[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 232 (Tuesday, December 5, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 84626-84676]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-26521]



[[Page 84625]]

Vol. 88

Tuesday,

No. 232

December 5, 2023

Part V





 Environmental Protection Agency





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





 40 Part 52





Air Plan Partial Approval and Partial Disapproval; AK, Fairbanks North 
Star Borough; 2006 24-hour PM2.5 Serious Area and 189(d) Plan; Final 
Rule

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

[[Page 84626]]


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

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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 (PM<INF>2.5</INF>) national ambient air quality 
standard (NAAQS) in the Fairbanks North Star Borough PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
nonattainment area (Fairbanks PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#274d424953404249094a4653534f42506742574609404851"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="076d626973606269296a6673736f62704762776629606871">[email protected]</span></a>.

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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
Nonattainment Area
    D. Clean Air Act Requirements for PM<INF>2.5</INF> Serious Area 
Plans and Serious PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 40 CFR 51.1003(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 (SO<INF>2</INF>) best available control technology (BACT) 
findings submitted as part of the Fairbanks Serious Plan.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> precursor 
demonstrations for nitrogen oxide (NO<INF>X</INF>) and volatile organic 
compound (VOC) emissions; the control strategy for the solid fuel-fired 
heating device source category and ammonia (NH<INF>3</INF>) BACM and 
BACT findings, as applicable; specific regulations under 18 AAC 50.075 
through 077 and the Fairbanks Emergency Episode Plan \4\

[[Page 84627]]

(except for the contingency measure provision).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ State 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ MSM 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ We 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 SO<INF>2</INF> BACT requirements for major 
stationary sources though either identifying, adopting, and 
implementing BACT for the control of SO<INF>2</INF> emissions from 
these sources or a major stationary source SO<INF>2</INF> precursor 
demonstration that meets statutory and regulatory requirements and 
clearly demonstrates these sources do not contribute significantly to 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> levels that exceed the NAAQS in the Fairbanks 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The 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.
    \8\ Letter 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 85 FR 7760, February 11, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 SO<INF>2</INF> 
precursor demonstration for major

[[Page 84628]]

stationary sources. Many of the commenters presumed that the outcome of 
the precursor demonstration would show that SO<INF>2</INF> emissions 
from major stationary sources is not a significant contributor to 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> formation in the Fairbanks 2006 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 SO<INF>2</INF> 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ EPA'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[hyphen]priority 
research needs of EPA Regions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 SO<INF>2</INF> 
precursor demonstration in this SIP submission, if it provides a valid 
basis to establish that SO<INF>2</INF> emissions from either all 
sources or major stationary sources do not significantly contribute to 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> formation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ CAA section 110(k)-(l) and 179. 40 CFR part 51, subpart F.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed further in the following sections of this preamble, 
the EPA will review any future SO<INF>2</INF> precursor demonstration 
based on the statutory and regulatory requirements and EPA guidance. 
The EPA emphasizes that the Agency will review the entire weight-of-
evidence 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA noted in the Proposal that the Fairbanks PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
Nonattainment Area has some of the highest PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
concentrations in the country and has been designated nonattainment for 
the 2006 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> Nonattainment Area. Most of Alaska,

[[Page 84629]]

including the Fairbanks area, is considered ``medically underserved.'' 
\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Medically 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/shortage-designation#mups.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See, 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
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.

[[Page 84630]]

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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
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) PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
monitoring station to characterize PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ For further details of the air quality monitoring network 
in the Fairbanks PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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.

                                    Table 1--Fairbanks PM2.5 Monitoring Locations and Recent Site-Level Design Values
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                          98th percentile ([micro]g/m\3\)
                                                                                         ---------------------------------------------------------------
              Local site name                       Site location             AQS ID                                                       2020-2022 24-
                                                                                               2020            2021           2022 **       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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
monitoring network for the Fairbanks 2006 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Letter 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 84631]]

additional monitors beyond the minimum number required.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 2022 Annual Air Quality Monitoring Network Plan, Alaska 
Department of Environmental Conservation, Final Draft, June 28, 
2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF>. 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> monitoring network for 
the Fairbanks PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 
SO<INF>2</INF> at the Hurst Road site in North Pole, and speciated 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> at both Hurst Road and the Fairbanks National Core 
multipollutant (NCore) monitoring station.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.
    \22\ See Section 4.7.1(b) of Appendix D to 40 CFR part 58.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ U.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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 peer-reviewed 
journal articles from ALPACA studies that are relevant to Alaska's 
future annual network plans or a future SIP submission for the 
Fairbanks PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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

[[Page 84632]]

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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
nonattainment area that failed to attain the PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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).
    \28\ MSM 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).

   Table 3--Combined Fairbanks Serious Plan and Fairbanks 189(d) Plan
                              Requirements
------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Description                 Legal/regulatory requirement
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  CAA planning requirements for PM Serious Areas and Areas That Fail To
                                 Attain
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Base year emissions inventory for         CAA section 172(c)(3); \25\ 40
 Serious areas subject to CAA section      CFR 51.1008(b)(1).
 189(b) *.
Base year emissions inventory for areas   CAA section 172(c)(3); 40 CFR
 subject to CAA section 189(d).            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   CAA section 189(b)(1)(B); \27\
 strategy that ensures that best           40 CFR 51.1010(a).
 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.
Additional measures (beyond those         CAA section 189(d); \29\ 40
 already adopted in previous               CFR 51.1010(c).
 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.
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)         CAA section 172(c)(2); \31\ 40
 provisions.                               CFR 51.1012.
Quantitative milestones.................  CAA section 189(c); \32\ 40
                                           CFR 51.1013.
An adequate evaluation by the State of    CAA section 189(e); \33\ 40
 sources of all four PM2.5 precursors      CFR 51.1006.
 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 **.
Contingency measures applicable to        CAA section 172(c)(9); \34\ 40
 Serious areas subject to CAA section      CFR 51.1014.
 189(b).
Contingency measures applicable to        CAA section 172(c)(9); 40 CFR
 Serious areas subject to CAA section      51.1014.
 189(d).
Nonattainment new source review           CAA sections 172(c)(5),
 provisions.                               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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ The EPA understands the intended reference here to be CAA 
section 172(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Response: The EPA agrees with Alaska that the attainment date for 
the Fairbanks PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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

[[Page 84633]]

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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ The PM<INF>2.5</INF> SIP Requirements Rule at 40 CFR 
51.1005(c) implements this statutory prescription, stating: ``If a 
Serious area fails to attain a particular PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On September 2, 2020, the EPA determined that the Fairbanks 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> and PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> Nonattainment Area.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.
    \40\ The EPA notes, however, that the state needs to consider 
implementing MSMs as contingency measures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 84634]]

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 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ CAA 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).
    \42\ CAA 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.'').
    \43\ Train 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.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ 85 FR 54509, September 2, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 SO<INF>2</INF> BACT 
determinations and analysis for major stationary sources in the 
Fairbanks PM<INF>2.5</INF> Nonattainment Area.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> concentrations in the 
Fairbanks PM<INF>2.5</INF> Nonattainment Area, that trend and 
associated emissions reductions need to be assessed and included in a 
robust modeling analysis that demonstrates compliance with the 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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,

[[Page 84635]]

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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF> and VOC 
emissions. Alaska did not submit a precursor determination for existing 
sources of SO<INF>2</INF> and NH<INF>3</INF> emissions.\46\ Moreover, 
Alaska did not submit a nonattainment new source review (NNSR) 
precursor demonstration for any PM<INF>2.5</INF> precursor. Alaska 
regulates all PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> SIP Requirements Rule and the recommendations in the 
May 30, 2019, PM<INF>2.5</INF> Precursor Demonstration Guidance.\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ According to Alaska, there is a negligible amount of 
NH<INF>3</INF> 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.
    \47\ Memorandum 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 (PM<INF>2.5</INF>) Precursor 
Demonstration Guidance, May 30, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA proposed to approve the State's demonstration that 
NO<INF>X</INF> and VOC emissions do not contribute significantly to 
ambient PM<INF>2.5</INF> levels that exceed the 2006 24-hour 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS in the Fairbanks PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF> and VOC emissions.
    The EPA noted that the concentration-based modeling analysis of VOC 
emissions demonstrates that anthropogenic VOCs have impacts on 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> concentrations in the Fairbanks PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
Nonattainment Area that are well below the 1.5 microgram per cubic 
meter ([micro]g/m\3\) significance threshold. The EPA also proposed 
that the weight of evidence presented in the Fairbanks Serious Plan and 
Fairbanks 189(d) Plan suggested that NO<INF>X</INF> emitted from all 
sources is an insignificant contributor to local PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
concentrations.
ii. Final Rule
    The EPA is finalizing approval of Alaska's PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
precursor demonstrations for NO<INF>X</INF> and VOC emissions included 
in the Fairbanks Serious and 189(d) Plans. The EPA reiterates that 
Alaska did not submit a precursor determination for SO<INF>2</INF> and 
NH<INF>3</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF>, 
SO<INF>2</INF>, VOCs, and NH<INF>3</INF> as precursors to 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF> are emitted in Fairbanks. These 
compounds are ``precursors'' that undergo chemical reactions to form 
PM<INF>2.5</INF>. In September 2021, the EPA approved Alaska's 2019 
precursor demonstrations for VOCs and NO<INF>X</INF>, finding that 
Alaska had sufficiently demonstrated that VOCs and NO<INF>X</INF> do 
not significantly contribute to the PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF> model run, and Earthjustice noted that 
the EPA proposed to find that the weight of evidence suggested that 
NO<INF>X</INF> emitted from all sources is an insignificant contributor 
to local PM<INF>2.5</INF> concentrations.
    The commenters disagreed with the EPA's approval of Alaska's new 
NO<INF>X</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF> emissions from 
anthropogenic sources in the nonattainment area have been removed. 
Based on this modeling, the State demonstrated that ``the maximum 24-
hour average PM<INF>2.5</INF> concentrations due to anthropogenic 
NO<INF>X</INF> emissions were <= 1.22 [mu]g/m\3\ in 2019 for all model 
grid cells containing regulatory monitors, and therefore were below the 
1.5 [mu]g/m\3\ 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 [mu]g/m\3\--approaching the 1.5 [mu]g/m\3\ 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 NO<INF>X</INF>.
    Response: While the State only completed one new model run (a run 
with a 50% reduction of NO<INF>X</INF> emissions from anthropogenic 
sources) for the precursor demonstration in the Fairbanks 189(d) Plan, 
the EPA also considered the NO<INF>X</INF> precursor model runs from 
the Fairbanks Serious Plan when evaluating the NO<INF>X</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> Nonattainment Area or to the modeling 
platform between the Fairbanks Serious Plan and the Fairbanks 189(d) 
Plan. When evaluating the NO<INF>X</INF> precursor demonstration 
submitted by the State, the EPA reviewed several model runs,

[[Page 84636]]

focusing on both the average and maximum modeled PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
concentrations.
    First, a major source precursor analysis where a baseline model run 
was compared to a control model run with a 100% reduction of 
NO<INF>X</INF> 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 
NO<INF>X</INF> 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 
NO<INF>X</INF> 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 
NO<INF>X</INF> 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ Kotchenruther (2016). Source apportionment of 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on all of these data sources, the EPA agrees with the State 
that NO<INF>X</INF> is not a significant contributor to 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 NH<INF>3</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> emissions also 
reduce NH<INF>3</INF> 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 
NH<INF>3</INF> discussed in section II.E.2 of this preamble. Thus, the 
EPA proposed to determine that no additional controls of NH<INF>3</INF> 
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 
NH<INF>3</INF> 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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                               Specific BACM
     Emissions source category        EPA evaluation of specific   State rules relevant        measures, as
                                            BACM measures             to adopted BACM      identified by Alaska
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Solid fuel burning.................  Approve: wood-fired heating  18 AAC 50.075, except   BACM Measures: 1-30,
                                      device requirements and      (d)(2); 18 AAC          33-47, 63, 65-66, R1,
                                      resulting emissions.         50.077, except (g)      R4-R7, R9-R12, R15,
                                                                   and (q).                R16-R17, R29.
                                     Disapprove: Wood seller/dry  18 AAC 50.076(k); 18    BACM Measures: 31-32;
                                      wood requirements; coal-     AAC 50.079(d), (e),     48-49.
                                      fired heating devices.       and (f).
Residential and commercial fuel oil  Approve: pot burners, waste  18 AAC 50.078(b)......  BACM Measures: 51, 52-
 combustion.                          oil; fuel oil boilers;                               53, 61-62.
                                      ULSD as heating oil
                                      (economically infeasible).
Small commercial area sources......  Approve: incinerators (no    18 AAC 50.078(c)......  BACM Measures: 68-70.
                                      sources identified);
                                      charbroilers (economically
                                      infeasible); used oil
                                      burners (economically
                                      infeasible).
                                     Disapprove: coffee roasters  18 AAC 50.078(d)......  BACM Measure: 67.
Energy efficiency measures.........  Disapprove: weatherization   ......................  BACM Measure: 64.
                                      and energy efficiency.
Emissions from mobile sources......  Approve: CARB standards;     ......................  BACM Measures: 54-59,
                                      school bus retrofits; road                           60 (in part), R20.
                                      paving; other
                                      transportation measures;
                                      vehicle idling- heavy-duty
                                      vehicles (economically
                                      infeasible).

[[Page 84637]]

 
                                     Disapprove: light-duty       ......................  BACM Measure: 60 (in
                                      vehicle idling at schools                            part).
                                      and commercial
                                      establishments.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 PM<INF>2.5</INF>, SO<INF>2</INF>, and NH<INF>3</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> and SO<INF>2</INF> emissions. We 
also proposed to approve Alaska's analysis that found no available 
controls that specifically reduce NH<INF>3</INF>.\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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ Alaska 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).
    \50\ Note 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 NH<INF>3</INF> 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 NH<INF>3</INF> controls existed for each of 
the stationary sources listed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 [micro]g/m\3\ 
(Stage 1) and 30 [micro]g/m\3\ (Stage 2), respectively. Alaska also has 
an advisory level set at 15 [micro]g/m\3\ 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 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> and SO<INF>2</INF> emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ State 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> and SO<INF>2</INF> 
emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ Missoula City-County Air Pollution Control Program, Rule 
9.203(1)(a), available at: https://www.missoulacounty.us/government/health/health-department/administration/regulations-ordinances/air-pollution-control-program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Alaska's regulation 18 AAC 50.075(f), applicable to the Fairbanks 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ The 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS 
in the Fairbanks PM<INF>2.5</INF> Nonattainment Area.
    The EPA also proposed to find that the State's additional removal 
or render inoperable restrictions placed on non-certified EPA 
woodstoves, non-pellet outdoor hydronic heaters, coal-fired heating 
devices, and EPA-certified woodstoves greater than 25 years old meet 
BACM requirements for PM<INF>2.5</INF> and SO<INF>2</INF> 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,

[[Page 84638]]

including device registration under 18 AAC 50.077(h) and dry wood 
requirements for wood sellers 18 AAC 50.076 represent BACM for 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> and SO<INF>2</INF> emissions for the solid fuel 
burning source category. These include Alaska State regulations 18 AAC 
50.076 (d-e), (g), (j-l).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ State Air Quality Control Plan, 18 AAC 50.077 (l)-(m).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 coal-fired 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ Alaska 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> and SO<INF>2</INF> 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 NH<INF>3</INF>-
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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \56\ 18 AAC 50.077(a)-(f).
    \57\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 non-pellet 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \58\ 18 AAC 50.077(l).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA's position is that these, as well as other, measures are 
necessary to control direct PM<INF>2.5</INF> emissions and 
SO<INF>2</INF> 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 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \59\ 18 AAC 50.076.
    \60\ 18 AAC 50.076(g).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 84639]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \61\ ADEC also reviewed this measure as part of development of 
the Moderate Area Plan.
    \62\ See State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol. III, Appendix 
III.D.7.7-62.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 
PM<INF>2.5</INF>. 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \65\ 82 FR 42457, September 8, 2017.
    \66\ See 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
Nonattainment Area, Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation 
and Fairbanks North Star Borough, available at: https://dec.alaska.gov/air/anpms/communities/progress-annual-reports/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
Nonattainment Area, specifically.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \68\ Air Plan Approval; AK: Fine Particulate Matter 
Infrastructure Requirements, 83 FR 60769, November 27, 2018, at p. 
60771.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \69\ State Air Quality Control Plan, Volume III, Appendix 
III.D.7.07, at pp. 109-110, Adopted November 19, 2019.
    \70\ State Air Quality Control Plan, Volume II, Chapter 
III.D.7.07 at pp. 101-103, adopted November 19, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 84640]]

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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \71\ State Air Quality Control Plan Vol. III, Appendix III.D.7.7 
at pp. 134-135.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \72\ See 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).
    \73\ See 18 AAC 50.077(l)-(m); 18 AAC 50.079(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \74\ For information on the EPA's Targeted Airshed Program, see: 
https://www.epa.gov/air-quality-implementation-plans/targeted-airshed-grants-program.
    \75\ Voluntary Solid Fuel Burning Appliance Change Out Program 
Application, available at https://www.fnsb.gov/DocumentCenter/View/811/WoodPelletCoal-Appliance-Change-Out-Program-Application-PDF.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 SO<INF>2</INF> 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 SO<INF>2</INF> 
removed (SO<INF>2</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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

[[Page 84641]]

the Proposal that reducing SO<INF>2</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> and 
SO<INF>2</INF> emissions. However, we proposed to approve Alaska's 
analysis that found no NH<INF>3</INF>-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 
SO<INF>2</INF> 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \76\ Response 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
Serious Area and 189(d) Plan EPA-R10-OAR-2022-0115.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \77\ State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol. III, Appendix III.7.7-
5396, adopted November 18, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There are already sources in the Fairbanks PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
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 
cost-effectiveness was calculated to range from $58,252 per 
SO<INF>2</INF> ton removed under low baseline oil market prices to 
$73,816 per SO<INF>2</INF> 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \78\ See the EPA FR Technical Support Document--ULSD residential 
and commercial fuel oil combustion, included in the docket for this 
action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Overall, the EPA's updated cost effectiveness analysis leads to an 
overall cost ranging from $13,046 and $22,893 per SO<INF>2</INF> 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

[[Page 84642]]

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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> removed 
(adjusted to 2019 dollars). Thus, Alaska ultimately determined that 
BACM is economically infeasible for this source.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \79\ 18 AAC 50.078(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \80\ See 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \82\ 18 AAC 60.020; 33 U.S.C. 1321; 40 CFR 279.12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> SIP Requirements Rule, BACM and BACT are 
required for all sources of direct PM<INF>2.5</INF> and 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> precursors. In the PM<INF>2.5</INF> SIP Requirements 
Rule, the EPA expressly determined that given the nature of 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> that typically results from the combined emissions of 
many sources of direct PM<INF>2.5</INF> and PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \83\ 81 FR 58010, August 24, 2016, at p. 58082.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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.

[[Page 84643]]

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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
Nonattainment Area: Hurst Road, A Street, and NCore. The Hurst Road 
monitor, located in North Pole, has historically measured the highest 
concentrations of PM<INF>2.5</INF>. The EPA acknowledges that measured 
concentrations of PM<INF>2.5</INF> at the Hurst Road Monitor have 
declined from 158 [mu]g/m\3\ in 2012 to 72 [mu]g/m\3\ 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 [mu]g/m\3\. The A Street monitor, located in a 
portion of Fairbanks of expected maximum PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> monitoring 
station to characterize expected maximum concentrations in the 
Fairbanks portion of the Fairbanks PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> nonattainment area has attained the 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> Nonattainment Area emit a very small amount of direct 
PM<INF>2.5</INF>--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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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

[[Page 84644]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \87\ Review of the San Joaquin Valley 2018 Plan for the 1997, 
2006, and 2012 PM<INF>2.5</INF> Standards, California Air Resources 
Board, Staff Report, December 21, 2018; Revision to the California 
State Implementation Plan for PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> removed, based on a removal efficiency of 
80 percent.
    Alaska stated that the cost-effectiveness 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \88\ Note, in the Proposal, the EPA proposed to concur with this 
aspect of Alaska's analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
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 chain-driven 
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 under-fire 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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

[[Page 84645]]

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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 large-quantity generators 
producing greater than 26 gallons per month. Due to this limitation, 
Alaska would have to explore other alternatives for large-quantity 
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 cost-effectiveness calculations 
provided along with this comment, the cost-effectiveness for Option 1 
is found to be $730,182 per ton of PM<INF>2.5</INF> emissions 
reduction. The higher shipping cost per gallon and a lower reduction in 
emissions drive the higher cost-effectiveness 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 labor-
intensive 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 cost-effectiveness 
for Option 2 is found to be $653,989 per ton of PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 
cost-effectiveness numbers due to higher costs and minimal emissions 
reduction. Due to economic infeasibility, Alaska dismissed this measure 
as BACM in the Fairbanks PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 SO<INF>2</INF> emissions than 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> emissions, and thus potential for greater reductions 
in SO<INF>2</INF>.\89\ Alaska estimated SO<INF>2</INF> emissions of 
0.0185 tons per day from waste oil (compared to 0.0026 tons per day for 
PM<INF>2.5</INF>). Alaska estimates 135,150 gallons per year of waste 
oil is produced Fairbanks. By applying the SO<INF>2</INF> emission 
factor (instead of PM<INF>2.5</INF>) into the cost calculations for 
each of the two options, the EPA estimates a cost effectiveness value 
of $102,838 per SO<INF>2</INF> ton reduced for Option 1 and $92,107 per 
SO<INF>2</INF> ton reduced for Option 2. While considering 
SO<INF>2</INF> 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \89\ ADEC comments on the Proposal, Docket Identification No. 
EPA-R10-OAR-2022-0115-0353-A5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \90\ The EPA Technical Support Document--control measures. EPA-
R10-OAR-2022-0115-000004, at p. 34.
    \91\ See 81 FR 58010, August 24, 2016, at p. 58085.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 84646]]

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 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> Nonattainment Area and, thus, improving air 
quality. This is particularly important given the age of many homes in 
the Fairbanks PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
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 sub-arctic 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> Nonattainment Area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \92\ See Alaska Community Development Corporation, 
Weatherization Assistance Program, http://www.alaskacdc.org/weatherization-assistance-program.html.
    \93\ See Cold Climate House Research Center, Retrofits, 
available at http://cchrc.org/retrofits/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 moderate-
income 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

[[Page 84647]]

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 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \94\ See PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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.
    \95\ City of Fairbanks Ordinance 6153; City of North Pole Code 
15.12.010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.
    \97\ CAA section 110(a)(2)(E)(i), 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2)(E)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \98\ CAA section 302(d), 42 U.S.C. 7602(d).
    \99\ 40 CFR 51.232.

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

[[Page 84648]]

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \100\ The Constitution of the State of Alaska, Article II, 
Section 1.
    \101\ See, e.g., 40 CFR 52.70(c), Table 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \102\ See U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Saver--Insulation, 
available at https://www.energy.gov/energysaver/insulation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS 
in the Fairbanks PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 high-occupancy 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 NO<INF>X</INF> and VOC emissions 
and the EPA proposed to approve Alaska's precursor demonstration that 
shows NOx and VOCs are not significant precursors to PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
formation in the Fairbanks PM<INF>2.5</INF> Nonattainment Area.
    The EPA also proposed to approve Alaska's determination that no 
NH<INF>3</INF>-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 on-going transportation 
programs for which Alaska took credit were not included in the SIP 
submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \104\ Measure 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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),

[[Page 84649]]

as proposed. The EPA is also finalizing its approval of Alaska's 
determination that no NH<INF>3</INF>-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 NH<INF>3</INF>-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, PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> removed.
    For anti-idling measures, Alaska conducted economic feasibility 
assessments of implementing an anti-idling 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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

[[Page 84650]]

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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \105\ 88 FR 1454, January 10, 2023, at pp. 1464-1465.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \106\ Addendum 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Subsequently, for a State with a Serious PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
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 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> or a 5 percent reduction in emissions of a 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \109\ CAA section 189(d), 42 U.S.C. 7513a(d), and 40 CFR 
51.1010(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \110\ State 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.
    \114\ State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol. III, Appendix 
III.D.7.7 at pp. 5435-538, adopted November 18, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> benefits.\116\ Alaska ultimately concluded anti-idling 
programs are technologically infeasible due to lack of evidence of 
emission benefits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \115\ State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol. III, Appendix 
III.D.7.7 at pp.105-106, adopted November 19, 2019.
    \116\ State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol. III, Appendix 
III.D.7.7 at pp. 5405-5406, adopted November 18, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    However, the emissions reduction benefit of a particular measure is 
not a factor assessing whether the measure is

[[Page 84651]]

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 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> SIP Requirements Rule: The EPA disagrees with Alaska 
that it interpreted and applied the PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 24-hour NAAQS on 
October 3, 2018.\118\ For the mobile source category, the EPA proposed 
to approve the control strategy for numerous reasons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \117\ Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; 
California; South Coast Serious Area Plan for the 2006 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS, 
84 FR 3305, February 12, 2019, at p. 3308.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 heavy-duty 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.\121\Appendix 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \123\ Id. at IV-C-36--IV-C-40.
    \124\ Id. at IV-C-40--IV-C-50.
    \125\ Id. at 100-101.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 high-
emitting 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> SIP Requirements Rule in its action on the 
2016 AQMP and proposed action on the Fairbanks Serious Plan and 
Fairbanks 189(d) Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \126\ Id. at 43--50.
    \127\ Id. at 43; 49.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As for the San Joaquin PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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

[[Page 84652]]

Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicle Idling Reduction Program.\133\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \128\ Clean 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.
    \130\ Clean 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.
    \133\ Id. at D-41 and D-42.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 
plug-ins; 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> SIP 
Requirements Rule. Therefore, the EPA proposed to disapprove the 
Fairbanks Serious Plan and Fairbanks 189(d) plan, in part, on that 
basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \136\ State 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 
heavy-duty diesel vehicles, traffic flow improvements, diesel retrofit 
programs, and ridesharing programs are economically infeasible at this 
time. The EPA evaluated Alaska's cost-effectiveness 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 SO<INF>2</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \137\ State Air Quality Control Plan Vol. III, Appendix 
III.D.7.7 at p.19, adopted November 19, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> Nonattainment Area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \138\ U.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.
    \139\ New Hampshire Administrative Code Env-A 1102.2 Idling 
Limitations for Motor Vehicles (providing an exemption when 
temperatures are below -10 [deg]F); Code of Village of Northport, 
Sec.  289-2; City of Philadelphia Air Management Regulations Ch. IX, 
Section III Idling of Diesel Powered Motor Vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \140\ State 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 84653]]

owning an electric car that functions in -30 [deg]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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \141\ EPA public hearing transcript, held on March 7, 2023, p. 
22-23, included in docket for this action.
    \142\ EPA public hearing transcript, held on March 7, 2023, p. 
35, included in docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regarding Alaska's economic infeasibility demonstration, Alaska 
estimated that imposing vehicle anti-idling 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \143\ 40 CFR 51.1010; 81 FR 58010, August 24, 2016, at p. 58085.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 
PM<INF>2.5</INF>.\145\ Based on this information, the EPA concurs with 
Alaska's determination that traffic flow improvements are economically 
infeasible for the Fairbanks PM<INF>2.5</INF> Nonattainment Area, at 
this time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \144\ Office of the Natural Environment, Federal Highway 
Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Congestion 
Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ) Program 2020 Cost-
Effectiveness 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> Nonattainment 
Area, at this time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \146\ Id. at 75-82.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> reduced.\147\ The EPA verified 
these calculations in the CMAQ Table and concur with Alaska that 
ridesharing programs are economically infeasible, at this time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \147\ Id. at
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 
SO<INF>2</INF> BACT determinations for the stationary sources.\148\ 
Finally, the EPA proposed to approve Alaska's NH<INF>3</INF> 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \148\ On September 25, 2023, Alaska withdrew is SO<INF>2</INF> 
BACT determinations and analysis for major stationary sources in the 
Fairbanks PM<INF>2.5</INF> Nonattainment Area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> or 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> SIP 
Requirements Rule.\149\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \149\ The EPA notes that Alaska applied this threshold to 
emissions units at the GVEA Zehnder facility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> and 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \150\ 40 CFR 51.165(a)(1)(iv)(A)(1); see also 18 AAC 50.040(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \151\ Response 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 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> Serious Area and 189(d) Plan, EPA-R10-OAR-2022-
0115.

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

[[Page 84654]]

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 NO<INF>X</INF>, and PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
emissions from its four coal-fired boilers.\152\ Regarding Alaska's 
analysis for PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> for the four coal-fired boilers at the 
Chena Power Plant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \152\ On September 25, 2023, Alaska withdrew its BACT 
determination and analysis for SO<INF>2</INF> controls and emission 
limits at the Chena Power Plant. Alaska evaluated potential 
NO<INF>X</INF> controls for each emission unit, but because the EPA 
is approving Alaska's determination that NO<INF>X</INF> emissions 
are not significant for PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> Nonattainment Area. See 40 CFR 51.1006, 
51.1010(a)(2)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For SO<INF>2</INF> 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 
NH<INF>3</INF>-specific emission controls for the sources at this 
facility.

                 Table 5--Chena Power Plant BACT Summary
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Alaska's BACT determination, by
             Pollutant                         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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> and SO<INF>2</INF> for 
the Chena Power Plant. The EPA is finalizing approval of Alaska's BACT 
analysis for NH<INF>3</INF> 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \153\ Response 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 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> Serious Area and 189(d) Plan, EPA-R10-OAR-2022-
0115.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 NO<INF>X</INF> and 
PM<INF>2.5</INF>, emissions from each of these emissions units at the 
stationary source.\154\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \154\ On September 25, 2023, Alaska withdrew its BACT 
determination and analysis for SO<INF>2</INF> controls and emission 
limits at Fort Wainwright. Alaska evaluated potential NO<INF>X</INF> 
controls for each emission unit, but because the EPA is approving 
Alaska's determination that NO<INF>X</INF> emissions are not 
significant for PM<INF>2.5</INF> formation in the Fairbanks 
nonattainment area, Alaska is not required to identify, adopt, or 
implement BACM or BACT for NO<INF>X</INF> on any sources in the 
Fairbanks PM<INF>2.5</INF> Nonattainment Area. See 40 CFR 51.1006, 
51.1010(a)(2)(ii).

                  Table 6--Fort Wainwright BACT Summary
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Alaska's BACT determination, by
             Pollutant                         source category
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Fort Wainwright, Doyon Utilities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coal-fired boilers (EUs 1-6)--each unit rated 230 MMBtu per hour
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM2.5.............................  <bullet> Operate and maintain a full
                                     stream baghouse at all times the
                                     units are in operation;
                                    <bullet> PM2.5 emissions from DU EUs
                                     1 through 6 shall not exceed 0.045
                                     lb/MMBtu over a 3-hour averaging
                                     period; and

[[Page 84655]]

 
                                    <bullet> Conduct an initial
                                     performance test to obtain an
                                     emission rate.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Diesel-fired oil boilers (27 emissions units)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM2.5.............................  <bullet> 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);
                                    <bullet> Limit combined operation of
                                     FWA EUs 8, 9, and 10 to 600 hours
                                     per year; and
                                    <bullet> 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.............................  <bullet> Limit combined operation of
                                     FWA EUs 11, 12, and 13 to 600 hours
                                     per year;
                                    <bullet> Limit operation of DU EU 8
                                     to 500 hours per year;
                                    <bullet> PM2.5 emissions from DU EU
                                     8, FWA EUs 50, 51, and 53 shall not
                                     exceed 0.15 g/hp-hr;
                                    <bullet> PM2.5 emissions from FWA
                                     EUs 11 through 13 and 54 shall not
                                     exceed 0.32 g/hp-hr;
                                    <bullet> Limit non-emergency
                                     operation of FWA EUs 50, 51, 53,
                                     and 54 to no more than 100 hours
                                     each per year;
                                    <bullet> Combust only ULSD; and
                                    <bullet> 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.............................  <bullet> Combust only ULSD;
                                    <bullet> 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;
                                    <bullet> 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;
                                    <bullet> Maintain good combustion
                                     practices by following the
                                     manufacturer's operating procedures
                                     at all times of operation; and
                                    <bullet> 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.............................  <bullet> 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;
                                    <bullet> PM2.5 emissions from DU EU
                                     7a shall not exceed 0.0025 gr/dscf;
                                    <bullet> PM2.5 emissions from DU EUs
                                     7b, 7c, 51a, and 51 b shall not
                                     exceed 0.02 gr/dscf;
                                    <bullet> 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
                                    <bullet> 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 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> and SO<INF>2</INF> controls for each of the emission 
sources at the CHPP. Regarding PM<INF>2.5</INF> controls for the coal-
fired boilers and material handling equipment and PM<INF>2.5</INF> and 
SO<INF>2</INF> 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 SO<INF>2</INF> emission controls, the EPA proposed to 
disapprove Alaska's SO<INF>2</INF> 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 
NH<INF>3</INF>-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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
controls for each of the emission sources at Fort Wainwright. The EPA 
is finalizing a partial approval because Alaska's BACT findings for 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> (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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> are 
enforceable

[[Page 84656]]

as a practical matter as required by CAA Sections 110(a)(2)(A) and 
172(c)(7).
    On September 25, 2023, Alaska withdrew its SO<INF>2</INF> 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 
SO<INF>2</INF> at Fort Wainwright. The EPA is finalizing approval of 
Alaska's analysis that found no NH<INF>3</INF>-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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \155\ Response 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 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> Serious Area and 189(d) Plan, EPA-R10-OAR-2022-
0115.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \156\ The CFB dual fuel fired boiler replaced two coal-fired 
boilers installed in 1962.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The State's BACT determination for the Fairbanks Campus Power Plant 
evaluated potential controls to reduce NO<INF>X</INF> and 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> emissions from each of the emissions units at the 
source.\157\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \157\ On September 25, 2023, Alaska withdrew its BACT 
determination and analysis for SO<INF>2</INF> controls and emission 
limits at the University of Alaska Fairbanks Campus Power Plant. 
Alaska evaluated potential NO<INF>X</INF> controls for each emission 
unit, but because the EPA is approving Alaska's determination that 
NO<INF>X</INF> emissions are not significant for PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
formation in the Fairbanks nonattainment area, Alaska is not 
required to identify, adopt, or implement BACM or BACT for 
NO<INF>X</INF> on any sources in the Fairbanks PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
Nonattainment Area. See 40 CFR 51.1006, 51.1010(a)(2)(ii).

Table 7--University of Alaska Fairbanks Campus Power Plant--BACT Summary
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Alaska's BACT determination, by
             Pollutant                         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.............................  <bullet> Operate and maintain fabric
                                     filters at all times the unit is in
                                     operation;
                                    <bullet> PM2.5 emissions from EU 113
                                     shall not exceed 0.012 lb/MMBtu
                                     over a 3-hour averaging period; and
                                    <bullet> Maintain good combustion
                                     practices at all times of operation
                                     by following the manufacturer's
                                     operating and maintenance
                                     procedures.
                                    <bullet> 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.............................  <bullet> 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;
                                    <bullet> PM2.5 emissions from EU 4
                                     shall not exceed 0.0075 lb/MMBtu
                                     averaged over a 3-hour period while
                                     firing natural gas;
                                    <bullet> Maintain good combustion
                                     practices at all times of operation
                                     by following the manufacturer's
                                     operating and maintenance
                                     procedures; and
                                    <bullet> 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.............................  <bullet> Combined boilers operating
                                     limit of no more than 19,650 hours
                                     per year;
                                    <bullet> PM2.5 emissions from EUs 19-
                                     21 shall not exceed 0.012 lb/MMBtu;
                                     and
                                    <bullet> 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.............................  <bullet> 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;
                                    <bullet> Limit NOX emissions from
                                     EUs 4 and 8 to no more than 40 tons
                                     per year combined;
                                    <bullet> Limit non-emergency
                                     operation of EU 8 to no more than
                                     100 hours per year; and
                                    <bullet> 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.............................  <bullet> Limit the operation of EU
                                     27 to no more than 4,380 hours per
                                     year;
                                    <bullet> Limit non-emergency
                                     operation of EUs 24, 28, and 29 to
                                     no more than 100 hours per year
                                     each;
                                    <bullet> EU 27 shall comply with the
                                     Federal emission standards of NSPS
                                     Subpart IIII, Tier 3;
                                    <bullet> 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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 84657]]

 
Pathogenic waste incinerator (EU 9a)--unit rated 533 lb per hour
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM2.5.............................  <bullet> PM2.5 emissions from EU 9A
                                     shall be controlled with a multiple
                                     chamber design;
                                    <bullet> Limit the operation of EU
                                     9A to no more than 109 tons of
                                     waste combusted per year;
                                    <bullet> PM2.5 emissions from EU 9A
                                     shall not exceed 4.67 lb/ton;
                                    <bullet> Maintain good combustion
                                     practices at all times of operation
                                     by following the manufacturer's
                                     operating and maintenance
                                     procedures; and
                                    <bullet> 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.............................  <bullet> PM2.5 emissions from EUs
                                     105, 107, 109 through 111, 114, and
                                     128 through 130 will be controlled
                                     by enclosing each EU;
                                    <bullet> 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;
                                    <bullet> 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
                                    <bullet> 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 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> and SO<INF>2</INF> controls for each of the emission 
sources at the Fairbanks Campus Power Plant. Regarding PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
controls for the dual fuel-fired boiler, backup diesel generator, 
diesel-fired boilers, and material handling sources; the 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> and SO<INF>2</INF> controls for the pathogenic waste 
incinerator; and the SO<INF>2</INF> 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 SO<INF>2</INF> or PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \158\ Alaska 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regarding the EPA's proposed disapproval of Alaska's BACT 
evaluation and determination for SO<INF>2</INF> 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 
NH<INF>3</INF>-specific emission controls for the sources at this 
facility.
b. Final Rule
    The EPA is finalizing disapproval of Alaska's BACT determination 
for PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \159\ See supra, note 158.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On September 25, 2023, Alaska withdrew its SO<INF>2</INF> 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 SO<INF>2</INF> at the Fairbanks Campus Power Plant. 
The EPA is finalizing approval of Alaska's analysis that found no 
NH<INF>3</INF>-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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \160\ Response 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 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> Serious Area and 189(d) Plan, EPA-R10-OAR-2022-
0115.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 (electro-motive diesels) used for emergency

[[Page 84658]]

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 electro-motive 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 NO<INF>X</INF> and PM<INF>2.5</INF> emissions from its simple 
cycle gas turbines, large diesel-fired engines, and diesel-fired 
boilers.\161\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \161\ On September 25, 2023, Alaska withdrew its BACT 
determination and analysis for SO<INF>2</INF> controls and emission 
limits at Zehnder. Alaska evaluated potential NO<INF>X</INF> 
controls for each emission unit, but because the EPA is approving 
Alaska's determination that NO<INF>X</INF> emissions are not 
significant for PM<INF>2.5</INF> formation in the Fairbanks 
nonattainment area, Alaska is not required to identify, adopt, or 
implement BACM or BACT for NO<INF>X</INF> on any sources in the 
Fairbanks PM<INF>2.5</INF> Nonattainment Area. See 40 CFR 51.1006, 
51.1010(a)(2)(ii).

                 Table 8--Zehnder Facility BACT Summary
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Alaska's BACT determination, by
             Pollutant                         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.............................  <bullet> Combust only low ash fuel;
                                    <bullet> PM2.5 emissions from EUs 1
                                     & 2 shall not exceed 0.012 lb/MMBtu
                                     over a 3-hour averaging period;
                                    <bullet> Initial compliance with the
                                     proposed PM2.5 emission limit will
                                     be demonstrated by conducting a
                                     performance test to obtain an
                                     emission rate; and
                                    <bullet> 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.............................  <bullet> Limit non-emergency
                                     operation of the large diesel-fired
                                     engines to no more than 100 hours
                                     per year each;
                                    <bullet> PM2.5 emissions from EUs 3
                                     and 4 shall not exceed 0.32 g/hp-hr
                                     over a 3-hour averaging period;
                                    <bullet> Demonstrate compliance with
                                     the numerical BACT emission limit
                                     by complying with 40 C.F.R 63
                                     Subpart ZZZZ; and
                                    <bullet> 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.............................  <bullet> PM2.5 emissions shall not
                                     exceed 0.012 lb/MMBtu over a 3-hour
                                     averaging period;
                                    <bullet> Demonstrate compliance with
                                     the numerical BACT emission limit
                                     by complying with 40 CFR part 63
                                     Subpart JJJJJJ; and
                                    <bullet> 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 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> and SO<INF>2</INF> controls for each of the emission 
sources at the Zehnder facility. Regarding PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \162\ See supra, note 158.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA proposed to disapprove Alaska's BACT determinations and 
analysis for SO<INF>2</INF> 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 
NH<INF>3</INF>-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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 SO<INF>2</INF> 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 
SO<INF>2</INF> at Zehnder. The EPA is finalizing approval of Alaska's 
analysis that found no NH<INF>3</INF>-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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \163\ Response 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 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> Serious Area and 189(d) Plan, EPA-R10-OAR-2022-
0115.

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

[[Page 84659]]

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 propane-fired 
boilers. The State's BACT determination for the North Pole Power Plant 
evaluated potential controls to reduce NO<INF>X</INF> and 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> emissions from its simple cycle gas turbines, combined 
cycle gas turbines, large diesel-fired engines, and propane-fired 
boilers.\164\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \164\ On September 25, 2023, Alaska withdrew its BACT findings 
and analysis for SO<INF>2</INF> controls and emission limits at the 
North Pole Power Plant. Alaska evaluated potential NO<INF>X</INF> 
controls for each emission unit, but because the EPA is approving 
Alaska's determination that NO<INF>X</INF> emissions are not 
significant for PM<INF>2.5</INF> formation in the Fairbanks 
nonattainment area, Alaska is not required to identify, adopt, or 
implement BACM or BACT for NO<INF>X</INF> on any sources in the 
Fairbanks PM<INF>2.5</INF> Nonattainment Area. See 40 CFR 51.1006, 
51.1010(a)(2)(ii).

              Table 9--North Pole Power Plant BACT Summary
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Alaska's BACT determination, by
             Pollutant                         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.............................  <bullet> Combust only low ash fuel;
                                    <bullet> Maintain good combustion
                                     practices at all times of operation
                                     by following the manufacturer's
                                     operating and maintenance
                                     procedures;
                                    <bullet> PM2.5 emissions from EUs 1
                                     & 2 shall not exceed 0.012 lb/MMBtu
                                     over a 3-hour averaging period; and
                                    <bullet> 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.............................  <bullet> 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;
                                    <bullet> PM2.5 emissions from EUs 5
                                     & 6 shall not exceed 0.012 lb/MMBtu
                                     over a 3-hour averaging period;
                                    <bullet> Initial compliance with the
                                     proposed PM2.5 emission limit will
                                     be demonstrated by conducting a
                                     performance test to obtain an
                                     emission rate; and
                                    <bullet> 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.............................  <bullet> PM2.5 emissions from EU 7
                                     shall be controlled by operating
                                     with positive crankcase
                                     ventilation;
                                    <bullet> PM2.5 emissions from EU 7
                                     shall be controlled by limiting
                                     operation to no more than 52 hours
                                     per 12 month rolling period;
                                    <bullet> PM2.5 emissions from EU 7
                                     shall not exceed 0.32 g/hp-hr over
                                     a 3-hour averaging period; and
                                    <bullet> 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.............................  <bullet> Burn only propane as fuel
                                     in EUs 11 and 12;
                                    <bullet> PM2.5 emissions from EUs 11
                                     and 12 shall not exceed 0.008 lb/
                                     MMBtu over a 3-hour averaging
                                     period; and
                                    <bullet> 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.
                                    <bullet> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> and 
SO<INF>2</INF> controls for each of the emission sources at the North 
Pole Power Plant. Regarding PM<INF>2.5</INF> controls for the two fuel 
oil-fired simple cycle gas combustion turbines, two fuel oil-fired 
combined cycle gas combustion turbines, and large diesel-fired engine 
and PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \165\ See supra, note 158.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regarding SO<INF>2</INF> controls, the EPA proposed to find 
Alaska's BACT determination for SO<INF>2</INF> 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 SO<INF>2</INF> BACT determinations for the 
simple cycle gas turbines and combined-cycle on several

[[Page 84660]]

grounds included in the Proposal and not restated here.
    The EPA proposed to approve Alaska's analysis that found no 
NH<INF>3</INF>-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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
controls for all emission units at the North Pole Power Plant. The EPA 
is finalizing a partial approval because Alaska's PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 SO<INF>2</INF> 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 SO<INF>2</INF> at the North Pole Power Plant.
    The EPA is finalizing approval of Alaska's analysis that found no 
NH<INF>3</INF>-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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \166\ Response 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 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> Serious Area and 189(d) Plan, EPA-R10-OAR-2022-
0115.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 SO<INF>2</INF> 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \167\ State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol. II, Chapter 
III.D.7.7.12, adopted November 18, 2020.
    \168\ See 40 CFR 51.1010(c)(2)(ii). On September 25, 2023, 
Alaska withdrew its BACT determinations and analysis for 
SO<INF>2</INF> controls and emission limits at all major stationary 
sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 
[micro]g/m\3\ four-year 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

[[Page 84661]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \169\ 40 CFR 51.1011(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \170\ Alaska 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 SO<INF>2</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> Nonattainment Areas or 
Serious PM<INF>2.5</INF> Areas that Fail to Attain. In particular, 
Alaska was required to identify, adopt, and implement BACM and BACT on 
all sources of direct PM<INF>2.5</INF> and PM<INF>2.5</INF> precursors. 
This requirement is generally independent of attainment needs. Per the 
CAA and PM<INF>2.5</INF> SIP Requirements Rule, Alaska was required to 
adopt these controls before the Serious area attainment date of 
December 31, 2019.\171\ After the Fairbanks PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \171\ CAA section 189(b)(1)(B); 40 CFR 51.1010(a) and 40 CFR 
51.1011(b)(5).
    \172\ CAA section 189(d); 40 CFR 51.1003(c)(2) and 40 CFR 
51.1010(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similarly, to the extent Alaska is making these updates to support 
a future SO<INF>2</INF> precursor demonstration,

[[Page 84662]]

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 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> precursor demonstration for a nonattainment area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \173\ 40 CFR 51.1006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Source apportionment studies of the region \174\ have shown that 
sulfate is a substantial contributor to measured PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
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 SO<INF>2</INF> 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 SO<INF>2</INF> do not significantly contribute to measured 
sulfate concentrations in the nonattainment area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \174\ Kotchenruther (2016). Source apportionment of 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 
peer-reviewed studies along with model performance, precursor model 
runs, and other available data and information when evaluating a major 
stationary source SO<INF>2</INF> 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \175\ 40 CFR 51.1012(a)(1).
    \176\ 40 CFR 51.1012(a)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \177\ 40 CFR 51.1012(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 SO<INF>2</INF> 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \178\ See 40 CFR 51.1012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 SIP-
submission. 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> emissions. The EPA, thus, 
supports all efforts to fully implement and enforce this measure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \179\ State 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 84663]]

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 EPA-certified 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 
EPA-certified 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 [micro]g/m\3\ to 25 [micro]g/m\3\ within the 
Fairbanks PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 one-year's-worth of RFP (2) 
the measure would not achieve emission reductions of all plan 
precursors, including SO<INF>2</INF> and NH<INF>3</INF>, and (3) Alaska 
did not include an adequate reasoned justification for why any 
additional potential contingency measures were infeasible.\183\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \183\ The 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 wood-fired 
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 [micro]g/m\3\ to 25 [micro]g/m\3\ 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

[[Page 84664]]

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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \184\ https://www.epa.gov/air-quality-implementation-plans/draft-contingency-measures-guidance.
    \185\ Alaska 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \186\ Id.
    \187\ Bahr 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> and plan precursors, even if it may be 
appropriate under some circumstances to provide for inter-pollutant 
trading for contingency measures purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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).
    \189\ CAA section 172(c)(2); 40 CFR 51.1012.
    \190\ U.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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 84665]]

implementing the PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS, contrary to the commenter's 
assertions, the EPA undertook notice and comment on this approach prior 
to finalizing the PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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's-worth of reductions needed for RFP in the 
area.\195\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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 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.'').
    \193\ Fine 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Significantly, the EPA also indicated in the PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \199\ Assoc. of Irritated Residents v. EPA, 10 F.4th 937, at pp. 
946-947 (9th Cir. 2021); Draft Contingency Measure Guidance at pp. 
17-19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> tons per day, is substantially less than 
one year's worth of RFP, which is 0.24 PM<INF>2.5</INF> tons per day. 
As the EPA suggested in the PM<INF>2.5</INF> SIP Requirements Rule, 
Alaska could have attempted to provide a reasoned justification and 
supporting information to establish that there are

[[Page 84666]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \200\ State Air Quality Control Plan Vol. II, Chapter 
III.D.7.10, at p. 13, adopted November 18, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 SO<INF>2</INF> per year 
through ULSD adoption), in an area whose share of PM<INF>2.5</INF> is 
increasingly sulfate derived from SO<INF>2</INF> 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \202\ Response 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
Serious Area and 189(d) Plan EPA-R10-OAR-2022-0115.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
Nonattainment Area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \203\ See 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)(iv through v).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \204\ 40 CFR 93.120(a)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> levels. FAST Planning stated that factoring into the 
budget calculations measures that have limited or no reduction to 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> SIP Requirements Rule requires that 
any attainment plan submitted to the EPA under this section shall 
establish motor vehicle emissions budgets for the

[[Page 84667]]

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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
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 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> SIP Requirements Rule that a motor vehicle emissions 
budget for the purposes of a Serious area PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \205\ 40 CFR 51.1003(d).
    \206\ 81 FR 58010, August 24, 2016, at p. 58090.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.
    \208\ Letter 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.
    \209\ Alaska Richardson Steese Highway Corridor Action Plan, 
available at: https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/98f64a497c834ae18955d5d6b5994ff4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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

[[Page 84668]]

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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> also 
apply to major stationary sources of PM<INF>2.5</INF> precursors, 
except where the Administrator determines that such sources of a 
precursor or precursors do not contribute significantly to 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> emissions and the emissions of all 
four PM<INF>2.5</INF> precursors, i.e., NOx, VOCs, SO<INF>2</INF>, and 
NH<INF>3</INF>, unless the State has submitted an optional precursor 
demonstration, and the EPA has approved such demonstration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \210\ 57 FR 13498, April 16, 1992, at pp. 13539 and 13541-13542.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 NO<INF>X</INF>, SO<INF>2</INF>, VOC or NH<INF>3</INF> 
for purposes of NNSR requirements. Instead, Alaska adopted by reference 
the 40 tons per year significant emissions rates for NO<INF>X</INF>, 
SO<INF>2</INF>, and VOC set by the EPA, and also established a 
significant emissions rate of 40 tons per year for NH<INF>3</INF> as a 
precursor for PM<INF>2.5</INF>, consistent with the thresholds 
established for the other PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \211\ Response 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 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> Serious Area and 189(d) Plan, EPA-R10-OAR-2022-
0115.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: One commenter opposed the proposed disapproval on the 
basis that triggering the mandatory highway sanction is not relevant or 
appropriate for the Fairbanks PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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

[[Page 84669]]

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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \212\ The 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> nonattainment areas, specifically 
attainment projected emissions inventory, attainment demonstration, 
control strategy (in part), RFP, QM, and contingency measures.\213\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \214\ See, 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS Fairbanks Nonattainment Area:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    ii. The State's PM<INF>2.5</INF> precursor demonstrations for 
NO<INF>X</INF> and VOC emissions (CAA section 189(e) ;\217\ 40 CFR 
51.1006(a)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    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 anti-idling 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \218\ 42 U.S.C. 7513a(b)(1)(B).
    \219\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \221\ Id.
    \222\ Note 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 NH<INF>3</INF> 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 NH<INF>3</INF> controls existed for each of 
the stationary sources listed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

i. Chena Power Plant
    a. Coal-fired boilers (NH<INF>3</INF>)
ii. Fort Wainwright
    a. Coal-fired boilers (NH<INF>3</INF>)
    b. Diesel-fired boilers (NH<INF>3</INF>)
    c. Large diesel-fired engines (NH<INF>3</INF>)
    d. Small emergency engines (NH<INF>3</INF>)
    e. Materials handling (NH<INF>3</INF>)
iii. University of Alaska Fairbanks
    a. Dual fuel-fired boiler (NH<INF>3</INF>)
    b. Mid-sized diesel-fired boilers (NH<INF>3</INF>)
    c. Small-sized diesel-fired boilers (NH<INF>3</INF>)
    d. Large diesel-fired engine (NH<INF>3</INF>)
    e. Small diesel-fired engines (NH<INF>3</INF>)
    f. Pathogenic waste incinerator (NH<INF>3</INF>)
    g. Material handling (NH<INF>3</INF>)
iv. Zehnder
    a. Oil-fired simple cycle gas turbines (NH<INF>3</INF>)
    b. Diesel-fired emergency generators (NH<INF>3</INF>)
    c. Diesel-fired boilers (NH<INF>3</INF>)
iv. North Pole Power Plant
    a. Oil-fired simple cycle gas turbines (NH<INF>3</INF>)
    b. Oil-fired combined cycle gas turbines (NH<INF>3</INF>)
    c. Large diesel-fired engine (NH<INF>3</INF>)
    d. Propane-fired boiler (NH<INF>3</INF>)

    3. The EPA is finalizing approval of the submitted chapters of the 
Alaska Air Quality Control Plan for the Fairbanks PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
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 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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, 
NH<INF>3</INF> BACT determination for the Aurora

[[Page 84670]]

Energy Chena Power Plant, PM<INF>2.5</INF> and NH<INF>3</INF> BACT 
determination for the Doyon-Fort Wainwright Central Heating and Power 
Plant; PM<INF>2.5</INF> and NH<INF>3</INF> BACT determination for the 
University of Alaska Fairbanks Campus Power Plant except for the three 
small diesel fired engines (EUs 23, 26, and 27); PM<INF>2.5</INF> and 
NH<INF>3</INF> BACT determinations for Golden Valley Electric 
Association Zehnder Power Plant; PM<INF>2.5</INF> and NH<INF>3</INF> 
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 NO<INF>X</INF> 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \223\ The 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> Fairbanks Nonattainment Area:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

i. Attainment projected emissions inventory requirements of CAA section 
172(c)(1) \225\ and 40 CFR 51.1008(c)(2);
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \226\ MSM 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

v. Quantitative milestones requirements of CAA section 189(c) \228\ and 
40 CFR 51.1013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
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, coal-
fired heating devices, coffee roasters, weatherization and energy 
efficiency, light-duty vehicle anti-idling, PM<INF>2.5</INF> BACT 
determinations for the Aurora Chena Power Plant, PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \230\ The 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \232\ Id.

i. Chena Power Plant
    a. Coal-fired boilers (PM<INF>2.5</INF>; SO<INF>2</INF>)
ii. Fort Wainwright
    a. Coal-fired boilers (PM<INF>2.5</INF>; SO<INF>2</INF>)
    b. Diesel-fired boilers (PM<INF>2.5</INF>; SO<INF>2</INF>)
    c. Large diesel-fired engines (PM<INF>2.5</INF>; SO<INF>2</INF>)
    d. Small emergency engines (PM<INF>2.5</INF>; SO<INF>2</INF>)
    e. Materials handling (PM<INF>2.5</INF>)
iii. University of Alaska Fairbanks
    a. Dual fuel-fired boiler (PM<INF>2.5</INF>; SO<INF>2</INF>)
    b. Mid-sized diesel-fired boilers (PM<INF>2.5</INF>; 
SO<INF>2</INF>)
    c. Small-sized diesel-fired boilers (PM<INF>2.5</INF>; 
SO<INF>2</INF>)
    d. Large diesel-fired engine (PM<INF>2.5</INF>; SO<INF>2</INF>)
    e. Small diesel-fired engines (PM<INF>2.5</INF>; SO<INF>2</INF>)

[[Page 84671]]

    f. Pathogenic waste incinerator (PM<INF>2.5</INF>; SO<INF>2</INF>)
    g. Material handling (PM<INF>2.5</INF>)
iv. Zehnder
    a. Oil-fired simple cycle gas turbines (PM<INF>2.5</INF>; 
SO<INF>2</INF>)
    b. Diesel-fired emergency generators (PM<INF>2.5</INF>; 
SO<INF>2</INF>)
    c. Diesel-fired boilers (PM<INF>2.5</INF>; SO<INF>2</INF>)
v. North Pole Power Plant
    a. Oil-fired simple cycle gas turbines (PM<INF>2.5</INF>; 
SO<INF>2</INF>)
    b. Oil-fired combined cycle gas turbines (PM<INF>2.5</INF>; 
SO<INF>2</INF>)
    c. Large diesel-fired engine (PM<INF>2.5</INF>; SO<INF>2</INF>)
    d. Propane-fired boiler (PM<INF>2.5</INF>; SO<INF>2</INF>)

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \233\ On 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.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \235\ Control 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).
    \240\ These include certain types of projects, such as safety, 
mass transit, air quality, and other projects that do not involve or 
directly lead to construction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-executive-orders.

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

[[Page 84672]]

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

[[Page 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

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

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

Subpart C--Alaska

0
2. Section Sec.  52.70 is amended:
0
a. In table 1 to paragraph (c) by revising the entry ``18 AAC 50.075''; 
and
0
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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> Rule'', ``III.III.D.7.02 
Appendix to Background and Overview of PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> Network and Monitoring 
Program'', ``III.III.D.7.05 Appendix to PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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:


Sec.  52.70  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

                            Table 1 to Paragraph (c)--EPA-Approved Alaska Regulations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            State
          State citation               Title/subject      effective     EPA approval date       Explanations
                                                             date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  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       11/18/2020  12/5/2023, [INSERT    except (d)(2).
                                    Heating Device                     FEDERAL REGISTER
                                    Visible Emission                   CITATION].
                                    Standards.
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

      Table 5 to Paragraph (e)--EPA-Approved Alaska Nonregulatory Provisions and Quasi-Regulatory Measures
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Applicable          State
      Name of SIP provision            geographic or      submittal     EPA approval date       Explanations
                                    nonattainment area       date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Recently Approved Plans
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
II.III.D.7.01 Executive Summary..  Fairbanks North Star   12/13/2019  12/5/2023, [Insert    ....................
                                    Borough.                           FEDERAL REGISTER
                                                                       citation].
II.III.D.7.02 Background and       Fairbanks North Star   12/13/2019  12/5/2023, [Insert    ....................
 Overview of PM2.5 Rule.            Borough.                           FEDERAL REGISTER
                                                                       citation].

[[Page 84674]]

 
III.III.D.7.02 Appendix to         Fairbanks North Star   12/13/2019  12/5/2023, [Insert    ....................
 Background and Overview of PM2.5   Borough.                           FEDERAL REGISTER
 Rule.                                                                 citation].
II.III.D.7.03 Nonattainment Area   Fairbanks North Star   12/13/2019  12/5/2023, [Insert    ....................
 Boundary and Design Episode        Borough.                           FEDERAL REGISTER
 Selection.                                                            citation].
III.III.D.7.03 Appendix to         Fairbanks North Star   12/13/2019  12/5/2023, [Insert    ....................
 Nonattainment Area Boundary and    Borough.                           FEDERAL REGISTER
 Design Episode Selection.                                             citation].
II.III.D.7.04 Ambient Air Quality  Fairbanks North Star   12/15/2020  12/5/2023, [Insert    ....................
 and Trends.                        Borough.                           FEDERAL REGISTER
                                                                       citation].
II.III.D.7.05 PM2.5 Network and    Fairbanks North Star   12/15/2020  12/5/2023, [Insert    ....................
 Monitoring Program.                Borough.                           FEDERAL REGISTER
                                                                       citation].
III.III.D.7.05 Appendix to PM2.5   Fairbanks North Star   12/15/2020  12/5/2023, [Insert    ....................
 Network and Monitoring Program.    Borough.                           FEDERAL REGISTER
                                                                       citation].
II.III.D.7.06 Fairbanks Emissions  Fairbanks North Star   12/15/2020  12/5/2023, [Insert    Approved for
 Inventory Data.                    Borough.                           FEDERAL REGISTER      purposes of the
                                                                       citation].            Fairbanks 189(d)
                                                                                             Plan 2019 base year
                                                                                             emissions
                                                                                             inventory.
III.III.D.7.06 Appendix to         Fairbanks North Star   12/15/2020  12/5/2023, [Insert    Approved for
 Fairbanks Emissions Inventory      Borough.                           FEDERAL REGISTER      purposes of the
 Data.                                                                 citation].            Fairbanks 189(d)
                                                                                             Plan 2019 base year
                                                                                             emissions
                                                                                             inventory.
II.III.D.7.07 Control Strategies.  Fairbanks North Star   12/15/2020  12/5/2023, [Insert    Approved for
                                    Borough.                           FEDERAL REGISTER      purposes of the
                                                                       citation].            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.

[[Page 84675]]

 
III.III.D.7.07 Appendix to         Fairbanks North Star   12/15/2020  12/5/2023, [Insert    Approved for
 Control Strategies.                Borough.                           FEDERAL REGISTER      purposes of the
                                                                       citation].            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   12/15/2020  12/5/2023, [Insert    Approved for
                                    Borough.                           FEDERAL REGISTER      purposes of the
                                                                       citation].            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         Fairbanks North Star   12/15/2020  12/5/2023, [Insert    Approved for
 Modeling.                          Borough.                           FEDERAL REGISTER      purposes of the
                                                                       citation].            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         Fairbanks North Star   12/13/2019  12/5/2023, [Insert    ....................
 Adequacy.                          Borough.                           FEDERAL REGISTER
                                                                       citation].
III.III.D.7.13 Appendix to         Fairbanks North Star   12/13/2019  12/5/2023, [Insert    ....................
 Assurance of Adequacy.             Borough.                           FEDERAL REGISTER
                                                                       citation].
II.III.D.7.15 Acronyms and         Fairbanks North Star   12/13/2019  12/5/2023, [Insert    ....................
 Abbreviations.                     Borough.                           FEDERAL REGISTER
                                                                       citation].
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


0
3. Amend Sec.  52.73 by adding paragraph (e)(2) to read as follows:


Sec.  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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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) PM<INF>2.5</INF> precursor demonstrations for NO<INF>X</INF> 
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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
Nonattainment Area:
    (A) Attainment projected emissions inventory requirements of Clean 
Air Act

[[Page 84676]]

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: PM<INF>2.5</INF> and SO<INF>2</INF> 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 anti-idling 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


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>