900 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 4 / Monday, January 7, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

(1) Rule 61.4, ‘‘Transfer of Volatile 

Organic Compounds into Vehicle Fuel 

Tanks,’’ revised on March 26, 2008. 

* * * * * 

(388) * * * 

(i) * * * 

(D) * * * 

(4) Rule 448, ‘‘Gasoline Transfer into 

Stationary Storage Containers,’’ 

amended on February 26, 2009. 

(5) Rule 449, ‘‘Transfer of Gasoline 

into Vehicle Fuel Tanks,’’ amended on 

February 26, 2009. 

* * * * * 

(404) * * * 

(i) * * * 

(B) * * * 

(2) Rule 214, ‘‘Phase I Vapor Recovery 

Requirements,’’ amended on April 25, 

2011. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2012–31636 Filed 1–4–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 

[Docket #: EPA–R10–OAR–2010–0914; 

FRL—9764–7] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; Alaska: 

Eagle River PM10 Nonattainment Area 

Limited Maintenance Plan and 

Redesignation Request 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final 

action to approve the Limited 

Maintenance Plan (LMP) submitted by 

the State of Alaska on September 29, 

2010 for the Eagle River nonattainment 

area (Eagle River NAA) and the State’s 

request to redesignate the area to 

attainment for the National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards (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 March 8, 2013, without further 

notice, unless EPA receives adverse 

comments by February 6, 2013. If 

adverse comments are received, EPA 

will publish a timely withdrawal of the 

direct final rule in the Federal Register 

informing the public that the rule will 

not take effect. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R10– 

OAR–2010–0914, by any of the 

following methods: 

• www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Email: R10- 

Public_Comments@epa.gov. 

• Mail: Justin A. Spenillo, 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: Justin A. 

Spenillo, 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–2010– 

0914. 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 EPA will not know your 

identity or contact information unless 

you provide it in the body of your 

comment. If you send an email 

comment directly to EPA without going 

through www.regulations.gov your email 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the www.regulations.gov 

index. Although listed in the index, 

some information is not publicly 

available, e.g., CBI or other information 

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: 

Justin A. Spenillo at (206) 553–6125, 

spenillo.justin@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 EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. This Action 

II. Background 

A. PM10 NAAQS 

B. Eagle River NAA and Planning 

Background 

III. Requirements for Redesignation 

A. CAA Requirements for Redesignation of 

Nonattainment Areas 

B. The LMP Option for PM10

Nonattainment Areas 

C. Conformity Under the LMP Option 

IV. Review of the Alaska Submittal 

Addressing the Requirements for 

Redesignation and LMPs 

A. Has the Eagle River NAA attained the 

applicable NAAQS? 

B. Does the Eagle River 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 

Eagle River 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 Clean Air Act 

requirements for contingency 

provisions? 

J. Has the State met conformity 

requirements? 

V. Final Action 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. This Action 

EPA is taking direct final action to 

approve the Limited Maintenance Plan 

(LMP) submitted by the State of Alaska 

on September 29, 2010, for the Eagle 

River nonattainment area (Eagle River 

NAA) and to concurrently redesignate 

the area to attainment for the PM10

NAAQS. EPA has reviewed air quality 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with 
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 4 / Monday, January 7, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 901 

data for the area and determined that 

the Eagle River NAA attained the PM10

NAAQS by the required attainment 

date, and that monitoring data continue 

to show attainment. EPA also approves 

exclusion of data from a high wind 

exceptional event on October 30, 2009. 

II. Background 

A. PM10 NAAQS 

‘‘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. 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, EPA promulgated a 

NAAQS for PM10 (52 FR 24634). EPA 

established a 24-hour standard of 150 

mg/m3 and an annual standard of 50 mg/ 

m3, expressed as an annual arithmetic 

mean. EPA also promulgated secondary 

PM10 standards that were identical to 

the primary standards. In a rulemaking 

action dated October 17, 2006, EPA 

retained the 24-hour PM10 standard but 

revoked the annual PM10 standard (71 

FR 61144, effective December 18, 2006). 

B. Eagle River NAA and Planning 

Background 

On August 7, 1987, EPA designated 

the ‘‘Anchorage (Eagle River)’’ (referred 

to as Eagle River henceforth) area as a 

PM10 nonattainment area due to 

measured violations of the 24-hour PM10

standard (52 FR 29383). The notice 

announcing the designation upon 

enactment of the 1990 CAA 

Amendments was published on March 

15, 1991 (56 FR 11101). On November 

6, 1991, the Eagle River NAA was 

subsequently classified as moderate 

under sections 107(d)(4)(B) and 188(a) 

of the CAA (56 FR 56694). 

After the Eagle River NAA was 

designated nonattainment for PM10, the 

Alaska Department of Environmental 

Conservation (ADEC) and Municipality 

of Anchorage (MOA) worked with the 

community of Eagle River to develop a 

plan to bring the area into attainment no 

later than December 31, 1994. The State 

submitted the plan to EPA on October 

15, 1991, as a moderate PM10 State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) under 

section 189(a) of the CAA. The primary 

control measure submitted by the State 

was a comprehensive road paving 

program. EPA took final action to 

approve the State’s moderate PM10 SIP 

on August 13, 1993 (58 FR 43084). On 

October 19, 2010, EPA made an 

attainment determination that the Eagle 

River nonattainment area attained the 

PM10 NAAQS (75 FR 64162). 

The State of Alaska prepared a LMP 

and provided notice and an opportunity 

for public comment on the proposed 

plan. On September 29, 2010, the State 

submitted to EPA for approval the Eagle 

River PM10 LMP and requested that EPA 

redesignate the Eagle River NAA to 

attainment for the PM10 NAAQS. 

III. Requirements for Redesignation 

A. 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, 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. Thus, EPA has already provided 

the maintenance demonstration for 

areas meeting the criteria outlined in the 

LMP Option memo. It follows that 

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. 

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 site 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 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, EPA would conclude that 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with 
902 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 4 / Monday, January 7, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

1Because the annual PM10 standard was revoked 

effective December 18, 2006, see 71 FR 61144 

(October 17, 2006), this notice discusses only 

attainment of the 24-hour PM10 standard.’’ 

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) for the same 

reasons that the budgets are essentially 

considered to be unlimited. 

IV. Review of the Alaska Submittal 

Addressing the Requirements for 

Redesignation and LMPs 

A. Has the Eagle River 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 an ambient air 

monitoring network representing peak 

PM10 concentrations. The data should 

be quality-assured and stored in the 

EPA Air Quality System database. EPA 

has reviewed air quality data for the 

area and has determined that the Eagle 

River NAA attained the PM10 NAAQS 1

by the applicable attainment date of 

December 31, 1994, and continues to 

attain the PM10 NAAQS. EPA’s analysis 

is described below. 

The 24-hour PM10 NAAQS is 150 mg/ 

m3. An area has attained this 24-hour 

standard when the average number of 

expected exceedances 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 

(40 CFR part 58 including appendices). 

A comprehensive air quality 

monitoring plan, meeting the 

requirements of 40 CFR part 58, was 

submitted by ADEC to EPA on January 

18, 1980 (40 CFR 52. 70), and approved 

by EPA on April 15, 1981 (72 FR 21944). 

Updated monitoring plans have been 

subsequently submitted, with the most 

recent approval by EPA on October 25, 

2012. The monitoring plan describes the 

Alaska monitoring network throughout 

the State, which includes site #02–020– 

1004 (Parkgate Site) in the Eagle River 

area. In the LMP submittal, ADEC States 

that the nonattainment designation was 

based on data collected at the Parkgate 

Site. With the exception of two volcanic 

eruptions and high wind exceptional 

events, a review of data from 1988 

through the present show that PM10

concentrations recorded at this site 

remain well below the 24-hour PM10

NAAQS. In addition, ADEC states that 

the Parkgate Site is operated in 

compliance with EPA monitoring 

guidelines set forth in 40 CFR part 58, 

Ambient Air Quality Surveillance. More 

information on the monitoring plan can 

be found at http://dec.alaska.gov/air/ 

am/am_airmonplan.htm. 

Data from the Parkgate Site has been 

quality assured by ADEC and submitted 

to EPA’s Air Quality System (AQS), 

accessible through EPA’s AirData Web 

site at http://www.epa.gov/airdata/. To 

show attainment for the 24-hour PM10

NAAQS the three most recent years of 

data, calendar years 2009–2011, must be 

below 1.0 Expected number of 

Exceedances (EE), as established in 

Appendix K to 40 CFR part 50. The 

Parkgate Site recorded one exceedance 

during the 2009–2011 period on October 

30, 2009. ADEC has flagged this 

exceedance as being caused by a high 

wind exceptional event. Under EPA’s 

Exceptional Events Rule, the Agency 

may exclude data from a regulatory 

determination related to an exceedance 

or violation of the NAAQS if the State 

adequately demonstrates that an 

exceptional event caused the 

exceedance or violation. 40 CFR 50.1 

and 50.14. For the reasons set forth in 

the AK Eagle River PM10 October 30, 

2009 Exceptional Event concurrence 

letter and analysis (November 2, 2012), 

EPA excluded data showing an 

exceedance on October 30, 2009 in 

determining whether the Eagle River 

NAA has attained the PM10 NAAQS. 

ADEC also submitted an exceedance on 

October 31, 2009 for consideration as an 

exceptional event however this request 

was not approved as described in the 

concurrence letter. The concurrence 

letter explains how ADEC met its 

burden to demonstrate that the October 

30, 2009 exceedance qualifies as an 

exceptional event. Based on this 

demonstration, the area’s EE was 0.4, 

which is well below the 1.0 upper limit. 

EPA therefore concludes that the area 

was not violating the PM10 NAAQS 

during the three-year period 2009 to 

2011 (Eagle River PM10 NAAQS and 

LMP Determination, November 8, 2012). 

B. Does the Eagle River 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 CAA, and 

must satisfy all requirements that apply 

to the area. As discussed in Section II.B. 

above, Alaska submitted a moderate 

PM10 SIP for the Eagle River NAA on 

October 15, 1991. EPA took final action 

to fully approve the State’s moderate 

PM10 SIP on August 13, 1993 (58 FR 

43084), as satisfying all requirements 

that apply to the area. Thus the area has 

a fully approved nonattainment area SIP 

under section 110(k) of CAA. 

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 meet all applicable 

requirements under section 110 and Part 

D of the CAA for the area to be 

redesignated to attainment. 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) Clean Air Act Section 110 

Requirements 

Section 110(a)(2) of the CAA contains 

general requirements for nonattainment 

plans. These requirements include, but 

are not limited to: Submittal of a SIP 

that has been adopted by the state after 

reasonable 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 General Preamble 

for further explanation of these 

requirements (57 FR 13498, April 16, 

1992). EPA’s approval of Alaska’s SIP 

for attainment and maintenance of 

national standards can be found at 40 

CFR 52.72. For purposes of 

redesignation of the Eagle River PM10

NAA, EPA has reviewed the Alaska SIP 

and finds that the State has satisfied all 

applicable requirements under CAA 

section 110(a)(2) for the PM10 NAAQS. 

(2) Part D Requirements 

Part D of the CAA 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 and 

the specific PM10 provisions in Subpart 

4, ‘‘Additional Provisions for Particulate 

Matter Nonattainment Areas.’’ The 

following paragraphs discuss these 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with 
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 4 / Monday, January 7, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 903 

requirements as they apply to the Eagle 

River PM10 NAA. 

(2)(a) Part D, Section 172(c)(2)— 

Reasonable Further Progress 

Section 172(c) contains general 

requirements for nonattainment area 

plans. A thorough discussion of these 

requirements may be found in the 

General Preamble (57 FR 13538, April 

16, 1992). CAA section 172(c)(2) 

requires nonattainment plans to provide 

for reasonable further progress (RFP). 

Section 171(1) of the CAA defines RFP 

as ‘‘such annual incremental reductions 

in emissions of the relevant air pollutant 

as are required by this part (part D of 

title I) or may reasonably be required by 

the Administrator for the purpose of 

ensuring attainment of the applicable 

national ambient air quality standard by 

the applicable date.’’ The requirements 

for reasonable further progress, 

identification of certain emissions 

increases and other measures needed for 

attainment were satisfied with the 

approved Eagle River PM10 SIP (58 FR 

43084). In the October 19, 2010 action 

(75 FR 64162), EPA determined that the 

Eagle River NAA attained the 24-hour 

PM10 NAAQS by the December 31, 

1994, attainment date. Therefore, EPA 

believes no further showing of RFP or 

quantitative milestones is necessary. 

(2)(b) Part D, Section 172(c)(3)— 

Emissions Inventory 

For redesignation, Section 172(c)(3) of 

CAA requires a comprehensive, 

accurate, current inventory of actual 

emissions from all sources in the Eagle 

River PM10 NAA. Alaska included an 

emissions inventory for the Eagle River 

area for the year 2007 in the September 

29, 2010 submittal. The inventory 

estimated emissions during spring 

break-up and fall freeze-up include: 

Dust from paved roads; wind-generated 

dust from roads, parking lots and unvegetated areas; fireplaces and 

woodstoves; natural gas combustion; 

and motor vehicles exhaust, tire and 

brake wear. The emissions inventory 

included emissions estimates for 

unpaved roads for the initial SIP 

attainment plan (Eagle River PM10

Control Plan), but all roads have been 

paved and so those emissions have not 

been included in the 2007 nor 2020 

inventories. Emissions estimates for 

road dust and motor vehicle exhaust, 

brake wear, and tire wear were 

developed using the EPA-approved 

MOBILE6.2 model, and vehicle miles 

traveled estimates were obtained from 

the 2007 Chugiak-Eagle River Long 

Range Transportation Plan. The 

remaining emissions estimates were 

calculated using EPA approved AP–42 

emission factors. EPA reviewed the 

inventory and associated calculations 

submitted by Alaska and believes that 

the 2007 Eagle River emissions 

inventory is current, accurate and 

comprehensive and therefore meets the 

requirements of section 172(c)(3) of the 

CAA. 

(2)(c) Part D, Section 172(c)(5)—New 

Source Review (NSR) 

The CAA requires all nonattainment 

areas to meet several requirements 

regarding NSR. The state must have an 

approved major NSR program that meets 

the requirements of CAA section 

172(c)(5). EPA evaluated and initially 

approved the Alaska major NSR 

program on July 5, 1983 (48 FR 30623) 

and most recently approved revisions to 

Alaska’s NSR program on February 11, 

2011 (76 FR 7116). In the Eagle River 

PM10 NAA, the requirements of the Part 

D NSR program will be replaced by the 

State’s PSD program requirements upon 

the effective date of redesignation. 

(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 accordance 

with 40 CFR part 58 to verify the 

attainment status of the area. On July 18, 

1980 Alaska submitted a comprehensive 

air quality monitoring plan (40 CFR 

52.70), meeting the requirements of 40 

CFR part 58, to EPA. EPA approved the 

plan on April 15, 1981 (72 FR 21944). 

This monitoring plan has been updated, 

with the most recent approval by EPA 

on October 25, 2012 (Alaska Air 

Monitoring Plan Approval Letter, dated 

October 25, 2012). As described in 

section IV. A., ADEC operate a 

comprehensive monitoring network. 

(2)(e) Part D, Section 172(c)(9)— 

Contingency Measures 

The CAA requires that contingency 

measures take effect if an area fails to 

meet RFP requirements or fails to attain 

the NAAQS by the applicable 

attainment date. Because, as part of this 

action, EPA has determined the Eagle 

River NAA attained the PM10 NAAQS 

by the applicable attainment date of 

December 31, 1994, contingency 

measures are no longer required under 

section 172(c)(9) of the CAA. However, 

contingency provisions are required for 

maintenance plans under Section 175A. 

See section VI. F. for a description of 

Alaska’s maintenance plan contingency 

provisions. 

(2)(f) Part D, Section 189(a), (c), and 

(e)—Additional Provisions for 

Particulate Matter Nonattainment Areas 

Section 189(a), (c), and (e) apply to 

moderate PM10 nonattainment areas. 

Any of these requirements which were 

applicable and due prior to the 

submission of the redesignation request 

must be fully approved into the SIP 

before redesignating the area to 

attainment. With respect to the Eagle 

River PM10 NAA, these requirements 

include: 

(a) Provisions to assure that 

reasonably available control measures 

were implemented by December 10, 

1993 (section 189(a)(1)(C)); 

(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 (section 

189(a)(1)(B)); 

(c) Quantitative milestones which 

were achieved every three years and 

which demonstrate RFP toward 

attainment by December 31, 1994 

(section 189(c)(1)); 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 (section 189(e)). 

Provisions for reasonably available 

control measures, attainment 

demonstration, and RFP milestones 

were fully approved into the SIP upon 

EPA approval of the moderate PM10 SIP 

for the Eagle River NAA on August 13, 

1993 (58 FR 43084). EPA most recently 

approved revisions to Alaska’s NSR 

program on February 9, 2011 (76 FR 

7116). Alaska’s major NSR rules include 

control requirements that apply to major 

stationary sources of PM10 in 

nonattainment areas and attainment/ 

unclassifiable areas. For the Eagle River 

area, EPA determined that major 

stationary sources do not contribute 

significantly to PM10 levels in excess of 

the NAAQS. Therefore, in EPA’s action 

to approve the moderate PM10 SIP for 

Eagle River, EPA granted the exclusion 

from control requirements authorized 

under section 189(e) for major stationary 

sources of PM10 precursors (58 FR 

43084). 

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 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with 
904 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 4 / Monday, January 7, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

not be redesignated unless EPA 

determines that the improvement in air 

quality is due to permanent and 

enforceable reductions in emissions 

resulting from implementation of the 

SIP. Therefore, a State must be able to 

reasonably attribute the improvement in 

air quality to permanent and enforceable 

emission reductions by demonstrating 

that air quality improvements are the 

result of actual enforceable emission 

reductions. This showing 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 Eagle River moderate 

PM10 SIP include road paving and 

surfacing projects to address fugitive 

dust. These controls were approved by 

EPA into the Eagle River PM10 SIP, and 

they are both permanent and federally 

enforceable (58 FR 43084). As described 

in the submittal, the primary control 

measure relied on is the road paving 

program which either paved or surfaced 

all of the roads in the area by 2007. The 

program paved 22 miles of road which 

equals almost half of the roads in the 

area. The Municipality of Anchorage 

(MOA) commits itself to maintenance of 

the roads during their 10–15-year 

lifetime and resurfacing thereafter. The 

MOA also will work with the Alaska 

Department of Transportation and 

Public Facilities to limit the amount of 

silt allowed in winter traction sand as 

well as explore other road maintenance 

techniques that minimize road dust 

while still cleaning and maintaining 

safe roads. 

EPA believes that areas that qualify 

for the LMP Option will meet the 

NAAQS, even under worst case 

meteorological conditions. Therefore, 

under the LMP Option, the maintenance 

demonstration is presumed to be 

satisfied if an area meets the qualifying 

criteria. A description of the LMP 

qualifying criteria and how the Eagle 

River area meets these criteria is 

provided below. By qualifying for the 

LMP Option, Alaska presumptively 

demonstrates that the air quality 

improvements in the Eagle River area 

are the result of permanent emission 

reductions and not a result of either 

economic trends or meteorology. 

E. Does the area have a fully approved 

maintenance plan pursuant to section 

175A of the CAA? 

In this action, we are approving the 

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 

Eagle River 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. In this action, 

EPA has determined that the Eagle River 

NAA attained the PM10 NAAQS by the 

required attainment date, and continues 

to be in attainment with the PM10

NAAQS. Please see section V. A. for a 

detailed discussion. 

Second, the average design value 

(ADV) for the past five years of 

monitoring data must be at or below the 

critical design value (CDV). The CDV is 

a margin of safety value at which an 

area has been determined to have a one 

in ten probability of exceeding the 

NAAQS. The LMP Option memo 

provides two methods to review 

monitoring data for the purpose of 

determining qualification for the LMP 

Option. The first method is a 

comparison of a site’s ADV with the 

CDV of 98 mg/m3 for the 24 hour PM10

NAAQS and 40 mg/m3 for the annual 

PM10 NAAQS. A second method that 

applies to the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS is 

the calculation of a site-specific CDV 

and a comparison of the site-specific 

CDV with the ADV for the past five 

years of monitoring data. The State’s 

submittal provides a comparison of fiveyear ADVs compared to the 24-hour 

CDV, as described in the first method 

for review of monitoring data to 

determine qualification for the LMP 

Option. Alaska’s analysis demonstrates 

that the Eagle River NAA meets the LMP 

design value criteria for the period 

2003–2007. Using EPA-recommended 

methodology, Alaska calculated the 

average 24-hour design value for the 

area to be 92.3 mg/m3, which is below 

the CDV of 98 mg/m3. Alaska did not 

include two events that they considered 

to be exceptional events on March 12, 

2003 and December 2, 2007. 

Given that the LMP memo requires 

that the most recent five years of data be 

used to determine LMP eligibility, EPA 

calculated average design values using 

more recent data from 2007–2011. EPA 

found that the Eagle River area meets 

the LMP design value criteria for both 

the 24-hour ADV (95 mg/m3 compared to 

the 98 mg/m3 24 hr ADV) and the annual 

ADV (17 mg/m3 compared to the 40 mg/ 

m3 annual ADV) (Eagle River PM10

NAAQS and LMP Determination Memo, 

November 8, 2012). EPA’s calculations 

did not include data from October 30, 

2009, which EPA agreed was an 

exceedance caused by an exceptional 

event. EPA finds that Eagle River meets 

the design value criteria outlined in the 

LMP Option memo. 

Third, the area must meet the motor 

vehicle regional emissions analysis test 

in attachment B of the LMP Option 

memo. Using the methodology outlined 

in attachment B, Alaska submitted an 

analysis of whether increased emissions 

from on-road mobile sources would 

increase PM10 concentrations in the 

Eagle River NAA to levels that would 

threaten the assumption of maintenance 

that underlies the LMP policy. Based on 

monitoring data for the period 2003– 

2007, Alaska has determined that the 

Eagle River NAA passes the motor 

vehicle regional emissions analysis test. 

EPA has reviewed the calculations in 

Appendix A of the State’s submittal and 

concurs with this conclusion. 

As described above, the Eagle River 

NAA meets the qualification criteria set 

forth in the LMP Option memo and 

therefore qualifies 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. If the state determines that 

the LMP criteria are not being met, it 

should take action to reduce PM10

concentrations enough to requalify for 

the LMP Option. One possible approach 

the state could take is to implement 

contingency provisions. The State’s 

submittal included a description of 

contingency provisions which are 

discussed in Section V. I. EPA believes 

the contingency provisions submitted 

by Alaska meet the requirements of 

CAA section 175A as outlined in the 

LMP Option memo. 

As a result of the above analysis, EPA 

is approving the LMP for the Eagle River 

area and the State’s request to 

redesignate the Eagle River NAA to 

attainment for PM10. 

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 the same five-year period 

associated with air quality data used to 

determine whether the area meets the 

applicability requirements of the LMP 

Option. The state should review its 

inventory every three years to ensure 

emissions growth is incorporated in the 

inventory if necessary. 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with 
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 4 / Monday, January 7, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 905 

2This adequacy finding for Eagle River AK 

incorrectly references a submission of date of 

September 20, 2011. The correct submission date 

was September 29, 2010. 

Alaska’s submittal includes an 

emissions inventory for the year 2007. 

After reviewing the 2007 emissions 

inventory and determining that it is 

current, accurate and complete, as well 

as reviewing monitoring data for the 

years 2003–2007, EPA has determined 

that the 2007 emissions inventory is 

representative of the attainment year 

inventory because the NAAQS was not 

violated during 2007. In addition, the 

year 2007 is representative of the level 

of emissions during the time period 

used to calculate the average design 

value because 2007 is one of the years 

during the five-year period used to 

calculate the design value (2003–2007). 

The submittal meets EPA guidance, 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? 

PM10 monitoring was established in 

the Eagle River area in 1985. ADEC 

currently maintains a PM10 monitoring 

network which includes the Parkgate 

Site within the Eagle River area. This 

monitoring network was developed and 

has been maintained in accordance with 

Federal siting and design criteria in 40 

CFR part 58 and in consultation with 

Region 10. EPA most recently approved 

Alaska’s air monitoring plan on October 

25, 2012 (Alaska Air Monitoring Plan 

Approval Letter, dated October 25, 

2012). In the September 29, 2010 

submittal, Alaska states that it will 

continue to monitor for PM10 in the 

Eagle River NAA through the end of the 

maintenance planning period (2020). 

I. Does the plan meet the Clean Air Act 

requirements for contingency 

provisions? 

CAA Section 175A states that a 

maintenance plan must include 

contingency provisions, as necessary, to 

ensure prompt correction of any 

violation of the NAAQS which may 

occur after redesignation of the area to 

attainment. As explained in the LMP 

Option memo and Calcagni memo, these 

contingency provisions are considered 

to be an enforceable part of the SIP. The 

plan should clearly identify the 

provisions to be adopted, a schedule 

and procedures for adoption and 

implementation, and a specific time 

limit for action by the state. The 

maintenance plan should identify the 

events that would ‘‘trigger’’ the adoption 

and implementation of a contingency 

provision, the contingency provision 

that would be adopted and 

implemented, and the schedule 

indicating the time frame by which the 

state would adopt and implement the 

provision. The LMP Option memo and 

Calcagni memo state that EPA will 

review what constitutes a contingency 

plan on a case-by-case basis. At a 

minimum, it must require that the State 

will implement all measures contained 

in the Part D nonattainment plan for the 

area prior to redesignation. 

ADEC has included maintenance plan 

contingency provisions to ensure the 

area continues to meet the PM10

NAAQS. Specifically, the submittal 

includes a list of potential contingency 

measures based on the primary sources 

of PM10 identified in the emission 

inventory. These include traffic-related 

paved road dust, wind-blown dust from 

roadways, parking lots and cleared 

areas, and fireplaces and woodstoves. 

Traffic-related road dust and windblown dust contingency provisions 

include application of chemical dust 

palliatives based on a successful field 

study in 2008 during their spring breakup period, and the potential use of road 

sweeping. Another provision primarily 

directed at wind-blown dust would 

require that traction sand materials meet 

specifications which would reduce the 

amount of re-entrained dust. Fireplace 

and woodstove provisions would 

include curtailment scenarios if 

economics or meteorology increased the 

amount of PM10 emissions generated by 

residential wood combustion. 

The contingency provisions submitted 

by ADEC will be formally assessed by 

MOA within 30 days following the 

violation of the PM10 NAAQS. Within 

120 days a report, will be prepared and 

ultimately approved by ADEC. The 

report will assess existing controls and 

provide a recommendation with respect 

to the contingency provisions or 

alternatives. Actions will occur at the 

discretion of the Municipal Mayor and 

Assembly. Some measures may require 

changes to the local ordinances. The 

contingency provisions identify 

potential control measures and provide 

a specific schedule for review, 

recommendation, adoption and 

implementation. EPA believes the 

contingency provisions are adequate to 

meet CAA Section 175A requirements 

and the LMP Option memo. 

J. Has the State met conformity 

requirements? 

(1) Transportation Conformity 

Under the LMP Option, 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 

(TCMs) 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. 

In the 2012 adequacy finding for the 

Eagle River, Alaska Particulate Matter 

(PM10) Limited Maintenance Plan, EPA 

determined that the Eagle River area met 

the criteria to be exempted from 

regional emissions analysis for PM10 (77 

FR 25164,2 April 27, 2012). However, 

project level conformity requirements 

would continue to apply to the area. 

With EPA’s approval of the LMP, the 

area continues to be exempt from 

performing a regional emissions 

analysis, but must meet project-level 

conformity analyses as well as the 

transportation conformity criteria 

mentioned above. 

(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 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with 
906 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 4 / Monday, January 7, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

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. 

V. Final Action 

EPA is taking direct final action to 

approve the LMP submitted by the State 

of Alaska for the Eagle River NAA and 

concurrently redesignate the area to 

attainment for the PM10 NAAQS. EPA 

has reviewed air quality data for the 

area and determined that the Eagle River 

NAA attained the PM10 NAAQS by the 

required attainment date, and that air 

monitoring data continue to show 

attainment. 

EPA is publishing this action without 

prior proposal because the Agency 

views this as a noncontroversial 

amendment and anticipates no adverse 

comments. However, in the proposed 

rules section of this Federal Register 

publication, EPA is publishing a 

separate document that will serve as the 

proposal to approve the SIP revision 

should adverse comments be filed. This 

rule will be effective March 8, 2013 

without further notice unless the 

Agency receives adverse comments by 

February 6, 2013. 

If EPA receives such comments, then 

EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of 

the direct final rule informing the public 

that the rule will not take effect. All 

public comments received will then be 

addressed in a subsequent final rule 

based on the proposed rule. The EPA 

will not institute a second comment 

period on this rule. Any parties 

interested in commenting on this rule 

should do so at this time. If no such 

comments are received, the public is 

advised that this rule will be effective 

on March 8, 2013 and no further action 

will be taken on the proposed rule. 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the Clean Air Act, the 

Administrator is required to approve a 

SIP submission that complies with the 

provisions of the Act and applicable 

Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 

40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP 

submissions, EPA’s role is to approve 

state choices, provided that they meet 

the criteria of the Clean Air Act. 

Accordingly, this action merely 

approves state law as meeting Federal 

requirements and does not impose 

additional requirements beyond those 

imposed by state law. For that reason, 

this action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to 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 EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this rule does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the state, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this action and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the 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 March 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 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, National parks, 

Wilderness areas. 

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

Dated: December 17, 2012. 

Dennis J. McLerran, 

Regional Administrator, Region 10. 

40 CFR parts 52 and 81 are amended 

as follows: 

PART 52—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with 
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 4 / Monday, January 7, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 907 

Subpart C—Alaska 

■ 2. Section 52.73 is amended by adding 

paragraph (e)(1) to read as follows: 

§ 52.73 Approval of plans. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

(1) Eagle River. (i) EPA approves as a 

revision to the Alaska State 

Implementation Plan, the Eagle River 

PM–10 Limited Maintenance Plan 

(Volume II Sections III.D.2 of the State 

Air Quality Control Plan adopted 

August 20, 2010, effective October 29, 

2010, and Volume III Sections III.D.2.2 

of the Appendices adopted August 20, 

2010, effective October 29, 2010) 

submitted by the Alaska Department of 

Environmental Conservation on 

September 29, 2010. 

(ii) [Reserved] 

* * * * * 

PART 81—[AMENDED] 

■ 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 entry for ‘‘Anchorage, 

Community of Eagle River’’ to read as 

follows: 

§ 81.302 Alaska. 

* * * * * 

ALASKA—PM–10 

Designated area 

Designation Classification 

Date Type Date Type 

*******

Anchorage 

Community of Eagle River ...................... March 8, 2013 ........... Attainment.

*******

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2012–31431 Filed 1–4–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 622 

[Docket No. 101206604–1758–02] 

RIN 0648–XC427 

Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of 

Mexico, and South Atlantic; Coastal 

Migratory Pelagic Resources of the 

Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic; Trip 

Limit Reduction 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Temporary rule; trip limit 

reduction. 

SUMMARY: NMFS reduces the 

commercial trip limit of Atlantic 

migratory group Spanish mackerel in or 

from the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) 

in the Atlantic migratory group southern 

zone to 1,500 lb (680 kg), round weight, 

per day. This trip limit reduction is 

necessary to maximize the 

socioeconomic benefits of the quota. 

DATES: Effective 6 a.m., local time, 

January 6, 2013, until 12:01 a.m., local 

time, March 1, 2013, unless changed by 

subsequent notification in the Federal 

Register. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Susan Gerhart, telephone: 727–824– 

5305, or email: susan.gerhart@noaa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

fishery for coastal migratory pelagic fish 

(king mackerel, Spanish mackerel, and 

cobia) is managed under the Fishery 

Management Plan for the Coastal 

Migratory Pelagic Resources of the Gulf 

of Mexico and South Atlantic (FMP). 

The FMP was prepared by the Gulf of 

Mexico and South Atlantic Fishery 

Management Councils (Councils) and is 

implemented under the authority of the 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act 

(Magnuson-Stevens Act) by regulations 

at 50 CFR part 622. 

Amendment 18 to the FMP (76 FR 

82058, December 29, 2011) 

implemented a commercial annual 

catch limit (equal to the commercial 

quota) of 3.13 million lb (1.42 million 

kg) for the Atlantic migratory group of 

Spanish mackerel. Atlantic migratory 

group Spanish mackerel are divided 

into a northern and southern zone for 

management purposes. The southern 

zone for Atlantic migratory group 

Spanish mackerel extends from 

30°42′45.6′′ N. lat., which is a line 

directly east from the Georgia/Florida 

boundary, to 25°20.4′ N. lat., which is a 

line directly east from the Miami-Dade/ 

Monroe County, Florida, boundary. 

For the southern zone, seasonally 

variable trip limits are based on an 

adjusted commercial quota of 2.88 

million lb (1.31 million kg). The 

adjusted commercial quota is calculated 

to allow continued harvest in the 

southern zone at a set rate for the 

remainder of the current fishing year, 

February 28, 2013, in accordance with 

50 CFR 622.44(b)(2). Beginning 

December 1, annually, the trip limit is 

unlimited on weekdays and limited to 

1,500 lb (680 kg) of Spanish mackerel 

per day on weekends. After 75 percent 

of the adjusted commercial quota of 

Atlantic migratory group Spanish 

mackerel is taken until 100 percent of 

the adjusted commercial quota is taken, 

Spanish mackerel in or from the EEZ in 

the southern zone may not be possessed 

on board or landed from a permitted 

vessel in amounts exceeding 1,500 lb 

(680 kg) per day. 

NMFS has determined that 75 percent 

of the adjusted commercial quota for 

Atlantic group Spanish mackerel has 

been taken. Accordingly, the 1,500 lb 

(680 kg) per day commercial trip limit 

applies to Spanish mackerel in or from 

the EEZ in the southern zone effective 

6 a.m., local time, January 6, 2013, until 

12:01 a.m., local time, March 1, 2013, 

unless changed by subsequent 

notification in the Federal Register. 

Classification 

The Regional Administrator, 

Southeast Region, NMFS, has 

determined this temporary rule is 

necessary for the conservation and 

management of Atlantic migratory group 

Spanish mackerel and is consistent with 

the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other 

applicable laws. 

This action is taken under 50 CFR 

622.43(a) and is exempt from review 

under Executive Order 12866. 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with