Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 90 / Thursday, May 9, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 27071 

TABLE 1—EPA APPROVED NORTH CAROLINA REGULATIONS—Continued 

State citation Title/subject State effective 

date EPA approval date Explanation 

*******

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2013–10944 Filed 5–8–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

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 

PM10 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: R10- 

Public_Comments@epa.gov. 

• 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: (206) 553–1949, 

rose.keith@epa.gov, 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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
27072 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 90 / Thursday, May 9, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

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 (mg/m3) and an annual 

standard of 50 mg/m3, 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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 90 / Thursday, May 9, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 27073 

1On October 17, 2006, subsequent to the issuance 

of the 2001 LMP option Memo, the EPA revoked the 

annual PM10 standard (71 FR 61114). 

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 mg/m3.1

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 sitespecific 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. 

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/m3 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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
27074 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 90 / Thursday, May 9, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 90 / Thursday, May 9, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 27075 

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/ 

m3, 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 mg/m3, 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, § 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/m3. 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 mg/m3. This value is 

substantially less than the LMP 

threshold value of 98 mg/m3, 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. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
27076 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 90 / Thursday, May 9, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

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. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 90 / Thursday, May 9, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 27077 

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 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart C—Alaska 

■ 2. Section 52.70 is amended by adding 

paragraph (c)(42) to read as follows: 

§ 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 

■ 3. Section 52.73 is amended by 

revising paragraph (e) to read as follows: 

§ 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 

■ 3. The authority citation for part 81 

continues to read as follows: 

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

■ 4. In § 81.302, the table entitled 

‘‘Alaska–PM–10’’ is amended by 

revising the table entry for ‘‘Juneau’’ to 

read as follows: 

§ 81.302 Alaska. 

* * * * * 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
27078 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 90 / Thursday, May 9, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

ALASKA—PM–10 

Designated area 

Designation Classification 

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 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Office of the Secretary of the Interior 

43 CFR Part 10 

[NPS–WASO–NAGPRA–11600; 

PPWOCRADN0–PCU00RP14.550000] 

RIN 1024–AD99 

Native American Graves Protection 

and Repatriation Act Regulations 

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, Interior. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This final rule revises 

regulations implementing the Native 

American Graves Protection and 

Repatriation Act for accuracy and 

consistency. 

DATES: The rule is effective June 10, 

2013. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

• Mail: Sherry Hutt, Manager, 

National NAGPRA Program, National 

Park Service, 1201 Eye Street NW., 8th 

Floor, Washington, DC 20005. 

• Telephone: (202) 354–1479, Fax: 

(202) 371–5197. Email: 

sherry_hutt@nps.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The Secretary of the Interior 

(Secretary) is responsible for 

implementation of the Native American 

Graves Protection Repatriation Act 

(NAGPRA or Act) (25 U.S.C. 3001 et 

seq.), including the issuance of 

appropriate regulations implementing 

and interpreting its provisions. 

NAGPRA addresses the rights of lineal 

descendants, Indian tribes, and Native 

Hawaiian organizations in certain 

Native American human remains, 

funerary objects, sacred objects, and 

objects of cultural patrimony. Pursuant 

to Section 13 of NAGPRA (25 U.S.C. 

3011), the Department of the Interior 

(Department) published the initial rules 

to implement NAGPRA in 1995 (60 FR 

62158, December 4, 1995), which have 

been codified at 43 CFR Part 10. 

Subsequently, the Department 

published additional rules concerning: 

• Civil penalties (68 FR 16354, April 

3, 2003); 

• Future applicability (72 FR 13189, 

March 21, 2007); and 

• Disposition of culturally 

unidentifiable human remains (75 FR 

12378, March 15, 2010). 

Since 1995, minor inaccuracies or 

inconsistencies in 43 CFR Part 10 have 

been identified by or brought to the 

attention of the Department. On April 

18, 2012, we published in the Federal 

Register proposed amendments to 

provide for factual accuracy and 

consistency throughout 43 CFR Part 10 

by revising 43 CFR 10.2(c)(1), 10.2(c)(3), 

10.4(d)(1)(iii), 10.5(b)(1)(i), 10.6(a)(2), 

10.6(a)(2)(iii)(B), 10.8(e), 

10.10(a)(1)(ii)(B), 10.10(b)(1)(ii)(B), 

10.10(c)(2), 10.10(g), 10.11(b)(2)(ii), 

10.12(c), 10.12 (i)(3), 10.12(j)(1), 

10.12(j)(6)(i), 10.12(k)(1), 10.12(k)(3), 

10.13(c)(2), 10.15(c)(1), 10.15(c)(1)(ii), 

Appendix A, and Appendix B. 

Summary of and Responses to 

Comments 

The proposed rule to revise 43 CFR 

Part 10 for the purposes of accuracy and 

consistency was published in the 

Federal Register on April 18, 2012 (77 

FR 23196). Public comment was invited 

for a 60-day period, ending June 18, 

2012. The proposed rule also was 

posted on the National NAGPRA 

Program Web site. The Native American 

Graves Protection and Repatriation 

Review Committee commented on the 

proposed rule at a public meeting on 

May 10, 2012. In addition, 16 written 

comments on the proposed minor 

amendments, contained in 19 separate 

submissions, were received during the 

comment period from 13 Indian tribes, 

2 Indian organizations, 3 Native 

Hawaiian organizations, 1 museum, 1 

museum and scientific organization, 1 

Federal entity, 1 individual member of 

the public, and 1 other organization. All 

relevant comments on the proposed rule 

were considered during the final 

rulemaking. The comments we received 

that went beyond the scope of the 

proposed rule will be taken into account 

during any subsequent review and 

rulemaking regarding 43 CFR Part 10. 

Authority 

Comment 1: Ten commenters stated 

that the proposed rule revises the 

authority citation for Part 10, and that 

they oppose this purported revision. 

Our Response: The proposed rule did 

not intend to revise the authority 

citation for Part 10. Based on the 

promulgation of 43 CFR 10.11 and 

related amendments in 2010 (75 FR 

12378, March 15, 2010), the authority 

citation for Part 10 remains 25 U.S.C. 

3001 et seq., 16 U.S.C. 470dd(2), and 25 

U.S.C. 9, and it is explicitly stated as 

such in this final rule. 

The Mailing Address of the National 

NAGPRA Program 

Comment 2: Seven commenters 

recommended that the Main Interior 

Building address currently in the 

regulations be retained as the mailing 

address for the National NAGPRA 

Program because that address is 

unlikely to change and because access 

to the internet for purposes of obtaining 

the current, direct mailing address of 

the National NAGPRA Program is not 

easily or universally accessible, 

particularly in rural, tribal communities. 

Our Response: The rule revises the 

mailing address for the National 

NAGPRA Program in §§ 10.2(c)(3), 

10.12(c), and 10.12(i)(3) by removing an 

indirect address and replacing it with 

the Web site address where the National 

NAGPRA Program’s current, direct 

mailing address can always be found. 

The intent of this revision is to improve 

communications with the National 

NAGPRA Program. Communications 

that are not received in a timely manner 

could adversely affect the treatment of 

a NAGPRA grant request, a response to 

a NAGPRA civil penalty notice, or a 

request to the Review Committee. By 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES