations by 

January 1, 2011. In a separate, later 

action, we revised the Pb monitoring 

regulations to require monitors to be 

sited near non-airport sources emitting 

0.5 tons or more of Pb per year. See 75 

FR 81126, December 27, 2010. 

Section 107(d) of the Clean Air Act 

(CAA or ‘‘Act’’) establishes a process for 

making initial area designations when a 

NAAQS is revised. In general, states are 

required to submit designation 

recommendations to EPA within one 

year of promulgation of a new or revised 

standard and EPA is required to 

complete initial designations within two 

years of promulgation. However, if EPA 

has insufficient information to 

promulgate designations, it can extend 

the period for initial designations for up 

to one year. 

On November 8, 2011, EPA completed 

its initial designations for the revised Pb 

standards.1 Most of Arizona was 

designated unclassifiable/attainment for 

the Pb NAAQS. We designated the 

Hayden area, with the boundaries 

Arizona recommended,2 as 

unclassifiable because there were 

available monitoring data recorded at 

ADEQ’s Globe Highway monitoring site 

indicating a significant likelihood that 

the area was violating the 2008 Pb 

NAAQS, but the available information 

was insufficient at that time to make a 

nonattainment designation.3 In our 

letter to Governor Brewer notifying her 

of our action, EPA explained that, 

should we subsequently determine that 

the Pb standards were being violated, 

we would initiate the process to 

redesignate the Hayden area to 

nonattainment.4

The CAA grants EPA the authority to 

change the designation of, or 

‘‘redesignate,’’ areas in light of changes 

in circumstances. More specifically EPA 

has the authority under CAA section 

107(d)(3) to redesignate areas (or 

portions thereof) on the basis of air 

quality data, planning and control 

considerations, or any other air qualityrelated considerations. In June 2013 we 

determined that quality assured, 

certified monitoring data collected in 

2012 at the ADEQ Globe Highway 

monitor showed the area was violating 

the Pb NAAQS.5 Accordingly, on June 

12, 2013, we notified Arizona that 

available Pb monitoring data indicated 

that the air quality designation for the 

Hayden area should be revised to 

nonattainment. 

Governor Brewer responded on 

September 25, 2013, with a 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES