Document ID: EPA-R10-OAR-2009-0340-0002
Agency: epa
Document Type: Rule
Title: Air Quality Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: Alaska; Mendenhall Valley Nonattainment Area PM10Limited Maintenance Plan and Redesignation Request
Posted Date: 2013-05-09T04:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 90 (Thursday, May 9, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 27071-27078]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-10939]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

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

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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

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

DATES: This direct final rule will be effective July 8, 2013, without 
further notice, unless the EPA receives adverse comments by June 10, 
2013. If adverse comments are received, the EPA will publish a timely 
withdrawal of the direct final rule in the Federal Register informing 
the public that the rule will not take effect. The EPA will then 
address all public comments in a subsequent final rule.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R10-
OAR-2009-0340, by any of the following methods:
     www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for 
submitting comments.
     Email: 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

[[Page 27072]]

I. Background

A. PM10 National Ambient Air Quality Standards

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

B. Mendenhall Valley Nonattainment Area and Planning Background

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

C. PM10 Emissions Inventory of the Mendenhall Valley Nonattainment Area

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

II. Requirements for Redesignation

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

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

[[Page 27073]]

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

B. The LMP Option for PM10 Nonattainment Areas

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

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

C. Conformity Under the LMP Option

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 27074]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 27076]]

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.

[[Page 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

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

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

Subpart C--Alaska

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

Sec.  52.70  Identification of plan.

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

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

Sec.  52.73  Approval of plans.

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

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

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

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

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

Sec.  81.302  Alaska.

* * * * *

[[Page 27078]]

                                                  Alaska--PM-10
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Designation                           Classification
          Designated area          -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Date                Type               Date                Type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
Juneau............................        7/8/2013
    City of Juneau................  ..............  Attainment...........
        Mendenhall Valley area....
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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