Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 121 / Monday, June 24, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 37717 

PART 2—RESOURCE PROTECTION, 

PUBLIC USE AND RECREATION 

■ 1. The authority citation for Part 2 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1, 3, 9a, 462(k). 

■ 2. In § 2.51 revise the introductory 

text of paragraph (f) to read as follows: 

§ 2.51 Demonstrations. 

* * * * * 

(f) Processing the application. The 

superintendent must issue a permit or a 

written denial within ten days of 

receiving a complete and fully executed 

application. A permit will be approved 

unless: 

* * * * * 

■ 3. In § 2.52 revise paragraph (b)(1)(i), 

paragraph (b)(4), and the introductory 

text of paragraph (e) to read as follows: 

§ 2.52 Sale or distribution of printed 

matter. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(i) None of the reasons for denying a 

permit that are set out in paragraph (e) 

of this section are present; 

* * * * * 

(4) In the event that two or more 

groups taking advantage of the small 

group permit exception seek to use the 

same designated available area at the 

same time, and the area cannot 

reasonably accommodate multiple 

occupancy, the superintendent will, 

whenever possible, direct the later 

arriving group to relocate to another 

nearby designated available area. 

* * * * * 

(e) Processing the application. The 

superintendent must issue a permit or a 

written denial within ten days of 

receiving a complete and fully executed 

application. A permit will be approved 

unless: 

* * * * * 

Dated: June 12, 2013. 

Michael J. Bean, 

Acting Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary 

for Fish and Wildlife and Parks. 

[FR Doc. 2013–15005 Filed 6–21–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4312–EJ–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[Docket No. EPA–R02–OAR–2012–0889; 

FRL–9826–9] 

Adequacy Status of the Submitted 

2009 and 2025 PM2.5 Motor Vehicle 

Emission Budgets for Transportation 

Conformity Purposes for New Jersey 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice of adequacy. 

SUMMARY: In this action, EPA is 

notifying the public that we have found 

that the motor vehicle emissions 

budgets for PM2.5 and NOX in the 

submitted maintenance plans for the 

New Jersey portions of the New YorkNorthern New Jersey-Long Island, NYNJ-CT, and Philadelphia-Wilmington, 

PA-NJ-DE, 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 in 

conformity determinations. As a result 

of our finding, two metropolitan 

planning organizations in New Jersey 

(the North Jersey Transportation 

Planning Authority and the Delaware 

Valley Regional Planning Commission) 

must use the new 2009 and 2025 PM2.5

budgets for future transportation 

conformity determinations. 

DATES: This finding is effective July 9, 

2013. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Matt 

Laurita, Air Programs Branch, 

Environmental Protection Agency— 

Region 2, 290 Broadway, 25th Floor, 

New York, New York 10007–1866, (212) 

637–3895, laurita.matthew@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 December 26, 2012, New Jersey 

submitted redesignation requests and 

maintenance plans to EPA for both the 

New York-Northern New Jersey-Long 

Island, NY-NJ-CT (Northern New 

Jersey), and Philadelphia-Wilmington, 

PA-NJ-DE (Southern New Jersey), PM2.5

nonattainment areas. The purpose of 

New Jersey’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 Jersey’s 

request was pursuant to EPA’s findings 

that that the Northern New Jersey area 

had attained the 1997 (75 FR 69589) and 

2006 (77 FR 76867) PM2.5 NAAQS, and 

that the Southern New Jersey area had 

attained the 1997 (77 FR 28782) and 

2006 (78 FR 882) PM2.5 NAAQS, based 

on ambient air quality monitoring data. 

New Jersey’s submittal included motor 

vehicle emissions budgets (‘‘budgets’’) 

for 2009 and 2025 for use by the State’s 

metropolitan planning organizations in 

making transportation conformity 

determinations. On September 12, 2012, 

EPA posted the availability of the 

budgets our Web site for the purpose of 

soliciting public comments. The 

comment period closed on October 12, 

2012, and we received no comments. 

New Jersey developed these budgets, 

as required, for the last year of its 

maintenance plan, 2025, and an 

additional year, 2009, for the purpose of 

establishing budgets for the near-term 

based on EPA’s MOVES model. 

Previously established and approved 

budgets had been based on MOBILE6.2. 

New Jersey also determined that budgets 

based on annual emissions of direct 

PM2.5 and NOX, a precursor, are 

appropriate for the 2006 daily 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 daily standards. 

The 2009 budgets were developed 

without an accompanying full emissions 

inventory. EPA believes that this 

approach is approvable and is 

consistent with attainment and 

maintenance of both the 1997 and 2006 

PM2.5 standards because of our earlier 

determinations that both the Northern 

New Jersey and Southern New Jersey 

PM2.5 nonattainment areas had attained 

the standards based on monitored air 

quality that included the year 2009. 

The budgets for 2025 reflect the total 

on-road emissions for 2025, plus an 

allocation from the available NOX and 

PM2.5 safety margins. Under 40 CFR 

93.101, the term ‘‘safety margin’’ is the 

difference between the attainment level 

(from all sources) and the projected 

level of emissions (from all sources) in 

the maintenance plan. The safety 

margin can be allocated to the 

transportation sector; however, the total 

emissions must remain below the 

attainment level. New Jersey chose to 

add 8% of the available safety margin to 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
37718 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 121 / Monday, June 24, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

both the PM2.5 and NOX budgets for 

2025 for both the Northern New Jersey 

and Southern New Jersey nonattainment 

areas. The NOX and PM2.5 budgets and 

safety margin allocations were 

developed in consultation with the 

transportation partners and were added 

to accommodate expected future 

improvements to MOVES model inputs 

and methodologies. 

In the submittal, the State has also 

established ‘‘sub-area budgets’’ for the 

two metropolitan planning 

organizations (MPO) within the 

Northern New Jersey nonattainment 

area: the North Jersey Transportation 

Planning Authority (NJTPA) and the 

Delaware Valley Regional Planning 

Commission (DVRPC). These sub-area 

budgets allow each MPO to work 

independently to demonstrate 

conformity by meeting its own PM2.5

and NOX budgets. Each MPO must still 

verify, however, that the other MPO 

currently has a conforming long range 

transportation plan and transportation 

improvement program (TIP) prior to 

making a new plan or TIP conformity 

determination. The budgets for both the 

Northern New Jersey and Southern New 

Jersey areas are defined in Tables 1 and 

2 below. 

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 Tables 1 

and 2 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 

Jersey’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 Jersey 

Department of Environmental 

Protection, 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 

Jersey conducted an interagency 

consultation process involving EPA and 

USDOT, the New Jersey 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 Tables 1 and 2. 

(iv) The motor vehicle emissions 

budget(s), when considered together 

with all other emissions sources, is 

consistent with applicable requirements 

for maintenance: Both the 2009 and 

2025 budgets are less than the on-road 

mobile source inventory for 2007 that 

was shown to be consistent with 

attainment of the standards. In addition, 

the 2009 budgets are for a year in which 

EPA has determined that New Jersey 

attained the applicable air quality 

standards and are therefore consistent 

with maintenance of the respective 

standards. 

(v) The motor vehicle emissions 

budget(s) is consistent with and clearly 

related to the emissions inventory and 

the control measures in the submitted 

control strategy implementation plan 

revision or maintenance plan: The 

budgets were developed from the onroad mobile source inventories, 

including all applicable state and 

Federal control measures. Inputs related 

to inspection and maintenance and fuels 

are consistent with New Jersey’s 

Federally-approved control programs. 

(vi) Revisions to previously submitted 

control strategy implementation plans 

or maintenance plans explain and 

document any changes to previously 

submitted budgets and control 

measures; impacts on point and area 

source emissions; any changes to 

established safety margins (see § 93.101 

for definition); and reasons for the 

changes (including the basis for any 

changes related to emission factors or 

estimates of vehicle miles traveled): The 

submitted maintenance plan establishes 

new 2009 and 2025 budgets to ensure 

continued maintenance of the 

standards; therefore, this is not 

applicable. 

Adequacy Finding 

Today’s action is simply an 

announcement of a finding that we have 

already made. EPA Region 2 sent a letter 

to New Jersey on May 14, 2013, stating 

that the 2009 and 2025 motor vehicle 

emissions budgets in New Jersey’s SIPs 

for both the Northern New Jersey and 

Southern New Jersey PM2.5

nonattainment areas are adequate 

because they are consistent with the 

required maintenance demonstration. In 

our letter we noted that there are 

existing approved and adequate budgets 

for 2009, but that the 2009 budgets 

contained in the submitted maintenance 

plans will be the most recent budgets in 

place to satisfy the latest Clean Air Act 

requirement and therefore will be the 

applicable 2009 budgets to be used in 

future transportation conformity 

determinations for analysis years prior 

to 2025. 

TABLE 1—2009 PM2.5 MOTOR VEHICLE EMISSIONS BUDGETS FOR NEW JERSEY

[Tons per year] 

Metropolitan planning organization Direct PM2.5 NOX

North Jersey Transportation Planning Authority ..................................................................................................... 2,736 67,272 

Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission (Mercer County only) ................................................................ 224 5,835 

Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission (Burlington, Camden, and Gloucester Counties) ..................... 680 18,254 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 121 / Monday, June 24, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 37719 

TABLE 2—2025 PM2.5 MOTOR VEHICLE EMISSIONS BUDGETS FOR NEW JERSEY

[Tons per year] 

Metropolitan planning organization Direct PM2.5 NOX

North Jersey Transportation Planning Authority ..................................................................................................... 1,509 25,437 

Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission (Mercer County only) ................................................................ 119 2,551 

Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission (Burlington, Camden, and Gloucester Counties) ..................... 363 8,003 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q. 

Dated: June 10, 2013. 

Judith A. Enck, 

Regional Administrator, Region 2. 

[FR Doc. 2013–14908 Filed 6–21–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2013–0384; FRL–9826–3] 

Interim Final Determination To Defer 

Sanctions; California; South Coast Air 

Quality Management District 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Interim final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is making an interim 

final determination to defer the 

imposition of sanctions based on a 

proposed approval of revisions to the 

South Coast Air Quality Management 

District’s (SCAQMD) portion of the 

California State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) published elsewhere in this 

Federal Register. The revisions concern 

the Clean Air Act (CAA) contingency 

measure requirement for the 1997 

annual and 24-hour national ambient air 

quality standards (NAAQS) for fine 

particulate matter (PM2.5) in the Los 

Angeles-South Coast Air Basin (South 

Coast). 

DATES: This interim final determination 

is effective on June 24, 2013. However, 

comments will be accepted until July 

24, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, 

identified by docket number EPA–R09– 

OAR–2013–0384, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 

instructions. 

2. Email: lo.doris@epa.gov. 

3. Mail or deliver: Doris Lo (Air–2), 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San 

Francisco, CA 94105–3901. 

Instructions: All comments 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 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Information that 

you consider CBI or otherwise protected 

should be clearly identified as such and 

should not be submitted through 

www.regulations.gov or email. 

www.regulations.gov is an ‘‘anonymous 

access’’ system, and EPA will not know 

your identity or contact information 

unless you provide it in the body of 

your comment. If you send email 

directly to EPA, your email address will 

be automatically captured and included 

as part of the public comment. 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. 

Docket: Generally, documents in the 

docket for this action are available 

electronically at www.regulations.gov 

and in hard copy at EPA Region IX, 75 

Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, 

California. While all documents in the 

docket are listed at 

www.regulations.gov, some information 

may be publicly available only at the 

hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted 

material, large maps), and some may not 

be publicly available in either location 

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

materials, please schedule an 

appointment during normal business 

hours with the contact listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Doris Lo, EPA Region IX, (415) 972– 

3959, lo.doris@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us’’ 

and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. 

I. Background 

On November 9, 2012 (76 FR 69928), 

we published a partial approval and 

partial disapproval of the South Coast 

2007 AQMP and the 2007 State Strategy 

(collectively the ‘‘South Coast PM2.5

SIP’’). As part of this action, EPA 

disapproved the contingency measure 

provisions in the South Coast PM2.5 SIP 

as failing to meet the requirements of 

CAA section 172(c)(9) and 40 CFR 

51.1012, which require that the SIP for 

each PM2.5 nonattainment area contain 

contingency measures to be 

implemented if the area fails to make 

reasonable further progress or to attain 

the NAAQS by the applicable 

attainment date. See 76 FR 41562, 41578 

to 41580 (July 14, 2011) and 76 FR 

69928, 69947 and 69952 (November 9, 

2011). This disapproval action became 

effective on January 9, 2012 and started 

a sanctions clock for imposition of offset 

sanctions 18 months after January 9, 

2012 and highway sanctions 6 months 

later, pursuant to section 179 of the 

Clean Air Act (CAA) and our regulations 

at 40 CFR 52.31. As such, offset 

sanctions will apply on July 9, 2013 and 

highway sanctions will apply on 

January 9, 2014, unless EPA determines 

that the deficiency forming the basis of 

the disapproval has been corrected. 

On November 14, 2011, the State of 

California submitted the ‘‘South Coast 

Air Quality Management District 

Proposed Contingency Measures for the 

2007 PM2.5 SIP’’ (dated October 2011) as 

a SIP revision to correct the deficiency 

identified in our partial disapproval 

action. On April 13, 2013, the SCAQMD 

submitted a technical clarification to the 

SIP revision, including updated 

emissions data for the year 2012. In the 

Proposed Rules section of today’s 

Federal Register, we have proposed to 

approve this submittal because we 

believe it corrects the deficiency 

identified in our November 9, 2011 

partial disapproval action. Based on 

today’s proposed approval, we are 

taking this final rulemaking action, 

effective on publication, to defer the 

imposition of offset and highway 

sanctions triggered by our November 9, 

2011 partial disapproval. 

EPA is providing the public with an 

opportunity to comment on this deferral 

of sanctions. If comments are submitted 

that change our assessment described in 

this final determination and the 

proposed full approval of the SIP 

revision, we intend to take subsequent 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES