Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; New Hampshire; Reasonably Available Control Technology for Nitrogen Oxides and Volatile Organic Compounds, 49473-49474 [2014-19517]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 162 / Thursday, August 21, 2014 / Proposed Rules
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?
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:23 Aug 20, 2014
Jkt 232001
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
Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
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.
SUMMARY:
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.
ADDRESSES:
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
49473
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.
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.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
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.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
E:\FR\FM\21AUP1.SGM
21AUP1
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
Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
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.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY:
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.
ADDRESSES:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:23 Aug 20, 2014
Jkt 232001
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,
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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 24hour 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 24hour 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-
E:\FR\FM\21AUP1.SGM
21AUP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 162 (Thursday, August 21, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 49473-49474]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-19517]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
[[Page 49474]]
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
