Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 170 / Tuesday, September 3, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 54173 

discovery of a significant environmental 

impact from this rule. 

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. 1231; 46 U.S.C. 

Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 

33 CFR 1.05–1, 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–T11–589 to 

read as follows: 

§ 165–T11–589 Safety zone; SFOBB 

Demolition Safety Zone, San Francisco, CA. 

(a) Location. This temporary safety 

zone is established in the navigable 

waters of the San Francisco Bay near 

Yerba Buena Island, California as 

depicted in National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) 

Chart 18650. The safety zone will 

encompass the navigable waters around 

the SFOBB within 100 yards beginning 

at Yerba Buena Island and ending at the 

‘‘I’’ Pier. 

(b) Enforcement Period. The zone 

described in paragraph (a) of this 

section will be in effect from 6 a.m. to 

7 p.m. daily from September 1, 2013 

until December 30, 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 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 15, 2013. 

Gregory G. Stump, 

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

Port San Francisco. 

[FR Doc. 2013–21290 Filed 8–30–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R05–OAR–2013–0377; FRL–9900–51– 

Region 5] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; Indiana; 

Maintenance Plan Update for Lake 

County, Indiana for Sulfur Dioxide 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is approving a 

maintenance plan update for the Lake 

County, Indiana sulfur dioxide (SO2) 

maintenance area. This plan update 

demonstrates that Lake County will 

maintain attainment of the 1971 SO2

national ambient air quality standard 

(NAAQS) through 2025. This 

maintenance plan update satisfies 

section 175A of the Clean Air Act (Act), 

and is consistent with the September 26, 

2005, approval of the State’s 

redesignation request and maintenance 

plan for the Lake County, Indiana SO2

area. 

DATES: This direct final rule will be 

effective November 4, 2013, unless EPA 

receives adverse comments by October 

3, 2013. 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 No. EPA–R05– 

OAR–2013–0377, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. Email: blakley.pamela@epa.gov. 

3. Fax: (312) 692–2450. 

4. Mail: Pamela Blakley, Chief, 

Control Strategies Section, Air Programs 

Branch (AR–18J), U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson 

Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. 

5. Hand Delivery: Pamela Blakley, 

Chief, Control Strategies Section (AR– 

18J), U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 

Chicago, Illinois 60604. Such deliveries 

are only accepted during the Regional 

Office normal hours of operation, and 

special arrangements should be made 

for deliveries of boxed information. The 

Regional Office official hours of 

business are Monday through Friday, 

8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding 

Federal holidays. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R0–OAR–2013– 

0377. 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 docket 

are listed in the www.regulations.gov 

index. Although listed in the index, 

some information is not publicly 

available, e.g., CBI or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, will be publicly 

available only in hard copy. Publicly 

available docket materials are available 

either electronically in 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
54174 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 170 / Tuesday, September 3, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 

West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, 

Illinois 60604. This facility is open from 

8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, excluding Federal holidays. We 

recommend that you telephone Michael 

Leslie, Environmental Engineer, at (312) 

353–6680 before visiting the Region 5 

office. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Michael Leslie, Environmental 

Engineer, Control Strategies Section, Air 

Programs Branch (AR–18J), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 

Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 353–6680, 

leslie.michael@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: 

I. What is the background for this action? 

II. What is the current air quality in Lake 

County? 

III. What is EPA’s analysis of the State’s 

request? 

IV. What action is EPA taking? 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews. 

I. What is the background for this 

action? 

On March 3, 1978 (43 FR 8962), EPA 

designated a portion of Lake County, 

Indiana as a primary nonattainment area 

for the 1971 SO2 NAAQS under Section 

107 of the Act. Indiana submitted a 

redesignation request and maintenance 

plan for the Lake County nonattainment 

area, which was subsequently 

redesignated to attainment by EPA on 

September 26, 2005 (70 FR 56129). As 

part of the maintenance plan, Indiana 

committed to submit an update to the 

Lake County SO2 the maintenance plan 

eight years after the area was 

redesignated to attainment of the SO2

standard. Indiana submitted a revision 

to the state implementation plan (SIP) 

for the 1971 SO2 NAAQS maintenance 

plan update on March 28, 2013. 

II. What is the current air quality in 

Lake County? 

There are two SO2 monitors currently 

operating in Lake County, Indiana. 

Current air quality data shows a 

continued downward trend in SO2, as 

shown in Table 1. The 1971 SO2

NAAQS was not exceeded during the 

2004–2011 timeframe. 

TABLE 1—LAKE COUNTY, IN SO2 MONITORING DATA 2004–2011 (PPM) 

Site Year 24 hour max 

(NAAQS = 0.14) 

3 hour max 

(NAAQS = 0.5) 

Annual average 

(NAAQS = 0.03) 

Gary ................................................................................. 2004 0.051 0.085 0.005 

Gary ................................................................................. 2005 0.050 0.165 0.004 

Gary ................................................................................. 2006 0.030 0.079 0.003 

Gary ................................................................................. 2007 0.022 0.071 0.003 

Gary ................................................................................. 2008 0.019 0.095 0.003 

Gary ................................................................................. 2009 0.020 0.057 0.002 

Gary ................................................................................. 2010 0.030 0.061 0.002 

Gary ................................................................................. 2011 0.024 0.060 0.002 

Hammond ........................................................................ 2004 0.022 0.038 0.004 

Hammond ........................................................................ 2005 0.017 0.045 0.003 

Hammond ........................................................................ 2006 0.016 0.029 0.004 

Hammond ........................................................................ 2007 0.022 0.048 0.005 

Hammond ........................................................................ 2008 0.011 0.029 0.004 

Hammond ........................................................................ 2009 0.009 0.035 0.003 

Hammond ........................................................................ 2010 0.012 0.024 0.002 

Hammond ........................................................................ 2011 0.012 0.029 0.003 

III. What is EPA’s analysis of the State’s 

request? 

Section 175A of the Act sets forth the 

required elements of a maintenance 

plan for the areas that are attaining the 

NAAQS. Under section 175A, the plan 

must demonstrate continued attainment 

of the applicable NAAQS for at least ten 

years after the Administrator approves a 

redesignation to attainment. Eight years 

after the redesignation, the State must 

submit a revised maintenance plan 

which demonstrates that attainment will 

continue to be maintained for ten years 

following the initial ten year 

maintenance period. To address the 

possibility of future NAAQS violations, 

the maintenance plan must contain 

contingency measures with a schedule 

for implementation as EPA deems 

necessary to assure prompt correction of 

any future SO2 violations. 

The September 4, 1992, John Calcagni 

memorandum entitled, ‘‘Procedures for 

Processing Requests to Redesignations 

Areas to Attainment,’’ provides 

additional guidance on the content of a 

maintenance plan. The memorandum 

states that an SO2 maintenance plan 

should address the following items: The 

attainment emissions inventory, a 

maintenance demonstration showing 

maintenance for the ten years of the 

maintenance period, a commitment to 

maintain the existing monitoring 

network, factors and procedures to be 

used for verification of continued 

attainment of the NAAQS, and a 

contingency plan to prevent or correct 

future violations of the NAAQS. 

a. Attainment Inventory 

Indiana developed a baseline 

emissions inventory for 2003, one of the 

years used to demonstrate monitored 

attainment of the 1971 SO2 NAAQS. 

The attainment level of emissions is 

summarized in below: 

TABLE 2—LAKE COUNTY SO2 EMISSIONS

[Tons/year] 

Source Base year 2003 2011 2015 2025 Net change 

2003–2025 

Point ....................................................... 33,101 24,308 17,880 17,459 ¥15,642 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 170 / Tuesday, September 3, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 54175 

b. Demonstration of Maintenance 

Indiana submitted revisions to the 

SO2 SIP to include 12 year maintenance 

plans for Lake County area, in 

compliance with section 175A of the 

Act. This demonstration shows 

maintenance of the 1971 SO2 NAAQS 

by assuring that current and future SO2

emissions remain at or below attainment 

year emission levels. A maintenance 

demonstration need not be based on 

modeling. See Wall v. EPA, 265 F.3d 

426 (6th Cir. 2001), Sierra Club v. EPA, 

375 F. 3d 537 (7th Cir. 2004). See also 

66 FR 53094, 53099–53100 (October 19, 

2001), 68 FR 25413, 25430–25432 (May 

12, 2003). 

Indiana is using projected inventories 

for the years 2015 and 2025 to 

demonstrate maintenance. These 

emission estimates are presented in 

Table 2. 

The emission projections show that 

Indiana does not expect Lake County 

emissions in the area to exceed the level 

of the 2003 attainment year inventory 

during the maintenance period. In the 

area, Indiana projects that SO2

emissions will decrease by 15,642 tons/ 

year for the maintenance period. The 

SIP submission demonstrates that the 

area will continue to maintain the 

standard. 

c. Monitoring Network 

Indiana currently operates two SO2

monitors in Lake County, Indiana. 

Indiana has committed to continue 

operating and maintaining its approved 

Lake County SO2 monitor network in 

accordance with 40 CFR part 58. 

d. Verification of Continued Attainment 

Continued attainment of the 1971 SO2

NAAQS in the area depends, in part, on 

the state’s efforts toward tracking 

indicators of continued attainment 

during the maintenance period. The 

state’s plan for verifying continued 

attainment of the SO2 standard in the 

area consists of plans to continue 

ambient SO2 monitoring in accordance 

with the requirements of 40 CFR part 

58. In addition, Indiana will 

periodically review and revise the SO2

emissions inventory for the area, as 

required by the Consolidated Emissions 

Reporting Rule (40 CFR part 51), to track 

levels of emissions in the future. 

e. Contingency Plan 

The contingency plan provisions are 

designed to promptly correct or prevent 

a violation of the NAAQS that might 

occur after redesignation of an area to 

attainment. Section 175A(d) of the Act 

requires that a maintenance plan 

include such contingency measures as 

EPA deems necessary to assure that the 

State will promptly correct a violation 

of the NAAQS that occurs after 

redesignation. The maintenance plan 

should identify the contingency 

measures to be adopted, a schedule and 

procedure for adoption and 

implementation of the contingency 

measures, and a time limit for action by 

the State. The State should also identify 

specific indicators to be used to 

determine when the contingency 

measures need to be adopted and 

implemented. 

Indiana updated their original 

contingency plan to ensure that it is 

consistent with the current inventory of 

SO2 sources for the area. The 

contingency plan includes a two trigger 

levels for action based on monitored 

values. Indiana will continue to monitor 

SO2 concentrations to determine 

whether trends indicate higher values or 

whether emissions appear to be 

increasing. 

An initial Warning Level Response is 

triggered when 90% of the 1971 SO2

NAAQS is reached. A study will be 

conducted at the Warning Level 

Response to determine if the emissions 

trends show increases. If the study 

shows that action is necessary to reverse 

emissions increases, Indiana will follow 

the same procedures described below 

for control selection and 

implementation for the Action Level 

Response. 

The Action Level Response will be 

prompted by a violation of the standard. 

If an Action Level Response is triggered, 

Indiana will adopt and implement 

appropriate control measures within 18 

months from the end of the year in 

which monitored air quality triggering a 

response occurs. 

Contingency measures will be 

considered based on those that are 

deemed appropriate and effective at the 

time of selection. Because SO2

emissions are attributed primarily to 

point sources, the options available are 

limited to appropriate measures for the 

types of culpable sources. Indiana will 

undertake a study take to determine the 

source of the increased SO2

concentrations. Although the point 

sources listed in the inventory will be 

the primary focus, the study will also 

encompass any other potential sources 

of SO2. 

The selection of measures will be 

based upon cost-effectiveness, emission 

reduction potential, and economic and 

social considerations or other factors 

that Indiana deems appropriate. A 

selected contingency measure can be 

initiated immediately in response to an 

action level response and should be in 

place within 18 months of the date of 

the violation. No contingency measure 

will be implemented without providing 

the opportunity for full public 

participation during which the relative 

costs and benefits of individual 

measures, at the time they are under 

consideration, can be fully evaluated. 

Adoption of any control measure is 

subject to administrative and legal 

approval. This includes an opportunity 

for public hearing and publication of 

notices on Indiana’s Web site, as well as 

other measures required by Indiana law 

(IC 13–14–8–7) for rule making by 

Indiana environmental rule boards. This 

law provides accelerated procedures for 

adopting interim control measures in 

the event of an emergency affecting 

public health. 

The SO2 sources potentially subject to 

future controls are the same as the 

current list of sources, found in the 

maintenance plan. Sources subject to 

additional controls will be those which 

the study shows are responsible for 

triggering the contingency measures and 

the control of which will most 

effectively help to ensure compliance 

with the standards. In addition to 

reviewing the known sources, the 

possibility that the problem is 

attributable to new or previously 

unknown sources will be considered. 

IV. What action is EPA taking? 

EPA is approving a maintenance plan 

update for the Lake County, Indiana SO2

maintenance area. This plan update 

demonstrates that Lake County will 

maintain attainment of the 1971 SO2

NAAQS through 2025. This 

maintenance plan update satisfies 

section 175A of the Act. 

We are publishing this action without 

prior proposal because we view this as 

a noncontroversial amendment and 

anticipate no adverse comments. 

However, in the proposed rules section 

of this Federal Register publication, we 

are publishing a separate document that 

will serve as the proposal to approve the 

State plan if relevant adverse written 

comments are filed. This rule will be 

effective November 4, 2013 without 

further notice unless we receive relevant 

adverse written comments by October 3, 

2013. If we receive such comments, we 

will withdraw this action before the 

effective date by publishing a 

subsequent document that will 

withdraw the final action. All public 

comments received will then be 

addressed in a subsequent final rule 

based on the proposed action. 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 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
54176 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 170 / Tuesday, September 3, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

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. If we do not receive any 

comments, this action will be effective 

November 4, 2013. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the Act, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

Clean Air 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 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 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 Act, 

petitions for judicial review of this 

action must be filed in the United States 

Court of Appeals for the appropriate 

circuit by November 4, 2013. 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 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Sulfur dioxide. 

Dated: August 20, 2013. 

Susan Hedman, 

Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: 

PART 52—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

■ 2. The table in § 52.770 paragraph (e) 

is amended by adding an entry in 

alphabetical order for ‘‘Lake County 

sulfur dioxide maintenance plan’’ to 

read as follows: 

§ 52.770 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

EPA-APPROVED INDIANA NONREGULATORY AND QUASI-REGULATORY PROVISIONS

Title Indiana date EPA approval Explanation 

*******

Lake County sulfur dioxide maintenance plan.March 28, 2013 ............................. September 3, 2013, [INSERT 

PAGE NUMBER WHERE THE 

DOCUMENT BEGINS].

* * * * * * * 

■ 3. Section 52.795 is amended by 

adding paragraph (i) to read as follows: 

§ 52.795 Control strategy: Sulfur dioxide. 

* * * * * 

(i) Approval—On March 28, 2013 the 

State of Indiana submitted a 

maintenance plan update for the Lake 

County, Indiana SO2 maintenance area. 

This plan update demonstrates that 

Lake County will maintain attainment of 

the 1971 SO2 NAAQS through 2025. 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 170 / Tuesday, September 3, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 54177 

This maintenance plan update satisfies 

section 175A of the Act. 

[FR Doc. 2013–21274 Filed 8–30–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[Docket No. EPA–R02–OAR–2013–0592; 

FRL–9900–59–Region2] 

Adequacy Status of the Submitted 

2009, 2017 and 2025 PM2.5 Motor 

Vehicle Emission Budgets for 

Transportation Conformity Purposes 

for New York 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice of adequacy. 

SUMMARY: In this action, EPA is 

notifying the public that we have found 

the motor vehicle emissions budgets for 

PM2.5 and NOX in the submitted 

maintenance plan for the New York 

portions of the New York-Northern New 

Jersey-Long Island, NY–NJ–CT PM2.5

nonattainment areas to be adequate for 

transportation conformity purposes. The 

transportation conformity rule requires 

that the EPA conduct a public process 

and make an affirmative decision on the 

adequacy of budgets before they can be 

used by metropolitan planning 

organizations (MPOs) in conformity 

determinations. As a result of our 

finding, the new 2009, 2017 and 2025 

PM2.5 budgets are applicable to nine of 

the ten counties in the New York 

Metropolitan Transportation Council 

planning area (excluding Putnam 

County) and Orange County in the 

Orange County Transportation Council 

planning area and must be used for all 

future transportation conformity 

determinations. 

DATES: This finding is effective 

September 18, 2013. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Melanie Zeman, Air Programs Branch, 

Environmental Protection Agency— 

Region 2, 290 Broadway, 25th Floor, 

New York, New York 10007–1866, (212) 

637–4022, zeman.melanie@epa.gov. 

The finding and the response to 

comments will be available at EPA’s 

conformity Web site: http://

www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/

transconf/adequacy.htm. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On June 27, 2013, New York State 

submitted a redesignation request and 

maintenance plan to EPA for the New 

York portion of the New York-Northern 

New Jersey-Long Island, NY–NJ–CT 

PM2.5 nonattainment areas. The purpose 

of New York’s submittal was to request 

a redesignation to attainment for both 

the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS) and submit a state 

implementation plan to provide for 

maintenance of the standard for the first 

ten years of a 20-year maintenance 

period. New York’s request was 

pursuant to EPA’s findings that that the 

New York area had attained the 1997 

(75 FR 69589) and 2006 (77 FR 76867) 

PM2.5 NAAQS based on ambient air 

quality monitoring data. New York’s 

submittal included motor vehicle 

emissions budgets (‘‘budgets’’) for 2009, 

2017 and 2025 for use by the State’s 

metropolitan planning organizations in 

making transportation conformity 

determinations. On July 15, 2013, EPA 

posted the availability of the budgets on 

our Web site for the purpose of 

soliciting public comments. The 

comment period closed on August 14, 

2013, and we received no comments. 

New York State developed these 

budgets for the 1997 annual PM2.5

NAAQS and the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS based on EPA’s MOVES model. 

These budgets are for 2025, the last year 

of the maintenance plan as required, 

and two additional years, 2009 and 

2017, for the purpose of establishing 

budgets for the near-term. New York 

also determined that budgets based on 

annual emissions of direct PM2.5 and 

NOX, a precursor, are appropriate for the 

2006 24-hour standard because 

exceedences of the standard were not 

isolated to one particular season; 

therefore, the budgets being found 

adequate today will be used by 

transportation agencies to meet 

conformity requirements for both the 

annual and 24-hour standards. 

The 2009 budgets were developed 

without an accompanying full emissions 

inventory. However, EPA believes that 

the 2009 budgets still meet all of the 

adequacy criteria, as described below. 

The 2009 budgets are consistent with 

attainment and maintenance of both the 

1997 and 2006 PM2.5 standards because 

of our earlier determinations that the 

New York portion of the New YorkNorthern New Jersey-Long Island, NY– 

NJ–CT PM2.5 nonattainment area had 

attained the standards based on 

monitored air quality that included the 

year 2009. 

Adequacy Process 

Transportation conformity is required 

by section 176(c) of the Clean Air Act. 

EPA’s conformity rule requires that 

transportation plans, programs, and 

projects conform to SIPs and establishes 

the criteria and procedures for 

determining whether or not they 

conform. Conformity to a SIP means that 

transportation activities will not 

produce new air quality violations, 

worsen existing violations, or delay 

timely attainment of the National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards. 

The criteria by which we determine 

whether a SIP’s motor vehicle emission 

budgets are adequate for conformity 

purposes are outlined in 40 CFR 

93.118(e)(4). Please note that an 

adequacy review is separate from EPA’s 

completeness review, and it also should 

not be used to prejudge EPA’s ultimate 

approval of the SIP. Even if we find a 

budget adequate, the SIP could later be 

disapproved. 

We have described our process for 

determining the adequacy of submitted 

SIP budgets in 40 CFR 93.118(f). We 

have followed this rule in making our 

adequacy determination. The motor 

vehicle emissions budgets being found 

adequate today are listed in Table 1 and 

include direct PM2.5 and its precursor, 

NOX. EPA’s finding will also be 

announced on EPA’s conformity Web 

site: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/

stateresources/transconf/adequacy.htm. 

EPA Review 

EPA’s adequacy review of New York’s 

submitted budgets indicates that the 

budgets meet the adequacy criteria set 

forth by 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4), as follows: 

(i) The submitted control strategy 

implementation plan revision or 

maintenance plan was endorsed by the 

Governor (or his or her designee) and 

was subject to a State public hearing: 

The SIP revision was submitted to EPA 

by the Commissioner of the New York 

State Department of Environmental 

Conservation, who is the Governor’s 

designee. 

(ii) Before the control strategy 

implementation plan or maintenance 

plan was submitted to EPA, 

consultation among federal, State, and 

local agencies occurred; full 

implementation plan documentation 

was provided to EPA; and EPA’s stated 

concerns, if any, were addressed: New 

York State conducted an interagency 

consultation process involving EPA and 

USDOT, the New York State Department 

of Transportation and affected MPOs. 

All comments and concerns were 

addressed prior to the final submittal. 

(iii) The motor vehicle emissions 

budget(s) is clearly identified and 

precisely quantified: The budgets were 

clearly identified and quantified and are 

presented here in Table 1. 

(iv) The motor vehicle emissions 

budget(s), when considered together 

with all other emissions sources, is 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES