84626 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 232 / Tuesday, December 5, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

1 40 CFR 51.1003(c). 

2See SIP submission cover letter, submitted by 

Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation 

(ADEC) Commissioner Jason Brune to EPA Regional 

Administrator, Chris Hladick, on December 15, 

2020. 

3 ‘‘Fairbanks SIP submissions for the Serious area 

and 189(d) plans’’ Letter from Emma Pokon, Acting 

Commissioner, Alaska Department of 

Environmental Conservation, to Casey Sixkiller, 

Regional Administrator, EPA Region 10, September 

25, 2023. Included in the docket for this action. 

4State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol. II, Chapter 

III.D.7.12. This portion of Alaska’s SIP is distinct 

from Alaska’s emergency powers under Alaska 

Statutes 46.03.820 and 18 AAC 50.245–50.246 that 

authorize ADEC to declare an air alert, air warning, 

or air advisory to notify the public and prescribe 

and publicize curtailment action. In prior actions, 

the EPA has determined that these authorities are 

consistent with CAA section 110(a)(2)(G) and 40 

CFR 51.150 through 51.153. See 83 FR 60769, 

November 27, 2018, at p. 60772. 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R10–OAR–2022–0115; FRL–9755–02– 

R10] 

Air Plan Partial Approval and Partial 

Disapproval; AK, Fairbanks North Star 

Borough; 2006 24-Hour PM2.5 Serious 

Area and 189(d) Plan 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is approving in part and 

disapproving in part the State 

implementation plan (SIP) submissions, 

submitted by the State of Alaska (Alaska 

or the State) to address Clean Air Act 

(CAA or Act) requirements for the 2006 

24-hour fine particulate matter (PM2.5) 

national ambient air quality standard 

(NAAQS) in the Fairbanks North Star 

Borough PM2.5 nonattainment area 

(Fairbanks PM2.5 Nonattainment Area). 

Alaska made these submissions on 

December 13, 2019, and December 15, 

2020. 

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

January 4, 2024. 

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–R10–OAR–2022–0115. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

the https://www.regulations.gov 

website. Although listed in the index, 

some information is not publicly 

available, e.g., CBI or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available through https://

www.regulations.gov, or please contact 

the person identified in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section for 

additional availability information. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Matthew Jentgen, EPA Region 10, 1200 

Sixth Avenue—Suite 155, Seattle, WA, 

98101, (206) 553–0340, 

jentgen.matthew@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document wherever 

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, it is 

intended to refer to EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

II. Public Comments and EPA Responses 

A. Timing of the EPA’s Rulemaking 

B. Environmental Justice Considerations 

C. Air Quality Monitoring in the Fairbanks 

PM2.5 Nonattainment Area 

D. Clean Air Act Requirements for PM2.5

Serious Area Plans and Serious PM2.5

Areas that Fail to Attain 

E. Review of the Fairbanks Serious Plan 

and Fairbanks 189(d) Plan 

1. Emission Inventories 

2. Pollutants Addressed 

3. Control Strategy 

4. Attainment Demonstration and 

Modeling 

5. Reasonable Further Progress 

6. Quantitative Milestones 

7. Contingency Measures 

8. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets for 

Transportation Conformity 

9. Nonattainment New Source Review 

Requirements 

10. Additional Comments 

III. Final Action 

A. Final Approval 

B. Final Disapproval 

IV. Consequences of a Disapproval 

A. The Act’s Provisions for Mandatory 

Sanctions 

B. Federal Implementation Plan Provisions 

That Apply if a State Fails to Submit an 

Approvable Plan 

C. Ramifications Regarding Transportation 

Conformity 

V. Incorporation by Reference 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism 

F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination 

With Indian Tribal Governments 

G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions 

To Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Population 

K. Submission to Congress and the 

Comptroller General 

L. Petitions for Judicial Review 

I. Background 

For a complete regulatory history of 

the Fairbanks PM2.5 Nonattainment 

Area, see the EPA’s proposal, published 

on January 10, 2023 (88 FR 1454) 

(Proposal). This action finalizes the 

EPA’s specific assessment of the State of 

Alaska’s SIP submissions to meet 

nonattainment plan requirements for the 

Fairbanks PM2.5 Nonattainment Area, as 

discussed in the Proposal. 

In summary, Alaska submitted a plan 

to address the Serious area plan 

requirements on December 13, 2019 

(Fairbanks Serious Plan). On September 

2, 2020, the EPA determined that the 

area failed to attain the NAAQS by the 

outermost statutory Serious area 

attainment date of December 31, 2019, 

and denied the State’s Serious area 

attainment date extension request under 

CAA section 188(e) (85 FR 54509). As a 

result, Alaska was required to submit a 

new SIP submission to meet both the 

Serious area attainment plan 

requirements and the additional CAA 

requirements set forth in CAA section 

189(d) by December 31, 2020.1

Prior to the EPA taking action to 

approve or disapprove the Fairbanks 

Serious Plan, Alaska withdrew and 

replaced several chapters of the 

Fairbanks Serious Plan with the 

Fairbanks 189(d) Plan submission, 

submitted on December 15, 2020 

(Fairbanks 189(d) Plan).2 Thus, the State 

intended to address the Serious area 

plan requirements with a combination 

of unwithdrawn portions of the 

Fairbanks Serious Plan and revised 

elements submitted as part of the 

Fairbanks 189(d) Plan. In this final 

action, the EPA is not acting on the 

withdrawn elements of the prior 

Fairbanks Serious Plan, but only acting 

on those elements that remain as revised 

by Alaska in the Fairbanks 189(d) Plan. 

Additionally, on September 25, 2023, 

Alaska withdrew the State’s sulfur 

dioxide (SO2) best available control 

technology (BACT) findings submitted 

as part of the Fairbanks Serious Plan.3

In the Proposal, the EPA proposed to 

approve the following components of 

the Fairbanks Serious Plan and 

Fairbanks 189(d) Plan: the base year 

emissions inventory; the State’s PM2.5

precursor demonstrations for nitrogen 

oxide (NOX) and volatile organic 

compound (VOC) emissions; the control 

strategy for the solid fuel-fired heating 

device source category and ammonia 

(NH3) BACM and BACT findings, as 

applicable; specific regulations under 18 

AAC 50.075 through 077 and the 

Fairbanks Emergency Episode Plan 4


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES5
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 232 / Tuesday, December 5, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 84627 

5MSM is applicable if the EPA has previously 

granted an extension of the attainment date under 

CAA section 188(e) for the nonattainment area and 

NAAQS at issue. As mentioned above, the EPA 

denied Alaska’s request to extend the Serious area 

attainment date for the Fairbanks Serious 

Nonattainment Area. 

6We note that while we are approving most of 

Alaska’s analysis for mobile sources, Alaska will 

need to further evaluate, and adopt and implement 

as necessary, light-duty vehicle anti-idling 

measures to meet CAA requirements. 

7The EPA received 61 comments as part of oral 

testimony provided during EPA’s March 7, 2023, 

public hearing and 103 comments as part of written 

testimony submitted to the docket. 

8Letter from Region 10 Regional Administrator 

Casey Sixkiller to Aaron Schutt, President and CEO 

of Doyon, Limited, March 30, 2023. Included in the 

docket for this action. 

9 85 FR 7760, February 11, 2020. 

(except for the contingency measure 

provision). 

The EPA proposed disapproval of the 

following elements of the Fairbanks 

Serious Plan and the Fairbanks 189(d) 

Plan as not meeting applicable 

requirements for Serious area plan 

requirements and CAA section 189(d) 

plan requirements: attainment projected 

emissions inventory; best available 

control measure (BACM) requirements 

for residential and commercial fuel 

combustion, wood sellers; coal-fired 

heating devices, coffee roasters, 

charbroilers, used oil burners, 

weatherization and energy efficiency 

measures, and mobile source emissions. 

The EPA proposed disapproval of most 

of the control strategy BACT 

requirements for certain large stationary 

sources in the Fairbanks PM2.5

Nonattainment Area. Additionally, the 

EPA proposed disapproval of the 

Fairbanks Serious Plan and Fairbanks 

189(d) Plan for not meeting the 

remaining nonattainment planning 

elements: the CAA section 189(d) 

requirement to analyze additional 

measures (beyond those already adopted 

in previous nonattainment plan SIP 

submissions for the area as reasonably 

available control measure/technology 

(RACM/RACT), BACM/BACT, and Most 

Stringent Measures (MSM)); 5

attainment demonstration and 

modeling; reasonable further progress; 

motor vehicle emission budgets; 

quantitative milestones; and 

contingency measures. 

Section II of this preamble 

summarizes comments received during 

the public comment period for the 

Proposal and provides the EPA’s 

responses. With respect to most 

planning requirements, the EPA is 

finalizing approval and disapproval of 

the Fairbanks Serious Plan and 

Fairbanks 189(d) Plan as proposed. 

However, based on the comments 

received, the EPA is finalizing approval 

of certain portions of the Fairbanks 

Serious Plan and Fairbanks 189(d) Plan 

that it originally proposed to 

disapprove. Specifically, the EPA is 

finalizing approval of Alaska’s 

economic infeasibility demonstrations 

for a number of area sources identified 

in Alaska’s 2019 base year emission 

inventory. Alaska’s economic 

infeasibility demonstration provided 

updated cost information and additional 

considerations for a number of control 

measures. Based on these comments, we 

are finalizing approval for residential 

and commercial fuel oil combustion, 

charbroilers, used oil burners, and most 

of the measures for mobile sources. This 

means the EPA is approving Alaska’s 

evaluation that ULSD adoption for 

residential and commercial fuel oil 

combustion is not economically feasible 

at this time and that Alaska will not 

have to adopt additional controls for 

these emission sources to satisfy the 

control strategy requirements for 

Serious areas and Serious areas that fail 

to attain.6

The EPA will work with the State of 

Alaska to address those portions of the 

Fairbanks Serious Plan and Fairbanks 

189(d) Plan that the EPA is 

disapproving in this action. Alaska may 

rectify each of these disapprovals with 

a revised SIP submission. The EPA 

understands that the State is developing 

a revised SIP submission to address the 

plan deficiencies that are identified in 

section III of this preamble. Specifically, 

with this new SIP submission, the EPA 

anticipates Alaska will identify, adopt, 

and implement all feasible control 

measures and ensure that such control 

measures are adopted and submitted in 

a manner that is enforceable as a 

practical matter and permanent. 

The EPA also understands that the 

State is nearing completion of an 

updated air quality model that may 

better characterize particulate emissions 

in the Fairbanks PM2.5 Nonattainment 

Area. Given this development, Alaska 

may potentially address the EPA’s 

disapproval of the Fairbanks Serious 

Plan and Fairbanks 189(d) Plan for 

failure to adopt and implement SO2

BACT requirements for major stationary 

sources though either identifying, 

adopting, and implementing BACT for 

the control of SO2 emissions from these 

sources or a major stationary source SO2

precursor demonstration that meets 

statutory and regulatory requirements 

and clearly demonstrates these sources 

do not contribute significantly to PM2.5

levels that exceed the NAAQS in the 

Fairbanks PM2.5 Nonattainment Area. 

The State may also update its 

modeled attainment demonstration, 

reasonable further progress provisions, 

quantitative milestones, and attainment 

projected inventories. Finally, the State 

will need to evaluate and adopt 

adequate contingency measures. 

II. Public Comments and EPA 

Responses 

The EPA provided a 72-day period for 

the public to comment on the proposed 

action that ended on March 23, 2023. 

We received 164 public comments.7 The 

public comments are included in the 

docket for this action. On March 7, 

2023, the EPA held a public hearing in 

Fairbanks, Alaska, at the Wood Center, 

University of Alaska Fairbanks. 

Comments received at the public 

hearing have been treated the same as 

written comments submitted to the 

docket and are summarized in this 

section II of the preamble. The 

transcript for the March 7, 2023, public 

hearing is also included in the docket 

for this action. Additionally, on April 

17, 2023, EPA Region 10 Regional 

Administrator Sixkiller engaged in 

consultation with Doyon, Limited as an 

Alaska Native Corporation under the 

Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act 

(ANCSA) on the Proposal.8 Separately, 

Doyon, Limited provided comments 

during the public hearing. 

A. Timing of the EPA’s Rulemaking 

The State of Alaska submitted the 

Fairbanks Serious Plan on December 13, 

2019. On January 10, 2020, the EPA 

made a finding that this submission was 

administratively complete.9 Alaska 

subsequently submitted the Fairbanks 

189(d) Plan on December 15, 2020. That 

submission was deemed complete by 

operation of law on June 15, 2021. 

Therefore, in accordance with CAA 

section 110(k)(2), the EPA’s statutory 

deadlines to act on the Fairbanks 

Serious Plan and Fairbanks 189(d) Plan 

were January 10, 2021, and June 15, 

2022, respectively. In order to satisfy its 

mandatory duties under the CAA, the 

EPA proposed action on both the 

Fairbanks Serious Plan and Fairbanks 

189(d) Plan on January 10, 2023. After 

holding a public hearing on March 7, 

2023, accepting written comments, and 

considering said comments, the EPA is 

finalizing action on these plans. 

Comments: The EPA received several 

comments requesting that it delay 

finalizing action on the Fairbanks 

Serious Plan and Fairbanks 189(d) Plan. 

The primary basis for the request was to 

allow Alaska to complete modeling 

work necessary to support a future SO2

precursor demonstration for major 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES5
84628 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 232 / Tuesday, December 5, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

10EPA’s Regional Applied Research Effort (RARE) 

is an Office of Research and Development (ORD) 

program administered by the Office of Science 

Policy (OSP) that responds to the high-priority 

research needs of EPA Regions. 

11CAA section 110(k)–(l) and 179. 40 CFR part 

51, subpart F. 

12CAA section 110(k)(2), 42 U.S.C. 7410(k)(2). 

13 88 FR 1454, January 10, 2023, at pp.1455–1456. 

EJSCREEN provides a nationally consistent dataset 

and approach for combining environmental and 

demographic indicators. EJSCREEN is available at 

https://www.epa.gov/ejscreen/what-ejscreen. 

stationary sources. Many of the 

commenters presumed that the outcome 

of the precursor demonstration would 

show that SO2 emissions from major 

stationary sources is not a significant 

contributor to PM2.5 formation in the 

Fairbanks 2006 PM2.5 Nonattainment 

Area. Other commenters stated 

generally that the EPA should avoid 

hasty decisions. 

In its comments submitted during the 

public comment period, Alaska 

represented that it would complete the 

necessary modeling work and submit a 

revised SIP submission to the EPA by 

May 1, 2024. After the close of the 

public comment period, Alaska 

submitted additional comments via 

letter requesting an additional year from 

the date of the letter—until July 24, 

2024—for Alaska to submit a revised 

SIP submission. In the latter letter, 

Alaska enclosed Regional Applied 

Research Effort (RARE) 10 meeting notes 

that include preliminary modeling 

results for the Fairbanks PM2.5

Nonattainment Area based on 

continuing analysis of sulfate formation 

in the area. Alaska asserted that these 

preliminary modeling results indicate 

that major point sources of SO2

emissions do not significantly 

contribute to particulate matter 

pollution during winter-time episodic 

conditions in the area. Alaska further 

asserted that the EPA has the discretion 

and authority to grant the State an 

additional year from July 24, 2023, to 

provide a revised SIP submission before 

taking final action on the already 

submitted Fairbanks Serious Plan and 

Fairbanks 189(d) Plan. 

Response: Consistent with its 

obligations in CAA section 110(k)(2) to 

act on SIP submissions, the EPA is 

finalizing action on the Fairbanks 

Serious Plan and Fairbanks 189(d) Plan 

in this action. By statute, the EPA is 

required to take final action within one 

year of a SIP submission being complete 

or complete by operation of law. The 

EPA has already delayed action well 

past the deadlines imposed by the CAA. 

Thus, further delay would not be 

consistent with these requirements. 

Contrary to Alaska’s comments, the EPA 

does not have generic authority to 

modify the CAA deadlines that pertain 

to when States must submit SIP 

submissions, or to when the EPA must 

take action on such SIP submissions. 

Nor does the EPA have the authority to 

postpone the statutory deadline for the 

imposition of mandatory sanctions 

under CAA section 179, or its obligation 

to promulgate a Federal Implementation 

Plan pursuant to CAA section 110(c). 

The CAA establishes a process for 

States to rectify SIP disapprovals via a 

new SIP submission.11 The CAA does 

not impose a mandatory deadline for 

States to make a new SIP submission in 

response to an EPA disapproval. Rather, 

the CAA imposes mandatory sanctions 

on the State at 18 and 24 months 

following the effective date of the EPA’s 

disapproval, and an obligation on the 

EPA to promulgate a FIP within two 

years of the effective date of such 

disapproval. To avoid the potential for 

mandatory sanctions and a FIP, Alaska 

should follow this process to make a 

timely corrective SIP submission to 

address the portions of the Fairbanks 

Serious Plan and Fairbanks 189(d) Plan 

that the EPA is disapproving. Alaska 

may include an optional SO2 precursor 

demonstration in this SIP submission, if 

it provides a valid basis to establish that 

SO2 emissions from either all sources or 

major stationary sources do not 

significantly contribute to PM2.5

formation. 

As discussed further in the following 

sections of this preamble, the EPA will 

review any future SO2 precursor 

demonstration based on the statutory 

and regulatory requirements and EPA 

guidance. The EPA emphasizes that the 

Agency will review the entire weight-ofevidence of any precursor 

demonstration, not only the outputs of 

any particular air quality model. 

Moreover, delaying action on a SIP 

submission based on an anticipated 

future SIP submission that may or may 

not address identified SIP deficiencies 

would be arbitrary and inconsistent 

with the CAA’s mandatory 

requirements. 

The commenters advocating further 

delay of this final action, appeared to 

suggest that if the EPA finds that any 

portion of a SIP submission does not 

meet CAA requirements, then the EPA 

must delay fulfilling its statutory 

obligation in order to allow a State to 

revise the SIP submission, rather than 

act on the SIP submission. The EPA 

does not interpret the CAA as requiring 

this approach. Rather, the CAA requires 

the EPA to approve or disapprove a SIP 

submission within 12 months of the 

date on which it is complete.12 To the 

extent that a State seeks to revise its 

approach in a SIP submission following 

a disapproval, it may do so consistent 

with the process and schedule provided 

for in CAA sections 179(a) and 

110(c)(1). Thus, the EPA is satisfying its 

CAA obligation to take action on the 

Fairbanks Serious Plan and Fairbanks 

189(d) Plan. 

B. Environmental Justice Considerations 

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, 

February 16, 1994) requires that Federal 

agencies, to the greatest extent 

practicable and permitted by law, 

identify and address disproportionately 

high and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their actions on 

minority and low-income populations. 

Additionally, Executive Order 13985 (86 

FR 7009, January 25, 2021) directs 

Federal government agencies to assess 

whether, and to what extent, their 

programs and policies perpetuate 

systemic barriers to opportunities and 

benefits for people of color and other 

underserved groups, and Executive 

Order 14008 (86 FR 7619, February 1, 

2021) directs Federal agencies to 

develop programs, policies, and 

activities to address the 

disproportionate health, environmental, 

economic, and climate impacts on 

disadvantaged communities. 

In the Proposal, the EPA provided the 

results of a screening-level analysis 

using the EPA’s environmental justice 

(EJ) screening and mapping tool 

(‘‘EJSCREEN’’).13 The purpose of 

conducting this analysis and sharing the 

results was to provide information and 

context. The EPA did not base the 

proposed action nor this final action on 

environmental justice considerations. 

Rather, the EPA based the proposed 

action and this final action on a 

determination of whether the Fairbanks 

Serious Plan and Fairbanks 189(d) Plan 

meet applicable CAA requirements. 

The EPA noted in the Proposal that 

the Fairbanks PM2.5 Nonattainment Area 

has some of the highest PM2.5

concentrations in the country and has 

been designated nonattainment for the 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS since 2009. 

Residents in Fairbanks and North Pole 

have been subjected to a high pollution 

burden for many years. Other health and 

socioeconomic indices, identified in 

EJSCREEN, that are impacted by 

elevated ambient PM2.5 concentrations 

include: low life expectancy (95–100 

percentile) and asthma (90–95 

percentile) in an area south of 

downtown Fairbanks, and population 

under age 5 (95–100 percentile) in 

various areas within the Fairbanks PM2.5

Nonattainment Area. Most of Alaska, 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES5
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 232 / Tuesday, December 5, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 84629 

14Medically Underserved Areas are defined by 

the Health Resources and Services Administration 

as geographic areas with a lack of access to primary 

care services. For more information see: https://

bhw.hrsa.gov/workforce-shortage-areas/shortagedesignation#mups. 

15See, e.g., 88 FR 1454, January 10, 2023, at p. 

1455 (‘‘Executive Order 12898 . . . requires that 

Federal agencies, the greatest extent practicable and 

permitted by law, identify and address 

disproportionately high and adverse human health 

or environmental effects of their actions.’’). 

16 88 FR 1454, January 10, 2023, at pp. 1455– 

1456. 

including the Fairbanks area, is 

considered ‘‘medically underserved.’’ 14

A review of other environmental 

justice indices in EJSCREEN for the 

cities of Fairbanks, Alaska and North 

Pole, Alaska are below the 80th 

percentile, with some areas around 

downtown Fairbanks in the 80–90th 

percentile for the following indices: 

Superfund proximity, Hazardous waste 

proximity, and Underground storage 

tanks. No indices are above the 90th 

percentile for the Fairbanks PM2.5

Nonattainment Area. EJSCREEN reports 

for Fairbanks and North Pole are 

included in the docket for this action. 

The EPA noted in the Proposal that 

Alaska’s expeditious submission of a 

new SIP to correct the deficiencies 

identified in this final action will ensure 

the plan meets CAA requirements and 

achieve attainment as expeditiously as 

practicable, consistent with the 

principles of environmental justice. 

1. Comments and Responses 

The EPA received multiple comments 

regarding environmental justice 

considerations. 

Comment: Alaska argued that the EPA 

proposed to improperly shift the burden 

of addressing environmental justice 

from the EPA to the State of Alaska and 

that the EPA’s proposed disapproval of 

certain elements of the Fairbanks 

Serious Plan and Fairbanks 189(d) Plan 

is inconsistent with the principles of 

environmental justice. As support, 

Alaska quoted from the EPA’s statement 

in the proposed action: ‘‘Alaska’s 

expeditious submission of plan 

revisions that correct the deficiencies 

identified in this document will ensure 

the plan meets CAA requirements, and 

the measures in the plan when 

implemented achieves attainment as 

expeditiously as practicable. And in 

doing so, the plan revisions address 

harmful and disproportionate health 

and environmental effects on 

underserved and overburdened 

populations, consistent with the 

principles of environmental justice.’’ 

Alaska also stated that Fairbanks 

residents already face severe economic 

challenges including utility costs, 

transportation, healthcare, internet 

connectivity, and food and that 

adopting and implementing additional 

control measures will exacerbate these 

challenges. The commenter stated that 

the EPA ignored the economic 

challenges faced by Fairbanks residents 

in its proposed rule. 

Response: The EPA is finalizing 

action on the Fairbanks Serious Plan 

and Fairbanks 189(d) Plan based on a 

determination of whether these plans 

meet applicable CAA requirements. The 

EPA did not propose to disapprove any 

portion of the Fairbanks Serious Plan 

and Fairbanks 189(d) Plan based on 

environmental justice considerations. 

The EPA clearly articulated that it was 

proposing to disapprove certain 

portions of the SIP submissions because 

of specifically identified deficiencies 

with respect to CAA requirements. 

In the Proposal the EPA did, however, 

provide factual information concerning 

environmental justice concerns in the 

Fairbanks PM2.5 Nonattainment Area as 

part of its own evaluation.15 The EPA 

provided the results of EJSCREEN and 

evaluated the impacts of finalizing its 

proposal for informational purposes 

only. The EPA expressly stated that it 

did so ‘‘to better understand the context 

of our proposed action on the Fairbanks 

Serious Plan and Fairbanks 189(d) Plan 

on these communities.’’ 16 Thus, the 

EPA disagrees with Alaska that it 

proposed to transfer the EPA’s 

obligations under Executive Order 

12898 to the State. Executive Order 

12898 does not impose any such 

obligations on the State of Alaska. 

Alaska does, however, have the 

obligation to develop and submit 

implementation plans for the Fairbanks 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 Nonattainment Area 

that meet CAA requirements. In the 

Proposal, the EPA observed that the 

State doing so will reduce air pollution 

in the nonattainment area and thus 

reduce the burden on Fairbanks 

residents who experience some of the 

worst air pollution in the country. 

The EPA also disagrees with Alaska 

that it ignored the economic challenges 

faced by Fairbanks residents in its 

proposed action. On the contrary, the 

EPA’s proposed action and this final 

action, particularly with regards to the 

adequacy of the control strategy, was 

based on a thorough review of the 

technological and economic infeasibility 

of specific measures. In many cases, the 

EPA is finalizing approval of Alaska’s 

rejection of certain control measures 

based in part on Alaska’s 

demonstrations that the measures are 

infeasible due either to local 

circumstances or cost. Nevertheless, the 

State also oversimplifies this issue by 

claiming that the cost of imposing 

controls as required by the CAA to 

achieve actual attainment of the NAAQS 

in the Fairbanks PM2.5 Nonattainment 

Area necessarily outweighs any public 

health benefits from such controls. The 

ongoing nonattainment of the NAAQS 

in the area likewise imposes costs, as 

measured in adverse public health 

impacts due to exposure to air 

pollution. 

Comment: The EPA also received 

comments from environmental 

organizations representing citizens in 

the Fairbanks PM2.5 Nonattainment Area 

concerning environmental justice 

issues. The commenter advocated that 

‘‘all possible measures should be taken 

to reduce and eliminate exposures.’’ In 

particular, the commenter asserted that 

there should be additional Federal 

Reference Method (FRM) monitors in 

the area, as well as additional monitors 

near schools, elder care facilities, and 

hospitals to assess impacts on 

vulnerable communities. The 

commenter asked that regulators give 

attention to cumulative impacts from 

exposure in the area, such as from coal 

ash and per-and polyfluoroalkyl 

substances (PFAS) in drinking water. 

Finally, the commenter expressed 

concern that ‘‘without the intervention 

of the EPA and Federal regulators, those 

who already bear a disproportionate 

burden will continue to experience the 

worst outcomes due to Alaska’s inaction 

on this issue.’’ 

Response: The EPA agrees with the 

commenter that there are environmental 

justice concerns in the Fairbanks PM2.5

Nonattainment Area, as evidenced by 

facts indicated by the EJSCREEN 

analysis, such as the prevalence of 

asthma and life expectancy. The EPA 

anticipates that compliance with CAA 

requirements for nonattainment plans 

should result in improvements for 

purposes of environmental justice in 

this area. As explained in the preceding 

paragraphs of this preamble, however, 

the EPA discussed environmental 

justice impacts of this action in the 

Proposal for informational purposes 

only. The EPA’s final action, with 

respect to both approvals and 

disapprovals, is based on the Agency’s 

evaluation of the Fairbanks Serious Plan 

and Fairbanks 189(d) Plan with respect 

to applicable CAA requirements. The 

EPA will address the commenters 

specific concerns with respect to 

monitoring in the area in section II.C. of 

this preamble. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES5
84630 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 232 / Tuesday, December 5, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

17For further details of the air quality monitoring 

network in the Fairbanks PM2.5 Nonattainment 

Area, see the EPA’s approval letters of Alaska’s 

Annual Monitoring Network Plans for each year 

between 2019 to 2022, which are included in the 

docket for this action. 18Letter from Debra Suzuki, EPA Region 10 Air 

Planning, State/Tribal Coordination Branch to 

Barbara Trost, Alaska Department of Environmental 

Conservation, Air Monitoring and Quality 

Assurance Program, June 26, 2019, included in the 

docket for this action. 

19 2019 Annual Air Quality Monitoring Network 

Plan, Alaska Department of Environmental 

Conservation, June 28, 2019, at p 33, available at: 

https://dec.alaska.gov/air/air-monitoring/ 

monitoring-plans. 

20 2022 Annual Air Quality Monitoring Network 

Plan, Alaska Department of Environmental 

Conservation, Final Draft, June 28, 2022. 

C. Air Quality Monitoring in the 

Fairbanks PM2.5 Nonattainment Area 

In the Proposal we described Alaska’s 

air quality monitoring network for the 

Fairbanks PM2.5 Nonattainment Area, 

and noted that it includes four 

regulatory monitor site locations. Table 

1 of this preamble includes the site 

names, identification numbers, monitor 

data, and updated design values for the 

PM2.5 monitor site locations in 

Fairbanks. In the Proposal, we 

explained that with EPA approval, the 

State discontinued the monitor location 

at the State Office Building and 

established the A Street monitor as a 

monitor location in 2019. Alaska 

established the A Street monitor 

location as a State or Local Air 

Monitoring Station (SLAMS) PM2.5

monitoring station to characterize PM2.5

concentrations in the Fairbanks portion 

of the nonattainment area. The EPA also 

explained in the Proposal that the Hurst 

Road monitor measures expected 

maximum concentrations for the 

nonattainment area.17 Following is a 

table of air quality monitoring data in 

the Fairbanks PM2.5 Nonattainment 

Area. The EPA notes this table was 

updated from the Proposal because 

monitoring data from 2022 became 

available since the Proposal was 

published. Therefore, Table 1 of this 

preamble includes the 2020–2022 24- 

hour Design Values, while the Proposal 

included the 2019–2021 24-hour Design 

Values. 

TABLE 1—FAIRBANKS PM2.5 MONITORING LOCATIONS AND RECENT SITE-LEVEL DESIGN VALUES

Local site name Site location AQS ID 

98th percentile 

(μg/m3) 

2020 2021 2022 ** 

2020–2022 

24-hour 

Design 

Value ** 

Hurst Road * .................... 3288 Hurst Road, North Pole .................................. 02–090–0035 71.4 65.5 72.5 70 

A Street ........................... 397 Hamilton Ave, Fairbanks .................................. 02–090–0040 36.1 *** 29.6 *** 84.2 50 

NCore .............................. 809 Pioneer Road, Fairbanks ................................. 02–090–0034 26.6 27.5 76.3 43 

State Office Building ....... 675 7th Avenue, Fairbanks ..................................... 02–090–0010 Site closed in 2019, monitor equipment relocated to A Street 

location. 

* Monitor location previously referred to as North Pole Fire Station. 

** Data in this table includes monitor days in 2022 that the state flagged as influenced by wildfires. 

*** Monitor data in 2021 and 2022 impacted by data completeness issues. 

Source: EPA 2022 AQS Design Value Report. 

1. Comments and Responses 

Comment: As noted in the prior 

paragraphs of this preamble, in the 

context of commenting on 

environmental justice concerns in the 

Fairbanks PM2.5 Nonattainment Area, a 

commenter questioned the adequacy of 

monitoring in the area. The commenter 

stated that the environmental justice 

concerns highlight the need for more 

Federal Reference Monitors (FRM) in 

the Fairbanks PM2.5 Nonattainment 

Area. Specifically, the commenter states 

that three monitors are insufficient for 

the nonattainment area, that Alaska 

should reestablish the State Office 

Building monitoring site, and establish 

additional sites, including in the 

Bjerremark neighborhood. 

Response: As stated in Section II.B of 

this preamble, the EPA is finalizing 

action on the Fairbanks Serious Plan 

and Fairbanks 189(d) Plan based on a 

determination of whether these plans 

meet applicable CAA requirements. 

Regarding the adequacy of the existing 

monitoring network, the EPA’s review 

and approval of Alaska’s PM2.5

monitoring network for the Fairbanks 

2006 PM2.5 Nonattainment Area is 

outside the scope of this action. The 

EPA separately evaluates the adequacy 

of the State’s monitoring network in the 

context of the Annual Monitoring 

Network Plans (ANP) developed and 

submitted by the State to the EPA 

pursuant to 40 CFR part 58, or in the 

context of an Infrastructure SIP 

submission for a new or revised 

NAAQS. 

The commenter specifically 

questioned the State’s decision to shut 

down the State Office Building monitor 

location and to relocate the monitor to 

the A Street monitor location. Alaska 

documented the basis for this change 

and requested the site relocation in a 

letter to the EPA dated May 15, 2019, 

per 40 CFR 58.14(b). The EPA approved 

the relocation of the State Office 

Building monitoring site to A Street and 

the establishment of the A Street station 

as a SLAMS station, including the site 

relocation, as meeting the requirements 

of 40 CFR part 58, Appendix D in a 

letter dated June 26, 2019.18 This 

network modification was also 

documented in Alaska’s 2019 ANP 

dated June 28, 2019,19 which the EPA 

approved on November 21, 2019. Prior 

to submitting its 2019 ANP, Alaska 

offered a 32-day public comment period 

starting on May 23, 2019, during which 

members of the public could submit 

comments on the adequacy of the ANP. 

The EPA notes that 40 CFR part 58, 

Appendix D sets the minimum 

monitoring network design criteria State 

ambient air networks must meet. Alaska 

submitted their 2022 ANP on June 28, 

2022.20 Prior to submitting the 2022 

ANP, Alaska held a 30-day public 

comment period. On September 21, 

2022, the EPA approved Alaska’s 2022 

ANP as meeting the requirements of 40 

CFR part 58, Appendix D. The EPA is 

not revisiting its prior ANP approvals as 

part of this action. Most recently, Alaska 

submitted its 2023 ANP on June 30, 

2023. The 2023 ANP was available for 

public comment from May 21–June 21, 

2023. The EPA has 120 days to review 

and approve Alaska’s 2023 ANP. 

Neither the CAA nor 40 CFR part 58, 

Appendix D preclude the State from 

exceeding these minimum 

requirements, including deploying 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES5
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 232 / Tuesday, December 5, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 84631 

21 2022 Annual Air Quality Monitoring Network 

Plan, Alaska Department of Environmental 

Conservation, Final Draft, June 28, 2022. Letter from 

Debra Suzuki, Manager Air Planning, State/Tribal 

Coordination Branch, EPA Region 10, to Barbara 

Trost, Division of Air Quality, Alaska Department 

of Environmental Conservation, September 21, 

2022. 

22See Section 4.7.1(b) of Appendix D to 40 CFR 

part 58. 

23U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Center 

for Environmental Measurements & Modeling, Air 

Methods & Characterization Division, List of 

Designated Reference and Equivalent Methods, June 

15, 2023, available at https://www.epa.gov/system/ 

files/documents/2023-06/List_of_FRM_FEM_

%20June%202023_Final.pdf. 

additional monitors beyond the 

minimum number required. 

If the commenter has specific 

concerns with the adequacy of the 

monitoring network, then the 

appropriate place to raise these issues is 

with the State during the public 

comment period for their next ANP. 

State ANPs typically are posted for 

public comment annually in late May to 

allow for a 30-day comment period 

before the ANP is due to the EPA on 

July 1. States are required to include 

and address all comments in their final 

ANP submission per 40 CFR 58.10(a)(1). 

Comment: Several commenters raised 

concerns with the ambient air monitors. 

Specifically, one commenter stated that 

monitors were sited in the worst areas 

and not representative of air quality in 

the Fairbanks PM2.5 Nonattainment 

Area. Other commenters asserted that 

the monitors are outdated, inaccurate 

below negative 20 degrees Fahrenheit, 

and do not distinguish between 

hydroxymethanesulfonate (HMS) from 

inorganic sulfate and organic mass and 

PM2.5. These commenters stated this is 

creating problems with monitors in the 

North Pole and Fairbanks portions of 

the nonattainment area, respectively. 

Response: As previously discussed, in 

this action, the EPA is evaluating 

whether the Fairbanks Serious Plan and 

Fairbanks 189(d) Plan meet applicable 

requirements for nonattainment plans. 

These commenters raised concerns 

about the adequacy of the monitor 

network. The EPA’s review and 

approval of Alaska’s PM2.5 monitoring 

network for the Fairbanks PM2.5

Nonattainment Area is outside the scope 

of this action. The EPA is finalizing 

action on the Fairbanks Serious Plan 

and Fairbanks 189(d) Plan. These SIP 

submissions do not contain Alaska’s 

monitoring plans. Such monitoring 

plans are contained in Alaska’s ANP 

developed and submitted to the EPA 

pursuant to 40 CFR part 58. The EPA 

approved these monitoring network 

plans as meeting the requirements of 40 

CFR part 58,21 including that the 

monitoring stations are representative of 

area-wide air quality and that Alaska 

sited at least one monitoring station at 

neighborhood or larger scale in an area 

of expected maximum concentration.22

Alaska also measures SO2 at the Hurst 

Road site in North Pole, and speciated 

PM2.5 at both Hurst Road and the 

Fairbanks National Core multipollutant 

(NCore) monitoring station. 

Table 2 of this preamble contains 

details on the make and model of air 

samplers Alaska has deployed as part of 

the ambient air monitoring network in 

the Fairbanks PM2.5 Nonattainment 

Area. 

TABLE 2—AIR QUALITY SAMPLERS IN THE FAIRBANKS PM2.5 NONATTAINMENT AREA

Monitoring station Air samplers 

NCore/Fairbanks 02–090–0034 ............................................... Thermo Scientific Sequential Partisol 2025i (VSCC)–FRM. 

Thermo Scientific Partisol 2000i (VSCC)–FRM. 

A Street/Fairbanks 02–090–0040 ............................................ Thermo Scientific Sequential Partisol 2025i (VSCC)–FRM. 

Met One BAM 1020 (SCC) non-FEM. 

Hurst Road/North Pole 02–090–0035 ...................................... 2 Thermo Scientific Sequential Partisol 2025i (VSCC)–FRM. 

Met One BAM 1020 (SCC) non-FEM. 

Although outside the scope of this 

action, and not relevant to the action on 

these SIP submissions, the EPA notes 

that it has approved each of these 

monitoring methods as meeting the 

FRM or Federal Equivalent Method 

(FEM) pursuant to 40 CFR part 53.23

Furthermore, Alaska performs the 

required quality assurance and quality 

control measures pursuant to 40 CFR 

part 58, Appendix A. 

Scientific studies being conducted as 

part of the Alaskan Layered Pollution 

and Chemical Analysis (ALPACA) 

research project being led by the 

University of Alaska Fairbanks are 

expected to focus on state-of-the-science 

measurements of Fairbanks air quality, 

including measurements of HMS. The 

EPA will consider the results of peerreviewed journal articles from ALPACA 

studies that are relevant to Alaska’s 

future annual network plans or a future 

SIP submission for the Fairbanks PM2.5

Nonattainment Area. 

D. Clean Air Act Requirements for PM2.5

Serious Area Plans and Serious PM2.5

Areas That Fail To Attain 

1. Summary of Proposal 

The Proposal contains a summary of 

the statutory and regulatory 

requirements for Serious area plans for 

PM2.5 nonattainment areas and 

requirements for CAA section 189(d) 

plans and will not be restated here. In 

the Proposal, the EPA proposed 

combined requirements for PM2.5

Serious areas and Serious areas that fail 

to attain. Specifically, the EPA 

explained in the Proposal that the CAA 

does not contain provisions that address 

precisely how a State should meet all of 

the planning requirements for a Serious 

nonattainment area, in the case where 

the area has already failed to attain the 

NAAQS by the Serious area attainment 

date, but before the State has met all of 

the planning requirements for Serious 

nonattainment areas. By extension, the 

CAA does not account for potential 

conflicts between the required plan 

provisions for Serious area plans and 

CAA section 189(d) plans, particularly 

with respect to the attainment projected 

inventory, attainment demonstration, 

reasonable further progress (RFP), and 

quantitative milestone (QM) plan 

provisions. These elements are required 

for all PM2.5 nonattainment plans and 

are dependent on a single projected 

attainment date that complies with the 

statutory requirements governing the 

area. Thus, in the event that a State is 

obligated to submit both a Serious area 

plan and a CAA section 189(d) plan, a 

conflict arises between the applicable 

attainment date by which States should 

structure these plan provisions and 

against which the EPA should evaluate 

them. 

Accordingly, the EPA proposed that it 

should evaluate any previously unmet 

Serious area plan requirements based on 

the current, applicable attainment date 

for nonattainment areas subject to CAA 

section 189(d), and not the original 

Serious area attainment date December 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES5
84632 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 232 / Tuesday, December 5, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

24 86 FR 53150, September 24, 2021, at p. 53155. 

In accordance with CAA section 172(a)(2) and 

179(d) and 40 CFR 51.1004(a)(3), ‘‘The projected 

attainment date for a Serious PM2.5 nonattainment 

area that failed to attain the PM2.5 NAAQS by the 

applicable Serious area attainment date shall be as 

expeditious as practicable, but no later than 5 years 

following the effective date of the EPA’s finding 

that the area failed to attain by the original Serious 

area attainment date, except that the Administrator 

may extend the attainment date to the extent the 

Administrator deems appropriate, for a period no 

greater than 10 years from the effective date of the 

EPA’s determination that the area failed to attain, 

considering the severity of nonattainment and the 

availability and feasibility of pollution control 

measures.’’ 

25 42 U.S.C. 7502(c)(3). 

26 42 U.S.C. 7502(c)(1). 

27 42 U.S.C. 7513a(b)(1)(B). 

28MSM is applicable if the EPA has previously 

granted an extension of the attainment date under 

CAA section 188(e) for the nonattainment area and 

NAAQS at issue. The EPA denied Alaska’s request 

to extend the Serious area attainment date for the 

Fairbanks Serious Nonattainment Area. 

29 42 U.S.C. 7513a(d). 

30 42 U.S.C. 7513(c)(2) and 7513a(b)(1)(A). 

31 42 U.S.C. 7502(c)(2). 

32 42 U.S.C. 7513a(c). 

33 42 U.S.C. 7513a(e). 

34 42 U.S.C. 7502(c)(9). 

35 42 U.S.C. 7502(c)(5), 7513a(b)(3), 7513a(d), and 

7513a(e). In the Proposal, the EPA inadvertently 

omitted reference to CAA sections 172(c)(5), 189(d), 

and 189(e), 40 CFR 51.1003(b)(1)(viii), and 40 CFR 

51.1003(c)(1)(viii). 

36The EPA understands the intended reference 

here to be CAA section 172(c). 

31, 2019.24 In this instance, in the 

Fairbanks 189(d) Plan, the State 

identified December 31, 2024, as the 

target attainment date that would 

represent attainment as expeditiously as 

practicable. Thus, the EPA proposed to 

evaluate the Fairbanks Serious Plan and 

Fairbanks 189(d) Plan submissions 

based on the combined requirements 

included in Table 3 of this preamble 

(Table 2 in the Proposal). 

TABLE 3—COMBINED FAIRBANKS SERIOUS PLAN AND FAIRBANKS 189(d) PLAN REQUIREMENTS

Description Legal/regulatory requirement 

CAA planning requirements for PM2.5 Serious Areas and Areas That Fail To Attain 

Base year emissions inventory for Serious areas subject to CAA section 189(b) * ............................ CAA section 172(c)(3); 25 40 CFR 51.1008(b)(1). 

Base year emissions inventory for areas subject to CAA section 189(d) ........................................... CAA section 172(c)(3); 40 CFR 51.1008(c)(1). 

Attainment projected emissions inventory ........................................................................................... CAA section 172(c)(1); 26 40 CFR 51.1008(c)(2). 

Serious area nonattainment plan control strategy that ensures that best available control measures 

(BACM), including best available control technologies (BACT), for the control of direct PM2.5 and 

PM2.5 precursors are implemented in the area.

CAA section 189(b)(1)(B); 27 40 CFR 51.1010(a). 

Additional measures (beyond those already adopted in previous nonattainment plan SIP submissions for the area as RACM/RACT, BACM/BACT, and MSM 28 (if applicable)) that provide for attainment of the NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable and, from the date of such submission 

until attainment, demonstrate that the plan will at a minimum achieve an annual five percent reduction in emission of direct PM2.5 or any PM2.5 plan precursor. The State must reconsider and 

reassess any measures previously rejected by the State during the development of any Moderate area or Serious area attainment plan control strategy for the area.

CAA section 189(d); 29 40 CFR 51.1010(c). 

Attainment demonstration and modeling ............................................................................................. CAA sections 188(c)(2) and 189(b)(1)(A); 30 40 CFR 51.1003(c) 

and 51.1011. 

Reasonable further progress (RFP) provisions ................................................................................... CAA section 172(c)(2); 31 40 CFR 51.1012. 

Quantitative milestones ........................................................................................................................ CAA section 189(c); 32 40 CFR 51.1013. 

An adequate evaluation by the State of sources of all four PM2.5 precursors for regulation, and implementation of controls on all such precursors, unless the State 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 **.

CAA section 189(e); 33 40 CFR 51.1006. 

Contingency measures applicable to Serious areas subject to CAA section 189(b) .......................... CAA section 172(c)(9); 34 40 CFR 51.1014. 

Contingency measures applicable to Serious areas subject to CAA section 189(d) .......................... CAA section 172(c)(9); 40 CFR 51.1014. 

Nonattainment new source review provisions ..................................................................................... CAA sections 172(c)(5), 189(b)(3), 189(d), and 189(e), and 40 

CFR 51.165 40 CFR 51.1003(b)(1)(viii), and 40 CFR 

51.1003(c)(1)(viii).35

*EPA finalized approval of this requirement on September 24, 2021 (86 FR 52997). 

**EPA finalized approval of this requirement applicable to Serious areas subject to CAA section 189(b) on September 24, 2021 (86 FR 52997). 

2. Final Rule 

The EPA is finalizing the approach to 

evaluating the Fairbanks Serious Plan 

and Fairbanks 189(d) Plan submissions 

as proposed. 

3. Comments and Responses 

We received three comments 

regarding the proposed requirements. 

One commenter agreed with the EPA’s 

interpretation of the CAA with respect 

to the attainment date. The second 

commenter opposed the EPA’s 

interpretation of the control strategy 

requirement for CAA section 189(d) 

areas. The final commenter opposed the 

EPA’s statutory and constitutional 

authority to regulate air quality in the 

State of Alaska. 

Comment: In its comment, Alaska 

stated that because CAA section 189(d) 

does not itself supply a specific 

attainment date for CAA section 189(d) 

areas, the EPA interprets the CAA to 

impose the attainment date 

requirements of CAA sections 172 and 

179, and as interpreted in 40 CFR 

51.1004(a)(3), rather than the date 

imposed in CAA section 188(c)(2),36 and 

as interpreted in 40 CFR 51.1004(a)(2). 

Alaska agrees with the EPA’s 

interpretation of the CAA and that 

51.1004(a)(3) applies, which provides 

for 5 years past the finding of failure to 

attain for the Serious area and may be 

extended up to 10 years if deemed 

appropriate by the Administrator. 

Response: The EPA agrees with 

Alaska that the attainment date for the 

Fairbanks PM2.5 nonattainment area is 

governed by CAA sections 172 and 179 

and 40 CFR 51.1004(a)(3), which require 

that the new attainment date must be as 

expeditious as practicable, but no later 

than five years from the date of 

publication in the Federal Register of 

the EPA’s determination that the area 

failed to attain the relevant NAAQS. In 

addition, the EPA may extend the 

attainment date by up to five additional 

years (thus up to 10 years from the date 

of publication of the notice of finding of 

failure to attain by the applicable 

attainment date for the area) if the EPA 

deems it appropriate ‘‘considering the 

severity of nonattainment and the 

availability and feasibility of pollution 

control measures.’’ 

The EPA notes that any extension to 

the attainment date pursuant to CAA 

section 172(a)(2)(A) must be predicated 

on a SIP submission that demonstrates 

that attainment within five years from 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES5
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 232 / Tuesday, December 5, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 84633 

37The PM2.5 SIP Requirements Rule at 40 CFR 

51.1005(c) implements this statutory prescription, 

stating: ‘‘If a Serious area fails to attain a particular 

PM2.5 NAAQS by the applicable Serious area 

attainment date, the area is then subject to the 

requirements of section 189(d) of the Act, and, for 

this reason, the state is prohibited from requesting 

an extension of the applicable Serious area 

attainment date for such area.’’ 

38 Determination of Failure To Attain by the 

Attainment Date and Denial of Serious Area 

Attainment Date Extension Request; AK: Fairbanks 

North Star Borough 2006 24-Hour Fine Particulate 

Matter Serious Nonattainment Area, 85 FR 54509, 

September 2, 2020. 

39 ‘‘In the event the area previously had received 

an extension of the Serious area attainment date 

pursuant to section 188(e), the reevaluation of 

control measures referenced in section 51.1010(c)(2) 

should include a reevaluation of MSM. (For this 

reason, section 51.1010(c)(2)(i) refers to the 

reevaluation of MSM ‘‘as applicable.’’) If, however, 

the area did not previously request and receive an 

extension of the Serious area attainment date under 

section 188(e), the MSM requirement does not 

apply.’’ Response to Comments on the Fine 

Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards: State Implementation Plan 

Requirements, July 29, 2016, Docket No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2013–0691–0145 at p. 155. 

40The EPA notes, however, that the state needs 

to consider implementing MSMs as contingency 

measures. 

41CAA sections 107, 109, 110, 171–192, 42 U.S.C. 

7407, 7409, 7410, 7501–4514a; see also Sierra Club 

v. EPA, 671 F.3d 955, 958–959 (9th Cir. 2012). 

42CAA section 301(a), 42 U.S.C. 7601(a) (‘‘The 

Administrator is authorized to prescribe such 

regulations as are necessary to carry out his 

functions under this chapter.’’). 

the date of publication in the Federal 

Register of the EPA’s determination that 

the area failed to attain the relevant 

NAAQS is infeasible and identifies the 

most expeditious date by which 

attainment is feasible considering the 

severity of nonattainment and the 

availability and feasibility of pollution 

control measures. Absent such a SIP 

submission, the EPA does not have a 

basis to extend the attainment date nor 

to identify the most expeditious 

attainment date. 

Comment: Another commenter 

disagreed with the EPA’s determination 

that Alaska did not need to identify, 

adopt, and implement MSM as part of 

the Fairbanks Serious Plan or Fairbanks 

189(d) Plan. The commenter stated that 

the EPA determined that MSM is not 

applicable to the Serious Plan or the 

189(d) plan because MSM ‘‘is applicable 

if the EPA has previously granted an 

extension of the attainment date under 

CAA section 188(e)’’ and ‘‘EPA denied 

Alaska’s [previous] request to extend the 

Serious area attainment date.’’ However, 

the commenter stated that CAA section 

188(e) provides that Alaska must 

demonstrate that its SIP includes MSM 

before an extension may be granted, not 

if an extension has been ‘‘previously 

granted.’’ The commenter asserted that 

an approval of the Fairbanks Serious 

Plan under a 2024 attainment date 

would amount to a de facto extension of 

the attainment date, and that MSM 

should be applicable to the parts of the 

SIP submission being evaluated under 

Serious SIP requirements. 

Response: The EPA disagrees with the 

commenter that the State is required to 

identify, adopt, and implement MSM 

under these circumstances. In 

accordance with CAA section 188(e) 

and 40 CFR 51.1005(b), upon 

application by the State, the EPA may 

extend the attainment date for a Serious 

area beyond the date required by CAA 

section 188(c)(2) and 40 CFR 51.1004 if, 

inter alia, the State demonstrates that 

the attainment plan for the area includes 

MSMs that are included in the 

attainment plan of any State or are 

achieved in practice in any State, and 

can feasibly be implemented in the area. 

Thus, identifying, adopting, and 

implementing MSM is a necessary 

condition of the EPA granting an 

extension to the Serious area attainment 

date under CAA section 188(e). MSM is 

not, however, an independent 

requirement for all Serious area plans 

under CAA section 189(b), nor for all 

CAA section 189(d) plans. 

The CAA provides for the scenario 

whereby the State either never applies 

for an attainment date extension under 

CAA section 188(e), or the State 

requests an extension but the EPA 

denies such request because the State 

failed to meet the conditions in CAA 

section 188(e). If either of these 

scenarios occur and the State fails to 

attain the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS 

by the Serious area attainment date, 

then the statutory consequence is that 

the State is subject to the planning 

requirements of CAA section 189(d).37

A State would only have to comply with 

the MSM requirements of CAA section 

188(e) if the State had sought, and the 

EPA had granted, an extension of the 

Serious area attainment date and then 

failed to attain by that extended 

attainment date. 

On September 2, 2020, the EPA 

determined that the Fairbanks PM2.5

Nonattainment Area failed to attain by 

the Serious area attainment date.38 As 

part of that same action, the EPA denied 

Alaska’s request to extend the Serious 

area attainment date under CAA section 

188(e). As a result of this action, the 

State became subject to the 

requirements of CAA section 189(d). 

Neither CAA section 189(d) nor the 

PM2.5 SIP Requirements Rule under 

these circumstances require that the 

State SIP include MSM, unless the EPA 

previously approved the State’s request 

to extend the Serious area attainment 

date under CAA section 188(e). The 

regulation at 40 CFR 51.1010(c)(2)(i) 

provides that: ‘‘For the sources and 

source categories represented in the 

emission inventory for the 

nonattainment area, the state shall 

identify the most stringent measures for 

reducing direct PM2.5 and PM2.5 plan 

precursors adopted into any SIP or used 

in practice to control emissions in any 

state, as applicable.’’ (Emphasis added). 

As made clear in the response to 

comments to the PM2.5 SIP 

Requirements Rule, the EPA included 

the phrase ‘‘as applicable’’ in this 

regulation to make clear that a State is 

only required to identify and impose 

MSM if the EPA has previously 

extended the Serious area attainment 

date.39 Thus, the requirement to 

identify, adopt, and implement MSM as 

part of the control strategy for this 

NAAQS does not apply to the Fairbanks 

PM2.5 Nonattainment Area.40

Comment: One commenter questioned 

the Federal government’s authority 

generally and the EPA’s authority and 

jurisdiction specifically to regulate air 

quality in the State of Alaska. The 

commenter stated that the Bill of Rights 

contains restrictions on the Federal 

government’s power and that the Tenth 

Amendment to the United States 

Constitution states that the power not 

delegated to the United States nor 

prohibited to the States are reserved to 

the States and the people. The 

commenter further stated: ‘‘There’s 

nowhere in the constitution that talks 

about a multitude of alphabet agencies 

the Federal government has created, and 

you actually are the ones that are in 

violation. You’re talking about how 

we’re in violation of your air standards, 

but you’re the agency that’s in violation 

of our constitutional limitations against 

you. You have no jurisdiction. You’re 

violating due process in separat[ion] of 

powers.’’ 

Response: The EPA disagrees with the 

commenter that the Federal government 

generally, and the EPA specifically, lack 

the authority to regulate air quality in 

Alaska as in all other States. In the CAA, 

Congress authorized the EPA to exercise 

numerous obligations related to air 

quality, including establishing the 

NAAQS, designating areas that fail to 

attain the NAAQS, and reviewing and 

approving or disapproving State SIP 

submissions required to provide for 

attainment and maintenance of the 

NAAQS.41 Congress also granted the 

EPA general rulemaking authority to 

administer and implement the CAA.42

The United States Supreme Court has 

acknowledged the Federal government’s 

and the EPA’s authority to regulate 

national air quality in the manner laid 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES5
84634 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 232 / Tuesday, December 5, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

43Train v. Nat’l Resources Def. Council, Inc., 421 

U.S. 60, 64–65 (1975) (‘‘[The 1970 Clean Air Act] 

Amendments sharply increased Federal authority 

and responsibility in the continuing effort to 

combat air pollution.’’); Union Elec. Co. v. EPA, 427 

U.S. 246, 249–250 (1976) (‘‘[T]he Amendments 

reflect congressional dissatisfaction with the 

progress of existing air pollution programs and a 

determination to ‘‘tak(e) a stick to the States,’’ in 

order to guarantee the prompt attainment and 

maintenance of specified air quality standards. The 

heart of the Amendments is the requirement that 

each State formulate, subject to EPA approval, an 

implementation plan designed to achieve national 

primary ambient air quality standards those 

necessary to protect the public health.’’). 

44 85 FR 54509, September 2, 2020. 

45 ‘‘Fairbanks SIP submissions for the Serious area 

and 189(d) plans’’ Letter from Emma Pokon, Acting 

Commissioner, Alaska Department of 

Environmental Conservation, to Casey Sixkiller, 

Regional Administrator, EPA Region 10, September 

25, 2023. Included in the docket for this action. 

out in the Clean Air Act.43 Thus, the 

EPA has the statutory authority and 

obligation to act on Alaska’s SIP 

submissions for the Fairbanks PM2.5

Nonattainment Area. Furthermore, the 

EPA’s exercise of such authority—either 

in general or specific to these Plans—is 

within the Federal government’s 

constitutional authorities and does not 

violate any individual constitutional or 

civil rights. 

E. Review of the Fairbanks Serious Plan 

and Fairbanks 189(d) Plan 

1. Emission Inventories 

i. Summary of Proposal 

The EPA proposed to approve the 

2019 base year emissions inventory on 

the basis that it met the requirements of 

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

51.1008. The EPA stated that calendar 

year 2019 was an appropriate base year 

for the Fairbanks 189(d) Plan because it 

was one of the three years for which the 

EPA used monitored data to determine 

that the area failed to attain the PM2.5

NAAQS by the applicable Serious area 

attainment date.44 The base year 

emissions inventory was a seasonal 

inventory, based on two historical 

meteorological episodes judged by the 

EPA to be representative of the range of 

meteorological conditions that lead to 

exceedances of the 24-hour NAAQS. 

This was an appropriate temporal scope 

for a base year emissions inventory. 

Exceedances of the 24-hour NAAQS, 

other than those exceedances 

attributable to non-anthropogenic 

emissions, occur primarily in the colder 

months during fall, winter, and spring 

when home heating sources are widely 

used. The State provided a justification 

that for purposes of the emissions 

inventory, the baseline emissions 

inventory season should be from 

October 1 to March 31, and the EPA 

agrees with this. 

The EPA proposed to disapprove the 

projected emissions inventory on the 

basis that the Fairbanks 189(d) Plan did 

not satisfy the requirement of 40 CFR 

51.1008(c)(2) regarding an attainment 

projected emission inventory for the 

most expeditious attainment date. The 

Fairbanks 189(d) Plan contained an 

attainment projected emissions 

inventory, and Alaska projected 

attainment by December 31, 2024. The 

EPA noted that the control strategy does 

not contain all required control 

measures. Therefore, the attainment 

projected emissions inventory does not 

necessarily take into consideration all 

required emissions reductions. Because 

the State did not properly evaluate and 

adopt control measures for all relevant 

source categories and pollutants, it was 

neither possible nor appropriate to 

determine that the projected emission 

inventory was consistent with the level 

of emissions needed to meet the 

overarching requirement for attainment 

of the NAAQS in the area as 

expeditiously as practicable. We do note 

that on September 25, 2023, Alaska 

withdrew is SO2 BACT determinations 

and analysis for major stationary 

sources in the Fairbanks PM2.5

Nonattainment Area.45

In addition, the EPA observed that 

Alaska’s proposed attainment date of 

2024 is predicated on a modeling 

platform that is in need of improvement, 

including development of a quantitative 

performance evaluation for the Hurst 

Road monitor in North Pole that is 

based on recent meteorological episodes 

and PM2.5 speciation data. 

ii. Final Rule 

The EPA is finalizing approval of the 

base year 2019 emission inventory. The 

EPA is finalizing disapproval of the 

projected attainment year emission 

inventory. 

iii. Comments and Responses 

Comment: Alaska stated that the EPA 

should avail itself of the opportunity to 

incorporate new data with the modeling 

updates described in Alaska’s Technical 

Analysis Protocol which, until this year, 

were unavailable. The State suggested 

that the cumulative effect of new data 

combined with the extensive modeling 

updates will strengthen planning 

documents, improve accuracy, and 

expedite attainment. 

Response: The EPA’s final action is 

based on the SIP submissions before it. 

As discussed in section II.A of this 

preamble, the EPA has a mandatory 

duty to approve, disapprove, or 

conditionally approve the Fairbanks 

Serious Plan and Fairbanks 189(d) Plan. 

Alaska intended these submissions to 

meet applicable CAA requirements for 

Serious areas and Serious areas that fail 

to attain by the Serious area attainment 

date. Within these SIP submissions, 

Alaska based the attainment projected 

emissions inventories and modeled 

attainment demonstrations on the 2008 

episodes. Alaska thus represented that 

these episodes met CAA requirements 

for the attainment projected inventory. 

The EPA is disapproving the 

attainment projected emissions 

inventory and modeled attainment 

demonstration in the Fairbanks 189(d) 

Plan for the reasons stated in the 

Proposal and in this final action. To the 

extent that the State elects to 

incorporate new data and new modeling 

updates in a subsequent SIP submission, 

it may do so. The EPA anticipates that 

the State will make a new SIP 

submission to address the deficiencies 

that required disapproval in this action. 

The EPA notes that CAA sections 110 

and 179 provide a process whereby 

States may rectify disapprovals through 

a subsequent SIP submission and 

thereby avoid the potential for 

mandatory sanctions and a FIP. To that 

end, the EPA has been coordinating 

with Alaska on the monitoring and 

modeling analyses described by the 

State. The EPA will review the modeled 

attainment demonstration, and the 

associated attainment projected 

emission inventory, as updated by the 

State in subsequent SIP submissions for 

compliance with applicable 

requirements. 

Comment: GVEA stated that the 

trends and changing nature of 

residential wood combustion need 

further attention. GVEA noted that both 

the availability and projected demand 

for dried wood need to be solidly 

developed and included in the projected 

emissions inventory. GVEA stated that 

since residential wood combustion is 

demonstrated to be an important 

contributor to PM2.5 concentrations in 

the Fairbanks PM2.5 Nonattainment 

Area, that trend and associated 

emissions reductions need to be 

assessed and included in a robust 

modeling analysis that demonstrates 

compliance with the PM2.5 Ambient Air 

Quality Standards. 

Response: The EPA agrees with GVEA 

that usage of residential wood 

combustion and the availability of dry 

wood are key factors that the State 

needs to consider in an updated 

assessment of control measures and 

expeditious attainment. We do note that 

Aurora Energy has established one dry 

wood kiln in Fairbanks (using the waste 

heat from the Chena Power Plant) with 

plans to expand operations. Ultimately, 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES5
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 232 / Tuesday, December 5, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 84635 

46According to Alaska, there is a negligible 

amount of NH3 associated with coal-fired boilers, 

fuel oil-fired turbines or diesel engine emissions 

and this amount is not in the emissions inventory. 

See State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol. II, Chapter 

III.D.7.7.8.1. 

47Memorandum from Scott Mathias, Acting 

Director, Air Quality Policy Division and Richard 

Wayland, Director, Air Quality Assessment 

Division, to Regional Air Division Directors, 

Regions 1—10, Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) 

Precursor Demonstration Guidance, May 30, 2019. 

we anticipate that as part of a 

subsequent SIP submission, Alaska will 

evaluate the contributions of emissions 

from the solid fuel burning source 

category and evaluate the various 

emission reductions attributable to the 

suite of control measures, including the 

dry wood requirements. 

Comment: A number of commenters 

stated that much of the pollution in 

Fairbanks comes from overseas from 

countries such as Russia and China. 

Response: International contributions 

to air quality in the Fairbanks PM2.5

Nonattainment Area are part of the 

boundary conditions input to the 

photochemical model that is used to 

evaluate relevant sources. Neither the 

State nor the EPA have identified a 

significant contribution from overseas 

emissions to ambient PM2.5 levels in the 

area. Absent further evidence, the EPA 

will continue to assess the impacts of 

sources of emissions in the area, and 

control requirements for those sources, 

as identified in Alaska’s analysis. 

2. Pollutants Addressed 

i. Summary of Proposal 

Alaska submitted as part of the 

Fairbanks 189(d) Plan comprehensive 

precursor demonstrations for existing 

sources of NOX and VOC emissions. 

Alaska did not submit a precursor 

determination for existing sources of 

SO2 and NH3 emissions.46 Moreover, 

Alaska did not submit a nonattainment 

new source review (NNSR) precursor 

demonstration for any PM2.5 precursor. 

Alaska regulates all PM2.5 precursors 

under its NNSR program. The EPA 

approved Alaska’s NNSR program on 

August 29, 2019 (84 FR 45419). In the 

Proposal, the EPA evaluated the State’s 

precursor demonstration included in the 

Fairbanks 189(d) Plan consistent with 

the PM2.5 SIP Requirements Rule and 

the recommendations in the May 30, 

2019, PM2.5 Precursor Demonstration 

Guidance.47

The EPA proposed to approve the 

State’s demonstration that NOX and 

VOC emissions do not contribute 

significantly to ambient PM2.5 levels that 

exceed the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS 

in the Fairbanks PM2.5 Nonattainment 

Area for purposes other than 

nonattainment new source review 

(NNSR) program requirements. As a 

result, Alaska would not be required to 

identify and impose control measures 

for NOX and VOC emission sources in 

Fairbanks, other than for NNSR 

purposes. Likewise, the State would not 

be required to impose motor vehicle 

emission budgets for NOX and VOC 

emissions. 

The EPA noted that the concentrationbased modeling analysis of VOC 

emissions demonstrates that 

anthropogenic VOCs have impacts on 

PM2.5 concentrations in the Fairbanks 

PM2.5 Nonattainment Area that are well 

below the 1.5 microgram per cubic 

meter (mg/m3) significance threshold. 

The EPA also proposed that the weight 

of evidence presented in the Fairbanks 

Serious Plan and Fairbanks 189(d) Plan 

suggested that NOX emitted from all 

sources is an insignificant contributor to 

local PM2.5 concentrations. 

ii. Final Rule 

The EPA is finalizing approval of 

Alaska’s PM2.5 precursor 

demonstrations for NOX and VOC 

emissions included in the Fairbanks 

Serious and 189(d) Plans. The EPA 

reiterates that Alaska did not submit a 

precursor determination for SO2 and 

NH3 emissions, which remain subject to 

control requirements under subparts 1 

and 4 of part D, title I of the Act. 

Similarly, Alaska did not submit NNSR 

precursor demonstrations. Thus, 

consistent with its approved SIP, the 

State will continue to regulate NOX, 

SO2, VOCs, and NH3 as precursors to 

PM2.5 with respect to NNSR program 

requirements. 

iii. Comments and Responses 

Comment: Citizens for Clean Air, a 

project of Alaska Community Action on 

Toxics, and the Sierra Club Alaska 

Chapter commented that each day, 

15.73 tons of NOX are emitted in 

Fairbanks. These compounds are 

‘‘precursors’’ that undergo chemical 

reactions to form PM2.5. In September 

2021, the EPA approved Alaska’s 2019 

precursor demonstrations for VOCs and 

NOX, finding that Alaska had 

sufficiently demonstrated that VOCs 

and NOX do not significantly contribute 

to the PM2.5 problem in Fairbanks. To 

meet its CAA section 189(d) obligations, 

the State submitted an updated 

precursor analysis in 2020. This 

updated analysis included one new 

NOX model run, and Earthjustice noted 

that the EPA proposed to find that the 

weight of evidence suggested that NOX

emitted from all sources is an 

insignificant contributor to local PM2.5

concentrations. 

The commenters disagreed with the 

EPA’s approval of Alaska’s new NOX

model run as satisfying precursor 

demonstration requirements for the 

purposes of CAA 189(d). The 

commenters noted that this modeling 

consisted of ‘‘a 50% knock-out 

quantitative analysis’’ for NOX

emissions. Of note, when the State uses 

the terminology ‘‘50% knock-out’’ 

analysis, they are referring to a 

modeling evaluation where a model run 

that includes all emission sources in the 

nonattainment area (a baseline model 

run) is compared to a model run where 

50% of the NOX emissions from 

anthropogenic sources in the 

nonattainment area have been removed. 

Based on this modeling, the State 

demonstrated that ‘‘the maximum 24- 

hour average PM2.5 concentrations due 

to anthropogenic NOX emissions were ≤ 

1.22 mg/m3 in 2019 for all model grid 

cells containing regulatory monitors, 

and therefore were below the 1.5 mg/m3

threshold.’’ However, the commenter 

noted that the EPA’s Precursor 

Demonstration Guidance recommends 

‘‘modeling reductions of 30–70 percent’’ 

for such sensitivity analyses. 

Earthjustice questioned why, when a 

50% knock-out analysis showed 

concentration results up to 1.22 mg/m3— 

approaching the 1.5 mg/m3 threshold— 

it was not appropriate to require a 70% 

knock-out analysis, or an emissions 

control analysis to support the 

demonstration. The commenters noted 

that the State has previously run 75% 

knock-out demonstrations, and there is 

no adequate justification for its choice 

not to run a 70–75% knock-out 

demonstration as part of the Fairbanks 

189(d) Plan. The commenters concluded 

that the EPA should require Alaska to 

better justify its rejection of the need to 

regulate NOX. 

Response: While the State only 

completed one new model run (a run 

with a 50% reduction of NOX emissions 

from anthropogenic sources) for the 

precursor demonstration in the 

Fairbanks 189(d) Plan, the EPA also 

considered the NOX precursor model 

runs from the Fairbanks Serious Plan 

when evaluating the NOX precursor 

demonstration. The State decided it did 

not need to re-run all of the Fairbanks 

Serious Plan precursor demonstration 

model runs because there were not 

significant changes in emissions or air 

quality in the Fairbanks PM2.5

Nonattainment Area or to the modeling 

platform between the Fairbanks Serious 

Plan and the Fairbanks 189(d) Plan. 

When evaluating the NOX precursor 

demonstration submitted by the State, 

the EPA reviewed several model runs, 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES5
84636 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 232 / Tuesday, December 5, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

48 Kotchenruther (2016). Source apportionment of 

PM2.5 at multiple Northwest U.S. sites: Assessing 

regional winter wood smoke impacts from 

residential wood combustion. Atmospheric 

Environment, 142, 210–219. Available at: https://

doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2016.07.048. Ward 

(2013). The Fairbanks, Alaska PM2.5 Source 

Apportionment Research Study Winters 2005/ 

2006–2012/2013, and Summer 2012. University of 

Montana-Missoula Center for Environmental Health 

Sciences. Available at: https://dec.alaska.gov/air/ 

anpms/communities/fbks-pm2-5-science/. 

focusing on both the average and 

maximum modeled PM2.5

concentrations. 

First, a major source precursor 

analysis where a baseline model run 

was compared to a control model run 

with a 100% reduction of NOX

emissions from major stationary sources 

(presented in the Fairbanks Serious 

Plan). 

Second, a comprehensive precursor 

analysis where a baseline model run 

was compared to a control model run 

with a 100% reduction of NOX

emissions from anthropogenic sources 

(presented in the Fairbanks Serious 

Plan). 

Third, a sensitivity precursor analysis 

where a baseline model run was 

compared to a control model run with 

a 75% reduction of NOX emissions from 

anthropogenic sources (presented in the 

Fairbanks Serious Plan). 

Fourth, a sensitivity precursor 

analysis where a baseline model run 

was compared to a control model run 

with a 50% reduction of NOX emissions 

from anthropogenic sources (presented 

in the Fairbanks 189(d) Plan and 

referenced by the commenter). 

In addition, the EPA reviewed 

supplementary information related to 

the model runs (e.g., changes in 

emissions inventories between 2013 and 

2019, which were the two years used for 

the precursor model runs). The EPA also 

considered source apportionment 

analyses that have been conducted for 

the Fairbanks area (Kotchenruther, 

2016; Ward, 2013).48

Based on all of these data sources, the 

EPA agrees with the State that NOX is 

not a significant contributor to PM2.5

measured in the nonattainment area. 

3. Control Strategy 

Alaska submitted as part of the 

Fairbanks Serious Plan BACM and 

BACT analyses intended to identify and 

evaluate potential BACM and BACT 

controls for the stationary area sources 

and source categories, stationary point 

sources, and mobile sources in the 

baseline emissions inventory. Alaska 

submitted an update to the analysis of 

control measures for stationary area 

sources and mobile sources in the 

Fairbanks 189(d) Plan. Alaska did not 

update the analysis for stationary point 

sources, including major stationary 

sources. 

The EPA proposed to approve 

Alaska’s determination that there are no 

specific NH3 emission controls for the 

major stationary or area sources or 

source categories in the baseline 

emissions inventory discussed in 

section II.E.2 of this preamble and that 

certain measures designed to reduce 

direct PM2.5 emissions also reduce NH3

emissions. Thus, the EPA proposed to 

determine that Alaska has satisfied the 

requirement to identify, adopt and 

implement BACM and BACT for the 

sources and source categories of NH3

discussed in section II.E.2 of this 

preamble. Thus, the EPA proposed to 

determine that no additional controls of 

NH3 are required to meet the BACM or 

BACT requirements for these specific 

source categories for the Fairbanks 

Serious Plan or the Fairbanks 189(d) 

Plan. The EPA also proposed to approve 

the State’s SIP submissions with respect 

to BACM and BACT requirements for 

pot burners, fuel oil boilers, 

incinerators, and portions of the solid 

fuel heating device and mobile emission 

source categories. The EPA proposed to 

disapprove the State’s SIP submissions 

with respect to BACM and BACT 

requirements for wood seller 

requirements, coal-fired heating devices, 

coffee roasters, charbroilers, used oil 

burners, weatherization and energy 

efficiency, oil-fired heating devices, and 

portions of the mobile emission source 

category. 

The EPA is finalizing partial approval 

of portions of Alaska’s BACM and BACT 

analyses and associated adopted and 

submitted rules to impose the control 

measures, as described in table 4 of this 

preamble. The EPA is finalizing 

approval of the BACM and BACT 

analysis for which the EPA proposed 

approval, including Alaska’s BACM 

determinations for NH3 controls. Based 

on comments, the EPA is also finalizing 

approval of certain portions of Alaska’s 

supplemental BACM and BACT analysis 

for stationary areas sources and mobile 

sources, as explained further in section 

II.E.3 of this preamble. Alaska submitted 

comments on the Proposal that provided 

additional analysis to demonstrate that 

that potential control measures for 

certain source categories are either 

technologically or economically 

infeasible at this time. Measures that the 

EPA agrees are infeasible in the area at 

this time include: an ultra-low sulfur 

diesel (ULSD) requirement for 

residential and commercial fuel oil 

combustion; controls on charbroilers 

and used oil burners; and certain 

transportation measures. The EPA is 

finalizing disapproval of the remaining 

portions of Alaska’s BACM analysis and 

adopted rules as proposed. Table 4 of 

this preamble provides an overview of 

the final action. 

TABLE 4—SUMMARY OF THE EPA’S FINAL EVALUATION OF ALASKA’S BACM AND BACT ANALYSIS FOR STATIONARY

AREAS SOURCES AND MOBILE SOURCES

Emissions source category EPA evaluation of specific BACM measures State rules relevant to adopted BACM Specific BACM measures, as identified 

by Alaska 

Solid fuel burning ............... Approve: wood-fired heating device requirements 

and resulting emissions.

18 AAC 50.075, except (d)(2); 18 AAC 

50.077, except (g) and (q).

BACM Measures: 1–30, 33–47, 63, 

65–66, R1, R4–R7, R9–R12, R15, 

R16–R17, R29. 

Disapprove: Wood seller/dry wood requirements; 

coal-fired heating devices.

18 AAC 50.076(k); 18 AAC 50.079(d), 

(e), and (f).

BACM Measures: 31–32; 48–49. 

Residential and commercial 

fuel oil combustion.

Approve: pot burners, waste oil; fuel oil boilers; 

ULSD as heating oil (economically infeasible).

18 AAC 50.078(b) ................................. BACM Measures: 51, 52–53, 61–62. 

Small commercial area 

sources.

Approve: incinerators (no sources identified); 

charbroilers (economically infeasible); used oil 

burners (economically infeasible).

18 AAC 50.078(c) ................................. BACM Measures: 68–70. 

Disapprove: coffee roasters ...................................... 18 AAC 50.078(d) ................................. BACM Measure: 67. 

Energy efficiency measures Disapprove: weatherization and energy efficiency .... ............................................................... BACM Measure: 64. 

Emissions from mobile 

sources.

Approve: CARB standards; school bus retrofits; 

road paving; other transportation measures; vehicle idling- heavy-duty vehicles (economically infeasible).

............................................................... BACM Measures: 54–59, 60 (in part), 

R20. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES5
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 232 / Tuesday, December 5, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 84637 

49Alaska state regulations 18 AAC 50.075 (e)(3), 

(f)(2); 18 AAC 50.076 (d)–(e), (g), (j)–(l); 18 AAC 

50.077(a)–(m); 18 AAC 50.078(b); 18 AAC 50.079(f). 

50Note that the EPA inadvertently indicated that 

it proposed to disapprove the Fairbanks Serious 

Plan and Fairbanks 189(d) Plan as not meeting 

BACT requirements for NH3 in Section V of the 

Proposal. This was in error. The EPA made clear 

in the preamble to the Proposal that it was 

proposing to approve Alaska’s determinations that 

no NH3 controls existed for each of the stationary 

sources listed. 

51State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol. II, Chapter 

III.D.7.12. This portion of Alaska’s SIP is distinct 

from the Alaska’s emergency powers under Alaska 

Statutes 46.03.820 and 18 AAC 50.245–50.246 that 

authorize ADEC to declare an air alert, air warning, 

or air advisory to notify the public and prescribe 

and publicize curtailment action. In prior actions, 

the EPA has determined that these authorities are 

consistent with CAA section 110(a)(2)(G) and 40 

CFR 51.150 through 51.153. See 83 FR 60769, 

November 27, 2018, at p. 60772. 

52Missoula City-County Air Pollution Control 

Program, Rule 9.203(1)(a), available at: https://

www.missoulacounty.us/government/health/healthdepartment/administration/regulations-ordinances/ 

air-pollution-control-program. 

53The regulation at 18 AAC 50.075(f)(2) specifies 

40 CFR part 60, Appendix A, Method 22 as the 

monitoring method for determining compliance 

with the visible emissions standard in 18 AAC 

50.075(f)(1). One of the purposes of Method 22 is 

to determine through visual observation the 

presence of smoke from a combustion source. 40 

CFR part 60, Appendix A–7 Method 22 at Section 

1.0. Thus, Method 22 is the appropriate monitoring 

method to ensure compliance with this standard. 

The regulation does not prescribe mandatory 

recordkeeping and reporting obligations. However, 

the EPA has determined that this standard is 

enforceable as a practicable matter without 

mandatory recordkeeping and reporting. The 

standard applies to a multitude of area and point 

sources, most of which are owned by individuals. 

Importantly, Method 22 observations can be made 

without special training—thus enabling the owner 

and operator of the source, Alaska, the EPA, and 

members of the public to readily determine and 

enforce compliance without the need for 

recordkeeping and reporting. See 40 CFR part 60, 

Appendix A–7 Method 22 at Section 2.3. 

54State Air Quality Control Plan, 18 AAC 50.077 

(l)–(m). 

TABLE 4—SUMMARY OF THE EPA’S FINAL EVALUATION OF ALASKA’S BACM AND BACT ANALYSIS FOR STATIONARY

AREAS SOURCES AND MOBILE SOURCES—Continued 

Emissions source category EPA evaluation of specific BACM measures State rules relevant to adopted BACM Specific BACM measures, as identified 

by Alaska 

Disapprove: light-duty vehicle idling at schools and 

commercial establishments.

............................................................... BACM Measure: 60 (in part). 

i. Solid Fuel Burning 

a. Summary of Proposal 

The solid fuel burning source category 

includes a number of measures that the 

State adopted as part of the Fairbanks 

Serious Plan and relied on in the 

Fairbanks 189(d) Plan. These measures 

address direct PM2.5, SO2, and NH3

emissions. 

Alaska adopted a number of 

regulations based on the BACM review 

for this source category.49 We proposed 

to find that Alaska’s analysis and 

adoption of control measures for this 

source category meet BACM and BACT 

requirements for PM2.5 and SO2

emissions. We also proposed to approve 

Alaska’s analysis that found no 

available controls that specifically 

reduce NH3.50 We noted that the EPA 

has previously approved as federally 

enforceable SIP-strengthening many of 

the control measures submitted as part 

of the Fairbanks Serious Plan and prior 

SIP submissions in 2018 as part of a 

separate action (86 FR 52997, September 

24, 2021). 

We noted that Alaska’s two-stage 

woodstove curtailment program, 

included in the Fairbanks Emergency 

Episode Plan,51 is at least as stringent as 

comparable curtailment programs in 

Idaho, Utah, and California. Alaska 

accounts for the differences in natural 

gas availability, seasonal climate 

conditions, and woodstove changeout 

incentives in establishing the two-stage 

thresholds at 20 mg/m3 (Stage 1) and 30 

mg/m3 (Stage 2), respectively. Alaska 

also has an advisory level set at 15 mg/ 

m3 as part of the curtailment program. 

Alaska has placed further limitations on 

the No Other Adequate Source of Heat 

(NOASH) exemption waivers that limit 

applicability to those who have 

economic needs based on objective 

criteria and limited the number of years 

NOASH waivers are available. 

Therefore, we proposed to approve the 

wood stove curtailment program and 

associated updates to the NOASH 

waivers/temporary exemption as 

meeting the BACM requirement for the 

solid fuel burning source category (i.e., 

Alaska State regulations 18 AAC 50.075 

(e)(3), (f)(2)) for the control of PM2.5 and 

SO2 emissions. 

Alaska identified and evaluated as 

BACM the heating device performance 

standards adopted previously by 

Missoula County, Montana.52 Alaska 

adopted a regulation modeled after the 

rule in Missoula County. Under 18 AAC 

50.077(c), Alaska’s regulations require 

that woodstoves meet emissions 

standards that are more stringent than 

the EPA’s New Source Performance 

Standards (NSPS) requirement and also 

include 1-hour testing requirements to 

ensure only the lowest-emitting 

woodstoves are allowed to be sold and 

installed in the nonattainment area. We 

proposed to find that Alaska adopted 

measures sufficient to meet the BACM 

requirement for the solid fuel burning 

source category (i.e., 18 AAC 50.077 (a– 

j) for PM2.5 and SO2 emissions. 

Alaska’s regulation 18 AAC 50.075(f), 

applicable to the Fairbanks PM2.5

Nonattainment Area, prohibits the 

operation of a solid fuel-fired heating 

device emissions when visible 

emissions exceed 20 percent opacity for 

more than six minutes in any one hour, 

except during the first 15 minutes after 

initial firing of the device, when the 

opacity limit must be less than 50 

percent. The rule also prohibits 

operation of the device such that visible 

emissions cross property lines. These 

opacity limits provide a visual indicator 

for the proper operation of a solid fuel 

heating device (for a discussion of the 

EPA’s SSM policy, see the Proposal). 

The EPA proposed to approve this 

measure as BACM for this source 

category.53

The EPA proposed to approve and 

incorporate by reference Alaska’s rule 

18 AAC 50.075(f) as BACM because it is 

a permanent and enforceable measure 

that contributes to attainment of the 

2006 PM2.5 24-hour NAAQS. This 

provision includes limits on emissions 

that apply during all modes of source 

operation and impose continuous 

emission controls on solid fuel heating 

devices consistent with the 

requirements of the CAA applicable to 

SIP provisions. In addition, the 

provision supports progress toward 

attainment of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in 

the Fairbanks PM2.5 Nonattainment 

Area. 

The EPA also proposed to find that 

the State’s additional removal or render 

inoperable restrictions placed on noncertified EPA woodstoves, non-pellet 

outdoor hydronic heaters, coal-fired 

heating devices, and EPA-certified 

woodstoves greater than 25 years old 

meet BACM requirements for PM2.5 and 

SO2 emissions. Owners of these devices 

will need to remove or render them 

inoperable by December 31, 2024, or if 

a building or residence with such a 

device is sold prior to that date (or if a 

woodfired heating device is 25 years old 

prior to that date).54 The EPA proposed 

to find that the other solid fuel burning 

regulations adopted by Alaska, 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES5
84638 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 232 / Tuesday, December 5, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

55Alaska ensures compliance with the 

installation and conveyance restrictions and 

removal requirements via the registration 

requirements in 18 AAC 50.077(h). The regulations 

mandate certain recordkeeping and reporting 

obligations to ensure the practical enforceability of 

the requirements and restrictions in 18 AAC 50.077. 

56 18 AAC 50.077(a)–(f). 57 Id. 

58 18 AAC 50.077(l). 

59 18 AAC 50.076. 

60 18 AAC 50.076(g). 

61ADEC also reviewed this measure as part of 

development of the Moderate Area Plan. 

including device registration under 18 

AAC 50.077(h) and dry wood 

requirements for wood sellers 18 AAC 

50.076 represent BACM for PM2.5 and 

SO2 emissions for the solid fuel burning 

source category. These include Alaska 

State regulations 18 AAC 50.076 (d–e), 

(g), (j–l). 

The EPA proposed to disapprove 

revisions to 18 AAC 50.076(k) as lacking 

sufficient monitoring to be enforceable 

as a practical matter and thus meet 

BACM and BACT requirements. 

Likewise, the EPA proposed to 

disapprove the regulations at 18 AAC 

50.079(d), (e), and (f) that impose a 

removal requirement on owners of coalfired heating devices. The EPA 

proposed to disapprove these 

regulations because 18 AAC 50.079(d) 

allows the owners to test out of the 

mandatory removal requirements, 18 

AAC 50.079(e) includes an unbounded 

waiver provision, and 18 AAC 50.079(f) 

does not specify a process to confirm 

the device was rendered inoperable.55

The regulations at 18 AAC 50.076(d)– 

(e) are registration requirements for 

wood sellers, and thus are part of 

Alaska’s overall strategy with 

monitoring and recording compliance 

with the dry wood requirements of 18 

AAC 50.076. Alaska ensures compliance 

with 18 AAC 50.076(g) through 

moisture testing and documentation 

requirements. The regulation at 18 AAC 

50.076(l) prohibits non-commercial 

wood sellers from selling wet wood in 

the Fairbanks PM2.5 Nonattainment 

Area. Compliance with this prohibition 

is monitored and enforced through the 

registration requirements in 18 AAC 

50.076(d)–(e). 

Collectively, the EPA proposed to find 

that Alaska met the BACM and BACT 

requirements for the solid fuel burning 

source category for PM2.5 and SO2

emissions. However, the proposed 

approval excluded the dry wood 

requirements for wood sellers in 18 

AAC 50.076(k) and coal-fired heating 

devices in 18 AAC 50.079(d), (e), and 

(f), due to the lack of practical 

enforceability of the dry wood 

requirement and the unbounded 

exemptions for the coal-fired heating 

devices noted in section II.E.3.i.a of this 

preamble. The EPA also proposed to 

approve Alaska’s analysis that found no 

NH3-specific emission controls for this 

source category. 

b. Final Rule 

The EPA is finalizing partial approval 

of the solid fuel device heating 

requirements as BACM. The EPA is 

finalizing partial disapproval of Alaska’s 

measures regarding dry wood seller 

requirements and coal-fired heating 

devices. The EPA recommends Alaska 

revise 18 AAC 50.076(k)(3) to require a 

specific frequency wood sellers are 

required to measure the moisture 

content of the seller’s wood stock. 

Likewise, the EPA also recommends 

Alaska revise the regulations at 18 AAC 

50.079(d), (e) and (f) to remove (or 

revise to BACM and BACT-level 

stringency) the testing exemption in (d), 

remove or properly bound the waiver 

provision in (e), and add requirements 

to verify compliance with the 

requirement for the owner and operator 

to render the device inoperative. Once 

Alaska submits a SIP revision resolving 

the identified deficiencies, the EPA will 

evaluate whether the updated rules 

meet BACM requirements. 

c. Comments and Responses 

Comment: Several commenters 

opposed the EPA’s approval of the 

State’s control measures on solid fuel 

burning devices, specifically wood-fired 

heating devices as meeting BACM 

requirements for this source category. 

Specifically, several commenters 

expressed general concern over 

restrictions on the sale and use of wood 

stoves. Other commenters stated that the 

measures should include exemptions for 

the elderly, people with financial 

difficulty, and people who only live in 

the nonattainment area in the summer. 

Response: Alaska adopted several 

restrictions and requirements for the 

sale, distribution, and operation of solid 

fuel burning devices in the Fairbanks 

Serious Plan and Fairbanks 189(d) Plan. 

Specifically, the State has determined 

that it is appropriate to include 

restrictions on the installation, 

reinstallation, sale, leasing, distribution, 

and conveyance of solid fuel burning 

devices.56 Among other requirements 

for this source category, the State has 

specified that only stoves that meet 

certain emission standards may be sold, 

conveyed, or installed in the 

nonattainment area.57

In addition, Alaska adopted a 

regulation that requires a person who 

owns a woodstove or pellet stove that 

does not have a valid certification from 

the EPA under 40 CFR 60.533 or a nonpellet fueled wood-fired outdoor 

hydronic heater shall render the device 

inoperable before December 31, 2024; or 

before the device is sold, leased, or 

conveyed as part of an existing 

structure, whichever is earlier.58

The EPA’s position is that these, as 

well as other, measures are necessary to 

control direct PM2.5 emissions and SO2

emissions from the solid fuel heating 

device source category. Alaska adopted 

these controls after determining that 

they are technologically and 

economically feasible. As explained in 

the Proposal and of this preamble, the 

EPA agrees with the State’s 

determination that these restrictions are 

appropriate and meet BACM 

requirements for this source category. 

These measures are a critical 

component of Alaska’s overall strategy 

to phase out older, more polluting wood 

stoves for liquid or gas fired heating 

devices, or newer, cleaner-burning 

stoves. Adoption of these controls was 

necessary to satisfy the BACM and 

BACT requirements of the CAA and the 

overall requirement to achieve 

attainment as expeditiously as 

practicable. 

Comment: One commenter opposed 

the dry wood requirements as being too 

costly. 

Response: The EPA disagrees with the 

commenter that the dry wood 

requirement is too costly or otherwise 

economically infeasible. Alaska adopted 

a measure to mandate that users of 

wood-fired heating devices only burn 

dry wood.59 Alaska also imposed 

requirements on commercial wood 

sellers to ensure that they sell dry wood 

in the Fairbanks PM2.5 Nonattainment 

Area.60 Alaska determined that these 

measures were technologically and 

economically feasible. The EPA concurs 

with this assessment. Absent a 

determination and supporting 

documentation that these measures are 

infeasible, neither Alaska nor the EPA 

have a basis to not adopt and implement 

these measures as necessary 

components of the control strategy 

required by the CAA. 

Comment: Several comments opposed 

the EPA’s approval of the control 

measures for solid fuel burning devices, 

arguing that Alaska should instead ban 

all wood stoves in the nonattainment 

area. 

Response: As part of development of 

the Fairbanks Serious Plan, Alaska 

specifically assessed the feasibility of 

banning woodstoves all together 61 and 

the feasibility of banning woodstoves in 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES5
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 232 / Tuesday, December 5, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 84639 

62See State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol. III, 

Appendix III.D.7.7–62. 

63 18 AAC 50.075(e); 18 AAC 50.030(a); State Air 

Quality Control Plan Vol. II, Chapter III.D.7.12. 

64 18 AAC 50.075(e)(3). 

65 82 FR 42457, September 8, 2017. 

66See Alaska Department of Environmental 

Conservation (ADEC) Curtailment and Alerts in the 

Fairbanks North Star Borough Nonattainment Area, 

available at https://dec.alaska.gov/air/anpms/ 

communities/fbks-pm2-5-curtail-alert/. See also, 

State Air Quality Control Plan Vol. II, Chapter 

III.D.7.12 Fairbanks Emergency Episode Plan. See, 

e.g., Alaska Department of Environmental 

Conservation, Division of Air Quality, FNSB Air 

Quality Stage 2 Alert, March 1, 2019 (included in 

Docket). 

67 2nd Annual Report, Air Quality Control 

Program Implementation Status, Fairbanks North 

Star Borough PM2.5 Nonattainment Area, Alaska 

Department of Environmental Conservation and 

Fairbanks North Star Borough, available at: https:// 

dec.alaska.gov/air/anpms/communities/progressannual-reports/. 

68Air Plan Approval; AK: Fine Particulate Matter 

Infrastructure Requirements, 83 FR 60769, 

November 27, 2018, at p. 60771. 

69State Air Quality Control Plan, Volume III, 

Appendix III.D.7.07, at pp. 109–110, Adopted 

November 19, 2019. 

70State Air Quality Control Plan, Volume II, 

Chapter III.D.7.07 at pp. 101–103, adopted 

November 19, 2019. 

new construction.62 In both cases 

Alaska determined these bans were not 

technologically or economically 

feasible. The EPA reviewed these 

determinations and concurs with 

Alaska’s determinations. The EPA 

agrees with Alaska’s determination that 

residents require the option of heating 

their homes with wood—thus both bans 

are technologically infeasible at this 

time. There are many residents whose 

only source of heat in the winter is 

wood. Alaska and several commenters 

pointed out that the area experiences 

power outages in the winter that 

necessitate use of a space heating device 

that does not need electricity to operate. 

While natural gas is available in the 

nonattainment area, and access has 

increased in recent years, it remains 

significantly limited across the 

nonattainment area. 

The EPA notes that, in lieu of 

woodstove bans, Alaska adopted a suite 

of controls on solid fuel burning 

devices, including the woodstove 

curtailment program.63 Under the 

curtailment program, Alaska issues burn 

bans based on forecasted concentrations 

of PM2.5. Once Alaska issues a burn ban, 

wood stove operators must withhold 

fuel from wood stove devices (other 

than exempt devices) and ensure that 

combustion has ceased within three 

hours of the effective time of the 

declaration.64

Comment: One commenter opposed 

the EPA’s approval of the woodstove 

curtailment program as meeting BACM 

requirements. The comment asserted 

that the program cannot meet BACM 

requirements because Alaska does not 

adequately enforce the program. 

According to the commenter, Alaska 

estimated the compliance rate for the 

program in 2019 was 30 percent and 

will achieve 45 percent by 2024. The 

commenter also stated that meaningful 

enforcement could be accomplished by 

granting the Alaska Department of 

Environmental Conservation citation 

authority. The commenter also argued 

that Alaska’s current ‘‘three-strikes’’ 

approach to enforcement is ineffective 

and does not deter noncompliance. 

Finally, the commenter argued that the 

EPA should not approve the woodstove 

curtailment program as meeting BACM 

requirements without further assurances 

from the State that it will practice 

meaningful enforcement. 

Response: The EPA disagrees with the 

commenter that the woodstove 

curtailment program, as adopted via 18 

AAC 50.075(e) and the Fairbanks 

Emergency Episode Plan, does not meet 

the requirements for BACM for the solid 

fuel burning emission source category. 

Consistent with 40 CFR 51.1010(a)(2), 

the State identified the curtailment 

program and corresponding curtailment 

thresholds through surveying other 

NAAQS nonattainment areas. In 

reflection of lower curtailment 

thresholds adopted in other 

jurisdictions, the State lowered the 

curtailment thresholds—making the 

measure more stringent than the 

measure submitted as part of the 

Fairbanks PM2.5 Moderate area plan 

(Fairbanks Moderate Plan) to meet 

RACM requirements.65 Thus, the 

woodstove curtailment program meets 

the requirements as BACM for the 

wood-fired heating device emission 

source category. Since adoption, Alaska 

has employed a model to forecast days 

with high PM2.5 concentrations, 

regularly issued Stage 1 and Stage 2 

alerts, monitored compliance, and 

issued notices of noncompliance.66

Alaska issues compliance letters, 

advisory letters, and Notice of Violation 

letters each year. During the 2021–22 

winter season, Alaska sent 136 

compliance or advisory letters.67 Thus, 

Alaska is implementing the measure. 

With respect to compliance, the EPA 

understands the commenter’s concern 

that there is insufficient compliance and 

that compliance can affect the 

effectiveness of a control measure. 

Alaska is likewise aware of issues 

regarding compliance, and has taken 

steps to try to assure better compliance. 

When assessing whether a specific 

control measure meets BACM 

requirements, however, the EPA is 

evaluating whether the measure as 

formulated meets applicable stringency 

requirements and other requirements for 

SIP provisions, including that the 

measure is legally and practically 

enforceable. A lack of total compliance 

(actual or projected) does not 

necessarily disqualify a measure as 

BACM. Concerns about compliance 

rates with the requirement are reflected 

in other ways, such as in the amount of 

SIP emissions reduction credit the State 

claims and the EPA provides for a given 

measure (e.g., a measure with 50 percent 

compliance receives 50 percent credit 

towards other requirements such as the 

attainment projected emissions 

inventory, RFP, QMs, and the modeled 

attainment demonstration). In addition, 

consistent with CAA section 

110(a)(2)(C), States are required to have 

a program to enforce SIP requirements. 

Similarly, the EPA determined that the 

State met the requirements for CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(E) with respect to 

adequacy of State legal authority, 

personnel, and resources need to 

implement the SIP. The EPA 

determined that Alaska satisfied these 

requirements in its latest approval of the 

State’s PM2.5 infrastructure SIP 

submission.68 We note that a State’s 

failure to implement a control measure 

could be the basis for a finding under 

CAA section 179 and that is likely the 

more appropriate authority to address 

any failure to enforce SIP measures. The 

EPA has made no such finding for 

Alaska, generally, nor the Fairbanks 

PM2.5 Nonattainment Area, specifically. 

Comment: One commenter questioned 

why use of electrostatic precipitators 

(ESPs) is not part of the control strategy. 

Response: Alaska and the Fairbanks 

North Star Borough (FNSB) reviewed a 

requirement to install ESPs on 

woodstoves as part of its BACM analysis 

in the Fairbanks Serious Plan.69 In the 

Fairbanks Serious Plan, the State also 

included a summary of current ESP 

requirements and the FSNB’s research 

and assessment of the feasibility of 

using ESPs.70 Ultimately, Alaska 

determined that requiring installation of 

ESPs was technologically infeasible. In 

addition, Alaska raised concerns that 

exempting persons who install ESPs 

from having to comply with the 

curtailment program would be less 

stringent than the current requirements. 

The EPA proposed to approve 

Alaska’s determination that requiring 

ESPs is not technologically feasible. The 

EPA is finalizing this approval as 

proposed. Alaska’s feasibility 

assessment identified several 

technological challenges to 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES5
84640 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 232 / Tuesday, December 5, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

71State Air Quality Control Plan Vol. III, 

Appendix III.D.7.7 at pp. 134–135. 72See CAA sections 110(k) and 116, 42 U.S.C. 

7410(k) and 7416; see also Union Elec. Co. v. EPA, 

427 U.S. 246, 256–257 (1976). 73See 18 AAC 50.077(l)–(m); 18 AAC 50.079(f). 

74For information on the EPA’s Targeted Airshed 

Program, see: https://www.epa.gov/air-qualityimplementation-plans/targeted-airshed-grantsprogram. 

75 Voluntary Solid Fuel Burning Appliance 

Change Out Program Application, available at 

https://www.fnsb.gov/DocumentCenter/View/811/ 

WoodPelletCoal-Appliance-Change-Out-ProgramApplication-PDF. 

implementing the measure, including 

lack of professional installers, lack of 

standard performance certification 

methods, frequent system degradation, 

and frequent maintenance requirements 

from trained professionals.71 The 

comment does not provide information 

to call Alaska’s assessment into 

question. Alaska and the FNSB may 

continue to research the feasibility and 

efficacy of ESPs and potentially 

incorporate a requirement to install and 

operate ESPs into a future plan. Any 

future SIP revisions, however, must be 

consistent with CAA section 110(l). 

Comment: One commenter requested 

that the EPA not approve the 

requirement to destroy woodstoves. The 

commenter asserted that backup heating 

sources are necessary. The commenter 

requested that the SIP allow change-outs 

without the need to destroy the existing 

woodstove. 

Response: The EPA disagrees with 

these comments. First, in this action the 

EPA is evaluating the specific suite of 

control measures that the State 

identified, adopted, and submitted to 

the EPA to meet the BACM requirement 

for this source category. The EPA does 

not have the authority under the CAA 

to modify a SIP submission unilaterally 

or to disapprove a SIP provision in 

whole or in part on the basis of it being 

too stringent.72 Second, the 

requirements that older, uncertified 

devices be rendered inoperable are an 

important component of Alaska’s 

control strategy in the Fairbanks Serious 

Plan and Fairbanks 189(d) Plan.73

Alaska’s SIP requires, in pertinent part, 

that a person who owns a device that 

may not be reinstalled within the area 

to ensure the device is rendered 

inoperable when it is removed. The EPA 

agrees that this approach is 

technologically and economically 

feasible and is appropriate to assure that 

necessary emission reductions from this 

source category actually occur. 

Alaska has also identified, adopted, 

and submitted provisions that requires 

an owner of a woodstove or pellet stove 

that does not have a valid certification 

from the EPA or a non-pellet fueled 

wood-fired hydronic heater to render 

the device inoperable before December 

1, 2024, or before the device is sold, 

leased, conveyed as part of an existing 

structure, whichever is earlier. In each 

instance, the State has determined that 

the requirement to render the device 

inoperable is important to ensuring the 

emissions reductions are permanent and 

that older, uncertified devices are not 

reinstalled in a home or business. 

Again, the EPA agrees that this 

approach is technologically and 

economically feasible and is appropriate 

to assure that necessary emission 

reductions from this source category 

actually occur. 

In addition, the FNSB operates a 

Wood Stove Change Out Program using 

EPA Targeted Airshed Grant funding.74

A requirement to receive reimbursement 

for the new stove or furnace is to turn 

in the old device for recycling and to 

submit a Deed Restriction that restricts 

future installations of wood, pellet, and 

coal burning appliances on the 

property.75 The conditions are 

important components to ensuring the 

integrity of the Wood Stove Change Out 

Program and the permanence of 

emissions reductions. 

Comment: Several commenters 

suggested additional controls for the 

solid fuel heating device source sector 

including utilizing temperature sensors 

on woodstove flues to ensure 

compliance with the curtailment 

program and switching energy 

generation from fossil fuels to solar, 

hydro, and nuclear. 

Response: The EPA understands the 

perspective of the commenters, but the 

commenters do not provide any specific 

support or explanation for why the 

additional measures they advocate are 

technologically or economically feasible 

as BACM measures in the Fairbanks 

PM2.5 Nonattainment Area. In this 

action, the EPA is evaluating whether 

the control measures that the State has 

identified, adopted and submitted 

constitute BACM for this source 

category. Alaska conducted a review of 

available controls for the solid fuel 

heating device source category and did 

not identify temperature sensors or 

converting to renewable energy 

generation as potential control measures 

in the nonattainment area. Alaska’s 

BACM identification and evaluation 

process for the solid fuel burning source 

category meets CAA requirements. 

Based on the analysis in the Fairbanks 

Serious Plan and the Fairbanks 189(d) 

Plan, the EPA has concluded that the 

existing measures do meet BACM and 

does not agree that the additional 

control strategies that the commenter 

suggest are required at this time. 

To the extent that more measures may 

be required for attainment and 

maintenance of the NAAQS in this area 

in the future, the commenters may wish 

to continue to advocate for them in 

future SIP development processes. In 

addition, consistent with CAA section 

116, Alaska has authority to adopt 

measures that are more stringent than 

required under the CAA, within certain 

limitations, and may elect to do so. 

ii. Residential and Commercial Fuel Oil 

Combustion 

a. Summary of Proposal 

In order to satisfy the SO2 BACM and 

BACT requirements for the residential 

and commercial fuel oil combustion 

source category, Alaska adopted the 

regulation at 18 AAC 50.078(b) that 

imposes a limit of 1,000 parts per 

million sulfur (diesel #1) for residential 

and commercial heating. This is a 

switch from the currently available 

diesel #2 (approximately 2,000 parts per 

million sulfur) to diesel #1. However, as 

part of its BACM analysis, Alaska 

identified 10 other States and large 

municipal areas that have instituted 

ULSD home heating requirements and 

found this measure to be technologically 

feasible and economically feasible at a 

cost of $1,819 per ton SO2 removed (SO2

is a significant precursor in the 

Fairbanks nonattainment area). Alaska 

provided a number of community-based 

considerations were Fairbanks to 

undergo the switch from diesel #2 to 

ULSD. These considerations included 

potential collateral environmental 

impacts caused by greater fuel 

transportation requirements required to 

maintain an adequate ULSD supply in 

the Fairbanks PM2.5 Nonattainment Area 

through the winter months. 

The EPA noted that a State must 

adopt and implement an identified 

BACM unless the State demonstrates the 

potential measure is either 

technologically or economically 

infeasible. Alaska identified the ULSD 

requirement as BACM for this source 

category and its own analysis indicates 

this requirement is feasible. While the 

EPA acknowledged in the Proposal that 

implementing a fuel switch from #2 to 

ULSD may be challenging, The EPA also 

stated that the challenges identified by 

Alaska in the Fairbanks Serious PM2.5

and the Fairbanks Section 189(d) Plan 

were insufficient to support an 

infeasibility demonstration. The EPA 

stated in the Proposal that this is 

particularly so when many jurisdictions 

have successfully required ULSD as a 

control measure. The EPA also noted in 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES5
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 232 / Tuesday, December 5, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 84641 

76Response to Comments Regarding Best 

Available Control Measure Requirements for 

Residential and Commercial Fuel Oil Combustion 

on the Air Plan Partial Approval and Partial 

Disapproval; AK, Fairbanks North Star Borough; 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 Serious Area and 189(d) Plan 

EPA–R10–OAR–2022–0115. 

77State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol. III, 

Appendix III.7.7–5396, adopted November 18, 

2020. 

78See the EPA FR Technical Support 

Document—ULSD residential and commercial fuel 

oil combustion, included in the docket for this 

action. 

the Proposal that reducing SO2

emissions from this source category is 

particularly important to achieving 

expeditious attainment because 

conversions to liquid-fueled heating 

devices constitute the vast majority of 

activity in the woodstove changeout 

program. Thus, we proposed to 

disapprove Alaska’s determination that 

the less stringent control measure 

imposing only the requirement to use 

diesel #1 under 18 AAC 50.078(b) meets 

BACM requirements for PM2.5 and SO2

emissions. However, we proposed to 

approve Alaska’s analysis that found no 

NH3-specific emission controls for this 

source category. 

b. Final Rule 

Based on comments received, the EPA 

is finalizing approval of portions of the 

Fairbanks Serious Plan and Fairbanks 

189(d) Plan, pertaining to the regulation 

at 18 AAC 50.078(b), as meeting the SO2

BACM and BACT requirements for the 

residential and commercial fuel oil 

combustion source category. The EPA 

received significant comments, 

including a revised economic feasibility 

analysis from Alaska, that demonstrate 

that requiring ULSD for this source 

category is not economically feasible at 

this time. However, as discussed in 

detail in, Section II.D.7 of this preamble, 

this measure appears to be feasible as a 

contingency measure that, if adopted, 

could partially rectify deficiencies in 

the contingency measures submitted as 

part of the Fairbanks Serious Plan and 

Fairbanks 189(d) Plan. 

c. Comments and Responses 

The EPA summarizes major 

comments and responses below. For a 

detailed summary of relevant comments 

and the EPA’s responses on this 

requirement, see the Response to 

Comments document included in the 

docket for this action.76

Comment: Several commenters 

questioned the technological feasibility 

of mandating ULSD use for the 

residential and commercial fuel oil 

combustion source category. These 

commenters argued that supplying 

sufficient ULSD to interior Alaska was 

not logistically feasible considering 

constrained rail and highway capacity. 

Response: The EPA disagrees that 

requiring the use of ULSD for the 

residential and commercial fuel oil 

combustion source category is 

technologically infeasible. In the 

Fairbanks Serious Plan and Fairbanks 

189(d), Alaska evaluated the logistical 

challenges but at that time Alaska 

concluded that this measure was 

technologically feasible.77 While Alaska 

updated this information, we do not 

find that the updated information is 

sufficient to determine that the States’ 

initial technological evaluation was 

flawed. 

There are already sources in the 

Fairbanks PM2.5 Nonattainment Area 

that are currently using ULSD fuel, so it 

is self-evident that it is technologically 

and logistically feasible for some 

amount of this fuel to be available 

today. Based on the comments, there 

appear to be options available to 

minimize wintertime logistical and 

supply issues. To address supply 

concerns, Alaska did evaluate the 

potential for building local storage. 

Commenters have asserted that refining 

ULSD locally has economic challenges, 

but we have not received any economic 

data to support this assertion. 

Comment: As part of its comments, 

Alaska submitted a revised economic 

feasibility assessment for mandating 

ULSD for this source category. In total, 

Alaska made eight distinct revisions to 

the cost-effectiveness analysis that 

Alaska submitted for ULSD with the 

Fairbanks 189(d) Plan. For example, 

Alaska updated the fuel use impacts 

from switching from 2,000ppm sulfur 

fuel to ULSD and changes in price 

premium for ULSD. Considering a 

number of scenarios in Alaska’s updated 

analysis, Alaska revised its BACM 

determination to state that ULSD costeffectiveness was calculated to range 

from $58,252 per SO2 ton removed 

under low baseline oil market prices to 

$73,816 per SO2 ton removed under 

high baseline oil market price 

conditions that currently exist in early 

2023. 

Response: The EPA evaluated 

Alaska’s methodology for producing its 

cost effectiveness calculation submitted 

as part of its comments. The EPA agrees 

with some of Alaska’s methods and 

variables and disagrees with others. The 

EPA produced a separate cost 

effectiveness calculation that builds off 

Alaska’s comment, but incorporates 

only those methods and variables that 

the EPA determined are reasonable and 

well supported. The EPA’s cost 

effectiveness calculation is located in 

the docket for this action.78

Overall, the EPA’s updated cost 

effectiveness analysis leads to an overall 

cost ranging from $13,046 and $22,893 

per SO2 ton removed. The lower-end of 

the range reflects incorporation of 

Alaska’s estimate of individuals 

substituting fuel use for wood use—thus 

reducing overall ULSD expenses—in 

reaction to the price increase associated 

with using ULSD. The upper-end of the 

range does not incorporate this estimate. 

Given the variability in fuel prices and 

speculative basis for estimating 

residents’ economic behavior given the 

ULSD mandate, the EPA believes that 

the upper-end of the estimate reflects 

more accurate and conservative 

assumptions about the cost effectiveness 

of mandating ULSD. 

iii. Small Commercial Area Sources 

a. Summary of Proposal 

Alaska identified BACM and BACT 

requirements for small area source 

categories as part of the Fairbanks 

Serious Plan and then updated those 

findings as part of the Fairbanks 189(d) 

Plan. 

Alaska adopted a control measure for 

coffee roasters at 18 AAC 50.078(d) that 

required installation of an emissions 

control device unless the coffee roaster 

can demonstrate technological or 

economical infeasibility. In the 

Proposal, the EPA stated that, as 

written, the State rule purporting to 

implement this measure does not appear 

to be enforceable as a practical matter. 

The rule does not require use of 

emissions controls once installed, 

specify any emission limits, nor 

monitoring requirements with which 

the subject sources must comply. In 

addition, the rule contains a waiver 

provision based on the facility 

providing information demonstrating 

that the control technology is 

technologically or economically 

infeasible. This provision is not 

adequately specific or bounded and, 

thus, may bar effective enforcement (see 

81 FR 58010, August 24, 2016, at p. 

58047). In addition, the State must 

adopt permanent and enforceable 

control measures for this source 

category even if certain sources within 

the source category have existing 

emissions controls. Therefore, the EPA 

proposed to disapprove Alaska’s 

determination that 18 AAC 50.078(d) 

satisfies BACM for coffee roasters. 

Alaska required commercial 

charbroilers to submit information to 

Alaska related to the type, operation, 

and performance of the device as part of 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES5
84642 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 232 / Tuesday, December 5, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

79 18 AAC 50.078(c). 

80See Gysel, et al. (2018). Particulate matter 

emissions and gaseous air toxic pollutants from 

commercial meat cooking operations. Journal of 

Environmental Sciences, 65, 162–170; Yang, et al. 

(2021). Transient plasma-enhanced remediation of 

nanoscale particulate matter in restaurant smoke 

emissions via electrostatic precipitation. 

Particuology 55, 43–47; New York City Department 

of Environmental Protection (February 2021). 

Certified Emission Control Devices for Commercial 

Under-Fired Char Broilers. Available at https://

www1.nyc.gov/assets/dep/downloads/pdf/air/ 

approved-under-fired-technology.pdf; Francis & 

R.E. Lipinski (2012). Control of Air Pollution from 

Restaurant Charbroilers. Journal of the Air Pollution 

Control Association, 27:7, 643–647, available at: 

https://doi.org/10.1080/00022470.1977.10470466. 

81 Yang, et al. (2021). Transient plasma-enhanced 

remediation of nanoscale particulate matter in 

restaurant smoke emissions via electrostatic 

precipitation. Particuology, 55, pages 43–47. 82 18 AAC 60.020; 33 U.S.C. 1321; 40 CFR 279.12. 83 81 FR 58010, August 24, 2016, at p. 58082. 

the Fairbanks Serious Plan.79 Based on 

the information provided, Alaska then 

conducted an economic analysis as part 

of the Fairbanks 189(d) Plan that 

assessed the cost of installing an 

available control measure, catalytic 

oxidizers, on each of the charbroilers in 

the nonattainment area. The State 

estimated the cost of installing catalytic 

oxidizers at $47,786 per ton of PM2.5

removed (adjusted to 2019 dollars). 

Thus, Alaska ultimately determined that 

BACM is economically infeasible for 

this source. 

While the EPA found that Alaska’s 

economic analysis is a reasonable 

estimate of the cost of installing one 

potential emission control device, 

Alaska did not evaluate all available 

control measures. Currently available 

emission control devices include 

electrostatic precipitators (ESP), wet 

scrubbers, and filtration.80 Moreover, 

Alaska did not explain whether there 

are chain-driven or underfire 

charbroilers in the Fairbanks 

Nonattainment Area, which have 

different considerations for emission 

controls.81 Therefore, the EPA proposed 

to disapprove Alaska’s evaluation of, 

and BACM determination for, 

charbroilers. 

Alaska identified and evaluated the 

prohibition of used oil burners as a 

potential BACM-level control measure. 

Alaska issued a regulation at 18 AAC 

50.078(c) requiring owners and 

operators of used oil burners to provide 

certain information to assist Alaska in 

evaluating the feasibility of imposing 

the prohibition. Ultimately, Alaska did 

not adopt and submit any controls on 

used oil burners as part of the Fairbanks 

Serious Plan or Fairbanks 189(d) Plan. 

Alaska updated the BACM analysis in 

the Fairbanks 189(d) Plan to address 

environmental impacts if used oil 

burning were restricted in the Fairbanks 

PM2.5 Nonattainment Area. According to 

the State, the only way to dispose of 

used oil in the nonattainment area is 

through burning and that limiting this 

disposal method would likely lead to 

dumping the used oil on land or water. 

While one factor the State may consider 

in demonstrating the technological 

infeasibility of a measure is collateral 

environmental impacts, the EPA stated 

in the Proposal that Alaska’s evaluation 

is insufficient to demonstrate that 

prohibiting used oil burners is 

technologically infeasible. Notably, 

illegal dumping of used oil is prohibited 

under State and Federal laws.82 Thus, 

the State and the EPA have a basis for 

preventing or mitigating any 

environmental impacts that may result 

from prohibiting used oil burning. The 

EPA indicated that requiring used oil 

generators to collect and ship used oil 

to a central disposal facility appears 

feasible. Because Alaska imposed no 

controls on this source category and did 

not adequately demonstrate that BACM 

for this emission source is 

technologically or economically 

infeasible, we proposed to disapprove 

Alaska’s BACM evaluation and 

determination for use oil burners. 

Similarly, incinerators are another 

source category subject to the 

information requirements under 18 AAC 

50.078(c). However, after receiving 

information related to this source 

category, Alaska determined that there 

are no emission sources identified as 

incinerators in the Fairbanks 

nonattainment area and thus, evaluation 

of emissions controls is not necessary. 

We proposed to find that Alaska 

reasonably determined that there were 

no affected sources for this source 

category, therefore Alaska did not need 

to identify, adopt, or implement BACM 

and BACT for this source category in the 

Fairbanks PM2.5 Nonattainment Area. 

Overall, for small commercial area 

sources, we proposed to approve 

Alaska’s BACM determination for 

incinerators (18 AAC 50.078(c)(2)). We 

proposed to disapprove Alaska’s BACM 

determination for coffee roasters, 

charbroilers, and used oil burners for 

the reasons stated above (18 AAC 

50.078(c)(1); 18 AAC 50.078(c)(3); 18 

AAC 50.078(d)). 

b. Final Rule 

The EPA is finalizing approval of 

Alaska’s BACM determination for 

incinerators. Based on comments 

received, the EPA is also finalizing 

approval of Alaska’s BACM 

determination for charbroilers and used 

oil burners. By extension, the EPA is 

approving 18 AAC 50.055 as PM2.5

BACM and BACT for the chairbroiler 

source category. The EPA is finalizing 

disapproval of Alaska’s BACM 

determination for coffee roasters. 

c. Comments and Responses 

Comment: Several commenters 

generally opposed the EPA’s proposed 

disapproval of Alaska’s determinations 

with respect to small commercial areas 

sources on various grounds, including 

that these sources are insignificant 

contributors to pollution; focusing staff 

resources on evaluating controls on 

these sources diverts attention to 

addressing major contributors, such as 

woodstoves; and review of these sources 

would not be necessary if the EPA better 

administered the wood heater NSPS. 

Response: The EPA disagrees with 

these comments. First, under the CAA 

and PM2.5 SIP Requirements Rule, 

BACM and BACT are required for all 

sources of direct PM2.5 and PM2.5

precursors. In the PM2.5 SIP 

Requirements Rule, the EPA expressly 

determined that given the nature of 

PM2.5 that typically results from the 

combined emissions of many sources of 

direct PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors that in 

the aggregate contribute to 

nonattainment, there should be no de 

minimis source category exemption.83

Thus, even accepting the commenter’s 

assertion that these small commercial 

areas sources are insignificant 

contributors to the overall 

nonattainment problem in Fairbanks, 

that would not be a valid basis for not 

identifying, adopting, and implementing 

BACM and BACT on these sources. 

Second, the EPA acknowledges that 

evaluating potential controls on these 

sources takes time and requires staff 

and/or contractor resources. For this 

reason, the EPA engaged with ADEC 

early in the SIP development process for 

the Fairbanks Serious Plan and 

Fairbanks 189(d) Plan to provide 

guidance on these requirements so that 

ADEC would have the maximum 

amount of time to fulfill its obligations. 

The EPA disagrees, though, that 

evaluating controls, adopting 

regulations, and implementing and 

enforcing those regulations are mutually 

exclusive. The CAA requires that States 

with a PM2.5 nonattainment area to 

identify, adopt, and implement BACM 

and BACT. Moreover, the CAA requires 

that the State provide necessary 

assurances that, inter alia, it has 

adequate personnel, funding, and 

authority to carry out the SIP. Thus, 

Alaska was aware of the extent of its 

analytical, rulemaking, and enforcement 

obligations and ought to retain sufficient 

personnel to carry out those obligations. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES5
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 232 / Tuesday, December 5, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 84643 

84 ‘‘EPA Comments on 2020 Department of 

Environmental Conservation (DEC) Proposed 

Regulations and SIP Amendments’’ Letter from 

Krishna Viswanathan, Director, EPA Region 10 Air 

and Radiation Division to Alice Edwards, Director, 

ADEC Division of Air Quality, October 29, 2020; 

‘‘EPA Comments on 2019 DEC Proposed 

Regulations and SIP—Fairbanks North Star Borough 

Fine Particulate Matter’’ Letter from Krishna 

Viswanathan, Director, EPA Region 10 Air and 

Radiation Division to Alice Edwards, Director, 

ADEC Division of Air Quality, July 19, 2019. 

85 40 CFR 50.13(a) & (c); 40 CFR part 50, 

Appendix N, Section 3.0(a); 40 CFR 51.1015. 

86 40 CFR 51.1015(b) (‘‘Upon a determination by 

the EPA that a Serious PM2.5 nonattainment area 

has attained the PM2.5 NAAQS, the requirements for 

the state to submit an attainment demonstration, 

reasonable further progress plan, quantitative 

milestones and quantitative milestone reports, and 

contingency measures for the area shall be 

suspended.’’). 

To the extent Alaska is reflecting on the 

burden of satisfying its obligations in 

the context of comments submit of this 

rulemaking, the EPA reiterates that it 

apprised Alaska of these obligations 

long before the instant action. Moreover, 

the EPA repeated the CAA BACM and 

BACT requirements in two comment 

letters submitted as part of the State’s 

public comment processes for the 

Fairbanks Serious Plan and Fairbanks 

189(d) Plan.84

Third, the EPA disagrees with the 

commenters’ assertion that evaluating 

and imposing controls on small 

commercial area sources would not be 

necessary if the EPA better implemented 

the wood heater NSPS. The CAA and 

PM2.5 SIP Requirements Rule required 

Alaska to implement BACM and BACT 

regardless of whether the EPA issued 

any NSPS for wood heaters. Moreover, 

BACM and BACT is generally 

independent of attainment needs. Thus, 

implementation of the NSPS does not 

alter Alaska’s BACM and BACT 

obligations under the CAA. 

Comment: Alaska asserted that, based 

on monitoring data, Alaska’s control 

strategy has made significant progress 

towards attainment. 

Additionally, some commenters 

referenced the improvement in air 

quality based on measured 

concentrations at the monitors in the 

Fairbanks PM2.5 Nonattainment Area. 

Commenters specifically noted that 

concentrations have been cut in half 

generally and are below the NAAQS at 

the ‘‘downtown’’ monitor. There are 

three regulatory monitors currently 

operating in the Fairbanks PM2.5

Nonattainment Area: Hurst Road, A 

Street, and NCore. The Hurst Road 

monitor, located in North Pole, has 

historically measured the highest 

concentrations of PM2.5. The EPA 

acknowledges that measured 

concentrations of PM2.5 at the Hurst 

Road Monitor have declined from 158 

mg/m3 in 2012 to 72 mg/m3 based on 

2019–2021 data. 

Response: The EPA disagrees with the 

comment that the ‘‘downtown’’ monitor 

is measuring attainment of the NAAQS. 

The most recent monitor data at the 

NCore monitoring station, arguably the 

closest air quality monitor to the City of 

Fairbanks’ downtown area, indicate 

concentrations of 43 mg/m3. The A 

Street monitor, located in a portion of 

Fairbanks of expected maximum PM2.5

concentrations, has not yet established 

an official 3-year Design Value to 

compare to the NAAQS. More 

importantly, however, all regulatory 

monitors in a nonattainment area must 

have three-year design values at or 

below the standard for the EPA to issue 

a Clean Data Determination or 

redesignate the area to attainment.85 In 

addition, neither the A Street nor NCore 

monitoring stations have a complete 

three-year design value below the 

NAAQS. Finally, the EPA notes that 

Alaska established the A Street monitor 

location as a SLAMS PM2.5 monitoring 

station to characterize expected 

maximum concentrations in the 

Fairbanks portion of the Fairbanks PM2.5

Nonattainment Area. Thus, the A Street 

monitoring station, rather than the 

NCore monitoring station is more 

representative of expected maximum 

concentrations in the Fairbanks portion 

of the nonattainment area. Finally, the 

EPA notes that an area’s progress 

towards attainment does not affect the 

CAA’s nonattainment planning 

obligations, particularly the BACM and 

BACT requirements. By extension, the 

BACM and BACT requirements are not 

suspended with a Clean Data 

Determination issued under 40 CFR 

51.1015.86 Thus, to the extent the 

commenters are suggesting that the 

control strategy in the Fairbanks Serious 

Plan and Fairbanks 189(d) Plan meet 

CAA requirements by virtue of 

reductions in measured air quality, EPA 

disagrees. 

Comment: In its comments on the 

Proposal, Alaska proposed to develop a 

new regulation, replacing 18 AAC 

50.078(d), to address the EPA’s concerns 

and make its coffee roaster controls 

enforceable. Alaska plans to create a 

new regulation that will address the 

EPA’s concerns and be submitted in a 

future SIP revision. The regulation will 

be structured as a ‘permit-by-rule’ 

which will contain substantive 

requirements that apply to coffee 

roasters over the 24 pounds per year 

emission threshold. 

Alaska further noted that the coffee 

roasters in the Fairbanks PM2.5

Nonattainment Area emit a very small 

amount of direct PM2.5—far less than the 

solid fuel burning device source 

category. By extension, Alaska 

commented that spending time and 

resources on regulating coffee roasters 

diverts limited resources away from 

addressing the more significant sources 

of pollution and ultimately hinders 

expeditious attainment. 

Response: The EPA proposed 

disapproval of Alaska BACM 

determination for coffee roasters 

because the State rule applicable to this 

source category, 18 AAC 50.078(d), was 

not enforceable as a practical matter. 

The EPA appreciates that Alaska 

indicated in its comments that the State 

is planning to address the identified 

deficiencies in this rule in a manner that 

meets BACM and BACT requirements 

and provides for basic enforceability. 

The EPA will evaluate the merits of the 

revised rule when the State submits it 

to the EPA as a SIP revision. The rule 

before the EPA remains insufficient for 

BACM and BACT purposes and we are 

finalizing the disapproval of this 

specific rule because it does not meet 

the BACM and BACT requirement. 

Comment: In comments, Alaska 

revised its prior analysis of charbroilers 

located in the Fairbanks PM2.5

Nonattainment Area and updated its 

cost analysis for emission controls. 

Alaska examined survey responses and 

queried other agencies to determine 

which types of charbroilers are present 

in the nonattainment area and found 

that only underfired charbroilers are 

present. As such, Alaska amended its 

analysis because it previously analyzed 

the cost-effectiveness of catalytic 

oxidizers, but that control technology is 

not viable for underfired charbroilers. 

Alaska stated that, based on the EPA’s 

suggestion and its review of the 

literature and other SIPs, ADEC 

evaluated the feasibility of electrostatic 

precipitators (ESPs), wet scrubbers, and 

filtration as potential control 

technologies for underfired charbroilers. 

Alaska stated that the EPA did not 

incorporate the visible emission limits 

in 18 AAC 50.055 as being part of BACT 

for charbroilers despite Alaska’s 

inclusion of that regulation in its 

description of BACM for this emission 

category. Alaska further commented that 

the EPA must evaluate 18 AAC 50.055 

as part of BACM for the underfired 

charbroilers in the Fairbanks PM2.5

Nonattainment Area. 

Alaska noted that, although Alaska 

believes this technology can be properly 

dismissed under Step 3 of the BACM 

analysis (related to technological 

infeasibility), Alaska also evaluated the 

economic feasibility of ESPs, wet 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES5
84644 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 232 / Tuesday, December 5, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

87Review of the San Joaquin Valley 2018 Plan for 

the 1997, 2006, and 2012 PM2.5 Standards, 

California Air Resources Board, Staff Report, 

December 21, 2018; Revision to the California State 

Implementation Plan for PM2.5 Standards in the San 

Joaquin Valley, California Air Resources Board, 

Staff Report, April 24, 2020. Both documents are 

included in the docket for this action. 

88Note, in the Proposal, the EPA proposed to 

concur with this aspect of Alaska’s analysis. 

scrubbers, and filtration as BACM for 

underfired charbroilers. ADEC analyzed 

the cost-effectiveness of these control 

technologies based on the most 

comprehensive economic analysis 

available, which was developed by the 

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution 

Control District (SJVAPCD).87 Alaska 

adjusted the costs for inflation and the 

difference in labor costs between 

California and Alaska, plus projected 

shipping costs from the continental 

United States to Alaska. 

Alaska stated that, according to 

SJVAPCD, it reported combined costs 

for ESP and filtration technologies as a 

range rather than a single number due 

to the variables involved in the cost 

estimates, including equipment type, 

simple or complicated configuration, 

age of the restaurant’s infrastructure, 

and more. Installing new controls on 

existing restaurants can be expensive, 

requiring structural, electrical, or 

plumbing modifications, compared to 

new restaurants that can integrate 

emission controls into the design. Based 

on SJVAPCD’s reasoning, Alaska chose 

to use this same approach of presenting 

cost-effectiveness as a range rather than 

as a single number. 

For the Fairbanks PM2.5

Nonattainment Area, Alaska found the 

range of cost-effectiveness for installing 

an ESP for an underfired charbroiler to 

be between $41,467 and $528,940 per 

ton of PM2.5 removed, based on a 

removal efficiency of 86 percent. Alaska 

found the range of cost-effectiveness of 

installing a filtration system for an 

underfired charbroiler to be between 

$44,577 and $568,610 per ton of PM2.5

removed, based on a removal efficiency 

of 80 percent. 

Alaska stated that the costeffectiveness analysis for filtration 

represents wet scrubbers, because wet 

scrubbers require filtration. Alaska 

stated that a wet scrubber is essentially 

a fine stream of water and detergent that 

washes the particulates from the 

underfired charbroiler’s exhaust, which 

passes through a filtration system before 

discharging to the sewer. Therefore, 

Alaska stated that the cost estimates 

developed for ESP and filtration systems 

conservatively represent the cost 

estimates for wet scrubbers, because wet 

scrubbers are an additional cost 

upstream of filtration systems. 

Alaska stated that its review 

demonstrates that control measures for 

underfired charbroilers are 

technologically and economically 

infeasible for the Fairbanks PM2.5

Nonattainment Area. Alaska based its 

prior analysis on chain-driven 

charbroilers and found that catalytic 

oxidizers were technologically but not 

economically feasible as BACM.88

Updated information and further 

research indicated the presence of only 

underfired charbroilers in the 

nonattainment area, and the controls for 

underfired charbroilers are different. 

Alaska evaluated the technological and 

economic feasibility analysis for ESP, 

filtration systems, and wet scrubbers for 

underfired charbroilers and found all 

controls to be technologically and 

economically infeasible as BACM. 

Response: In the Proposal, the EPA 

explained that the State had not 

adequately identified and evaluated 

potential control measures for this 

source category. For example, the State’s 

analysis did not identify the types of 

charbroilers located in the Fairbanks 

PM2.5 Nonattainment Area. Similarly, 

the State did not consider and evaluate 

different forms of control measures that 

exist for each of the two kinds of 

charbroilers. Instead, the State only 

identified one potential control measure 

for one type of source and claimed this 

this one form of control measure would 

not be economically feasible. Thus, the 

EPA explained that the State had not 

properly identified, evaluated, and 

adopted control measures to meet the 

BACM requirement for this source 

category. 

Comments on the Proposal provided 

by Alaska have filled the analytical 

gaps. Alaska has gathered additional 

information to determine that all 

existing charbroilers in Fairbanks are 

underfired charbroilers. ADEC sent 

letters to restaurants requesting 

information on charbroilers at each 

establishment. Of all those who 

responded that the restaurant had a 

charbroiler, all stated that they were 

underfire charbroilers. Alaska further 

confirmed with the Alaska Department 

of Environmental Conservation’s 

Environmental Health Division, State 

Fire Marshalls, and third-party 

inspectors that there were no chaindriven charbroilers in the area. The 

State also identified the range for 

potential control measures for this type 

of source, including an ESP, wet 

scrubber, or filtration, based on findings 

from San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution 

Control District staff reports. Alaska 

noted that The State evaluated the 

technological feasibility based on a 

review of charbroiler regulations from 

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution 

Control District, South Coast Air Quality 

Management District, Bay Area Air 

Quality Management District, Utah 

Department of Environmental Quality, 

and the New York City Department of 

Environmental Protection. Finally, 

Alaska performed a cost analysis for 

each of these control technologies and 

provided an estimated range of costs for 

installing relevant emission controls, 

which is included in the docket for this 

action. 

Alaska evaluated the annual costs of 

installing emission controls for underfire charbroilers in new and existing 

restaurants. An ESP device was 

estimated to have an 86 percent control 

efficiency, while filtration was 

estimated to have 80 percent (wet 

scrubbers were assumed to perform 

similar control efficiency as filtration). 

Estimated costs were based on prior 

analyses by SJVAPCD and adjusted for 

higher costs in Alaska. Alaska estimated 

that installation costs in existing 

restaurants are twice the cost of new 

restaurants. Alaska’s analysis estimates 

an annual cost in new restaurants 

ranging from $12,817 to $157,447, to 

install and operate emission controls. 

Such a range was based on equipment 

type, simple or complicated 

configuration, age of the restaurant’s 

infrastructure, and more. Based on the 

control efficiencies, estimated cost 

effectiveness figures for ESP in new 

restaurants ranged from $41,467 to 

$506,171; while filtration ranged from 

$50,696 to $568,610. 

The EPA finds that Alaska’s cost 

calculations are appropriate for each of 

the control options and agree with the 

State that installing charbroiler emission 

controls is economically infeasible at 

this time. The EPA is thus finalizing 

approval of Alaska’s PM2.5 BACT and 

BACT determination that controls for 

charbroilers are economically infeasible 

at this time. The EPA agrees with 

Alaska’s comment that the visible 

emission limit in 18 AAC 50.055 limit 

the direct PM2.5 emissions from 

charbroilers. As a result, the EPA finds 

that the visible emission limit in 18 

AAC 50.055 constitutes BACM for the 

charbroiler source category. 

Comment: In its comments, Alaska 

evaluated the technological and 

economic feasibility of shipping used 

oil via the FNSB Solid Waste Division 

facility (Option 1). Alaska also 

evaluated the option of purchasing, 

operating, and maintaining a centrifuge 

facility in Fairbanks to process used oil 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES5
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 232 / Tuesday, December 5, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 84645 

89ADEC comments on the Proposal, Docket 

Identification No. EPA–R10–OAR–2022–0115– 

0353–A5. 90The EPA Technical Support Document— 

control measures. EPA–R10–OAR–2022–0115– 

000004, at p. 34. 91See 81 FR 58010, August 24, 2016, at p. 58085. 

from all used oil generators in the 

community (Option 2). 

In evaluating both options, Alaska 

reviewed data from 2010 and 2020 on 

used oil. In 2010, Alaska surveyed 25 

local auto shops on used motor oil usage 

data. The survey estimated the total 

amount of unprocessed used motor oil 

used for burning purposes to be 135,100 

gallons per year. In 2020, after adopting 

18 AAC 50.078(c), Alaska sent 129 

requests to possible businesses that may 

have a used oil burner in the Fairbanks 

PM2.5 Nonattainment Area. Alaska 

received 47 responses to the requests for 

information. Of the responses received, 

31 verified that there is no used oil 

burner present at the business location 

and 16 verified that there is a used oil 

burner present at the location. Some 

businesses had multiple used oil 

burners for a total of 19 used oil 

burners. Due to varied results 

concerning the fuel quality and 

quantity, Alaska did not find the 2020 

collected data to be useful information. 

Thus, between the two data collection 

efforts, Alaska found the survey 

information obtained in 2010 to be 

comprehensive and based its evaluation 

of Options 1 and 2 on this information. 

Alaska noted that the local solid 

waste facility already has a program in 

place as described above for accepting 

used oil from residents and very small 

quantity generators limited to 26 gallons 

(approximately 100 kilograms) of used 

oil per month. However, the facility 

does not accept used oil from largequantity generators producing greater 

than 26 gallons per month. Due to this 

limitation, Alaska would have to 

explore other alternatives for largequantity generators of used oil and 

Option 1, therefore, is only partly 

technologically feasible. 

In evaluating economic feasibility, 

Alaska assumed the emissions reduction 

to be 50 percent since there is no 

information on the fraction of used oil 

used for direct combustion versus 

disposal (while shipping the used oil 

compared to disposal will result in 100 

percent emissions reduction, replacing 

used oil for combustion will not result 

in 100 percent reduction as burning 

used oil results in additional emissions). 

As demonstrated by the costeffectiveness calculations provided 

along with this comment, the costeffectiveness for Option 1 is found to be 

$730,182 per ton of PM2.5 emissions 

reduction. The higher shipping cost per 

gallon and a lower reduction in 

emissions drive the higher costeffectiveness numbers. 

To evaluate the technological 

feasibility of Option 2, Alaska reached 

out to commercial vendors and referred 

to publicly available information from 

online vendors and the Fairbanks North 

Star Borough Solid Waste Division. 

Based on that information, Alaska found 

Option 2 to be technologically feasible 

(in terms of shipping and maintenance 

required for different components of the 

centrifuge facility). 

In evaluating economic feasibility, 

Alaska assumed 100 percent emissions 

reduction by processing the used oil at 

the centrifuge facility. Costs to establish 

a centrifuge facility consist of building 

costs, equipment costs (consisting of 

centrifuge, tankage, and forklift), labor, 

and operational and maintenance costs. 

Discussions with commercial vendors 

highlighted that centrifuging used oil 

(e.g., motor oil, cooking oil, and oil 

containing animal fat) is a laborintensive process as the oil must be 

separated due to the differences in 

boiling point. As demonstrated by the 

cost-effectiveness calculations provided 

along with this comment, the costeffectiveness for Option 2 is found to be 

$653,989 per ton of PM2.5 emissions 

reduction. 

Based on Alaska’s additional 

technological and economic feasibility 

analysis, Alaska’s dismissal of Measure 

70 is unchanged. The combustion of 

used oil is the only acceptable disposal 

method available in the Fairbanks PM2.5

Nonattainment Area without shipping 

the used oil to a central facility at 

Anchorage or processing it at a 

centrifuge facility in Fairbanks. While 

Alaska found both options to be partly 

or fully technologically feasible, the 

economic analysis resulted in high costeffectiveness numbers due to higher 

costs and minimal emissions reduction. 

Due to economic infeasibility, Alaska 

dismissed this measure as BACM in the 

Fairbanks PM2.5 Nonattainment Area. 

An additional comment noted that 

burning used oil is cost efficient and 

responsible compared to trucking it off 

site. 

Response: The EPA proposed to 

disapprove Alaska’s BACM analysis for 

used oil burners because Alaska’s initial 

justification for not adopting control 

measures was not sufficient to 

demonstrate the measure was infeasible. 

In comments, Alaska provided 

additional information concerning 

potential control strategies that would 

achieve emission reductions and has 

assessed the economic feasibility these 

strategies. 

Based on the additional facts and 

analysis that the State has provided, the 

EPA agrees that there is a significant 

cost to reducing PM2.5 for this emission 

source category. However, we observed 

in the data provided by Alaska that for 

the waste oil emission estimates there 

are considerably more SO2 emissions 

than PM2.5 emissions, and thus potential 

for greater reductions in SO2.89 Alaska 

estimated SO2 emissions of 0.0185 tons 

per day from waste oil (compared to 

0.0026 tons per day for PM2.5). Alaska 

estimates 135,150 gallons per year of 

waste oil is produced Fairbanks. By 

applying the SO2 emission factor 

(instead of PM2.5) into the cost 

calculations for each of the two options, 

the EPA estimates a cost effectiveness 

value of $102,838 per SO2 ton reduced 

for Option 1 and $92,107 per SO2 ton 

reduced for Option 2. While considering 

SO2 emission reductions provides a 

more reasonable estimate of benefits, we 

agree with Alaska that Measure 70— 

banning used oil burners is 

economically infeasible as BACM at this 

time. 

iv. Energy Efficiency and 

Weatherization Measures 

a. Summary of Proposal 

In the Proposal,90 the EPA proposed 

disapproval of Alaska’s BACM analysis 

with respect to potential energy 

efficiency and weatherization measures. 

The State had provided a number of 

reasons for declining to adopt and 

implement any such measures, each of 

which the EPA proposed to reject as 

bases to not adopt weatherization and 

energy efficiency measures. Specifically, 

the EPA noted the State and local 

government have the authority to 

require adequate insulation in 

buildings, particularly new 

construction. Therefore, the State’s 

reliance on the ostensible lack of 

authority is not a valid justification for 

rejecting this type of control measure. In 

addition, the EPA stated in the Proposal 

that the just because emissions benefits 

are hard to quantify does not mean there 

are no emissions benefits. As stated 

above, the BACM requirement is 

generally independent of attainment 

needs. Finally, a State cannot reject a 

measure just because another 

jurisdiction has not adopted and 

implemented the measure.91

b. Final Rule 

The EPA is finalizing disapproval of 

Alaska’s BACM analysis and 

determination that no weatherization or 

energy efficiency type measures are 

required for purposes of BACM in the 

Fairbanks area. As noted in the 

responses to comments, the EPA 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES5
84646 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 232 / Tuesday, December 5, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

92See Alaska Community Development 

Corporation, Weatherization Assistance Program, 

http://www.alaskacdc.org/weatherizationassistance-program.html. 

93See Cold Climate House Research Center, 

Retrofits, available at http://cchrc.org/retrofits/. 

encourages Alaska to evaluate this type 

of control measure and to identify, 

adopt, and implement all feasible 

measures as part of a subsequent SIP 

submission. 

c. Comments and Responses 

Comment: Several commenters 

asserted that improving building energy 

efficiency and weatherization practices 

are important strategies for reducing 

wood burning and improving air quality 

in the Fairbanks PM2.5 Nonattainment 

Area. One commenter stated that most 

homes in the Fairbanks North Star 

Borough were built in the 1970s and 

1980s. 

Response: The EPA agrees with the 

commenters that improving energy 

efficiency and weatherization practices 

is an important strategy for reducing the 

amount of wood, and other fuels, 

combusted in the Fairbanks PM2.5

Nonattainment Area and, thus, 

improving air quality. This is 

particularly important given the age of 

many homes in the Fairbanks PM2.5

Nonattainment Area, because older 

homes may not meet modern energy 

efficiency building standards. In 

conjunction with other measures that 

Alaska has imposed to address source 

categories such as wood fired heating 

devices, reducing the usage of such 

sources through improved 

weatherization and energy efficiency 

would further reduce resulting 

emissions from these sources. 

Comment: One commenter opposed 

the EPA’s proposed disapproval of 

Alaska’s rejection of weatherization 

measures, asserting that such measures 

are unrealistic. 

Response: The comment does not 

provide a basis for its assertion that 

weatherization requirements are 

unrealistic or that imposing any 

weatherization requirement or program 

will be harmful. Nor does the comment 

provide a basis for demonstrating that 

all weatherization measures or programs 

are infeasible in the Fairbanks PM2.5

Nonattainment Area. 

The EPA notes that the Alaska 

Community Development Corporation 

offers a weatherization assistance 

program using Alaska Housing Finance 

Corporation and U.S. Department of 

Energy Funding.92 This program reflects 

the energy efficiency benefits of 

weatherization and demonstrates the 

feasibility of implementing 

weatherization programs in Alaska. The 

EPA also notes there has been 

significant research and technological 

advances related to building and 

retrofitting homes in arctic and subarctic environments that also illustrates 

the feasibility of such measures.93 Thus, 

the comment does not provide a basis 

for the EPA to approve Alaska’s 

rejection of any weatherization and 

energy efficiency measures as BACM 

and BACT for sources in Fairbanks 

PM2.5 Nonattainment Area. 

Comment: Alaska commented that, in 

response to the EPA’s proposed 

disapproval with respect to this issue, 

the State conducted a thorough review 

of weatherization and energy efficiency 

programs throughout the continental 

United States. Alaska also performed a 

deeper investigation of local efforts that 

it had not accounted for in Alaska’s SIP 

submission to evaluate an emissions 

reduction commitment in the SIP. Based 

on this review, Alaska identified 

weatherization programs that fall into 

three board categories: (1) Public 

Education and Outreach Programs; (2) 

Energy Audits; and (3) Building Energy 

Codes. 

With respect to public education and 

outreach programs, Alaska identified 

existing weatherization related 

programs implemented by the San 

Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control 

District and Sacramento Metropolitan 

Air Quality Management District. These 

programs include educating the public 

on the effects of air pollution on health 

and dissemination of weatherization 

information in the form of pamphlets, 

brochures, and other materials. 

Alaska also identified and evaluated 

weatherization-type controls 

implemented though building energy 

codes. Alaska identified several 

jurisdictions that incorporate building 

energy codes in SIP provisions, 

including the South Coast Air Quality 

Management District (‘‘SCAQMD’’) and 

Dallas-Ft Worth Texas Commission of 

Environmental Quality. 

In addition, Alaska evaluated 

programs that perform energy audits. 

Alaska identified energy audit programs 

implemented in the City of Berkeley, 

San Francisco, California; Boulder, 

Colorado; Burlington, Vermont; and 

Ann Arbor, Michigan. According to 

Alaska, the City of Berkeley adopted its 

Building Energy Saving Ordinance 

(‘‘BESO’’) in 2015. BESO requires 

homeowners to complete energy 

efficiency assessments and publicly 

report the building’s energy efficiency 

information. This assessment and 

reporting requirement is triggered by a 

sale, transfer, or renovation, and at 

specified intervals based on a phase-in 

schedule. 

Alaska noted that it has several 

voluntary programs to provide 

weatherization measures, provide 

education and outreach, and improve 

energy efficiency. For example, the 

Alaska Housing Finance Corporation 

(‘‘AHFC’’) energy programs have 

continued to be implemented in the 

Fairbanks nonattainment area since 

Alaska adopted them as a voluntary 

measure under the Fairbanks Moderate 

Plan. Currently, AHFC offers an energy 

efficiency interest rate reduction 

(‘‘EEIRR’’) program, home energy loan 

program, and weatherization program. 

These programs are designed to make 

homes more energy efficient and reduce 

the amount of fuel and electricity 

required for power and heating 

purposes thereby leading to reduced 

emissions and air quality benefits. 

In Fairbanks, the program is 

implemented by Interior 

Weatherization, Inc., (‘‘Interior 

Weatherization’’) a non-profit 

corporation founded in 1985. The 

program provides low- and moderateincome households with improvements 

to their homes at no cost to increase the 

energy efficiency of a dwelling. The 

organization’s website states that it 

weatherizes approximately 500 homes 

each year and that it has improved over 

5,000 homes since its inception. 

Alaska also identified the Heating 

Assistance Program, administered by 

the Alaska Department of Health, which 

offsets the cost of home heating for 

households with income at or below 

150% of the Federal poverty income 

guidelines, the Alaska Energy 

Authority’s Energy Efficiency and 

Conservation education and outreach 

campaign, and the Southwest Alaska 

Municipal Conference’s low-cost energy 

audits and grant assistance to small 

businesses and commercial fishers as 

ongoing voluntary programs. 

With respect to building codes, 

according to Alaska, the AHFC has 

established Building Energy Efficiency 

Standards (‘‘BEES’’) to improve energy 

efficiency in the construction of new 

buildings. The BEES set standards for 

thermal resistance, air leakage, moisture 

protection, and ventilation. The AHFC 

requires these standards to be met only 

for buildings built on or after January 1, 

1992, if the owner applies for AHFC 

financial assistance. 

Alaska noted in its comments that 

implementation of these types of 

programs in Alaska varies depending on 

the availability of contractors to perform 

the work, funding levels, and changes in 

congressional authorizations. Alaska 

made clear that all such programs are 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES5
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 232 / Tuesday, December 5, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 84647 

94See PM2.5 SIP Requirements Rule, 81 FR 58010, 

August 24, 2016, at p. 58139; see also U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air and 

Radiation, Incorporating Emerging and Voluntary 

Measures in a State Implementation Plan (SIP), 

September 2004, available at https://www.epa.gov/ 

sites/default/files/2016-02/documents/emerging_

vol_measures.pdf. 

95City of Fairbanks Ordinance 6153; City of 

North Pole Code 15.12.010. 

96 Jentgen, M. (September 27, 2022). Technical 

support document for Alaska Department of 

Environmental Conservation’s (ADEC) control 

measure analysis, under 40 CFR 1010(a) and (c). 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, 

Air and Radiation Division. 

97CAA section 110(a)(2)(E)(i), 42 U.S.C. 

7410(a)(2)(E)(i). 

98CAA section 302(d), 42 U.S.C. 7602(d). 

99 40 CFR 51.232. 

voluntary and therefore do not provide 

enforceable emission reductions. 

Alaska commented that it does not 

intend to adopt any building energy 

efficiency codes or mandatory 

weatherization requirements due to 

limitations on ADEC’s legal authority. 

Alaska stated that the City of Fairbanks 

is a home rule municipality that has 

exclusive authority to enforce a specific 

building code and the City has, indeed, 

enacted several discrete code provisions 

that could authorize certain 

weatherization measures. Because the 

City is a home rule entity with certain 

constitutional powers, the State would 

have to enact a statute to preempt the 

City’s building code authority before 

Alaska could issue a regulations 

package requiring additional or new 

insulation. Thus, as of the date of this 

comment, neither the State nor the 

Borough has the authority to enact and 

enforce a building code measure that 

overlaps the authority of the City. 

Alaska stated that outside Fairbanks 

city limits, but within the Fairbanks 

North Star Borough, the Borough 

implements the PM2.5 Air Quality 

Control Program which includes 

voluntary home heating source removal 

funding. However, in 2018 voters 

approved the Home Heating 

Reclamation Act which precludes the 

Borough from ‘‘in any way’’ regulating, 

prohibiting, curtailing, banning, or 

issuing fines or fees associated with the 

sale, distribution, installation, or 

operation of solid fuel heating 

appliances or any type of combustible 

fuels. Thus, according to Alaska, even 

though the Borough may have the 

authority to provide for air pollution 

control by virtue of Alaska Statute (AS) 

29.35.210 and AS 46.14.400, the 

Borough cannot exercise that authority. 

According to Alaska, the Borough does 

not have the authority to enact and 

enforce a building code. 

Alaska commented that it may have 

some State law authority to adopt and 

enact weatherization measures such as 

insulation requirements pursuant to AS 

46.03.020 (10) and AS 46.14.030 within 

the Borough. However, Alaska 

commented that it lacks the technical 

expertise to implement such a measure 

and that such measures would be 

economically infeasible due to the 

implementation and enforcement costs 

and small emission reduction benefits. 

Alaska also commented that 

weatherization and energy efficiency 

measures would not be necessary or 

required if the EPA had not failed to 

correctly test and certify wood stoves 

under the NSPS. Alaska commented 

that improving the efficiency of the 

residence is necessarily subsequent to 

the heating process—it is a reaction to 

the source (e.g. the stove). According to 

Alaska, the heating source was 

purchased and installed on the basis 

that it did not exceed emission 

standards and was tested and certified 

as such. Thus, Alaska concluded, 

consideration and adoption of 

weatherization and energy efficiency 

measures is only necessary due to the 

EPA’s failure to property test and certify 

wood stoves. 

Finally, Alaska commented that to 

address the EPA’s disapproval of the 

Fairbanks Serious Plan and Fairbanks 

189(d) Plan for lack of energy efficiency 

and weatherization control measures it 

will propose a regulation requiring a 

robust advertising and education 

program to the citizens of Fairbanks 

North Star Borough and will include 

best practices to improve efficiency in 

an arctic environment and available 

economic and practical mechanisms 

that can assist homeowners in 

improving both efficiency and 

regulatory compliance. Alaska also 

commented that it will disseminate 

weatherization information in the form 

of pamphlets or brochures. 

In addition, Alaska commented that it 

plans to implement a regulation 

requiring energy efficiency audits for 

buildings at the time of conveyance. The 

regulation will consist of a building 

owner completing an energy efficiency 

assessment with a licensed energy 

assessor. This measure will require the 

owners to pay for the audit. Any 

improvements identified by the assessor 

are voluntary. Alaska noted the 

difficulty of implementing this measure 

due to lack of qualified energy auditors 

in the Fairbanks North Star Borough. 

Response: The EPA disagrees with the 

Alaska’s view that no weatherization- or 

energy efficiency-type control measures 

are needed to meet BACM requirements 

in the Fairbanks area. The EPA 

appreciates that the State did further 

investigation and analysis of the types 

of measures that, if adopted, might meet 

BACM requirements for the Fairbanks 

PM2.5 Nonattainment Area. This 

additional analysis illustrates the types 

of measures that other jurisdictions have 

enacted as SIP provisions to achieve this 

objective. 

The EPA acknowledges the various 

voluntary incentive programs in Alaska 

for energy efficiency upgrades and 

weatherization. These measures, 

however, do not appear to meet the EPA 

guidelines for enforceability and SIP 

emission reduction credit.94 The EPA 

also notes that the City of Fairbanks and 

City of North Pole have adopted 

building and energy efficiency codes; 

however, these codes are not included 

in Alaska’s SIP and only cover a portion 

of the Fairbanks PM2.5 Nonattainment 

Area.95 Alaska’s comment indicates that 

several jurisdictions have implemented 

different forms of energy efficiency and 

weatherization programs beyond 

Alaska’s voluntary measures. This 

supports the EPA’s disapproval of 

Alaska’s rejection of these measures. 

Alaska misconstrues the EPA’s 

statements regarding authority. First, 

Alaska cited a lack of authority as a 

basis for technological infeasibility of 

weatherization and energy efficiency 

measures. In the Technical Support 

Document reviewing this determination, 

the EPA stated that the State and local 

governments have the authority to 

require adequate insulation in 

buildings, particularly new 

construction.96 The CAA requires States 

to provide necessary assurances that 

‘‘the State (or, except where the 

Administrator deems inappropriate, the 

general purpose local government or 

governments, or a regional agency 

designated by the State or general 

purpose local government for such 

purpose) will have adequate personnel, 

funding, and authority under State (and, 

as appropriate, local) law to carry out 

such implementation plan (and is not 

prohibited by any provision of Federal 

or State law from carrying out such 

implementation plan or portion 

thereof).’’ 97

By ‘‘State,’’ the EPA did not mean 

merely ADEC, but the State of Alaska.98

A State is required to have legal 

authority under State law to meet CAA 

requirements. A State may under State 

law elect to share its authority and 

responsibility for meeting CAA 

requirements with local governments.99

Having done so, however, it is not 

appropriate for a State to claim that it 

cannot meet a CAA requirement due to 

this division of authority and 

responsibility. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES5
84648 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 232 / Tuesday, December 5, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

100The Constitution of the State of Alaska, Article 

II, Section 1. 

101See, e.g., 40 CFR 52.70(c), Table 3. 

102See U.S. Department of Energy, Energy 

Saver—Insulation, available at https://

www.energy.gov/energysaver/insulation. 

103 Id. See also, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Energy Resources for State and Local 

Governments, Local Residential Energy Efficiency, 

available at https://www.epa.gov/statelocalenergy/ 

local-residential-energy-efficiency. 

104Measure R20 includes: HOV lanes; Traffic 

flow improvement program; Create non-motorized 

traffic zones; Employer-sponsored flexible work 

schedules; Retrofit diesel fleet (school buses, transit 

fleets); On-road vehicle I/M program; Heavy-duty 

vehicle I/M program; and State LEV program. 

The legislative power of the State is 

vested in the Legislature.100 Regarding 

Home Rule Cities and Boroughs, the 

EPA acknowledges that certain home 

rule cities and borough may have 

exclusive legislative powers under the 

Constitution of the State of Alaska, 

including building codes. This does not 

mean that no State or local government 

has authority to enact weatherization or 

energy efficiency measures, but merely 

means that the home rule city or 

borough must do so. The EPA approved 

SIPs often include city and county 

ordinances for this reason.101 Such local 

control may mean that multiple city and 

borough ordinances need to be 

incorporated into a State’s SIP and 

approved by the EPA to ensure coverage 

across a particular nonattainment area. 

With respect to the economic feasibility 

of implementing weatherization 

measures and building codes, the cost to 

the State or local agency of 

administering a control measure is not 

a valid consideration when evaluating 

the economic infeasibility of the 

measure nor a valid basis for not 

implementing an otherwise feasible 

measure. 

The EPA also disagrees with the 

commenter’s assertion that 

weatherization and energy efficiency 

measures are only necessary because 

certain woodstoves operated in the 

nonattainment area do not meet the 

NSPS. The EPA rejects the premise that 

weatherization and energy efficiency 

measures are necessarily a reaction to 

the heating source or that the emission 

performance of a space heater correlates 

to the energy efficiency or insulation of 

the home. Weatherization and energy 

efficiency measures, such as increased 

insulation, improve the retention of 

space heat regardless of the source of 

such heat and regardless of air pollutant 

emissions (if any) from that source.102

Thus, improved weatherization and 

energy efficiency have the potential to 

reduce emissions from all space-heating 

source categories—not just the solid fuel 

burning source category. 

Moreover, the EPA believes that 

improved heat retention means less fuel 

use, which means less cost to the 

resident.103 As a result, better heat 

retention can reduce costs for all 

residents and may make switching to 

higher cost fuels more affordable for 

residents. In contrast, poor 

weatherization and energy efficiency 

can undermine advances in the 

emissions performance of space heaters 

because it forces the operator to burn 

more fuel to heat a volume of air. Thus, 

the EPA’s position remains that 

disapproval of Alaska’s rejection of this 

measure is appropriate. 

In response to the Proposal, Alaska’s 

comments indicate that the State 

intends to evaluate and adopt additional 

measures to address weatherization and 

energy efficiency. For example, the State 

indicated its intention to propose a 

regulation to require a more robust 

advertising and education program to 

advise residents of best practices to 

improve energy efficiency, and about 

available economic and practical 

mechanisms to improve energy 

efficiency, analogous to such efforts in 

other jurisdictions. Likewise, the State 

indicated that it intends to evaluate and 

adopt a regulation related to energy 

efficiency audits, analogous to efforts in 

other jurisdictions. The EPA will review 

Alaska’s revised energy efficiency and 

weatherization measures once Alaska 

formally submits them to the EPA as 

part of a SIP revision. Consistent with 

the CAA and PM2.5 SIP Requirements 

Rule, the EPA encourages Alaska to 

identify, adopt, and implement all 

feasible energy efficiency and 

weatherization measures. 

v. Emissions From Mobile Sources 

a. Summary of Proposal 

Alaska identified and evaluated 

several mobile source emission 

reduction measures and other 

transportation control measures as 

potential BACM for purposes of the 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in the 

Fairbanks PM2.5 Nonattainment Area. 

These measures included: California Air 

Resources Board (CARB) vehicle 

standards (Measure 54); school bus 

retrofits (Measure 55); road paving 

(Measure 56); controls on road sanding 

and salting (Measure 58); a vehicle 

inspection and maintenance (I/M) 

program (Measure 59); vehicle idling 

restrictions (Measure 60); and Other 

transportation control measures 

(Measures 57 and R20) including highoccupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes, traffic 

flow improvements, non-motorized 

traffic zones; employer-sponsored 

flexible work schedules, diesel fleet 

retrofitting (school buses, transit fleets), 

an on-road vehicle I/M program; a 

heavy-duty vehicle I/M program, and a 

low-emission vehicle (LEV) program. 

Alaska rejected each of these measures 

as either technologically infeasible, 

economically infeasible, providing low 

emissions reductions benefits, or 

because emissions reductions benefits 

are difficult to quantify. 

The EPA proposed to approve in part 

and disapprove in part Alaska’s BACM 

determinations with respect to these 

potential measures. Specifically, the 

EPA proposed to approve Alaska’s 

rejection of the CARB vehicle standards 

(Measure 54) as economically infeasible. 

The EPA proposed to approve Alaska’s 

rejection of school bus retrofits 

(Measure 55); road paving (Measure 56); 

and controls on road sanding and 

salting (Measure 58) as technologically 

infeasible. Finally, the EPA proposed to 

approve Alaska’s rejection of a vehicle 

I/M program (Measure 59) because such 

a program only reduces NOX and VOC 

emissions and the EPA proposed to 

approve Alaska’s precursor 

demonstration that shows NOx and 

VOCs are not significant precursors to 

PM2.5 formation in the Fairbanks PM2.5

Nonattainment Area. 

The EPA also proposed to approve 

Alaska’s determination that no NH3- 

specific emission controls exist for this 

source category. However, the EPA 

proposed to disapprove Alaska’s 

rejection of vehicle idling restrictions 

(Measure 60) and other transportation 

measures (Measures 57 and R20) 104 as 

BACM. In support of its proposed 

disapproval, the EPA noted that Alaska 

did not demonstrate that these specific 

measures were either technologically or 

economically infeasible. The EPA 

further noted that BACM is generally 

independent of attainment needs and 

that Alaska cannot reject potential 

BACM merely because the emissions 

from a source category are de minimis. 

Finally, the EPA stated that certain ongoing transportation programs for which 

Alaska took credit were not included in 

the SIP submission. 

b. Final Rule 

The EPA is finalizing approval of 

Alaska’s rejection of the CARB vehicle 

standards (Measure 54) as economically 

infeasible, as proposed. The EPA is 

likewise finalizing approval of Alaska’s 

rejection of school bus retrofits 

(Measure 55) road paving (Measure 56); 

and controls on road sanding and 

salting (Measure 58) as technologically 

infeasible, as proposed. The EPA is also 

finalizing approval of Alaska’s rejection 

of a vehicle I/M program (Measure 59), 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES5
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 232 / Tuesday, December 5, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 84649 

as proposed. The EPA is also finalizing 

its approval of Alaska’s determination 

that no NH3-specific emission controls 

exist for this source category. 

Based on comments received, the EPA 

is finalizing approval in part and 

disapproval in part of Alaska’s rejection 

of vehicle idling restrictions (Measure 

60) and Other Transportation Measures 

(Measures 57 and R20). Specifically, the 

EPA is finalizing approval of Alaska’s 

rejection of vehicle idling restrictions 

for heavy-duty diesel vehicles as 

economically infeasible. The EPA is 

finalizing disapproval of Alaska’s 

rejection of vehicle idling restrictions 

for light-duty vehicles at schools and 

commercial establishments. The EPA is 

finalizing approval of Alaska’s rejection 

of other transportation measures 

(Measures 57 and R20) as either 

technologically infeasible (HOV lanes) 

or economically infeasible (traffic flow 

improvements, diesel retrofit projects, 

and ridesharing programs). 

c. Comments and Responses 

The EPA received no comments 

regarding its proposed approval of 

Alaska’s rejection of the CARB vehicle 

standards (Measure 54), school bus 

retrofits (Measure 55), road paving 

(Measure 56); controls on road sanding 

and salting (Measure 58); and Vehicle I/ 

M program (Measure 59) as either 

technologically or economically 

infeasible. The EPA received no 

comments regarding its proposed 

approval of Alaska’s determination that 

no NH3-specific emission controls exist 

for this source category. 

The EPA received one comment 

supportive of imposing vehicle idling 

restrictions. The EPA received several 

comments opposing the EPA’s Proposal 

to disapprove Alaska’s rejection of 

vehicle idling restrictions (Measure 60) 

and other transportation measures 

(Measures 57 and R20). 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

‘‘vehicle pollution is a smaller 

component of the problem. Idling 

vehicles in parking lots create a lot of 

exhaust. Just like burning wood on bad 

days, vehicle idling needs to be 

curtailed.’’ 

Response: The EPA agrees with the 

commenter that idling vehicles in 

parking lots creates exhaust which 

degrades air quality, particularly during 

air stagnation events. The EPA also 

agrees that absent a credible 

technological or economic infeasibility 

demonstration, Alaska should impose 

vehicle anti-idling restrictions. As 

discussed in the following paragraphs of 

this preamble, the EPA is disapproving 

Alaska’s determination that anti-idling 

measures are technologically and 

economically infeasible. The EPA 

encourages Alaska to adopt and 

implement an anti-idling regulation and 

incorporate this regulation into a 

subsequent SIP submission. 

Comment: Alaska opposed the EPA’s 

proposed disapproval of Alaska’s 

rejection of vehicle idling restrictions 

and Other Transportation Measures on 

three main grounds: (1) Alaska did not 

predicate its rejection of the measures 

on a determination that the mobile 

source category is de minimis and its 

initial rejection of the measures was 

consistent with the CAA, PM2.5 SIP 

Requirements Rule, EPA guidance, and 

other prior EPA actions on other State’s 

SIPs; (2) certain measures are approved 

into the Alaska SIP; and (3) the 

measures are infeasible based on a 

supplementary analysis. 

Alaska asserted that it did not reject 

the control measures based on a 

determination that the source category 

was de minimis. Alaska stated that it 

did not determine that the mobile 

source category had a de minimis 

contribution to PM2.5 levels or predicate 

dismissal of the control measures on 

that basis. Rather, Alaska dismissed the 

measures as technologically infeasible. 

Alaska also noted that the EPA 

inconsistently interpreted and applied 

the PM2.5 SIP Requirements Rule in 

proposing to disapprove Alaska’s BACM 

analysis for the mobile source category. 

Specifically, Alaska cited to two prior 

EPA actions approving nonattainment 

plans submitted by South Coast Air 

Quality Management District and San 

Joaquin Air Quality Management 

District that rejected certain control 

measures as technologically infeasible 

on similar grounds as Alaska. 

As to whether certain measures were 

SIP approved, Alaska asserted that the 

EPA approved expanded availability of 

plug-ins and an ordinance mandating 

electrification of outlets at certain 

temperatures as RACM in the Fairbanks 

Moderate Plan. Alaska also commented 

that all ongoing transportation programs 

in the approved Fairbanks Moderate 

Plan are transportation control measures 

for conformity purposes. 

Finally, Alaska provided 

supplemental economic infeasibility 

demonstrations for HOV lanes, traffic 

flow improvements, anti-idling 

measures, diesel retrofit projects, and 

ridesharing programs. Regarding HOV 

lanes, ADEC evaluated the feasibility of 

constructing an HOV Lane on the Steese 

Expressway, a four-lane divided 

highway in the area. As part of its 

assessment, Alaska assumed peak hour 

volume and a conservative highway 

capacity. Alaska determined that even 

with these conservative assumptions, 

the Steese Expressway would 

experience a reasonably free-flow 

operations and free flow speed. Thus, 

Alaska concluded that construction of 

an HOV lane on the Steese Highway or 

similar four-lane divided highways in 

the Fairbanks PM2.5 Nonattainment Area 

would provide no emissions benefits 

and would be technologically infeasible. 

With respect to Traffic flow 

improvements, Alaska conducted an 

economic feasibility assessment of 

traffic signal improvements and 

synchronization, roundabouts, and 

intersection improvement projects. 

Alaska determined that the cost 

effectiveness of each of these projects 

exceeded $1 million per ton of PM2.5

removed. 

For anti-idling measures, Alaska 

conducted economic feasibility 

assessments of implementing an antiidling program of heavy-duty diesel 

vehicles, light-duty passenger vehicles 

at schools, and light-duty passenger 

vehicles at commercial establishments. 

Alaska determined that the cost 

effectiveness of implementing these 

programs ranged from $455,675.88 to 

$210,198,489 per ton of PM2.5 reduced. 

Alaska also evaluated the economic 

feasibility of diesel retrofit projects. 

Alaska referenced a Federal Highway 

Administration study that evaluated 27 

diesel retrofit projects that consisted of 

retrofitting older diesel vehicle engines 

with emissions reduction technologies 

such as diesel particulate filters, 

selective catalytic reduction, diesel 

oxidation catalysts, and exhaust gas 

recirculation technologies. According to 

the study, the median cost effectiveness 

was $165,130 per ton of PM2.5 reduced. 

Similarly, Alaska evaluated the 

economic feasibility of implementing 

various ridesharing programs. Alaska 

referenced a Federal Highway 

Administration (FHWAI) study that 

evaluated 40 ridesharing programs. 

Based on the study, Alaska determined 

that the median cost effectiveness of 

implementing the programs would 

$6,010,024 per ton of PM2.5 reduced. 

In addition to Alaska, Fairbanks Area 

Surface Transportation (FAST) Planning 

opposed the EPA’s proposed 

disapproval of Alaska’s rejection of 

vehicle idling restrictions and other 

transportation measures. FAST Planning 

commented that Alaska did not 

predicate its rejection of the measures 

on a determination that the mobile 

source category is de minimis. FAST 

Planning also noted that the EPA was 

internally inconsistent in its Proposal— 

proposing to approve Alaska’s rejection 

of vehicle I/M program (Measure 59) 

and proposing to disapprove Alaska’s 

rejection of a similar I/M program 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES5
84650 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 232 / Tuesday, December 5, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

105 88 FR 1454, January 10, 2023, at pp. 1464– 

1465. 

106Addendum to the General Preamble, 59 FR 

41998, August 16, 1994, at p. 42011; 81 FR 58010, 

August 24, 2016, at p. 58081. 

107 Id. 

108 81 FR 58010, August 24, 2016, at p. 58082. 

109CAA section 189(d), 42 U.S.C. 7513a(d), and 

40 CFR 51.1010(c). 

110State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol. III, 

Appendix III.D.7.7 at p. 166 (November 19, 2019). 

111 Id. at p. 167–168. 

112 Id. at 168 (‘‘With regard to the BACM finding, 

transportation control measures are technologically 

feasible; they have been implemented all over the 

country. That said, independent studies have 

documented that while states and communities 

continue to adopt them, where funding is available, 

growing experience in lower-48 states has 

demonstrated emissions benefits are limited.’’). 

113 Id. 

114State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol. III, 

Appendix III.D.7.7 at pp. 5435–538, adopted 

November 18, 2020. 

115State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol. III, 

Appendix III.D.7.7 at pp.105–106, adopted 

November 19, 2019. 

116State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol. III, 

Appendix III.D.7.7 at pp. 5405–5406, adopted 

November 18, 2020. 

evaluated as part of a suite measures 

included as other transportation control 

measures (Measure 57, Measure R20). 

FAST Planning commented that the 

EPA is requiring the State to consider 

implementing transportation controls 

that will result in limited to no 

reductions of PM2.5 emissions without 

regard to cost to the community. 

Similarly, FAST Planning commented 

that some measures are not warranted or 

appropriate for the Fairbanks 

nonattainment area. In particular, FAST 

Planning stated that HOV lanes are not 

appropriate for the Fairbanks PM2.5

Nonattainment Area because they are 

meant for communities with much 

larger populations and severe 

congestion. Fairbanks has a 

comparatively small traffic size and has 

a lack of congested roadways. 

FAST Planning also commented that 

the EPA did not provide credit to the 

State for existing and ongoing 

transportation control measures listed in 

the SIP. FAST Planning asserted that 

Alaska included a list of voluntary 

transportation measures in the SIP 

submission (such as the expansion of 

transit service, motor vehicle plug-ins, 

public education and outreach, and 

anti-idling measures). FAST Planning 

stated that these measures are not 

voluntary because the State is required 

to fund these measures. 

Response on de minimis source 

category comments: The EPA 

acknowledges that Alaska did not 

explicitly designate the mobile source 

category as a de minimis source 

category in the Fairbanks Serious Plan 

and Fairbanks 189(d) Plan for the 

purposes of avoiding adopting and 

implementing BACM and BACT on 

mobile sources. The EPA’s proposal to 

disapprove Alaska’s rejection of these 

control measures for mobile sources was 

based on several factors: (1) low 

emissions benefits is not a valid basis to 

reject a measure as technologically 

infeasible; (2) BACM is generally 

independent of attainment needs; and 

(3) Alaska’s rejection of all measures to 

control emissions from mobile sources 

appeared to implicitly determine that 

this source category was de minimis. 

The EPA notes that in its comments 

Alaska supplemented its infeasibility 

demonstrations for the mobile source 

control measures. These supplemental 

demonstrations alleviate the EPA’s 

concern about effectively determining 

that the mobile source category is de 

minimis. The ensuing discussion 

provides further explanation for the 

EPA’s proposed disapproval and 

position regarding technologically 

infeasibility demonstrations: 

CAA section 189(b) and 40 CFR 

51.1010(a) contain the control measure 

requirements for Serious areas. CAA 

section 189(d) and 40 CFR 51.1010(c) 

contain the control measure 

requirements for Serious areas that fail 

to attain. The EPA summarized these 

requirements in the proposed rule.105 Of 

particular relevance here, in accordance 

with 40 CFR 51.1010(a), the State must 

adopt and implement the best available 

control measures and technologies for 

each emission source. However, the 

State may demonstrate that any measure 

identified under 40 CFR 51.1010(a)(2) is 

not technologically or economically 

feasible to implement in whole or in 

part by the end of the tenth calendar 

year following the effective date of 

designation of the area and may 

eliminate such whole or partial measure 

from further consideration. 

In addition, the EPA’s longstanding 

interpretation of the CAA is that BACM 

and BACT determinations are to be 

generally independent of attainment for 

purposes of implementing the PM2.5

NAAQS.106 The EPA interprets the CAA 

requirement to impose BACM and 

BACT-level control as requiring more 

emphasis on what controls are the best 

for the relevant source and whether 

those controls are feasible rather than on 

the attainment needs of the area.107

Finally, States also may not decline to 

evaluate, or to control as necessary, 

sources or source categories on the basis 

that they are de minimis.108

Subsequently, for a State with a 

Serious PM2.5 nonattainment area that 

has failed to attain by the applicable 

attainment date, the State must submit 

a revised attainment plan with a control 

strategy that (1) demonstrates that each 

year the area will achieve at least a 5 

percent reduction in emissions of direct 

PM2.5 or a 5 percent reduction in 

emissions of a PM2.5 plan precursor 

based on the most recent emissions 

inventory for the area and (2) includes 

such other additional control measures 

necessary to achieve attainment as 

expeditiously as practicable consistent 

with the attainment date requirements 

under 40 CFR 51.1004(a)(3).109 The 

regulation at 40 CFR 51.1010(c) required 

the State to reconsider and reassess any 

measures previously rejected by the 

State during the development of any 

Moderate area or Serious area 

attainment plan control strategy for the 

area. 

Based on these requirements and 

interpretations, the EPA proposed to 

disapprove Alaska’s rejection of certain 

control for the mobile source category 

(Measures 57, 60, and R20). Alaska’s 

evaluation of other transportation 

control measures consisted of a review 

of measures evaluated as RACM for the 

Fairbanks Moderate Plan.110 Alaska 

referenced the prior analysis as 

determining limited emission reduction 

benefits from these measures. Alaska 

also referenced the EPA and FHWA 

studies that indicated small emissions 

reductions from these measures.111 In 

addition, while Alaska acknowledged 

that these measures are technologically 

feasible in the analysis,112 it concluded 

that the measures are not 

technologically feasible in the Fairbanks 

area.113 Alaska did not re-evaluate this 

analysis or conclusion as part of the 

Fairbanks 189(d) Plan.114

Alaska’s evaluation of anti-idling 

programs (Measure 60) in the Fairbanks 

Serious Plan consisted of a study of the 

effects on carbon monoxide emissions of 

turning off a warmed-up vehicle 

compared to leaving it running.115

Alaska concluded based on this study 

that further study of PM2.5 emission 

reductions is necessary to determine 

whether anti-idling programs are 

feasible. Nevertheless, ADEC concluded 

that such a measure would produce no 

emissions benefit and was, therefore, 

technologically infeasible. Alaska 

modified this analysis slightly as part of 

the 189(d) Plan—drawing a connection 

between low carbon monoxide (CO) 

emission benefits and low PM2.5

benefits.116 Alaska ultimately concluded 

anti-idling programs are technologically 

infeasible due to lack of evidence of 

emission benefits. 

However, the emissions reduction 

benefit of a particular measure is not a 

factor assessing whether the measure is 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES5
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 232 / Tuesday, December 5, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 84651 

117Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; California; South Coast 

Serious Area Plan for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, 83 

FR 49872, October 3, 2018, at p. 49873. 

118 Id. at 49872. The EPA finalized approval on 

February 12, 2019. Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; California; South Coast 

Serious Area Plan for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, 84 

FR 3305, February 12, 2019, at p. 3308. 

119 2016 AQMP at Appendix IV–C–29. 

120 40 CFR 52.220(c)(204)(i)(B)(2). The specific 

TCM selection and rollover process is identified in 

the 1994 South Coast AQMP as TCM–1 

(‘‘Transportation Improvements’’). 

121 2016 AQMP at Appendix IV–C–34. 

122 Id. at IV–C–51—IV–C–74. 

123 Id. at IV–C–36—IV–C–40. 

124 Id. at IV–C–40—IV–C–50. 

125 Id. at 100–101. 

126 Id. at 43—50. 

127 Id. at 43; 49. 

128Clean Air Plans; 2006 Fine Particulate Matter 

Nonattainment Area Requirements; San Joaquin 

Valley, California; 85 FR 17382, March 27, 2020. 

129 85 FR 44192, July 22, 2020. 

130Clean Air Plans; 2006 Fine Particulate Matter 

Nonattainment Area Requirements; San Joaquin 

Valley, California, 85 FR 17382, March 27, 2020, at 

p. 17404. 

131 Id. 

132 2018 SJVAPCD Plan at Appendix D, D–42. 

technologically feasible. Such 

considerations are more appropriate 

under an economic feasibility 

assessment. Alaska did not assess the 

economic feasibility of anti-idling 

programs or any of the other 

transportation control measures as part 

of the Serious Area Plan or 189(d) Plan. 

The EPA notes, however, that Alaska 

submitted supplemental infeasibility 

demonstrations as part of its comments. 

Relatedly, the substantive basis for 

Alaska’s rejection of these measures was 

that they provided limited emissions 

benefits, such benefits were difficult to 

quantify given the climate in Fairbanks, 

and/or that additional studies were 

necessary to understand the emissions 

reduction benefits. The EPA’s position 

is that these are inadequate reasons for 

rejecting otherwise feasible measures. 

Response to Alaska’s comment on 

inconsistent application of the PM2.5 SIP 

Requirements Rule: The EPA disagrees 

with Alaska that it interpreted and 

applied the PM2.5 SIP Requirements 

Rule inconsistently with respect to the 

EPA’s proposed disapproval of Alaska’s 

BACM analysis for the mobile source 

category. Contrary to Alaska’s 

assertions, a comparison of the EPA’s 

actions on the South Coast Air Quality 

Management Plan and 2018 San Joaquin 

Valley PM2.5 Plan with the EPA’s review 

of the Fairbanks Serious Plan and 

Fairbanks 189(d) evinces the EPA’s 

consistent application of the CAA and 

PM2.5 SIP Requirements Rule. 

On April 27, 2017, the California Air 

Resources Board (CARB) submitted two 

SIP submissions to the EPA for the 

South Coast Serious nonattainment area 

for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.117 One such 

submission was entitled Final 2016 Air 

Quality Management Plan (March 2017) 

(2016 AQMP) and contained, inter alia, 

control strategies for mobile sources. 

The EPA proposed to approve these SIP 

submissions as meeting CAA 

requirements for the 2006 PM2.5 24-hour 

NAAQS on October 3, 2018.118 For the 

mobile source category, the EPA 

proposed to approve the control strategy 

for numerous reasons. 

According to the 2016 AQMP, CARB 

and other State agencies implemented 

24 individual mobile source and 

transportation control measures, 

including school bus idling measures, 

school bus retrofit program, and heavyduty vehicle inspection program.119

Pursuant to a SIP-approved 

transportation control measure selection 

and rollover process,120 several 

government agencies in the South Coast 

area implemented numerous major 

transportation control measures in 

South Coast, including HOV lanes, 

regular transit bus, bus rapid and 

express bus, transit rail, and bikeway 

projects.121Appendix IV–C of the 2016 

AQMP includes a list of TCM projects 

that are specifically identified and 

committed to in the plan, including, 

among many other types of TCMs, 

traffic flow improvement projects.122

For the 2016 AQMP, in order to 

determine whether adoption of 

additional controls on mobile sources 

was necessary to satisfy the BACM 

requirement, the Southern California 

Association of Governments (SCAG) 

surveyed other nonattainment areas. 

SCAG is the region’s metropolitan 

planning organization. SCAG found 

that, at the time of the survey, no other 

nonattainment areas were implementing 

measures beyond what CARB, SCAG 

and the local agencies already 

implemented.123 Thus, SCAG 

reevaluated 24 measures previously 

rejected as RACM for potential 

implementation as BACM.124 SCAG 

summarized its evaluation in Table 9 of 

Appendix IV–C of the 2016 AQMP. 

However, a more thorough analysis is 

included as Attachment B to Appendix 

IV–C of the 2016 AQMP. A review of 

Attachment B indicates that for each 

measure dismissed, SCAG correctly 

cited a technological or economic 

infeasibility basis. For example, SCAG 

evaluated numerous specific anti-idling 

measures and adopted some, while 

determining that others raised safety 

concerns or were economically 

infeasible.125

Alaska’s comments appear to target 

measures that SCAG dismissed as 

providing no emissions benefits as the 

crux of its inconsistency argument. The 

EPA disagrees that SCAG’s analysis or 

the EPA’s subsequent approval of 

California’s SIP submission demonstrate 

inconsistent application of the PM2.5 SIP 

Requirements Rule. Measures that 

SCAG dismissed as providing no 

emissions benefits included banning left 

turns, limiting excessive car dealership 

vehicle starts, requiring pay-as-you 

drive insurance, and demolishing 

impounded vehicles that are high 

emitters.126 SCAG noted that some left 

turns were already banned and other 

rules incentivized destruction of highemitting vehicles.127 For a measure 

referred to as limiting excessive car 

dealership starts, SCAG noted that car 

dealerships need to start cars to avoid 

battery failure and that in contrast to 

colder climates where vehicles are 

started on a daily basis, and the South 

Coast Air Quality Management District 

had determined that vehicles in the 

South Coast are started less frequently. 

For pay-as-you-drive insurance, SCAG 

noted that there was no clear 

demonstration of emission reduction 

benefits. Given this context, the EPA has 

consistently interpreted and applied the 

PM2.5 SIP Requirements Rule in its 

action on the 2016 AQMP and proposed 

action on the Fairbanks Serious Plan 

and Fairbanks 189(d) Plan. 

As for the San Joaquin PM2.5

Nonattainment area, on March 27, 2020, 

the EPA proposed to approve the 

portions of the 2018 San Joaquin Valley 

Plan for the 1997, 2006, and 2012 PM2.5

Standards (2018 SJVAPCD Plan) and the 

San Joaquin Valley Supplement to the 

2016 State Strategy for the State 

Implementation Plan that pertain to the 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.128 The 

EPA finalized its approval on July 22, 

2020.129 The EPA determined that 

CARB’s control measures for the mobile 

source category constituted the most 

stringent control program currently 

available.130 The 2018 SJVAPCD Plan 

includes existing measures and CARB 

and San Joaquin Air Quality 

Management District’s identification 

and evaluation of additional 

measures.131 The evaluation of mobile 

source controls is embodied in 

Appendix D—Mobile Source Control 

Measure Analyses to the 2018 SJVAPCD 

Plan. Notably, CARB implements the 

control measures Alaska rejected as part 

of the Fairbanks Serious Plan and 

Fairbanks 189(d) Plan, including a 

vehicle inspection program, school bus 

anti-idling measures (School Bus 

Airborne Toxic Control Measure in 

effect since July 16, 2003),132 and a 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES5
84652 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 232 / Tuesday, December 5, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

133 Id. at D–41 and D–42. 

134 82 FR 42457, September 8, 2017. 

135 82 FR 42457, September 8, 2017; State Air 

Quality Control Plan, Volume III, Appendix 

III.D.5.7–43, adopted December 24, 2014. 

136State Air Quality Control Plan, Volume III, 

Appendix III.D.5.7–24, adopted December 24, 2014; 

82 FR 9035, February 2, 2017, at p. 9045. 

137State Air Quality Control Plan Vol. III, 

Appendix III.D.7.7 at p.19, adopted November 19, 

2019. 

138U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office 

of Transportation and Air Quality, Compilation of 

State, County, and Local Anti-Idling Regulations, 

EPA420–B–06–004, April 2006, available at https:// 

www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ 

CompilationofStateIdlingRegulations.pdf. 

139New Hampshire Administrative Code Env-A 

1102.2 Idling Limitations for Motor Vehicles 

(providing an exemption when temperatures are 

below ¥10 °F); Code of Village of Northport, § 289– 

2; City of Philadelphia Air Management Regulations 

Ch. IX, Section III Idling of Diesel Powered Motor 

Vehicles. 

140State of Alaska Department of Transportation 

and Public Facilities, Vehicle/Equipment Idle 

Reduction, Policy and Procedure 02.01.110, January 

29, 2014, available at https://dot.alaska.gov/ 

admsvc/pnp/local/dot-jnu_122970.pdf. 

141EPA public hearing transcript, held on March 

7, 2023, p. 22–23, included in docket for this action. 

Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicle Idling 

Reduction Program.133

Contrary to Alaska’s assertion, 

CARB’s BACM and MSM evaluation for 

mobile sources and the EPA’s approval 

of the resultant SIP submissions 

indicates the EPA’s consistent 

interpretation and application of the 

PM2.5 SIP Requirements Rule. CARB 

demonstrated that for multiple mobile 

sources, it had already adopted the most 

stringent measures and committed to 

adopting additional measures. As with 

the 2016 AQMP, the EPA’s action on the 

2018 SJVAPCD Plan when compared to 

its proposed action on the Fairbanks 

Serious Plan and Fairbanks 189(d) does 

not indicate inconsistent interpretation 

or application of the PM2.5 SIP 

Requirements Rule. 

Response to Alaska’s comment on 

prior SIP approvals: Regarding controls 

included in the Fairbanks Moderate 

Plan, the commenters correctly point 

out that the EPA previously approved 

the Moderate Plan, including RACM for 

the mobile source category.134 The 

approved measures included: Fairbanks 

North Star Borough Ordinance No. 

2001–17 that requires employers or 

businesses that have 275 or more 

parking spaces to provide power to 

electrical outlets at temperatures of 20 

degrees F or lower for engine block 

heaters; expanded availability of plugins; public education focused on the 

benefits of plugging-in and using the 

transit program; expanded transit 

service; commuter van pool program; 

anti-idling program for heavy-duty 

diesel vehicles focused on the purchase 

and installation of auxiliary heaters to 

reduce idle time; and the Federal motor 

vehicle control program.135

Save for the Fairbanks North Star 

Borough Ordinance and the Federal 

standards, these measures were 

designated as voluntary in the moderate 

plan and the EPA’s approval.136 These 

RACM, however, do not fully satisfy the 

CAA BACM requirements. As part of the 

BACM evaluation process, ADEC 

identified additional measures for the 

mobile source category or reevaluated 

measures previously rejected as part of 

development of the Moderate Plan. In 

accordance with 40 CFR 51.1010(a) and 

(c), Alaska must either adopt those 

measures or provide a demonstration 

that those measures are not 

technologically or economically 

feasible. Alaska did not adopt all 

identified measures and did not 

demonstrate that those measures were 

either technologically or economically 

feasible consistent with the PM2.5 SIP 

Requirements Rule. Therefore, the EPA 

proposed to disapprove the Fairbanks 

Serious Plan and Fairbanks 189(d) plan, 

in part, on that basis. 

Response to Alaska’s supplemental 

feasibility analyses: Turning to ADEC’s 

updated BACM analysis submitted as 

part of its comments, the EPA finds that 

Alaska has demonstrated that 

constructing HOV lanes is 

technologically infeasible at this time 

and anti-idling requirements on heavyduty diesel vehicles, traffic flow 

improvements, diesel retrofit programs, 

and ridesharing programs are 

economically infeasible at this time. The 

EPA evaluated Alaska’s costeffectiveness calculations and 

confirmed the inputs and calculation 

methodology are sound and reasonable. 

The EPA finds that Alaska has not 

demonstrated that anti-idling 

requirements on light duty vehicles at 

schools and commercial establishments 

are either technologically or 

economically infeasible. 

Regarding anti-idling restrictions on 

heavy-duty diesel vehicles, Alaska 

submitted, as part of its comments on 

our proposed action, an economic 

infeasibility assessment that concluded 

that such a measure has a cost per SO2

ton reduced of $455,675.88. Alaska 

based its cost effectiveness calculations 

on information gained from a July 2011 

anti-idling pilot project conducted by 

the Alaska Department of 

Transportation & Public Facilities.137

According to its comments, Alaska 

estimated the heavy-duty vehicle fleet 

PM2.5 idle emission rates using the 

MOVES3 model. The costs of 

implementing the program include 

purchasing and installing auxiliary 

heaters, such as cab heaters and 

hydronic coolant heaters. Alaska’s cost 

effectiveness calculations appear sound. 

Thus, the EPA concurs with Alaska’s 

assessment that anti-idling restrictions 

on heavy-duty diesel vehicles are 

economically infeasible at this time. 

With respect to vehicle anti-idling 

restrictions for light-duty passenger 

vehicles at schools and commercial 

establishments, Alaska commented that 

imposing such anti-idling restrictions 

would pose an unacceptable safety risk. 

Alaska also included an economically 

infeasibility assessment. With respect to 

safety risks, Alaska stated, ‘‘ADEC has 

significant safety concerns regarding 

these measures. As was evidenced 

during the Public Hearing in Fairbanks 

on March 9, 2023, when temperatures 

are ¥20 to ¥60, idling is often done to 

ensure that small children and infants 

aren’t exposed to frostbite conditions or 

to prevent cars from being stranded after 

being turned off without being plugged 

in to a heat source.’’ 

The EPA recognizes the potential 

safety risk posed to vehicle occupants of 

an absolute prohibition on idling. 

However, Alaska need not impose such 

a prohibition to adopt and implement 

idling restrictions that satisfy controls 

strategy requirements for Serious areas 

and Serious areas the fail to attain. A 

review of State and local anti-idling 

restrictions illustrates a variety of 

approaches to limiting idling.138 Many 

of these examples include idling 

duration limits that vary depending on 

ambient temperature and provide 

exemptions for safety.139 Likewise, 

Alaska may adopt an anti-idling 

regulation that takes into consideration 

the unique local conditions in the 

Fairbanks PM2.5 Nonattainment Area. 

Alaska did not provide data 

supporting the prevalence of cars failing 

to start or run in cold weather in the 

Fairbanks nonattainment area. The EPA 

searched for documentation of this issue 

and could not find any studies or data. 

The EPA did find information that 

indicates that frequent engine restarts 

have little impact on engine 

components and unnecessary vehicle 

idling can damage engine components 

and waste fuel.140

The EPA reviewed the transcript from 

the public hearing for statements 

regarding idling cars to protect children 

and cars being stranded without being 

plugged into a heat source. The EPA 

found that one commenter raised 

concerns about electric vehicles failing 

to work in cold weather.141 However, 

this comment was contradicted by 

another commenter who testified to 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES5
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 232 / Tuesday, December 5, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 84653 

142EPA public hearing transcript, held on March 

7, 2023, p. 35, included in docket for this action. 

143 40 CFR 51.1010; 81 FR 58010, August 24, 

2016, at p. 58085. 

144Office of the Natural Environment, Federal 

Highway Administration, U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Congestion Mitigation and Air 

Quality Improvement (CMAQ) Program 2020 CostEffectiveness Tables Update, July 20, 2020, 

available at https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ 

ENVIRonment/air_quality/cmaq/reference/cost_

effectiveness_tables/fhwahep20039.pdf. 145 Id. at 63–72. 146 Id. at 75–82. 147 Id. at 148On September 25, 2023, Alaska withdrew is 

SO2 BACT determinations and analysis for major 

stationary sources in the Fairbanks PM2.5

Nonattainment Area. 

149The EPA notes that Alaska applied this 

threshold to emissions units at the GVEA Zehnder 

facility. 

150 40 CFR 51.165(a)(1)(iv)(A)(1); see also 18 AAC 

50.040(i). 

151Response to Comments Regarding Best 

Available Control Technology Requirements on the 

Air Plan Partial Approval and Partial Disapproval; 

AK, Fairbanks North Star Borough; 2006 24-hour 

Continued 

owning an electric car that functions in 

¥30 °F.142 Thus, Alaska has not 

demonstrated that vehicle anti-idling 

restrictions for light-duty passenger 

vehicles at schools or commercial 

establishments are technologically 

infeasible. The EPA reiterates that 

Alaska may craft the measure in a 

manner that accommodates safety 

concerns. 

Regarding Alaska’s economic 

infeasibility demonstration, Alaska 

estimated that imposing vehicle antiidling restrictions for light-duty 

passenger vehicles at commercial 

establishments would have a cost 

effectiveness of between $20,420,145 to 

$10,837,330,902. Alaska derived these 

calculations in part by incorporating the 

annual salaries of two Fairbanks North 

Star Borough employees to patrol 

parking lots to enforce the program. 

Alaska estimated the annual salary of a 

Borough employee at $105,929. Based 

on Alaska’s calculations, these salary 

costs are the dominant cost of the 

program. 

Incorporating the cost of 

implementing and enforcing a control 

strategy is inconsistent with the CAA 

and PM2.5 SIP Requirements Rule. 

Pursuant to CAA section 110(a)(2)(E), 

the State is required to provide 

necessary assurances that the State will 

have adequate personnel, funding, and 

authority under State law to carry out its 

implementation plan. In contrast, 

economic infeasibility assessments are 

focused on the costs projected to be 

borne by the owner and operator of the 

subject source.143 Setting aside the cost 

of Borough employee salaries, the 

measure appears to yield cost savings 

from estimated fuel savings. Thus, the 

EPA finds that Alaska has not 

demonstrated that vehicle anti-idling 

restrictions for light-duty passenger 

vehicles at commercial establishments 

and schools are economically infeasible. 

Regarding constructing HOV lanes, 

the EPA finds Alaska’s technological 

infeasibility demonstration as 

supplemented in the State’s comments 

compelling. The EPA agrees this 

measure is technologically infeasible 

taking into consideration local 

conditions, including infrastructure, 

population, and traffic flow. 

Regarding traffic flow improvements, 

Alaska determined that the cost 

effectiveness of each of these projects 

exceeded $1 million per ton of PM2.5

removed. Alaska referenced the July 20, 

2020 Congestion Mitigation and Air 

Quality Improvement (CMAQ) Program 

2020 Cost-Effectiveness Tables Update 

produced by the FHWA (CMAQ 

Tables).144 According to the CMAQ 

Tables, traffic flow improvements such 

as signal synchronization, roundabouts, 

and intersection improvements ranged 

in cost $250,000 to $2.9 million which 

amounted to a cost effectiveness of 

between $1,136,071 and $13,255,774 

per ton of PM2.5.145 Based on this 

information, the EPA concurs with 

Alaska’s determination that traffic flow 

improvements are economically 

infeasible for the Fairbanks PM2.5

Nonattainment Area, at this time. 

With respect to diesel retrofits, Alaska 

cited the CMAQ Table as a basis for 

estimating a median cost effectiveness 

of $165,130 per ton of PM2.5 reduced.146

The EPA verified these calculations in 

the CMAQ Table and we concur with 

Alaska that diesel retrofits are 

economically infeasible in the Fairbanks 

PM2.5 Nonattainment Area, at this time. 

Finally, ADEC cited the CMAQ Tables 

as evidence that ridesharing programs 

are economically infeasible. 

Specifically, according to the CMAQ 

Tables, ridesharing programs have a 

median cost effectiveness of $6,010,024 

per ton of PM2.5 reduced.147 The EPA 

verified these calculations in the CMAQ 

Table and concur with Alaska that 

ridesharing programs are economically 

infeasible, at this time. 

vi. Alaska’s Identification and Adoption 

of BACT 

a. Summary of Proposal 

The EPA proposed to partially 

approve and partially disapprove 

Alaska’s identification and adoption of 

BACT for stationary sources. The EPA 

proposed to approve most of Alaska’s 

PM2.5 BACT determinations for 

stationary sources but proposed to 

disapprove the Fairbanks Serious Plan 

and Fairbanks 189(d) Plan due to lack 

of monitoring, recordkeeping, and 

reporting requirements necessary to 

ensure the BACT limits are enforceable 

as a practical matter. The EPA proposed 

to partially approve and partially 

disapprove Alaska’s SO2 BACT 

determinations for the stationary 

sources.148 Finally, the EPA proposed to 

approve Alaska’s NH3 BACT 

determinations for all stationary 

sources. Details on the scope and basis 

of the EPA’s proposed partial approval 

and partial disapproval are included in 

section III.C(3)(c) of the Proposal and 

will not be restated here. 

Alaska noted that large stationary 

sources are a subgroup of emissions 

sources that have specific requirements 

in the BACM analysis. Alaska evaluated 

all stationary sources with potential to 

emit (PTE) greater than 70 tons per year 

(tpy) of PM2.5 or PM2.5 precursors for 

potential BACT-level controls. 

According to Alaska, sources with 

emissions below the 70 tpy threshold 

only require evaluation for BACM. 

Alaska states that this emissions 

threshold is in place to distinguish 

between the planning requirements for 

certain sources emitting above and 

below this threshold and is consistent 

with an emissions threshold in the 2016 

PM2.5 SIP Requirements Rule.149

The EPA disagrees with this 

assessment. All emissions sources 

identified in the emissions inventory are 

subject to BACM requirements, and the 

BACT evaluation process is merely a 

sub-set of BACM. Accordingly, all 

sources of direct PM2.5 and PM2.5

precursors are subject to BACM and 

BACT requirements regardless of PTE. 

There is no PTE threshold below which 

BACT requirements do not apply. The 

70 tons per year PTE threshold cited by 

Alaska only has relevance in 

determining whether a new stationary 

source proposed to be constructed in a 

nonattainment area meets the definition 

of a major stationary source pursuant to 

the nonattainment new source review 

provisions.150

b. Final Rule 

Please see the following paragraphs 

addressing each stationary source 

regarding the EPA’s final 

determinations. 

c. Comments and Responses 

For a summary of relevant comments 

and the EPA’s detailed responses on this 

requirement, see the Response to 

Comments document included in the 

docket for this action.151


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES5
84654 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 232 / Tuesday, December 5, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

PM2.5 Serious Area and 189(d) Plan, EPA–R10– 

OAR–2022–0115. 

152On September 25, 2023, Alaska withdrew its 

BACT determination and analysis for SO2 controls 

and emission limits at the Chena Power Plant. 

Alaska evaluated potential NOX controls for each 

emission unit, but because the EPA is approving 

Alaska’s determination that NOX emissions are not 

significant for PM2.5 formation in the Fairbanks 

nonattainment area, Alaska is not required to 

identify, adopt, or implement BACM or BACT for 

NOx on any sources in the Fairbanks PM2.5

Nonattainment Area. See 40 CFR 51.1006, 

51.1010(a)(2)(ii). 153Response to Comments Regarding Best 

Available Control Technology Requirements on the 

Air Plan Partial Approval and Partial Disapproval; 

AK, Fairbanks North Star Borough; 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 Serious Area and 189(d) Plan, EPA–R10– 

OAR–2022–0115. 154On September 25, 2023, Alaska withdrew its 

BACT determination and analysis for SO2 controls 

and emission limits at Fort Wainwright. Alaska 

evaluated potential NOX controls for each emission 

unit, but because the EPA is approving Alaska’s 

determination that NOX emissions are not 

significant for PM2.5 formation in the Fairbanks 

nonattainment area, Alaska is not required to 

identify, adopt, or implement BACM or BACT for 

NOX on any sources in the Fairbanks PM2.5

Nonattainment Area. See 40 CFR 51.1006, 

51.1010(a)(2)(ii). 

vii. Chena Power Plant 

a. Summary of Proposal 

The Chena Combined Heat and Power 

Plant (Chena Power Plant) is an existing 

stationary source owned and operated 

by Aurora Energy, LLC, which consists 

of four existing coal-fired boilers: three 

76 million British Thermal Units 

(MMBtu) per hour overfeed traveling 

grate stoker type boilers and one 269 

MMBtu per hour spreader-stoker type 

boiler that burn coal to produce steam 

for heating and power (497 MMBtu per 

hour combined). 

The State’s BACT determination for 

the Chena Power Plant evaluated 

potential controls to reduce NOX, and 

PM2.5 emissions from its four coal-fired 

boilers.152 Regarding Alaska’s analysis 

for PM2.5 emission controls, Alaska 

noted that the source currently uses the 

baghouse to achieve 99.9 percent 

capture efficiency, but did not 

definitively determine this control was 

required as BACT or submit for SIP 

approval an enforceable requirement to 

operate the baghouse. Operation of the 

baghouse to achieve 99.9 percent 

capture efficiency is likely to be BACT 

for PM2.5 for this source, but the State 

must revise the SIP to include an 

enforceable requirement to operate the 

baghouse to achieve this level of control 

before we can determine whether BACT 

requirements are satisfied. Therefore, 

the EPA proposed to disapprove 

Alaska’s BACT finding for PM2.5 for the 

four coal-fired boilers at the Chena 

Power Plant. 

For SO2 emission controls, the EPA 

proposed to disapprove Alaska’s 

infeasibility demonstrations on several 

grounds that are detailed in the Proposal 

and are not restated here. 

We proposed to approve Alaska’s 

analysis that found no NH3-specific 

emission controls for the sources at this 

facility. 

TABLE 5—CHENA POWER PLANT BACT SUMMARY

Pollutant Alaska’s BACT determination, by source category 

Chena Power Plant, Aurora Energy, LLC 

Coal-fired boilers (EUs 4–7)—3 boilers rated 76 MMBtu per hour and 1 boiler rated 269 MMBtu per hour 

PM2.5 ....................... N/A (Alaska claims installed single full steam baghouse is highest rated control available, but no PM2.5 BACT analysis or 

emission limitation was submitted). 

Source: State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol. II, Chapter III.D.7.7, Table 7.7–10 and Section 7.7.8.2.5. 

b. Final Rule 

The EPA is finalizing partial 

disapproval of the Fairbanks Serious 

Plan and Fairbanks 189(d) Plan because 

the plans do not identify, adopt, and 

implement BACT for PM2.5 and SO2 for 

the Chena Power Plant. The EPA is 

finalizing approval of Alaska’s BACT 

analysis for NH3 emission controls for 

the Chena Power Plant. 

c. Comments and Responses 

For a summary of relevant comments 

and the EPA’s detailed responses, see 

the Response to Comments document 

for this requirement, included in the 

docket for this action.153

viii. Fort Wainwright 

a. Summary of Proposal 

Fort Wainwright is an existing U.S. 

Army installation. Emission units 

located within the military installation 

include boilers and generators that are 

owned and operated by the U.S. Army 

Garrison Alaska (referred to as FWA). 

The Central Heating and Power Plant 

(CHPP), also located within the 

installation footprint, is owned and 

operated by Doyon Utilities, LLC (DU), 

a subsidiary of Doyon, Limited. Doyon, 

Limited is the regional Alaska Native 

corporation for Interior Alaska. The two 

entities, DU and FWA, comprise a single 

stationary source operating under two 

permits. 

The CHPP is comprised of six 

spreader-stoker type coal-fired boilers 

each rated at 230 MMBtu per hour, that 

burn coal to produce steam for 

stationary source-wide heating and 

power. In addition to the CHPP, the 

source contains additional emission 

units comprised of small and large 

emergency engines, fire pumps and 

generators, diesel-fired boilers, and 

material handling equipment. Alaska’s 

BACT analysis evaluated potential 

controls to reduce NOX and PM2.5, 

emissions from each of these emissions 

units at the stationary source.154

TABLE 6—FORT WAINWRIGHT BACT SUMMARY

Pollutant Alaska’s BACT determination, by source category 

Fort Wainwright, Doyon Utilities 

Coal-fired boilers (EUs 1–6)—each unit rated 230 MMBtu per hour 

PM2.5 ....................... • Operate and maintain a full stream baghouse at all times the units are in operation; 

• PM2.5 emissions from DU EUs 1 through 6 shall not exceed 0.045 lb/MMBtu over a 3-hour averaging period; and 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES5
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 232 / Tuesday, December 5, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 84655 

TABLE 6—FORT WAINWRIGHT BACT SUMMARY—Continued 

Pollutant Alaska’s BACT determination, by source category 

• Conduct an initial performance test to obtain an emission rate. 

Diesel-fired oil boilers (27 emissions units) 

PM2.5 ....................... • PM2.5 emissions from the diesel-fired boilers shall not exceed 0.012 lb/MMBtu averaged over a 3-hour period, with the 

exception of the waste fuel boilers which must comply with the State particulate matter emissions standard of 0.05 

grains per dry standard cubic foot under 18 AAC 50.055(b)(1); 

• Limit combined operation of FWA EUs 8, 9, and 10 to 600 hours per year; and 

• Maintain good combustion practices by following the manufacturer’s maintenance procedures at all times of operation. 

Large diesel-fired engines, fire pumps, and generators (8 emissions units; greater than 500 horsepower) 

PM2.5 ....................... • Limit combined operation of FWA EUs 11, 12, and 13 to 600 hours per year; 

• Limit operation of DU EU 8 to 500 hours per year; 

• PM2.5 emissions from DU EU 8, FWA EUs 50, 51, and 53 shall not exceed 0.15 g/hp-hr; 

• PM2.5 emissions from FWA EUs 11 through 13 and 54 shall not exceed 0.32 g/hp-hr; 

• Limit non-emergency operation of FWA EUs 50, 51, 53, and 54 to no more than 100 hours each per year; 

• Combust only ULSD; and 

• Maintain good combustion practices by following the manufacturer’s operating and maintenance procedures at all times 

of operation. 

Small emergency engines, fire pumps, and generators (41 emissions units) 

PM2.5 ....................... • Combust only ULSD; 

• Limit non-emergency operation of DU EUs 9, 12, 14, 22, 23, 29a, 30, 31a, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, FWA EUs 26 through 39, 

and 55 through 65 to no more than 100 hours each per year; 

• For engines manufactured after the applicability dates of 40 CFR part 60 Subpart IIII, comply with the applicable particulate matter emission standards in 40 CFR part 60 Subpart IIII; 

• Maintain good combustion practices by following the manufacturer’s operating procedures at all times of operation; and 

• Demonstrate compliance with the numerical BACT emission limits (emission limit of 0.015–1 g/hp-hr (3-hour average) 

varies by emission unit, listed in the State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol II, Chapter III.D.7.7, Table 7.7–13) by maintaining records of maintenance procedures conducted in accordance with 40 CFR parts 60 and 63, and the EU operating 

manuals. 

Material handling sources (6 emissions units; coal prep and ash handling) 

PM2.5 ....................... • PM2.5 emissions from the material handling equipment EUs 7a–7c, 51a, and 51b shall be controlled by operating and 

maintaining fabric filters at all times the units are in operation; 

• PM2.5 emissions from DU EU 7a shall not exceed 0.0025 gr/dscf; 

• PM2.5 emissions from DU EUs 7b, 7c, 51a, and 51 b shall not exceed 0.02 gr/dscf; 

• PM2.5 emissions from DU EU 52 shall not exceed 1.42 tpy. Continuous compliance with the PM2.5 emissions limit shall 

be demonstrated by complying with the fugitive dust control plan identified in the applicable operating permit issued to 

the source in accordance with 18 AAC 50 and AS 46.14; and 

• Compliance with the PM2.5 emission rates for the material handling units shall be demonstrated by following the fugitive 

dust control plan and the manufacturer’s operating and maintenance procedures at all times of operation. 

Source: State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol II, Chapter III.D.7.7, Table 7.7–11 and Chapter III.D.7.7.8.3.4. 

The EPA proposed to disapprove 

Alaska’s BACT determination for PM2.5

and SO2 controls for each of the 

emission sources at the CHPP. 

Regarding PM2.5 controls for the coalfired boilers and material handling 

equipment and PM2.5 and SO2 controls 

for the small and large emergency 

engines, fire pumps, and generators, and 

diesel-fired boilers, the EPA proposed to 

find Alaska’s BACT determinations are 

appropriate. However, Alaska did not 

submit source-specific permits or rules 

with monitoring, recordkeeping, and 

reporting (MRR) requirements necessary 

to make these BACT requirements 

enforceable as a practical matter. 

Therefore, the EPA proposed to 

disapprove the BACT determination for 

these sources as not meeting the CAA 

requirement that the SIP include 

enforceable emission limitations. The 

EPA stated in the Proposal that Alaska 

may rectify this issue by submitting the 

MRR requirements necessary (such as 

the requirements included in the 

current operating permit) to ensure the 

BACT requirements are enforceable as a 

practical matter. 

Regarding SO2 emission controls, the 

EPA proposed to disapprove Alaska’s 

SO2 BACT determinations and 

associated infeasibility demonstrations 

on several grounds that are detailed in 

the Proposal and are not restated here. 

The EPA proposed to approve 

Alaska’s analysis that found no NH3- 

specific emission controls for the 

sources at this facility. 

b. Final Rule 

The EPA is finalizing a partial 

approval and partial disapproval of the 

Fairbanks Serious Plan BACT 

provisions for PM2.5 controls for each of 

the emission sources at Fort 

Wainwright. The EPA is finalizing a 

partial approval because Alaska’s BACT 

findings for PM2.5 (embodied in State 

Air Quality Control Plan, Vol. II, 

Chapter III.D.7.7, Tables 7.7–11 and 7.7– 

13 and Chapter III.D.7.7.8.3.4) are 

consistent with CAA section 189(b) and 

40 CFR 51.1010(a). The EPA is 

finalizing a partial disapproval because 

the Fairbanks Serious Plan and 

Fairbanks 189(d) Plan lack provisions 

necessary to ensure the BACT 

determinations for PM2.5 are enforceable 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES5
84656 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 232 / Tuesday, December 5, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

155Response to Comments Regarding Best 

Available Control Technology Requirements on the 

Air Plan Partial Approval and Partial Disapproval; 

AK, Fairbanks North Star Borough; 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 Serious Area and 189(d) Plan, EPA–R10– 

OAR–2022–0115. 156The CFB dual fuel fired boiler replaced two 

coal-fired boilers installed in 1962. 

157On September 25, 2023, Alaska withdrew its 

BACT determination and analysis for SO2 controls 

and emission limits at the University of Alaska 

Fairbanks Campus Power Plant. Alaska evaluated 

potential NOX controls for each emission unit, but 

because the EPA is approving Alaska’s 

determination that NOX emissions are not 

significant for PM2.5 formation in the Fairbanks 

nonattainment area, Alaska is not required to 

identify, adopt, or implement BACM or BACT for 

NOX on any sources in the Fairbanks PM2.5

Nonattainment Area. See 40 CFR 51.1006, 

51.1010(a)(2)(ii). 

as a practical matter as required by CAA 

Sections 110(a)(2)(A) and 172(c)(7). 

On September 25, 2023, Alaska 

withdrew its SO2 BACT determinations 

for Fort Wainwright. Therefore, the EPA 

is finalizing partial disapproval of the 

Fairbanks Serious Plan and Fairbanks 

189(d) Plan because the plans do not 

identify, adopt, and implement BACT 

for SO2 at Fort Wainwright. The EPA is 

finalizing approval of Alaska’s analysis 

that found no NH3-specific emission 

controls for the sources at this facility. 

c. Comments and Responses 

For a summary of relevant comments 

and the EPA’s detailed responses, see 

the Response to Comments document 

for this requirement, included in the 

docket for this action.155

ix. University of Alaska Fairbanks 

Campus Power Plant 

a. Summary of Proposal 

The Fairbanks Campus Power Plant is 

an existing stationary source owned and 

operated by University of Alaska 

Fairbanks (UAF) comprised of a 

circulating fluidized bed (CFB) dual 

fuel-fired boiler (coal and biomass) rated 

at 295.6 MMBtu per hour. UAF installed 

this emission unit in 2016–2018.156

Other emission units at the source 

include a 13,266 horsepower (hp) 

backup diesel generator, 13 diesel-fired 

boilers, one classroom engine, one 

diesel engine permitted but not yet 

installed, and a coal handling system for 

the new dual-fuel fired boiler. 

The State’s BACT determination for 

the Fairbanks Campus Power Plant 

evaluated potential controls to reduce 

NOX and PM2.5 emissions from each of 

the emissions units at the source.157

TABLE 7—UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA FAIRBANKS CAMPUS POWER PLANT—BACT SUMMARY

Pollutant Alaska’s BACT determination, by source category 

University of Alaska Fairbanks 

Dual fuel-fired boiler (EU 113)—unit rated at 295 MMBtu per hour; coal and woody biomass fuel; constructed in 2019. 

PM2.5 ....................... • Operate and maintain fabric filters at all times the unit is in operation; 

• PM2.5 emissions from EU 113 shall not exceed 0.012 lb/MMBtu over a 3-hour averaging period; and 

• Maintain good combustion practices at all times of operation by following the manufacturer’s operating and maintenance procedures. 

• Conduct an initial performance test to obtain an emission rate. 

Mid-sized diesel-fired boilers (EUs 3 and 4)—each unit rated 180 MMBtu per hour 

PM2.5 ....................... • PM2.5 emissions from EUs 3 and 4 shall not exceed 0.012 lb/MMBtu averaged over a 3-hour period while firing diesel 

fuel; 

• PM2.5 emissions from EU 4 shall not exceed 0.0075 lb/MMBtu averaged over a 3-hour period while firing natural gas; 

• Maintain good combustion practices at all times of operation by following the manufacturer’s operating and maintenance procedures; and 

• Limit NOX emissions from EUs 4 and 8 to no more than 40 tons per year combined. 

Small-sized diesel-fired boilers (EUs 19–21)—each unit rated 6 MMBtu per hour 

PM2.5 ....................... • Combined boilers operating limit of no more than 19,650 hours per year; 

• PM2.5 emissions from EUs 19–21 shall not exceed 0.012 lb/MMBtu; and 

• Maintain good combustion practices by following the manufacturer’s operating and maintenance procedures at all times 

of operation. 

Large diesel-fired engine (EU 8)—unit rated 13,266 horsepower 

PM2.5 ....................... • PM2.5 emissions from EU 8 shall be controlled by operating positive crankcase ventilation and combusting only low ash 

diesel at all times of operation; 

• Limit NOX emissions from EUs 4 and 8 to no more than 40 tons per year combined; 

• Limit non-emergency operation of EU 8 to no more than 100 hours per year; and 

• PM2.5 emissions from EU 8 shall not exceed 0.32 g/hp-hr averaged over a 3-hour period. 

Small diesel-fired engines (EUs 23–24, 26–29) 

PM2.5 ....................... • Limit the operation of EU 27 to no more than 4,380 hours per year; 

• Limit non-emergency operation of EUs 24, 28, and 29 to no more than 100 hours per year each; 

• EU 27 shall comply with the Federal emission standards of NSPS Subpart IIII, Tier 3; 

• Maintain good combustion practices at all times of operation by following the manufacturer’s operating and maintenance procedures; and Demonstrate compliance with the numerical BACT emission limits (emission limit of 0.015–1 g/ 

hp-hr (3-hour average) varies by emission unit, listed in State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol II, Chapter III.D.7.7, Table 

7.7–18) by maintaining records of maintenance procedures conducted in accordance with 40 CFR parts 60 and 63, and 

the EU operating manuals. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES5
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 232 / Tuesday, December 5, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 84657 

158Alaska did not submit source-specific permits 

or regulations at part of the Fairbanks Serious Plan 

or Fairbanks 189(d) Plan. Rather these SIP 

submissions contain narrative provisions reflecting 

Alaska’s BACT determinations, which list emission 

limits and summarize monitoring requirements. For 

certain BACT findings, Alaska in the narrative 

directs the owner and operator of the source to 

apply for a permit to implement the State’s BACT 

determinations. Alaska could potentially rectify the 

enforceability issues with the current SIP 

submissions by submitting the resulting permits or 

portions thereof. 

159See supra, note 158. 160Response to Comments Regarding Best 

Available Control Technology Requirements on the 

Air Plan Partial Approval and Partial Disapproval; 

AK, Fairbanks North Star Borough; 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 Serious Area and 189(d) Plan, EPA–R10– 

OAR–2022–0115. 

TABLE 7—UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA FAIRBANKS CAMPUS POWER PLANT—BACT SUMMARY—Continued 

Pollutant Alaska’s BACT determination, by source category 

Pathogenic waste incinerator (EU 9a)—unit rated 533 lb per hour 

PM2.5 ....................... • PM2.5 emissions from EU 9A shall be controlled with a multiple chamber design; 

• Limit the operation of EU 9A to no more than 109 tons of waste combusted per year; 

• PM2.5 emissions from EU 9A shall not exceed 4.67 lb/ton; 

• Maintain good combustion practices at all times of operation by following the manufacturer’s operating and maintenance procedures; and 

• Compliance with the proposed operational limit will be demonstrated by recording pounds of waste combusted for the 

pathogenic waste incinerator. 

Material handling sources (EUs 105, 107, 109–111, 114, 128–130); coal prep and ash handling 

PM2.5 ....................... • PM2.5 emissions from EUs 105, 107, 109 through 111, 114, and 128 through 130 will be controlled by enclosing each 

EU; 

• PM2.5 emissions from the operation of the material handling units, except EU 111, will be controlled by installing, operating, and maintaining fabric filters and vents; 

• Initial compliance with the emission rates for the material handling units, except EU 111, will be demonstrated with a 

performance test to obtain an emission rate; and 

• Comply with the numerical emission limits (emission limit of 0.003—0.050 gr/dscf and .00005 lb/ton (EU 111) varies by 

emission unit listed in State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol II, Chapter III.D.7.7, Table 7.7–18—note double citation) 

Source: State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol II, Chapter III.D.7.7, Table 7.7–16 and Chapter III.D.7.7.8.6. 

The EPA proposed to disapprove 

Alaska’s BACT provisions for PM2.5 and 

SO2 controls for each of the emission 

sources at the Fairbanks Campus Power 

Plant. Regarding PM2.5 controls for the 

dual fuel-fired boiler, backup diesel 

generator, diesel-fired boilers, and 

material handling sources; the PM2.5 and 

SO2 controls for the pathogenic waste 

incinerator; and the SO2 controls for the 

diesel-fired engines, we proposed to 

determine that Alaska’s BACT 

determinations are appropriate. 

However, Alaska did not submit as part 

of the Fairbanks Serious Plan or 

Fairbanks 189(d) Plan the emission 

limits corresponding to Alaska’s SO2 or 

PM2.5 BACT determinations for some 

emission units, Alaska also did not 

include the MRR requirements 

necessary to make these BACT 

requirements enforceable as a practical 

matter. Therefore, the EPA proposed to 

disapprove Alaska’s PM2.5 BACT 

requirements for these sources as not 

meeting the CAA requirement that the 

SIP include enforceable emission 

limitations. 

The EPA noted that Alaska may 

rectify this issue by submitting the 

enforceable emission limitation and 

monitoring, recordkeeping, and 

reporting requirements necessary to 

ensure the BACT requirements are 

enforceable as a practical matter.158 The 

EPA also noted that the source-specific 

SIP requirement for the material 

handling unit, EU 111, should include 

the operational requirement that the 

building doors remain closed at all 

times that ash loading is occurring. 

Corresponding MRR conditions should 

be included to ensure no visible 

emissions escape the building. 

Regarding the EPA’s proposed 

disapproval of Alaska’s BACT 

evaluation and determination for SO2

controls for the dual fuel-fired boiler, 

the EPA based its proposed disapproval 

on several grounds that are detailed in 

the Proposal and are not restated here. 

The EPA proposed to approve Alaska’s 

analysis that found no NH3-specific 

emission controls for the sources at this 

facility. 

b. Final Rule 

The EPA is finalizing disapproval of 

Alaska’s BACT determination for PM2.5

controls for the Small Diesel-Fired 

Engines (EU IDs 23, 26, and 27). The 

EPA is finalizing a partial approval and 

partial disapproval of the Fairbanks 

Serious Plan BACT provisions for PM2.5

controls for the remaining emission 

units. The EPA is finalizing a partial 

approval because Alaska’s BACT 

determinations embodied in State Air 

Quality Control Plan, Vol. II, Chapter 

III.D.7.7, Table 7.7–16 and Chapter 

III.D.7.7.8.6 are consistent with CAA 

section 189(b) and 40 CFR 51.1010(a). 

The EPA is finalizing a partial 

disapproval because the Fairbanks 

Serious Plan and Fairbanks 189(d) Plan 

lack provisions necessary to ensure the 

BACT determinations are enforceable as 

a practical matter as required by CAA 

sections 110(a)(2)(A) and 172(c)(7).159

On September 25, 2023, Alaska 

withdrew its SO2 BACT determinations 

for the Fairbanks Campus Power Plant. 

Therefore, the EPA is finalizing partial 

disapproval of the Fairbanks Serious 

Plan and Fairbanks 189(d) Plan because 

the plans do not identify, adopt, and 

implement BACT for SO2 at the 

Fairbanks Campus Power Plant. The 

EPA is finalizing approval of Alaska’s 

analysis that found no NH3-specific 

emission controls for the sources at this 

facility. 

c. Comments and Responses 

For a summary of relevant comments 

and the EPA’s detailed responses, see 

the Response to Comments document 

for this requirement, included in the 

docket for this action.160

x. Zehnder Facility 

a. Summary of Proposal 

The Zehnder Facility (Zehnder) is an 

electric generating facility that combusts 

distillate fuel in combustion turbines to 

provide power to the Golden Valley 

Electric Association (GVEA) grid. The 

power plant contains two fuel oil-fired 

simple cycle gas combustion turbines 

and two diesel-fired generators (electromotive diesels) used for emergency 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES5
84658 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 232 / Tuesday, December 5, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

161On September 25, 2023, Alaska withdrew its 

BACT determination and analysis for SO2 controls 

and emission limits at Zehnder. Alaska evaluated 

potential NOX controls for each emission unit, but 

because the EPA is approving Alaska’s 

determination that NOX emissions are not 

significant for PM2.5 formation in the Fairbanks 

nonattainment area, Alaska is not required to 

identify, adopt, or implement BACM or BACT for 

NOX on any sources in the Fairbanks PM2.5

Nonattainment Area. See 40 CFR 51.1006, 

51.1010(a)(2)(ii). 

162See supra, note 158. 

163Response to Comments Regarding Best 

Available Control Technology Requirements on the 

Air Plan Partial Approval and Partial Disapproval; 

AK, Fairbanks North Star Borough; 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 Serious Area and 189(d) Plan, EPA–R10– 

OAR–2022–0115. 

power and to serve as black start 

engines for the GVEA generation 

system. The primary fuel is stored in 

two 50,000 gallon above ground storage 

tanks. Turbine startup fuel and electromotive diesel primary fuel is stored in 

a 12,000 gallon above ground storage 

tank. 

Alaska’s BACT analysis for Zehnder 

evaluated potential controls to reduce 

NOX and PM2.5 emissions from its 

simple cycle gas turbines, large dieselfired engines, and diesel-fired boilers.161

TABLE 8—ZEHNDER FACILITY BACT SUMMARY

Pollutant Alaska’s BACT determination, by source category 

Zehnder facility, Golden Valley Electric Authority 

Fuel oil-fired simple cycle gas turbine (EUs 1 and 2)—each unit rated 268 MMBtu per hour 

PM2.5 ....................... • Combust only low ash fuel; 

• PM2.5 emissions from EUs 1 & 2 shall not exceed 0.012 lb/MMBtu over a 3-hour averaging period; 

• Initial compliance with the proposed PM2.5 emission limit will be demonstrated by conducting a performance test to obtain an emission rate; and 

• Maintain good combustion practices by following the manufacturer’s operating and maintenance procedures at all times 

of operation. 

Diesel-fired emergency generators (EUs 3 and 4)—each unit rated 28 MMBtu per hour 

PM2.5 ....................... • Limit non-emergency operation of the large diesel-fired engines to no more than 100 hours per year each; 

• PM2.5 emissions from EUs 3 and 4 shall not exceed 0.32 g/hp-hr over a 3-hour averaging period; 

• Demonstrate compliance with the numerical BACT emission limit by complying with 40 C.F.R 63 Subpart ZZZZ; and 

• Maintain good combustion practices by following the manufacturer’s operating and maintenance procedures at all times 

of operation. 

Diesel-fired boilers (EUs 10 and 11)—each unit rated 1.7 MMBtu per hour 

PM2.5 ....................... • PM2.5 emissions shall not exceed 0.012 lb/MMBtu over a 3-hour averaging period; 

• Demonstrate compliance with the numerical BACT emission limit by complying with 40 CFR part 63 Subpart JJJJJJ; 

and 

• Maintain good combustion practices by following the manufacturer’s operating and maintenance procedures at all times 

of operation. 

Source: State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol II, Chapter III.D.7.7, Table 7.7–14 and Chapter III.D.7.7.8.4. 

The EPA proposed to disapprove 

Alaska’s BACT determination for PM2.5

and SO2 controls for each of the 

emission sources at the Zehnder facility. 

Regarding PM2.5 controls for the two 

fuel oil-fired simple cycle gas 

combustion turbines, two diesel-fired 

generators, and two diesel fired boilers, 

the EPA found Alaska’s BACT 

determinations were appropriate. 

However, Alaska did not include the 

MRR requirements necessary to make 

these BACT requirements enforceable as 

a practical matter. Therefore, the EPA 

proposed to disapprove Alaska’s PM2.5

BACT requirements for these sources as 

not meeting the CAA requirement that 

the SIP include enforceable emission 

limitations. The EPA noted that Alaska 

can rectify this issue by submitting the 

emission limit, monitoring, 

recordkeeping, and reporting 

requirements necessary to ensure the 

BACT requirements are enforceable as a 

practical matter.162

The EPA proposed to disapprove 

Alaska’s BACT determinations and 

analysis for SO2 controls for each of the 

emissions units. The basis for EPA’s 

proposed disapproval is included in the 

Proposal and is not restated here. 

The EPA proposed to approve 

Alaska’s analysis that found no NH3- 

specific emission controls for the 

sources at this facility. 

b. Final Rule 

The EPA is finalizing partial approval 

and partial disapproval of the Fairbanks 

Serious Plan BACT provisions for PM2.5

controls for all emission units at 

Zehnder. The EPA is finalizing a partial 

approval because Alaska’s BACT 

determinations embodied in State Air 

Quality Control Plan, Vol. II, Chapter 

III.D.7.7, Table 7.7–14 and Chapter 

III.D.7.7.8.4 are consistent with CAA 

section 189(b) and 40 CFR 51.1010(a). 

The EPA is finalizing a partial 

disapproval because the Fairbanks 

Serious Plan and Fairbanks 189(d) Plan 

lack provisions necessary to ensure the 

PM2.5 BACT determinations are 

enforceable as a practical matter as 

required by CAA sections 110(a)(2)(A) 

and 172(c)(7). 

On September 25, 2023, Alaska 

withdrew its SO2 BACT determinations 

for Zehnder. Therefore, the EPA is 

finalizing partial disapproval of the 

Fairbanks Serious Plan and Fairbanks 

189(d) Plan because the plans do not 

identify, adopt, and implement BACT 

for SO2 at Zehnder. The EPA is 

finalizing approval of Alaska’s analysis 

that found no NH3-specific emission 

controls for the sources at this facility. 

c. Comments and Responses 

For a summary of relevant comments 

and the EPA’s detailed responses, see 

the Response to Comments document 

for this requirement, included in the 

docket for this action.163


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES5
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 232 / Tuesday, December 5, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 84659 

164On September 25, 2023, Alaska withdrew its 

BACT findings and analysis for SO2 controls and 

emission limits at the North Pole Power Plant. 

Alaska evaluated potential NOX controls for each 

emission unit, but because the EPA is approving 

Alaska’s determination that NOX emissions are not 

significant for PM2.5 formation in the Fairbanks 

nonattainment area, Alaska is not required to 

identify, adopt, or implement BACM or BACT for 

NOX on any sources in the Fairbanks PM2.5

Nonattainment Area. See 40 CFR 51.1006, 

51.1010(a)(2)(ii). 

165See supra, note 158. 

xi. North Pole Power Plant 

a. Summary of Proposal 

The North Pole Power Plant is an 

electric generating facility that combusts 

distillate fuel in combustion turbines to 

provide power to the GVEA grid. The 

power plant contains two fuel oil-fired 

simple cycle gas combustion turbines, 

two fuel oil-fired combined cycle gas 

combustion turbines, one fuel oil-fired 

emergency generator, and two propanefired boilers. The State’s BACT 

determination for the North Pole Power 

Plant evaluated potential controls to 

reduce NOX and PM2.5 emissions from 

its simple cycle gas turbines, combined 

cycle gas turbines, large diesel-fired 

engines, and propane-fired boilers.164

TABLE 9—NORTH POLE POWER PLANT BACT SUMMARY

Pollutant Alaska’s BACT determination, by source category 

North Pole Power Plant, Golden Valley Electric Authority 

Fuel oil-fired simple cycle gas turbine (EUs 1 and 2)—each unit rated 672 MMBtu per hour PM2.5 potential to emit tons per year 

PM2.5 ....................... • Combust only low ash fuel; 

• Maintain good combustion practices at all times of operation by following the manufacturer’s operating and maintenance procedures; 

• PM2.5 emissions from EUs 1 & 2 shall not exceed 0.012 lb/MMBtu over a 3-hour averaging period; and 

• Initial compliance with the proposed PM2.5 emission limit will be demonstrated by conducting a performance test to obtain an emission rate. 

Fuel oil-fired combined cycle gas turbine (EUs 5 and 6)—each unit rated 455 MMBtu per hour 

PM2.5 ....................... • PM2.5 emissions from EUs 5 and 6 shall be limited by complying with the combined annual NOX limit listed in Operating 

Permit AQ0110TVP03 Conditions 13 and 12, respectively; 

• PM2.5 emissions from EUs 5 & 6 shall not exceed 0.012 lb/MMBtu over a 3-hour averaging period; 

• Initial compliance with the proposed PM2.5 emission limit will be demonstrated by conducting a performance test to obtain an emission rate; and 

• Maintain good combustion practices at all times of operation by following the manufacturer’s operating and maintenance procedures. 

Large diesel-fired engine (EU 7)—unit rated 400 kW/619 horsepower 

PM2.5 ....................... • PM2.5 emissions from EU 7 shall be controlled by operating with positive crankcase ventilation; 

• PM2.5 emissions from EU 7 shall be controlled by limiting operation to no more than 52 hours per 12 month rolling period; 

• PM2.5 emissions from EU 7 shall not exceed 0.32 g/hp-hr over a 3-hour averaging period; and 

• Maintain good combustion practices by following the manufacturer’s operating and maintenance procedures at all times 

of operation. 

Propane-fired boiler (EUs 11 and 12)—each unit rated 5 MMBtu per hour 

PM2.5 ....................... • Burn only propane as fuel in EUs 11 and 12; 

• PM2.5 emissions from EUs 11 and 12 shall not exceed 0.008 lb/MMBtu over a 3-hour averaging period; and 

• Compliance with the emission limit will be demonstrated with records of maintenance following original equipment manufacturer recommendations for operation and maintenance and periodic measurements of O2 balance. 

• Maintain good combustion practices by following the manufacturer’s operating and maintenance procedures at all times 

of operation. 

Source: State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol II, Chapter III.D.7.7, Table 7.7–14 and Chapter III.D.7.7.8.5. 

The EPA proposed to disapprove 

Alaska’s Fairbanks Serious Plan and 

Fairbanks 189(d) Plan BACT provisions 

for PM2.5 and SO2 controls for each of 

the emission sources at the North Pole 

Power Plant. Regarding PM2.5 controls 

for the two fuel oil-fired simple cycle 

gas combustion turbines, two fuel oilfired combined cycle gas combustion 

turbines, and large diesel-fired engine 

and PM2.5 the EPA proposed to find 

Alaska’s BACT determinations are 

appropriate. However, Alaska did not 

submit as part of the Fairbanks Serious 

Plan or Fairbanks 189(d) Plan the 

enforceable emission limits and 

associated MRR requirements needed 

for determining compliance with all 

BACT limits or requirements and to 

make the limits or requirements 

enforceable as a practical matter. 

Therefore, the EPA proposed to 

disapprove Alaska’s PM2.5 BACT 

requirements for these sources as not 

meeting the CAA requirement that the 

SIP include enforceable emission 

limitations. The EPA noted that Alaska 

can rectify this issue by submitting the 

emission limits and monitoring, 

recordkeeping, and reporting 

requirements necessary to ensure the 

BACT requirements are enforceable as a 

practical matter.165

Regarding SO2 controls, the EPA 

proposed to find Alaska’s BACT 

determination for SO2 controls at the 

two propane-fired boilers embodied in 

State Air Quality were appropriate. 

However, Alaska also did not submit the 

MRR requirements needed for 

determining compliance with this BACT 

determination. The EPA proposed to 

disapprove Alaska’s SO2 BACT 

determinations for the simple cycle gas 

turbines and combined-cycle on several 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES5
84660 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 232 / Tuesday, December 5, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

166Response to Comments Regarding Best 

Available Control Technology Requirements on the 

Air Plan Partial Approval and Partial Disapproval; 

AK, Fairbanks North Star Borough; 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 Serious Area and 189(d) Plan, EPA–R10– 

OAR–2022–0115. 

167State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol. II, Chapter 

III.D.7.7.12, adopted November 18, 2020. 

168See 40 CFR 51.1010(c)(2)(ii). On September 

25, 2023, Alaska withdrew its BACT determinations 

and analysis for SO2 controls and emission limits 

at all major stationary sources. 

grounds included in the Proposal and 

not restated here. 

The EPA proposed to approve 

Alaska’s analysis that found no NH3- 

specific emission controls for the 

sources at this facility. 

b. Final Rule 

The EPA is finalizing partial approval 

and partial disapproval of the Fairbanks 

Serious Plan BACT provisions for PM2.5

controls for all emission units at the 

North Pole Power Plant. The EPA is 

finalizing a partial approval because 

Alaska’s PM2.5 BACT determinations 

embodied in State Air Quality Control 

Plan, Vol II, Chapter III.D.7.7, Table 7.7– 

14 and Chapter III.D.7.7.8.5 are 

consistent with CAA section 189(b) and 

40 CFR 51.1010(a). The EPA is 

finalizing a partial disapproval because 

the Fairbanks Serious Plan and 

Fairbanks 189(d) Plan lack provisions 

necessary to ensure the BACT 

determinations are enforceable as a 

practical matter as required by CAA 

sections 110(a)(2)(A) and 172(c)(7). 

On September 25, 2023, Alaska 

withdrew its SO2 BACT determinations 

for the North Pole Power Plant. 

Therefore, the EPA is finalizing partial 

disapproval of the Fairbanks Serious 

Plan and Fairbanks 189(d) Plan because 

the plans do not identify, adopt, and 

implement BACT for SO2 at the North 

Pole Power Plant. 

The EPA is finalizing approval of 

Alaska’s analysis that found no NH3- 

specific emission controls for the 

sources at this facility. 

c. Comments and Responses 

For a summary of relevant comments 

and the EPA’s detailed responses, see 

the Response to Comments document 

for this requirement, included in the 

docket for this action.166

xii. Alaska’s Identification and 

Adoption of Additional Measures and 

Demonstration of 5% Reduction in 

Emissions Pursuant to CAA Section 

189(d) 

a. Summary of Proposal 

The Fairbanks 189(d) Plan included a 

reevaluation of previously rejected 

control measures, as noted above. 

Alaska revised its control strategy in 

two primary ways as an outgrowth of 

this reevaluation. First, Alaska added a 

burn down period of 3 hours for solid 

fuel heating devices that begins upon 

the effective date and time of a 

curtailment announcement. Second, 

Alaska added specific requirements to 

document economic hardship as part of 

a NOASH curtailment program waiver 

for solid fuel devices. 

As part of its reevaluation of control 

measures, Alaska provided additional 

information for a number of control 

measures considered in the BACM 

analysis. The Fairbanks 189(d) Plan 

included additional consideration of 

banning installation of solid fuel 

devices in new construction, limiting 

heating oil to ultra-low sulfur diesel, dry 

wood requirements, emissions controls 

for small area sources, mobile sources, 

and most stringent measures.167

However, Alaska did not reevaluate 

BACT-level controls for stationary 

sources. Specifically, there were a 

number of SO2 control technologies that 

were evaluated and dismissed under the 

Fairbanks Serious Plan that were not 

reconsidered in the Fairbanks 189(d) 

Plan. Therefore, the EPA proposed to 

find that Alaska had not sufficiently met 

the requirement under CAA section 

189(d) to reevaluate additional measures 

that could lead to expeditious 

attainment.168

Regarding the requirement to 

demonstrate five percent annual 

reductions, Alaska included in the 

Fairbanks 189(d) Plan a control strategy 

analysis that demonstrates annual 

reductions of PM2.5 are greater than five 

percent through 2024, Alaska’s 

projected attainment year. However, 

CAA section 189(d) and 40 CFR 

51.1010(c)(4) and (5) require that the 

control strategy contain not just 

measures required to achieve five 

percent annual reductions, but all 

required BACM and additional 

measures that collectively achieve 

attainment as expeditiously as 

practicable. 

The EPA stated in the Proposal that 

Alaska did not adopt and implement all 

available and required control measures 

as part of the control strategy for either 

the Fairbanks Serious Plan or Fairbanks 

189(d) Plan. Therefore, Alaska did not 

necessarily adopt and implement all 

control measures that collectively 

achieve attainment as expeditiously as 

possible. Thus, the EPA proposed to 

disapprove the control strategy included 

in the Fairbanks 189(d) Plan as not 

meeting the full requirements of CAA 

section 189(d) and 40 CFR 51.1010(c). 

b. Final Rule 

The EPA did not receive comments on 

these requirements and is finalizing the 

disapproval as proposed. 

4. Attainment Demonstration and 

Modeling 

i. Summary of Proposal 

The EPA proposed to determine that 

Alaska’s attainment demonstration did 

not fully meet CAA requirements. The 

EPA noted that correct identification of 

the most expeditious attainment date 

requires an evaluation based upon 

expeditious implementation of the 

required emission controls. The EPA 

proposed to disapprove in part the 

Fairbanks Serious Plan and Fairbanks 

189(d) Plan because Alaska did not 

adopt all control measures necessary to 

satisfy the BACM and BACT 

requirements and the requirement to 

adopt all measures necessary to achieve 

attainment as expeditiously as 

practicable. Therefore, the EPA could 

not assess whether Alaska identified the 

expeditious attainment date for 

modeling purposes. 

Therefore, the EPA proposed to find 

that the attainment demonstration in the 

Fairbanks 189(d) Plan does not meet the 

requirements of 40 CFR 51.1011(b)(2). 

The EPA noted that Alaska is currently 

engaged in a multi-year effort to develop 

a new Fairbanks modeling platform, as 

outlined in State Air Quality Control 

Plan, Appendix III.D.7.8 of the 

Fairbanks 189(d) Plan. The EPA made 

clear in the Proposal that it continues to 

support Alaska’s modeling efforts and 

will review updated modeling and 

attainment analysis when submitted by 

the State. 

The EPA proposed to approve of the 

design value Alaska calculated for 

modeling purposes. For base year 

modeling purposes, the 64.7 mg/m3 fouryear average value is appropriate as 

measured between 2016–2019 at the 

Hurst Road monitor in the North Pole 

portion of the Fairbanks Nonattainment 

Area. The base year emissions inventory 

Alaska used for its attainment 

demonstration in the Fairbanks 189(d) 

Plan represented one of the three years 

that the EPA used to determine that the 

area failed to attain by the Serious area 

attainment date. We stated that this base 

year is consistent with the requirements 

of 40 CFR 51.1011(b)(3). 

Finally, the EPA proposed to partially 

disapprove Alaska’s control strategy as 

not meeting the requirements of CAA 

section 189(b) and 40 CFR 51.1010. 

Accordingly, the control strategies 

modeled as part of Alaska’s attainment 

demonstration are not consistent with 

the control strategies required pursuant 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES5
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 232 / Tuesday, December 5, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 84661 

169 40 CFR 51.1011(b)(4). 

170Alaska Department of Environmental 

Conservation (DEC) Division of Air Quality 

Technical Analysis Modeling Report for phase 1, 2, 

and 3 (Last Update February 10, 2023), available at 

https://dec.alaska.gov/media/25pfupho/121- 

technical-modeling-report-02-10-2023.pdf. 

171CAA section 189(b)(1)(B); 40 CFR 51.1010(a) 

and 40 CFR 51.1011(b)(5). 

172CAA section 189(d); 40 CFR 51.1003(c)(2) and 

40 CFR 51.1010(c). 

to 40 CFR 51.1003 and 40 CFR 

51.1010.169 For these reasons, the EPA 

proposed to disapprove the attainment 

demonstration in the Fairbanks 189(d) 

Plan. 

ii. Final Rule 

The EPA is finalizing disapproval of 

the attainment demonstration in the 

Fairbanks 189(d) Plan as not meeting 

the requirements of 40 CFR 51.1011(b). 

iii. Comments and Responses 

Comment: Alaska commented that it 

has been working since 2017 to gather 

the necessary data and update known 

modeling deficiencies to satisfy the 

EPA’s modeling requirements. Alaska 

stated that the Community Multiscale 

Air Quality (CMAQ) model is an EPA 

product upon which Alaska relies to 

satisfy its planning duties under the 

CAA. Alaska has been coordinating with 

the EPA and an international 

consortium of scientists to update the 

known deficiencies in the model. 

Alaska stated that after more than three 

years of interdisciplinary coordination, 

Alaska is now able to produce an air 

quality model that will rectify these 

known deficiencies. However, Alaska 

asserted that the EPA’s intention to 

finalize this action guarantees that 

Alaska’s work with the air quality 

model will ‘‘never see the light of day’’ 

because the EPA’s final action sets into 

motion irreversible events including a 

sanction clock and a Federal 

Implementation Plan (FIP) clock that 

will expire before Alaska can complete 

the necessary modeling work, seek 

public comment, and formally submit 

the model as a SIP update to the EPA. 

Alaska noted that the EPA has made it 

clear in its proposed action to the 

Fairbanks 189(d) Plan that the model in 

its current state is not sufficient to meet 

the attainment demonstration 

requirements in the PM2.5 SIP 

Requirements Rule, and the timing of 

this proposed Consent Decree 

guarantees the outcome of sanctions and 

a FIP. 

Response: The EPA disagrees with 

Alaska that this final action ensures the 

imposition of mandatory sanctions or 

promulgation of a FIP. As discussed in 

the section IV of this preamble, the CAA 

provides time for the State to rectify any 

SIP deficiency before sanctions are 

triggered and before the EPA is required 

to promulgate a FIP. As discussed in the 

Proposal and previously in this 

preamble, the primary basis for the 

EPA’s disapproval of the Fairbanks 

189(d) Plan attainment demonstration is 

that neither the Fairbanks Serious Plan 

nor the Fairbanks 189(d) Plan fully meet 

the CAA control strategy requirements. 

Alaska may rectify these issues by 

adopting the necessary control 

requirements and incorporating the 

projected emissions reductions into its 

modeled attainment demonstration. 

With respect to improving the 

modeling platform used to produce the 

attainment demonstration, the EPA 

supports Alaska’s efforts to develop a 

new modeling platform that addresses 

the identified deficiencies and has 

worked closely with the State to 

develop a new modeling platform for 

use in future attainment 

demonstrations. As detailed in Alaska’s 

Technical Modeling Report 170 and per 

discussions between EPA Region 10 and 

ADEC staff, Alaska will begin the next 

round of attainment demonstration 

modeling in late summer or fall 2023 

using the new modeling platform. Based 

on the effective date of this final action, 

sanctions will not be imposed until 

2025, leaving ample time for Alaska to 

develop and submit an updated SIP. 

The EPA approval of the SIP, which is 

the event that would stop the sanctions 

from being implemented, requires that 

the submitted corrects all identified 

deficiencies. 

Comment: Alaska acknowledged that 

the modeling platform the State used for 

the Fairbanks 189(d) Plan is outdated in 

that it does not reflect the current state 

of scientific knowledge about 

meteorological and photochemical 

processes contributing to PM2.5

formation in Fairbanks. Additionally, 

Alaska stated that there is no 

quantitative performance evaluation for 

the North Pole (Hurst Road) monitor 

because there were not speciated PM2.5

data for the time period of the model 

performance evaluation. Alaska noted 

that the modeling is based on 2008 

meteorological episodes that have not 

been updated or replaced since 

development of the Moderate Area SIP. 

Alaska noted that their Fairbanks 

modeling is now being updated to 

include: the use of updated CMAQ and 

WRF configurations, updated 

preprocessor modeling, model 

performance evaluation at both the 

Hurst Road monitor in North Pole and 

NCORE monitor in Fairbanks based on 

PM2.5 speciation data from those 

monitors, and updated emission 

inventories. Alaska also stated that its 

updated model performance evaluation 

is based on a new meteorological 

episode representative of wintertime 

conditions in the nonattainment area. 

Alaska further detailed the ongoing 

efforts to improve meteorological model 

performance and update how 

atmospheric chemistry is coded into the 

model, with the goal of enhancing the 

model’s capability to simulate 

secondary sulfate formation. 

Alaska stated that with most modeling 

deficiencies resolved, Alaska can now 

conduct a major stationary source SO2

sensitivity-based precursor 

demonstration. Alaska concluded that 

the EPA should avail itself of the 

discretion granted by the CAA and 

carefully consider compelling new 

information to remedy the problems 

created by the CMAQ model and delays 

inherent in working with that model. 

Response: The EPA remains 

committed to working with Alaska on 

improving the modeling platform used 

for attainment modeling in the 

nonattainment area. The EPA agrees that 

model performance improvements have 

likely resulted in a more robust 

modeling platform for SIP modeling in 

the Fairbanks nonattainment area, and 

the EPA will review the updated 

attainment demonstration when it 

submitted by the State as part of a new 

SIP submission. 

The EPA disagrees, however, with 

Alaska’s assertion that updates to the 

model are or have been a prerequisite to 

meeting all CAA planning requirements 

for Serious PM2.5 Nonattainment Areas 

or Serious PM2.5 Areas that Fail to 

Attain. In particular, Alaska was 

required to identify, adopt, and 

implement BACM and BACT on all 

sources of direct PM2.5 and PM2.5

precursors. This requirement is 

generally independent of attainment 

needs. Per the CAA and PM2.5 SIP 

Requirements Rule, Alaska was required 

to adopt these controls before the 

Serious area attainment date of 

December 31, 2019.171 After the 

Fairbanks PM2.5 Nonattainment Area 

failed to attain by December 31, 2019, 

Alaska was required to adopt—by 

December 31, 2020—such additional 

measures as necessary to achieve 

attainment as expeditiously as 

practicable.172 The updates to the 

modeling platform that Alaska is 

completing were not necessary to 

adopting the controls required by the 

CAA. 

Similarly, to the extent Alaska is 

making these updates to support a 

future SO2 precursor demonstration, 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES5
84662 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 232 / Tuesday, December 5, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

173 40 CFR 51.1006. 

174 Kotchenruther (2016). Source apportionment 

of PM2.5 at multiple Northwest U.S. sites: Assessing 

regional winter wood smoke impacts from 

residential wood combustion. Atmospheric 

Environment, 142, 210–219. Available at: https://

doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2016.07.048. Ward 

(2013). The Fairbanks, Alaska PM2.5 Source 

Apportionment Research Study Winters 2005/ 

2006–2012/2013, and Summer 2012. University of 

Montana-Missoula Center for Environmental Health 

Sciences. Available at: https://dec.alaska.gov/air/ 

anpms/communities/fbks-pm2-5-science/. 

175 40 CFR 51.1012(a)(1). 

176 40 CFR 51.1012(a)(2). 

177 40 CFR 51.1012(a). 

178See 40 CFR 51.1012. 

179State Air Quality Control Plan Volume II, 

Chapter III.D.7.10, at p. 9, adopted November 18, 

2020. 

180 Id. 

181 Id. at Vol. III, Appendix III.D.7.10 Fairbanks 

5% Plan SIP Control Measures Benefits 

Spreadsheet. 

this is not a required element of either 

a Serious plan or plan meeting the 

requirements of CAA section 189(d). 

Precursor demonstrations are optional 

components of these plans.173 The EPA 

further notes that it considers the State’s 

overall control strategy and attainment 

demonstration when determining the 

approvability of any PM2.5 precursor 

demonstration for a nonattainment area. 

Source apportionment studies of the 

region 174 have shown that sulfate is a 

substantial contributor to measured 

PM2.5 concentrations in the 

nonattainment area. The EPA recognizes 

that modeling deficiencies were the 

primary reason that Alaska chose not to 

submit a major stationary source SO2

precursor demonstration as part of the 

Fairbanks Serious Plan or Fairbanks 

189(d) Plan. However, without 

additional analysis, data, or information 

submitted as a SIP revision, neither the 

Fairbanks Serious Plan nor the 

Fairbanks 189(d) Plan contain support 

for the hypothesis that major stationary 

sources of SO2 do not significantly 

contribute to measured sulfate 

concentrations in the nonattainment 

area. 

As mentioned by the State, the 

ALPACA research study may result in 

peer-reviewed journal articles that 

provide insights on sulfate sources and 

chemistry in the nonattainment area. 

The EPA would weigh these peerreviewed studies along with model 

performance, precursor model runs, and 

other available data and information 

when evaluating a major stationary 

source SO2 precursor demonstration 

submitted as a SIP revision. 

5. Reasonable Further Progress 

i. Summary of Proposal 

In the Proposal, the EPA explained 

that Alaska withdrew and replaced the 

State Air Quality Control Plan, Chapter 

III.D.7.10, as part of submission of the 

Fairbanks 189(d) Plan. The RFP 

provisions included in the 

Fairbanks189(d) Plan are based on 

Alaska’s proposed control strategy 

designed to meet the requirements of 

CAA sections 189(b) and 189(d), and 40 

CFR 51,1010(a) and (c), based on a 

projected attainment date of 2024. 

Therefore, the approvability of the plan 

with respect to RFP requirements is 

dependent, in part, on the approvability 

of the control strategy and attainment 

demonstration. Specifically, to meet the 

RFP requirement, the State must include 

a schedule describing the 

implementation of control measures 

required by 40 CFR 51.1010.175

Moreover, the RFP projected emissions 

for each milestone year must be based 

on the anticipated implementation 

schedule for control measures required 

by 40 CFR 51.1010.176 Thus, if the 

control strategy does not include all 

required control measures, then the RFP 

provisions will be deficient. 

Similarly, in the Proposal, the EPA 

stated that the purpose of the RFP 

requirement is to demonstrate that the 

attainment plan will achieve annual 

incremental reductions in emissions 

between the base year and the 

attainment date that is as expeditious as 

practicable.177 Accordingly, if the 

attainment year does not reflect the 

most expeditious year practicable, then 

the State’s evaluation of RFP will not 

accurately project progress towards the 

most expeditious attainment year. The 

EPA proposed to disapprove Alaska’s 

attainment demonstration and to 

partially disapprove Alaska’s control 

strategy. Therefore, the EPA proposed to 

disapprove the Fairbanks 189(d) Plan 

with respect to RFP requirements. 

ii. Final Rule 

The EPA is finalizing disapproval of 

the RFP provisions of the Fairbanks 

189(d) Plan as proposed. 

iii. Comments and Responses 

Comment: Alaska cross referenced its 

comments regarding precursor 

demonstration and attainment 

demonstrations. 

Response: The EPA incorporates its 

responses to Alaska comments regarding 

the optional SO2 precursor 

demonstration and attainment 

demonstrations here. Given the inherent 

interrelationships between the control 

strategy, modeled attainment 

demonstration, and RFP, the 

deficiencies in the control strategy and 

attainment demonstration discussed in 

the Proposal and previously in this 

preamble render the RFP provisions of 

the Fairbanks 189(d) plan similarly 

deficient.178

Comment: One commenter noted that 

the EPA only allows the State to take 

credit for 50 percent compliance, but it 

should be 90 percent and the State 

ought to be held to this number. 

Response: The EPA interprets the 

comment as referring to the RFP 

provisions of the Fairbanks 189(d) Plan 

in which Alaska projected 50% 

compliance with the solid fuel burning 

device curtailment program.179

Specifically, Alaska projected 50% 

compliance with the curtailment 

program by 2026.180 First, the EPA did 

not impose this number. Rather, Alaska 

projected this number based on its 

assessment of the compliance rate and 

taking into consideration that 

curtailments do not necessarily apply to 

all portions of the nonattainment area at 

the same time.181 The EPA is not 

approving the RFP provisions as a 

whole and expects Alaska to re-evaluate 

the compliance rate in a subsequent SIPsubmission. The EPA will evaluate the 

projection at that time. The EPA takes 

no position at this time as to whether 

the RFP provisions must assume a 90 

percent compliance rate for the 

curtailment program. Any compliance 

rate must be supported by facts, and 

reasonable assumptions about future 

compliance. The EPA does note, 

however, that better compliance with 

the curtailment program will translate 

into significant reductions in direct 

PM2.5 emissions. The EPA, thus, 

supports all efforts to fully implement 

and enforce this measure. 

6. Quantitative Milestones 

i. Summary of Proposal 

The EPA noted in the Proposal that, 

similar to the RFP requirements, Alaska 

withdrew and resubmitted State Air 

Quality Control Plan, Vol II, Chapter 

III.D.7.10 as part of submission of the 

Fairbanks 189(d) Plan. The quantitative 

milestones (QMs) are based on Alaska’s 

proposed control strategy and 

attainment date of 2024. Therefore, the 

approvability of the QMs is dependent, 

in part, on the approvability of the 

control strategy and modeled attainment 

demonstration. Specifically, if the 

control strategy does not include all 

required control measures, then the 

QMs will necessarily be deficient. The 

EPA noted that Alaska will need to 

submit a new attainment demonstration 

with a new projected attainment date, 

and by extension, reevaluate whether 

the QMs for each milestone year are 

appropriate. The control strategy did not 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES5
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 232 / Tuesday, December 5, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 84663 

182 Determination of Failure To Attain by the 

Attainment Date and Denial of Serious Area 

Attainment Date Extension Request; AK: Fairbanks 

North Star Borough 2006 24-Hour Fine Particulate 

Matter Serious Nonattainment Area, 85 FR 54509, 

September 2, 2020. 

183The EPA notes that it indicated in the 

Proposal that it proposed to approve Volume II, 

Chapter II.D.7.11 Contingency Measures in the 

Proposal. This chapter summarizes Alaska’s 

contingency measures and provides Alaska’s 

explanation for why its measures meet CAA 

requirements. However, the EPA made clear in the 

Proposal that it proposed to disapprove the 

Fairbanks Serious Plan and Fairbanks 189(d) Plan 

as not meeting the contingency measure 

requirements. The EPA is finalizing the disapproval 

as proposed. Given that the EPA is disapproving the 

Fairbanks Serious Plan and Fairbanks 189(d) Plan 

as not meeting the contingency measure 

requirements as proposed, the EPA is also 

disapproving State Air Quality Control Plan 

Volume II, Chapter II.D.7.11 Contingency Measures. 

Approving Volume II, Chapter II.D.7.11 

Contingency Measures would be inconsistent with 

the bases for disapproval of the Fairbanks Serious 

Plan and Fairbanks 189(d) Plan and confusing. 

contain all required control measures. 

Therefore, the QMs are, by extension, 

deficient. Thus, the EPA proposed to 

disapprove the State Air Quality Control 

Plan, Vol II, Chapter III.D.7.10, with 

respect to QMs. 

ii. Final Rule 

The EPA did not receive any 

comments on this requirement and is 

finalizing disapproval of the 

quantitative milestone provisions in the 

Fairbanks 189(d) Plan as proposed. 

7. Contingency Measures 

i. Summary of Proposal 

In the Proposal, the EPA explained 

that Alaska provided two specific 

measures intended to address the 

contingency measures requirement for 

purposes of the Fairbanks Serious Plan 

adopted in 18 AAC 50.077(n). Both of 

these measures pertain to removal of 

certain wood fired heating devices upon 

the triggering of the contingency 

measure as a result of one of the four 

regulatory triggering events as required 

in 40 CFR 51.1014. The first of these 

measures requires owners of older EPAcertified wood fired heating devices, 

i.e., those manufactured at least 25 years 

prior to the triggering event, to remove 

the device upon sale of the property or 

by December 31, 2024, whichever is 

earlier. The second of these measures 

requires the owners of new EPAcertified wood fired hearing devices, 

i.e., those manufactured less than 25 

years prior to the triggering event, to 

remove the device prior to reaching 25 

years from the date of manufacture. 

The EPA did not approve these 

measures as meeting contingency 

measure requirements, but did approve 

them as SIP strengthening on September 

24, 2021 (86 FR 52997). By their terms, 

however, these measures were triggered 

on October 2, 2020,182 the effective date 

of the EPA’s finding that the area failed 

to attain the standard by the outermost 

serious area attainment date of 

December 31, 2019. 

In the Proposal, the EPA also 

explained that Alaska provided one 

additional measure intended to meet the 

contingency measure requirements for 

purposes of the Fairbanks 189(d) Plan. 

This new provision in the Emergency 

Episode Plan, incorporates a 

requirement that, if triggered, would 

lower the air quality woodstove 

curtailment Stage 2 threshold from 30 

mg/m3 to 25 mg/m3 within the Fairbanks 

PM2.5 Area. The EPA proposed to 

approve the revisions to the Fairbanks 

Emergency Episode Plan as SIP 

strengthening because it would provide 

for emission reductions even though it 

would not meet applicable requirements 

for a contingency measure. The EPA 

proposed to disapprove the Fairbanks 

Serious Plan, and Fairbanks 189(d) Plan 

submissions as not meeting the 

contingency measure requirements of 

CAA section 172(c)(9) and 40 CFR 

51.1014. The EPA proposed to 

disapprove the Fairbanks Serious Plan 

for not meeting the contingency 

measure requirements because (1) the 

measures were already triggered and 

therefore were no longer conditional 

and prospective, (2) the measures would 

only achieve 0.01 tons per day 

reductions in the first year of 

implementation, and (3) the measures 

would not achieve emission reductions 

approximately equal to one-year’s-worth 

of RFP at any time after being triggered. 

The EPA proposed to disapprove the 

contingency measure included in the 

Fairbanks 189(d) Plan because (1) the 

measure would not achieve emission 

reductions approximately equal to oneyear’s-worth of RFP (2) the measure 

would not achieve emission reductions 

of all plan precursors, including SO2

and NH3, and (3) Alaska did not include 

an adequate reasoned justification for 

why any additional potential 

contingency measures were 

infeasible.183

ii. Final Rule 

We note that on February 10, 2022, 

the EPA approved and incorporated 18 

AAC 50.030(c) by reference into the SIP, 

State effective November 7, 2020 (87 FR 

7722). The EPA has determined that this 

current, SIP-approved version of 18 

AAC 50.030(c) correctly provides for the 

four triggering events upon which 

continency measures should go into 

effect. In addition, on September 24, 

2021 (86 FR 52997), the EPA approved 

and incorporated by reference the two 

measures from the Fairbanks Serious 

Plan related to replacement of woodfired heating devices in 18 AAC 

50.077(n) as SIP strengthening. In this 

action, the EPA has determined that 

these provisions do not meet 

contingency measures requirements 

because they are already triggered and 

implemented. In this action, the EPA is 

approving the new measure from the 

Fairbanks 189(d) Plan lowering the 

curtailment Stage 2 threshold from 30 

mg/m3 to 25 mg/m3 as SIP strengthening, 

but the EPA has determined that this 

measure alone is insufficient to meet 

contingency measures requirements. 

Thus, the EPA is disapproving the 

Fairbanks Serious Plan and Fairbanks 

189(d) Plan with respect to the 

contingency measures element. The 

State did not submit adequate control 

measures to meet the contingency 

measures requirements of CAA section 

172(c)(9) and 40 CFR 51.1014. 

iii. Comments and Responses 

Comment: One comment from 

Citizens for Clean Air, Alaska 

Community Action on Toxics, Sierra 

Club Alaska Chapter supported the 

EPA’s proposed disapproval. The 

commenter also identified a number of 

other items that the commenter 

described as ‘‘potential contingency 

measures.’’ 

Response: The EPA agrees with the 

commenter that the Fairbanks Serious 

Plan and Fairbanks 189(d) Plan do not 

satisfy the contingency measures 

requirements of the CAA section 

172(c)(9) and 40 CFR 51.1014. The EPA 

agrees that the State should evaluate 

and adopt other measures to meet the 

contingency measure requirements, but 

notes that many of the specific 

suggestions from the commenter also 

may not meet applicable statutory and 

regulatory requirements for contingency 

measures. 

Comment: Alaska commented in 

support of the EPA’s proposed approval 

of revisions to 18 AAC 50.030(c) as 

meeting the trigger mechanism 

requirements of 40 CFR 51.1014 and 

CAA section 172(c)(9). 

Response: The EPA agrees that 18 

AAC 50.030(c) meets the trigger 

mechanism requirements of 40 CFR 

51.1014 and CAA section 172(c)(9) 

because it provides for the 

implementation of contingency 

measures in all four types of triggering 

events. Although this provision meets 

this critical requirement for the 

triggering and implementation of 

contingency measures for areas in 

general, and the EPA approved and 

incorporated the provision by reference 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES5
84664 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 232 / Tuesday, December 5, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

184https://www.epa.gov/air-qualityimplementation-plans/draft-contingency-measuresguidance. 

185Alaska also appears to conflate the BACM 

requirements with the contingency measure 

requirements: ‘‘interpreting the OYW guidance as 

an additional requirement for BACM in Fairbanks 

is severely detached from the facts on the ground 

and could not be justified on review.’’ Pursuant to 

CAA section 172(c)(9), 40 CFR 51.1003, and 40 CFR 

51.1014 contingency measures are independent 

from and in addition to all other measures required 

to be included in the control strategy, including 

RACM/RACT, BACM/BACT, and MSM. Even when 

as a state has adopted and implemented all BACM/ 

BACT as required, this is not a valid basis for not 

adopting contingency measures that meet CAA 

requirements. To the contrary, section 172(c)(9) 

imposes the contingency measure requirement as a 

separate obligation over and above BACM/BACT, 

RFP, the modeled attainment demonstration and 

other nonattainment plan requirements. 

186 Id. 

187Bahr v. EPA, 836 F.3d 1218, 1235–36 (9th Cir. 

2016); Sierra Club v. EPA, 21 F.4th 815, 827–826 

(D.C. Cir. 2021). 

188 59 FR 41998, August 16, 1994, at p. 42015; 

Assoc. of Irritated Residents v. EPA, 10 F.4th 937, 

at pp. 946–947 (9th Cir. 2021). 

189CAA section 172(c)(2); 40 CFR 51.1012. 

190U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards, Air Quality Policy Division, DRAFT: 

Guidance on the Preparation of State 

Implementation Plan Provisions that Address the 

Nonattainment Area Contingency Measure 

Requirements for Ozone and Particulate Matter, 

March 17, 2023, at pp. 20–22. 

191 57 FR 13498, April 16, 1992, at pp. 13543– 

13544 (‘‘The contingency measures to be 

implemented if an area does not attain the 

standards on schedule should be a portion of the 

actual emissions reductions required by the SIP 

control strategy to bring about attainment. 

Therefore, the contingency emissions reductions 

should be approximately equal to the emissions 

reductions necessary to demonstrate RFP for one 

year.’’). 

192 59 FR 41998, August 16, 1994, at p. 42015 (‘‘In 

designing its contingency measures, the State 

should also take into consideration the potential 

into the SIP on February 10, 2022 (87 FR 

7722), we have determined the rule does 

not suffice to meet other important 

requirements with respect to the 

Fairbanks PM2.5 Nonattainment Area, 

such as that the measures actually 

achieve meaningful emission reductions 

in the event of a triggering event. 

Accordingly, approval of the new 

provision that correctly imposes the 

correct triggering events does not fully 

meet the contingency measures element 

of either the Fairbanks Serious Plan or 

the Fairbanks 189(d) Plan. 

Comment: Alaska opposed the EPA’s 

proposed disapproval of its contingency 

measures. Specifically, Alaska 

commented that failure of the 

contingency measure in the Fairbanks 

189(d) Plan to achieve approximately 

one-year’s-worth of RFP is not a valid 

basis for disapproval. The State argued 

that neither CAA section 172(a)(9) nor 

the EPA’s regulations contain an 

explicit requirement that contingency 

measures must achieve approximately 

one-year’s-worth of RFP. Alaska further 

asserted that the guidance upon which 

the EPA relied on for the proposed 

disapproval was not subject to public 

notice and comment. Alaska also 

claimed that the EPA’s guidance 

concerning the amount of emission 

reductions that contingency measures 

should achieve is ‘‘inconsistent with the 

plain language’’ of the CAA. In support 

of this contention, the State cited and 

quoted from the EPA’s recent Draft 

Contingency Measures Guidance as 

evidence that the EPA’s existing 

guidance is flawed.184 Finally, Alaska 

asserted that it has adopted all 

technically and economically feasible 

measures as BACM, and that the CAA 

does not require additional measures as 

contingency measures.185

Response: The EPA disagrees with the 

commenter for a number of reasons. As 

an initial matter, the EPA notes that 

Alaska did not specifically address all 

the of the bases for the EPA’s 

disapprovals for the contingency 

measures Alaska submitted as part of 

the Fairbanks Serious Plan and 

Fairbanks 189(d) Plan, respectively. The 

EPA disagrees with Alaska that the 

contingency measures included in 

either the Fairbanks Serious Plan or 

Fairbanks 189(d) Plan meet CAA 

requirements. 

With respect to the two contingency 

measures the State submitted as part of 

the Fairbanks Serious Plan, the EPA 

noted several deficiencies—any one of 

which independently serve as a basis for 

disapproval. Most notably, the measures 

have already been triggered because the 

Fairbanks area failed to attain the 

NAAQS by the Serious area attainment 

date, thus are already implemented 

measures, and therefore are no longer 

conditional and prospective. The plain 

language of CAA section 172(c)(9) 

dictates that contingency measures must 

be both conditional and prospective, 

such that emissions reductions will 

occur only after a triggering event.186

Courts have already ruled that the EPA 

may not approve measures that are 

already implemented, or the emission 

reductions that result from such already 

implemented measures, as contingency 

measures.187 In addition to this fatal 

flaw in these two measures, the 

measures would only achieve 0.01 tons 

per day reductions of direct PM2.5 in the 

first year of implementation. 

Specifically, the State did not design the 

measures to achieve meaningful 

emissions reductions if triggered prior 

to the State’s target 2024 attainment 

date, such as a failure to meet RFP. This 

undercuts the purpose of contingency 

measures to ensure continued emission 

reduction progress towards attainment 

should any of the triggering events 

listed in 40 CFR 51.1014 occur. Finally, 

the EPA noted that these two 

contingency measures at maximum 

would achieve far less emissions 

reductions than one-year’s-worth of RFP 

in any year of implementation. Given 

these deficiencies, Alaska’s two 

contingency measures submitted as part 

of the Fairbanks Serious Plan (revisions 

to 18 AAC 50.077(n)) do not satisfy the 

CAA’s contingency measure 

requirements. 

With respect to the one additional 

contingency measure the State 

submitted as part of the Fairbanks 

189(d) Plan, the EPA also disagrees with 

Alaska that this measure satisfies CAA 

contingency measure requirements. 

Alaska implies that because the statute 

does not impose an explicit requirement 

with respect to the amount of emission 

reductions contingency measures must 

achieve, the EPA must approve them 

even if they would result in little or no 

emission reductions. The EPA’s position 

remains that contingency measures 

must achieve sufficient emission 

reductions of direct PM2.5 and plan 

precursors following any of the 

triggering events. Accordingly, failure to 

achieve sufficient emissions reductions 

in general, failure to achieve sufficient 

emissions reductions of each plan 

precursor, or failure to achieve 

emissions reductions following one or 

more triggering events are valid bases to 

disapprove a contingency measure. 

The statutory purpose of contingency 

measures is to ensure continued 

progress towards attainment following a 

plan failure, such as failure to meet RFP 

or failure to attain by the attainment 

date.188 As the RFP requirement is the 

statutory basis to measure progress 

towards attainment,189 RFP 

requirements are an appropriate and 

reasonable barometer for measuring the 

sufficiency of emissions reductions that 

the State estimates a contingency 

measure will achieve. The EPA has 

historically used RFP for this purpose, 

and even in more recent draft guidance 

continues to recommend use of RFP, 

albeit measured against a different 

emissions inventory.190 Moreover, 

contingency measures should achieve 

sufficient emission reductions of both 

direct PM2.5 and plan precursors, even 

if it may be appropriate under some 

circumstances to provide for interpollutant trading for contingency 

measures purposes. 

The EPA first articulated these 

positions in the April 16, 1992 General 

Preamble 191 and the August 16, 1994 

Addendum.192 In the context of 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES5
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 232 / Tuesday, December 5, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 84665 

nature and extent of any attainment shortfall for the 

area. The magnitude of the effectiveness of the 

measures should be calculated to achieve the 

appropriate percentage of the actual emission 

reductions required by the SIP control strategy to 

bring about attainment. The EPA has recommended 

that contingency measures provide the emission 

reductions equivalent to one year’s average 

increment of RFP.’’). 

193Fine Particulate Matter National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards: State Implementation Plan 

Requirements, Proposed Rule, 80 FR 15340, March 

23, 2015, at pp. 15392, 15417, 15427. 

194 81 FR 58010, August 24, 2016, at p. 58068. 

195 Id. at pp. 58068, 58093 and 58105. 

196 81 FR 58010, August 24, 2016, at pp. 58067 

and 58093. 

197 ‘‘EPA Comments on 2019 DEC Proposed 

Regulations and SIP—Fairbanks North Star Borough 

Fine Particulate Matter’’ Letter from Krishna 

Viswanathan, Director, EPA Region 10 Air and 

Radiation Division to Alice Edwards, Director, 

ADEC Division of Air Quality, July 19, 2019.at p. 

11; ‘‘EPA Comments on 2020 Department of 

Environmental Conservation (DEC) Proposed 

Regulations and SIP Amendments’’ Letter from 

Krishna Viswanathan, Director, EPA Region 10 Air 

and Radiation Division to Alice Edwards, Director, 

ADEC Division of Air Quality, October 29, 2020 at 

p. 7. 

198 Draft Guidance on the Preparation of State 

Implementation Plan Provisions That Address the 

Nonattainment Area Contingency Measure 

Requirements for Ozone and Particulate Matter, 88 

FR 17571, March 23, 2023. 

199Assoc. of Irritated Residents v. EPA, 10 F.4th 

937, at pp. 946–947 (9th Cir. 2021); Draft 

Contingency Measure Guidance at pp. 17–19. 

200State Air Quality Control Plan Vol. II, Chapter 

III.D.7.10, at p. 13, adopted November 18, 2020. 

implementing the PM2.5 NAAQS, 

contrary to the commenter’s assertions, 

the EPA undertook notice and comment 

on this approach prior to finalizing the 

PM2.5 SIP Requirements Rule.193 At that 

time, commenters raised concerns about 

the challenges of identifying 

contingency measures in certain 

nonattainment areas in which States 

have already imposed aggressive control 

measures as part of the control 

strategy.194 The EPA acknowledged 

these challenges, but reiterated its 

interpretations of the statute that: (1) 

section 172(c)(9) explicitly requires 

States to include contingency measures 

in Moderate area plans, Serious area 

plans, and 189(d) plans; and that (2) 

such contingency measures should 

provide emissions reductions 

approximately equivalent to one year’sworth of reductions needed for RFP in 

the area.195

Significantly, the EPA also indicated 

in the PM2.5 SIP Requirements Rule that 

if a State is unable to identify 

contingency measures that would result 

in emission reductions equivalent to 

approximately one year’s-worth of RFP, 

the State may provide a reasoned 

justification why the smaller amount of 

emissions reductions is appropriate.196

Although the EPA indicated that this 

would only be appropriate in ‘‘the rare 

event’’ that a State is unable to identify 

any additional measures, the EPA did 

provide for this possibility if the State 

provides an adequate demonstration 

that no other measures are feasible. The 

EPA reiterated this interpretation in its 

comment letters on the Fairbanks 

Serious Plan and Fairbanks 189(d) Plan 

and recommended that Alaska either 

adopt additional contingency measures 

that would achieve more emission 

reductions or provide an adequate 

reasoned justification to establish that 

no other measures were feasible.197 In 

the Fairbanks Serious Plan and the 

Fairbanks 189(d) Plan, the State did not 

provide an analysis that would provide 

such an adequate reasoned justification. 

On March 17, 2023, the EPA made 

available ‘‘Draft Guidance on the 

Preparation of State Implementation 

Plan Provisions that Address the 

Nonattainment Area Contingency 

Measure Requirements for Ozone and 

Particulate Matter’’ (‘‘Draft Contingency 

Measure Guidance’’). The Draft 

Contingency Measure Guidance 

addresses three issues with respect to 

the contingency measure requirements 

for ozone and PM2.5 nonattainment 

areas. First, the Draft Contingency 

Measure Guidance addresses the 

method that air agencies should use to 

calculate the amount of emission 

reductions contingency measures 

should provide. Second, the Draft 

Contingency Measure Guidance 

provides air agencies with specific 

recommendations about how to develop 

reasoned justifications for why it cannot 

identify contingency measures that 

result in emissions reductions 

approximately equivalent to RFP. Third, 

the guidance addresses the time period 

within which reductions from 

contingency measures should occur. On 

March 23, 2023, the EPA published in 

the Federal Register a notice of 

availability and public comment period 

on the draft guidance.198 The comment 

period closed on April 24, 2023. 

Alaska incorrectly asserted that the 

EPA’s issuance of Draft Contingency 

Measure Guidance suggests that the 

Agency’s longstanding interpretation of 

CAA section 172(c)(9) with respect to 

the amount of emission reductions that 

contingency measures should achieve is 

inconsistent with the statute. First, the 

EPA has not yet finalized this revised 

guidance. The EPA is currently 

evaluating comments on the Draft 

Contingency Measure Guidance and 

determining whether any changes are 

warranted. Until the EPA finalizes any 

revised guidance, the EPA continues to 

evaluate contingency measures based on 

the approach articulated above. 

Importantly, nowhere in the Draft 

Contingency Measure Guidance does 

the EPA state that its existing approach 

to contingency measures, including 

determining the sufficiency of emission 

reductions, is inconsistent with the 

CAA. To the contrary, the existing 

approach is reflective of recent court 

decisions acknowledging the linkage 

between RFP and contingency 

measures.199 Rather, the draft guidance 

proffers a different approach that the 

EPA believes may also satisfy CAA 

requirements. 

Significantly, even in the new draft 

guidance the EPA continues to 

recommend that States identify and 

adopt contingency measures that will 

achieve approximately one year’s worth 

of progress, but suggests that it may be 

appropriate to base that calculation on 

what one year’s worth of progress would 

be in the attainment year, rather than 

one year based on the base year 

emissions inventory. In the event a State 

cannot identify sufficient measures to 

achieve this amount of emission 

reductions, the EPA’s draft guidance 

follows the Agency’s existing guidance 

with respect to the potential for States 

to provide a ‘‘reasoned justification’’ 

that no other measures are feasible to 

achieve additional emission reductions 

to meet the contingency measures 

requirement. 

Ultimately, the EPA finds the 

contingency measure Alaska submitted 

as part of the Fairbanks 189(d) Plan 

lacking in several critical ways. First, 

the contingency measure only provides 

emissions reductions for direct PM2.5

and not all plan precursors. Alaska did 

not provide any explanation in the SIP 

submission or the comments on the 

Proposal for why additional 

contingency measures specific to plan 

precursors are not feasible. Second, the 

contingency measure only provides 

emission reductions if the triggering 

event is a failure of the plan to obtain 

the NAAQS by the attainment date. If 

the contingency measure is triggered 

earlier, such as in the event of a failure 

to meet RFP, Alaska’s SIP submission 

indicates that the contingency measures 

will achieve substantially less emissions 

reductions—particularly within the first 

year of implementation.200 Finally, the 

maximum emissions reductions Alaska 

estimated the contingency measure 

would achieve, 0.08 PM2.5 tons per day, 

is substantially less than one year’s 

worth of RFP, which is 0.24 PM2.5 tons 

per day. As the EPA suggested in the 

PM2.5 SIP Requirements Rule, Alaska 

could have attempted to provide a 

reasoned justification and supporting 

information to establish that there are 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES5
84666 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 232 / Tuesday, December 5, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

201 Determination of Failure To Attain by the 

Attainment Date and Denial of Serious Area 

Attainment Date Extension Request; AK: Fairbanks 

North Star Borough 2006 24-Hour Fine Particulate 

Matter Serious Nonattainment Area—Final Rule, 85 

FR 54509, September 2, 2020; Determination of 

Failure To Attain by the Attainment Date and 

Denial of Serious Area Attainment Date Extension 

Request; AK: Fairbanks North Star Borough 2006 

24-Hour Fine Particulate Matter Serious 

Nonattainment Area—Proposed Rule, 85 FR 29879, 

May 19, 2020, at p. 29881. 

202Response to Comments Regarding Best 

Available Control Measure Requirements for 

Residential and Commercial Fuel Oil Combustion 

on the Air Plan Partial Approval and Partial 

Disapproval; AK, Fairbanks North Star Borough; 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 Serious Area and 189(d) Plan 

EPA–R10–OAR–2022–0115. 

203See 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)(iv through v). 204 40 CFR 93.120(a)(3). 

no other feasible measures to achieve 

additional emission reductions as 

contingency measures in the Fairbanks 

area but Alaska did not do so. The EPA 

maintains that each of these deficiencies 

form an independent basis to 

disapprove Alaska’s plan as meeting the 

contingency measure requirements. 

Regarding the scarcity of potential 

contingency measures as a rationale for 

the low emission reductions, Alaska did 

not include in its submissions or 

comments on the Proposal a thorough 

evaluation of all potential contingency 

measures, including those measures the 

State deemed infeasible for BACM/ 

BACT purposes. Another potential 

source of contingency measures are 

those measures qualifying as MSM. The 

EPA previously denied Alaska’s request 

to extend the Serious area attainment 

date pursuant to CAA section 188(e) 

because the State failed to adopt MSMs 

for all sources and source categories.201

Consideration of control measures that 

are more stringent than BACM/BACT 

and MSM is a logical starting point for 

identification of additional contingency 

measures. In addition, robust 

contingency measures are particularly 

important for the Fairbanks 

Nonattainment Area given the 

pervasiveness of the air quality problem. 

As part of a subsequent SIP 

submission to cure the deficiencies with 

respect to the contingency measures 

requirements, the EPA encourages 

Alaska to evaluate all control measures 

Alaska previously rejected as either 

technologically or economically 

infeasible as BACM or BACT or as 

additional measures necessary for 

Serious areas that fail to attain and 

adopt those measures that can satisfy, in 

whole or in part, the contingency 

measure requirements. By definition, 

contingency measures are controls 

measures that are required over and 

above what a State is required to adopt 

to meet other nonattainment plan 

requirements such as BACM/BACT, 

RFP, and the modeled attainment 

demonstration showing expeditious 

attainment of the NAAQS. Alaska may 

also identify and adopt new measures it 

has not previously identified and 

evaluated as part of prior SIP 

submissions to satisfy the contingency 

measure requirements. 

Further, as noted in section II.E.(3).(ii) 

of this preamble and in the EPA’s 

Response to Comments document,202

the EPA notes the tremendous emission 

reduction potential of adopting a ULSD 

control measure for residential and 

commercial fuel oil combustion (Alaska 

estimated emission reductions of 669 

tons of SO2 per year through ULSD 

adoption), in an area whose share of 

PM2.5 is increasingly sulfate derived 

from SO2 sources. Therefore, the EPA 

encourages Alaska to exercise its 

authority under CAA section 116 to 

adopt this measure as part of its control 

strategy or evaluate this requirement as 

a contingency measure. 

8. Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets for 

Transportation Conformity 

i. Summary of Proposal 

The EPA proposed to disapprove the 

motor vehicle emission budgets 

submitted as part of the Fairbanks 

189(d) Plan. The EPA explained in the 

Proposal that the Agency evaluated the 

motor vehicle emissions budgets against 

the adequacy criteria in 40 CFR 

93.118(e)(4) as part of the EPA’s review 

of the approvability of the budgets 

according to the process in 40 CFR 

93.118(f)(2). The EPA noted in the 

Proposal that the budgets were clearly 

identified and precisely quantified 

using MOVES2014b, with appropriate 

consultation among Federal, State, and 

local agencies. However, the EPA stated 

in the Proposal that the budgets must be 

considered with other emissions 

sources, consistent with applicable RFP 

and attainment requirements, and be 

consistent with and clearly related to 

the emissions inventory and the control 

measures in the SIP.203 Since the 

budgets must account for other control 

measures to determine the appropriate 

motor vehicle budgets, and the control 

strategy does not include all required 

control measures, then the budgets will 

necessarily be deficient. Therefore, the 

EPA proposed to disapprove the budgets 

for the Fairbanks PM2.5 Nonattainment 

Area. 

ii. Final Rule 

The EPA is finalizing disapproval of 

the motor vehicle budgets for 

transportation conformity as proposed. 

The EPA is finalizing its disapproval 

without a protective finding for the 

motor vehicle emissions budgets, 

consistent with 40 CFR 93.120. 

Specifically, we note that in 

disapproving a control strategy 

implementation plan revision, the EPA 

would give a protective finding where a 

submitted plan contains adopted control 

measures or written commitments to 

adopt enforceable control measures that 

fully satisfy the emissions reductions 

requirements relevant to the statutory 

provision for which the implementation 

plan revision was submitted, such as 

reasonable further progress or 

attainment.204 Based on the discussion 

in section II.E of this preamble, the 

Fairbanks Serious Plan and Fairbanks 

189(d) Plan do not meet this criteria. 

iii. Comments and Responses 

Comment: The EPA received two 

comments regarding its proposed 

disapproval of the motor vehicle 

emission budgets. One comment from 

Alaska stated, ‘‘Alaska addressed each 

individual control measure and 

provided either additional information 

to support dismissal or described the 

actions that Alaska plans to take to 

resolve the deficiency that the EPA 

identified.’’ Another comment from 

FAST Planning opposed the proposed 

disapproval. According to the 

commenter, FAST Planning interpreted 

this finding to mean the budgets were 

disapproved because the EPA proposed 

to disapprove Alaska’s rejection of 

certain mobile source and transportation 

control measures all of which have been 

assessed by Alaska to have limited or no 

reductions to PM2.5 levels. FAST 

Planning stated that factoring into the 

budget calculations measures that have 

limited or no reduction to PM2.5 should 

have little to no effect on the budgets, 

so this does not seem like a logical 

reason to disapprove the budget. The 

comment also includes a graph 

comparing the Fairbanks Moderate Plan 

motor vehicle emission budgets to the 

Fairbanks Serious Plan motor vehicle 

budgets. According to the comment, the 

proposed budgets in the Serious Plan 

are lower than the budgets in the 

Moderate Plan and the latest test results 

show actual emissions below the 

proposed budgets. Furthermore, 

according to the comment, 

incorporating the rejected transportation 

control measures into the analysis will 

have little to no effect on the budgets. 

Response: The PM2.5 SIP 

Requirements Rule requires that any 

attainment plan submitted to the EPA 

under this section shall establish motor 

vehicle emissions budgets for the 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES5
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 232 / Tuesday, December 5, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 84667 

205 40 CFR 51.1003(d). 

206 81 FR 58010, August 24, 2016, at p. 58090. 

207 Vallamsundar and Carlson, Conformity 

Analysis for the FAST Planning 2045 Metropolitan 

Transportation Plan Update, Trinity Consultants, 

section 5.2, March 13, 2023, available in the docket 

for this action. 

208Letter from Amy Jensen, EPA Region 10, 

Regional Wetland Coordinator to Gregory Mazer, 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Alaska District, 

August 19, 2022, included in the docket for this 

action. 

209Alaska Richardson Steese Highway Corridor 

Action Plan, available at: https://

storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/ 

98f64a497c834ae18955d5d6b5994ff4. 

projected attainment year for the area, if 

applicable. The State shall develop such 

budgets according to the requirements 

of the transportation conformity rule as 

they apply to PM2.5 nonattainment areas 

(40 CFR part 93, subpart A).205 In 

addition, the transportation conformity 

regulation at 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4) 

establishes the minimum criteria that a 

motor vehicle emission budget must 

meet in order for the EPA to find the 

budget adequate. These minimum 

criteria include: the motor vehicle 

emissions budget(s), when considered 

together with all other emissions 

sources, is consistent with applicable 

requirements for reasonable further 

progress, attainment, or maintenance 

(whichever is relevant to the given 

implementation plan submission); and 

the motor vehicle emissions budget(s) is 

consistent with and clearly related to 

the emissions inventory and the control 

measures in the submitted control 

strategy implementation plan revision 

or maintenance plan. Consistent with 

the EPA’s Transportation Conformity 

Regulations, the EPA explained in the 

preamble to the PM2.5 SIP Requirements 

Rule that a motor vehicle emissions 

budget for the purposes of a Serious area 

PM2.5 attainment plan is that portion of 

the total allowable emissions within the 

nonattainment area allocated to on-road 

sources as defined in the submitted 

attainment plan. Such motor vehicle 

emissions budgets would be calculated 

using the latest planning assumptions 

and the latest approved motor vehicle 

emissions model available at the time 

that the attainment plan is 

developed.206

The EPA’s disapproval of the motor 

vehicle emission budgets submitted as 

part of the Fairbanks 189(d) Plan is not 

predicated on the EPA’s action on 

Alaska’s BACM determinations for 

mobile sources generally or rejection of 

certain transportation control measures 

as BACM, specifically. While the EPA 

agrees with FAST Planning that the 

motor vehicle budgets are reduced from 

the Fairbanks Moderate Plan to the 

Fairbanks 189(d), the EPA is still unable 

to determine whether the budgets are 

adequate because the EPA is finalizing 

the disapproval of the attainment 

demonstration and RFP provisions in 

the Fairbanks 189(d) Plan. Alaska will 

need to submit budgets as part of its 

next SIP revision for the area that are 

consistent with the revised attainment 

demonstration and RFP provisions. 

Additionally, Alaska has not adopted all 

available BACM and BACT. As a result, 

the EPA is disapproving the Fairbanks 

Serious Plan and Fairbanks 189(d) Plan 

attainment demonstration and 

reasonable further progress provisions. 

Therefore, the EPA is limited in 

determining the adequacy and 

approvability of the motor vehicle 

budgets when the EPA cannot yet 

determine whether all other available 

control measures are implemented that 

would lead to expeditious attainment. 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

the EPA should issue a transportation 

conformity protective finding for the 

regional transportation plan. 

Response: The transportation 

conformity regulation at 40 CFR 93.101 

defines a protective finding as ‘‘a 

determination by EPA that a submitted 

control strategy implementation plan 

revision contains adopted control 

measures or written commitments to 

adopt enforceable control measures that 

fully satisfy the emissions reductions 

requirements relevant to the statutory 

provision for which the implementation 

plan revision was submitted, such as 

reasonable further progress or 

attainment.’’ 

Similarly, the regulation at 40 CFR 

93.120(a)(3) states: ‘‘In disapproving a 

control strategy implementation plan 

revision, EPA would give a protective 

finding where a submitted plan contains 

adopted control measures or written 

commitments to adopt enforceable 

control measures that fully satisfy the 

emissions reductions requirements 

relevant to the statutory provision for 

which the implementation plan revision 

was submitted, such as reasonable 

further progress or attainment.’’ 

As noted in section II.E of this 

preamble, the EPA is finalizing 

disapproval of portions of the control 

strategy in the Fairbanks Serious Plan 

and Fairbanks 189(d) plan as not fully 

meeting CAA requirements. Therefore, 

the submitted plans do not contain 

adopted control measures or written 

commitments to adopt enforceable 

control measures that fully satisfy the 

emissions reductions requirements in 

CAA sections 189(b) and 189(d). 

Therefore, the EPA cannot issue a 

protective finding under 40 CFR 

93.120(a)(3). 

Comment: Several commenters 

expressed concern with the proposed 

Manh Choh mine, particularly the 

increase in heavy-duty vehicle traffic 

while hauling ore through the 

nonattainment area. 

Response: First, the CAA does not 

mandate a State include control 

measures in a Serious area plan or 

189(d) plan for a proposed mining 

operation located outside of the 

Fairbanks nonattainment area or 

associated ore hauling. Thus, the 

potential emissions from the Manh 

Choh mine are outside the scope of this 

action and not a valid basis to 

disapprove the Fairbanks Serious Plan 

or Fairbanks 189(d) Plan. 

Second, with respect to the impact of 

the traffic associated with the mine and 

its impact on transportation conformity, 

the EPA has been working with FAST 

Planning and ADEC to assess these 

potential impacts and ensure that any 

increased emissions do not impede 

expeditious attainment of the PM2.5 24- 

hour NAAQS. As part of the 2045 

Metropolitan Transportation Plan 

Update, a report provided to FAST 

Planning concluded that the area 

continued to meet transportation 

conformity budgets even with the 

increased traffic and resulting emissions 

from the heavy-duty diesel truck 

activity.207 We note that as part of the 

environmental impact assessment of the 

mining project, the EPA sent a letter to 

the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

suggesting a number of measures to 

reduce air quality impacts.208

Additionally, a technical advisory 

committee formed by the Alaska 

Department of Transportation and 

Public Facilities will analyze the 

impacts and potential implications of 

the proposed ore haul operations to 

roadway infrastructure and safety.209

9. Nonattainment New Source Review 

Requirements 

i. Summary of Proposal 

A State with a designated 

nonattainment area is required to have 

a NNSR permitting program for the 

construction and operation of new and 

modified major stationary sources, in 

accordance with CAA sections 

110(a)(2)(C) and 172(c)(5). For purposes 

of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, the 

State must also meet the additional 

requirements of CAA sections 189(b)(3) 

concerning the definition of a major 

stationary source, and 189(e) concerning 

regulated emissions. 

CAA section 189(b)(3) requires that in 

Serious particulate matter 

nonattainment areas, the NNSR major 

source threshold is 70 tons per year. The 

EPA previously approved a revision to 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES5
84668 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 232 / Tuesday, December 5, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

210 57 FR 13498, April 16, 1992, at pp. 13539 and 

13541–13542. 

211Response to Comments Regarding Best 

Available Control Technology Requirements on the 

Air Plan Partial Approval and Partial Disapproval; 

AK, Fairbanks North Star Borough; 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 Serious Area and 189(d) Plan, EPA–R10– 

OAR–2022–0115. 

the Alaska SIP to meet this requirement 

(84 FR 45419, August 29, 2019). CAA 

section 189(e) specifically requires that 

the control requirements applicable to 

major stationary sources of direct PM2.5

also apply to major stationary sources of 

PM2.5 precursors, except where the 

Administrator determines that such 

sources of a precursor or precursors do 

not contribute significantly to PM2.5

levels that exceed the NAAQS in the 

area.210 The default under CAA section 

189(e) is that the State must control 

emissions of direct PM2.5 emissions and 

the emissions of all four PM2.5

precursors, i.e., NOx, VOCs, SO2, and 

NH3, unless the State has submitted an 

optional precursor demonstration, and 

the EPA has approved such 

demonstration. 

As noted in the Proposal and in 

section II.E.9.i of this preamble, the EPA 

previously approved a revision to the 

Alaska SIP to meet this requirement (84 

FR 45419, August 29, 2019), thus 

satisfying the NNSR program element 

for purposes of the Fairbanks Serious 

Plan. In that action, the EPA stated that 

Alaska did not make an optional 

precursor demonstration for NOX, SO2, 

VOC or NH3 for purposes of NNSR 

requirements. Instead, Alaska adopted 

by reference the 40 tons per year 

significant emissions rates for NOX, SO2, 

and VOC set by the EPA, and also 

established a significant emissions rate 

of 40 tons per year for NH3 as a 

precursor for PM2.5, consistent with the 

thresholds established for the other 

PM2.5 precursors. In the Fairbanks 

189(d) Plan submission, ADEC certified 

that the State’s NNSR program meets the 

CAA section 172(c)(5), 189(d), and 

189(e) nonattainment area planning 

requirements. The EPA proposed to 

approve the existing SIP-approved 

NNSR program as applicable in the 

Fairbanks PM2.5 Nonattainment Area for 

purposes of meeting requirements 

Serious areas that fail to attain under 40 

CFR 51.1003(c)(1)(viii). 

ii. Final Rule 

The EPA did not receive any 

comments on this plan element and is 

finalizing approval of the Fairbanks 

Serious Plan and Fairbanks 189(d) Plan 

as meeting the NNSR program 

requirements of CAA sections 172(c)(5), 

189(b)(3), 189(d), and 189(e), and 40 

CFR 51.1003(b)(1)(viii) and (c)(1)(viii). 

10. Additional Comments 

Comment: One commenter questioned 

whether the EPA had complied with the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act prior to 

proposing action on the Fairbanks 

Serious Plan and Fairbanks 189(d) Plan. 

The commenter stated that the RFA 

required Federal agencies to go through 

a due process and if the standards that 

the Federal government have 

established cannot be attained it allows 

agencies to adjust them. The commenter 

further asserted that the EPA was 

required to address the RFA. 

Response: The EPA disagrees with the 

commenter that the EPA was required to 

prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis 

pursuant to the RFA prior to proposing 

or finalizing this action on Alaska’s SIP 

submissions. The RFA, 5 U.S.C. 601– 

612, generally requires agencies to 

prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis 

for any rule subject to notice and 

comment rulemaking requirements 

under the Administrative Procedure Act 

(APA) or any other statute unless an 

agency certifies that the rule will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities 

(SISNOSE). In the notice of proposed 

rulemaking, the EPA certified that this 

action will not have a SISNOSE. In 

particular, the EPA stated that the 

proposed SIP action, if finalized, will 

not in-and-of itself create any new 

requirements but will simply 

disapprove certain State requirements 

for inclusion in the SIP. The EPA’s 

position with respect to its obligations 

under the RFA remains unchanged. 

Comment: One commenter opposed 

the EPA’s proposed determination that 

the EPA’s action on the Fairbanks 

Serious Plan and Fairbanks 189(d) Plan 

would not have Tribal implications 

under Executive Order 13175. The 

commenter argued that the EPA’s action 

would significantly impact Doyon, 

Limited and its shareholders. Doyon, 

Limited is the regional Alaska Native 

corporation for Interior Alaska formed 

under the Alaska Native Claims 

Settlement Act (ANCSA). According to 

the commenter, Doyon, Limited has 

20,400 shareholders, 5,000 of which 

reside in the Fairbanks area. The 

commenter also opposed the EPA’s 

proposed disapproval of the BACT 

determinations for the Fort Wainwright 

CHPP owned and operated by Doyon 

Utilities, LLC. 

Response: Consistent with Executive 

Order 13175, the EPA consulted with 

Doyon, Limited on April 17, 2023. The 

EPA notes that under Executive Order 

13175, the EPA consults with Indian 

Tribes and ANCSA Corporations on a 

regulatory action that has substantial 

direct effect on the Indian Tribe or 

ANCSA corporation and imposes 

substantial direct compliance costs. The 

EPA’s action here approves in part and 

disapproves in part the Fairbanks 

Serious Plan and Fairbanks 189(d) Plan. 

Accordingly, the EPA’s action has no 

direct effect on Doyon, Limited nor any 

other Indian Tribe. Nor does the EPA’s 

action impose direct compliance costs. 

The EPA is not adopting or 

implementing as part of this action any 

affirmative regulations applicable to 

entitles or people in the Fairbanks PM2.5

Nonattainment Area. As a result of this 

action, certain provisions of the 

Fairbanks Serious Plan and Fairbanks 

189(d) Plan are approved into Alaska’s 

SIP. The EPA is disapproving other 

provisions. In response to the EPA’s 

disapprovals, Alaska may adopt new 

regulations that may impact Doyon, 

Limited or its shareholders. The EPA 

addressed Doyon Utilities, LLC’s 

comments regarding BACT in a 

Response to Comment document, 

included in the docket for this action.211

Comment: One commenter opposed 

the proposed disapproval on the basis 

that triggering the mandatory highway 

sanction is not relevant or appropriate 

for the Fairbanks PM2.5 Nonattainment 

Area. The Clean Air Act of 1970 was 

passed to protect public health and 

welfare at a time when pollution from 

vehicles was a serious problem in urban 

areas and included a correlated sanction 

for withholding Federal highway 

funding, yet in present time the EPA 

touts major successes in vehicle 

pollution control in the U.S. by stating 

vehicles today are 99 percent cleaner for 

most tailpipe pollutants than in 1960s 

and 1970s; thus, the commenter asserts, 

making the 53-year old sanction no 

longer relevant. The commenter stated 

that on-road mobile emissions in the 

Fairbanks PM2.5 Nonattainment Area 

only comprise 6.8 percent of the area 

emissions contribution, yet the EPA is 

threatening to use the 53-year-old 

sanction to withhold Federal highway 

funding, which is not correlated nor 

will contribute to solving the problem. 

Response: If the EPA finalizes full or 

partial disapproval of a required SIP 

submission, such as an attainment plan 

submission, or a portion thereof, CAA 

section 179(a) establishes the imposition 

of mandatory sanctions. If the EPA has 

not affirmatively determined that the 

State has corrected the identified 

deficiencies within 18 months after the 

effective date of this action, then, 

pursuant to CAA section 179(a) and (b) 

and 40 CFR 52.31, the offset sanction 

identified in CAA section 179(b)(2) will 

apply in the affected nonattainment 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES5
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 232 / Tuesday, December 5, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 84669 

212The EPA may also defer or stay, as applicable, 

the application of sanctions upon issuance of an 

interim final determination that the revised plan 

corrects the deficiencies prompting the disapproval. 

See 40 CFR 52.31(d)(2). 

213 40 CFR 52.31(a); (d). 

214See, e.g., Statements of Henry A. Waxman, 

Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, 136 Cong. Rec. 

E3699–01, 1990 WL 206989, October 27, 1990, at 

ES700 (‘‘Cutting off Federal highway funds is an 

effective, sanction that can-and should in the 

appropriate situation-be used to ensure compliance 

with clean air requirements that are unrelated to 

transportation issues.’’). See also, CAA section 

502(d)(2), 42 U.S.C. 7661a(d)(2) (authorizing the 

Administrator to apply any of the sanctions in CAA 

section 179(b) if a state does not submit a Title V 

operating permit program or the EPA disapproves 

a state Title V operating permit program). But see, 

S. Rep. 101–228, 1990 USCCAN 3385, December 20, 

1989, at 3413. 

215 42 U.S.C. 7513a(d). 

216 42 U.S.C. 7502(c)(3). 

217 42 U.S.C. 7513a(e). 

218 42 U.S.C. 7513a(b)(1)(B). 

219 Id. 

220 42 U.S.C. 7502(c)(5), 7513a(b)(3), 7513a(d) and 

7513a(e). 

221 Id. 

222Note that the EPA inadvertently indicated that 

it proposed to disapprove the Fairbanks Serious 

Plan and Fairbanks 189(d) Plan as not meeting 

BACT requirements for NH3 in Section V of the 

Proposal. This was in error. The EPA made clear 

in the preamble to the Proposal that it was 

proposing to approve Alaska’s determinations that 

no NH3 controls existed for each of the stationary 

sources listed. 

area. If the EPA has not affirmatively 

determined that the identified 

deficiencies have been corrected within 

6 months after the offset sanction is 

imposed, then the highway funding 

sanction will apply in the affected 

nonattainment area, in accordance with 

CAA section 179(b)(1) and 40 CFR 

52.31. The sanctions will not take effect 

if, within 18 months after the effective 

date of this finding, the EPA 

affirmatively determines that the State 

has made a complete SIP submittal 

correcting the deficiencies for which the 

finding was made.212

In this final action, the EPA is 

disapproving in part the Fairbanks 

Serious Plan and Fairbanks 189(d) Plan 

for not meeting the CAA requirements 

for PM2.5 nonattainment areas, 

specifically attainment projected 

emissions inventory, attainment 

demonstration, control strategy (in part), 

RFP, QM, and contingency measures.213

Congress was clear in CAA section 

179 that if the EPA made any of the 

findings, disapprovals, or 

determinations referred to in CAA 

section 179(a), sanctions must be 

imposed. Furthermore, CAA section 

179(a)(2) makes clear that disapproval of 

a SIP submissions for failure to meet 

one or more of the elements required by 

the CAA triggers mandatory sanctions. 

Thus, the CAA imposes highway 

sanctions regardless of whether mobile 

sources contribute to a particular 

nonattainment problem and regardless 

of whether the State fails to control 

mobile sources in a SIP submission.214

By extension, the EPA does not have 

discretion to choose not to impose 

mandatory sanctions. 

III. Final Action 

A. Final Approval 

1. In this action, the EPA is finalizing 

approval of the submitted revisions to 

the Alaska SIP as meeting the following 

Serious Plan and CAA section 189(d) 215

required elements for the 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS Fairbanks Nonattainment 

Area: 

i. The 2019 base year emissions 

inventory (CAA section 172(c)(3) ;216 40 

CFR 51.1008(c)(1)) for areas subject to 

CAA section 189(d). 

ii. The State’s PM2.5 precursor 

demonstrations for NOX and VOC 

emissions (CAA section 189(e) ;217 40 

CFR 51.1006(a)). 

iii. Partial approval of the control 

strategy as meeting BACM and BACT 

requirements under CAA section 

189(b)(1)(B) 218 and 40 CFR 51.1010(a) 

for the solid fuel home heating device 

source category and residential and 

commercial fuel oil combustion source 

category. Additionally, the EPA is 

finalizing approval as meeting BACM 

and BACT requirements under CAA 

section 189(b)(1)(B) 219 and 40 CFR 

51.1010(a) for the charbroiler, used oil 

burner, and mobile source categories 

(except for rejection of vehicle antiidling requirements), and specific 

regulations under 18 AAC 50.075 

through 077 (except the requirements 

for dry wood sellers under 18 AAC 

50.076(k)), and Fairbanks Emergency 

Episode Plan (except the contingency 

measure portion). 

iv. Approval of Nonattainment New 

Source Review Requirements under 

CAA sections 172(c)(5), 189(b)(3), 

189(d), and 189(e) 220 and 40 CFR 

51.165, 40 CFR 51.1003(b)(1)(viii), and 

40 CFR 51.1003(c)(1)(viii). 

2. The EPA is finalizing partial 

approval of the Fairbanks Serious Plan 

and Fairbanks 189(d) plan SIP 

submissions as meeting applicable 

control strategy BACM and BACT 

requirements (CAA section 

189(b)(1)(B) 221 and 40 CFR 51.1010(a)) 

for the following emission sources: 222

i. Chena Power Plant 

a. Coal-fired boilers (NH3) 

ii. Fort Wainwright 

a. Coal-fired boilers (NH3) 

b. Diesel-fired boilers (NH3) 

c. Large diesel-fired engines (NH3) 

d. Small emergency engines (NH3) 

e. Materials handling (NH3) 

iii. University of Alaska Fairbanks 

a. Dual fuel-fired boiler (NH3) 

b. Mid-sized diesel-fired boilers (NH3) 

c. Small-sized diesel-fired boilers 

(NH3) 

d. Large diesel-fired engine (NH3) 

e. Small diesel-fired engines (NH3) 

f. Pathogenic waste incinerator (NH3) 

g. Material handling (NH3) 

iv. Zehnder 

a. Oil-fired simple cycle gas turbines 

(NH3) 

b. Diesel-fired emergency generators 

(NH3) 

c. Diesel-fired boilers (NH3) 

iv. North Pole Power Plant 

a. Oil-fired simple cycle gas turbines 

(NH3) 

b. Oil-fired combined cycle gas 

turbines (NH3) 

c. Large diesel-fired engine (NH3) 

d. Propane-fired boiler (NH3) 

3. The EPA is finalizing approval of 

the submitted chapters of the Alaska Air 

Quality Control Plan for the Fairbanks 

PM2.5 Nonattainment Area, State 

effective January 8, 2020: 

i. Volume II, Chapter III.D.7.01 

Executive Summary 

ii. Volume II, Chapter III.D.7.02 and 

Volume III Chapter III.D.7.02 

Background and Overview of PM2.5

Rule 

iii. Volume II, Chapter III.D.7.03 and 

Volume III Chapter III.D.7.03 

Nonattainment Area Boundary and 

Design Episode Selection 

vii. Volume II, Chapter III.D.7.13 and 

Volume III Chapter III.D.7.13 

Assurance of Adequacy 

viii. Volume II, Chapter III.D.7.15 

Acronyms and Abbreviations 

4. The EPA is finalizing approval of 

the submitted chapters of the Alaska Air 

Quality Control Plan for the Fairbanks 

PM2.5 Nonattainment Area, State 

effective December 25, 2020: 

i. Volume II, Chapter III.D.7.04 Ambient 

Air Quality and Trends 

ii. Volume II, Chapter III.D.7.05 and 

Volume III Chapter III.D.7.05 PM2.5

Network and Monitoring Program 

iii. Volume II, Chapter III.D.7.06 and 

Volume III Chapter III.D.7.06 

Emissions Inventory for purposes of 

the 2019 base year emissions 

inventory. 

iv. Volume II, Chapter III.D.7.07 and 

Volume III Chapter III.D.7.07 

Control Strategies for purposes of 

the following emission source 

categories: solid fuel home heating 

device, residential and commercial 

fuel oil combustion, charbroiler, 

used oil burner, incinerator, NH3

BACT determination for the Aurora 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES5
84670 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 232 / Tuesday, December 5, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

223The EPA finalized a limited approval of the 

Volume II, Chapter III.D.7.12 Emergency Episode 

Plan as SIP-strengthening on September 24, 2021. 

86 FR 52997, September 24, 2021, at pp. 52997, 

53004. 

224 42 U.S.C. 7513a(d). 

225 42 U.S.C. 7502(c)(1). 

226MSM is applicable if the EPA has previously 

granted an extension of the attainment date under 

CAA section 188(e) for the nonattainment area and 

NAAQS at issue. The EPA denied Alaska’s request 

to extend the Serious area attainment date for the 

Fairbanks Serious Nonattainment Area. 

227 42 U.S.C. 7502(c)(2). 

228 42 U.S.C. 7513a(c). 

229 42 U.S.C. 7502(c)(9). 

230The EPA finalized a limited approval of the 

Volume II, Chapter III.D.7.12 Emergency Episode 

Plan as SIP-strengthening on September 24, 2021. 

86 FR 52997, September 24, 2021, at pp. 52997, 

53004. The EPA’s final limited disapproval does not 

prevent the State from enforcing the Emergency 

Episode Plan, including the contingency measure 

provisions. Nor does the EPA’s limited disapproval 

remove the Emergency Episode Plan, or any portion 

thereof, from the approved SIP. 

231 42 U.S.C. 7513a(b)(1)(B). 

232 Id. 

Energy Chena Power Plant, PM2.5

and NH3 BACT determination for 

the Doyon-Fort Wainwright Central 

Heating and Power Plant; PM2.5 and 

NH3 BACT determination for the 

University of Alaska Fairbanks 

Campus Power Plant except for the 

three small diesel fired engines 

(EUs 23, 26, and 27); PM2.5 and NH3

BACT determinations for Golden 

Valley Electric Association Zehnder 

Power Plant; PM2.5 and NH3 BACT 

Determinations for the Golden 

Valley Electric Association North 

Pole Power Plant; and 

Nonattainment New Source Review 

Requirements. 

v. Volume II, Chapter III.D.7.08 

Modeling, precursor demonstration 

for the purposes of NOX and VOC 

emissions as it relates to BACM and 

BACT requirements and control 

strategy requirements for 

nonattainment areas subject to CAA 

section 189(d). 

5. The EPA is finalizing a partial 

approval of Volume II, Chapter 

III.D.7.12 Emergency Episode Plan, 

except for the contingency measure 

portion, as meeting the BACM and 

BACT requirements for the solid fuel 

heating device source category.223

6. The EPA is finalizing approval and 

incorporating by reference submitted 

regulatory changes into the Alaska SIP. 

Upon this final approval, the Alaska SIP 

will include: 

i. 18 AAC 50.075, except (d)(2), State 

effective January 8, 2020, (solid 

fuel-fired heating devices may not 

exceed 20 percent opacity for more 

than six minutes in any one hour 

when an air quality advisory is in 

effect). 

B. Final Disapproval 

1. The EPA is finalizing disapproval 

of the submitted revisions to the Alaska 

SIP as not meeting the following Serious 

plan and CAA section 189(d) 224

required elements for the 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 Fairbanks Nonattainment Area: 

i. Attainment projected emissions 

inventory requirements of CAA 

section 172(c)(1) 225 and 40 CFR 

51.1008(c)(2); 

ii. Additional measures (beyond those 

already adopted in previous 

nonattainment plan SIP 

submissions for the area as RACM/ 

RACT, BACM/BACT, and MSM 226

(if applicable)) under CAA section 

189(d) and 40 CFR 51.1010(c). 

iii. Attainment demonstration and 

modeling requirements of CAA 

sections 188(c)(2) and 189(b)(1)(A) 

and 40 CFR 51.1003(c) and 51.1011. 

iv. Reasonable further progress (RFP) 

requirements of CAA section 

172(c)(2) 227 and 40 CFR 51.1012. 

v. Quantitative milestones requirements 

of CAA section 189(c) 228 and 40 

CFR 51.1013. 

vi. Contingency measures requirements 

of CAA section 172(c)(9) 229 and 40 

CFR 51.1014 applicable to Serious 

areas subject to CAA sections 189(b) 

and 189(d). 

vii. Motor vehicle emission budgets 

requirements under 40 CFR 

51.1003(d) and 93.118, without a 

protective finding under 40 CFR 

93.120. 

2. The EPA is finalizing disapproval 

of the submitted chapters of the Alaska 

Air Quality Control Plan for the 

Fairbanks PM2.5 Nonattainment Area, 

State effective December 25, 2020: 

i. Volume II, Chapter III.D.7.06 and 

Volume III Chapter III.D.7.06 

Emissions Inventory for purposes of 

the 2024 attainment year emissions 

inventory. 

ii. Volume II, Chapter III.D.7.07 and 

Volume III Chapter III.D.7.07 

Control Strategies for purposes of 

the wood seller requirements, coalfired heating devices, coffee 

roasters, weatherization and energy 

efficiency, light-duty vehicle antiidling, PM2.5 BACT determinations 

for the Aurora Chena Power Plant, 

PM2.5 BACT determinations for the 

University of Alaska Fairbanks 

Campus Power Plant emission units 

23, 26, and 27, 

iii. Volume II, Chapter III.D.7.08 

Modeling 

iv. Volume II, Chapter II.D.7.09 

Attainment Demonstration 

v. Volume II, Chapter II.D.7.10 

Reasonable Further Progress and 

Quantitative Milestones. 

vi. Volume II, Chapter II.D.7.11 

Contingency Measures. 

vii. Volume II, Chapter II.D.7.14 

Conformity and Motor Vehicle 

Emissions Budgets. 

3. The EPA is finalizing limited 

disapproval of the submitted chapters of 

the Alaska Air Quality Control Plan for 

the Fairbanks PM2.5 Nonattainment 

Area, State effective December 25, 2020: 

i. Volume II, Chapter II.D.7.12 

Emergency Episode Plan. The EPA 

is finalizing a limited disapproval 

because the contingency measure 

components do not fully meet the 

contingency measure requirements 

of CAA section 172(c)(9) and 40 

CFR 51.1014.230

4. The EPA is finalizing partial 

disapproval of the Fairbanks Serious 

Plan and Fairbanks 189(d) plan SIP 

submissions as not meeting applicable 

control strategy BACM and BACT 

requirements (CAA section 

189(b)(1)(B) 231 and 40 CFR 51.1010(a)) 

for the following emission source 

categories: 

i. Requirements for wood sellers 

ii. Coal-fired heating devices 

iii. Coffee roasters 

iv. Weatherization and energy efficiency 

measures 

v. Mobile source category (disapproving 

for lack of vehicle anti-idling 

requirements). 

5. The EPA is finalizing partial 

disapproval of the Fairbanks Serious 

Plan and Fairbanks 189(d) plan SIP 

submissions as not meeting applicable 

control strategy BACM and BACT 

requirements (CAA section 

189(b)(1)(B) 232 and 40 CFR 51.1010(a)) 

for the following emission sources: 

i. Chena Power Plant 

a. Coal-fired boilers (PM2.5; SO2) 

ii. Fort Wainwright 

a. Coal-fired boilers (PM2.5; SO2) 

b. Diesel-fired boilers (PM2.5; SO2) 

c. Large diesel-fired engines (PM2.5; 

SO2) 

d. Small emergency engines (PM2.5; 

SO2) 

e. Materials handling (PM2.5) 

iii. University of Alaska Fairbanks 

a. Dual fuel-fired boiler (PM2.5; SO2) 

b. Mid-sized diesel-fired boilers 

(PM2.5; SO2) 

c. Small-sized diesel-fired boilers 

(PM2.5; SO2) 

d. Large diesel-fired engine (PM2.5; 

SO2) 

e. Small diesel-fired engines (PM2.5; 

SO2) 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES5
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 232 / Tuesday, December 5, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 84671 

233On April 1, 1996, the US Department of 

Transportation published a document in the 

Federal Register describing the criteria to be used 

to determine which highway projects can be funded 

or approved during the time that the highway 

sanction is imposed in an area. (See 61 FR 14363, 

April 1, 1996.) 

234CAA section 110(c), 42 U.S.C. 7410(c). 

235Control strategy SIP revisions as defined in the 

transportation conformity include reasonable 

further progress plans and attainment 

demonstrations (40 CFR 93.101). 

236 40 CFR 93.120(a)(2). 

237 40 CFR 93.120(a)(3). 

238 40 CFR 93.120(a)(2). 

239 40 CFR 93.120(a)(1). 

240These include certain types of projects, such 

as safety, mass transit, air quality, and other 

projects that do not involve or directly lead to 

construction. 

f. Pathogenic waste incinerator (PM2.5; 

SO2) 

g. Material handling (PM2.5) 

iv. Zehnder 

a. Oil-fired simple cycle gas turbines 

(PM2.5; SO2) 

b. Diesel-fired emergency generators 

(PM2.5; SO2) 

c. Diesel-fired boilers (PM2.5; SO2) 

v. North Pole Power Plant 

a. Oil-fired simple cycle gas turbines 

(PM2.5; SO2) 

b. Oil-fired combined cycle gas 

turbines (PM2.5; SO2) 

c. Large diesel-fired engine (PM2.5; 

SO2) 

d. Propane-fired boiler (PM2.5; SO2) 

IV. Consequences of a Disapproval 

This section explains the 

consequences of a disapproval of a 

required SIP. The Act provides for the 

imposition of mandatory sanctions and 

the promulgation of a Federal 

implementation plan (FIP) if a State fails 

to obtain EPA approval of a plan 

revision that corrects the deficiencies 

identified by the EPA in its disapproval. 

A. The Act’s Provisions for Mandatory 

Sanctions 

If the EPA finalizes disapproval of a 

required SIP submission, such as an 

attainment plan submission, or a 

portion thereof, CAA section 179(a) 

establishes the imposition of mandatory 

sanctions. If the EPA has not 

affirmatively determined that the State 

has corrected the identified deficiencies 

within 18 months after the effective date 

of this action, then, pursuant to CAA 

section 179(a) and (b) and 40 CFR 52.31, 

the offset sanction identified in CAA 

section 179(b)(2) will apply in the 

affected nonattainment area. If the EPA 

has not affirmatively determined that 

the identified deficiencies have been 

corrected within 6 months after the 

offset sanction is imposed, then the 

highway funding sanction will apply in 

the affected nonattainment area, in 

accordance with CAA section 179(b)(1) 

and 40 CFR 52.31.233 The sanctions will 

not take effect if, within 18 months after 

the effective date of this finding, the 

EPA affirmatively determines that the 

State has made a complete SIP submittal 

correcting the deficiencies for which the 

finding was made. 

B. Federal Implementation Plan 

Provisions That Apply if a State Fails To 

Submit an Approvable Plan 

Additionally, if the EPA affirmatively 

determines that the State has made a 

complete SIP submittal correcting the 

deficiencies for which this finding was 

made and takes action to approve the 

submittal within 2 years of the effective 

date of this finding, EPA is not required 

to promulgate a FIP for the affected 

nonattainment area.234

C. Ramifications Regarding 

Transportation Conformity 

One consequence of the EPA action 

finalizing disapproval of a control 

strategy SIP submission is a conformity 

freeze.235 Final disapproval of the 

attainment demonstration SIP and the 

RFP plan without a protective finding 

results in a conformity freeze beginning 

on the effective date of the 

disapproval.236 The EPA is 

disapproving in part the Fairbanks 

Serious Plan and Fairbanks 189(d) Plan, 

which are attainment plans, because 

they do not include sufficient emissions 

reductions to meet attainment and RFP 

requirements, as discussed above. 

Therefore, the area is not eligible for a 

protective finding and a freeze will 

begin on the effective date of the 

disapproval.237 The area’s Metropolitan 

Planning Organization (MPO), FAST 

Planning, produces the long-range 20- 

year metropolitan transportation plan 

and the short-range transportation 

improvement program. During a 

conformity freeze, only projects in the 

first four years of the currently 

conforming transportation plan and 

transportation improvement program 

may be found to conform until another 

attainment demonstration SIP and RFP 

plan are submitted and the motor 

vehicle emissions budgets are found to 

be adequate or are approved and 

conformity to the revised attainment 

demonstration and RFP provisions is 

determined.238 If the SIP deficiency is 

not remedied after 24 months, when 

highway sanctions are imposed under 

CAA 179(b)(1) and a conformity lapse 

occurs. No new transportation plan, TIP, 

or project may be found to conform 

until another control strategy 

implementation plan revision fulfilling 

the same CAA requirements is 

submitted and conformity to this 

submission is determined.239 However, 

we do note that exempt projects under 

40 CFR 93.126 can proceed during a 

conformity lapse.240

V. Incorporation by Reference 

In this document, the EPA is 

finalizing its proposal to include 

regulatory text in an EPA final rule that 

includes incorporation by reference. In 

accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 

51.5, the EPA is incorporating by 

reference 18 AAC 50.075, except (d)(2), 

State effective January 8, 2020 (requiring 

that solid fuel-fired heating devices may 

not exceed 20 percent opacity for more 

than six minutes in any one hour when 

an air quality advisory is in effect). The 

EPA has made, and will continue to 

make, these materials generally 

available through https://

www.regulations.gov and at the EPA 

Region 10 Office (please contact the 

person identified in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section of this 

document for more information). 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Additional information about these 

statutes and Executive Orders can be 

found at https://www2.epa.gov/ 

lawsregulations/laws-and-executiveorders. 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

This action is not a significant 

regulatory action and was therefore not 

submitted to the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) for review. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 

This action does not impose an 

information collection burden under the 

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction 

Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., because the 

EPA is taking action on Alaska’s SIP 

submissions under section 110 and 

subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act 

will not in-and-of itself create any new 

information collection burdens but 

simply disapproves portions of certain 

State plans submitted for inclusion into 

the SIP. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 

1320.3(b). 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

I certify that this action will not have 

a significant impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. This action 

will not impose any requirements on 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES5
84672 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 232 / Tuesday, December 5, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

small entities beyond those imposed by 

State law. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

This action contains no Federal 

mandates under the provisions of Title 

II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform 

Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 1531– 

1538 for State, local, or Tribal 

governments or the private sector. This 

action approves in part and disapproves 

in part portions of certain pre-existing 

plans under State or local law and 

imposes no new requirements. 

Accordingly, no additional costs to 

State, local, or Tribal governments, or to 

the private sector, result from this 

action. 

E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism 

Executive Order 13132, entitled 

‘‘Federalism’’ (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999), requires the EPA to develop an 

accountable process to ensure 

‘‘meaningful and timely input by State 

and local officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have federalism 

implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have 

federalism implications’’ is defined in 

the Executive Order to include 

regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct 

effects on the States, on the relationship 

between the national government and 

the States, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government.’’ This 

action does not have federalism 

implications. It will not have substantial 

direct effects on the States, on the 

relationship between the National 

Government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132, because it 

merely approves in part and 

disapproves in part portions of certain 

State SIP submissions required by the 

CAA and does not alter the relationship 

or the distribution of power and 

responsibilities established in the Clean 

Air Act. Thus, Executive Order 13132 

does not apply to this action. 

F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination 

With Indian Tribal Governments 

This action does not have Tribal 

implications, as specified in Executive 

Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 

2000), because the SIP submissions that 

the EPA is partially approving and 

partially disapproving would not 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, and the EPA notes that it 

will not impose substantial direct costs 

on Tribal governments or preempt 

Tribal law. Thus, Executive Order 13175 

does not apply to this action. 

G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

The EPA interprets Executive Order 

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

applying only to those regulatory 

actions that concern health or safety 

risks, such that the analysis required 

under section 5–501 of the Executive 

Order has the potential to influence the 

regulation. This action is not subject to 

Executive Order 13045 because it is not 

an economically significant regulatory 

action based on health or safety risks 

subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 

19885, April 23, 1997). This action on 

Alaska’s SIP submissions under section 

110 and subchapter I, part D of the 

Clean Air Act will not in-and-of itself 

create any new regulations but simply 

approves in part and disapproves in part 

portions of the Fairbanks Serious Plan 

and Fairbanks 189(d) Plan submitted for 

inclusion into the SIP. 

H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This action is not subject to Executive 

Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 

2001) because it is not a significant 

regulatory action under Executive Order 

12866. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (‘‘NTTAA’’), Public Law 

104–113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) 

directs the EPA to use voluntary 

consensus standards in its regulatory 

activities unless to do so would be 

inconsistent with applicable law or 

otherwise impractical. Voluntary 

consensus standards are technical 

standards (e.g., materials specifications, 

test methods, sampling procedures, and 

business practices) that are developed or 

adopted by voluntary consensus 

standards bodies. NTTAA directs the 

EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, 

explanations when the Agency decides 

not to use available and applicable 

voluntary consensus standards. The 

EPA believes that this action is not 

subject to requirements of section 12(d) 

of NTTAA because application of those 

requirements would be inconsistent 

with the CAA. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Population 

Executive Order 12898 (Federal 

Actions to Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629, 

February 16, 1994) directs Federal 

agencies to identify and address 

‘‘disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects’’ 

of their actions on minority populations 

and low-income populations to the 

greatest extent practicable and 

permitted by law. The EPA defines 

environmental justice (EJ) as ‘‘the fair 

treatment and meaningful involvement 

of all people regardless of race, color, 

national origin, or income with respect 

to the development, implementation, 

and enforcement of environmental laws, 

regulations, and policies.’’ The EPA 

further defines the term fair treatment to 

mean that ‘‘no group of people should 

bear a disproportionate burden of 

environmental harms and risks, 

including those resulting from the 

negative environmental consequences of 

industrial, governmental, and 

commercial operations or programs and 

policies.’’ 

Alaska did not evaluate 

environmental justice considerations as 

part of its SIP submittal; the CAA and 

applicable implementing regulations 

neither prohibit nor require such an 

evaluation. The EPA performed an 

environmental justice analysis, as is 

described in the ‘‘Environmental Justice 

Considerations’’ section of the EPA’s 

proposed rulemaking. The analysis was 

done for the purpose of providing 

additional context and information 

about this rule to the public, not as a 

basis for this action. 

K. Submission to Congress and the 

Comptroller General 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

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

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. The EPA will 

submit a report containing this action 

and other required information to the 

U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 

Representatives, and the Comptroller 

General of the United States prior to 

publication of the rule in the Federal 

Register. A major rule cannot take effect 

until 60 days after it is published in the 

Federal Register. This action is not a 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES5
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 232 / Tuesday, December 5, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 84673 

‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 

804(2). 

L. Petitions for Judicial Review 

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

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of 

this action must be filed in the United 

States Court of Appeals for the 

appropriate circuit by February 5, 2024. 

Filing a petition for reconsideration by 

the Administrator of this final rule does 

not affect the finality of this action for 

the purposes of judicial review nor does 

it extend the time within which a 

petition for judicial review may be filed, 

and shall not postpone the effectiveness 

of such rule or action. This action may 

not be challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements. See CAA 

section 307(b)(2). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Lead, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Note: This document was signed 

electronically on November 20, 2023. The 

original, November 20, 2023, digital signature 

was invalidated and therefore the document 

was re-signed prior to publication. 

Dated: November 28, 2023. 

Daniel Opalski, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 10. 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, 40 CFR part 52 is amended as 

follows: 

PART 52—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart C—Alaska 

■ 2. Section § 52.70 is amended: 

■ a. In table 1 to paragraph (c) by 

revising the entry ‘‘18 AAC 50.075’’; and 

■ b. In table 5 to paragraph (e) by adding 

entries to the end of the table for 

‘‘II.III.D.7.01 Executive Summary’’, 

‘‘II.III.D.7.02 Background and Overview 

of PM2.5 Rule’’, ‘‘III.III.D.7.02 Appendix 

to Background and Overview of PM2.5

Rule’’, ‘‘II.III.D.7.03 Nonattainment Area 

Boundary and Design Episode 

Selection’’, ‘‘III.III.D.7.03 Appendix to 

Nonattainment Area Boundary and 

Design Episode Selection’’, ‘‘II.III.D.7.04 

Ambient Air Quality and Trends’’, 

‘‘II.III.D.7.05 PM2.5 Network and 

Monitoring Program’’, ‘‘III.III.D.7.05 

Appendix to PM2.5 Network and 

Monitoring Program’’, ‘‘II.III.D.7.06 

Fairbanks Emissions Inventory Data’’, 

‘‘III.III.D.7.06 Appendix to Fairbanks 

Emissions Inventory Data’’, ‘‘II.III.D.7.07 

Control Strategies’’, ‘‘III.III.D.7.07 

Appendix to Control Strategies’’, and 

‘‘II.III.D.7.08 Modeling’’, ‘‘III.III.D.7.08 

Appendix to Modeling’’, ‘‘III.III.D.7.08 

Appendix to Modeling’’, ‘‘II.III.D.7.13 

Assurance of Adequacy’’, ‘‘III.III.D.7.13 

Appendix to Assurance of Adequacy’’, 

and ‘‘II.III.D.7.15 Acronyms and 

Abbreviations’’. 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

§ 52.70 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

TABLE 1 TO PARAGRAPH (c)—EPA-APPROVED ALASKA REGULATIONS

State citation Title/subject 

State 

effective 

date 

EPA approval date Explanations 

Alaska Administrative Code Title 18—Environmental Conservation, Chapter 50—Air Quality Control (18 AAC 50) 

18 AAC 50—Article 1. Ambient Air Quality Management 

*******

18 AAC 50.075 ................... Solid Fuel-Fired Heating 

Device Visible Emission 

Standards.

11/18/2020 12/5/2023, [INSERT FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION].except (d)(2). 

*******

* * * * * (e) * * * 

TABLE 5 TO PARAGRAPH (e)—EPA-APPROVED ALASKA NONREGULATORY PROVISIONS AND QUASI-REGULATORY

MEASURES

Name of SIP provision Applicable geographic or 

nonattainment area 

State 

submittal 

date 

EPA approval date Explanations 

*******

Recently Approved Plans 

*******

II.III.D.7.01 Executive Summary.Fairbanks North Star Borough.12/13/2019 12/5/2023, [Insert FEDERAL REGISTER citation].

II.III.D.7.02 Background 

and Overview of PM2.5

Rule.

Fairbanks North Star Borough.12/13/2019 12/5/2023, [Insert FEDERAL REGISTER citation].


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES5
84674 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 232 / Tuesday, December 5, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 5 TO PARAGRAPH (e)—EPA-APPROVED ALASKA NONREGULATORY PROVISIONS AND QUASI-REGULATORY

MEASURES—Continued 

Name of SIP provision Applicable geographic or 

nonattainment area 

State 

submittal 

date 

EPA approval date Explanations 

III.III.D.7.02 Appendix to 

Background and Overview of PM2.5 Rule.

Fairbanks North Star Borough.12/13/2019 12/5/2023, [Insert FEDERAL REGISTER citation].

II.III.D.7.03 Nonattainment 

Area Boundary and Design Episode Selection.

Fairbanks North Star Borough.12/13/2019 12/5/2023, [Insert FEDERAL REGISTER citation].

III.III.D.7.03 Appendix to 

Nonattainment Area 

Boundary and Design 

Episode Selection.

Fairbanks North Star Borough.12/13/2019 12/5/2023, [Insert FEDERAL REGISTER citation].

II.III.D.7.04 Ambient Air 

Quality and Trends.

Fairbanks North Star Borough.12/15/2020 12/5/2023, [Insert FEDERAL REGISTER citation].

II.III.D.7.05 PM2.5 Network 

and Monitoring Program.

Fairbanks North Star Borough.12/15/2020 12/5/2023, [Insert FEDERAL REGISTER citation].

III.III.D.7.05 Appendix to 

PM2.5 Network and Monitoring Program.

Fairbanks North Star Borough.12/15/2020 12/5/2023, [Insert FEDERAL REGISTER citation].

II.III.D.7.06 Fairbanks Emissions Inventory Data.Fairbanks North Star Borough.12/15/2020 12/5/2023, [Insert FEDERAL REGISTER citation].Approved for purposes of the Fairbanks 

189(d) Plan 2019 base year emissions 

inventory. 

III.III.D.7.06 Appendix to 

Fairbanks Emissions Inventory Data.

Fairbanks North Star Borough.12/15/2020 12/5/2023, [Insert FEDERAL REGISTER citation].Approved for purposes of the Fairbanks 

189(d) Plan 2019 base year emissions 

inventory. 

II.III.D.7.07 Control Strategies.Fairbanks North Star Borough.12/15/2020 12/5/2023, [Insert FEDERAL REGISTER citation].Approved for purposes of the Fairbanks 

Serious Plan and Fairbanks 189(d) 

Plan for the following emission source 

categories: solid fuel home heating 

device; residential and commercial 

fuel oil combustion; charbroiler; used 

oil burner; incinerator; PM2.5 and NH3

BACT determination for Doyon-Fort 

Wainwright Central Heating and 

Power Plant; PM2.5 and NH3 BACT 

determination for the University of 

Alaska Fairbanks Campus Power 

Plant except for the PM2.5 BACT determination for the three small diesel 

fired engines (EUs 23, 26 and 27); 

PM2.5 and NH3 BACT determinations 

for Golden Valley Electric Association 

Zehnder Power Plant; PM2.5 and NH3

BACT Determinations for the Golden 

Valley Electric Association North Pole 

Power Plant; and Nonattainment New 

Source Review Requirements. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES5
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 232 / Tuesday, December 5, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 84675 

TABLE 5 TO PARAGRAPH (e)—EPA-APPROVED ALASKA NONREGULATORY PROVISIONS AND QUASI-REGULATORY

MEASURES—Continued 

Name of SIP provision Applicable geographic or 

nonattainment area 

State 

submittal 

date 

EPA approval date Explanations 

III.III.D.7.07 Appendix to 

Control Strategies.

Fairbanks North Star Borough.12/15/2020 12/5/2023, [Insert FEDERAL REGISTER citation].Approved for purposes of the Fairbanks 

Serious Plan and Fairbanks 189(d) 

Plan for the following emission source 

categories: solid fuel home heating 

device; residential and commercial 

fuel oil combustion; charbroiler; used 

oil burner; incinerator; PM2.5 and NH3

BACT determination for Doyon-Fort 

Wainwright Central Heating and 

Power Plant; PM2.5 and NH3 BACT 

determination for the University of 

Alaska Fairbanks Campus Power 

Plant except for the PM2.5 BACT determination for the three small diesel 

fired engines (EUs 23, 26 and 27); 

PM2.5 and NH3 BACT determinations 

for Golden Valley Electric Association 

Zehnder Power Plant; PM2.5 and NH3

BACT Determinations for the Golden 

Valley Electric Association North Pole 

Power Plant; and Nonattainment New 

Source Review Requirements. 

II.III.D.7.08 Modeling .......... Fairbanks North Star Borough.12/15/2020 12/5/2023, [Insert FEDERAL REGISTER citation].Approved for purposes of the Fairbanks 

189(d) Plan for the PM2.5 precursor 

demonstration for NOX and VOC 

emissions as it relates to BACM/BACT 

control measure requirements and 

control strategy requirements for areas 

subject to CAA section 189(d). 

III.III.D.7.08 Appendix to 

Modeling.

Fairbanks North Star Borough.12/15/2020 12/5/2023, [Insert FEDERAL REGISTER citation].Approved for purposes of the Fairbanks 

189(d) Plan for the PM2.5 precursor 

demonstration for NOX and VOC 

emissions as it relates to BACM/BACT 

control measure requirements and 

control strategy requirements for areas 

subject to CAA section 189(d). 

II.III.D.7.13 Assurance of 

Adequacy.

Fairbanks North Star Borough.12/13/2019 12/5/2023, [Insert FEDERAL REGISTER citation].

III.III.D.7.13 Appendix to 

Assurance of Adequacy.

Fairbanks North Star Borough.12/13/2019 12/5/2023, [Insert FEDERAL REGISTER citation].

II.III.D.7.15 Acronyms and 

Abbreviations.

Fairbanks North Star Borough.12/13/2019 12/5/2023, [Insert FEDERAL REGISTER citation].

■ 3. Amend § 52.73 by adding paragraph 

(e)(2) to read as follows: 

§ 52.73 Approval of plans. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

(2) Fairbanks. 

(i) The EPA approves the revisions to 

the Alaska State Implementation Plan 

submitted on December 13, 2019, and 

December 15, 2020, as meeting the 

following requirements applicable to the 

Fairbanks North Star Borough 2006 24- 

hour PM2.5 Nonattainment Area: 

(A) 2019 base year emissions 

inventory (Clean Air Act section 

172(c)(3), 42 U.S.C. 7502(c)(3), 40 CFR 

51.1008(c)(1)) for areas subject to Clean 

Air Act section 189(d), 42 U.S.C. 

7513a(d); 

(B) PM2.5 precursor demonstrations 

for NOX and VOC emissions (Clean Air 

Act section 189(e), 42 U.S.C. 7513a(e); 

40 CFR 51.1006(a)); 

(C) Partial approval of the control 

strategy as meeting BACM and BACT 

requirements under Clean Air Act 

section 189(b)(1)(B), 42 U.S.C. 

7513a(b)(1)(B), and 40 CFR 51.1010(a) 

for ammonia controls for major 

stationary sources, the solid fuel home 

heating device source category (except 

the requirements for dry wood sellers), 

residential and commercial fuel oil 

combustion source category; the 

charbroiler source category, used oil 

burner source category, and mobile 

source category (except for rejection of 

vehicle anti-idling requirements); and 

(D) Nonattainment New Source 

Review Requirements under Clean Air 

Act sections 172(c)(5), 189(b)(3), 189(d), 

and 189(e), 42 U.S.C. 7502(c)(5), 

7513a(b)(3), 7513a(d), 7513a(e), and 40 

CFR 51.165, 40 CFR 51.1003(b)(1)(viii), 

and 40 CFR 51.1003(c)(1)(viii). 

(ii) The EPA disapproves the revisions 

to the Alaska State Implementation Plan 

submitted on December 13, 2019, and 

December 15, 2020, as not meeting the 

following requirements applicable to the 

Fairbanks North Star Borough 2006 24- 

hour PM2.5 Nonattainment Area: 

(A) Attainment projected emissions 

inventory requirements of Clean Air Act 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES5
84676 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 232 / Tuesday, December 5, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

section 172(c)(1), 42 U.S.C. 7502(c)(1), 

and 40 CFR 51.1008(c)(2)); 

(B) Partial disapproval as not meeting 

applicable control strategy BACM and 

BACT requirements (Clean Air Act 

section 189(b)(1)(B), 42 U.S.C. 

7513a(b)(1)(B), and 40 CFR 51.1010(a)) 

for the following emission source 

categories: PM2.5 and SO2 control 

analysis for major stationary sources, 

requirements for wood sellers, coal-fired 

heating devices, coffee roasters, 

weatherization and energy efficiency 

measures, mobile source category 

(disapproving for lack of vehicle antiidling requirements); 

(C) Additional measures (beyond 

those already adopted in previous 

nonattainment plan SIP submissions for 

the area as RACM/RACT, BACM/BACT, 

and MSM (if applicable)) under Clean 

Air Act section 189(d), 42 U.S.C. 

7513a(d), and 40 CFR 51.1010(c); 

(D) Attainment demonstration and 

modeling requirements of Clean Air Act 

sections 188(c)(2) and 189(b)(1)(A), 42 

U.S.C. 7513(c)(2) and 7513a(b)(1)(A), 

and 40 CFR 51.1003(c) and 51.1011; 

(E) Reasonable further progress (RFP) 

requirements of Clean Air Act section 

172(c)(2), 42 U.S.C. 7502(c)(2), and 40 

CFR 51.1012; 

(F) Quantitative milestones 

requirements of Clean Air Act section 

189(c), 42 U.S.C. 7513a(c), and 40 CFR 

51.1013; 

(G) Contingency measures 

requirements of Clean Air Act section 

172(c)(9), 42 U.S.C. 7502(c)(9), and 40 

CFR 51.1014 applicable to Serious areas 

subject to Clean Air Act sections 189(b) 

and 189(d), 42 U.S.C. 7513a(b) and 

7513a(d); and 

(H) Motor vehicle emission budgets 

requirements under 40 CFR 51.1003(d) 

and 93.118, without a protective finding 

under 40 CFR 93.120. 

[FR Doc. 2023–26521 Filed 12–4–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES5