[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 174 (Monday, September 10, 2007)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 51564-51567]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-17633]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R01-OAR-2007-0497; A-1-FRL-8463-6]


Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; 
New Hampshire; Revised Carbon Monoxide Maintenance Plan for Nashua

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: EPA is approving a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision 
submitted by the State of New Hampshire. This SIP submittal contains 
revisions to the carbon monoxide (CO) maintenance plan for Nashua, New 
Hampshire. Specifically, New Hampshire has revised the contingency plan 
portion of the original maintenance plan. The intended effect of this 
action is to approve this revision to the Nashua CO maintenance plan. 
This action is being taken in accordance with the Clean Air Act.

DATES: This direct final rule will be effective November 9, 2007, 
unless EPA receives adverse comments by October 10, 2007. 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-2007-0497 by one of the following methods:
    1. http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for 
submitting comments.
    2. E-mail: [email protected].
    3. Fax: (617) 918-0047.
    4. Mail: ``Docket Identification Number EPA-R01-OAR-2007-0497,'' 
Anne Arnold, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England 
Regional Office, One Congress Street, Suite 1100 (mail code CAQ), 
Boston, MA 02114-2023.
    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, 
One Congress Street, 11th floor, (CAQ), Boston, MA 02114-2023. 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 No. EPA-R01-OAR-
2007-0497. 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 e-
mail, information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected. 
The www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' systems, 
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 e-
mail comment directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov 
your e-mail 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, One Congress 
Street, Suite 1100, Boston, MA. EPA requests that if at all possible, 
you contact the

[[Page 51565]]

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 and EPA's technical 
support document 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: Robert C. Judge, Air Quality Planning 
Unit, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional 
Office, One Congress Street, Suite 1100 (CAQ), Boston, MA 02114-2023, 
telephone number (617) 918-1045, fax number (617) 918-0045, e-mail 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents

I. Background and Purpose
II. What action is EPA taking?
III. Summary of SIP Revision
IV. EPA's Evaluation of the SIP Revision
V. Final Action
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background and Purpose

    On May 30, 2007, the State of New Hampshire submitted a formal 
revision to its State Implementation Plan (SIP). The SIP revision 
consists of a minor modification to the carbon monoxide (CO) 
maintenance plan for Nashua, New Hampshire. (A redesignation request 
and a maintenance plan for the Nashua CO nonattainment area were 
approved by EPA on November 29, 2000 (65 FR 71060).) The modification 
changes the triggering mechanism which will be used by the State to 
determine if contingency measures need to be implemented in Nashua. The 
end result of this action will be to allow the discontinuation of CO 
monitoring in the Nashua maintenance area.

II. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is approving revisions to the Nashua carbon monoxide 
maintenance plan submitted by the State of New Hampshire on May 30, 
2007. Specifically, EPA is approving the State's modification of the 
portion of the maintenance plan used to determine when contingency 
measures need to be triggered to reduce CO concentrations in Nashua.
    New Hampshire's SIP revision and EPA's evaluation of this SIP 
revision are discussed below. Additional details are also provided in a 
memorandum dated July 27, 2007, entitled ``Technical Support Document 
for Revision to the Carbon Monoxide Maintenance Plan for Nashua, New 
Hampshire,'' (TSD). The TSD and New Hampshire's submittal are available 
in the docket supporting this action.

III. Summary of SIP Revision

    On May 30, 2007, the New Hampshire Department of Environmental 
Services submitted a SIP revision to EPA that contains a modification 
to their CO maintenance plan for the Nashua CO maintenance area. The 
modifications to the maintenance plan change the triggering mechanism 
by which contingency measures would be implemented and will allow the 
State to discontinue CO monitoring in the Nashua maintenance area. CO 
concentrations measured in Nashua have been below the National Ambient 
Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for nearly 20 years, and in recent years, 
maximum measured concentrations have been less than 50% of the 9 parts 
per million 8-hour CO standard. In this SIP revision, the State of New 
Hampshire is establishing an alternative triggering mechanism, which 
will rely on CO data from a nearby CO monitor in Manchester, New 
Hampshire.
    Section 6.5.3 of the State's currently approved CO maintenance 
plan, entitled ``Selection of a Nonattainment Indicator,'' includes a 
triggering mechanism based on levels at the CO monitor in Nashua. Under 
the current maintenance plan, contingency measures in Nashua are 
triggered when a violation of the CO NAAQS is measured in Nashua. Under 
the revised maintenance plan, New Hampshire will rely on data from the 
Manchester CO monitor to determine when and if monitoring will be 
reestablished in the Nashua maintenance area, and, in some 
circumstances, when contingency measures will be triggered in the 
Nashau maintenance area. The revised maintenance plan language is found 
below:

    ``For the purposes of this plan, New Hampshire will be 
discontinuing CO monitoring in Nashua upon EPA approval of this 
revised plan. New Hampshire DES will continue to collect and review 
CO monitoring data from nearby Manchester, NH on an on-going basis. 
In the event the second highest CO concentration in any calendar 
year monitored in Manchester reaches 75 percent of the federal 1-
hour or 8-hour national ambient air quality standard for CO, New 
Hampshire will, within 9 months of recording such concentrations, 
re-establish a CO monitoring site in Nashua consistent with EPA 
siting criteria, and resume analyzing and reporting those data. New 
Hampshire will continue to commit to implement its contingency 
program in Nashua in the event that a CO violation (the `contingency 
trigger') is monitored at the re-established Nashua monitoring site 
at any time during the maintenance period and to consider one or 
more of the other EPA-approved measures listed in Section 6.5.2 if 
necessary to reduce CO levels.
    If the Manchester CO monitor measures a violation of either the 
federal 1-hour or 8-hour NAAQS for CO, the contingency measures in 
Section 6.5.2 will be implemented in Nashua as well, until a re-
established Nashua CO monitor shows that the area is attainment of 
the CO standard.
    When implementing contingency measures, New Hampshire will 
review and implement the measures necessary to remedy the violation, 
including transportation control measures (TCM) or other additional 
vehicle or fuel controls.''

IV. EPA's Evaluation of the SIP Revision

    EPA agrees that the mechanism described above represents an 
acceptable contingency triggering mechanism for the Nashua CO 
maintenance plan. Approval of this revised triggering mechanism will 
allow New Hampshire DES to discontinue monitoring in the Nashua area, 
which we believe is appropriate for this area which is currently 
measuring concentrations well below the existing 1-hour and 8-hour CO 
NAAQS. Under this plan, we believe air quality goals can be maintained, 
and State monitoring resources conserved.
    On October 17, 2006, EPA published a final monitoring rule revising 
the minimum monitoring requirements. That rule explicitly recognized 
that, in some cases where measured levels of pollutants are low, 
shutting down certain CO monitors may be allowed. The rule, however, 
also explicitly provides that if a monitor is the only monitor in the 
area, and it serves as a trigger to implement a contingency measure in 
an EPA-approved maintenance plan, the maintenance plan would need to be 
revised, and the trigger replaced. (See 71 FR 61250 and 71 FR 61301.)
    As described above, this action is approving a change to the 
mechanism that New Hampshire will use to determine when contingency 
measures need to be triggered to reduce CO concentrations in Nashua. 
Previously, the State would implement a contingency measure based on 
concentrations of CO monitored in Nashua. In light of the fact that 
Nashua CO concentrations have been well below the standard for some 
time, the State is looking to conserve resources. New Hampshire DES 
wants to use its CO monitor in Manchester, a nearby city, to aid in 
determining if Nashua has

[[Page 51566]]

a CO problem. Nashua and Manchester (both in Hillsborough County) are 
less than 20 miles apart, have similar populations, and both have had 
CO concentrations similar to each other for years. (The TSD provides a 
comparison of the data collected at the Nashua and Manchester CO 
monitors over the past several decades.) Both cities were designated 
nonattainment in 1990 for CO ``by operation of law,'' though both had 
design values below the standard at that time. In both cases, only the 
city itself was designated nonattainment since data did not support an 
expansion of the nonattainment area. Both cities were redesignated to 
attainment in 2000, and both have measured CO concentrations well below 
the standard since that time.
    In order to conserve resources, the State is seeking to discontinue 
monitoring in Nashua since current air quality levels do not warrant 
the additional expense of running a CO monitor in this area. The State 
has committed to continue CO monitoring in Manchester, and will 
reestablish CO monitoring in Nashua if air quality in Manchester 
degrades significantly. Starting in the early 1970s, EPA has set 
national standards that have considerably reduced emissions of CO and 
other pollutants from motor vehicles, including tailpipe emissions, new 
vehicle technologies, and clean fuels programs. Because of this, EPA 
believes that it is unlikely that either maintenance area will exceed 
the CO NAAQS again. Thus, we believe that the revisions that New 
Hampshire has made to its maintenance plan will continue to protect the 
citizens of New Hampshire from high CO concentrations, and also 
conserve resources.

V. Final Action

    EPA is approving revisions to the Nashua CO maintenance plan 
submitted by the State of New Hampshire on May 30, 2007. Specifically, 
EPA is approving the State's request to modify the portion of the 
maintenance plan used to determine when contingency measures need to be 
implemented in Nashua. As described in more detail above, the State 
will shut down the Nashua CO monitor and rely on data from the CO 
monitor in Manchester to determine when and if monitoring will be 
reestablished in the Nashua maintenance area, and, in some 
circumstances, when contingency measures will be triggered in the 
Nashua maintenance area.
    The 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 SIP revision should 
relevant adverse comments be filed. This rule will be effective 
November 9, 2007 without further notice unless the Agency receives 
relevant adverse comments by October 10, 2007.
    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 9, 2007 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.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this 
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and therefore is not 
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this 
reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, 
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy 
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action 
merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes 
no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. 
Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities 
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because 
this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does 
not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by 
state law, it 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).
    This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will 
not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on 
the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or 
on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal 
Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 
FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have Federalism 
implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the 
States, on the relationship between the national government and the 
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the 
various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 
FR 43255, August 10, 1999), because it merely approves a state rule 
implementing a federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or 
the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean 
Air Act. This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 
``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety 
Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it approves a state rule 
implementing a Federal standard.
    In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state 
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In 
this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the 
State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority 
to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be 
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP 
submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise 
satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements 
of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule does not 
impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the 
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. section 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 
rule 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.

[[Page 51567]]

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 9, 2007. Interested 
parties should comment in response to the proposed rule rather than 
petition for judicial review, unless the objection arises after the 
comment period allowed for in the proposal. Filing a petition for 
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect 
the finality of this rule 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, 
Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: August 22, 2007.
Ira Leighton,
Acting Regional Administrator, EPA New England.

0
Part 52 of chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is 
amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart EE--New Hampshire

0
2. Section 52.1528 is amended by adding paragraph (d) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  52.1528  Control strategy: Carbon monoxide.

* * * * *
    (d) Approval--On May 30, 2007, the New Hampshire Department of 
Environmental Services submitted a modification to the Nashua 
maintenance plan approved in paragraph (c) of this section. New 
Hampshire will not conduct CO monitoring in Nashua, but instead commits 
to continue to collect and review CO monitoring data from nearby 
Manchester, NH on an on-going basis. In the event the second highest CO 
concentration in any calendar year monitored in Manchester reaches 75 
percent of the federal 1-hour or 8-hour national ambient air quality 
standard for CO, New Hampshire will, within 9 months of recording such 
concentrations, re-establish a CO monitoring site in Nashua consistent 
with EPA siting criteria, and resume analyzing and reporting those 
data. New Hampshire commits to implement its contingency program in 
Nashua in the event that a CO violation is monitored at the re-
established Nashua monitoring site at any time during the maintenance 
period. If the 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 Nashua as well, until a re-established CO monitor in 
Nashua shows that the area is in attainment of the CO standard.

[FR Doc. E7-17633 Filed 9-7-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P