Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 21 / Thursday, February 2, 2017 / Proposed Rules 9035 

1See 71 FR 61224 (October 17, 2006). The EPA 

set the first NAAQS for PM2.5 on July 18, 1997 (62 

FR 36852), including annual standards of 15.0 mg/ 

m3 based on a 3-year average of annual mean PM2.5

concentrations and 24-hour (daily) standards of 65 

mg/m3 based on a 3-year average of 98th percentile 

24-hour concentrations (40 CFR 50.7). In 2012, the 

EPA revised the annual standard to lower its level 

to 12 mg/m3 (78 FR 3086, January 15, 2013, codified 

at 40 CFR 50.18). Unless otherwise noted, all 

references to the PM2.5 standard in this notice are 

to the 2006 24-hour standard of 35 mg/m3 codified 

at 40 CFR 50.13. 

2See EPA, Regulatory Impact Analysis for the 

Final Revisions to the National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards for Particulate Matter (EPA–452/R–12– 

005, December 2012), p. 2–1. 

‘‘eLibrary’’ link and is available for 

review in the Commission’s Public 

Reference Room in Washington, DC. 

There is an ‘‘eSubscription’’ link on the 

Web site that enables subscribers to 

receive email notification when a 

document is added to a subscribed 

docket(s). For assistance with any FERC 

Online service, please email 

FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov, or call 

(866) 208–3676 (toll free). For TTY, call 

(202) 502–8659. 

Dated: January 17, 2017. 

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., 

Deputy Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2017–02065 Filed 2–1–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6717–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R10–OAR–2015–0131: FRL–9959–01– 

Region 10] 

Air Plan Approval; AK, Fairbanks North 

Star Borough; 2006 PM2.5 Moderate 

Area Plan 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve 

state implementation plan (SIP) 

revisions submitted by the State of 

Alaska (Alaska) to address Clean Air Act 

(CAA or Act) requirements for the 2006 

24-hour fine particulate matter (PM2.5) 

national ambient air quality standards 

(NAAQS) in the Fairbanks North Star 

Borough Moderate PM2.5 nonattainment 

area (FNSB NAA). Alaska submitted an 

attainment plan on December 31, 2014, 

and made additional submissions and 

provided clarifying information to 

supplement the attainment plan for the 

area in January 2015, March 2015, July 

2015, November 2015, March 2016, 

November 2016, and January 2017 

(hereafter, the initial submission and all 

supplemental and clarifying information 

will be collectively referred to as ‘‘the 

FNSB Moderate Plan’’). 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before March 6, 2017. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R10– 

OAR–2015–0131, at http://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Once submitted, comments cannot be 

edited or removed from Regulations.gov. 

The EPA may publish any comment 

received to its public docket. Do not 

submit electronically any information 

you consider to be Confidential 

Business Information (CBI) or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Multimedia 

submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be 

accompanied by a written comment. 

The written comment is considered the 

official comment and should include 

discussion of all points you wish to 

make. The EPA will generally not 

consider comments or comment 

contents located outside of the primary 

submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or 

other file sharing system). For 

additional submission methods, the full 

EPA public comment policy, 

information about CBI or multimedia 

submissions, and general guidance on 

making effective comments, please visit 

http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/ 

commenting-epa-dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Claudia Vaupel, Air Planning Unit, 

Office of Air and Waste (OAW–150), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 10, 1200 Sixth Ave, Suite 900, 

Seattle, WA 98101; telephone number: 

206–553–6121, email address: 

vaupel.claudia@epa.gov. 

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 for the EPA’s Proposed Action 

A. Regulatory Background 

B. FNSB NAA Background 

II. The EPA’s Evaluation of the FNSB 

Moderate Plan 

A. Emissions Inventories 

B. Pollutants Addressed 

C. Reasonably Available Control Measures/ 

Reasonably Available Control 

Technology 

D. Air Quality Modeling 

E. Demonstration That Attainment by the 

Moderate Area Attainment Date Is 

Impracticable 

F. Reasonable Further Progress and 

Quantitative Milestones 

G. Contingency Measures 

H. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets 

I. FNSB NAA Exceptional Event 

Demonstrations and Concurrences 

III. Proposed Action 

IV. Incorporation by Reference 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background for the EPA’s Proposed 

Action 

A. Regulatory Background 

On October 17, 2006, the EPA 

strengthened the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS 

by lowering the level of the standards 

from 65 mg/m3 to 35 mg/m3 in order to 

provide increased protection of public 

health (40 CFR 50.13).1 Epidemiological 

studies have shown statistically 

significant correlations between 

elevated PM2.5 levels and premature 

mortality. Other important adverse 

health effects associated with elevated 

PM2.5 exposure include aggravation of 

respiratory and cardiovascular disease 

(as indicated by increased hospital 

admissions, emergency room visits, 

absences from school or work, and 

restricted activity days), changes in lung 

function and increased respiratory 

symptoms. Individuals particularly 

sensitive to PM2.5 exposure include 

older adults, people with heart and lung 

disease, and children (78 FR 3088, 

January 15, 2013). PM2.5 can be emitted 

directly into the atmosphere as a solid 

or liquid particle (‘‘primary PM2.5’’ or 

‘‘direct PM2.5’’) or can be formed in the 

atmosphere as a result of various 

chemical reactions among precursor 

pollutants such as nitrogen oxides, 

sulfur oxides, volatile organic 

compounds, and ammonia (‘‘secondary 

PM2.5’’).2

Following promulgation of a new or 

revised NAAQS, the EPA is required by 

section 107(d)(1) of the CAA to 

designate areas throughout the United 

States as attainment, nonattainment, or 

unclassifiable for the NAAQS. 

Nonattainment areas include both areas 

that are violating the NAAQS, and 

nearby areas with emissions sources or 

activities that contribute to violations in 

those areas. States with areas designated 

nonattainment are required to prepare 

and submit a plan for attaining the 

NAAQS in the area as expeditiously as 

practicable. 

The requirements for attainment plans 

for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS 

include the general nonattainment area 

planning requirements in CAA section 

172 of title I, part D, subpart 1 (subpart 

1) and the additional planning 

requirements specific to particulate 

matter in CAA sections 188 and 189 of 

title I, part D, subpart 4 (subpart 4). The 

EPA has a longstanding general 

guidance document that interprets the 

1990 amendments to the CAA, 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS

9036 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 21 / Thursday, February 2, 2017 / Proposed Rules 

3 In section II.D of this proposal, we provide a 

more detailed discussion of air quality modeling 

and the presentation of speciated PM2.5 in the area 

in the FNSB Moderate Plan. 

commonly referred to as the ‘‘General 

Preamble’’ (57 FR 13498, April 16, 

1992). The General Preamble addresses 

the relationship between subpart 1 and 

subpart 4 requirements and provides 

recommendations to states for meeting 

statutory requirements for particulate 

matter nonattainment planning. 

Specifically, the General Preamble 

explains that requirements applicable to 

Moderate area nonattainment SIPs are 

set forth in subpart 4, but such SIPs 

must also meet the general 

nonattainment planning provisions in 

subpart 1, to the extent these provisions 

‘‘are not otherwise subsumed by, or 

integrally related to,’’ the more specific 

subpart 4 requirements. 57 FR 13538. 

On August 16, 1994, the EPA 

promulgated an addendum to the 

General Preamble providing additional 

guidance for particulate matter 

nonattainment areas. 59 FR 41988. 

Additionally, on August 24, 2016, the 

EPA issued a final rule, Fine Particulate 

Matter National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards: State Implementation Plan 

Requirements (PM2.5 Implementation 

Rule, 81 FR 58009), to clarify our 

interpretations of the statutory 

requirements that apply to PM2.5

nonattainment areas. 

The requirements of subpart 1 for 

attainment plans include, among other 

things: (i) The section 172(c)(1) 

requirements to provide for the 

implementation of reasonably available 

control measures (RACM) and 

reasonably available control technology 

(RACT), and attainment of the NAAQS; 

(ii) the section 172(c)(2) requirement to 

demonstrate reasonable further progress 

(RFP); (iii) the section 172(c)(3) 

requirement for emissions inventories; 

and (iv) the section 172(c)(9) 

requirement for contingency measures. 

The subpart 4 requirements for 

Moderate areas are generally 

comparable with the subpart 1 

requirements and include: (i) Section 

189(a)(1)(B) requirements to 

demonstrate attainment by the 

outermost statutory Moderate area 

attainment date (i.e., the end of the sixth 

calendar year following designation) or 

that attainment by such date is 

impracticable; (ii) section 189(a)(1)(C) 

requirements to ensure RACM will be 

implemented within four years of 

designation; (iii) section 189(c) 

requirements for RFP and quantitative 

milestones (QMs); and (iv) section 

189(e) control requirements for 

precursor emissions from major 

stationary sources. In the event that the 

EPA reclassifies a Moderate 

nonattainment area to Serious, subpart 4 

imposes additional requirements. In this 

action, the EPA is evaluating Alaska’s 

attainment plan for the FNSB NAA for 

compliance with the statutory and 

regulatory requirements applicable to 

Moderate PM2.5 nonattainment areas. 

B. FNSB NAA Background 

The EPA designated a portion of the 

Fairbanks North Star Borough as 

nonattainment for the 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS upon evaluation of 

monitored air quality data for 2006– 

2008 (74 FR 58689, November 13, 2009). 

Based on the 43 mg/m3 2006–2008 

design value at the State Office Building 

monitoring site, Alaska and the EPA 

determined that a portion of the 

Fairbanks North Star Borough was 

violating the NAAQS or contained 

sources contributing to a violation of the 

NAAQS. Alaska noted that exceedances 

of the standard occur during cold and 

stagnant weather patterns in the winter 

season and in the summer months as the 

result of wildfires which Alaska flagged 

as ‘‘exceptional events’’ in accordance 

with the EPA’s Exceptional Events Rule 

at 40 CFR 50.14. At the time of 

designation, and also when Alaska 

submitted the initial FNSB Moderate 

Plan, the regulatory monitor in the 

FNSB NAA used by Alaska and the EPA 

was the monitor located at the State 

Office Building in downtown Fairbanks. 

Accordingly, the analyses that formed 

the basis of the FNSB Moderate Plan 

were premised upon data from this 

monitor location. Unless otherwise 

noted, monitored data and future year 

projections discussed in this action refer 

to the State Office Building monitor 

location. 

As part of its attainment planning 

analysis, Alaska evaluated total PM2.5

and speciated PM2.5 data from the State 

Office Building monitor to help identify 

the appropriate emission control 

strategy for the FNSB NAA. Alaska 

chose the 2006–2010 period for the 

baseline representing conditions before 

emission controls and calculated a 

baseline design value of 44.7 mg/m3. 

During the most polluted wintertime 

days from 2006–2010, Alaska found that 

ambient PM2.5 in the area was 

dominated by organic carbon, followed 

by sulfate. The results of Alaska’s 

analysis of the average speciated PM2.5

mass for these days are presented by 

chemical species in table 1.3 Through its 

analysis of observed data and modeling 

sources in the FNSB NAA, Alaska 

concludes that throughout the winter 

months, residential wood heating is the 

major source of PM2.5 and accounts for 

60–80 percent of the observed PM2.5. 

Sources of secondary sulfate account for 

8–20 percent of the observed PM2.5, and 

diesel and gasoline engines account for 

0–10 percent and 0–7 percent of the 

observed PM2.5, respectively (FNSB 

Moderate Plan section III.D.5.8 and its 

associated appendix). 

TABLE 1—FNSB NAA SPECIATED

PM2.5 MASS AT THE STATE OFFICE

BUILDING MONITOR

Species 

Observed 

concentration 

on polluted 

winter days 

(μg/m3) 

PM2.5 Total ........................... 44.7 

Organic Carbon .................... 24.9 

Elemental Carbon ................. 2.9 

Sulfate ................................... 8.2 

Nitrate ................................... 1.9 

Ammonium ............................ 3.6 

Particle-Bound Water ........... 2.7 

Other PM2.5 .......................... 0.5 

For planning and air quality modeling 

purposes, Alaska selected two multi-day 

episodes in 2008 (January 23–February 

10 and November 2–17). Alaska 

explains that these episodes represent 

typical conditions in the area when 

PM2.5 concentrations exceed the 

NAAQS, as well as the conditions 

leading up to the high concentrations. 

The January–February episode (19 days) 

represents a very cold episode. The 

average daily temperatures were below 

¥30 °F for 6 of the 19 days. As is 

typical of cold, stagnant episodes, the 

very cold days come in batches, with 

warmer and less stagnant periods 

occurring in between. The PM2.5 values 

for 10 of the days in this episode were 

above the 35 mg/m3 standard and 4 of 

them were above 60 mg/m3. The 

November episode (16 days) represents 

a relatively warm episode. None of the 

days in this episode had an average 

daily temperature below ¥10 °F. The 

PM2.5 values for 6 of the days were 

above the 35 mg/m3 standard and the 

highest days were in the vicinity of 50 

mg/m3. Alaska did not use episodes with 

violations during the summer months 

because those have historically been 

associated with exceptional events, such 

as wildfires. For purposes of the 2006 

24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, the EPA’s 

implementation regulations and 

guidance authorize states to focus their 

analysis on representative multi-day 

episodes to help to determine the most 

effective control strategy for a given 

nonattainment area. 

Alaska’s control strategy in the FNSB 

NAA focuses on reducing emissions 

from the key category of residential 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 21 / Thursday, February 2, 2017 / Proposed Rules 9037 

4The EPA’s Emissions Inventory Guidance for 

Implementation of Ozone and Particulate Matter 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) 

and Regional Haze is available at https://

www.epa.gov/air-emissions-inventories/emissionsinventory-guidance-documents. 

heating sources that contribute to 

nonattainment in the area. The EPA 

notes that Alaska’s initial December 

2014 submission cited a citizen’s 

referendum as a basis for not adopting 

and implementing many of the control 

measures analyzed. The referendum, in 

place from 2010 to 2014, limited the 

authority of the Fairbanks North Star 

Borough local government (the Borough) 

to regulate sources related to residential 

heating in any manner. Despite the limit 

on the Borough’s authority, the EPA 

notes that under section 110 of the CAA, 

the State of Alaska is ultimately 

responsible for development and 

implementation of an attainment plan to 

meet the NAAQS by the attainment 

date. The EPA does not view the 

referendum to be a valid basis for 

asserting that a control measure is 

unreasonable. In October 2014, the 

referendum expired and the Borough 

began the process to adopt more 

stringent control measures for emissions 

from this source category. However, it 

was not possible for the Borough to 

enact these measures and for Alaska to 

adopt them into the SIP by the 

December 31, 2014 submission 

deadline. In February 2015, the Borough 

revised and strengthened its curtailment 

program and enacted other control 

measures that Alaska adopted for 

inclusion in the FNSB Moderate Plan 

and submitted to the EPA for review in 

a November 22, 2016 supplementary 

submission. 

The EPA promulgated the 

nonattainment designation for the FNSB 

NAA based on data from the State Office 

Building monitor, which was the 

monitor that at the time had the 

requisite 3 years of complete, quality 

assured data for the regulatory purpose 

of calculating the design value for the 

area. Accordingly, Alaska has 

conducted its analyses and developed 

the FNSB Moderate Plan using the data 

from the regulatory monitor at the State 

Office Building. The EPA notes that an 

additional monitor located at the North 

Pole Fire Station became a regulatory 

monitor in 2015, subsequent to the 

initial submission of the FNSB 

Moderate Plan. The North Pole Fire 

Station monitor currently records the 

highest values in the FNSB NAA and 

had a 2013–2015 design value of 124 mg/ 

m3. 

On December 16, 2016, the EPA 

proposed to find that the FNSB NAA 

did not attain by the latest permissible 

statutory Moderate area attainment date 

of December 31, 2015, and proposed to 

reclassify the area from Moderate to 

Serious pursuant to CAA section 

188(b)(2). See 81 FR 91088. If the FNSB 

NAA is reclassified to Serious, Alaska 

will be required to submit a Serious area 

attainment plan by December 31, 2017. 

Although not used for the 

nonattainment designation or as part of 

the FNSB Moderate Plan, the EPA 

expects that the data from the North 

Pole Fire Station monitor will be 

included in the analyses for the 

development of a Serious area 

attainment plan for the FNSB NAA. 

II. The EPA’s Evaluation of the FNSB 

Moderate Plan 

On December 31, 2014, Alaska 

submitted its initial Moderate area 

attainment plan for the FNSB NAA. 

Alaska made additional submissions 

and provided clarifying information to 

supplement the attainment plan in 

January 2015, March 2015, July 2015, 

November 2015, March 2016, November 

2016, and January 2017 (as previously 

noted, the initial submission and all 

supplemental and clarifying information 

will be collectively referred to as ‘‘the 

FNSB Moderate Plan’’). 

The primary control strategy in the 

FNSB Moderate Plan is to reduce 

emissions from residential wood 

combustion. The FNSB Moderate Plan 

includes emissions inventories, an 

evaluation of precursors for control in 

the area, RACM/RACT demonstrations 

for direct PM2.5 and precursors, a 

demonstration that attainment by the 

December 31, 2015 attainment date is 

impracticable, QM and RFP 

requirements, and contingency 

measures. Each of these elements is 

discussed below. 

A. Emissions Inventories 

1. Requirements for Emissions 

Inventories 

Section 172(c)(3) of the CAA requires 

a state with an area designated as 

nonattainment to submit a 

‘‘comprehensive, accurate, current 

inventory of actual emissions from all 

sources of the relevant pollutant’’ for the 

nonattainment area. By requiring an 

accounting of actual emissions from all 

sources of the relevant pollutants in the 

area, this section provides for the base 

year inventory to include all emissions 

from sources in the nonattainment area 

that contribute to the formation of a 

particular NAAQS pollutant. For the 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, this 

includes direct PM2.5 (condensable and 

filterable) as well as the precursors to 

the formation of secondary PM2.5: 

Nitrogen oxides (NOX), sulfur dioxide 

(SO2), volatile organic compounds 

(VOCs), and ammonia (NH3). 40 CFR 

51.1008; 81 FR 58028. Inclusion of 

PM2.5 and all of the PM2.5 precursors in 

the emissions inventory is necessary in 

order to inform other aspects of the 

attainment plan development process, 

such as ascertaining which pollutants a 

state must control in order to attain the 

NAAQS in the area expeditiously. 

In addition to the base year inventory 

submitted to meet the requirements of 

CAA section 172(c)(3), the state must 

also submit future projected inventories 

for the projected attainment year and 

each QM year, and any other year of 

significance for meeting applicable CAA 

requirements. Projected emissions 

inventories for future years must 

account for, among other things, the 

ongoing effects of economic growth and 

adopted emissions control 

requirements, and are expected to be the 

best available representation of future 

emissions. The SIP submission should 

include documentation explaining how 

the state calculated the emissions data 

for the base year and projected 

inventories. The specific PM2.5

emissions inventory requirements are 

set forth in 40 CFR 51.1008. The EPA 

has provided additional guidance for 

developing PM2.5 emissions inventories 

in Emissions Inventory Guidance for 

Implementation of Ozone and 

Particulate Matter National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards (NAAQS) and 

Regional Haze.4

2. Emissions Inventories in the FNSB 

Moderate Plan 

The emissions inventories for the 

FNSB NAA are discussed in the FNSB 

Moderate Plan section III.D.5.6 and 

appendix III.D.5.6. The FNSB Moderate 

Plan has three emissions inventories for 

the area: The 2008 base year, the 2015 

projected inventory for the Moderate 

area attainment date, and the projected 

inventory for the 2017 QM year. In 

addition, Alaska developed a projected 

emissions inventory for 2019 for 

informational purposes to facilitate 

development of the attainment plan. 

Each inventory lists direct PM2.5

emissions and emissions of all PM2.5

precursors (NOX, VOCs, NH3, and SO2). 

The 2008 and 2015 inventories for the 

FNSB NAA include separately reported 

filterable and condensable components 

of direct PM2.5 emissions. Alaska 

provided inventories from all sources in 

the FNSB NAA, including stationary 

point sources, stationary nonpoint (area 

sources), onroad mobile sources and 

nonroad mobile sources. 

The inventories are based on 

emissions estimated during the two 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS

9038 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 21 / Thursday, February 2, 2017 / Proposed Rules 

5Alaska reported direct PM2.5 condensable and 

filterable emissions for point sources as 0.828 tpd 

and 0.686 tpd, respectively (see the November 3, 

2016 clarification in the docket for this action). 

Alaska notes that, when accounting for the 

condensable component of direct PM2.5 emissions 

in its clarification, direct PM2.5 emissions from 

Stationary Point (actual) increased from 1.412 tpd 

to 1.515 tpd in the FNSB NAA. Alaska states that 

the increase has a small effect on PM2.5

concentrations, approximately 0.12 mg/m3 due to 

the relatively small contribution to total PM2.5

emissions from stationary point sources compared 

to area space-heating sources. 

6The 0.001 tpd discrepancy in the VOC and NH3

totals is due to rounding. 

2008 episodes that represent weather 

conditions when exceedances of the 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS typically 

occur. The inventory is an average of 

emissions across all days in the two 

episodes. It represents the averageseason-day emissions, in which the 

emission inventory season is the 

wintertime episodes of cold and calm 

weather that coincide with exceedances 

of the standard. 

Alaska estimated winter episode 

average-season-day emissions for the 

FNSB NAA based on a gridded 

inventory of actual or projected 

emissions developed over an area larger 

than the FNSB NAA for air quality 

modeling. The emissions were 

calculated for the FNSB NAA by 

summing the emissions from grid cells 

within the area. 

a. 2008 Base Year Emissions Inventory 

Alaska selected the year 2008 as the 

base year of the emissions inventory. 

The selection of 2008 as a base year is 

consistent with emissions inventory 

requirements because it is one of the 

three years that the EPA used for 

calculating the design value for the 2006 

24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS designations. 40 

CFR 51.1008(a)(1)(i); 81 FR 58028. This 

inventory provides the basis for the 

control measure analysis, and for the 

RFP and impracticability 

demonstrations in the FNSB Moderate 

Plan. A summary of the 2008 base year 

winter episode average-season-day 

emissions inventory for the FNSB NAA 

is listed in table 2 in tons per day (tpd). 

TABLE 2—2008 BASE YEAR FNSB NAA WINTER EPISODE AVERAGE-SEASON-DAY EMISSIONS INVENTORY

Source type/category 

Winter episode average-season-day (tpd) 

PM2.5 5 SO2 NOX VOC NH3

Stationary Point (actual) ...................................................... 1.515 8.167 13.285 0.096 <0.001 

Nonpoint/Area ...................................................................... 2.817 3.865 2.184 11.627 0.136 

Onroad ................................................................................. 0.676 0.046 4.625 5.725 0.071 

Nonroad ............................................................................... 0.027 0.077 1.088 0.451 0.003 

Total 6 ............................................................................ 5.035 12.155 21.182 17.898 0.210 

Stationary Point Sources: Alaska 

included the actual emissions of six 

major stationary point sources in the 

emissions inventory. Actual emissions 

were based on historically recorded 

facility operating throughput or 

continuous emissions monitoring 

systems for the two 2008 representative 

pollution episodes selected for planning 

purposes. Alaska defines the ‘‘major 

source’’ thresholds for reporting annual 

emissions as the potential to emit 100 

tons annually for any relevant criteria 

air pollutant consistent with the EPA’s 

Air Emissions Reporting Requirements, 

40 CFR part 51, subpart A. Minor and 

synthetic minor sources (5 to 99 tons 

per year) were initially included in the 

stationary point sources category to 

ensure that smaller sources located 

within the nonattainment area just 

below the 100 ton per year major source 

threshold were also identified to 

determine if their emission levels might 

warrant inclusion in the inventory as 

stationary point sources. Those minor 

and synthetic minor sources that were 

not identified as stationary point 

sources were included in emissions 

inventory in the nonpoint/area sources 

category. 

Nonpoint/Area Sources: In the FNSB 

NAA, emissions from various sources 

used to heat residential and commercial 

buildings are cumulatively the largest 

source of primary PM2.5 emissions 

during PM2.5 episodes. This category, 

which Alaska refers to as ‘‘spaceheating’’ sources in the FNSB Moderate 

Plan, includes sources such as hydronic 

heaters, wood stoves, pellet stoves, and 

residential oil heating. Alaska estimated 

emissions differently for space-heating 

sources than for other non-space heating 

area sources. For the non-space heating 

area sources, data was projected from a 

2005 emissions inventory with a 

population growth factor. The 2005 

inventory combined seasonally-adjusted 

local activity estimates with EPA 

emission factors (see AP–42, 

Compilation of Air Pollution Emission 

Factors). Alaska also used data from the 

2008 National Emissions Inventory to 

develop these estimates. 

For space-heating sources, Alaska 

used EPA emissions factors and locally 

collected data to estimate emissions by 

heating device and fuel type. Local 

activity data was gathered from a 

Fairbanks winter home heating energy 

model, multiple residential wood 

heating surveys, a Fairbanks wood 

species study, and emissions testing of 

Fairbanks heating devices. Table 3 

provides the space heating winter 

episode average-season day emissions 

estimates by fuel type for the 2008 base 

year emissions inventory for the FNSB 

NAA. 

TABLE 3—PM2.5 SPACE HEATING NONPOINT/AREA SOURCES EMISSIONS FOR 2008 BASE YEAR EMISSIONS INVENTORY

FOR THE FNSB NAA 

Space heating device/fuel type 

Winter episode average-season-day (tpd) 

PM2.5 SO2 NOX VOC NH3

Wood .................................................................................... 2.656 0.084 0.373 10.914 0.098 

Oil ......................................................................................... 0.056 3.719 1.617 0.088 0.003 

Other .................................................................................... 0.043 0.062 0.192 0.056 0.035 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 21 / Thursday, February 2, 2017 / Proposed Rules 9039 

7The 0.001 tpd discrepancy in the PM2.5 total is 

due to rounding. 

8Alaska reported direct PM2.5 condensable and 

filterable emissions for point sources as 0.828 tpd 

and 0.686 tpd, respectively (see the November 3, 

2016 clarification in the docket for this action). 

Alaska notes that, when accounting for the 

condensable component of direct PM2.5 emissions 

in its clarification, direct PM2.5 emissions from 

Stationary Point (actual) increased from 1.412 tons/ 

day to 1.515 tons/day in the FNSB NAA. Alaska 

states that the increase has a small effect on PM2.5

emissions levels, approximately 0.12 mg/m3 due to 

the relatively small contribution to total PM2.5

emissions from stationary point sources compared 

to area space-heating sources. 

TABLE 3—PM2.5 SPACE HEATING NONPOINT/AREA SOURCES EMISSIONS FOR 2008 BASE YEAR EMISSIONS INVENTORY

FOR THE FNSB NAA—Continued 

Space heating device/fuel type 

Winter episode average-season-day (tpd) 

PM2.5 SO2 NOX VOC NH3

Total Space Heating 7 ................................................... 2.756 3.865 2.182 11.058 0.136 

On-road Sources: The onroad 

emissions inventory consists of mobile 

sources such as automobiles, trucks, 

buses, and motorcycles. It was prepared 

using the EPA’s Motor Vehicle 

Emissions Simulator (MOVES2010a), 

which was the latest onroad mobile 

sources emissions model available at the 

time Alaska started developing the 

attainment plan inventory. Alaska used 

local fleet and fuel inputs and the 

Fairbanks Metropolitan Area 

Transportation System travel demand 

model to generate local vehicle travel 

activity estimates. The use of engine 

block heaters to keep gasoline engines 

from freezing during winter months is 

common in the FNSB NAA. Alaska 

explains that having such a pre-warmed 

engine reduces the start emissions from 

these vehicles. The MOVES2010a model 

does not normally account for the 

impacts of engine block heaters on 

vehicle emissions. To account for the 

effects on starting exhaust PM2.5

emissions from wintertime plug-in 

block heater use in light-duty gasoline 

vehicles, Alaska made EPA-approved 

modifications to the soak time 

distribution inputs contained in the 

MOVES2010a default database. Alaska 

executed MOVES2010a with locally 

developed inputs representative of 

wintertime conditions and assumed 

default MOVES2010a activity for heavyduty trucks. 

Nonroad Sources: Alaska used the 

EPA’s NONROAD2008a model to 

estimate emissions for the nonroad 

mobile sources. However, Alaska 

substituted local inputs for the EPA’s 

default values in cases where locally 

derived data was available (e.g., 

snowmobiles and snow blowers). Alaska 

estimated aircraft emissions with the 

Federal Aviation Administration’s 

Emission and Dispersion Modeling 

System and locomotive emissions were 

estimated based on the EPA’s emission 

factors for locomotives. 

b. Projected Year Emissions Inventory 

In addition to developing a 2008 base 

year inventory, Alaska developed a 

projected year inventory for the 

statutory Moderate area attainment year 

(2015), i.e., the sixth calendar year after 

designation as a nonattainment area. 

This inventory was relevant to the 

determination of whether it was 

impracticable for the FNSB NAA to 

attain by December 31, 2015. Alaska 

also developed an informational 

projected inventory for the anticipated 

Serious area attainment year (2019), i.e., 

the tenth calendar year after designation 

as a nonattainment area. Alaska used 

the same temporal period of emissions 

based on a winter episode averageseason-day, the same level of detail, and 

separately reported the filterable and 

condensable fractions of direct PM2.5. 

Alaska developed the two projected year 

inventories by estimating the impact on 

emissions from anticipated 

demographic and economic trends and 

already adopted federal, state and local 

control measures. Alaska then 

incorporated incremental emissions 

reductions expected to be achieved from 

the control measures adopted in the 

FNSB Moderate Plan. The two projected 

year inventories forecasted emissions 

for 2015 and 2019 for the same source 

categories of emissions identified in the 

base year inventory and were developed 

to support air quality modeling, 

demonstrate reasonable progress on 

reducing emissions, and to establish 

emission reduction milestone targets for 

2017. A summary of the FNSB NAA 

2015 projected winter episode averageseason-day emissions inventory is 

provided in table 4. Table 5 provides 

emissions estimates from space heating 

sources by fuel type for the FNSB NAA 

winter episode average-season day for 

the 2015 projected emissions inventory. 

TABLE 4—2015 PROJECTED FNSB NAA WINTER EPISODE AVERAGE-SEASON-DAY EMISSIONS INVENTORY

Source type/category 

Winter episode average-season-day (tpd) 

PM2.5 8 SO2 NOX VOC NH3

Stationary Point (actual) ...................................................... 1.515 8.167 13.285 0.096 <0.001 

Nonpoint/Area ...................................................................... 2.505 4.268 2.379 9.070 0.125 

Onroad ................................................................................. 0.461 0.017 2.503 3.405 0.051 

Nonroad ............................................................................... 0.025 0.082 1.062 0.403 0.003 

Total .............................................................................. 4.506 12.534 19.229 12.974 0.179 

TABLE 5—PM2.5 SPACE HEATING NONPOINT/AREA SOURCES EMISSIONS FOR 2015 PROJECTED EMISSIONS INVENTORY

FOR THE FNSB NAA 

Space heating device/fuel type 

Winter episode average-season-day (tpd) 

PM2.5 SO2 NOX VOC NH3

Wood .................................................................................... 2.330 0.084 0.373 8.308 0.085 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS

9040 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 21 / Thursday, February 2, 2017 / Proposed Rules 

9The 0.001 tpd discrepancy in the VOC and NH3

totals is due to rounding. 

10EPA, Air Quality Criteria for Particulate Matter 

(EPA/600/P–99/002aF, October 2004), Chapter 3. 

11EPA, Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Final 

Revisions to the National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards for Particulate Matter (EPA–452/R–12– 

005, December 2012), p. 2–1. 

TABLE 5—PM2.5 SPACE HEATING NONPOINT/AREA SOURCES EMISSIONS FOR 2015 PROJECTED EMISSIONS INVENTORY

FOR THE FNSB NAA—Continued 

Space heating device/fuel type 

Winter episode average-season-day (tpd) 

PM2.5 SO2 NOX VOC NH3

Oil ......................................................................................... 0.063 4.118 1.809 0.099 0.003 

Other .................................................................................... 0.047 0.066 0.194 0.061 0.036 

Total Space Heating 9 ................................................... 2.440 4.268 2.376 8.467 0.125 

3. The EPA’s Evaluation and Proposed 

Action: Emission Inventories 

The EPA has reviewed the results, 

procedures, and methodologies for the 

FNSB NAA emissions inventories. The 

EPA has determined that the 2008 base 

year inventory and the 2015 projected 

inventory are based on the most current 

and accurate information available to 

Alaska at the time the FNSB Moderate 

Plan and its inventories were being 

developed. The selection of 2008 for the 

base year inventory is also appropriate 

because it reflects one of the three years 

of data used by the EPA in the 

designation process for this area. The 

EPA finds the episodic approach that 

Alaska used for the emissions 

inventories to be consistent with the 

PM2.5 Implementation Rule in which the 

EPA stated that an episodic period 

developed in order to reflect periods of 

higher emissions during periods of high 

ambient PM2.5 can help, in some 

situations, to ensure the nonattainment 

area inventory reflects the emissions 

conditions that led to the nonattainment 

designation for the area. 81 FR 58030. 

Additionally, the 2008 and 2015 

inventories sufficiently provide 

separately reported PM2.5 condensable 

and filterable emissions as required in 

40 CFR 51.1008(a)(1)(iv) and (a)(2)(iv). 

The inventories comprehensively 

address all source categories in the 

FNSB NAA and Alaska used 

appropriate procedures to develop the 

inventories. In addition, Alaska 

developed the 2015 projected inventory 

based on the 2008 base year inventory 

and accounted for projected growth and 

reductions in emissions. We are 

therefore proposing to approve the 2008 

base year emissions inventory for the 

FNSB NAA as meeting the requirements 

of CAA section 172(c)(3) and 40 CFR 

51.1008(a)(1), and we are proposing to 

approve the 2015 projected year 

inventory as meeting the requirements 

of 40 CFR 51.1008(a)(2). We are also 

proposing to find that the 2008 base 

year inventory in the FNSB Moderate 

Plan provides an adequate basis for the 

control strategy analysis, the 

impracticability demonstration, and 

demonstrating RFP (discussed below in 

sections II.C, E and F, respectively). 

B. Pollutants Addressed 

1. Requirements for the Control of Direct 

PM2.5 and Precursors 

The composition of PM2.5 is complex 

and highly variable due in part to the 

large contribution of secondary PM2.5 to 

total fine particle mass in most 

locations, and to the complexity of 

secondary particle formation processes. 

A large number of possible chemical 

reactions, often non-linear in nature, 

can convert gaseous SO2, NOX, VOCs 

and NH3 to PM2.5, making them 

precursors to PM2.5.10 Formation of 

secondary PM2.5 may also depend on 

atmospheric conditions, including solar 

radiation, temperature, and relative 

humidity, and the interactions of 

precursors with preexisting particles 

and with water and ice cloud or fog 

droplets.11

The EPA interprets the CAA to 

require that a state must evaluate 

sources of all four PM2.5 precursors for 

regulation, and impose such regulations, 

unless it provides a demonstration 

establishing that it is either not 

necessary to regulate a particular 

precursor in the nonattainment area at 

issue in order to attain by the attainment 

date, or that emissions of the precursor 

do not make a significant contribution 

to PM2.5 levels that exceed the standard. 

See 81 FR 58017. The provisions of 

subpart 4 do not define the term 

‘‘precursor’’ for purposes of PM2.5, nor 

do they explicitly require the control of 

any specifically identified particulate 

matter precursor. The definition of ‘‘air 

pollutant’’ in CAA section 302(g), 

however, provides that the term 

‘‘includes any precursors to the 

formation of any air pollutant, to the 

extent the Administrator has identified 

such precursor or precursors for the 

particular purpose for which the term 

‘air pollutant’ is used.’’ The EPA has 

identified SO2, NOX, VOCs, and NH3 as 

precursors to the formation of PM2.5. 40 

CFR 51.1000. Accordingly, the 

attainment plan requirements 

presumptively apply to emissions of 

direct PM2.5 and all four precursor 

pollutants from all types of stationary, 

area, and mobile sources, except as 

otherwise provided in the Act (i.e., CAA 

section 189(e)). 

Section 189(e) of the Act requires that 

the control requirements for major 

stationary sources of direct PM10 also 

apply to major stationary sources of 

PM10 precursors, except where the 

Administrator determines that such 

sources do not contribute significantly 

to PM10 levels that exceed the standard 

in the area. By definition, PM10 includes 

PM2.5. Section 189(e) contains the only 

express exception to the control 

requirements under subpart 4 (e.g., 

requirements for RACM and RACT, best 

available control measures (BACM) and 

best available control technology 

(BACT), most stringent measures, and 

nonattainment new source review) for 

sources of direct PM2.5 and PM2.5

precursor emissions. 

Although section 189(e) explicitly 

addresses only major stationary sources, 

the EPA interprets the Act as 

authorizing it also to determine, under 

appropriate circumstances, that 

regulation of specific PM2.5 precursors 

from other source categories in a given 

nonattainment area is not necessary. See 

81 FR 58018. For example, under the 

EPA’s interpretation of the control 

requirements that apply to stationary, 

area, and mobile sources of PM2.5

precursors area-wide under CAA section 

172(c)(1) and subpart 4, the EPA’s 

recently promulgated PM2.5

Implementation Rule provides states the 

option of submitting a demonstration to 

show that emissions of a precursor do 

not contribute significantly to PM2.5

levels which exceed the NAAQS in a 

particular nonattainment area. 40 CFR 

51.1006. If the EPA were to approve a 

state’s precursor demonstration, the 

state would not need to address the 

precursor in meeting certain plan 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 21 / Thursday, February 2, 2017 / Proposed Rules 9041 

12The Precursor Demonstration Guidance is 

available at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/ 

files/2016–11/documents/transmittal_memo_and_

draft_pm25_precursor_demo_guidance_11_17_

16.pdf. 

13 Joyce, P. L., von Glasow, R., and Simpson, W. 

R.: The fate of NOX emissions due to nocturnal 

oxidation at high latitudes: 1–D simulations and 

sensitivity experiments, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 14, 

7601–7616, doi:10.5194/acp–14–7601–2014, 2014. 

requirements, such as the imposition of 

RACM/RACT level control on sources of 

such precursor emissions. 

The state has the option of performing 

either (1) a comprehensive precursor 

demonstration to establish that the state 

does not need to address the precursor 

in the attainment plan for purposes of 

the control strategy, RFP, QMs and 

associated reports, contingency 

measures, motor vehicle emissions 

budget, or regional emissions analyses 

in transportation conformity 

determinations, or (2) a major stationary 

source precursor demonstration to 

justify the exclusion of existing major 

sources from control requirements for 

the applicable precursor. Both types of 

precursor demonstrations must include 

a concentration-based analysis, in 

which the state evaluates the impact of 

each precursor on ambient PM2.5 levels 

in the nonattainment area. A 

concentration-based analysis may be 

sufficient for the EPA to approve the 

demonstration, on a precursor-byprecursor basis. The state also has the 

option of providing an additional 

sensitivity-based analysis to show that 

changes in the emissions of a particular 

precursor would not result in significant 

changes in ambient PM2.5 in the area. 40 

CFR 51.1006(a)(iii). The EPA’s Draft 

PM2.5 Precursor Demonstration 

Guidance (Precursor Demonstration 

Guidance) recommends calculating the 

relative precursor impact in the context 

of the Software for the Modeled 

Attainment Test (SMAT) methodology 

so that the results are applicable to 

measured PM2.5 in the area.12

2. Direct PM2.5 and Precursors in the 

FNSB Moderate Plan 

In the FNSB Moderate Plan, Alaska 

discusses the five pollutants that 

contribute to the mass of the ambient 

PM2.5 (i.e., NH3, NOX, SO2, VOCs, and 

direct PM2.5). Because Alaska developed 

the attainment plan before the EPA 

proposed a new implementation rule in 

2015 (80 FR 15340, March 23, 2015), 

and before the EPA issued the Precursor 

Demonstration Guidance in 2016, the 

FNSB Moderate Plan includes a variety 

of information on precursor impacts on 

PM2.5 concentrations in the FNSB NAA. 

Following the EPA’s past approach to 

regulation of precursors for purposes of 

the PM10 NAAQS, Alaska submitted 

technical analyses to establish that 

regulation of specific precursors would 

not be an effective attainment strategy in 

the FNSB NAA. After the release of the 

PM2.5 Implementation Rule and the 

Precursor Demonstration Guidance, 

Alaska included information in its 

January 6, 2017 clarification document 

(2017 Clarification) to help the EPA 

interpret its FNSB Moderate Plan in 

light of the new rule and guidance (see 

FNSB Moderate Plan appendix III.D.5.7 

and the 2017 Clarification). Specifically, 

the FNSB Moderate Plan contains 

information necessary to evaluate a 

comprehensive precursor demonstration 

for all sources of VOCs and a major 

stationary source precursor 

demonstration for NOX. The FNSB 

Moderate Plan reports speciated PM2.5

data from the State Office Building 

monitor that can be compared to the 

recommended insignificance thresholds 

in the Precursor Demonstration 

Guidance. These data are the results of 

the SMAT methodology and are 

representative of precursor 

concentrations for the baseline design 

value of 44.7 mg/m3. 

Alaska’s VOC precursor 

demonstration examined both ambient 

and modeled PM2.5 species data to help 

evaluate the formation of secondary 

organic aerosols (SOA) from VOC 

emissions in this specific nonattainment 

area. Appendix III.D.5.8 of the FNSB 

Moderate Plan presents several analyses 

involving observed chemical data, 

tracers of source categories, source 

apportionment techniques, and 

independent modeling efforts. Under 

low sunlight conditions and cold 

temperatures, the photochemistry 

normally associated with SOA 

production is limited.13 Alaska 

explained that VOCs that are emitted 

likely either remain mostly unreacted in 

the gas phase or condense and are 

evaluated for emission control as the 

condensable part of direct PM2.5. 

In appendix III.D.5.7 of the FNSB 

Moderate Plan and in the 2017 

Clarification, Alaska did not directly 

determine the impact of VOCs on PM2.5

from speciated monitoring data alone 

because it is difficult to distinguish 

organic carbon from direct PM2.5 and 

secondary organic carbon formed from 

VOC chemistry. Instead, the precursor 

demonstration relies on the predicted 

concentrations of SOA compounds from 

the Community Multiscale Air Quality 

(CMAQ) model. Alaska summed the 

episode-averaged concentrations of all 

19 secondary organic compounds 

produced from the CMAQ modeling 

results at the State Office Building 

monitor location. The sum of all 

modeled SOA species represents the 

impact from all VOC sources on PM2.5

at the monitor. Alaska reported the 

modeled PM2.5 concentration from VOC 

precursors was 0.0006 mg/m3 and 0.007 

mg/m3 for the 2008 base modeling year 

and 2015 modeling year cases, 

respectively. 

Alaska also submitted a precursor 

demonstration for NOX that modeled the 

PM2.5 impact from major stationary 

sources of NOX in the FNSB NAA (i.e., 

a major stationary source 

demonstration, rather than a 

comprehensive precursor demonstration 

with respect to all sources of NOX

emissions in the area). Id. In support of 

the NOX major stationary source 

demonstration, Alaska performed a 

brute force CMAQ ‘‘zero-out’’ modeling 

analysis, as described in the FNSB 

Moderate Plan and 2017 Clarification, 

and as recommended by the Precursor 

Demonstration Guidance. The CMAQ 

modeling results are compared between 

one model run in which all emission 

sources are included and a second ‘‘zero 

out’’ model run in which all major 

stationary source NOX emissions in the 

NAA are assumed to be zero. The model 

results are processed through the SMAT 

methodology. The difference in PM2.5

mass projected at the State Office 

Building monitor location between the 

two model simulations represents the 

estimated impact of major stationary 

source NOX to ambient PM2.5 in the 

FNSB NAA. For the 2015 model 

simulation, the impact from major 

stationary source NOX to PM2.5 at the 

State Office Building monitor location is 

0.5 mg/m3 averaged across all modeled 

episode days (all days within the 

episode produce PM2.5 less than 0.6 mg/ 

m3). 

3. The EPA’s Evaluation and Proposed 

Action: Pollutants Addressed 

In Alaska’s comprehensive precursor 

demonstration for VOCs using a 

concentration-based contribution 

analysis, the modeled PM2.5

concentration from VOC precursors 

(0.0006 mg/m3 and 0.007 mg/m3 for the 

2008 base modeling year and 2015 

modeling year cases, respectively) is 

well below 1.3 mg/m3 on a 24-hour 

basis, the recommended contribution 

threshold for the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, 

for precursor demonstrations identified 

in the Precursor Demonstration 

Guidance. Even the day with the highest 

modeled PM2.5 production from VOCs 

produces only 1 percent of the 

insignificance threshold at the State 

Office Building. Alaska did not 

calculate the relative precursor impact 

in the context of the SMAT 

methodology because the VOC 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS

9042 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 21 / Thursday, February 2, 2017 / Proposed Rules 

14The development of the RACM and RACT 

requirements in the PM2.5 Implementation Rule was 

informed by the EPA’s longstanding guidance in the 

General Preamble providing recommendations for 

appropriate considerations for determining what 

control measures constitute RACM and RACT for 

purposes of meeting the statutory requirements of 

subpart 4. See 81 FR 58034. 

precursor impact on PM2.5 was so far 

below the recommended insignificance 

threshold in the Precursor 

Demonstration Guidance that a SMAT 

adjustment was inconsequential. The 

modeling results are consistent with 

Alaska’s full suite of ambient data 

analyses, source apportionment 

techniques, and modeling efforts, all of 

which indicate very limited 

photochemical pathways and 

inconsequential concentrations of SOA 

in the FNSB NAA in the winter (See 

FNSB Moderate Plan appendix 

III.D.5.8). 

The FNSB Moderate Plan does not 

provide for a NOX comprehensive 

precursor demonstration because the 

measured ammonium nitrate at the State 

Office Building monitor (2.5 mg/m3) is 

above the recommended 24-hour PM2.5

contribution threshold for precursor 

demonstrations (1.3 mg/m3). In Alaska’s 

major stationary source precursor 

demonstration for NOX, the episode 

average contribution of major stationary 

source NOX to PM2.5 (0.5 mg/m3) is less 

than one half of the recommended 

insignificance threshold (1.3 mg/m3) for 

precursor demonstrations in the 

Precursor Demonstration Guidance. The 

low amount of PM2.5 from major 

stationary source NOX precursor 

emissions is consistent with other 

aspects of the FNSB Moderate Plan. As 

with VOCs, the photochemistry to 

produce large amounts of particlebound nitrate is limited during 

wintertime pollution events in the 

FNSB NAA. Id. Furthermore, major 

stationary sources with elevated stacks 

emit most of their precursors into the 

extremely stable atmosphere present 

during wintertime pollution events. 

Only a fraction of the elevated plumes 

returns to ground level in the FNSB 

NAA where air quality monitors are 

located and much less than might be 

expected in most parts of the lower 48 

states. Therefore, the analysis indicates 

that NOX emissions from these sources 

will have very little impact on ground 

level chemistry and thus on secondary 

PM2.5 formation in the FNSB NAA. 

Based on a review of the information 

provided by Alaska, we propose to 

approve Alaska’s precursor 

demonstrations for major stationary 

source emissions of NOX and for all 

sources of VOCs within the FNSB NAA. 

We propose to approve Alaska’s 

analysis and conclusion that it is not 

necessary to evaluate and impose 

controls on sources of VOCs or on major 

stationary sources of NOX in the control 

strategy for the FNSB Moderate Plan. 

Consistent with the requirements of 

subpart 4, Alaska must include all other 

PM2.5 precursors (NH3 and SO2) and 

NOX from sources other than major 

stationary sources in the evaluation of 

potential RACM/RACT control 

measures, RFP, QM, contingency 

measures, and in the impracticability 

demonstration. We discuss Alaska’s 

evaluation of potential control measures 

for sources of NH3, SO2, and NOX, as 

well as direct PM2.5, in the following 

section. 

C. Reasonably Available Control 

Measures/Reasonably Available Control 

Technology 

1. Requirements for RACM/RACT 

The general SIP planning 

requirements for nonattainment areas 

under subpart 1 include CAA section 

172(c)(1), which requires 

implementation of all RACM, including 

RACT. The terms RACM and RACT are 

not further defined within subpart 1, but 

past guidance has described ‘‘reasonable 

available’’ controls as those controls that 

are technologically and economically 

feasible, and necessary for attainment in 

a given area. See 57 FR 13560. The 

provision explicitly requires that such 

measures must provide for attainment of 

the NAAQS in the area covered by the 

attainment plan. 

The SIP planning requirements for 

particulate matter nonattainment areas 

in subpart 4 likewise impose upon 

states an obligation to develop 

attainment plans that implement RACM 

and RACT on appropriate sources 

within a nonattainment area. Section 

189(a)(1)(C) requires that states with 

areas classified as Moderate 

nonattainment areas have SIP 

provisions to assure that RACM and 

RACT level controls are implemented 

by no later than four years after 

designation of the area. As with subpart 

1, the terms RACM and RACT are not 

specifically defined within subpart 4, 

and the provisions of subpart 4 do not 

identify specific control measures that 

must be implemented to meet the 

RACM and RACT requirements. 

However, past policy has described 

RACM (including RACT) as those 

measures that are technologically and 

economically feasible and needed for 

expeditious attainment of the standard. 

81 FR 58034. The EPA’s recent PM2.5

Implementation Rule provides a process 

for developing an attainment plan 

control strategy for purposes of meeting 

the RACM and RACT 

requirements.14 See 40 CFR 51.1009. 

To meet the Moderate area control 

strategy requirements, a state first needs 

to identify all sources of direct PM2.5

and precursor emissions in the 

nonattainment area, consistent with 

common emission inventory 

development practices and 

requirements. 40 CFR 51.1009(a)(1). 

Next a state must identify existing and 

potential control measures for each 

identified source or source category of 

emissions. Id. at 51.1009(a)(2). The 

state’s compilation of potential control 

measures must be sufficiently broad to 

provide a basis for identifying all 

technologically and economically 

feasible controls that may be RACM or 

RACT. The state must identify potential 

control measures for emissions of direct 

PM2.5 and each precursor from relevant 

sources unless the state has provided an 

adequate comprehensive demonstration 

for the nonattainment area at issue 

showing that control of a particular 

precursor is not required, or provided 

an adequate demonstration with respect 

to control of precursor emissions from 

existing major stationary sources. Id. at 

51.1009(a)(4)(i). For any potential 

control measure identified, a state must 

evaluate the technological and 

economic feasibility of adopting and 

implementing such measure. Id. at 

51.1009(a)(3). For purposes of 

evaluating technological feasibility, a 

state may consider factors including but 

not limited to operating processes and 

procedures, raw materials, physical 

plant layout, and potential 

environmental impacts from the 

adoption of controls. For purposes of 

evaluating economic feasibility, a state 

may consider factors including but not 

limited to capital, operating and 

maintenance costs and the cost 

effectiveness of a measure (typically 

expressed in cost per ton of reduction). 

Id. States should also evaluate control 

measures imposed in other 

nonattainment areas as RACM and 

RACT as part of this analysis. For 

Moderate area plans that demonstrate 

the area cannot attain by the Moderate 

area statutory attainment date, the state 

is required to adopt all technologically 

and economically feasible control 

measures. Id. at 51.1009(a)(4). 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(A) provides 

generally that each SIP ‘‘shall include 

enforceable emission limitations and 

other control measures, means or 

techniques . . . as well as schedules 

and timetables for compliance, as may 

be necessary or appropriate to meet the 

applicable requirement of the Act.’’ 

Section 172(c)(6) of the Act, which 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 21 / Thursday, February 2, 2017 / Proposed Rules 9043 

15The language in sections 110(a)(2)(A) and 

172(c)(6) is quite broad, allowing a SIP to contain 

any enforceable ‘‘means or techniques’’ that the 

state and the EPA determine are ‘‘necessary or 

appropriate’’ to meet CAA requirements, such that 

the area will attain as expeditiously as practicable, 

but no later than the designated date. Furthermore, 

the express allowance for ‘‘schedules and 

timetables’’ demonstrates that Congress understood 

that all required controls might not be in force 

when the EPA approves a SIP submission, e.g., they 

could include measures to be implemented in a 

future year. The EPA notes, however, that all SIP 

provisions must meet applicable legal requirements, 

such as imposing emission limitations that apply 

continuously and being practically and legally 

enforceable. 

applies specifically to nonattainment 

area plans, imposes comparable 

requirements.15 Measures necessary to 

meet RACM/RACT and the additional 

control measure requirements under 

section 172(c)(6) must be adopted by 

Alaska in an enforceable form (57 FR 

13541) and submitted to the EPA for 

approval into the SIP under CAA 

section 110. 

2. RACM/RACT Analysis in the FNSB 

Moderate Plan 

In the FNSB Moderate Plan, Alaska 

explains the multi-step process it 

undertook, consistent with the process 

set forth at 40 CFR 51.1009, to evaluate 

and select control measures that would 

constitute RACM/RACT in the FNSB 

NAA. Based on emissions inventory 

information and other technical 

analyses, Alaska first identified source 

categories in the FNSB NAA and 

associated emissions of PM2.5 and its 

precursors. Alaska’s approach to the 

RACM/RACT analysis targets emissions 

that occur during the wintertime when 

stagnant air episodes occur and 

concentrations of emissions build-up, 

leading to exceedances of the 2006 24- 

hour PM2.5 NAAQS. Based on its 

assessment of estimated source category 

contributions to ambient PM2.5. Alaska 

proceeded to identify the following 

source categories for further analysis: 

Residential wood heating, open burning, 

residential fuel oil combustion, 

automobile and heavy-duty vehicle 

transportation, and stationary point 

sources. 

Alaska developed a list of potential 

control measures for relevant sources 

based on information compiled from 

various EPA guidance documents, 

information received during Alaska’s 

public process, and information 

regarding controls that other states or 

the EPA have identified as RACM or 

RACT in attainment plans in other 

nonattainment areas. Alaska then 

evaluated control measures to determine 

if they are technologically and 

economically feasible, which included 

consideration of factors such as the 

emissions benefits and cost 

effectiveness of the measures. Alaska’s 

RACM/RACT analysis and control 

strategy are presented in the FNSB 

Moderate Plan section III.D.5.7, 

appendix III.D.5.7, and the 2017 

Clarification; sections III.D.5.6, III.D.5.8, 

and III.D.5.11 of the FNSB Moderate 

Plan also provide supporting 

information. 

a. Non-Point/Area Sources RACM/ 

RACT Analysis in the FNSB Moderate 

Plan 

Alaska ascertained that the key 

category of areas sources (non-point 

sources) in the FNSB NAA that requires 

imposition of control measures to reach 

attainment of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS is wood burning. Accordingly, 

Alaska’s RACM/RACT analysis for the 

FNSB NAA evaluated control measures 

for residential heating and open 

burning. Alaska also evaluated control 

measures for transportation sources. 

Residential Heating: Alaska identified 

and adopted a suite of control measures 

as RACM/RACT for residential heating 

sources in the FNSB NAA. The control 

measures include a changeout program 

that incentivizes the removal or 

replacement of inefficient wood-fired 

heating devices; a prohibition on certain 

fuels used in solid-fuel fired heaters, 

including a requirement that only dry 

wood, with a moisture content of 20 

percent or less, can be used; curtailment 

of solid-fuel fired heaters during 

polluted conditions; a 20 percent 

opacity limit for solid-fuel fired heaters; 

the exclusion of owners of newly 

constructed buildings from obtaining a 

‘‘no other adequate source of heat’’ 

determination; a wood seller woodmoisture disclosure program; setback 

requirements for new installations of 

hydronic heaters; and wood heating 

education and outreach programs to 

increase public understanding and 

compliance with regulations and to 

encourage efficient operation of wood 

heaters. 

The changeout program in the FNSB 

NAA provides subsidies up to $4,000 to 

replace wood stoves, and up to $10,000 

to replace hydronic heaters, with 

cleaner burning certified devices (FNSB 

Moderate Plan section III.D.5.7–3, 

III.D.5.6–50, table 5.6–18). Higher 

subsidies are available for removal of a 

solid-fuel burning device and 

replacement with a heating source that 

burns oil or natural gas. The changeout 

program also provides incentives for 

removing (rather than replacing) older 

uncertified devices. Subsidies to retrofit 

hydronic heaters to reduce emissions 

were also offered. Between 2010 and 

2014, Alaska estimates that 3,365 solidfuel fired heating devices were replaced 

and 888 devices were removed through 

the wood stove changeout program 

(FNSB Moderate Plan section III.D.5.6– 

51, table 5.6–19). 

Alaska estimates that in the absence 

of a dry wood program, the average 

moisture content of wood used in the 

FNSB NAA is 39.7 percent. The 

requirement to burn only dry wood 

(moisture content of 20 percent or less) 

will result in more efficient residential 

wood heating, decreased fuel use, and 

reduced emissions (FNSB Moderate 

Plan section III.D.5.6–45). 

The curtailment program in the FNSB 

NAA places restrictions on the 

operation of solid-fuel fired heaters 

during certain ambient and 

meteorological conditions (FNSB 

Moderate Plan section III.D.5.11 and 

2017 Clarification). The solid-fuel fired 

heater curtailment alerts are announced 

by local authorities based on forecasted 

PM2.5 concentrations in the three 

different air quality zones: Fairbanks, 

North Pole, and Goldstream. The 

curtailment program includes one 

voluntary and two mandatory stages. 

When PM2.5 ambient levels are 

forecasted to reach or exceed 25 mg/m3

or more in a particular zone, a stage one 

alert is issued for that zone. During a 

stage one alert, residents are asked to 

voluntarily curtail or stop using solidfuel heating devices, pellet stoves, waste 

oil devices, and masonry heaters. When 

PM2.5 levels are forecasted to reach 35 

mg/m3 or more in a particular zone, a 

stage 2 alert is issued for that zone. 

During a stage 2 alert, burning is only 

permitted in U.S. EPA certified devices, 

EPA Phase II hydronic heaters with 

PM2.5 annual average emissions ratings 

of 2.5 grams per hour or less, masonry 

heaters, pellet stoves, and fireplaces. A 

stage 3 alert is issued when PM2.5

ambient levels are forecasted to reach 55 

mg/m3. During a stage 3 alert, the use of 

solid-fuel burning devices, masonry 

heaters, pellet-fueled appliances, cook 

stoves, fireplaces, and waste oil devices 

is prohibited. The mandatory 

restrictions imposed during stage 2 and 

3 alerts do not apply during periods of 

power failure or to buildings that have 

‘‘no other adequate source of heat’’ 

designations. During a stage 3 alert, the 

mandatory restrictions do not apply 

when the temperature is below –15 °F 

(as recorded at the Fairbanks 

International Airport). Alaska included 

these limitations in the mandatory 

curtailment program due to the unique 

circumstances of the FNSB NAA, which 

experiences extreme winter 

temperatures and has limited 

availability of alternative fuel sources 

such as natural gas. 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS

9044 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 21 / Thursday, February 2, 2017 / Proposed Rules 

The voluntary programs in the FNSB 

NAA are expected to increase 

compliance with regulations and 

encourage behaviors that reduce 

emissions. These programs include 

public awareness and education on 

wood storage, heating device operation 

and maintenance, and curtailment alert 

notifications (FNSB Moderate Plan 

section III.D.5.7–7 and 2017 

Clarification). Alaska relied on these 

measures for a small portion of the 

necessary emission reductions, 

consistent with EPA guidance for 

voluntary measures. 

The residential heating control 

measures that Alaska identified as 

RACM/RACT primarily reduce 

emissions of direct PM2.5. To evaluate 

potential measures to reduce SO2

emissions, Alaska conducted a RACM/ 

RACT analysis for providing economic 

incentives to encourage FNSB NAA 

residents that use heating oil to switch 

to low-sulfur heating oil. Alaska 

determined that this control measure 

was not cost effective at this time (FNSB 

Moderate Plan appendix III.D.5.7–57). 

Open Burning: Alaska identified and 

adopted prohibitions on open burning 

during the wintertime as RACM/RACT 

for the FNSB NAA. Open burning, 

including the use of burn barrels, is 

prohibited in the FNSB NAA from 

November 1 through March 31. (FNSB 

Moderate Plan section III.D.5.7–22). 

Transportation: Alaska identified and 

adopted a suite of transportation control 

measures as RACM/RACT for the FNSB 

NAA. These include measures 

providing for ‘‘plug-in’’ engine block 

heating, programs to encourage the use 

of mass transit, federal motor vehicle 

fuel economy standards, and federal and 

state diesel emissions reduction 

programs. 

b. Stationary/Point Sources RACM/ 

RACT Analysis in the FNSB Moderate 

Plan 

The FNSB NAA has six major 

stationary point sources. Alaska 

evaluated these sources for potential 

PM2.5 and SO2 control technologies. As 

discussed in section II.B.3 of this 

proposal, Alaska demonstrated that 

VOCs and NOX emissions from these 

major stationary sources do not 

contribute significantly to violations of 

the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in this 

area, consistent with the requirements 

of CAA section 189(e). Alaska also 

excluded from consideration control 

technologies to address NH3, which 

accounts for less than 0.001 tons per day 

of emissions in the FNSB NAA. 

The six major stationary sources in 

the FNSB NAA are: Fort Wainwright 

Central Heating Power Plant, Aurora 

Energy Chena Power Plant, University 

of Alaska Fairbanks Campus Power 

Plant, GVEA North Pole Power Plant, 

GVEA Zehnder Power Plant, and the 

Flint Hills North Pole Refinery. Alaska’s 

RACM/RACT analysis addressed 12 

coal-fired boilers, five gas turbines, and 

two dual-fuel fired boilers at these 

facilities (FNSB Moderate Plan 

appendix III.D.5.7–64). The following is 

a summary of the control measures that 

Alaska identified as RACM/RACT for 

the stationary sources. 

Coal-fired Boilers: Alaska provided a 

detailed description of the coal-fired 

units in the FNSB NAA including the 

existing controls and the 2011 direct 

PM2.5 and SO2 emissions. Six of the 12 

coal-fired boilers are at the Fort 

Wainwright Central Heat and Power 

Plant. The direct PM2.5 emissions for 

each of these six units were less than 5 

tons per year (tpy) and the SO2

emissions were between 87 and 171 tpy. 

The Aurora Energy Chena Power Plant 

has four coal-fired boilers that share a 

common stack and exhaust control 

system. The direct PM2.5 emissions for 

the combined four units were 7.81 tpy 

and the SO2 emissions were 838.9 tpy. 

The remaining two coal-fired boilers are 

at the University of Alaska Fairbanks 

Campus Power Plant. There are also two 

dual fuel-fired boilers at this power 

plant that use gas and liquid fuel. The 

direct PM2.5 emissions for each of these 

boilers were less than 5 tpy and the SO2

emissions for all of the boilers combined 

were 281.7 tpy. 

Alaska identified fabric filters 

(baghouses) as RACM/RACT to control 

direct PM2.5 emissions. With respect to 

SO2, Alaska concluded that the use of 

low-sulfur fuels at these stationary 

sources constitutes RACM/RACT in the 

FNSB NAA for purposes of the 2006 24- 

hour PM2.5 NAAQS (FNSB Moderate 

Plan appendix III.D.5.7–72). 

Gas Turbines: For the five gas turbines 

in the FNSB NAA, Alaska analyzed the 

emissions of the individual units for 

potential RACM/RACT level emissions 

controls. The GVEA North Pole Power 

Plant has three gas turbines. Only one 

of these units runs at baseload 

throughout the year. In 2011, the direct 

PM2.5 emissions for the baseload unit 

were 16 tpy and the SO2 emissions were 

1.9 tpy. The other two units at the 

GVEA North Pole Power Plant operate 

during peak hours. The direct PM2.5

emissions for each of these units were 

16 and 131 tpy and the SO2 emissions 

were 42 and 326 tpy. The remaining two 

gas turbines are at the GVEA Zehnder 

Power Plant and ran a combined total of 

about 53 days in 2011. The direct PM2.5

emissions for these units were 11 and 16 

tpy. The SO2 emissions for these units 

were 26 and 40 tpy. 

Alaska identified the use of low sulfur 

naphtha and light straight-run (LSR) 

fuel as RACM/RACT level controls for 

the unit that runs at baseload 

throughout the year. For the other four 

gas turbines, Alaska determined that, in 

the FNSB NAA, the continued use of 

heavy fuel oil constitutes RACM/RACT 

for these units. (FNSB Moderate Plan 

appendix III.D.5.7–88–91). 

Dual Fuel-fired Boilers: Alaska 

provided an analysis of potential control 

measures for the two dual-fired boilers 

at the University of Alaska Fairbanks 

Campus Power Plant. Alaska analyzed 

the individual units for RACM/RACT 

and provided the 2011 actual PM2.5 and 

SO2 emissions for these units. From the 

combustion of fuel oil, the SO2

emissions from these units were 17.7 

and 11.2 tpy. For PM2.5, emissions were 

less than 5 tons per year. Alaska 

concluded that, in the FNSB NAA, the 

use of No. 2 distillate fuel constitutes 

RACM/RACT for these boilers. (FNSB 

Moderate Plan appendix III.D.5.7–87). 

c. Adopted Control Strategy in the FNSB 

Moderate Plan 

Alaska evaluated the different source 

categories in the FNSB NAA for 

potential controls. In the case of the 

point sources, Alaska determined that 

the existing level of control meets 

RACM/RACT requirements. With 

respect to mobile sources, Alaska 

determined that existing federal fuel 

and engine emission standards provide 

sufficient levels of emission reduction 

from these sources for purposes of the 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. In 

addition, however, Alaska concluded 

that an existing local control measure to 

provide for plug-in engine block heating 

is an appropriate RACM/RACT control 

measure for vehicles in this area 

because it will provide needed 

reductions in emissions during the 

critical winter episodes when NAAQS 

exceedances occur in the FNSB NAA. 

Alaska’s control strategy focuses 

primarily on imposing control measures 

on the key sources contributing to 

nonattainment during the winter season 

when exceedances of the 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS occur, i.e., residential 

wood heating. Alaska estimated that by 

2015, the emissions reductions from the 

adopted control strategy in the FNSB 

Moderate Plan would result in a 5.14 

mg/m3 reduction from the baseline 

design value of 44.7 mg/m3 at the State 

Office Building monitor (FNSB 

Moderate Plan section III.D.5.8, table 

5.8–12 and 2017 Clarification). The 

emissions reductions estimated from the 

control strategy and the implementation 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 21 / Thursday, February 2, 2017 / Proposed Rules 9045 

16FNSB Code 8.21.025 ‘‘The borough shall not, in 

any way, regulate, prohibit, curtail, nor issue fines 

or fees associated with, the sale, distribution, or 

operation of heating appliances or any type of 

combustible fuel.’’ 

dates are summarized in the table 

below. 

TABLE 6—FNSB MODERATE PLAN CONTROL STRATEGY

Control measure 

Emission reductions Implementation dates tpd μg/m3

Voluntary Measures: 

—Transportation ................................................................................................................... PM2.5: 0.004 0.04 2001–2015 

—Residential Heating ........................................................................................................... PM2.5: 0.055 0.50 

Wood Heating Device Incentives: 

—Changeout Program .......................................................................................................... PM2.5: 0.397 3.10 2010–2012 

—Hydronic Heater Retrofits ................................................................................................. SO2: ¥0.014 

NOX: 0.033 

NH3: 0.014 

Energy Efficiency Measures ........................................................................................................ PM2.5: <0.002 <0.02 2008 

Opacity Limit ................................................................................................................................ PM2.5: <0.001 <0.01 2015 

Open Burning ............................................................................................................................... PM2.5: <0.001 <0.01 2015 

Vehicle/Device Turnover (SIP): 

—Federal Motor Vehicle Control Program (∼95% of reductions) ........................................ PM2.5: 0.135 1.50 

—Uncertified Wood Device Turnover (∼5% of reductions).

Totals ............................................................................................................................. PM2.5: 0.591 

SO2: ¥0.014 

NOX: 0.033 

NH3: 0.014 

5.14 

3. The EPA’s Evaluation and Proposed 

Action: RACM/RACT 

The EPA proposes to approve the 

control strategy in the FNSB Moderate 

Plan. In the FNSB Moderate Plan, 

Alaska appropriately followed a process 

to analyze and select RACM/RACT level 

controls for this specific nonattainment 

area consistent with the procedures for 

Moderate nonattainment areas 

identified at 40 CFR 51.1009. The result 

of this process was Alaska’s adoption 

and implementation of a control strategy 

that includes the identified 

technologically and economically 

feasible control measures for sources in 

the FNSB NAA. The EPA proposes to 

find that the FNSB Moderate Plan 

provides for the implementation of 

RACM/RACT as required by CAA 

sections 189(a)(1)(C) and 172(c)(1), and 

additional reasonable measures as 

required by CAA sections 172(c)(6) and 

40 CFR 51.1009. The EPA’s evaluation 

of the FNSB Moderate Plan indicates 

that the control strategy includes 

permanent and enforceable 

requirements on the appropriate sources 

at the relevant time of year (i.e. during 

wintertime stagnant air episodes) and 

takes appropriate credit for emissions 

reductions from the suite of control 

measures. 

a. The EPA’s Evaluation and Proposed 

Action: Non-Point/Area Sources— 

RACM/RACT 

As explained previously, Alaska’s 

initial SIP submission cited a citizen’s 

referendum as a basis for not adopting 

and implementing many of the control 

measures analyzed. The referendum, in 

place from 2010 to 2014, limited the 

Borough’s authority to regulate home 

heating sources in any manner, thereby 

effectively preventing the local 

government from controlling emissions 

from the critical heating source 

category.16 The EPA does not consider 

social acceptability to be an appropriate 

basis for rejecting required emission 

control measures, but the capability of 

effective implementation and 

enforcement are relevant considerations. 

See 81 FR 58041. Therefore, the EPA 

does not view the referendum to be a 

valid basis for asserting that a control 

measure is unreasonable, whether for 

social, economic or technical reasons. 

However, in October 2014, the 

referendum expired and Alaska began 

the process of adopting more stringent 

controls for the FNSB NAA, including 

control measures applicable to 

residential heating sources that are a 

major contributor to violations of the 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in this 

nonattainment area. Due to the timing of 

the expiration of the referendum, it was 

not possible for the Borough to enact 

these measures, and for Alaska to 

submit the measures for inclusion into 

the attainment plan, by the December 

31, 2014 deadline for Moderate area 

attainment plans. In February 2015, the 

Borough enacted its mandatory 

curtailment program and other measures 

and Alaska adopted the measures in the 

SIP and submitted them for EPA review 

in a November 22, 2016 supplementary 

submission. The EPA supports ongoing 

state efforts to improve attainment plan 

control strategies and therefore believes 

it is appropriate to consider the entirety 

of adopted control measures for the 

FNSB NAA submitted for the EPA’s 

review, notwithstanding the timing of 

the submission. 

The control strategy in the FNSB 

Moderate Plan includes a number of 

control measures targeted at reducing 

residential wood heating emissions 

during the winter months when 

exceedances of the NAAQS typically 

occur. The control measures, including 

the wintertime open burning 

prohibition, dry wood requirement, 

visible emissions limit of 20 percent 

opacity, prohibited fuel sources, and 

mandatory curtailment program are 

similar to approved control programs 

adopted in other nonattainment areas 

impacted by emissions from residential 

wood heating sources. In addition, the 

FNSB Moderate plan includes emissions 

standards for wood stoves and hydronic 

heaters that are more stringent than the 

current EPA emissions standards for 

these devices. See 40 CFR part 60, 

subparts AAA and QQQQ. For example, 

Alaska adopted an emissions standard 

of 2.5 grams per hour for wood stoves, 

which is more stringent than the 

emissions standard of 4.5 grams per 

hour for Step 1 EPA-certified wood 

stoves. Also, the Borough’s emissions 

standards apply to coal-fired heaters, 

which the EPA does not regulate. See 80 

FR 13676, March 16, 2015. The control 

strategy includes a provision that 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS

9046 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 21 / Thursday, February 2, 2017 / Proposed Rules 

17The EPA has acknowledged that it is 

appropriate for a state to consider implementing 

RACM/RACT in a way that supports addressing 

BACM/BACT. 81 FR 58045. 

excludes owners of newly constructed 

buildings from obtaining a ‘‘no other 

adequate source of heat’’ determination, 

which encourages installation of 

alternative heating sources in new 

buildings so that the building occupants 

may comply with curtailments. These 

control measures are beyond what is 

typically found in other nonattainment 

areas impacted by wood heating sources 

but were appropriate for inclusion as 

RACM/RACT in the FNSB Moderate 

Plan. Because of the specific facts and 

circumstances of FNSB NAA, and the 

severity of the nonattainment problem 

in this area, Alaska is appropriately 

focusing multiple control measures on 

this important source category. 

Alaska did not specifically analyze 

area source controls for NH3. The EPA 

agrees with Alaska’s decision to exclude 

NH3 area source controls from its 

analysis. The EPA is unaware of any 

available technologies to control NH3

emissions from combustion sources 

where ammonia is emitted as a product 

of combustion (other than improved 

combustion conditions such as those 

achieved via wood stove changeout). 

Although the control strategy primarily 

focuses on reducing direct PM2.5

emissions, it also provides for emissions 

reductions for some PM2.5 precursors. 

For example, NH3 emissions from wood 

heating were estimated to be 13 percent 

lower in the 2015 inventory than in 

2008 base year inventory. 

As noted, the control strategy focuses 

on reducing emissions from residential 

wood heating sources and includes 

control measures such as a woodstove 

changeout program, a requirement to 

use only dry wood, a mandatory 

curtailment program, and an opacity 

limit for residential heating sources. The 

EPA agrees that these control measures 

appropriately target the emissions 

contributing to nonattainment and 

provide for reductions during winter 

stagnation events when concentrations 

of emissions build-up and lead to 

exceedances of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS. 

As discussed in section II.C.2.a of this 

proposal, the mandatory curtailment 

control program has two stages, with 

ambient PM2.5 trigger levels at 35 mg/m3, 

referred to as a stage 2 alert, and 55 mg/ 

m3, referred to as a stage 3 alert. During 

a stage 2 alert, the only solid-fuel fired 

heaters that can be operated are U.S. 

EPA certified devices, EPA Phase II 

hydronic heaters with PM2.5 annual 

average emissions ratings of 2.5 grams 

per hour or less, masonry heaters, pellet 

stoves, and fireplaces. During a stage 3 

alert, the use of solid-fuel heaters, 

masonry heaters, pellet-fueled 

appliances, cook stoves, fireplaces, and 

waste oil devices is prohibited. The EPA 

believes that the two-stage alert system 

meets RACM/RACT level control 

requirements for this source category for 

the FNSB NAA. The EPA notes that the 

mandatory curtailment program 

includes applicability limitations during 

stage 3 alerts (no other adequate source 

of heat, power outage, and ambient 

temperatures below ¥15 °F). We have 

reviewed Alaska’s mandatory 

curtailment program which operates in 

conjunction with the other control 

measures that apply to, and reduce 

emissions from, the same sources, 

including a 20 percent limit on opacity 

and a requirement that only dry wood 

(with a moisture content of 20 percent 

or less) be burned at all times. We 

believe the suite of control measures 

provides for continuous control of this 

source category, consistent with CAA 

requirements. We have also considered 

that many mandatory curtailment 

programs in other nonattainment areas 

contain limitations on applicability 

when there is no other adequate source 

of heat that are based on considerations 

of public welfare. The EPA concludes 

that in the FNSB NAA, where 

wintertime temperatures can be extreme 

and there is limited availability of fuel 

alternatives such as natural gas, the 

three limitations in Alaska’s mandatory 

curtailment program similarly invoke 

public welfare considerations that are 

appropriate in the context of a Moderate 

area plan. Additionally, the FNSB NAA 

is relatively new to programs for 

reducing emissions from wood heating 

and, prior to 2015, the community had 

not experienced mandatory 

curtailments. The two-stage mandatory 

curtailment program is therefore 

appropriately suited for the FNSB NAA 

in that it provides for implementation of 

a curtailment program that will reduce 

emissions in a manner that can facilitate 

program adoption and implementation 

by the community. We also note that if 

the FNSB NAA is reclassified to Serious 

for failure to attain the 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS, as proposed (81 FR 91088, 

December 16, 2016), Alaska will need to 

reevaluate and strengthen its SIP control 

strategy to meet the more stringent 

Serious area requirement for BACM. 

We have reviewed Alaska’s 

determination in the FNSB Moderate 

Plan that its area source control 

measures represent the adoption of 

reasonable control measures that meet 

RACM requirements and we believe that 

Alaska adequately justified its 

conclusions with respect to each of 

these measures. As noted, the EPA 

proposed to reclassify the FNSB NAA to 

Serious for failure to attain the PM2.5

NAAQS by the December 31, 2015 

attainment date. Id. If the 

reclassification is finalized, Alaska will 

need to reevaluate and strengthen its 

attainment plan control strategy for the 

PM2.5 NAAQS as necessary to meet the 

more stringent Serious area requirement 

for BACM and BACT, among other 

requirements. 

b. The EPA’s Evaluation and Proposed 

Action: Stationary Point Sources— 

RACM/RACT 

Alaska’s RACM/RACT analysis for the 

six major stationary sources located in 

the FNSB NAA appropriately focused 

on PM2.5, SO2 and NH3. The EPA agrees 

with the selection of fabric filters 

(baghouses) as meeting RACM/RACTlevel controls for direct PM2.5 emissions. 

This control technology is well 

established as meeting RACM/RACT for 

this application. In the FNSB NAA, NH3

accounts for less than 0.001 tons per day 

of emissions in the FNSB NAA. Alaska’s 

RACM/RACT analysis did not identify 

any control technologies for NH3 and 

the EPA is unaware of any available 

technologies to control emissions of 

NH3 from combustion sources where the 

ammonia is solely a product of 

combustion. The EPA therefore agrees 

with Alaska’s decision with respect to 

stationary source controls for NH3. 

With respect to SO2, Alaska identified 

a suite of controls that could potentially 

be implemented at the stationary 

sources in the FNSB NAA and 

conducted a cost analysis to determine 

the capital costs and cost effectiveness 

of the controls to conclude that SO2

controls were not economically feasible. 

The EPA understands that, due to the 

fact that the FNSB Moderate Plan 

demonstrated the impracticability of 

attaining the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS by the 

end of 2015 and the expectation that the 

area will be reclassified from Moderate 

to Serious, Alaska has started working 

on a BACM and BACT analysis for 

stationary sources to strengthen its SIP 

control strategy to meet the more 

stringent Serious area requirements. 

Alaska conducted its RACM/RACT 

analysis for stationary sources with the 

expectation that it would need to 

prepare a Serious area nonattainment 

plan and therefore presupposing that a 

BACM/BACT analysis would also be 

required in the near future.17

Accordingly, Alaska’s conclusion that 

additional SO2 emissions controls for 

these stationary sources were not 

economically feasible for purposes of 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 21 / Thursday, February 2, 2017 / Proposed Rules 9047 

18The Modeling Guidance is available on the 

EPA’s SCRAM Web site, Web page: http://

www.epa.gov/scram001/guidance_sip.htm; direct 

link: https://www3.epa.gov/scram001/guidance/ 

guide/Draft_O3-PM-RH_Modeling_Guidance2014.pdf. 

meeting RACM/RACT requirements will 

be revisited in the context of Alaska’s 

BACM/BACT analysis. 

We have reviewed Alaska’s 

determination in the FNSB Moderate 

Plan that its stationary source control 

measures represent the adoption of 

reasonable control measures that meet 

RACM/RACT requirements and we 

believe that Alaska adequately justified 

its conclusions with respect to each of 

these measures. 

As discussed previously, the EPA has 

proposed to reclassify the FNSB NAA to 

Serious for failure to attain the PM2.5

NAAQS by the December 31, 2015 

attainment date (81 FR 91088). Alaska 

will need to reevaluate and strengthen 

its attainment plan control strategy for 

the PM2.5 NAAQS as necessary to meet 

the more stringent Serious area 

requirement for BACM and BACT, 

among other requirements. 

D. Air Quality Modeling 

1. Requirements for Air Quality 

Modeling 

CAA section 189(a)(1)(B) requires 

each state with a Moderate 

nonattainment area to submit a plan that 

includes, among other things, either (i) 

a demonstration (including air quality 

modeling) that the plan will provide for 

attainment by the applicable attainment 

date; or (ii) a demonstration that 

attainment by such date is 

impracticable. For model attainment 

demonstrations, the EPA’s modeling 

requirements are in 40 CFR part 51, 

appendix W (82 FR 5182, January 17, 

2017). The EPA’s guidance 

recommendations for model input 

preparation, model performance 

evaluation, use of the model output for 

the attainment demonstration, and 

modeling documentation are described 

in Draft Guidance for Demonstrating 

Attainment of Air Quality Goals for 

Ozone, PM2.5, and Regional Haze 

(Modeling Guidance).18 The EPA 

recommends that states prepare 

modeling protocols as part of their 

modeled attainment demonstrations. 

The Modeling Guidance describes the 

topics states should address in this 

modeling protocol. A modeling protocol 

should detail and formalize the 

procedures for conducting all phases of 

the modeling analysis, such as 

describing the background and 

objectives, creating a schedule and 

organizational structure, developing the 

input data, conducting model 

performance evaluations, interpreting 

modeling results, describing procedures 

for using the model to demonstrate 

whether proposed strategies are 

sufficient to attain the applicable 

standard, and producing documentation 

to be submitted for EPA Regional Office 

review and approval prior to actual 

modeling. 

Air quality modeling is used to 

establish emissions targets, the 

combination of emissions of PM2.5 and 

PM2.5 precursors that the area can 

accommodate and still attain the 

standard, and to assess whether the 

proposed control strategy is likely to 

result in attainment of the relevant 

NAAQS. Air quality modeling is 

performed for representative episodes in 

the past and compared to air quality 

monitoring data collected during those 

episodes in order to determine model 

performance. To project future design 

values, the model response to emission 

reductions, in the form of relative 

response factors, is applied on a 

chemical species-by-species basis to the 

baseline design value, as implemented 

in the SMAT methodology and 

described in the Modeling Guidance. 

In addition to a modeled attainment 

demonstration that focuses on locations 

with an air quality monitor, the 2016 

PM2.5 Implementation Rule 

recommends an unmonitored area 

analysis. This analysis is intended to 

ensure that a control strategy leads to 

reductions in PM2.5 at other locations 

that have no monitor but might have 

base year and/or projected future year 

ambient PM2.5 levels exceeding the 

standard. This is particularly critical 

where the state and/or the EPA has 

reason to believe that potential 

violations may be occurring in 

unmonitored areas. An unmonitored 

area analysis is of lesser value in the 

case of an impracticability 

demonstration that shows an area will 

not attain the standard at monitored 

locations. Finally, as discussed in the 

Modeling Guidance, the EPA 

recommends supplemental air quality 

analyses. These are used as part of a 

weight of evidence analysis, in which 

the likelihood of attainment is assessed 

by considering evidence other than the 

main air quality modeling attainment 

test. 

The EPA has not issued modeling 

guidance specific to impracticability 

demonstrations, but believes that a state 

seeking to make such a demonstration, 

generally, should provide air quality 

modeling similar to that required for an 

attainment demonstration. The main 

difference between an attainment 

demonstration and an impracticability 

demonstration is that despite the 

implementation of a control strategy 

including RACM/RACT and additional 

reasonable measures, an 

impracticability demonstration does not 

demonstrate attainment of the standard 

by the statutory Moderate area 

attainment date. Alternatively, a model 

projection could show that the 

implementation of the SIP control 

strategy results in attainment of the 

standard after the statutory Moderate 

area attainment date. However, there are 

cases where modeling may not be 

needed to demonstrate that it is 

impracticable to attain by the statutory 

Moderate area attainment date and the 

EPA has therefore determined that 

modeling is not a regulatory 

requirement to support an 

impracticability demonstration. 40 CFR 

51.1009(a)(4); 81 FR 58048. For an 

attainment demonstration, a thorough 

review of all modeling inputs and 

assumptions is especially important 

because the modeling must ultimately 

support a conclusion that the plan 

(including its control strategy) will 

provide for timely attainment of the 

applicable NAAQS. 

In contrast, for an impracticability 

demonstration, if the state and the EPA 

determine that the area cannot attain the 

NAAQS by the latest statutory Moderate 

area attainment date, the result is that 

the EPA will reclassify the area from a 

Moderate nonattainment area to a 

Serious nonattainment area. This 

reclassification obligates the state to 

submit a new attainment plan that 

meets more stringent regulatory 

requirements (e.g. BACM and BACT 

level emission controls on sources in 

the area) and the requirement for a 

Serious area attainment demonstration 

that will necessarily need to include air 

quality modeling that demonstrates 

attainment by the applicable attainment 

date. Thus, the Serious area planning 

process would provide an opportunity 

to refine the modeling analysis and/or 

correct any technical shortcomings in 

the impracticability demonstration. 

2. Air Quality Modeling in the FNSB 

Moderate Plan and the EPA’s Evaluation 

In FNSB Moderate Plan section 

III.D.5.8 and appendix III.D.5.8, Alaska 

provided air quality modeling to 

support its demonstration that it was 

impracticable for the FNSB NAA to 

attain the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS 

by the statutory Moderate area 

attainment date of December 31, 2015. 

The modeling demonstration uses threedimensional grid-based meteorological 

modeling and full photochemical grid 

modeling, combined with speciated 

monitoring data from 2006–2010 from 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS

9048 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 21 / Thursday, February 2, 2017 / Proposed Rules 

the State Office Building site in 

Fairbanks, to assess attainment. Alaska 

used the CMAQ photochemical model 

version 4.7.1, the most current version 

of the model at the time Alaska 

developed modeling for the FNSB 

Moderate Plan. Alaska examined 

subsequent versions of CMAQ but did 

not upgrade model versions because the 

newer versions did not include 

significant scientific improvements 

relevant for the FNSB NAA. The 

Weather Research Forecasting Model 

(model version 3.1) was used to prepare 

meteorological input for CMAQ. The 

Sparse Matrix Operator Kernal 

Emissions (SMOKE) processor was used 

to create photochemical transport model 

inputs. Emissions inventory estimates 

were combined with meteorological 

inputs developed for the two multiday 

air quality episodes of elevated PM2.5

concentrations (January 23–February 10, 

2008; and November 2–17, 2008) and 

with the available chemistry 

mechanisms in CMAQ to assess the 

ability of the FNSB NAA to demonstrate 

attainment in 2015. 

To calculate the projected 2015 PM2.5

design value, Alaska performed the 

SMAT methodology. Alaska used the 

ratio of future year (2015) to base year 

(2008) modeling results to derive 

relative response factors for each 

chemical species and these response 

factors were applied on a chemical 

species-by-species basis to the baseline 

design value. The concentrations of 

chemical species used in the baseline 

design value was an average of the 

monitoring data for the top 25 percent 

most polluted wintertime days (in the 

first and fourth quarters) of the years 

2006–2010. Only the top 25 percent was 

used because there are many cleaner 

days when the emission source mix and 

contributions of PM2.5 to the monitor are 

not relevant for air quality planning to 

meet the 24-hour PM2.5 standard. The 

top 25 percent most polluted wintertime 

days captured the days with weather 

conditions and emissions patterns that 

occur when the standard is exceeded. 

The average of the speciated 

concentrations on the top 25 percent 

most polluted days were weighted to the 

observed PM2.5 concentrations from the 

official regulatory data at the State 

Office Building, such that the speciated 

PM2.5 data used for air quality modeling 

(and for the precursor demonstration) 

are reflective of the baseline design 

value of 44.7 mg/m3. The technique was 

not used for the second and third 

quarters because an examination of the 

PM2.5 data from the baseline period 

2006–2010 showed that the all high 

monitored values from those quarters 

had been flagged as exceptional events 

and submitted to the EPA for 

concurrence. Therefore, second and 

third quarter monitoring data has no 

influence on the FNSB 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS design values. 

Alaska evaluated the results of their 

CMAQ modeling with observed PM2.5

mass and speciated PM2.5 mass from the 

monitor at the State Office Building. 

The base year modeling for the two 

multiday episodes of 2008 used hourly 

meteorology and emissions specific to 

those episodes and are Alaska’s best 

attempt at reproducing air quality 

during the two wintertime pollution 

episodes. Alaska selected generally 

accepted techniques for assessing model 

performance, such as goal and criteria 

thresholds from academic literature and 

past attainment modeling done by other 

areas. Criteria are metrics for when the 

modeling can be considered generally 

acceptable, and goals are metrics for 

when the modeling can be considered to 

be performing well. After comparing 

model performance to the selected 

techniques, Alaska concluded that the 

model meets modeling goals for total 

PM2.5 and meets criteria for organic 

carbon, elemental carbon, and nitrate. In 

contrast, modeled estimates of the 

sulfate, ammonium, and other PM2.5

components of PM2.5 mass were 

underpredicted. Alaska explained that 

the large underprediction of sulfate is 

likely due to the fact that the CMAQ 

existing sulfate chemistry mechanisms 

are intended for locations with liquid 

water clouds, warmer temperatures, and 

more sunlight. Alaska notes that the 

underprediction of ammonium is very 

likely a by-product of the sulfate 

underprediction. Thus, Alaska believes 

that NH3 controls or NOX controls 

would likely still be accurately reflected 

in the modeling results irrespective of 

the large underprediction of sulfate. 

In light of acceptable model 

performance for PM2.5 overall and for 

certain chemical species, Alaska used 

CMAQ to test control strategies on 

primary PM2.5, NOX, and NH3. The 

sulfate component of PM2.5 was 

considered to stay constant in future 

years because, for the reasons explained 

above, the modeling system was not 

considered adequate to assess SO2

controls. As weight of evidence, Alaska 

presented a sensitivity study in which 

in which the changes in SO2 emissions 

from the control strategy are used to 

estimate changes in sulfate. For the 

purposes of the sensitivity study, Alaska 

assumed that sources of SO2 are 

responsible for sulfate in proportion to 

their share of the SO2 inventory. 

Because the control strategy shifts home 

heating fuel from relatively sulfur-poor 

wood to relatively sulfur-rich oil, the 

2015 PM2.5 design value in this analysis 

would increase by 0.5 mg/m3. This is a 

relatively small increase in PM2.5

compared to the projected decrease in 

PM2.5 from the control strategy of 6.9 mg/ 

m3. 

The FNSB Moderate Plan section 

III.D.5.8 also contains an unmonitored 

area analysis and a weight of evidence 

analysis as additional support for the 

modeling demonstration. Alaska used 

various analytical techniques to inform 

modeling decisions and to assess model 

performance. Statistical evaluations 

with positive matrix factorization and 

chemical mass balance modeling were 

used to attribute and prioritize source 

significance. To understand the 

distribution of emissions from wood 

burning versus fossil fuels, a Carbon-14 

analysis was used to determine the age 

distribution of carbon molecules found 

at each monitoring site. Levoglucosan, 

an organic compound that is considered 

to be a tracer of biomass burning, was 

analyzed to assess the significance of 

wood burning. A dispersion modeling 

study using the CALPUFF model was 

used to characterize PM2.5 contribution 

from permitted stationary sources to the 

State Office Building monitor. 

The weight of evidence analysis 

consistently attributed more than 50 

percent of the PM2.5 at the State Office 

Building monitor to wood smoke. 

Stationary sources are estimated to 

contribute 5 percent of the measured 

PM2.5 at the State Office Building 

monitor based on emissions of direct 

PM2.5 alone, and potentially another 15 

percent if all of the sulfate at the 

monitor could be attributed to stationary 

sources rather than split with residential 

oil heat. In contrast, Alaska’s emission 

inventory reports that stationary sources 

make up 29 percent of the emissions of 

direct PM2.5. The large difference 

between the proportion of direct PM2.5

emissions from stationary sources and 

their modeled contribution at the State 

Office Building monitor is primarily due 

to the influence of the stable atmosphere 

near the surface, and secondarily 

because prevailing winds at the top of 

the stacks do not carry plumes of many 

of the stationary sources in the direction 

of the monitor. This shows the value of 

using modeling and source 

apportionment techniques, as compared 

to emissions inventory information 

alone, in assessing the source of PM2.5

air pollution in the nonattainment area. 

Based on the unmonitored area 

analysis, Alaska projects 2015 design 

values above the standard in several 

parts of the FNSB NAA, including the 

western part of downtown Fairbanks, to 

the southeast of downtown Fairbanks, 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 21 / Thursday, February 2, 2017 / Proposed Rules 9049 

19The 2013–2015 design value excludes 

exceedances during summer months that were 

identified as wildfire exceptional events and the 

EPA has approved excluding the data. (See section 

II.I of this proposal.) 

and in the North Pole area. This 

modeling suggests there are locations 

other than the State Office Building 

location where exceedances may be 

occurring. Alaska should design any 

Serious area plan in order to address 

such potential exceedances in the FNSB 

NAA. 

3. The EPA’s Conclusions on Air 

Quality Modeling 

The EPA is proposing to find that 

Alaska’s model is adequate for assessing 

whether the FNSB NAA will attain the 

PM2.5 NAAQS by the statutory Moderate 

area attainment date, i.e., by December 

31, 2015, in the context of this SIP 

submission. The model inputs, episode 

selection, performance evaluation, 

extensive supplemental information, 

and attainment test methodology are 

well-described and conform with the 

state-of-the art for air quality modeling. 

Alaska found unacceptable model 

performance for some PM2.5 chemical 

species, but the control strategy did not 

rely on controls of those chemical 

components. The EPA therefore 

proposes to find that the modeling is 

also adequate for purposes of supporting 

the control strategy analysis, RFP, and 

impracticability demonstrations. 

As discussed previously, the EPA 

notes that because the FNSB NAA did 

not attain the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS by December 31, 2015, Alaska 

will be required to submit a Serious area 

SIP by December 31, 2017. In a separate 

action, the EPA has recently proposed to 

find that the area failed to attain and 

thus will be reclassified from Moderate 

to Serious if the Agency finalizes that 

proposal. The EPA expects Alaska to 

further analyze modeling gaps related to 

sulfate for the Serious area plan. In 

addition, the EPA believes that the 

heterogeneity of wood smoke emissions 

and lack of air movement during 

polluted episodes, will continue to 

make an unmonitored area analysis an 

important component in the Serious 

area plan. 

E. Demonstration That Attainment by 

the Moderate Area Attainment Date Is 

Impracticable 

1. Requirements for Attainment/ 

Impracticability of Attainment 

Demonstrations 

CAA section 189(a)(1)(B) requires that 

each Moderate area attainment plan 

include a demonstration that the plan 

provides for attainment by the latest 

applicable Moderate area deadline or, 

alternatively, that attainment by the 

latest applicable attainment date is 

impracticable. A demonstration that the 

plan provides for attainment must be 

based on air quality modeling, and the 

EPA generally recommends that a 

demonstration of impracticability also 

be based on air quality modeling and be 

consistent with the EPA’s modeling 

regulations and guidance (51.1011(a)(2); 

51.1011(a)(4)(ii); and 81 FR 58049). 

CAA section 188(c) states, in relevant 

part, that the Moderate area attainment 

date ‘‘shall be as expeditiously as 

practicable but no later than the end of 

the sixth calendar year after the area’s 

designation as nonattainment.’’ For the 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, effective 

December 14, 2009, the applicable 

Moderate area attainment date under 

section 188(c) for the FNSB NAA is as 

expeditiously as practicable, but no later 

than December 31, 2015. In SIP 

submissions to demonstrate 

impracticability, the state should 

document that its required control 

strategy in the plan represents the 

application of RACM/RACT to existing 

sources. Moderate areas that do not 

demonstrate timely attainment should 

adopt all reasonable control measures 

(i.e., those measures that are 

technologically and economically 

feasible). 81 FR 58035. The 

impracticability demonstration should 

be a showing that the area cannot attain 

by the applicable date, notwithstanding 

implementation of all reasonable 

controls in the Moderate area attainment 

plan. 81 FR 58045. 

2. Impracticability Demonstration in the 

FNSB Moderate Plan 

The FNSB Moderate Plan includes a 

demonstration, based on air quality 

modeling and additional supporting 

analyses discussed in section II.D of this 

proposal, that attainment by the 

statutory Moderate area attainment date 

of December 31, 2015 was 

impracticable. Implementation of the 

selected control strategy resulted in a 

projected 2015 design value of 39.6 

mmu;g/m3 at the State Office Building, 

and Alaska’s unmonitored area analysis 

shows that several other parts of the 

FNSB NAA may also violate the 

NAAQS in 2015. On November 22, 

2016, and January 6, 2017, Alaska 

submitted a SIP revision supported by 

additional clarifying information that 

included the adoption of control 

measures that have been implemented 

since the initial submission of the FNSB 

Moderate Plan in December 2014. The 

control measures include a mandatory 

curtailment program for solid-fuel fired 

heaters, a requirement to use dry wood 

in wood-fired heaters, an opacity limit 

applicable to solid-fuel fired heating 

devices, and other measures that 

strengthened the overall control 

strategy. In the 2017 Clarification, 

Alaska provided a demonstration that 

included the additional emissions 

reductions from these control measures, 

which resulted in a projected 2015 

future year design value of 37.8 mmu;g/ 

m3. Accordingly, Alaska demonstrated 

that attainment by the statutory 

Moderate area attainment date would 

still have been impracticable even if all 

control measures had been adopted 

earlier. 

3. The EPA’s Evaluation and Proposed 

Action: Impracticability Demonstration 

We have evaluated the FNSB 

Moderate Plan’s demonstration that it 

was impracticable for the area for attain 

by the December 31, 2015 statutory 

Moderate area attainment date, 

supporting air quality modeling, and 

control strategy analyses addressing the 

adoption of all reasonable measures. We 

are proposing to approve Alaska’s 

demonstration that it was not 

practicable for the area to attain the 

2006 NAAQS standard by December 31, 

2015. 

In addition to the information in the 

FNSB Moderate Plan and supplement, 

we have reviewed recent PM2.5

monitoring data from the FNSB NAA. 

The data show that the area did not 

attain the PM2.5 NAAQS by the 

December 31, 2015 attainment date. The 

State Office Building monitor, which is 

the original violating monitor in the 

FNSB NAA and was the basis of the 

FNSB Moderate Plan, had a 2013–2015 

design value of 43 mmu;g/m3.19 In 

addition, the monitor at the North Pole 

Fire Station became a regulatory 

monitor in 2015, after Alaska’s 

development and submission of the 

initial FNSB Moderate Plan. The North 

Pole Fire Station monitor has a 2013– 

2015 design value of 124 mmu;g/m3. The 

EPA has therefore separately proposed 

to find that the FNSB NAA did not 

attain by the statutory Moderate area 

attainment date and reclassify the area 

from Moderate to Serious pursuant to 

CAA section 188(b)(2) (81 FR 91088, 

December 16, 2016). If the EPA finalizes 

the reclassification of the FNSB NAA 

from Moderate to Serious, Alaska will 

be required to submit a Serious area 

attainment plan by December 31, 2017. 

Because the North Pole Fire Station 

monitor is now a regulatory monitor in 

the FNSB NAA, Alaska and the EPA 

will address it in the development of the 

Serious area plan for the FNSB NAA. 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS

9050 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 21 / Thursday, February 2, 2017 / Proposed Rules 

F. Reasonable Further Progress and 

Quantitative Milestones 

1. Requirements for RFP and QMs 

CAA section 172(c)(2) requires 

nonattainment area plans to provide for 

RFP. In addition, CAA section 189(c) 

requires PM2.5 nonattainment area SIPs 

to include QMs to be achieved every 3 

years until the area is redesignated to 

attainment and which demonstrate RFP. 

CAA section 171(1) defines RFP as 

‘‘such annual incremental reductions in 

emissions of the relevant air pollutant as 

are required by [Part D] or may 

reasonably be required by the 

Administrator for the purpose of 

ensuring attainment of the applicable 

[NAAQS] by the applicable date.’’ 

Neither subpart 1 nor subpart 4 require 

that a set percentage of emissions 

reductions be achieved in any given 

year for purposes of satisfying the RFP 

requirement for PM2.5 NAAQS. 

The EPA has historically interpreted 

the requirement to be met by a state 

showing annual incremental emission 

reductions in its attainment plan 

sufficient to maintain generally linear 

progress toward attainment by the 

applicable deadline. 40 CFR 

51.1012(a)(4); see also 59 FR 41998, 

42015 (August 10, 1994). In some 

circumstances, the EPA has 

acknowledged that RFP may be better 

represented as step-wise progress as 

controls are implemented and achieve 

significant reductions over a relatively 

short period. The EPA’s recent 

implementation rule for the PM2.5

NAAQS has reiterated these 

requirements. An attainment plan for a 

PM2.5 nonattainment area must include 

an RFP analysis that demonstrates that 

sources in the area will achieve such 

annual incremental reductions in 

emissions of direct PM2.5 and PM2.5 plan 

precursors as are necessary to ensure 

attainment as expeditiously as 

practicable. 40 CFR 51.1012(a). The RFP 

analysis must include a schedule for 

implementation of the control measures 

and provide projected emissions from 

these measures for each applicable 

milestone year. Id. at 51.1012(a)(1)–(2). 

At the state’s election, the RFP analysis 

may also identify ambient air quality 

targets for the milestone years at the 

design value monitor locations. Id. at 

51.1012(a)(5). 

Section 189(c) provides that 

attainment plans must include QMs that 

will be used to measure RFP every 3 

years until redesignation. Thus, the EPA 

determines an area’s compliance with 

RFP in conjunction with determining its 

compliance with the QM requirement. 

40 CFR 51.1013(a) (requiring attainment 

plans to include specific QMs that will 

demonstrate RFP toward attainment). 

Because RFP is an annual emission 

reduction requirement and the QMs are 

to be achieved every 3 years, when a 

state demonstrates compliance with the 

QM requirement, it provides an 

objective evaluation of RFP that has 

been achieved during each of the 

relevant 3 years. Id. at 51.1013(a)(1)(ii). 

The EPA has historically interpreted the 

CAA to authorize a broad variety of 

QMs, so long as they provide a way to 

verify compliance with the RFP 

requirement. QMs are not required to 

take any particular form but they should 

consist of elements that allow progress 

to be quantified or measured 

objectively. 81 FR 58064. However, at a 

minimum, QMs for a Moderate area 

attainment plan must track progress in 

implementing control measures by each 

milestone date. Therefore, timely 

implementation of control measures 

comprising the RFP plan provides a 

means for satisfying the QM 

requirement. Id. The Act requires states 

to include RFP and QMs in attainment 

plans for all Moderate areas, even for 

areas that cannot practicably attain by 

the attainment date. 

The CAA does not specify the starting 

point for counting the 3-year periods for 

QMs under CAA section 189(c). 

However, the EPA’s longstanding 

interpretation of the CAA is that the first 

QM should fall 3 years after the latest 

date on which the state should have 

submitted the attainment plan. For the 

2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, the EPA set QMs to 

be achieved no later than the 3 years 

after December 31, 2014, and every 3 

years thereafter until the QM date falls 

within 3 years after the applicable 

attainment date. 40 CFR 51.1013(a)(4). 

Accordingly, the first QM date for the 

FNSB NAA must be met no later than 

December 31, 2017 (3 years after 

December 31, 2014). Following 

reclassification of the FNSB NAA to 

Serious with a new applicable 

attainment date of December 31, 2019, 

the later QM of December 31, 2020 will 

apply, with additional QMs every 3 

years thereafter as may be necessary for 

the Serious area plan in light of any 

extension of the applicable attainment 

date. 

A state must submit a QM report to 

the EPA no later than 90 days after the 

QM date. 40 CFR 51.1013(b). The QM 

reports must contain: (1) A certification 

that the attainment plan control strategy 

is being implemented, (2) technical 

support to demonstrate that the QMs 

have been satisfied and how the 

emissions reductions achieved to date 

compare to those scheduled to meet 

RFP, (3) a discussion of whether the 

area will attain the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS 

by the projected attainment date. 

2. RFP and QMs in the FNSB Moderate 

Plan 

The RFP demonstration in the FNSB 

Moderate Plan addresses emissions of 

direct PM2.5, NOX, SO2, and NH3 and 

includes a projected emissions 

inventory for the 2017 QMs based on 

implementing the control strategy (see 

the FNSB Moderate Plan sections 

III.D.5.6 and III.D.5.8, the 2017 

Clarification, and table 6 in section II.C, 

above). Alaska assessed the emissions 

reductions that would be achieved from 

the base year emissions inventory by 

2017 from the control measures 

included in the control strategy. To 

determine whether the 2017 emissions 

projections were consistent with 

generally linear progress towards 

attainment, Alaska interpolated linearly 

between the 2015 projected emissions 

inventory for the FNSB NAA and the 

2019 inventory that Alaska based on 

projected attainment for the FNSB NAA 

by that year, i.e., the tenth year 

following designation. The table below 

summarizes the 2017 QMs and RFP 

demonstration in the FNSB Moderate 

Plan. 

TABLE 7—FNSB NAA RFP DEMONSTRATION AND QMS

[Tons per day] 

Emissions projections PM2.5 NOX SO2 NH3

2017 Linear Progress QMs ............................................................................. 3.96 18.97 13.00 0.200 

2017 Projected Emissions ............................................................................... 3.91 18.95 12.41 0.188 

Alaska included an inventory for 2017 

and motor vehicle emissions budgets, 

which are discussed in section II.H 

below. The RFP analysis is based on 

winter episode average-season-day 

emissions for the FNSB NAA and actual 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 21 / Thursday, February 2, 2017 / Proposed Rules 9051 

20Alaska’s 2017 quantitative milestone report is 

available in the docket for this action. 

21The EPA does not interpret the requirement for 

failure-to-attain contingency measures to apply to 

Moderate PM2.5 nonattainment areas that cannot 

practicably attain the NAAQS by the statutory 

attainment date. Rather, the EPA believes it is 

appropriate for the state to identify and adopt 

attainment contingency measures as part of the 

Serious area attainment plan that it will develop 

once the EPA reclassifies the area. 81 FR 58067. 

emissions for stationary point sources. 

The RFP analysis projected that 

emissions of direct PM2.5 and NOX

would decline from 2015 to 2017. The 

SO2 and NH3 emissions were projected 

to slightly increase, due in large part to 

implementation of the control strategy 

which places greater reliance on gas and 

oil heating in place of wood and other 

solid fuels to reduce overall emissions 

and concentrations of PM2.5 in the FNSB 

NAA. The EPA has acknowledged that 

in some circumstances a state could 

meet the RFP requirement even when 

emissions of one or more plan 

precursors are not decreasing, provided 

that the relative air quality impacts of 

the emissions reductions of direct PM2.5

and aggregate PM2.5 plan precursors 

have generally linear reductions 

towards what is needed for expeditious 

attainment in the area. In such a 

circumstance the state would 

demonstrate that even when one or 

more plan precursor is not decreasing, 

the emissions reductions of direct PM2.5

and remaining PM2.5 plan precursors are 

the dominant factors in reducing 

ambient PM2.5 concentrations and 

therefore adequate to demonstrate RFP. 

81 FR 58057. Alaska’s RFP analysis 

projected that implementation of the 

control strategy would decrease 

emissions of direct PM2.5 and NOX and 

slightly increase emissions of SO2 and 

NH3 emissions, with aggregate 

emissions reductions of direct PM2.5 and 

all precursors lower than linear 

progress. 

As previously noted, on November 22, 

2016, and January 6, 2017, Alaska 

provided a supplementary submission 

and clarifying information to the EPA 

that included implementation of control 

measures for area sources in 2015. The 

control measures include a mandatory 

curtailment program for solid-fuel 

heaters, a requirement to use only dry 

wood in wood heaters, an opacity limit 

for solid-fuel fired heating devices, and 

other measures that strengthened the 

control strategy. Alaska updated the 

RFP analysis to include the 

implementation of these new measures. 

3. The EPA’s Evaluation and Proposed 

Action: RFP and QMs 

The FNSB Moderate Plan, including 

the 2016 supplement and 2017 

Clarification, demonstrates that the 

control strategy, including all 

reasonable controls, has been 

implemented and identifies projected 

emissions levels, in a 2017 emissions 

inventory, that reflect full 

implementation of the control strategy 

for the area. In an area that cannot 

practicably attain the PM2.5 NAAQS by 

the applicable Moderate area attainment 

date, we believe it is reasonable to find 

that full implementation of a control 

strategy that satisfies the Moderate area 

control requirements (RACM/RACT and 

additional reasonable measures) 

represents RFP toward attainment. We 

propose, therefore, to approve the RFP 

demonstration for direct PM2.5, NOX, 

SO2, and NH3 as meeting the 

requirements of CAA section 172(c)(2). 

In evaluating whether the submitted 

attainment plan meets the RFP and 

related QM requirements, we are relying 

in part on the FNSB Moderate Plan’s 

analysis of the implementation of 

control measures adopted before 2015 

and more recently in 2016. As 

previously noted, if the FNSB NAA is 

reclassified from a Moderate to Serious 

nonattainment area, as proposed, the 

area will be subject to Serious area plan 

requirements and Alaska will need to 

reevaluate and strengthen its attainment 

plan control strategy, and provide a new 

attainment demonstration and revised 

RFP demonstration and QMs based on 

the Serious area control strategy. 

The EPA proposes to approve the 

FNSB Moderate Plan as meeting both 

the RFP and QM requirements. The 

FNSB Moderate Plan provides sufficient 

data and analyses that demonstrate 

emissions reductions that provide RFP 

toward attainment in 2017, and the QM 

for 2017 provides an objective way for 

the EPA to verify that Alaska has met 

the RFP requirements for the relevant 3 

years of the attainment plan for this 

area. 

On January 6, 2017, Alaska submitted 

a QM report (2017 QM Report) to the 

EPA certifying that the 2017 QMs for the 

FNSB NAA have been achieved.20 The 

EPA has evaluated the 2017 QM Report 

and determines that, it adequately meets 

the requirements of 40 CFR 51.1013(b). 

The 2017 QM Report includes a 

certification from the Governor’s 

designee and an appropriate 

demonstration that the control strategy 

has been fully implemented and that the 

emissions reductions achieved are 

consistent with the 2017 QMs that 

demonstrate RFP at the State Office 

Building monitor. In the 2017 QM 

Report, Alaska acknowledges that, 

consistent with the impracticability 

demonstration in the FNSB Moderate 

Plan, the FNSB NAA did not attain the 

PM2.5 NAAQS by the moderate area 

attainment date of December 31, 2015. 

Based on our review of Alaska’s 2017 

QM Report, the EPA agrees that the 

FNSB NAA has achieved the RFP 

emissions goals and the 2017 QMs in 

the FNSB Moderate Plan for direct 

PM2.5, NOX, SO2, and NH3. 

G. Contingency Measures 

1. Requirements for Contingency 

Measures 

Under CAA section 172(c)(9), PM2.5

plans must include contingency 

measures to be implemented if an area 

fails to meet RFP or fails to attain the 

PM2.5 standards by the applicable 

attainment date. Under subpart 4, 

however, the EPA interprets section 

172(c)(9) in light of the specific 

requirements for particulate matter 

nonattainment areas. CAA section 

189(b)(1)(A) differentiates between 

Moderate area attainment plans that 

provide for timely attainment by no 

later than the sixth calendar year after 

designation and those that demonstrate 

that attainment by that date is 

impracticable. Where the SIP 

submission includes a demonstration 

that attainment by the applicable 

attainment date is impracticable, the 

EPA interprets CAA section 172(c)(9) 

not to require contingency measures 

that would take effect upon failure to 

attain. 81 FR 58067. In an attainment 

plan submission that meets the 

impracticability demonstration 

requirement, the state need only submit 

contingency measures to be 

implemented if a state fails to meet any 

RFP requirement of the plan, any QM in 

the plan, or to submit a QM report, as 

provided in 40 CFR 51.1014(a)(1)–(3).21

The purpose of contingency measures 

is to continue progress in reducing 

emissions during the period while a 

state is revising its SIP to address a 

failure, such as a failure to meet a QM 

requirement or failure to attain. The 

principal considerations for evaluating 

contingency measures are: 

• Contingency measures must be fully 

adopted rules or control measures that 

are ready to be implemented quickly 

upon failure to meet RFP or failure of 

the area to meet the NAAQS by its 

attainment date. 

• The SIP must contain trigger 

mechanisms for the contingency 

measures, specify a schedule for 

implementation, and indicate that the 

measures will be implemented without 

further action by the state or by the EPA. 

In general, we expect all actions needed 

to affect full implementation of the 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS

9052 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 21 / Thursday, February 2, 2017 / Proposed Rules 

measures to occur within 60 days after 

the EPA notifies the state of a failure. 

• The contingency measures shall 

consist of control measures that are not 

otherwise included in the control 

strategy or that achieve emissions 

reductions not otherwise relied upon in 

the control strategy for the area. 

• The measures should provide for 

emissions reductions equivalent to 

approximately one year of reductions 

needed for RFP calculated as the overall 

level of reductions needed to 

demonstrate attainment divided by the 

number of years from the base year to 

the attainment year. 81 FR 58066. 

2. Contingency Measures in the FNSB 

Moderate Plan 

Alaska identified two contingency 

measures in the FNSB Moderate Plan in 

section III.D.5.10. In accordance with 

basic requirements for valid 

contingency measures, these two 

measures are not required to meet other 

attainment plan requirements and are 

not relied on in the control strategy. The 

first contingency measure requires the 

replacement of wood heating devices 

upon sale or lease of property if the 

existing devices do not meet specific 

emissions requirements. The second 

contingency measure is a mandatory 

enhanced dry wood compliance 

program that requires commercial wood 

sellers to register with the State and to 

disclose moisture content information to 

consumers at the time of wood sale and 

delivery. 

The FNSB Moderate Plan contingency 

measures have been fully adopted into 

Alaska State Code (18 AAC 50.076 and 

50.077). In accordance with basic 

requirements for valid contingency 

measures, they will go into effect with 

minimal further action by the state or 

the EPA in response to a triggering 

event; in this case the measures adopted 

by Alaska will be implemented within 

60 days of the EPA making a finding 

that the FNSB NAA failed to attain the 

NAAQS and reclassifying the area from 

a Moderate to a Serious nonattainment 

area. 

3. The EPA’s Evaluation and Proposed 

Action: Contingency Measures 

The EPA acknowledges that Alaska 

developed, adopted, and submitted the 

FNSB Moderate Plan prior to the EPA’s 

publication of the proposed PM2.5

Implementation Rule and interpretation 

that the requirement for contingency 

measures for failure to attain does not 

apply to a Moderate area that a state 

demonstrates cannot practicably attain 

by the statutory attainment date, but 

rather contingency measures for failure 

to meet RFP or QMs apply to such areas. 

See CAA 172(c)(9); 80 FR 15392, March 

23, 2015; and 81 FR 58067. Hence, 

Alaska’s FNSB Moderate Plan 

submission includes contingency 

measures that would take effect at the 

first possible triggering event—in this 

case the failure of the FNSB NAA to 

attain by the applicable Moderate area 

statutory attainment date, December 31, 

2015. The EPA believes that had Alaska 

been aware of the interpretation 

provided in the proposed (and final) 

PM2.5 Implementation Rule at the time 

it developed and submitted the FNSB 

Moderate Plan, it would have provided 

contingency measures for failure to meet 

RFP, meet any QM, or submit a QM 

report on time. 40 CFR 51.1014. 

Although the FNSB Moderate Plan 

did not include contingency measures 

for failure to meet RFP, the EPA is in the 

unusual position of reviewing the 

contingency measure requirement at a 

later point in time than would normally 

occur (i.e., after the applicable 

attainment date and Alaska’s 

submission of the 2017 QM Report), 

when it is possible to determine 

whether the area has, in fact, achieved 

RFP, up to and including the 2017 QM 

(see section II.F of this proposal for 

discussion of Alaska’s 2017 QM Report). 

We are proposing to find that the FNSB 

Moderate Plan is approvable and that 

the RFP contingency measures for the 

2017 milestone year is moot as applied 

to the FNSB NAA given the specific 

facts of the situation, including that the 

area achieved its 2017 QM emission 

reductions. 

As noted, the EPA has proposed 

(consistent with the impracticability 

demonstration in the FNSB Moderate 

Plan) to reclassify the area to Serious. 

Upon reclassification of this area to 

Serious nonattainment, Alaska will be 

required to submit a Serious area plan 

for this area that must include 

contingency measures for purposes of 

both failure to meet RFP and failure to 

attain by the Serious area attainment 

date, consistent with the requirements 

of the CAA and the PM2.5

Implementation Rule. 

In addition, Alaska included in the 

FNSB Moderate Plan contingency 

measures that are triggered by failure to 

attain. Although not required, as 

discussed above, Alaska can elect to 

include these control measures pursuant 

to its authority under CAA section 116. 

Because contingency measures for 

failure to attain are not required in this 

type of attainment plan, the EPA is not 

proposing to approve these control 

measures as contingency measures. 

Instead, the EPA is proposing to 

approve them as SIP strengthening 

measures because they will achieve 

additional emission reductions needed 

in this area. 

Approving these control measures 

will help to assure that further 

reductions of emissions occur during 

the period in which Alaska is 

developing the Serious area attainment 

plan for this area. In developing the 

Serious area attainment plan for this 

area, Alaska will be required submit a 

SIP revision that will ensure the area 

achieves the next QM of December 31, 

2020 (and additional QMs every three 

years thereafter as may be necessary). As 

discussed previously, the analyses in 

the Serious area attainment plan will be 

based on the highest violating regulatory 

monitor which is currently the monitor 

at the North Pole Fire Station. Thus, the 

2020 QMs will be based on meeting RFP 

at the North Pole Fire Station monitor. 

The EPA is therefore proposing to 

approve, as SIP strengthening measures, 

the requirement to replace wood heating 

devices upon sale or lease of property 

when existing devices do not meet 

specific emissions requirements and the 

mandatory enhanced dry wood 

compliance program. As discussed 

previously, the EPA has proposed to 

reclassify the FNSB NAA to Serious and 

the control measures are set to take 

effect upon reclassification of the FNSB 

NAA from Moderate to Serious. 

H. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets 

1. Requirements for Motor Vehicle 

Emissions Budgets 

CAA section 176(c) requires Federal 

actions in nonattainment and 

maintenance areas to conform to the 

goals of the SIP to eliminate or reduce 

the severity and number of violations of 

the NAAQS and achieve expeditious 

attainment of the standards. Conformity 

to the goals of the SIP means that such 

actions will not (1) cause or contribute 

to violations of a NAAQS, (2) worsen 

the severity of an existing violation, or 

(3) delay timely attainment of any 

NAAQS or interim milestones. 

Actions involving Federal Highway 

Administration (FHWA) or Federal 

Transit Administration (FTA) funding 

or approval are subject to the 

transportation conformity rule (40 CFR 

51.390 and part 93, subpart A). Under 

this rule, metropolitan planning 

organizations (MPOs) in nonattainment 

and maintenance areas coordinate with 

state air quality and transportation 

agencies, the EPA, FHWA and FTA to 

demonstrate that an area’s long-range 

transportation plans (‘‘transportation 

plans’’) and transportation improvement 

program (TIP) conform to applicable 

SIPs. This demonstration is typically 

made by showing that estimated 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 21 / Thursday, February 2, 2017 / Proposed Rules 9053 

22For further information on transportation 

conformity rulemakings, policy guidance and 

outreach materials, see the EPA’s Web site at http:// 

www3.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/ 

policy.htm. 

23The EPA concurrence letters for exceptional 

events are included in the docket for this action. 

emissions from existing and planned 

highway and transit systems are less 

than or equal to the motor vehicle 

emissions budgets (‘‘budgets’’) 

contained in all control strategy plans. 

An attainment plan for the PM2.5

NAAQS should include budgets for the 

attainment year and each required QM 

year, as appropriate. Budgets are 

generally established for specific years 

and specific pollutants or precursors 

and must reflect all of the motor vehicle 

control measures contained in the 

attainment and RFP demonstrations (40 

CFR 93.118(e)(4)(v)). 

Attainment plans for PM2.5 NAAQS 

should identify motor vehicle emission 

budgets for each QM year and the 

attainment year for direct PM2.5 and 

NOX (See 40 CFR 93.102(b)(2)(iv)), and 

for VOCs, SO2, and NH3, if, during the 

SIP development process, 

transportation-related emissions of these 

precursors have been found to 

contribute significantly to the PM2.5

nonattainment problem in the area at 

issue (40 CFR 93.102(b)(2)(v)). All direct 

PM2.5 emission budgets in an attainment 

plan should include direct PM2.5 motor 

vehicle emissions from tailpipe, brake 

wear, and tire wear. A state must also 

consider whether re-entrained paved 

and unpaved road dust are significant 

contributors and should be included in 

the direct PM2.5 budget. See 40 CFR 

93.102(b) and 93.122(f) and the 

conformity rule preamble at 69 FR 

40004, 40031–40036 (July 1, 2004).22

1. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets in 

the FNSB Moderate Plan 

In section III.D.5.6, the FNSB 

Moderate Plan provides budgets for 

direct PM2.5 and NOX for 2017, the QM 

year for RFP. The budgets were 

calculated using the MOVES2010a 

vehicle emissions model, which was the 

latest onroad mobile sources emissions 

model available at the time Alaska 

started developing the attainment plan 

inventory. Alaska used local fleet and 

fuel inputs and the Fairbanks 

Metropolitan Area Transportation 

System travel demand model to generate 

local vehicle travel activity estimates 

over the six-month nonattainment 

season (October through March). The 

average winter day emissions, as 

detailed in section II.A of this proposal, 

were used by Alaska to set the motor 

vehicle emissions budgets. Exceedances 

of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in 

the FNSB NAA occur almost exclusively 

during the winter months. Alaska 

executed MOVES2010a with locally 

developed inputs representative of 

wintertime calendar year 2017 

conditions. Table 8 summarizes the 

regional average winter day onroad 

vehicle PM2.5 and NOX emissions that 

represent the applicable motor vehicle 

emissions budgets for 2017 including 

the plug-in block heater adjustments to 

starting exhaust emissions for light-duty 

gasoline vehicles. Alaska estimated that 

the contribution of onroad vehicles to 

total emissions from all sources 

comprises 8.7 percent of direct PM2.5

emissions and 16.7 percent of NOX

emissions. 

TABLE 8—MOTOR VEHICLE EMISSIONS

BUDGETS FOR FNSB 

[Tons per day] 

Calendar year PM2.5 NOX

2017 .................................. 0.33 2.13 

2. The EPA’s Conclusion and Proposed 

Action: Motor Vehicle Emissions 

Budgets 

We have evaluated the budgets 

developed by Alaska against our 

adequacy criteria in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4) 

as part of our review of the 

approvability of the budgets. The EPA 

finds that they are consistent with 

meeting RFP requirements toward 

attainment of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS in this area and meet the 

criteria for adequacy and approval. The 

EPA proposes to approve Alaska’s motor 

vehicle emissions budgets in table 8 for 

2017 for direct PM2.5 and NOX for the 

FNSB NAA. 

I. FNSB NAA Exceptional Event 

Demonstrations and Concurrences 

The CAA allows for the exclusion of 

air quality monitoring data from design 

value calculations when there are 

exceedances caused by events, such as 

wildfires, that meet the criteria for an 

exceptional event identified in the 

EPA’s implementing regulations, the 

Exceptional Events Rule at 40 CFR 50.1, 

50.14 and 51.930. Emissions from 

wildfires influenced PM2.5

concentrations recorded in the FNSB 

NAA in 2009, 2010, and 2013. Alaska 

submitted three exceptional event 

demonstrations for wildfires for which 

the EPA concurred on as follows: 

TABLE 9—EPA CONCURRED EXCEPTIONAL EVENTS DAYS THAT AFFECTED DATA IN THE FNSB NAA 

Day(s) affected by wildfire exceptional events Affected monitor(s) EPA concurrence 

July 6–15–30, 2009 ............................................ State Office Building ........................................ December 19, 2012. 

August 2–5–8, 2009 

July 13, 2010 ...................................................... State Office Building ........................................ March 11, 2014. 

June 27, 2013 .................................................... State Office Building, National Core (NCore) .. November 9, 2016. 

The 2009 and 2010 events had 

regulatory significance for purposes of 

the modeling and impracticability 

demonstration in the FNSB Moderate 

Plan. The 2013 event has regulatory 

significance for purposes of the Serious 

area plan submittal in development. 

Further details on Alaska’s analyses and 

the EPA’s concurrences can be found in 

the docket for this regulatory action. 

The EPA has concurred with the 

Alaska’s request to exclude eventinfluenced data for the dates listed 

above.23 As such, the event-influenced 

data have been removed from the data 

set used for regulatory purposes and, for 

this proposed action, the EPA will rely 

on the calculated values that exclude 

the event-influenced data. 

III. Proposed Action 

Under CAA section 110(k), the EPA is 

proposing to approve the FNSB 

Moderate Plan for the PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Specifically, the FNSB Moderate Plan 

meets the substantive statutory and 

regulatory requirements for base year 

and projected emissions inventories, 

precursor demonstrations, analysis and 

imposition of RACM/RACT level 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS

9054 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 21 / Thursday, February 2, 2017 / Proposed Rules 

emission controls, RFP, and QMs. In 

addition, the EPA is proposing to 

approve the 2017 motor vehicle 

emissions budgets as shown in table 8 

above because they are derived from an 

approvable RFP demonstration and 

meet the requirements of CAA section 

176(c) and 40 CFR part 93, subpart A. 

Accordingly, the EPA is proposing to 

determine that the FNSB Moderate Plan, 

for the FNSB NAA for the 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS, meets applicable 

requirements for purposes of approval 

under section 110(k) of the CAA. The 

EPA also proposes to approve state and 

local rules submitted in the FNSB 

Moderate Plan and the exceptional 

event demonstrations as discussed in 

this action. 

IV. Incorporation by Reference 

In this rule, the EPA is proposing to 

include in a final EPA rule regulatory 

text that includes incorporation by 

reference. In accordance with 

requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is 

proposing to incorporate by reference 

state and local regulations for solid-fuel 

fired heaters and open burning. The 

EPA has made, and will continue to 

make, these materials generally 

available through www.regulations.gov 

and/or at the EPA Region 10 Office 

(please contact the person identified in 

the ‘‘For Further Information Contact’’ 

section of this preamble for more 

information). 

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, the EPA’s role is to 

approve state choices, provided that 

they meet the criteria of the Clean Air 

Act. Accordingly, this proposed 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 proposed action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, 

January 21, 2011); 

• 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 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). 

The SIP is not approved to apply on any 

Indian reservation land or in any other 

area where the EPA or an Indian tribe 

has demonstrated that a tribe has 

jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian 

country, the rule does not have tribal 

implications and will not impose 

substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law as 

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

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

Dated: January 18, 2017. 

Dennis J. McLerran, 

Regional Administrator, EPA Region 10. 

[FR Doc. 2017–02193 Filed 2–1–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS