[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 90 (Thursday, May 9, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 27071-27078]
[FR Doc No: 2013-10939]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[Docket EPA-R10-OAR-2009-0340; FRL-9794-2]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Alaska: Mendenhall Valley Nonattainment Area PM[bdi1][bdi0] Limited
Maintenance Plan and Redesignation Request

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA is taking direct final action to approve the Limited
Maintenance Plan (LMP) for particulate matter with an aerodynamic
diameter less than or equal to 10 micrometers (PM10)
submitted by the State of Alaska on May 8, 2009, for the Mendenhall
Valley nonattainment area (Mendenhall Valley NAA), and to concurrently
redesignate the area to attainment for the National Ambient Air Quality
Standard (NAAQS) for particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter
less than or equal to a nominal 10 micrometers (PM10).

DATES: This direct final rule will be effective July 8, 2013, without
further notice, unless the EPA receives adverse comments by June 10,
2013. If adverse comments are received, the 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. The EPA will then
address all public comments in a subsequent final rule.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R10-
OAR-2009-0340, by any of the following methods:
     www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
     Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Mail: Keith Rose, EPA Region 10, Office of Air, Waste and
Toxics (AWT-107), 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, Seattle WA, 98101.
     Hand Delivery/Courier: EPA Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue,
Suite 900, Seattle WA, 98101. Attention: Keith Rose, Office of Air,
Waste and Toxics, AWT-107. Such deliveries are only accepted during
normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for
deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R10-OAR-
2009-0340. The 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 the
disclosure of which 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 the 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 the 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, the 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 the EPA cannot read your comment due
to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, the
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
the disclosure of which 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. Publicly available
docket materials are available either electronically in
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy during normal business hours at the
Office of Air, Waste and Toxics, EPA Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue,
Seattle WA, 98101.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Keith Rose at:<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or the above EPA, Region 10 address.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document wherever ``we'',
``us'' or ``our'' are used, it is intended to refer to the EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Background
    A. PM10 National Ambient Air Quality Standards
    B. Mendenhall Valley Nonattainment Area and Planning Background
    C. PM10 Emissions Inventory of the Mendenhall Valley
Nonattainment Area
II. Requirements for Redesignation
    A. Clean Air Act (CAA) Requirements for Redesignation of
Nonattainment Areas
    B. The LMP Option for PM10 Nonattainment Areas
    C. Conformity Under the LMP Option
III. Review of the Alaska Submittal Addressing the Requirements for
Redesignation and LMP
    A. Has the Mendenhall Valley NAA attained the applicable NAAQS?
    B. Does the Mendenhall Valley NAA have a fully approved SIP
under Section 110(k) of the CAA?
    C. Has the State met all applicable requirements under Section
110 and Part D of the CAA?
    D. Has the State demonstrated that the air quality improvement
is due to permanent and enforceable reductions?
    E. Does the area have a fully approved maintenance plan pursuant
to Section 175A of the CAA?
    F. Has the State demonstrated that the Mendenhall Valley NAA
qualifies for the LMP option?
    G. Does the State have an approved attainment emissions
inventory which can be used to demonstrate attainment of the NAAQS?
    H. Does the LMP include an assurance of continued operation of
an appropriate EPA-approved air quality monitoring network, in
accordance with 40 CFR Part 58?
    I. Does the plan meet the CAA requirements for contingency
provisions?
    J. Has the State met conformity requirements?
IV. Final Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

A. PM10 National Ambient Air Quality Standards

    ``Particulate matter,'' also known as particle pollution or PM, is
a complex mixture of extremely small particles and liquid droplets. The
size of particles is directly linked to their potential for causing
health problems. The EPA is concerned about particles that are 10
micrometers in diameter or smaller because those are the particles that
generally pass through the throat and nose and enter the lungs. Once
inhaled, these particles can affect the heart and lungs and cause
serious adverse health effects. People with heart or lung diseases,
children and older adults are the most likely to be affected by
particle pollution exposure. However, even healthy individuals may
experience temporary symptoms from exposure to elevated levels of
particle pollution.
    On July 1, 1987, the EPA promulgated two primary NAAQS for
PM10: a 24-hour standard of 150 micrograms per cubic meter
([micro]g/m\3\) and an annual standard of 50 [micro]g/m\3\, expressed
as an annual arithmetic mean (52 FR 24634). The EPA also promulgated
secondary PM10 standards that were identical to the primary
standards. In a rulemaking action effective December 18, 2006, the EPA
retained the 24-hour PM10 standard but revoked the annual
PM10 standard (71 FR 61144, October 17, 2006).

B. Mendenhall Valley Nonattainment Area and Planning Background

    On August 7, 1987, the EPA identified a number of areas across the
country as PM10 ``Group I'' areas of concern, that is, areas
with a 95% or greater likelihood of violating the PM10 NAAQS
and requiring substantial planning efforts (52 FR 29383). The
Mendenhall Valley NAA was identified as a Group I area of concern.
    Areas meeting the requirements of section 107(d)(4)(B) of the Clean
Air Act (CAA or Act) were designated nonattainment for PM10
by operation of law and classified ``moderate'' upon enactment of the
1990 CAA Amendments. These areas included all former Group I
PM10 planning areas identified in 52 FR 29383 (August 7,
1987), and further clarified in 55 FR 45799 (October 31, 1990), and any
other areas violating the NAAQS for PM10 prior to January 1,
1989. A Federal Register notice announcing the areas designated
nonattainment for PM10 upon enactment of the 1990 CAA
Amendments, known as ``initial'' PM10 nonattainment areas,
was published on March 15, 1991 (56 FR 11101). The Mendenhall Valley
NAA was one of these initial moderate PM10 nonattainment
areas.
    Geographically, the Mendenhall Valley NAA extends from the northern
boundary of the Juneau Airport north through the Mendenhall Valley to
the southern edge of the Mendenhall Glacier near Nugget Creek. To the
east and west the Mendenhall Valley NAA is bounded by steep ridge
crests rising more than 1000 feet from the valley floor.
    All initial moderate PM10 nonattainment areas had the
same applicable attainment date of December 31, 1994. States containing
initial moderate PM10 nonattainment areas were required by
section 189(a) of the CAA to develop and submit to the EPA by November
15, 1991, a state implementation plan (SIP) revision providing for
implementation of reasonably available control measures (RACM),
including reasonably available control technology (RACT), and a
demonstration of whether attainment of the PM10 NAAQS by the
December 31, 1994 attainment date was practicable. On September 12,
1994, the original attainment date for the Mendenhall Valley NAA was
extended to December 31, 1995, under the authority of section 188(d) of
the CAA (60 FR 47276). The EPA fully approved the Mendenhall Valley
attainment plan on March 24, 1994 (59 FR 13884). The control measures
submitted by the State include a comprehensive residential wood
combustion program and controls on fugitive road dust.
    On July 16, 2010, the EPA published a Federal Register action with
its determination that, based on air quality monitoring data collected
at two sites (Floyd Dryden Middle School and Trio Street) in the
Mendenhall Valley NAA, the Mendenhall Valley NAA had attained the NAAQS
for PM10 as of the extended attainment date of December 31,
1995 (75 FR 41379). The EPA noted that for the three-year period from
1993-1995, there were no violations of the annual PM10
standard. In this attainment determination, the EPA also reviewed the
air quality data collected at the Floyd Dryden monitoring site from
January 1996 through December 2009 (the Trio Street site ceased
operation in 1997), determined that there were no exceedances recorded
at this monitoring site, and concluded that the area continued to be in
compliance with the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS during this period.
    On May 8, 2009, the State submitted a LMP for the Mendenhall Valley
NAA for approval and requested that the EPA redesignate the Mendenhall
Valley NAA to attainment for the PM10 NAAQS. In today's
action, the EPA is approving the LMP for the Mendenhall Valley NAA and
granting the request by the State to redesignate the area from
nonattainment to attainment for PM10.

C. PM10 Emissions Inventory of the Mendenhall Valley Nonattainment Area

    The emissions inventory that the Alaska Department of Environmental
Conservation (ADEC) submitted with the Mendenhall Valley NAA
PM10 LMP, for base year 2004 and projected year 2018,
identifies the significant contributions to PM10 emissions
as: wood smoke from residential wood combustion, fugitive dust from
travel on unpaved roads; and fugitive dust from travel on paved roads.
PM10 emissions from wood burning were estimated to account
for less than 2% of PM10 emissions in 2004 and are projected
to remain close to that level through 2018. Fugitive dust emissions
from travel on unpaved roads were estimated to be 5.2% of
PM10 emissions in 2004 and are projected to be 5.3% in 2018.
Fugitive dust emissions from travel on paved roads were estimated to
account for 83% of PM10 emissions in 2004, and are projected
to account for 84% of emissions in 2018.

II. Requirements for Redesignation

A. Clean Air Act (CAA) Requirements for Redesignation of Nonattainment
Areas

    A nonattainment area can be redesignated to attainment after the
area has measured air quality data showing the NAAQS has been attained,
and when certain planning requirements are met. Section 107(d)(3)(E) of
the CAA, and the General Preamble to Title I provide the criteria for
redesignation (57 FR 13498, April 16, 1992). These criteria are further
clarified in a policy and guidance memorandum from John Calcagni,
Director, Air Quality Management Division, EPA Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, dated September 4, 1992, entitled ``Procedures
for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment'' (Calcagni
Memo). The criteria for redesignation are:
    1. the Administrator has determined that the area has attained the
applicable NAAQS;
    2. the Administrator has fully approved the applicable SIP for the
area under section 110(k) of the CAA;
    3. the state containing the area has met all requirements
applicable to the area under section 110 and part D of the CAA;
    4. the Administrator has determined that the improvement in air
quality is due to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions;
and

    5. the Administrator has fully approved a maintenance plan for the
area as meeting the requirements of section 175A of the CAA.

B. The LMP Option for PM10 Nonattainment Areas

    On August 9, 2001, the EPA issued guidance on streamlined
maintenance plan provisions for certain moderate PM10
nonattainment areas seeking redesignation to attainment (Memo from
Lydia Wegman, Director, Air Quality Standards and Strategies Division,
entitled ``Limited Maintenance Plan Option for Moderate PM10
Nonattainment Areas'' (LMP Option Memo)). The LMP Option Memo contains
a statistical demonstration that areas meeting certain air quality
criteria will, with a high degree of probability, maintain the standard
10 years into the future. As a result, future-year emission inventories
for these areas, and some of the standard analyses to determine
transportation conformity with the SIP, are no longer necessary.
    To qualify for the LMP Option, the area should have attained the
PM10 NAAQS and, based upon the most recent five years of air
quality data at all monitors in the area, the 24-hour design value
should be at or below 98 [micro]g/m\3\.\1\ If an area cannot meet this
test, it may still be able to qualify for the LMP Option if the average
design value (ADV) for the area is less than the site-specific critical
design value (CDV). In addition, the area should expect only limited
growth in on-road motor vehicle PM10 emissions (including
fugitive dust) and should have passed a motor vehicle regional
emissions analysis test. The LMP Option Memo also identifies core
provisions that must be included in the LMP. These provisions include
an attainment year emissions inventory, assurance of continued
operation of an EPA-approved air quality monitoring network, and
contingency provisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ On October 17, 2006, subsequent to the issuance of the 2001
LMP option Memo, the EPA revoked the annual PM10 standard
(71 FR 61114).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Conformity Under the LMP Option

    The transportation conformity rule and the general conformity rule
(40 CFR parts 51 and 93) apply to nonattainment areas and maintenance
areas covered by an approved maintenance plan. Under either conformity
rule, an acceptable method of demonstrating that a Federal action
conforms to the applicable SIP is to demonstrate that expected
emissions from the planned action are consistent with the emissions
budget for the area.
    While the EPA's LMP Option does not exempt an area from the need to
affirm conformity, it explains that the area may demonstrate conformity
without submitting an emissions budget. Under the LMP Option, emissions
budgets are treated as essentially not constraining for the length of
the maintenance period because it is unreasonable to expect that the
qualifying areas would experience so much growth in that period that a
violation of the PM10 NAAQS would result. For transportation
conformity purposes, the EPA would conclude that emissions in these
areas need not be capped for the maintenance period and therefore a
regional emissions analysis would not be required. Similarly, Federal
actions subject to the general conformity rule could be considered to
satisfy the ``budget test'' specified in 40 CFR 93.158 (a)(5)(i)(A).

III. Review of the Alaska Submittal Addressing the Requirements for
Redesignation and LMP

A. Has the Mendenhall Valley NAA attained the applicable NAAQS?

    To demonstrate that an area has attained the PM10 NAAQS,
states must submit an analysis of ambient air quality data from ambient
air monitoring sites in the NAA representing peak PM10
concentrations. The data should be stored in the EPA Air Quality System
database. An area has attained the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS of 150
ug/m\3\ if the average number of expected exceedences per year is less
than or equal to one, when averaged over a three-year period (40 CFR
50.6). To make this determination, three consecutive years of complete
ambient air quality data must be collected in accordance with Federal
requirements at 40 CFR part 58, including appendices.
    As stated in section I.B of this notice, in 2010 the EPA determined
that the Mendenhall Valley NAA attained the PM10 NAAQS by
December 31, 1995 (75 FR 41379). In this previous action, the EPA also
reviewed the air quality data collected at the Floyd Dryden monitoring
site in the Mendenhall Valley NAA from January 1996 through December
2009, determined that there were no exceedances recorded at this
monitoring site, and concluded that the area continued to be in
compliance with the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS during this period.

B. Does the Mendenhall Valley NAA have a fully approved SIP under
Section 110(k) of the CAA?

    To qualify for redesignation, the SIP for an area must be fully
approved under section 110(k) of the Act, and must satisfy all
requirements that apply to the area. The EPA approved Alaska's
attainment plan for the Mendenhall Valley NAA on March 24, 1994 (59 FR
13884). Thus, the area has a fully approved attainment area SIP under
section 110(k) of the Act.

C. Has the state met all applicable requirements under section 110 and
part D of the CAA?

    Section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA requires that a state containing a
nonattainment area must meet all applicable requirements under section
110 and part D of the CAA for the area to be redesignated to
attainment. The EPA interprets this to mean that the state must meet
all requirements that applied to the area prior to, and at the time of,
the submission of a complete redesignation request. The following is a
summary of how Alaska meets these requirements.
1. CAA Section 110 Requirements
    Section 110(a)(2) of the Act contains general requirements for
attainment plans. These requirements include, but are not limited to:
submittal of a SIP that has been adopted by the state after reasonable
opportunity for notice and public hearing; provisions for establishment
and operation of appropriate apparatus, methods, systems and procedures
necessary to monitor ambient air quality; implementation of a permit
program; provisions for part C--Prevention of Significant Deterioration
(PSD) and part D--New Source Review (NSR) permit programs; criteria for
stationary source emission control measures, monitoring and reporting;
provisions for modeling; and provisions for public and local agency
participation. See the April 16, 1992 General Preamble (57 FR 13498)
for further explanation of these requirements. For purposes of this
redesignation, the EPA review of the Alaska SIP shows that the State
has satisfied the requirements of section 110(a)(2) of the Act.
Further, in 40 CFR 52.72, the EPA has approved Alaska's plan for the
attainment and maintenance of the national standards under section 110.
2. CAA Part D Requirements
    Part D of the Act contains general requirements applicable to all
areas designated nonattainment. The general requirements are followed
by a series of subparts specific to each pollutant. All PM10
nonattainment areas must meet the general provisions of subpart 1
``Non-attainment Areas in general'', and the specific PM10
provisions in subpart 4 ``Additional Provisions for Particulate Matter
Nonattainment Areas''. The

following paragraphs discuss these requirements as they apply to the
Mendenhall Valley NAA.
2(a). Part D, Subpart 1, Section 172(c) Reasonable Further Progress
(RFP)
    Subpart 1, section 172(c) of the Act contains general requirements
for nonattainment area plans, including reasonable further progress.
The requirements for RFP, and identification of other measures needed
for attainment, were satisfied with the approval of the Mendenhall
Valley attainment plan (59 FR 13884, March 24, 1994).
2(b). Part D, Section 172(c)(3) Emissions Inventory
    For redesignations, section 172(c)(3) of the Act requires a
comprehensive, accurate, current inventory of actual emissions from all
sources in the PM10 nonattainment area. Alaska included with
its submittal a 2004 baseline year emissions inventory and projected
emissions for 2018. The requirement for a current, accurate and
comprehensive emission inventory is satisfied by the emissions
inventory contained in the Mendenhall Valley LMP.
2(c). Part D, Section 172(c)(5) New Source Review (NSR)
    The State must have an approved NSR program that meets the
requirements of CAA section 172(c)(5). Alaska's NSR program was
originally approved into the Alaska SIP by the EPA on July 5, 1983, and
has been revised several times. The EPA most recently approved Alaska's
NSR program on August 14, 2007 (72 FR 45378). In the Mendenhall Valley,
the requirements of the part D NSR program will be replaced by the
Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) requirements upon the
effective date of redesignation. Alaska's PSD program was originally
approved into the SIP by the EPA on July 5, 1983, and has been revised
several times. The EPA most recently approved Alaska's regulations on
February 9, 2011, as meeting the requirements of part C for preventing
significant deterioration of air quality (76 FR 7116).
2(d). Part D, Section 172(c)(7)--Compliance With CAA Section
110(a)(2)--Air Quality Monitoring Requirements
    Once an area is redesignated, the state must continue to operate an
appropriate air monitoring network in accord with 40 CFR part 58 to
verify the attainment status of the area. From 1986 until the present,
the State of Alaska has operated a PM10 monitor at the Floyd
Dryden Middle School in the Mendenhall Valley. In the LMP that we are
approving today, the State commits to continued operation of a
monitoring network that meets the EPA network design and siting
requirements set forth in 40 CFR part 58.
2(e). Part D, Section 172 (c)(9) Contingency Measures
    The CAA requires that contingency measures take effect if the area
fails to meet RFP requirements or fails to attain the NAAQS by the
applicable attainment date. Because the Mendenhall Valley area attained
the NAAQS for PM10 by the attainment date of December 31,
1995, contingency measures are no longer required under section
172(c)(9) of the Act. However, contingency provisions are required for
maintenance plans under section 175(a)(d). Alaska provided contingency
measures in the LMP. We describe the contingency measures in our
evaluation of the LMP in section III.I below.
2(f). Part D, Subpart 4
    Part D subpart 4, sections 189(a), (c) and (e) of the CAA apply to
any moderate nonattainment area before the area can be redesignated to
attainment. Any of these requirements which were applicable to the
submission of the redesignation request must be fully approved into the
SIP before redesignating the area to attainment. These requirements
include the following:
    (a) Provisions to assure that reasonably available control (RACM)
measures were implemented by December 10, 1993;
    (b) Either a demonstration that the plan provided for attainment as
expeditiously as practicable but not later than December 31, 1994, or a
demonstration that attainment by that date was impracticable;
    (c) Quantitative milestones which were achieved every three years
and which demonstrate reasonable further progress toward attainment by
December 31, 1994; and
    (d) Provisions to assure that the control requirements applicable
to major stationary sources of PM10 also apply to major
stationary sources of PM10 precursors except where the
Administrator determined that such sources do not contribute
significantly to PM10 levels which exceed the NAAQS in the
area.
All of the above provisions were fully approved into the SIP upon the
EPA approval of the PM10 attainment plan for the Mendenhall
Valley NAA on March 24, 1994 (59 FR 13884).

D. Has the State demonstrated that the air quality improvement is due
to permanent and enforceable reductions?

    Section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii) of the CAA provides that a nonattainment
area may not be redesignated unless the EPA determines that the
improvement in air quality is due to permanent and enforceable
reductions in emissions resulting from implementation of the SIP.
Therefore, the state must be able to demonstrate that the improvement
in air quality is due to permanent and enforceable emission reductions.
This demonstration should consider emission rates, production
capacities, and other related information. The analysis should assume
that sources are operating at permitted levels (or historic peak
levels) unless evidence is presented that such an assumption is
unrealistic.
    Permanent and enforceable control measures in the Mendenhall Valley
NAA SIP are identified in the ``Control Plan for Mendenhall Valley of
Juneau,'' state-effective July 8, 1993, and approved into the SIP on
March 24, 1994 (59 FR 13884). These control measures, which include
RACM for fugitive dust and enforceable wood smoke ordinances, continue
to remain in the SIP. In addition, ADEC revised 18 Alaska
Administrative Code (AAC) 50.075 to reference an updated ordinance
titled ``An Ordinance Amending the Woodsmoke Control Program Regarding
Solid Fuel-Fired Burning Devices, Serial No. 2008-28'' that requires
more stringent controls on solid fuel-fired devices, lowers the
particulate matter threshold for calling air pollution emergencies, and
imposes restrictions on outdoor burning. These measures strengthen
PM10 emission controls in the Mendenhall Valley NAA over the
previously enacted Juneau woodsmoke ordinance approved by EPA in 1994
(59 FR 13884). EPA is therefore approving revised 18 AAC 50.075 and the
ordinance referenced in 18 AAC 50.075(c) as measures that strengthen
the SIP.
    EPA is taking no action on 18 AAC 50.030, State Air Quality Control
Plan, which adopts by reference Volumes II and III of the State Air
Quality Control Plan and other documents (as a matter of state law),
whether or not they have yet been submitted to or approved by the EPA.
We are taking no action on the revisions to 18 AAC 50.030 because EPA
takes action directly, as appropriate, on the specific provisions in
the State Air Quality Control Plan that have been submitted by ADEC, so
it is unnecessary for EPA to approve 18 AAC 50.030. The federally-
approved

SIP consists only of regulations and other requirements that have been
submitted by ADEC and approved by EPA.
    The EPA has concluded that areas that qualify for the LMP Option
will meet the NAAQS, even under worst case meteorological conditions.
Under the LMP Option, the maintenance demonstration is presumed to be
satisfied if an area meets the qualifying criteria. Alaska has
demonstrated that the air quality improvements in the Mendenhall Valley
NAA are the result of permanent emission reductions and not a result of
either economic trends or meteorology by qualifying for the LMP Option.
A description of the LMP qualifying criteria and how the Mendenhall
Valley area meets these criteria are provided in the following
sections.

E. Does the area have a fully approved maintenance plan pursuant to
Section 175A of the CAA?

    In this action, we are approving the Mendenhall Valley LMP in
accordance with the principles outlined in the LMP Option Memo. Upon
the effective date of this action, the area will have a fully approved
maintenance plan.

F. Has the State demonstrated that the Mendenhall Valley NAA qualifies
for the LMP option?

    The LMP Option Memo outlines the requirements for an area to
qualify for the LMP Option. First, the area should be attaining the
NAAQS. As stated above in section III.A, the EPA has determined that
the Mendenhall Valley NAA has been in attainment of the PM10
NAAQS since 1995 and continued to meet the PM10 NAAQS for
the period 2007-2011, which is the most recent five years of data.
    Second, in order to qualify for the LMP Option, the 24-hour
PM10 annual design value must be at or below 98ug/m\3\,
based on the most recent five years of air quality data at all monitors
in the area, and there should no violations of the PM10
standard at any monitor in the nonattainment area. To determine if the
Mendenhall Valley NAA meets these requirements, the EPA reviewed the
most recent five years of data (2007-2011) from the Floyd Dryden
monitoring site to determine if the 24-hour annual design value was at
or below 98 [micro]g/m\3\, which would qualify the area for the LMP
Option. However, in reviewing the 2007-2011 data from the Floyd Dryden
monitor for that period, the EPA found that one quarter in 2008 and one
quarter in 2009 had data completeness below 75%, the level needed to
allow use of data to calculate the annual design value. Therefore, to
use data for these quarters to determine a 24-hour annual design value,
data substitution was used pursuant to the EPA regulation (40 CFR part
50, Appendix K, Sec.  2.3(b)) and guidance (Guidelines on Exceptions to
Data Requirements for Determining Attainment of Particulate Matter
Standards, EPA 450/4-87/005, April 1987) . For this case, data
substitution was performed using the Tabular Estimation Method, which
is one of the methods identified in the ``PM10 SIP
Development Guideline'' (EPA-450/2-86-001, June 1987). A more detailed
description of this data substitution method, and the comparison to
three other acceptable data substitution methods, are discussed in the
technical support document (TSD) which can be found in the docket for
this final rule (Memorandum by Chris Hall dated August 23, 2012). Based
on the data substitution performed using the Tabular Estimation Method,
the EPA determined that the 24-hour annual design value for the
Mendenhall Valley NAA for 2007-2011 was 45 ug/m\3\. Also, there have
been no violations of the PM10 standard at any monitor in
the nonattainment area over the past five years.
    Third, the area must meet the motor vehicle regional emissions
analysis test as required in the LMP Option Memo. The State's submittal
demonstrates that when the PM10 design value for the
Mendenhall Valley NAA is adjusted for future on-road mobile emissions,
the annual design value for Mendenhall Valley NAA is 56.8 [mu]g/m\3\.
This value is substantially less than the LMP threshold value of 98
[mu]g/m\3\, so the Mendenhall Valley NAA also qualifies for the LMP
Option based on this criterion. Therefore, the Mendenhall Valley NAA
meets the above three requirements to qualify for the LMP Option.
    The LMP Option Memo also indicates that once a State selects the
LMP Option and it is in effect, the State will be expected to
determine, on an annual basis, that the LMP criteria are still being
met. In the Mendenhall Valley LMP, the State commits to evaluate, on an
annual basis, compliance with the LMP criteria within the Mendenhall
Valley NAA.

G. Does the State have an approved attainment emissions inventory which
can be used to demonstrate attainment of the NAAQS?

    Pursuant to the LMP Option Memo, the state's approved attainment
plan should include an emissions inventory which can be used to
demonstrate attainment of the NAAQS. The inventory should represent
emissions during one of the years associated with air quality data used
to determine whether the area meets the applicability criteria for the
LMP Option. If the attainment inventory is not for one of the most
recent five years, but the state can show that the attainment inventory
did not change significantly during that five-year period, it may be
still used to satisfy the LMP Option requirements. The state should
review its inventory every three years to ensure emissions growth is
incorporated in the inventory if necessary.
    For the Mendenhall Valley NAA, Alaska completed an attainment year
inventory for 2004. After reviewing the 2004 emissions inventory and
determining that it is current, accurate and complete, the EPA has
determined that the 2004 emissions inventory is representative of the
attainment year inventory. Alaska demonstrated that the emissions
inventory submitted with the LMP for the calendar year 2004 is
representative of the level of emissions during the time period used to
determine attainment of the NAAQS (1995-2004). In addition, since the
projected population growth rate of the Juneau area, which includes the
Mendenhall Valley NAA, is less than 1.0% per year (see in the docket,
SIP submittal Volume III, Appendix III.D.3.8), the EPA believes that
the 2004 emission inventory is also representative of the most recent
five year period (2007-2011) for which air quality data was used to
determine if the area meets the applicability criteria of the LMP
Option. Thus, the EPA has determined that the Mendenhall Valley LMP
submittal meets the requirements of the LMP Option Memo, as described
above, for purposes of an attainment emissions inventory.

H. Does the LMP include an assurance of continued operation of an
appropriate EPA-approved air quality monitoring network, in accordance
with 40 CFR part 58?

    Alaska conducted PM10 monitoring at three sites in the
Mendenhall Valley in the 1980s and 1990s. This monitoring network was
developed and has been maintained in accordance with Federal siting and
design criteria as set forth in 40 CFR part 58, Appendices D and E, and
in consultation with EPA Region 10. Currently, monitoring for
PM10 in the Mendenhall Valley occurs at only one site, Floyd
Dryden Middle School. In its LMP submittal, the State commits to
continued operation of this monitoring site.

I. Does the plan meet the CAA requirements for contingency provisions?

    CAA section 175A requires that a maintenance plan include
contingency measures to ensure prompt correction of any violation of
the standard that occurs after the redesignation of the area to
attainment. As explained in the LMP Option Memo, these contingency
measures do not have to be fully adopted at the time of redesignation.
The Mendenhall Valley LMP describes the a process to identify and
evaluate appropriate contingency measures in the event of a quality
assured violation of the PM10 NAAQS. Within 30 days
following a violation of the PM10 NAAQS, the City and
Borough of Juneau and ADEC will convene to identify appropriate
measures to control sources of the major PM10 contributors
to the Mendenhall Valley, fugitive dust and woodstoves, as described
below.
    Contingency measures that may be implemented for the control of
fugitive dust include: controlling spills from trucks hauling
particulate-producing materials, requiring installation of liners on
truck beds, requiring watering of loads, requiring cargo that cannot be
controlled by other measures to be covered, establishing controls on
construction carryout and entrainment, requiring construction
activities to be conducted so as to limit and remove the accumulation
of dust generating materials, requiring paving of construction site
access roads, requiring the developer of a construction site to clean
soil from access roads and public roadways, requiring stabilization of
unpaved areas adjacent to paved roads, controlling storm water runoff
of eroded materials onto the streets, developing adequate storm water
control systems, and requiring vegetation to stabilize the sides of
roads.
    Contingency measures that may be implemented to control wood smoke
from residential wood heating include: establishing an enhanced public
information campaign including education in stove selection, sizing,
installation, operation, and maintenance practices to minimize
emissions; encouraging improved performance of wood burning devices
such as providing voluntary dryness certification programs for dealers
and making inexpensive wood moisture checks available to wood burners;
and providing inducements that would lead to reductions in the number
of stoves and fireplaces.
    The EPA believes that these contingency measures in the Mendenhall
Valley LMP meet the requirements for the contingency measures as
outlined in the LMP Option Memo.

J. Has the State met conformity requirements?

(1) Transportation Conformity
    Although the EPA's LMP Option Memo does not exempt an area from the
need to demonstrate conformity, it allows the area to do so without
submitting an emissions budget, if estimated population growth
indicates that there will be no violation of the NAAQS due to
population growth. For transportation purposes, the emissions in a
qualifying LMP area need not be capped for the maintenance period and
thus no regional emissions analysis is required. Regional
transportation conformity is presumed due to the limited potential for
emission growth in the NAA during the LMP period.
    Under the LMP Option Memo, emissions budgets are treated as
essentially not constraining for the maintenance period because it is
unreasonable to expect that qualifying areas would experience so much
growth in that period that a NAAQS violation would result. While areas
with maintenance plans approved under the LMP Option are not subject to
the budget test, the areas remain subject to the other transportation
conformity requirements of 40 CFR part 93, subpart A. Thus, the
metropolitan planning organization (MPO) in the area or the state must
document and ensure that:
    (a) transportation plans and projects provide for timely
implementation of SIP transportation control measures in accordance
with 40 CFR 93.113;
    (b) transportation plans and projects comply with the fiscal
constraint element as set forth in 40 CFR 93.108;
    (c) the MPO's interagency consultation procedures meet the
applicable requirements of 40 CFR 93.105;
    (d) conformity of transportation plans is determined no less
frequently than every three years, and conformity of plan amendments
and transportation projects is demonstrated in accordance with the
timing requirements specified in 40 CFR 93.104;
    (e) the latest planning assumptions and emissions model are used as
set forth in 40 CFR 93.110 and 40 CFR 93.111;
    (f) projects do not cause or contribute to any new localized carbon
monoxide or particulate matter violations, in accordance with
procedures specified in 40 CFR 93.123; and
    (g) project sponsors and/or operators provide written commitments
as specified in 40 CFR 93.125.
    The EPA believes that the provisions in the Mendenhall Valley LMP
adequately address the transportation conformity requirements of 40 CFR
part 93, subpart A.
(2) General Conformity
    For Federal actions required to address the specific requirements
of the general conformity rule, one set of requirements applies
particularly to ensuring that emissions from the action will not cause
or contribute to new violations of the NAAQS, exacerbate current
violations, or delay timely attainment. One way that this requirement
can be met is to demonstrate that ``the total of direct and indirect
emissions from the action (or portion thereof) is determined and
documented by the state agency primarily responsible for the applicable
SIP to result in a level of emissions which, together with all other
emissions in the nonattainment area, would not exceed the emissions
budgets specified in the applicable SIP'' (40 CFR 93.158(a)(5)(i)(A)).
    The decision about whether to include specific allocations of
allowable emissions increases to sources is one made by the state and
local air quality agencies. These emissions budgets are different than
those used in transportation conformity. Emissions budgets in
transportation conformity are required to limit and restrain emissions.
Emissions budgets in general conformity allow increases in emissions up
to specified levels. Alaska has not chosen to include specific
emissions allocations for Federal projects that would be subject to the
provisions of general conformity. The EPA believes that the provisions
in the Mendenhall Valley LMP adequate adequately address the General
Conformity requirements of 40 CFR 93.158(a)(5)(i)(A).

IV. Final Action

    The EPA is taking direct final action to approve the
PM10 LMP for the Mendenhall Valley NAA adopted on February
20, 2009, and submitted on May 8, 2009, by the State of Alaska, and to
concurrently redesignate the Mendenhall Valley NAA to attainment for
the PM10 NAAQS. The EPA has determined that the Mendenhall
Valley NAA has met all the CAA requirements for redesignation of a
nonattainment area, and that the Mendenhall Valley NAA 24-hour design
value for the most recent five years of data was below the threshold to
qualify this area for the LMP Option. The EPA is also approving revised
18 AAC 50.075 and the ordinance referenced in 18 AAC 50.075(c) as SIP
strengthening measures.

EPA is taking no action on 18 AAC 50.030, State Air Quality control
Plan, for the reasons provided in section III.D.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under Section 110(k) of the CAA, the Administrator is required to
approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act
and applicable Federal regulations. Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions,
the EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the
criteria of the CAA. 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 the requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     does not provide the 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 this SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the state, and the 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. The EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by July 8, 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. This action may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2)).

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.

40 CFR Part 81

    Air pollution control, Particulate matter, National parks,
Wilderness areas.

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

    Dated: March 12, 2013.
Dennis J. McLerran,
Regional Administrator, Region 10.
    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

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

Subpart C--Alaska

0
2. Section 52.70 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(42) to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.70  Identification of plan.

    (c) * * *
    (42) On May 14, 2009, the Alaska Department of Environmental
Conservation submitted a PM10 limited maintenance plan and
requested the redesignation of the Mendenhall Valley to attainment for
PM10. The state's limited maintenance plan and redesignation
request meet the requirements of the Clean Air Act.
    (i) Incorporation by reference.
    (A) Alaska Administrative Code, Title 18, Chapter 50 Air Quality
Control, Section 075 ``Wood-fired heating devise visible emission
standards,'' effective May 6, 2009.
    (B) Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation State Air
Quality Control Plan, Volume III, Appendix III.D.3.5, Ordinance of the
City and Borough of Juneau, Alaska, Serial No. 2008-28, adopted
February 20, 2009

0
3. Section 52.73 is amended by revising paragraph (e) to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.73  Approval of plans.

* * * * *
    (e) Particulate matter. (1) Mendenhall Valley. (i) The EPA approves
as a revision to the Alaska State Implementation Plan, the Mendenhall
Valley PM10 Limited Maintenance Plan (Volume II, Section
III.D.3 of the State Air Quality Control Plan, and Volume III.D.3.5,
Volume III.D.3.8, and Volume III.D.3.9 of the Appendices (to Volume II,
section III.D.3)) adopted February 20, 2009, and submitted by the
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation to the EPA on May 14,
2009.
    (ii) [Reserved]
* * * * *

PART 81--DESIGNATION OF AREAS FOR AIR QUALITY PLANNING PURPOSES

0
3. The authority citation for part 81 continues to read as follows:

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

0
4. In Sec.  81.302, the table entitled ``Alaska-PM-10'' is amended by
revising the table entry for ``Juneau'' to read as follows:

Sec.  81.302  Alaska.

* * * * *

                                                  Alaska--PM-10
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Designation                           Classification
          Designated area          -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Date                Type               Date                Type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Juneau............................        7/8/2013
    City of Juneau................  ..............  Attainment...........
        Mendenhall Valley area....

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2013-10939 Filed 5-8-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P