Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 183 / Friday, September 24, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 52997 

1Other components of 18 AAC 50.077 were 

largely retained, such as the requirements for 

woodstoves and pellet stoves under 18 AAC 

50.077(c) applying to devices with a manufacturerrated heat output capacity of less than 350,000 Btu 

per hour, and that the EPA certification should be 

calculated in grams per hour and approved by the 

department with supporting data. 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R10–OAR–2021–0060; FRL–8909–02– 

R10] 

Air Plan Approval; AK, Fairbanks North 

Star Borough; 2006 24-Hour PM2.5

NAAQS Serious Area Plan 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is approving parts of state 

implementation plan (SIP) submissions, 

submitted by the State of Alaska (Alaska 

or the State) to address Clean Air Act 

(CAA or Act) requirements for the 2006 

24-hour fine particulate matter (PM2.5) 

national ambient air quality standards 

(NAAQS) in the Fairbanks North Star 

Borough PM2.5 nonattainment area 

(Fairbanks PM2.5 Nonattainment Area). 

The EPA is also approving rule 

revisions and an associated air quality 

control plan chapter submitted by 

Alaska into the federally-approved SIP. 

Alaska made these submissions on 

October 25, 2018, November 28, 2018, 

December 13, 2019, (Fairbanks Serious 

Plan) and December 15, 2020. 

DATES: This action is effective on 

October 25, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–R10–OAR–2021–0060. 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., confidential business 

information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available through https://

www.regulations.gov, or please contact 

the person identified in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section for 

additional availability information. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Matthew Jentgen, EPA Region 10, 1200 

Sixth Avenue—Suite 155, Seattle, WA, 

98101, (206) 553–0340, 

jentgen.matthew@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document wherever 

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

intended to refer to EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

II. Public Comments and EPA Responses 

III. Final Action 

IV. Incorporation by Reference 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background 

On February 22, 2021, the EPA 

published its proposal to approve parts 

of the Fairbanks Serious Plan and 

associated SIP revisions (86 FR 10511). 

Specifically, we proposed to approve 

the submitted revisions to the Alaska 

SIP as meeting the base year emissions 

inventory and precursor demonstration 

requirements triggered for the Fairbanks 

PM2.5 Nonattainment Area upon 

reclassification of the area to Serious on 

May 10, 2017 (82 FR 21711). The EPA 

also proposed to approve as SIPstrengthening the submitted sections of 

the Alaska Air Quality Control Plan for 

the Fairbanks PM2.5 Nonattainment 

Area, state effective January 8, 2020, 

related to the Emergency Episode Plan. 

The EPA also proposed to approve and 

incorporate by reference as SIPstrengthening the submitted regulatory 

changes to Alaska Administrative Code 

Title 18, Environmental Conservation, 

Chapter 50, Air Quality Control (18 

AAC 50). The reasons for our proposed 

approval are described in the EPA’s 

February 22, 2021, proposal and will 

not be restated here (86 FR 10511). 

II. Public Comments and EPA 

Responses 

The EPA provided a 30-day period for 

the public to comment on the proposed 

action that ended on March 24, 2021. 

We received 19 public comments. The 

public comments can be found in the 

docket for this action. Each of the 19 

comments raise concerns about a suite 

of measures Alaska included under 18 

AAC 50.077 that prohibit the 

installation, reinstallation, sale, lease, 

distribution, or conveyance of woodfired heating devices in the Fairbanks 

PM2.5 Nonattainment Area. 

Comment 1: The Hearth, Patio & 

Barbecue Association (HPBA), Blaze 

King Industries, Inc., Hearth & Home 

Technologies, Inc., Jotul, Kozy Heat 

Fireplaces, Kuma Stoves, Inc., 

Woodstock Soapstone Company, Myren 

Consulting, Inc., Rais, Fireplace 

Products International Ltd. (FPI), Travis 

Industries, United States Stove 

Company, and two anonymous 

commenters raise concerns about the 

State’s submitted revisions to heating 

device requirements established in 

regulation at 18 AAC 50.077. The 

current SIP-approved heating device 

requirements in this rule place 

restrictions on wood-fired hydronic 

heaters and wood-fired heating devices 

with a manufacturer-rated heat output 

capacity of less than 350,000 British 

Thermal Units (BTUs) per hour and 

prohibit the installation, reinstallation, 

sale, lease, distribution, or conveyance 

of a woodstove in the area, unless: 

• The EPA has certified the device 

under 40 CFR 60.533; and 

• an EPA-accredited lab has tested 

the woodstove and determined it meets 

an emissions limit of 2.5 grams per 

hour, and 

Æ the test results were obtained using 

EPA New Source Performance Standard 

(NSPS) for new residential wood heaters 

test procedures (40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A, Methods 28, 28A, and 

28R), or alternative cordwood methods 

that have been approved by the EPA, 

and 

• the test results were obtained using 

EPA NSPS emissions concentration 

measurement procedures (40 CFR part 

60, appendix A, Methods 5G and 5H). 

The submitted SIP revisions tighten 

the applicable woodstove emissions 

limit from 2.5 grams/hour to 2.0 grams/ 

hour, require that alternative methods 

used to test a woodstove be approved by 

both the EPA and the Alaska 

Department of Environmental 

Conservation (ADEC), and specify that 

during testing, a woodstove must not 

emit more than 4 grams/hour or 6 

grams/hour depending on the test 

methods and measurement procedures 

used. Specifically, the submissions 

revise the regulation at 18 AAC 50.077 

to prohibit the installation, 

reinstallation, sale, lease, distribution, 

or conveyance of a woodstove in the 

area, unless: 1

• The EPA has certified the device 

under 40 CFR 60.533, and 

• an EPA-accredited lab has tested 

the woodstove and determined it meets 

an emission limit of 2.0 grams per hour, 

and 

Æ the test results were obtained using 

EPA NSPS test procedures (Methods 28, 

28A, or 28R), or alternative test 

methods, including broadly applicable 

test methods, if approved by both EPA 

and the Alaska Department of 

Environmental Conservation; and 

Æ the test results were obtained using 

EPA NSPS emission concentration 

measurement procedures (Methods 5G 

and 5H); and 

Æ After September 1, 2020, the test 

results must demonstrate: (1) No rolling 

52998 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 183 / Friday, September 24, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

2Alaska Department of Environmental 

Conservation, Response to Comments on May 14, 

2019, Proposed Regulations, November 19, 2019. 

Pages 37–38, 51–53. 

60-minute period exceeds 4 grams per 

hour using a tapered element oscillating 

microbalance (TEOM) following 

procedures set out in the Northeast 

States for Coordinated Air Use 

Management (NESCAUM) Standard 

Operating Procedures; or (2) no reported 

valid test run measurement (one-hour 

filter data) exceeds 6 grams per hour 

from the EPA certification report for the 

device. See 18 AAC 50.077(c)(b)(ii). 

The commenters assert that the new 

test requirements at 18 AAC 

50.077(c)(b)(ii) are not reliable 

indicators of device performance, and 

that there is insufficient information to 

approve the use of these test 

requirements. One commenter, Jotul, 

states that the one-hour emissions limit 

established by ADEC is completely 

arbitrary, and Jotul considers it of 

utmost importance that any new 

regulations be developed and 

promulgated based on sound scientific 

principles combined with robust data to 

support the conclusions for establishing 

new emissions limits and testing 

protocol. 

Hearth & Home Technologies, Inc., 

Jotul, Kozy Heat Fireplaces, Woodstock 

Soapstone Company, Myren Consulting, 

Inc., FPI, Travis Industries, and United 

States Stove Company do not support 

relying on the TEOM method. 

According to these commenters, TEOM 

is a new test that has not undergone 

significant testing and research and 

relies on NESCAUM guidance 

documents that have not undergone 

peer review. 

Blaze King Industries, Inc. and 

Woodstone Soapstone Company also 

note the difficulty working with the 

TEOM device, which might jeopardize 

the potential for a qualified sample 

catch and invalidate an otherwise valid 

test run. Woodstone Soapstone 

Company notes that there is no 

definitive method that correlates results 

captured from a TEOM to results from 

Method 28 (EPA-approved woodstove 

device test method). Kozy Heat 

Fireplaces states that the TEOM 

equipment has not been tested or 

incorporated into the Federal 

certification process and has shown 

significant variances in testing. An 

anonymous commenter notes that 

different stoves burn differently and the 

total amount of emissions over a burn 

cycle should be the relevant metric, 

rather than a one-hour measurement. 

Myren Consulting states that the 6 

grams per hour limit is arbitrary and 

capricious because it does not 

differentiate between the two applicable 

test methods, EPA M28/28R and 

American Society for Testing and 

Materials (ASTM) E3053, which have 

drastically different operating and 

fueling protocols. Myren Consulting 

also notes that the 6 gram per hour limit 

is being applied in an ex post facto 

manner and that, had manufacturers 

known about this limit in advance, they 

would have had the opportunity to 

change their woodstove designs and 

bring their stoves into compliance. 

Further, HPBA, Innovative Hearth 

Products (IHP), Kozy Heat Fireplaces, 

Woodstock Soapstone Company, Myren 

Consulting, Inc., New Buck Corporation, 

Rais, FPI, Travis Industries, United 

States Stove Company, and four 

anonymous commenters assert that the 

additional device requirements for new 

woodstoves and pellet stoves, included 

in 18 AAC 50.077(c)(b)(ii), are 

inconsistent with the Federal NSPS 

requirements and that the hourly 

measurements depart from the weighted 

average emissions limit methodology 

relied on by the EPA’s NSPS. IHP states 

that individual test runs are conducted 

as part of a calculation that establishes 

an overall weighted emissions average 

that is then compared to standards that 

have been developed as per ASTM 

methods. The commenters state that 

individual test runs cannot in and of 

themselves establish a weighted average 

and therefore cannot determine the 

overall usage expectancy of any multirate appliance and that any such 

conjectures by the State of Alaska are 

erroneous and without merit. 

Blaze King Industries, Inc. asserts that 

the one-hour filter pull requirement for 

all test runs has eliminated one of the 

cleanest burning woodstoves (30.2 

series by Blaze King), based on an EPA 

weighted average. Blaze King Industries, 

Inc. provides data to support the 

contention that, during one woodstove 

device test, the wood did not collapse 

uniformly, with one piece shifting 

slightly forward, which resulted in a 

one-hour filter pull of 8 grams per hour. 

Blaze King Industries, Inc. states other 

stoves that are approved for sale in the 

Fairbanks PM2.5 Nonattainment Area 

have weighted emissions averages more 

than twice that of the particular Blaze 

King device. Woodstock Soapstone 

Company and Rais also provide an 

example each of a woodstove that has 

one of the lowest weighted average 

emissions of all EPA-certified 

woodstoves, but due to one test run 

exceeding 6 grams per hour, would not 

be approved for sale in the Fairbanks 

PM2.5 Nonattainment Area. 

Another anonymous commenter states 

that non-catalytic stoves are more userfriendly and require less maintenance, 

but they are more likely to be rejected 

under this one-hour requirement 

because non-catalytic stoves require 

more heat to burn cleanly, and they take 

time to heat up and start burning 

cleanly. Hearth & Home Technologies, 

Inc. asserts that the clearest path to 

cleaner air in the Fairbanks PM2.5

Nonattainment Area is by removing 

older, pre-1988 wood-burning devices, 

not by prohibiting certain EPA-certified 

devices that do not meet Alaska’s 

revised requirements in 18 AAC 50.077. 

Response 1: For the ensuing reasons, 

the comments do not demonstrate that 

approval of Alaska’s revisions to 18 

AAC 50.077 is inconsistent with the 

CAA; therefore, the EPA is finalizing its 

approval as proposed. Regarding 

Alaska’s rule revisions for wood-fired 

heating device emission standards 

under 18 AAC 50.077, the EPA 

proposed to find that the revisions 

submitted by ADEC are more stringent 

than the current EPA-approved rules. 

For the reasons stated in our proposal 

and in this response, we find that 

Alaska was not unreasonable in 

requiring additional testing 

requirements as a method of regulating 

the installation and operation of 

woodstoves. As stated in a prior EPA 

action on November 27, 2018 (83 FR 

60769), approving the Alaska SIP as 

meeting specific infrastructure 

requirements for the 1997, 2006, and 

2012 PM2.5 NAAQS, the EPA disagrees 

with the premise that states cannot 

regulate a source category more 

stringently than may be required in a 

Federal regulation. The EPA’s role is to 

review and approve state choices if they 

meet the CAA requirements. There is 

nothing in the CAA that prevents SIP 

provisions from being more stringent 

than Federal NSPS standards. To the 

contrary, CAA section 116 explicitly 

authorizes states to regulate sources 

more stringently than the EPA does 

through Federal regulations. Thus, the 

fact that 18 AAC 50.077 is more 

stringent than the NSPS for new 

residential wood heaters does not 

impact the approvability of these 

control measures as SIP-strengthening. 

In addition, ADEC addressed similar 

comments during the State’s public 

comment period on the SIP revisions. In 

the Alaska Department of 

Environmental Conservation’s Response 

to Comments on the proposed 

regulations (ADEC Response to 

Comments),2 ADEC asserted that the 

purpose of these additional testing 

requirements is to better reflect actual 

emissions of wood heaters in the 

Fairbanks PM2.5 Nonattainment Area. 

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 183 / Friday, September 24, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 52999 

ADEC asserted that the current test 

method for woodstoves that results in 

the certification value (grams of PM2.5

per hour) averages emissions over four 

steady-state runs. The values from each 

of these runs is an average emission rate 

over the time it takes to burn 100% of 

the full load of wood used for each run. 

This approach translates into a 

certification value that is an average of 

an average. ADEC stated that averaging 

results multiple times minimizes 

emission rates, which results in 

certification values that may vastly 

under predict actual in-use emission 

rates and does not reflect the fuel 

loading events that in field use may 

occur multiple times per day. Further, 

ADEC stated that real-time PM2.5

measurements collected from EPA 

certification tests have shown that the 

maximum emission rate occurs within 

two hours of the test period, and 

typically, on average, appliances spend 

approximately 50% of the certification 

testing time in the period known as the 

charcoal tail, where virtually no 

emissions occur, and in some cases 

filters may experience particulate loss 

due to warm dry air blowing through 

the filter. While this test method 

approach differs from the NSPS for new 

residential wood heaters, EPA finds 

ADEC’s rationale for the revisions to 18 

AAC 50.077 is reasonable and a rational 

attempt to strengthen rules for the 

residential space heating source 

category. 

With respect to the inclusion of the 

TEOM measurement requirement, ADEC 

states that the goal was to achieve a 1.0 

grams per hour emission limit in 

practice, taking into consideration the 

variability of emissions when burning 

cordwood. After reviewing public 

comments submitted during the State’s 

public comment period, ADEC amended 

the final regulation to provide an 

alternative to the TEOM test method 

while still providing what it considered 

to be an equivalent, if not better, air 

quality result than a 1.0 grams per hour 

average emission limit. The final 

regulation stipulates that manufacturers 

may provide the TEOM data as ADEC 

originally proposed, with the additional 

specificity that no rolling 60-minute 

period may exceed 4.0 grams per hour, 

or alternatively, by utilizing existing 

EPA certification test data showing that 

no valid one-hour filter measurement 

from the certifying report to EPA is 

greater than 6.0 grams per hour. 

ADEC asserted that, while this limit is 

three times the final ADEC standard 

(certification value of 2.0 grams per 

hour or less), the limit will apply to all 

woodstoves being installed, reinstalled, 

sold, leased, distributed, or conveyed in 

the nonattainment area (not just noncatalytic devices). Due to a number of 

devices expected to exceed this limit 

based on the revised test method, the 

result will be fewer devices available for 

installation, sale, lease, distribution, or 

conveyance in the area. ADEC noted 

this approach is designed to ensure that 

performance of the devices under more 

real-world operations will be more 

consistent because the emissions limit 

value is not an average. As an example, 

ADEC found devices that meet the 1.0 

grams per hour emissions limit (adopted 

in Missoula County, Montana), but that 

exceed the one-hour filter measurement 

of 6.0 grams per hour. 

Further, ADEC noted that, while the 

TEOM is a new approach for wood 

heater device certification testing, it has 

been incorporated into a standard test 

method (ASTM D6831–11) for stack gas 

testing. ADEC believes the TEOM test is 

a valuable tool that should be used in 

future device certification test 

requirements and has maintained it as 

one option for meeting testing 

requirements in the final regulation. 

ADEC stated that it is specifying use of 

the TEOM and its alternative one-hour 

filter measurement is based on the 

ADEC’s analysis of over 60 EPA 

approved certification reports, the vast 

majority of the tests reviewed were for 

EPA Step 2 certification. 

Thus, Alaska developed and 

implemented additional requirements 

for wood-fired heating devices, a 2.0 

grams per hour limit for all wood-fired 

devices and hourly requirements 

measured by a TEOM device or during 

the EPA certification process, with the 

intention to reduce the emissions from 

the home heating source category, the 

source category with the highest PM2.5

emissions in the Fairbanks PM2.5

Nonattainment Area. EPA has 

determined that Alaska’s revisions to 18 

AAC 50.077 are reasonable and 

strengthen the SIP with respect to the 

regulation of emissions from the 

residential space heating source 

category. 

Comment 2: HPBA, Kozy Heat 

Fireplaces, and Travis Industries assert 

that the one-hour filter alternative is not 

compatible with woodstove emissions 

and the Federal air quality standard that 

the EPA based on data averaged over 24 

hours, noting that the Federal air quality 

standard is not a ‘‘peaking’’ standard 

that is violated by a single episodic, 

one-hour reading. Thus, the commenters 

assert that the EPA was proposing to 

approve this metric without any 

explanation in the record of its 

relevance to the nonattainment issues 

experienced in the Fairbanks PM2.5

Nonattainment Area. 

Response 2: The EPA disagrees with 

the commenters. First, the EPA 

disagrees with the commenters’ 

assertion that device requirements must 

be directly tied to the Federal air quality 

standard. Overall, the EPA notes that 

PM2.5 is a complex and highly variable 

mixture of particles and gases. The 

EPA’s PM2.5 Implementation Rule (81 

FR 58010, August 24, 2016) 

recommends that states should base 

potential control measures in part on an 

analysis of emissions inventory data 

summaries, fine particle speciation 

monitoring data, and source 

apportionment air quality modeling 

data. Emissions standards can have 

different averaging periods based on the 

type of source, rate of emissions, and 

control measure. Irrespective of the 

particular NAAQS, our basis for 

approval here is that Alaska’s revisions 

to 18 AAC 50.077 render the SIP more 

stringent than the prior approved rule in 

terms of regulating emissions from 

woodstoves. The EPA finds that ADEC’s 

rationale for why the revised 18 AAC 

50.077 will reduce emissions from the 

residential home heating source 

category is reasonable. 

Second, the record contains ample 

information showing that ADEC’s 

revised rule will reduce emissions of 

direct PM2.5 from the residential home 

heating source category. The EPA 

evaluated ADEC’s SIP submission, 

including the responses to similar 

comments in the development of the 

State’s regulation. In ADEC’s Response 

to Comments, ADEC noted that, under 

the 2015 NSPS for new residential wood 

heaters, the EPA required reporting of 

emission rates for the first hour of the 

test period. This data reflects the timing 

and emission rates typically associated 

with the 60-minute test requirements for 

particulate matter testing at all other 

sources (EPA Method 5). ADEC asserted 

that the assessment of one-hour data 

allows agencies to gauge performance 

and determine which appliances are 

low emitting from the start of the 

certification test versus those that have 

been able to design for long charcoal 

tails to minimize the peak emissions. 

ADEC additionally stated that one of the 

reasons for requiring the use of TEOM 

measurement data is to provide a more 

meaningful equivalency to a 1.0 grams 

per hour average emission limit (as 

adopted by Missoula County, Montana), 

taking into consideration the variability 

of emissions when burning cordwood, 

while still allowing a range of devices 

to be sold and used in the Fairbanks 

PM2.5 Nonattainment Area. Thus, the 

record does contain information 

53000 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 183 / Friday, September 24, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

explaining the reason for the one-hour 

filter alternative. 

Finally, as stated in a prior EPA 

action on November 27, 2018 (83 FR 

60769), approving the Alaska SIP as 

meeting specific PM2.5 infrastructure 

requirements, states have the obligation 

to regulate sources as necessary to meet 

nonattainment area plan stringency 

requirements, such as reasonably and 

best available control measures, and the 

obligation to regulate sources as 

necessary to attain the NAAQS in a 

given nonattainment area. ADEC 

determined it was necessary to revise 18 

AAC 50.077 and submitted the revisions 

to address Serious area planning 

requirements for best available control 

measures in the Fairbanks PM2.5

Nonattainment Area. While this action 

does not address whether the submitted 

revisions to 18 AAC 50.077 and other 

rules are sufficient to meet best 

available control measure requirements, 

we explained in our proposed action 

how the revisions strengthen the SIP. 

The comments do not demonstrate that 

Alaska’s revisions to 18 AAC 50.077 or 

rationale for these revisions are 

unreasonable, and EPA is thus finalizing 

approval of 18 AAC 50.077 as proposed. 

Comment 3: HPBA, Blaze King 

Industries, Inc., Hearth & Home 

Technologies, Inc., Travis Industries, 

and United States Stove Company note 

that Fairbanks has a unique winter 

environment where woodstoves are only 

‘‘started’’ once during winter and left 

running during entire cold season. 

Thus, the commenters assert that 

establishing a particulate emissions 

standard based only on the first hour of 

operation inaccurately represents the 

emissions of wood-fired heating devices 

in the Fairbanks PM2.5 Nonattainment 

Area. In addition, Blaze King Industries, 

Inc. states that woodstove users in the 

Fairbanks North Star Borough are 

unique in their use of stoves to address 

sub-zero climate conditions in the 

region. Myren Consulting states that, no 

matter the test method, testing of 

certified stoves in the test environment 

will not reflect conditions in the field 

because of differences in static pressure, 

that the commenter asserts will 

significantly affect performance in areas 

with colder temperatures such as in 

Fairbanks. 

Response 3: As noted in Responses 1 

and 2, ADEC revised 18 AAC 50.077 to 

reduce emissions from wood-fired 

heating devices while allowing for sale 

and use of a range of devices in the 

Fairbanks PM2.5 Nonattainment Area. In 

ADEC’s Response to Comments, ADEC 

stated that the TEOM measurement and 

the one-hour filter pull data reflect more 

real-time particulate matter 

measurements and that other test 

methods, based on an average of 

multiple test runs, may vastly under 

predict actual in-use emission rates and 

do not reflect the actual fuel loading 

events that may occur multiple times 

per day. Moreover, ADEC developed 

this control measure as part of its 

control measure analysis that 

incorporates the emissions inventory, 

speciation, and source apportionment 

data for the nonattainment area. Based 

on ADEC’s SIP submission, including 

the responses to comments in ADEC’s 

rulemaking process, the EPA finds that 

ADEC’s rationale for incorporating the 

TEOM measurement and the one-hour 

filter pull data is credible and based on 

a robust understanding of the emissions 

from woodstoves. Therefore, the EPA is 

approving this rule revision as SIPstrengthening because the revised rule 

imposes requirements for woodstoves in 

the Fairbanks PM2.5 Nonattainment Area 

that are more stringent than the 

woodstove requirements in the current 

SIP. 

Comment 4: Travis Industries asserts 

that the EPA must expressly state that 

the standards ADEC is imposing in 18 

AAC 50.077 are inappropriate in other 

settings that do not share the Fairbanks 

PM2.5 Nonattainment Area’s extreme 

climatic conditions. 

Response 4: As specified in 18 AAC 

50.077, this regulation only applies to 

qualifying wood-fired heating devices in 

areas in Alaska that are designated 

nonattainment for PM2.5, under 18 AAC 

50.015(b)(3). Currently the Fairbanks 

and North Pole urban area (i.e., 

Fairbanks PM2.5 Nonattainment Area) is 

listed as the only nonattainment area in 

Alaska where this regulation applies. 

However, other state and local 

governments have the authority to adopt 

similar measures. 

Comment 5: Comments by HPBA, 

Blaze King Industries, Inc., Kuma 

Stoves, Inc., IHP, Woodstock Soapstone 

Company, Myren Consulting, and FPI 

object to Alaska’s authority to validate 

the EPA’s wood-fired heating device 

certifications for applicability in the 

Fairbanks PM2.5 Nonattainment Area 

and limit the EPA-approved applicable 

testing methods. HPBA asserts that, 

under 18 AAC 50.077(c)(3)(A), ADEC 

can effectively veto an EPA device 

certification on the grounds that ADEC 

had not approved the same alternative 

test method. As an example, HPBA 

notes that while the EPA approved 

ASTM 3053 (cordwood test method), 

Alaska has not. These commenters state 

that Alaska’s failure to recognize this 

approved test method undermines the 

EPA’s authority. In addition, Kuma 

Stoves, Inc. states that the EPA should 

not now, after benefitting from valuable 

data generated by the ASTM 3053 test 

method, support language that declares 

ASTM 3053 to be a nonrepresentative 

test. One anonymous commenter 

contends that, based on experience as a 

manufacturer of EPA-certified 

woodstoves, the ASTM 3053 test 

method is credible and produces 

consistent and reliable emissions 

values, and therefore rejecting this test 

method results in less informative 

testing data. 

Generally, IHP states that it is onerous 

for a state to regulate an industry to 

meet any requirements that are not 

previously set and known before 

development, certification, and 

manufacturing of those industry 

products. Kozy Heat Fireplaces, Inc. 

states these device requirements impose 

new and greater costs for certification 

and that these costs have not been 

quantified by either ADEC or the EPA. 

IHP recommends that the EPA reject 

ADEC’s revised requirements for 

woodstoves in the Alaska SIP 

submission as a ‘‘de facto federal 

standard,’’ and in the comment 

encourages the State of Alaska to work 

with the industry to find a more 

complete solution. FPI also notes that, 

not only does ADEC not recognize the 

alternate test method, but it does not 

recognize the 2.5 grams per hour 

emissions limit associated with this test 

method. FPI asserts that dismissing this 

limit by setting a 2.0 grams per hour 

limit for cordwood without a scientific 

process and peer review is arbitrary. 

An anonymous commenter notes that 

the same entities are involved in 

woodstove device testing certifications 

and accreditations as product safety 

testing. The commenter states that 

laboratories need an International 

Organization for Standardization (ISO) 

17025 accreditation that can be renewed 

every two years following an official 

audit from the accreditor. The 

commenter states that proficiency 

testing has been put in place by the EPA 

as part of the ISO–17025 accreditation 

and all accredited laboratories should 

comply with the proficiency testing 

every two years. 

Response 5: The EPA disagrees with 

the commenters’ assertion that Alaska 

lacks authority to promulgate rules that 

are more stringent than EPA’s NSPS or 

that otherwise limit the range of devices 

allowed in the area. The EPA also 

disagrees with the assertion that Alaska, 

by promulgating these rules, establishes 

a ‘‘de facto federal standard’’ and as 

such undermines the EPA’s 

independent authorities to establish 

Federal new source performance 

standards. Congress gave the EPA 

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 183 / Friday, September 24, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 53001 

3Submitted on December 15, 2020 and included 

in the docket. The EPA is not at this time 

determining whether this updated planning 

chapter, in conjunction with the associated 

regulatory changes, meets other Serious area 

nonattainment plan requirements for the 2006 24- 

Continued 

authority in CAA section 111 to 

establish performance standards for 

categories of new sources. Distinct from 

CAA section 111, Congress required in 

CAA section 110 that states have an 

overarching SIP to implement, maintain, 

and enforce the NAAQS. If states have 

designated nonattainment areas, then 

they must make a nonattainment plan 

SIP submission meeting additional 

specific requirements. State regulation 

of sources more stringently for purposes 

of meeting SIP requirements does not 

interfere or undermine the EPA’s 

authority to regulate new sources under 

the CAA. With few exceptions, states 

are not preempted from regulating 

source categories more stringently and 

have explicit authority in CAA section 

116 to do so. 

The EPA disagrees with the 

commenters’ assertion that ADEC did 

not consider compliance costs. In 

ADEC’s Response to Comments, Alaska 

acknowledged the potential increased 

costs to certification testing. ADEC 

stated that the intention is to provide a 

meaningful equivalent control measure 

to a 1.0 grams per hour average 

emissions limit, while also allowing a 

range of devices to be sold and used in 

the Fairbanks PM2.5 Nonattainment 

Area. As discussed in Response 1 in this 

preamble, states have explicit authority 

to regulate a source category more 

stringently than may be required in a 

Federal regulation. The EPA’s role is to 

review and approve state choices if they 

meet applicable CAA requirements. See 

42 U.S.C. 7410(k) and 40 CFR 52.02(a); 

see also Union Elec. Co. v. EPA, 427 

U.S. 246, 256–266 (1976) (holding that 

the EPA may not disapprove a state 

implementation plan that meets the 

requirements of CAA Section 110(a)(2) 

on the basis of technological or 

economic infeasibility). There is nothing 

in the CAA that prevents states from 

imposing SIP requirements that are 

more stringent than Federal NSPS 

standards. 

Regarding woodstove device testing 

certifications and ISO–17025 

accreditations, the 2015 NSPS stipulates 

that for new residential wood heaters, 

new residential hydronic heaters, and 

forced-air furnaces (80 FR 13672), a test 

laboratory must agree to participate 

biennially in an independently operated 

proficiency testing program with no 

direct ties to the participating 

laboratories. Further, the EPA 

Administrator may revoke a test 

laboratory approval if a test laboratory 

has failed to participate in a proficiency 

testing program, in accordance with 40 

CFR 60.535. 

Comment 6: Central Boiler/ 

Woodmaster objects to the provision 

under 18 AAC 50.077(a) that prohibits 

the sale and installation of cordwoodfueled outdoor hydronic heaters in the 

Fairbanks PM2.5 Nonattainment Area. 

Central Boiler/Woodmaster states that 

these devices are not given 

consideration by the state based on 

emissions or performance like other 

wood heating appliances. 

Response 6: Consistent with CAA 

requirements and the EPA’s PM2.5

Implementation Rule, Alaska has 

authority to prohibit the sale and 

installation of devices that contribute to 

PM2.5 concentrations in the Fairbanks 

PM2.5 Nonattainment Area, such as 

cordwood-fueled outdoor hydronic 

heaters, to bring the area into 

attainment. We note that, under 18 AAC 

50.077(b), Alaska does permit pelletfueled wood-fired hydronic heaters for 

use in the Fairbanks PM2.5

Nonattainment Area, if specific device 

performance criteria meet Alaska 

regulations. Therefore, the EPA is 

finalizing the approval of 18 AAC 

50.077(b) as proposed. 

Comment 7: HPBA notes that while 

point sources (electric power plants) 

constitute the largest source of SO2

emissions in the Fairbanks PM2.5

Nonattainment Area, ADEC, in many 

instances, did not require additional 

source-level controls on several large 

facilities. HPBA states that ADEC did 

not require installation of new control 

technologies for SO2 even though the 

average daily emissions from these 

point sources are nearly three times 

larger than sources of directly-emitted 

PM2.5 from woodstoves. 

Response 7: The EPA agrees with the 

commenter that the largest source 

category of SO2 emissions is point 

sources, including electric power plants, 

and that SO2 is a significant contributor 

to PM2.5 concentrations in the Fairbanks 

PM2.5 Nonattainment Area. On 

December 13, 2019, Alaska submitted a 

best available control technology 

(BACT) control analysis for specific 

point sources located in the area, 

including several electric power plants, 

as part of the Fairbanks Serious Plan. 

However, we consider this comment to 

be outside the scope of this action. In 

this action, the EPA is evaluating rule 

revisions that ADEC has adopted to 

address direct PM2.5 emissions from 

wood-fired heating devices. We did not 

propose action on the BACT Serious 

area planning requirements, including 

the issue of appropriate regulation of 

SO2 emissions from point sources, as 

part of this action. We intend to address 

Alaska’s best available control measures 

(BACM)/BACT control analysis, and any 

supplemental BACT control analysis 

submissions, in a separate action. We 

encourage the commenter to resubmit 

the comment during the public 

comment period of our future action on 

the BACT control analysis. 

Conclusion 

The EPA finds that the comments do 

not change our proposed determination 

that the regulations submitted by Alaska 

are consistent with CAA requirements 

and strengthen the SIP. Therefore, we 

are finalizing our action as proposed. 

III. Final Action 

In this action, the EPA is approving a 

portion of the submitted revisions to the 

Alaska SIP as meeting the following 

Serious Plan required elements for the 

Fairbanks PM2.5 Nonattainment Area: 

• The 2013 base year emissions 

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

CFR 51.1008(b)(1)); and 

• The State’s PM2.5 precursor 

demonstration for NOX and volatile 

organic compound (VOC) emissions 

(CAA section 189(e); 40 CFR 

51.1006(a)). 

We reiterate that Alaska’s precursor 

analysis did not address nonattainment 

New Source Review (NSR) 

requirements. The State made the prior 

determination to regulate all four EPA 

identified legal precursors to PM2.5 in 

the nonattainment NSR regulations 

applicable to the Fairbanks PM2.5

Nonattainment Area. The EPA approved 

Alaska’s October 25, 2018, SIP revision 

as meeting the nonattainment NSR 

requirements triggered upon 

reclassification of the area to Serious 

(August 29, 2019, 84 FR 45419). 

Specifically, the EPA is approving the 

submitted sections of the Alaska Air 

Quality Control Plan for the Fairbanks 

PM2.5 Nonattainment Area, State 

effective January 8, 2020: 

• Volume II Section III.D.7.06 and 

Volume III Section III.D.7.06 Emissions 

Inventory, for purposes of the 2013 base 

year emissions inventory; 

• Volume II Section III.D.7.08 

Precursor Demonstration, for the 

purposes of NOX and VOC emissions as 

it relates to BACM/BACT control 

measure requirements; and 

Further, the EPA is approving the 

submitted section of the Alaska Air 

Quality Control Plan for the Fairbanks 

PM2.5 Nonattainment Area, State 

effective December 25, 2020: 

• Volume II Section III.D.7.12, 

Emergency Episode Plan.3

53002 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 183 / Friday, September 24, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

hour PM2.5 NAAQS in the Fairbanks PM2.5

Nonattainment Area. 

In addition, the EPA is approving and 

incorporating by reference the 

submitted regulatory changes listed 

below into the Alaska SIP. As stated in 

our proposal, the EPA is not at this time 

determining whether these provisions 

also meet other Serious area 

nonattainment plan requirements for the 

Fairbanks PM2.5 Nonattainment Area. 

Upon the effective date of this action, 

the Alaska SIP will include: 

• 18 AAC 50.030, except (a), State 

effective January 12, 2018; 

• 18 AAC 50.075, except (d)(2) and 

(f), State effective January 8, 2020; 

• 18 AAC 50.076, except (g)(11), State 

effective January 8, 2020; 

• 18 AAC 50.077, except (g) and (q), 

State effective January 8, 2020; 

• 18 AAC 50.078, except (c) and (d), 

State effective January 8, 2020; 

• 18 AAC 50.079, except (e), State 

effective January 8, 2020; and 

• 18 AAC 50.990(71), (138), (149), 

(150), (151), (152), (153), (154), and 

(155), State effective January 8, 2020. 

IV. Incorporation by Reference 

In this document, the EPA is 

finalizing regulatory text in an EPA final 

rule that includes incorporation by 

reference. In accordance with 

requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is 

finalizing the incorporation by reference 

the regulations described in Section III 

of this preamble. 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 

preamble for more information). 

Therefore, these materials have been 

approved by the EPA for inclusion in 

the State implementation plan, have 

been incorporated by reference by the 

EPA into that plan, are fully federally 

enforceable under sections 110 and 113 

of the CAA as of the effective date of the 

final rulemaking of the EPA’s approval, 

and will be incorporated by reference by 

the Director of the Federal Register in 

the next update to the SIP compilation. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 

42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the 

EPA’s role is to approve State choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this action 

merely approves State law as meeting 

Federal requirements and does not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by State law. For that 

reason, this action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

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

January 21, 2011); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

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

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

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

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

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

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; 

and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

The SIP is not approved to apply on 

any Indian reservation land or in any 

other area where EPA or an Indian tribe 

has demonstrated that a tribe has 

jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian 

country, the rule does not have tribal 

implications and it will not impose 

substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law as 

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000). 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

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

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this action and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

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

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

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

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of 

this action must be filed in the United 

States Court of Appeals for the 

appropriate circuit by November 23, 

2021. Filing a petition for 

reconsideration by the Administrator of 

this final rule does not affect the finality 

of this action for the purposes of judicial 

review nor does it extend the time 

within which a petition for judicial 

review may be filed, and shall not 

postpone the effectiveness of such rule 

or action. This action may not be 

challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements. (See section 

307(b)(2)). 

List of Subjects 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. 

Dated: September 15, 2021. 

Michelle L. Pirzadeh, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 10. 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, 40 CFR part 52 is amended as 

follows: 

PART 52—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart C—Alaska 

■ 2. In § 52.70: 

■ a. The table in paragraph (c) is 

amended by: 

■ i. Adding the entry ‘‘18 AAC 50.030’’ 

in numerical order; 

■ ii. Revising the entries ‘‘18 AAC 

50.075’’, ‘‘18 AAC 50.076’’, and ‘‘18 

AAC 50.077’’; 

■ iii. Adding the entries ‘‘18 AAC 

50.078’’ and ‘‘18 AAC 50.079’’ in 

numerical order; and 

■ iv. Revising the entry ‘‘18 AAC 

50.990’’. 

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 183 / Friday, September 24, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 53003 

■ b. The table in paragraph (e) is 

amended by adding the entries 

‘‘II.III.D.7.06 Fairbanks Emissions 

Inventory Data’’, ‘‘III.III.D.7.06 

Appendix to Fairbanks Emissions 

Inventory Data’’, ‘‘II.III.D.7.08 Fairbanks 

Modeling’’, and ‘‘II.III.D.7.12 Fairbanks 

Emergency Episode Plan’’ to the end of 

the table. 

The additions and revisions read as 

follows: 

§ 52.70 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

EPA-APPROVED ALASKA REGULATIONS AND STATUTES

State citation Title/subject 

State 

effective 

date 

EPA approval date Explanations 

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

18 AAC 50—Article 1. Ambient Air Quality Management 

* * * * * * * 

18 AAC 50.030 ...... State Air Quality Control Plan ....... 1/12/2018 9/24/2021, [Insert Federal Register citation].Except (a). 

* * * * * * * 

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

Visible Emission Standards.

1/8/2020 9/24/2021, [Insert Federal Register citation].Except (d)(2) and (f). 

18 AAC 50.076 ...... Solid Fuel-Fired Heating Device 

Fuel Requirements; Requirements for Wood Sellers.

1/8/2020 9/24/2021, [Insert Federal Register citation].Except (g)(11). 

18 AAC 50.077 ...... Standards for Wood-Fired Heating 

Devices.

1/8/2020 9/24/2021, [Insert Federal Register citation].Except (g) and (q). 

18 AAC 50.078 ...... Additional Control Measures for a 

Serious PM2.5 Nonattainment 

Area.

1/8/2020 9/24/2021, [Insert Federal Register citation].Except (c) and (d). 

18 AAC 50.079 ...... Provisions for Coal-Fired Heating 

Devices.

1/8/2020 9/24/2021, [Insert Federal Register citation].Except (e). 

* * * * * * * 

18 AAC 50—Article 9. General Provisions 

* * * * * * * 

18 AAC 50.990 ...... Definitions ..................................... 1/8/2020 9/24/2021, [Insert Federal Register citation].

* * * * * * * 

* * * * * (e) * * * 

EPA-APPROVED ALASKA NONREGULATORY PROVISIONS AND QUASI-REGULATORY MEASURES

Name of SIP 

provision 

Applicable geographic or 

nonattainment area 

State 

submittal 

date 

EPA approval date Explanations 

*******

Recently—Approved Plans 

* * * * * * * 

II.III.D.7.06 

Fairbanks 

Emissions 

Inventory 

Data.

Fairbanks North Star Borough ......... 12/13/2019 9/24/2021, [Insert Federal Register 

citation].

Approved for purposes of the Fairbanks Serious Plan 2013 base 

year emissions inventory. 

III.III.D.7.06 

Appendix 

to Fairbanks 

Emissions 

Inventory 

Data.

Fairbanks North Star Borough ......... 12/13/2019 9/24/2021, [Insert Federal Register 

citation].

Approved for purposes of the Fairbanks Serious Plan 2013 base 

year emissions inventory. 

II.III.D.7.08 

Fairbanks 

Modeling.

Fairbanks North Star Borough ......... 12/13/2019 9/24/2021, [Insert Federal Register 

citation].

Approved for purposes of the Fairbanks Serious Plan PM2.5 precursor demonstration for NOX and 

VOC emissions as it relates to 

BACM/BACT control measure requirements. 

53004 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 183 / Friday, September 24, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

EPA-APPROVED ALASKA NONREGULATORY PROVISIONS AND QUASI-REGULATORY MEASURES—Continued 

Name of SIP 

provision 

Applicable geographic or 

nonattainment area 

State 

submittal 

date 

EPA approval date Explanations 

II.III.D.7.12 

Fairbanks 

Emergency 

Episode 

Plan.

Fairbanks North Star Borough ......... 12/15/2020 9/24/2021, [Insert Federal Register 

citation].

[FR Doc. 2021–20396 Filed 9–23–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 180 

[EPA–HQ–OPP–2020–0009; FRL–8785–01– 

OCSPP] 

Metalaxyl; Pesticide Tolerances 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes 

tolerances for residues of metalaxyl in 

or on black pepper. American Spice 

Trade Association requested these 

tolerances under the Federal Food, 

Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA). 

DATES: This regulation is effective 

September 24, 2021. Objections and 

requests for hearings must be received 

on or before November 23, 2021, and 

must be filed in accordance with the 

instructions provided in 40 CFR part 

178 (see also Unit I.C. of the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION). 

ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, 

identified by docket identification (ID) 

number EPA–HQ–OPP–2020–0009, is 

available at http://www.regulations.gov 

or at the Office of Pesticide Programs 

Regulatory Public Docket (OPP Docket) 

in the Environmental Protection Agency 

Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William 

Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 

Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC 

20460–0001. The Public Reading Room 

is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., 

Monday through Friday, excluding legal 

holidays. The telephone number for the 

Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, 

and the telephone number for the OPP 

Docket is (703) 305–5805. 

Due to the public health concerns 

related to COVID–19, the EPA Docket 

Center (EPA/DC) and Reading Room is 

closed to visitors with limited 

exceptions. The staff continues to 

provide remote customer service via 

email, phone, and webform. For the 

latest status information on EPA/DC 

services and docket access, visit https:// 

www.epa.gov/dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Marietta Echeverria, Registration 

Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide 

Programs, Environmental Protection 

Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, 

Washington, DC 20460–0001; main 

telephone number: (703) 305–7090; 

email address: RDFRNotices@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

You may be potentially affected by 

this action if you are an agricultural 

producer, food manufacturer, or 

pesticide manufacturer. The following 

list of North American Industrial 

Classification System (NAICS) codes is 

not intended to be exhaustive, but rather 

provides a guide to help readers 

determine whether this document 

applies to them. Potentially affected 

entities may include: 

• Crop production (NAICS code 111). 

• Animal production (NAICS code 

112). 

• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 

311). 

• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS 

code 32532). 

B. How can I get electronic access to 

other related information? 

You may access a frequently updated 

electronic version of EPA’s tolerance 

regulations at 40 CFR part 180 through 

the Government Publishing Office’s eCFR site at http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/ 

text-idx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/ 

Title40/40tab_02.tpl. 

C. How can I file an objection or hearing 

request? 

Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 

U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an 

objection to any aspect of this regulation 

and may also request a hearing on those 

objections. You must file your objection 

or request a hearing on this regulation 

in accordance with the instructions 

provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure 

proper receipt by EPA, you must 

identify docket ID number EPA–HQ– 

OPP–2020–0009 in the subject line on 

the first page of your submission. All 

objections and requests for a hearing 

must be in writing and must be received 

by the Hearing Clerk on or before 

November 23, 2021. Addresses for mail 

and hand delivery of objections and 

hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 

178.25(b), although at this time, EPA 

strongly encourages those interested in 

submitting objections or a hearing 

request, to submit objections and 

hearing requests electronically. See 

Order Urging Electronic Service and 

Filing (April 10, 2020), https://

www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/ 

2020-05/documents/2020-04-10_-_

order_urging_electronic_service_and_

filing.pdf. At this time, because of the 

COVID–19 pandemic, the judges and 

staff of the Office of Administrative Law 

Judges are working remotely and not 

able to accept filings or correspondence 

by courier, personal deliver, or 

commercial delivery, and the ability to 

receive filings or correspondence by 

U.S. Mail is similarly limited. When 

submitting documents to the U.S. EPA 

Office of Administrative Law Judges 

(OALJ), a person should utilize the 

OALJ e-filing system, at https://

yosemite.epa.gov/OA/EAB/EAB-ALJ_

upload.nsf. 

Although EPA’s regulations require 

submission via U.S. Mail or hand 

deliver, EPA intends to treat 

submissions filed via electronic means 

as properly filed submissions during 

this time that the Agency continues to 

maximize telework due to the 

pandemic; therefore, EPA believes the 

preference for submission via electronic 

means will not be prejudicial. If it is 

impossible for a person to submit 

documents electronically or receive 

service electronically, e.g., the person 

does not have any access to a computer, 

the person shall so advise OALJ by 

contacting the Hearing Clerk at (202) 

564–6281. If a person is without access 

to a computer and must file documents 

by U.S. Mail, the person shall notify the 

Hearing Clerk every time it files a 

document in such a manner. The 

address for mailing documents is U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Office of Administrative Law Judges,