13254 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 46 / Monday, March 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

Item 

Column 1 Column 2 Column 3 

Description of charges 

Rate ($) 

Montreal to or from Lake Ontario 

(5 locks) 

Rate ($) 

Welland Canal—Lake 

Ontario to or from Lake Erie 

(8 locks) 

5 ............ Under the New Business Initiative Program, for cargo accepted 

as New Business, a percentage rebate on the applicable 

cargo charges for the approved period.

20% 20% 

6 ............ Under the Volume Rebate Incentive program, a retroactive percentage rebate on cargo tolls on the incremental volume calculated based on the pre-approved maximum volume.10% 10% 

7 ............ Under the New Service Incentive Program, for New Business 

cargo moving under an approved new service, an additional 

percentage refund on applicable cargo tolls above the New 

Business rebate.

20% 20% 

1Or under the US GRT for vessels prescribed prior to 2002. 

2The applicable charge at the Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation’s locks (Eisenhower, Snell) for pleasure craft is $30 U.S. or 

$30 Canadian per lock. The collection of the U.S. portion of tolls for commercial vessels is waived by law (33 U.S.C. 988a(a)). 3 $5.00 discount per lock applicable on ticket purchased for Canadian locks via PayPal. 

Issued at Washington, DC, on March 3, 

2014. 

Saint Lawrence Seaway Development 

Corporation. 

Carrie Lavigne, 

Chief Counsel. 

[FR Doc. 2014–04938 Filed 3–7–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–61–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R01–OAR–2012–0661; A–1–FRL– 

9906–76-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: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is approving 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 

will, 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: This rule is effective on April 9, 

2014. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket 

Identification No. EPA–R01–OAR– 

2012–0661. All documents in the docket 

are listed on the www.regulations.gov 

Web site. 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 through 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the 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. 

Copies of the documents relevant to 

this action 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 

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. State Commitments 

III. Final Action 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background and Purpose 

On December 24, 2013 (78 FR 77632), 

EPA published a Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (NPR) for the State of New 

Hampshire, proposing approval of a SIP 

revision submitted on August 1, 2012. 

Specifically, EPA proposed 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 also proposed 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 

sites in Manchester and Nashua if 

elevated CO levels are recorded in 

Londonderry. 

Other specific requirements of the 

limited maintenance plans for the City 

of Manchester, New Hampshire and the 

City of Nashua, New Hampshire, yearVerDate Mar<15>2010 15:44 Mar 07, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10MRR1.SGM 10MRR1

pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 46 / Monday, March 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 13255 

round CO monitoring at the 

Londonderry Moose Hill station in 

Londonderry, New Hampshire, and the 

rationale for EPA’s approval action are 

explained in the NPR and will not be 

restated here. No public comments were 

received on the NPR. 

II. State Commitments 

New Hampshire will monitor CO 

levels using the Londonderry Moose 

Hill station and emissions inventories. 

Because New Hampshire is 

discontinuing monitoring CO in 

Manchester, it has adopted a more 

stringent contingency threshold or 

‘‘trigger’’ than indicated in the 

previously submitted and EPAapproved May 30, 2007 maintenance 

plan SIP revision. See September 10, 

2007; 72 FR 51564. 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, as committed 

to in the August 1, 2012 SIP revision, 

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. 

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. 

III. Final Action 

EPA is approving 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 also approving 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 sites in Manchester and 

Nashua if elevated CO levels are 

recorded in Londonderry. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the Clean Air Act, the 

Administrator is required to approve a 

SIP submission that complies with the 

provisions of the Act and applicable 

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

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

submissions, EPA’s role is to approve 

state choices, provided that they meet 

the criteria of the Clean Air Act. 

Accordingly, this action merely 

approves state law as meeting Federal 

requirements and does not impose 

additional requirements beyond those 

imposed by state law. For that reason, 

this action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

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

• is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

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

• does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

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

• is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

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

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; 

and 

• does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this rule does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the state, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

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

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this action and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

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

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

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

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of 

this action must be filed in the United 

States Court of Appeals for the 

appropriate circuit by May 9, 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. This action may 

not be challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements. (See section 

307(b)(2).) 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Lead, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

H. Curtis Spalding 

Regional Administrator, EPA New England. 

Part 52 of chapter I, title 40 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations is amended 

as follows: 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
13256 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 46 / Monday, March 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

PART 52—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart EE—New Hampshire 

■ 2. Section 52.1528 is amended by 

adding paragraph (e) to read as follows: 

§ 52.1528 Control strategy: Carbon 

monoxide. 

* * * * * 

(e) Approval—On August 1, 2012, the 

New Hampshire Department of 

Environmental Services submitted 

modifications to the Manchester and 

Nashua maintenance plans approved in 

paragraph (b) and (c) respectively of this 

section. The Manchester and Nashua 

current carbon monoxide maintenance 

plans are both converted to limited 

maintenance plans for the remainder of 

their second-ten year maintenance 

periods which terminate on January 29, 

2021. Future carbon monoxide 

transportation conformity evaluations 

for Manchester and Nashua will for the 

length of their limited maintenance 

plans be considered to satisfy the 

regional emissions analysis and ‘‘budget 

test’’ requirements. In addition, New 

Hampshire will no longer conduct CO 

monitoring in Manchester, New 

Hampshire as addressed in paragraph 

(d) of this section. The Manchester 

monitoring site is replaced with 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. 

[FR Doc. 2014–04948 Filed 3–7–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R08–OAR–2011–0834; FRL–9907–57– 

Region 8] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; State of 

Colorado; Second Ten-Year PM10

Maintenance Plan for Pagosa Springs 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is taking final action 

partially approving and partially 

disapproving State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) revisions submitted by the State of 

Colorado. On March 31, 2010, the 

Governor of Colorado’s designee 

submitted to EPA a revised maintenance 

plan for the Pagosa Springs area for the 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS) for particulate matter with an 

aerodynamic diameter less than or equal 

to 10 microns (PM10). The State adopted 

the revised maintenance plan on 

November 19, 2009. As required by 

Clean Air Act (CAA) section 175A(b), 

this revised maintenance plan addresses 

maintenance of the PM10 standard for a 

second 10-year period beyond the area’s 

original redesignation to attainment for 

the PM10 NAAQS. EPA is taking final 

action approving the revised 

maintenance plan with the exception of 

one aspect of the plan’s contingency 

measures. EPA’s approval includes the 

revised maintenance plan’s 2021 

transportation conformity motor vehicle 

emissions budget (MVEB) for PM10. In 

taking final action to approve the 

revised maintenance plan, we are taking 

final action to exclude from use in 

determining whether or not Pagosa 

Springs continues to attain the 24-hour 

PM10 NAAQS, exceedances of the 24- 

hour PM10 NAAQS that were recorded 

at the Pagosa Springs PM10 monitor on 

March 22, 2009, April 3, 2009, April 5, 

2010, April 28, 2010, April 29, 2010, 

May 11, 2010, and May 22, 2010 

because the exceedances meet the 

criteria for exceptional events caused by 

high wind natural events. This action is 

being taken under sections 110 and 

175A of the CAA. 

DATES: This final rule is effective April 

9, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–R08–OAR–2011–0834. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

the www.regulations.gov Web site. 

Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

e.g., Confidential Business Information 

(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 through 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Air Program, Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, 

1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 

80202–1129. EPA requests that if at all 

possible, you contact the individual 

listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section to view the hard copy 

of the docket. You may view the hard 

copy of the docket Monday through 

Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., excluding 

Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kyle 

Olson, Air Program, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region 8, Mailcode 

8P–AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, 

Colorado 80202–1129, (303) 312–6002, 

olson.kyle@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Definitions 

For the purpose of this document, we 

are giving meaning to certain words or 

initials as follows: 

i. The words or initials Act or CAA 

mean or refer to the Clean Air Act, 

unless the context indicates otherwise. 

ii. The words Colorado and State 

mean or refer to the State of Colorado. 

iii. The words EPA, we, us or our 

mean or refer to the United States 

Environmental Protection Agency. 

iv. The initials MVEB mean or refer to 

motor vehicle emissions budget. 

v. The initials NAAQS mean or refer 

to National Ambient Air Quality 

Standard. 

vi. The initials NPR mean or refer to 

notice of proposed rulemaking. 

vii. The initials PM10 mean or refer to 

particulate matter with an aerodynamic 

diameter of less than or equal to 10 

micrometers (coarse particulate matter). 

viii. The initials SIP mean or refer to 

State Implementation Plan. 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

II. Final Action 

III. Statutory and Executive Orders Review 

I. Background 

On December 27, 2013, we published 

a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) 

in which we proposed to partially 

approve and partially disapprove the 

revised Pagosa Springs PM10

Maintenance Plan that Colorado 

submitted to us on March 31, 2010. (See 

78 FR 78797.) We proposed to approve 

the revised maintenance plan, with the 

exception of one of its listed 

contingency measures, because it 

demonstrates maintenance through 2021 

as required by CAA section 175A(b), 

retains the control measures from the 

initial PM10 maintenance plan that EPA 

approved in June of 2001, and meets 

other CAA requirements for a section 

175A maintenance plan. We proposed 

to disapprove ‘‘voluntary coal and/or 

wood burning curtailment’’ as a 

potential contingency measure in 

section 5.F.3 of the revised Pagosa 

Springs PM10 Maintenance Plan. While 

we have not required that potential 

contingency measures be effective 

without further action by the state, we 

interpret the CAA as requiring measures 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES