Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 173 / Friday, September 8, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 42457 

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, 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). 

In addition, 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 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 7, 

2017. 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, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements. 

Dated: August 29, 2017. 

Samuel Coleman, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6. 

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 SS—Texas 

■ 2. In § 52.2270 (e), the second table 

entitled ‘‘EPA Approved Nonregulatory 

Provisions and Quasi-Regulatory 

Measures in the Texas SIP’’ is amended 

by adding a new entry at the end of the 

table for ‘‘Second 10-year Carbon 

Monoxide maintenance plan (limited 

maintenance plan) for the El Paso CO 

area’’ to read as follows: 

§ 52.2270 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

EPA APPROVED NONREGULATORY PROVISIONS AND QUASI-REGULATORY MEASURES IN THE TEXAS SIP 

Name of SIP provision 

Applicable 

geographic or 

nonattainment 

area 

State 

submittal/ 

effective date 

EPA approval date Comments 

*******

Second 10-year Carbon Monoxide maintenance plan (limited 

maintenance plan) for the El Paso CO area.

El Paso, TX .... 9/21/2016 9/8/2017, [Insert Federal Register citation].

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2017–18950 Filed 9–7–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R10–OAR–2015–0131: FRL–9967–21– 

Region 10] 

Air Plan Approval; AK, Fairbanks North 

Star Borough; 2006 PM2.5 Moderate 

Area Plan 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is approving state 

implementation plan (SIP) revisions 

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 Moderate PM2.5 nonattainment 

area (FNSB NAA). Alaska submitted an 

attainment plan for the FNSB NAA on 

December 31, 2014, to meet applicable 

requirements for an area classified as 

‘‘Moderate’’ nonattainment, and made 

additional submissions and provided 

clarifying information to supplement 

the attainment plan in January 2015, 

March 2015, July 2015, November 2015, 

March 2016, November 2016, and 

January 2017 (hereafter, the initial 

submission and all supplemental and 

clarifying information will be 

collectively referred to as ‘‘the FNSB 

Moderate Plan’’). 

DATES: This action is effective on 

October 10, 2017. 

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–R10–OAR–2015–0131. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

the https://www.regulations.gov Web 

site. Although listed in the index, some 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
42458 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 173 / Friday, September 8, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 

1See Alaska Department of Environmental 

Conservation letter, Withdrawal of items from the 

State Implementation Plan submittal for the 

Fairbanks North Star Borough nonattainment area, 

July 26, 2017, available in the docket for this action. 

2CAA section 110(k)(3), 42 U.S.C. 7410(k)(3) and 

40 CFR 52.02(a); see also Union Elec. Co. v. EPA, 

427 U.S. 246, 250 (1976); Train v. Natural Res. Def. 

Council, 421 U.S. 60, 79 (1975). 

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: 

Claudia Vaupel at 206–553–6121, or 

vaupel.claudia@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, wherever 

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

intended to refer to the EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

II. Public Comments and the EPA’s 

Responses 

A. Comments on Control Measures 

B. Comments on Enforcement 

C. Comments on Rules 

D. Other Comments 

III. Final Action 

IV. Incorporation by Reference 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background 

On February 2, 2017, the EPA 

published its proposal to approve the 

FNSB Moderate Plan submitted by 

Alaska to address CAA requirements for 

the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in the 

FNSB NAA. 82 FR 9035. Specifically, 

we proposed to find that the FNSB 

Moderate Plan meets the substantive 

statutory and regulatory requirements 

for base-year and projected emissions 

inventories, precursor demonstrations, 

analysis and imposition of reasonably 

available control measures/technologies 

(RACM/RACT), reasonable further 

progress (RFP), quantitative milestones 

(QMs) and a demonstration that 

attainment by the December 31, 2015 

attainment date was impracticable. We 

also proposed to approve the 2017 

motor vehicle emissions budgets, state 

and local rules that were included in the 

FNSB Moderate Plan, and exceptional 

event demonstrations submitted by 

Alaska to address unrepresentative 

monitoring data that occurred during 

certain events. On July 26, 2017, Alaska 

withdrew from the EPA’s consideration 

four provisions from its SIP 

submissions.1 The removal of these 

provisions does not affect this final 

action fully approving the FNSB 

Moderate Plan. For a description of 

Alaska’s submissions, and our 

evaluation and rationale for the 

proposed action, please see the 

proposed rulemaking in the Federal 

Register at 82 FR 9035, February 2, 

2017. 

II. Public Comments and the EPA’s 

Responses 

The EPA provided a 30-day period for 

the public to comment on our proposed 

action on the FNSB Moderate Plan 

which ended on March 3, 2017. During 

this comment period, we received five 

public comment letters. The public 

comments can be found in the docket 

for this action. Two commenters were 

supportive of efforts to improve air 

quality in general. One commenter 

expressed appreciation for the ‘‘strong 

standards implemented in 2006 that 

strengthened the 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS.’’ The other commenter stated 

that ‘‘Alaska has certainly done their 

research and taken seriously their 

drafting of the proposed plan.’’ Three 

commenters opposed the EPA’s 

proposed approval action. In general, 

these adverse comments questioned the 

approvability of Alaska’s RACM/RACT 

analysis, Alaska’s authority to enforce 

the requirements of the attainment plan, 

the stringency of the submitted 

regulations compared to existing state 

regulations, and expressed concerns 

about the high PM2.5 concentrations in 

the area and the resulting impacts on 

public health. We summarize the 

adverse comments and provide our 

responses in the following paragraphs. 

A. Comments on Control Measures 

Comment 1: Two commenters 

opposed the EPA’s proposed approval of 

the FNSB Moderate Plan on the basis 

that it did not consider all potential 

measures that Alaska could have 

imposed to meet the RACM/RACT 

requirement for a Moderate area 

attainment plan. One commenter stated 

that ‘‘there are many available control 

measures for residential wood 

combustion that the State has neglected 

to consider’’ and provided as examples 

requirements for low-sulfur heating fuel, 

control measures based on housing 

density, programs to improve woodburning device operation and 

maintenance, and training and 

certification programs for installers of 

wood stoves. The commenter then 

asserted that the ‘‘State was required to 

analyze these control measures to 

determine whether they are reasonable 

for Fairbanks.’’ The other commenter 

stated that ‘‘Alaska’s consideration of 

technologically and economically 

feasible controls was impermissibly 

narrow’’ and provided as examples 

limiting the hours of operation for 

wood-heating facilities, and wood 

gasification and carbon capture and 

storage that Alaska did not evaluate or 

impose as part of the FNSB Moderate 

Plan. 

Response 1: The EPA disagrees with 

these comments because Alaska 

adequately evaluated appropriate 

measures for the FNSB NAA for 

purposes of the FNSB Moderate Plan. 

Section 107(a) of the CAA provides 

states with both authority and primary 

responsibility for developing SIPs that 

meet applicable statutory and regulatory 

requirements for attaining, maintaining, 

and enforcing the NAAQS. States have 

discretion in formulating their 

attainment plans so long as they meet 

the applicable requirements of the Act.2

Additionally, the EPA has explained 

that the control measure evaluation 

process ‘‘generally allows states to apply 

reasoned judgment as they identify 

potential control measures for sources of 

direct PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors in 

their respective nonattainment areas.’’ 

81 FR 58037, August 24, 2016. For the 

reasons provided in our proposed rule 

and further in the following paragraphs, 

we conclude that the FNSB Moderate 

Plan provides for the implementation of 

all RACM/RACT that could reasonably 

be implemented in the FNSB NAA as 

required by CAA sections 172(c) and 

189(a)(1)(C). We respond in the 

following paragraphs to the specific 

comments pertaining to the six potential 

control measures highlighted by the 

commenters. 

Response 1.a. Low-sulfur heating fuel 

requirement as opposed to economic 

incentives. One commenter asserted that 

Alaska failed to evaluate, as part of the 

analysis for potential RACM/RACT 

control measures for residential wood 

combustion, a requirement for the use of 

low sulfur fuel ‘‘as opposed to merely 

providing incentives for its use.’’ The 

EPA reevaluated Alaska’s analysis on 

low sulfur residential fuel oil in light of 

the comment. Alaska assessed the 

technological and economic feasibility 

of switching from the current residential 

heating oil used in the area to a lowsulfur fuel (FNSB Moderate Plan 

appendix III.D.5.7–41 and 5.7–57). 

Specifically, Alaska determined that the 

incremental cost of users switching to 

low sulfur fuel oil was not economically 

feasible for purposes of the FNSB 

Moderate Plan. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 173 / Friday, September 8, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 42459 

3 Guidance Document for Residential Wood 

Combustion Emission Control Measures. EPA–450/ 

2–89–015. September 1989. Available at https://

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

epa-450-2-89-015.pdf. 

4The 1989 RWC Guidance explains that, other 

than the New Source Performance Standards, the 

measures discussed in the document are not 

‘‘national measures.’’ 1989 RWC Guidance, p. 1–1. 

We therefore, interpret the installer certification 

program described in the 1989 RWC Guidance to be 

a state or local program. 

The EPA notes that the commenter 

may have believed that Alaska did not 

adequately evaluate the use of low 

sulfur fuel because Alaska did not 

separately consider both mandatory 

requirements to use such fuel and 

incentive programs to encourage the 

voluntary use of such fuel. Upon 

reviewing Alaska’s analysis, however, 

we believe that the economic feasibility 

analysis for this control measure applies 

to both a mandatory requirement, as 

well as to incentives to use low-sulfur 

fuel. We note that while the subheading 

in the economic incentives section 

refers to ‘‘incentives,’’ the analysis is not 

limited to only providing incentives and 

more broadly analyzes the costs of lowsulfur fuel, whether implemented 

through a requirement or with 

incentives. The EPA acknowledges that 

the ‘‘incentives’’ subheading is 

somewhat confusing given the broader 

analysis that follows it, but we do not 

agree that Alaska failed to consider 

requirements to use low-sulfur fuel 

adequately for purposes of the FNSB 

Moderate Plan. 

Alaska concluded that switching to 

low sulfur fuels would not be 

economically feasible; this conclusion 

would apply to both incentive-based 

and mandatory measures. We note that 

the FNSB NAA has been reclassified 

from Moderate to Serious, and Alaska 

will be required to prepare and submit 

for EPA review a Serious area 

attainment plan. 82 FR 21711, May 10, 

2017. We anticipate that Alaska will 

thoroughly evaluate such control 

measures again, with updated economic 

data and in light of the longer Serious 

area attainment deadline, in developing 

the Serious area attainment plan for this 

area which requires analysis and 

implementation of Best Available 

Control Measures/Technologies (BACM/ 

BACT). 

Response 1.b. Control measures based 

on housing density. One commenter 

asserted that Alaska failed to consider 

restrictions on the use of certain 

residential heating devices based on 

population density, i.e., restricting the 

use of such devices in more densely 

populated areas. The commenter 

referenced San Joaquin Valley Air 

District Rule 4901 (SJV Rule 4901) as an 

example of a housing density-based 

control measure that Alaska did not 

consider. SJV Rule 4901 limits or 

prohibits new installations of heating 

devices based on the number of 

dwellings per acre. Although we agree 

that such control measures can be 

appropriate based on the facts and 

circumstances of a given area, we 

disagree with the commenter’s assertion 

that Alaska did not consider all RACM/ 

RACT in the FNSB Moderate Plan 

because it did not specifically evaluate 

a housing density-based control 

measure, like the one in SJV Rule 4901, 

for purposes of the FNSB Moderate 

Plan. In its January 6, 2017 clarification 

document (2017 Clarification), Alaska 

evaluated a general prohibition on new 

wood-heating device installations in the 

FNSB NAA and determined that it was 

not feasible because in extreme cold 

temperatures alternative sources of heat 

that do not rely on electricity and are 

not at risk of damage from freezing are 

a critical source of heating and must be 

an available option to the public. See 

2017 Clarification, pp. 2 and 5. We note 

that the effect of limiting new woodheating device installations based on 

housing density functionally results in 

prohibiting their installation for some 

homes. The rationale provided by 

Alaska for the infeasibility of a general 

prohibition on wood-heating device 

installations would also apply to 

prohibiting wood-heating device 

installations based on housing density. 

Thus, the EPA believes that it was not 

necessary for Alaska also to consider a 

housing density criterion (e.g., number 

of dwellings per acre) in evaluating a 

potential prohibition on new wood 

heating-device installations because it 

would not change the conclusion that 

prohibiting new wood-heating device 

installations is not feasible in the FNSB 

NAA. 

In addition, we note that for a specific 

category of wood-heating devices, 

hydronic heaters, Alaska evaluated and 

implemented a setback requirement that 

prohibits new installations that are less 

than 330 feet from the property line. 

One purpose of this requirement is to 

restrict these sources, which typically 

emit larger amounts of pollutants, to 

less densely populated areas. In the 

2017 Clarification, Alaska describes the 

effect of this control measure as limiting 

‘‘the installation of hydronic heaters to 

large lots which are unlikely to exist in 

more densely populated areas.’’ 2017 

Clarification, p. 7. The hydronic heater 

setback requirement is thus a densitybased requirement that is tailored to 

address a specific type of heating 

device. 

Response 1.c. Programs to improve 

wood-burning device operation and 

maintenance. One commenter asserted 

that Alaska neglected to consider 

programs to improve operation and 

maintenance of wood-burning stoves 

and fireplaces as a means of reducing 

emissions from residential wood 

combustion. We disagree that Alaska 

did not adequately evaluate and adopt 

programs to improve the use of 

residential wood heating devices. As we 

discussed in our proposal, Alaska 

evaluated and implemented public 

awareness and education programs on 

wood storage and heating device 

operation and maintenance. 82 FR 9044, 

February 2, 2017. We refer the 

commenter to the Alaska Department of 

Environmental Conservation’s wood 

heating media Web page (http://

dec.alaska.gov/air/anpms/pm/ 

wshome.htm) and the Fairbanks North 

Star Borough local government’s 

(Borough) air quality Web site (http://

www.aqfairbanks.com) that contain 

brochures, television public service 

announcements, and videos about 

efficient wood-burning device operation 

and maintenance. The Borough’s Web 

site also has an air quality pledge that 

residents can make that includes 

efficient wood-heating device operation 

and maintenance. If there are additional 

means to improve the operation and 

maintenance of wood stoves, we 

anticipate that Alaska will evaluate 

them during the development of the 

Serious area plan for the FNSB NAA. 

Response 1.d. Installer training and 

certification programs for wood stove 

installers. One commenter stated that 

the EPA should not approve the FNSB 

Moderate Plan because Alaska did not 

consider implementing a training and 

certification program for residential 

wood combustion (RWC) device 

installers that was described in a 1989 

EPA guidance document (1989 RWC 

Guidance).3 The 1989 RWC Guidance 

describes a state or local installer 

certification program that would offer a 

course in proper RWC device 

installation and design as a means of 

minimizing emissions from wood 

stoves.4 1989 RWC Guidance, p. 3–11. 

The EPA acknowledges that the 1989 

RWC Guidance document remains in 

effect. However, since the publication of 

the 1989 RWC Guidance, national 

installer training and certification 

programs, such as the National 

Fireplace Institute (NFI) and the 

Chimney Safety Institute of America 

(CSIA), have come into existence. The 

EPA has confirmed that these national 

certifications are available to installers 

in the FNSB NAA and that there are 

currently seven certified installers in the 

area. See ‘‘NFI CSIA FNSB Certification 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
42460 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 173 / Friday, September 8, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 

5See U.S. EPA Grant Agreement 01J30601 to the 

Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, 

August 8, 2017, available in the docket for this 

action. 

List’’ in the docket for this action. We 

believe that the guidance 

recommendation for states to consider a 

state or local training and certification 

program for wood stove installers is 

adequately addressed in the FNSB NAA 

by the existence of national certification 

programs. 

As discussed in the 1989 RWC 

Guidance, the effectiveness of an 

installer certification program depends 

in part on the extent to which installers 

and consumers participate in the 

programs. 1989 RWC Guidance p. 3–12. 

During development of the FNSB 

Moderate Plan, Alaska considered and 

responded to public comments about 

installation and certification programs 

by explaining that it had added to its 

outreach materials for users of wood 

stoves the EPA’s recommendation for 

consumers to use certified installers. 

See FNSB Moderate Plan, appendix 

III.D.5.13–151. Additionally, although 

not a control measure in the FNSB 

Moderate Plan, we note that the EPA 

has awarded Alaska funding for a 

changeout program for the FNSB NAA 

that will provide funds to encourage 

users to replace old wood and pellet 

appliances and fireplaces with new EPA 

certified appliances or with oil or 

natural gas appliances that will help 

reduce emissions. The EPA grant 

providing these funds requires that 

participants in the program have the 

replacement appliances installed by a 

certified installer, a contracted hearth 

retailer, or a contractor under the 

approval and supervision of a 

contracted hearth retailer. This program 

is funded by the EPA’s Targeted Airshed 

Grant and was awarded to Alaska on 

July 18, 2017.5 Finally, we anticipate 

that Alaska will further evaluate how to 

regulate emissions from wood stoves for 

purposes of meeting the BACM/BACT 

requirement in the Serious SIP, and this 

should include consideration of 

additional ways to encourage correct 

wood stove installations. 

Response 1.e. Operating limitations 

on wood-heating facilities. One 

commenter stated that Alaska failed to 

consider operating limitations for 

sources such as requirements in site 

plans ‘‘that wood-heating facilities 

operate during limited hours per year.’’ 

We interpret the commenter’s concern 

to refer to the type of operating plans 

typical for major stationary sources, in 

which a source might be subject to 

restricted hours of operation as one 

means of reducing emissions. Although 

the FNSB Moderate Plan identified 

wood heating as a primary source of 

PM2.5 in the area, major stationary 

wood-heating facilities, for which a site 

operating plan might be appropriate, 

were not identified as a source category 

in the emissions inventory and therefore 

no analysis of control measures was 

required. See 40 CFR 51.1009(a)(1). 

Accordingly, we do not believe it was 

necessary for Alaska to evaluate and 

impose this type of measure, given the 

absence of relevant sources. The EPA 

notes, however, that the FNSB Moderate 

Plan includes a more broadly applicable 

mandatory curtailment program that has 

limitations on the operation of woodheating devices when PM2.5 ambient 

levels are forecasted to reach high 

values. See 82 FR 9043, February 2, 

2017. 

Response 1.f. Wood gasification and 

partial carbon capture and storage. One 

commenter suggested that Alaska’s 

RACM/RACT analysis should have 

considered wood gasification and 

partial carbon capture and storage as an 

energy efficiency measure. The EPA 

disagrees that an analysis of these 

technologies is appropriate for a PM2.5

nonattainment area plan. These 

technologies are generally designed to 

reduce carbon dioxide emissions and 

are not considered viable control 

measures for reducing PM2.5.

Comment 2: Partial implementation 

was not considered. One commenter 

stated that the EPA should not approve 

the FNSB Moderate Plan because Alaska 

failed to consider the feasibility of 

implementing control measures in part, 

even if it concluded that full 

implementation of the measures was 

infeasible. The commenter suggested 

that the following control measures 

‘‘might be implemented in stages or by 

employing a more targeted approach’’ (i) 

a ban on green wood sales; (ii) a 

requirement that all hydronic heaters be 

certified or have retrofits; (iii) a 

requirement that uncertified stoves in 

rental units be replaced; (iv) a 

requirement that rental units have 

alternate sources of heat; and (v) a 

requirement that new constructions 

have alternate sources of heat. 

Response 2: We disagree with the 

claim that the EPA must disapprove the 

FNSB Moderate Plan because Alaska 

failed to assess partial implementation 

of the five control measures identified 

by the commenter. As discussed in the 

following paragraphs, Alaska either 

fully or partially implemented the 

control measures, or adequately 

addressed emissions in other ways that 

obviated the need to control the 

emissions through partial 

implementation of the control measures. 

Response 2.a. Ban on green wood 

sales. Alaska rejected banning green 

wood sales (i.e., wood that has a 

moisture content greater than 20%) 

based on technological infeasibility. 

However, Alaska adopted other control 

measures that address the moisture 

content of wood to reduce emissions. 

First, wood sellers in the FNSB NAA are 

required to register with the State and 

they must disclose the moisture content 

of wood they sell to consumers. This 

will serve to assure that users of 

purchased wood will be on notice of the 

moisture content. Second, burning green 

wood in wood-fired heaters is 

prohibited in the FNSB NAA. This, in 

conjunction with the requirement on 

sellers to disclose moisture content, will 

serve to assure that purchasers will not 

burn green wood. The EPA considers 

the requirement to disclose the moisture 

content of wood for sale in conjunction 

with the prohibition on burning wet 

wood to be an adequate approach to 

reducing emissions from green wood for 

purposes of the FNSB Moderate Plan. It 

is unclear how the commenter’s 

recommended partial implementation of 

a ban on green wood sales would 

accomplish additional emission 

reductions beyond the approaches 

already adopted by Alaska. 

Response 2.b. Require all hydronic 

heaters to be certified or have retrofits. 

Alaska concluded that it was not 

feasible to require that all existing 

hydronic heaters in the FNSB NAA be 

replaced with specified certified models 

or to require retrofits for such heaters. 

However, the FNSB Moderate Plan 

includes a Borough code requirement 

that an owner of an existing uncertified 

hydronic heater that has had two or 

more violations of certain Borough code 

emissions provisions must remove the 

device, unless certain conditions are 

met. Additionally, Alaska required that 

all hydronic heaters installed after 

February 28, 2015 be qualified under 

the EPA’s Phase 2 program or meet 

certain emission standards. We also 

note that owners of existing hydronic 

heaters are eligible to receive incentives 

for removal or replacement of the 

devices through the Borough’s 

changeout program. Furthermore, all 

hydronic heaters are subject to a 20 

percent opacity limit, a requirement to 

use dry wood, and must comply with 

wood heating curtailments. Also, 

hydronic heaters that do not meet 

certain emission standards must be 

removed upon conveyance of property. 

Through this suite of overlapping 

requirements, we believe that Alaska 

has adequately addressed emissions 

from uncertified hydronic heaters for 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 173 / Friday, September 8, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 42461 

purposes of the FNSB Moderate Plan. 

The EPA expects that Alaska will 

evaluate the need for further controls, 

such as expanded changeout incentives 

or retrofits to existing uncertified 

hydronic heaters, as part of the BACM/ 

BACT analysis for the Serious area 

attainment plan for this area. 

Response 2.c. Replace uncertified 

stoves in rental units. The FNSB 

Moderate Plan includes a requirement 

that uncertified wood-fired heating 

devices must be removed when a 

property is leased. The requirement 

became effective on June 9, 2017. 

Because this control measure has been 

fully implemented, consideration of 

partial implementation is unnecessary. 

We note that the wood heating device 

emission standards in the FNSB 

Moderate Plan do not allow the 

installation of uncertified devices. 

Therefore, once an uncertified wood 

stove has been removed from a rental 

unit, it cannot be replaced with an 

uncertified device. 

Response 2.d. Require rental units to 

have alternate sources of heat. In the 

FNSB Moderate Plan, Alaska explained 

that surveys from 2011–2015 indicated 

that only 5.6% of households surveyed 

had wood as a sole source of heat. See 

2017 Clarification, p. 12. This number 

included both rental and owner 

occupied homes, so presumably the 

number of rental units without 

alternative sources of heat would be 

smaller. We note, however, that the 

FNSB Moderate plan does not allow 

owners of newly constructed buildings, 

including rental properties, to obtain a 

‘‘no other adequate source of heat’’ 

(NOASH) determination. A NOASH 

determination allows a person to use a 

solid fuel or waste oil burning appliance 

during a stage 2 or stage 3 curtailment. 

To qualify for a NOASH determination, 

a building owner or manager must file 

an application with the Borough 

confirming that the building has no 

adequate heating source other than a 

solid fuel or waste oil burning 

appliance, that economic hardships 

require the use of a solid fuel waste oil 

burning appliance, or that complying 

with a curtailment would result in 

damage to property. Prohibiting newly 

constructed buildings, including rental 

properties, from obtaining a NOASH 

determination functionally requires the 

installation of alternate sources of heat 

so that the building occupants can 

comply with wood heating curtailments. 

We anticipate that Alaska will revisit 

further controls for rental units in 

developing its Serious area attainment 

plan. 

Response 2.e. Require new 

construction to have alternate sources of 

heat. As discussed previously, a 

provision that addresses this control 

measure was included in the FNSB 

Moderate plan. The provision excludes 

owners of newly constructed buildings 

from obtaining a NOASH determination 

which functionally requires the 

installation of alternate sources of heat 

in new buildings so that the building 

occupants can comply with wood 

heating curtailments. 

Comment 3: One commenter stated 

that the technological feasibility 

analysis in the FNSB Moderate Plan is 

inadequate because Alaska took the 

position that it was impeded from 

implementing certain control measures 

due to local opposition evidenced by a 

citizen’s referendum prohibiting 

regulation of home heating sources, and 

that when the referendum was lifted, 

Alaska continued to dismiss the control 

measures due to insufficient time to 

revise the Moderate area attainment 

plan. This commenter also stated that 

not enough has been done to render the 

2014 submission compliant with the 

CAA. 

Response 3: We acknowledge that 

Alaska’s initial December 2014 

submission cited a citizen’s referendum 

as a basis for not adopting many 

potential control measures. As we 

explained in our proposal, the EPA does 

not view social acceptability, including 

the citizen’s referendum prohibiting 

regulation of home heating sources in 

any manner, to be an appropriate basis 

for rejecting required emission control 

measures. See 82 FR 9045, February 2, 

2017. 

Significantly, however, the situation 

about which the commenter was 

concerned has changed because the 

referendum no longer applies and 

Alaska has evaluated additional control 

measures for inclusion in the FNSB 

Moderate Plan. Alaska provided 

supplemental SIP submissions, 

supported by clarifying information, 

that analyzed the control measures that 

it previously considered infeasible due 

to the citizen’s referendum, including 

the control measures identified by the 

commenter. Based on this revised 

analysis, Alaska adopted some 

additional control measures, such as the 

mandatory solid-fuel heating device 

curtailment program, but continued to 

find some control measures infeasible 

for reasons unrelated to the expired 

referendum, such as the ban on green 

wood sales. 

Alaska’s supplemental submissions 

provided additional control measures 

and an updated and revised analysis for 

certain components of the FNSB 

Moderate Plan to ensure that the EPA 

could evaluate and act on the current 

plan. As a result, and as the commenter 

notes, there is some information in the 

original submission that is outdated and 

that was made extraneous by the 

supplemental submissions. However, 

the supplemental submissions clearly 

identify the portions of the original 

submission that were updated and 

revised and we do not believe that the 

extraneous material that remains in the 

original submission is a basis for 

disapproving the FNSB Moderate Plan. 

As explained in response to comments 

concerning specific potential control 

measures, we have concluded that 

Alaska’s evaluation of the measures is 

adequate for purposes of the FNSB 

Moderate Plan. 

Comment 4: One commenter argued 

that the EPA cannot approve the FNSB 

Moderate Plan because Alaska made 

errors in reasoning. The commenter 

provided as an example, Alaska’s 

assessment of a ban on new installations 

of hydronic heaters and the assumption 

that such a ban could have the negative 

effect of prolonging the use of older 

devices because new installations 

would be prohibited. The other example 

the commenter provided was Alaska’s 

assumption that the benefits would be 

small for a requirement that rental units 

in the FNSB NAA have alternative 

heating sources. 

Response 4: We do not agree that the 

specific Alaska assumptions the 

commenter referenced are 

inappropriate, given the facts and 

circumstances in the FNSB NAA. In 

evaluating a potential ban on new 

installations of hydronic heaters, 

Alaska’s primary explanation for why 

such a control was not appropriate was 

that ‘‘due to arctic conditions, 

alternative sources of heat must be an 

available option to the public to protect 

health, life, and property.’’ 2017 

Clarification, p. 2. The assumption 

referenced by the commenter, that 

implementing such a ban may 

discourage replacement of older and 

higher emitting hydronic heaters, was 

an additional consideration for not 

banning new hydronic heaters 

installations. We believe that it was 

reasonable for Alaska to take into 

consideration the potential impacts that 

a ban on new hydronic heaters might 

have on Alaska and the Borough’s 

ongoing efforts to encourage 

replacement of older and higher 

emitting devices with newer, cleaner 

burning devices. Alaska developed the 

FNSB Moderate Plan through an 

extensive public process and adopted a 

suite of controls for reducing the 

emissions from hydronic heaters that 

are intended to help bring the area into 

attainment. The decision not to impose 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
42462 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 173 / Friday, September 8, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 

6As we discussed in our proposed rule, Alaska 

provided a 2019 inventory for informational 

purposes. See 82 FR 9037, February 2, 2017. 

Although the 2019 inventory included emissions 

reductions estimated from potential future 

expansion of reliance on natural gas, this 

informational inventory was not relied on in the SIP 

nor was it a required element for the FNSB 

Moderate plan. 

a ban because it might unintentionally 

undercut other related measures is not 

unreasonable. We anticipate that Alaska 

will further evaluate this emissions 

source as part of its development of the 

Serious area plan for the FNSB NAA. 

Regarding Alaska’s statement that the 

benefits are assumed to be small for 

requiring alternate sources of heat in 

rental units, we believe that Alaska 

made reasonable assumptions based on 

the latest information available at the 

time. For example, Alaska explained 

that surveys from 2011–2015 indicated 

that only 5.6% of households surveyed 

had wood as a sole source of heat. See 

2017 Clarification, p. 12. This number 

included both rental and owneroccupied homes, so presumably the 

number of rental units without 

alternative sources of heat would be 

smaller. We anticipate that Alaska will 

revisit the analysis of rental units with 

updated information in developing its 

Serious area attainment plan. 

Comment 5: One commenter argued 

that the wood-fuel cost assessment in 

the FNSB Moderate Plan is incomplete 

because it does not accurately reflect the 

full cost of burning wood as a fuel, such 

as the value of a homeowner’s time and 

the cost of ash disposal, and the fact that 

more fuel is needed to heat a building 

in Fairbanks than in the rest of the 

country. 

Response 5: We agree with the 

commenter that an economic feasibility 

analysis should include a range of costs 

associated with potential control 

measures for a given type of emissions 

source. Considerations of economic 

infeasibility are used to exclude control 

measures during the RACT/RACM 

analysis. The EPA notes, however, that 

Alaska did not reject any control 

measures based on the costs associated 

with use of wood as a fuel. The cost 

assessment referenced by the 

commenter provided background 

information on mandatory curtailment 

programs as a potential control measure. 

See FNSB Moderate Plan appendix 

III.D.5.7–16. In the initial FNSB 

Moderate Plan, Alaska considered the 

mandatory curtailment program to be 

technologically infeasible. See FNSB 

Moderate Plan appendix III.D.5.7–27, 

32, 39. Alaska did not conduct an 

economic feasibility analysis on any 

wood heating control measure found to 

be technologically infeasible. As 

discussed in our proposal, Alaska 

provided a supplemental submission 

supported by clarifying information that 

reevaluated the technological feasibility 

of various control measures and adopted 

and implemented the mandatory 

curtailment program that was the 

subject of the earlier cost analysis 

referenced by the commenter. See 82 FR 

9045, February 2, 2017. 

Comment 6: One commenter alleged 

that Alaska’s RACT conclusion ‘‘is 

flawed, at least with respect to the 

control of sulfur dioxide (SO2) at local 

power plants,’’ and that Alaska 

‘‘unjustifiably concluded that the 

current level of controls meets RACT.’’ 

The commenter referred to dispersion 

modeling and the speciation analysis in 

the FNSB Moderate Plan to show that 

SO2 precursor emissions from major 

stationary sources contribute to 

exceedances of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS. 

Response 6: The EPA agrees that SO2

emissions from major stationary sources 

contribute to the PM2.5 concentrations in 

the FNSB NAA, as does Alaska. We did 

not propose to approve, nor did Alaska 

provide, a demonstration that SO2

emissions from stationary sources were 

insignificant in the formation of ambient 

PM2.5 concentrations in the FNSB NAA. 

Accordingly, SO2 is a precursor that 

Alaska evaluated for emission controls 

in this area for purposes of attaining the 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. 

As explained in our proposed 

approval of the FNSB Moderate Plan 

with respect to this issue, Alaska 

conducted a technical and economic 

feasibility analysis of RACT-level SO2

controls for major stationary sources in 

the FNSB NAA and concluded that 

additional controls beyond those 

already in place were not feasible. 82 FR 

9044, February 2, 2017. The EPA has 

explained that a state could demonstrate 

that an existing source in an area should 

not be subject to a specific control 

technology especially where such 

technology is unreasonable in light of 

the area’s attainment needs, or where 

such technology is infeasible. In such a 

case, a state could conclude that no 

control technology is ‘‘reasonably 

available,’’ and thus RACT for the 

source could be the existing emission 

controls rather than additional controls. 

See 81 FR 58034, August 24, 2016. 

Additionally, the commenter did not 

identify any specific deficiencies with 

respect to Alaska’s RACT analysis for 

SO2 emissions from major stationary 

sources for the EPA to evaluate the 

claim that Alaska’s conclusion is 

unjustified. The EPA finds that Alaska 

adequately justified its conclusions that 

its stationary source control measures 

represent the adoption of reasonable 

control measures that meet RACM/ 

RACT requirements for purposes of the 

Moderate FNSB Plan for the 2006 24- 

hour PM2.5 NAAQS. We note that the 

FNSB NAA has been reclassified from 

Moderate to Serious, and thus Alaska 

will be required to conduct a BACM/ 

BACT analysis for potential control 

measures for the Serious area attainment 

plan. 82 FR 21711, May 10, 2017. 

Accordingly, Alaska’s conclusion that 

additional SO2 emissions controls for 

these stationary sources were not 

feasible for purposes of meeting RACM/ 

RACT requirements must be revisited in 

the context of the more stringent BACM/ 

BACT analysis for the Serious area 

attainment plan. 

Comment 7: We received two 

comments that expressed concern 

regarding the availability of natural gas 

as an alternative fuel in the FNSB NAA. 

One commenter stated that Alaska has 

failed to supply the area with natural 

gas, that the infrastructure is not in 

place, and that the area is years away 

from having natural gas. Another 

commenter identified language in the 

FNSB Moderate Plan in which Alaska 

discussed the possibility of a publicprivate partnership for bringing 

additional natural gas to the community 

that has not yet occurred. This 

commenter stated that ‘‘to the extent the 

SIP relies upon these references, it 

cannot be approved.’’ 

Response 7: The commenters are 

correct that Alaska has been exploring 

the expanded use of natural gas as an 

alternative fuel in the FNSB NAA as a 

potential means of helping to reduce 

emissions and to attain the 2006 24- 

hour PM2.5 NAAQS, but thus far natural 

gas is not widely available in the area. 

To provide natural gas at scale, 

significant investments of time and 

money are needed to construct the 

infrastructure to deliver natural gas to 

Fairbanks and to distribute it to 

consumers. Thus, in the FNSB Moderate 

Plan, Alaska described plans to seek to 

expand the availability of natural gas in 

the future. Because natural gas is 

currently not available at a meaningful 

scale it was not included as part of 

Alaska’s control strategy analysis and 

Alaska did not take credit for emissions 

reductions related to natural gas in the 

FNSB Moderate Plan.6 Alaska’s 

discussion of potential expansion of 

natural gas in the FNSB Moderate Plan 

is not a basis for disapproval of the 

FNSB Moderate Plan. Because of the 

potential emission reduction benefits, 

the EPA supports efforts by Alaska to 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 173 / Friday, September 8, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 42463 

7See the following Alaska Department of 

Environmental Conservation documents in the 

docket for this action: (1) Commercial Wood Seller 

Registration Requirement Fairbanks North Star 

Borough PM 2.5 Nonattainment Area Questions and 

Answers and (2) Wood-Fired Heating Device 

Requirement—Remove or Replace Non Compliant 

Devices Upon Property Sale, Lease or Conveyance— 

Effective Date: June 9, 2017. 

expand the availability of natural gas in 

the FNSB NAA in the future. 

Comment 8: One commenter objected 

to the EPA’s statement in the proposal 

that Fairbanks was relatively new to 

programs for reducing emissions from 

wood heating and, prior to 2015, the 

community had not experienced 

mandatory curtailments on solid-fuel 

heating devices. The commenter 

claimed that this statement was used to 

justify limitations on the applicability of 

the curtailment requirements for solid 

fuel heating devices in the FNSB 

Moderate Plan. 

Response 8: We disagree with the 

commenter’s characterization of the 

statement in the proposal as the EPA’s 

justification for approval of Alaska’s 

curtailment requirements, including 

certain limitations on those 

requirements. In the sentence preceding 

the one cited by the commenter, we 

provided the reasons for our conclusion 

that the limitations on the applicability 

of the curtailment requirements are 

appropriate: ‘‘The EPA concludes that 

in the FNSB NAA, where wintertime 

temperatures can be extreme and there 

is limited availability of fuel alternatives 

such as natural gas, the three limitations 

in Alaska’s mandatory solid-fuel heating 

device curtailment program similarly 

invoke public welfare considerations 

that are appropriate in the context of a 

Moderate area plan.’’ See 82 FR 9046, 

February 2, 2017. In short, given the 

facts and circumstances of this area, 

Alaska concluded that it was not 

reasonable to prohibit the use of solid 

fuel heating devices during periods of 

extreme cold weather. Our conclusion 

regarding the appropriateness of the 

limitations that Alaska included in the 

curtailment requirements remains 

unchanged. The reference to the 

newness of the curtailment program 

questioned by the commenter was 

merely an EPA acknowledgment that a 

two-stage program could help to 

facilitate effective implementation of the 

program in the community. This 

statement is based on the EPA’s 

experience in other nonattainment areas 

where adoption and implementation of 

a curtailment program has required 

efforts to increase community awareness 

and comprehension of the curtailment 

program in order to achieve the 

anticipated emissions reductions. 

Comment 9: One commenter objected 

to our proposal to approve, as SIP 

strengthening, the control measures that 

Alaska submitted as contingency 

measures in the FNSB Moderate Plan. 

The commenter explained that Alaska 

did not provide a justification for not 

implementing these control measures 

immediately and that they must be 

included in the RACM analysis and 

adopted immediately. In other words, 

the commenter asserted that Alaska 

could not set aside these control 

measures to meet the CAA section 

172(c)(9) requirement for contingency 

measures because Alaska was required 

to impose these measures to meet the 

RACM/RACT requirement instead. 

Response 9: The control measures the 

EPA proposed to approve as SIPstrengthening measures are: (1) A 

requirement that uncertified wood-fired 

heating devices be removed when a 

property is sold, leased, or conveyed, 

and (2) a mandatory wood seller 

registration and wood moisture 

disclosure program. See 82 FR 9052, 

February 2, 2017. Specifically, we are 

approving 18 AAC 50.076(d)–(i) and 18 

AAC 50.077(a)(2)(B). These provisions 

will become federally enforceable upon 

the effective date of this action. 

However, we disagree with the 

commenter’s assertion that Alaska did 

not evaluate these control measures as 

potential RACM/RACT measures. 

Alaska evaluated both of these control 

measures and they have been 

implemented. See 2017 Clarification pp. 

3–5. The requirement that uncertified 

wood-fired heating devices be removed 

when a property is sold, leased, or 

conveyed became effective on June 9, 

2017 and the mandatory wood seller 

registration and wood moisture 

disclosure program became effective on 

August 15, 2017.7

B. Comments on Enforcement 

Comment 10: One commenter 

opposed the EPA’s proposed approval of 

the FNSB Moderate Plan because of 

concerns that the control measures in 

the plan are not enforceable. One 

commenter took issue with Alaska’s 

enforcement authority claiming that 

‘‘outside of seeking voluntary 

compliance, the State claims that its 

only real enforcement mechanism is 

civil litigation.’’ Another commenter 

stated that ‘‘Alaska has made no good 

faith effort to secure ‘enforcement 

authority’ from the Alaska legislature.’’ 

This commenter also contends that 

‘‘[t]he state legislature granted $350 

Million dollars to privately owned 

refineries and a shuttered Agrium 

Fertilizer plant, yet claims they lack 

resources to implement regulations and 

enforce them.’’ 

Response 10: We agree that states 

must have authority to enforce the 

requirements of their SIPs to meet 

various CAA requirements, including 

CAA section 110(a)(1), 110(a)(2)(C), and 

110(a)(2)(E). We disagree with the 

commenter, however, that Alaska lacks 

the required enforcement authority. 

States are required to have a SIP that 

provides for the implementation, 

maintenance, and enforcement of the 

NAAQS. Whenever the EPA 

promulgates a new or revised NAAQS, 

the CAA requires states to make a SIP 

submission, commonly known as an 

‘‘infrastructure SIP’’ to establish that 

they meet a host of requirements 

including those pertaining to general 

enforcement authority. 

In November 2014, the EPA approved 

Alaska’s infrastructure SIP for the 2006 

24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. 79 FR 66651, 

November 10, 2014. The EPA found that 

the infrastructure SIP addressed the 

basic program elements in accordance 

with CAA section 110(a)(1) and (2), 

including, but not limited to regulatory 

structure, monitoring, modeling, legal 

authority, and adequate resources 

necessary to implement, maintain, and 

enforce the standards. Relevant to this 

comment, the EPA found that Alaska’s 

SIP met the CAA section 110(a)(2)(C) 

requirement to include a program to 

provide for the enforcement of emission 

limits and other control measures in the 

SIP and also met the CAA section 

110(a)(2)(E) requirement that a state 

provide necessary assurances that it has 

adequate authority under state law to 

carry out the SIP. Alaska’s infrastructure 

SIP submission for the 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS referred to Alaska Statute 

(AS) 46.14.030 State Air Quality Control 

Plan which provides the Alaska 

Department of Environmental 

Conservation (ADEC) statutory authority 

to act for the State and adopt regulations 

necessary to implement the State Air 

Quality Control Plan. It also references 

18 AAC 50.030 State Air Quality 

Control Plan which provides regulatory 

authority to implement and enforce the 

SIP. See 79 FR 66651, November 10, 

2014 and 79 FR 41502, July 16, 2014. 

Furthermore, ADEC has statutory 

authority to enforce violations of air 

quality regulations by seeking the 

assessment of civil penalties (AS 

46.030.760) and criminal penalties (AS 

46.030.790). The EPA’s analysis of the 

adequacy of enforcement authority is 

premised on whether a state has legal 

authority to enforce the SIP. The 

commenter’s concern that ADEC may 

opt to seek voluntary compliance does 

not negate the fact that it has the 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
42464 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 173 / Friday, September 8, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 

necessary enforcement authority to 

require compliance with the SIP. A 

state’s election to seek voluntary 

compliance rather than proceeding to 

judicial enforcement is an exercise of 

enforcement discretion. The EPA notes 

that a state’s exercise of enforcement 

discretion does not affect the ability of 

the EPA to pursue enforcement under 

CAA section 113 or others pursuant to 

the citizen’s suit provision in CAA 

section 304. 

We also disagree with the comment 

suggesting that ADEC must justify the 

absence of administrative enforcement 

authorities. The commenter argues that 

AS 46.14.030 generally grants authority 

to ADEC to adopt regulations to 

implement the SIP which could be read 

to include administrative enforcement 

authority. As noted previously, ADEC 

has authority to pursue civil and 

criminal judicial actions to enforce 

violations of the SIP and the EPA has 

already determined that ADEC has 

adequate authority to enforce the SIP, 

including the FNSB Moderate Plan. If 

the commenter believes ADEC should 

have additional enforcement authority, 

the appropriate venue to pursue such a 

concern is with ADEC and the Alaska 

State Legislature. Furthermore, as noted 

by the commenter, the Borough has 

authority to issue warnings and 

citations to enforce key control 

measures adopted at the local level, 

such as the solid-fuel heating device 

curtailment program. The Borough 

control measures are included in 

Alaska’s FNSB Moderate Plan 

submission and will become a part of 

the federally-approved SIP. 

Another commenter contended that 

Alaska claimed it lacks the resources to 

implement and enforce regulations. The 

EPA is unaware of any such statement 

attributable to Alaska submitted as part 

of the FNSB Moderate Plan, and the 

commenter provided no reference or 

citation for the EPA to evaluate this 

claim. Accordingly, the EPA has no 

information suggesting that Alaska has 

stopped funding, or lacks resources to 

make progress in improving air quality 

in the FNSB NAA. In fact, ADEC 

currently is devoting resources to the 

development of a Serious area 

attainment plan and the Borough is 

implementing local control measures 

incorporated into the SIP. In addition, 

as indicated previously, the EPA found 

that in its infrastructure SIP for the 2006 

24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, Alaska 

demonstrated that it had ‘‘adequate 

resources to implement, maintain, and 

enforce the standards’’ and thus met the 

110(a)(2)(E)(i) requirement for adequate 

resources. 79 FR 66651, November 10, 

2014. 

Comment 11: One commenter noted 

that control measures in SIPs must 

apply continuously and ‘‘cannot operate 

as a ‘suite’ of controls that only 

collectively apply continuous controls.’’ 

The commenter specifically pointed to 

the ¥15 °Fahrenheit (F) temperature 

limitation on the mandatory solid-fuel 

heating device curtailment requirement 

as an example of ‘‘perhaps a defensible 

exception for the needs of the 

community, but one that results in the 

waiver of controls during peak periods 

of emissions.’’ The commenter also 

observed that the EPA and citizens must 

have the ability to bring enforcement 

actions to assure compliance and that 

state and local control measures that 

shield pollution sources from 

enforcement are not enforceable as 

required under CAA section 

110(a)(2)(A). 

Response 11: First, the EPA disagrees 

with the commenter’s general 

contention that a suite of control 

measures that operate together to 

provide for continuous regulation of 

emissions from a source is inconsistent 

with CAA requirements. The EPA agrees 

that SIP emission limitations must limit 

emissions from sources on a continuous 

basis. However, it may be infeasible for 

a single numerical emission limitation 

or control technology to apply 

continuously at all times to some 

sources. In such circumstances, a state 

may elect to impose alternative 

emission limitations that apply to 

specific modes of source operation in 

order to assure that emissions from the 

source are, in fact, continuously 

controlled. The EPA recently restated 

and updated its policy with respect to 

continuous emission limitations in SIP 

provisions, noting that emission 

limitations as a whole must be 

continuous but that such limitations 

could be a combination of different 

numerical limits, control requirements 

or work practice requirements. See 80 

FR 33889, June 12, 2015. Accordingly, 

a SIP that includes a combination of 

numerical limits or controls that are 

sufficiently stringent, and are legally 

and practically enforceable, can 

effectively operate together to limit 

emissions from a source on a 

continuous basis. 

Second, the EPA disagrees with the 

commenter’s view that the low 

temperature limitation on the 

applicability of the mandatory solid-fuel 

heating device curtailment requirement 

necessarily constitutes an impermissible 

exemption in the emissions limitation, 

because the curtailment requirement 

works in conjunction with other specific 

control measures in the SIP that 

continue to apply and limit emissions 

from this source category even during 

those low temperature events. It is 

important to clarify how Alaska is 

combining control measures in order to 

assure that the SIP imposes continuous 

emission limits on solid fuel heating 

devices, even when the curtailment 

requirement is suspended during 

extreme cold events. 

Alaska is aware of the public health 

concerns associated with ambient PM2.5

caused by the use of solid fuel heating 

devices and devised a way to balance 

competing concerns about high PM2.5

concentrations with concerns about the 

need to provide adequate heat during 

extreme low temperature events for 

purposes of the FNSB Moderate Plan. 

When temperatures are below ¥15 °F, 

the Borough continues to issue alerts 

based on the forecasted concentrations 

of PM2.5. Stage 2 alerts are called when 

PM2.5 levels are forecasted to reach 35 

micrograms per cubic meter (mg/m3) or 

more. Stage 3 alerts are called when 

PM2.5 levels are forecasted to reach 

55mg/m3 or more. The temperature 

limitation on the applicability of stage 3 

alert requirements was included to 

address the public welfare concerns 

associated with precluding the use of 

solid-fuel heating devices during 

periods of extreme cold. Alaska 

explained that ‘‘. . . the temperature 

threshold is a feature of the episode 

program recognizing the unique 

challenges faced by residents during 

periods of extreme cold. Residents use 

wood heating as a form of supplemental 

heat to maintain livable conditions and 

mitigate economic hardships associated 

with high heating costs.’’ 2017 

Clarification, p. 18. 

To address these competing concerns, 

Alaska and the Borough structured the 

stage 3 alert requirements to allow the 

continued use of certain devices during 

periods of extreme cold. When 

temperatures are below ¥15 °F during 

stage 3 alerts, the prohibition on the use 

of all solid-fuel heating devices, 

masonry heaters, pellet fuel burning 

appliances, cook stoves, fireplaces, or 

waste oil burning appliances does not 

apply. However, the stage 2 prohibition 

on the use of uncertified solid-fuel 

heating devices and hydronic heaters 

that are not EPA Phase II qualified 

continues to apply. In addition, even 

when the temperature limitation on the 

applicability of stage 3 alerts applies, 

the users of solid-fuel heating devices 

must continue to meet the applicable 

opacity emission limitation and 

continue to comply with the 

requirement to burn only dry, properly 

seasoned wood (with a moisture content 

of 20% or less). Thus, the EPA believes 

that the opacity limit and dry wood 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 173 / Friday, September 8, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 42465 

requirement work in conjunction with 

the mandatory curtailment program to 

limit emissions from solid-fuel heating 

devices on a continuous basis, even for 

stage 3 alerts that occur during periods 

of extreme cold. 

The EPA notes that Alaska is 

currently in the process of developing 

the Serious area plan for the FNSB 

NAA, and is reevaluating the need for 

additional emission reductions to attain 

the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. In 

particular, Alaska is considering the 

need for emissions reductions during 

periods of extremely low temperatures, 

which can often coincide with 

meteorological conditions most likely to 

result in inversions and exceedances of 

the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Specifically, on July 18, 2017, Alaska 

proposed regulatory revisions to 

eliminate the current temperature 

threshold limitation as part of its efforts 

to develop a Serious area plan. The EPA 

supports the further efforts of Alaska 

and the Borough to address the difficult, 

but necessary issue of controlling 

emissions during periods of extreme 

low temperatures. 

Finally, the EPA agrees with the 

commenter that state and local control 

measures in the SIP need to be legally 

and practically enforceable. A core 

principal of the CAA is that the EPA’s 

approval of a control measure into a SIP 

makes the measure a federallyenforceable component of the SIP that 

the State, the EPA or citizens can 

enforce in the event of violations. In this 

final action, the EPA is approving into 

the Alaska SIP, among other control 

measures, the mandatory solid-fuel 

heating device curtailment program, the 

20% opacity emission limitation, and 

the dry wood requirement, and these 

measures will become federallyenforceable elements of the SIP for the 

FNSB NAA. 

C. Comments on Rules 

Comment 12: One commenter claimed 

that the EPA must disapprove the FNSB 

Moderate Plan because it ‘‘includes 

undesirable and unlawful relaxations of 

existing SIP measures, in violation of 

CAA Section 110(l).’’ For this reason, 

the commenter objected to six specific 

State regulations that Alaska included 

in the FNSB Moderate Plan. 

Response 12: In light of this comment, 

the EPA reanalyzed the six regulations 

identified by the commenter. A 

comparison of the State regulations 

submitted to the EPA for review and 

approval into the SIP against existing 

SIP provisions is provided in the docket 

for this action. We respond in the 

following paragraphs to the concerns 

identified by the commenter with 

respect to these specific regulations. For 

the reasons stated in the following 

paragraphs, we disagree that the 

submitted regulations constitute 

relaxations, and thus the inclusion of 

these measures into the SIP as part of 

the FNSB Moderate Plan does not raise 

concerns related to CAA section 110(l). 

Comment 12.a. 18 AAC 50.065(f). 

Wood Smoke Control and PM 2.5

Nonattainment Areas. The commenter 

objected to our approval of a provision 

that prohibits open burning from 

November 1 to March 31 because Alaska 

did ‘‘not adequately explain how the 

dates for the open burning ban were 

chosen.’’ The commenter expressed 

concern that exceedances of the 2006 

24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS may occur 

outside the November 1 to March 31 

open burning prohibition season. The 

commenter also objected to language in 

the FNSB Moderate Plan that would 

allow a local open burn permit program 

to replace the current open burning 

prohibition at some point in the future 

because it is ‘‘worded so vaguely 

without any limits’’ and does not 

specify ‘‘a process for State approval’’ or 

‘‘minimum program requirements, 

including record-keeping, public 

reporting, and adequate enforcement 

authority.’’ Additionally, the commenter 

stated that ‘‘[i]f it is necessary to 

authorize some variances to the seasonal 

open burn ban—for example, for 

legitimate ceremonial or limited 

recreational purposes—the State should 

have adopted detailed regulatory 

language identifying the types of 

activities that might be eligible for a 

local variance and necessary conditions 

for any such variance.’’ 

Response 12.a. We disagree with the 

comment that Alaska did not adequately 

explain the dates of the open burning 

prohibition, November 1 to March 31, in 

the FNSB Moderate Plan. We believe 

that the discussion of the open burning 

prohibition is adequate, including 

Alaska’s explicit consideration of 

lengthening the open burning 

prohibition to include October and 

April. See FNSB Moderate Plan 

III.D.5.7–22. As noted by the 

commenter, Alaska explained that it 

analyzed air quality data for October 

and April and did not identify 

‘‘significant air quality deterioration in 

those months as a result of normal open 

burning’’ and therefore, did not 

lengthen the open burning prohibition 

to include those two months. Regarding 

the commenter’s concern that 

exceedances of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS may occur outside the open 

burning prohibition season, we note that 

under 18 AAC 50.065(e), ADEC can also 

prohibit open burning during air quality 

advisories, which are not restricted to 

the open burning season. As provided in 

18 AAC 50.065(e), the air quality 

advisory pertaining to open burning is 

based on a determination that there is or 

will likely be inadequate ventilation to 

maintain ambient air quality standards, 

including PM2.5.

We also disagree with the 

commenter’s assertion that the 

amendments to 18 AAC 50.065(f) are a 

relaxation of existing SIP measures. The 

dates of the open burning prohibition 

remain the same as when the EPA last 

approved 18 AAC 50.065(f) into the 

Alaska SIP in 1998. 63 FR 63983, 

November 18, 1998. More importantly, 

the amendments to 18 AAC 50.065(f) 

make the open burning prohibition 

applicable to PM2.5 nonattainment areas, 

whereas previously the prohibition 

applied only to PM10 wood smoke 

control areas. Therefore, the 

amendments to 18 AAC 50.065(f) that 

extend the regulation to PM2.5

nonattainment areas in fact strengthen 

the existing SIP. 

Similarly, we disagree with the 

commenter’s view that inclusion of the 

language contemplating a potential 

future open burn permit program to 

replace the current open burning 

prohibition is a relaxation of the 

existing Alaska SIP. First, as stated 

previously, the current SIP-approved 

regulation applies only to PM10 wood 

smoke control areas and Alaska has now 

extended it to PM2.5 nonattainment 

areas as well. Second, as required by 18 

AAC 50.065(f)(1) and (2), if a local area 

elects to develop an open burn permit 

program instead of the current open 

burn prohibition, it may only do so if 

the program (i) does not cause or 

contribute to violations of the PM2.5

NAAQS and (ii) is approved into the 

State Air Quality Control Plan as 

adopted in 18 AAC 50.030. We have 

determined that Alaska’s amendment of 

18 AAC 50.065 to extend the open 

burning prohibition to PM2.5

nonattainment areas while 

simultaneously allowing the future 

option of a local air quality open burn 

permit program is therefore not a 

relaxation, but a strengthening of the 

current SIP. 

Regarding the commenter’s concern 

that the amendment is vague and does 

not provide limits or specify a process 

for state approval of a local open burn 

permit program, we note that the 

provision does not itself constitute an 

approval of any such local open burn 

permit program. The provision merely 

contemplates such a permitting program 

in the future, and one that would have 

to meet certain requirements. For 

example, the condition in 18 AAC 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
42466 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 173 / Friday, September 8, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 

8See ADEC letter, Clarification regarding Open 

Burning regulation 18 AAC 50.065(f), July 13, 2017, 

in the docket for this action. 

9See ADEC letter, Withdrawal of items from the 

State Implementation Plan submittal for the 

Fairbanks North Star Borough nonattainment area, 

July 26, 2017, in the docket for this action. 

50.065(f)(1) that a local open burn 

permit program cannot cause or 

contribute to violations of the PM2.5

NAAQS provides one appropriate 

limitation on potential open burn 

permit programs. Additionally, Alaska 

has an established process for approving 

plans and adopting them into 18 AAC 

50.030. The condition in 18 AAC 

50.065(f)(2) that the local open burn 

permit program must be included in the 

State Air Quality Control Plan adopted 

by reference in 18 AAC 50.030 provides 

an appropriate state process for 

evaluation and approval of any such 

potential program in the future. We also 

note that if Alaska seeks to create such 

an open burn permit program in the 

FNSB NAA in the future, that will 

require a SIP revision subject to EPA 

review and approval, including an 

analysis that the SIP revision would not 

be less stringent than the current SIP in 

accordance with the requirements of 

CAA 110(l). Alaska has confirmed that 

the approval of any open burn permit 

program in the future must be submitted 

to the EPA as a SIP revision. Alaska’s 

interpretation letter is included in the 

docket for this action.8

With respect to the commenter’s 

concern that the language in the FNSB 

Moderate Plan that contemplates 

potential future open burn permit 

programs in lieu of the prohibition on 

open burning is vaguely worded and 

provides no indication of ‘‘what 

constitutes a lawful local air quality 

open burn permit program and no limit 

to the range of activities that might be 

authorized . . .’’ the EPA agrees that the 

amendment leaves unaddressed many 

aspects of a local open burn permit 

program that would need further 

development and clarification. Also, as 

noted previously, any future local open 

burn permit program that is developed 

to operate in lieu of the open burning 

prohibition must be submitted to Alaska 

for incorporation into the State Air 

Quality Control Plan and then 

submitted to the EPA for review and 

approval. Accordingly, assuming a local 

open burn permit program is developed 

in the future, the appropriate time to 

consider the issues the commenter 

raises, e.g., the range of activities 

authorized by the program, 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements, adequate enforcement 

authority, and other aspects that pertain 

to the lawfulness of the program, 

including whether the program 

adequately assures that permitted open 

burning will not cause or contribute to 

a violation of the PM2.5 standard, would 

be when a locality develops and then 

submits such a permit program to 

Alaska and the EPA for review. At 

present, 18 AAC 50.065(f) merely 

clarifies that localities can chose to 

pursue a permit program in lieu of an 

outright seasonal prohibition on open 

burning. To the extent the commenter is 

concerned about reliance on a local, 

rather than state permitting program, we 

previously determined that Alaska 

provided necessary assurances that 

‘‘where the State has relied on a local or 

regional government, agency, or 

instrumentality for the implementation 

of any SIP provision, the State has 

responsibility for ensuring adequate 

implementation of the SIP’’ with respect 

to the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS as 

required by CAA section 

110(a)(2)(E)(iii). 79 FR 66651, November 

10, 2014. 

Finally, we disagree with the 

commenter’s suggestion that a future 

open burn permit program would have 

to address the process for variances 

related to ceremonial and recreational 

fires. We note that ceremonial and 

recreational fires are specifically 

excluded from Alaska’s amended 

definition of open burning in 18 AAC 

50.990(65)(B). Because these activities 

are not subject to the open burning 

prohibition, there would not be a need 

for future variances related to such fires. 

We agree, however, that to the extent a 

future permitting program may include 

a process for seeking variances for 

activities subject to the burn ban, 

provisions related to such variances 

should provide adequate definitions and 

specifications to allow for necessary 

implementation and enforcement, as 

well as evaluation by Alaska and the 

EPA before approval as a revision to the 

current SIP. 

Comment 12.b. 18 AAC 50.075(d). 

Solid Fuel-fired Heating Device Visible 

Emission Standards. The commenter 

objected to the addition of 18 AAC 

50.075(d) which limits solid fuel-fired 

heating device operation during PM2.5

air quality episodes. The commenter 

claimed that the provisions weaken 

another part of the existing SIPapproved portion of the regulation, 

paragraph (b), by providing conditions 

for lifting a prohibition on the use of 

wood-fired heating devices during an air 

quality episode. The commenter also 

objected to the provisions that allow for 

a temporary waiver from the 

requirement because they are ‘‘too broad 

and too discretionary.’’ However, the 

commenter acknowledged that due to 

the ‘‘extremely cold winter and high 

price of fuel in Fairbanks, exemptions 

from curtailment for a sole source of 

heat and financial hardship are an 

absolute necessity.’’ Additionally, the 

commenter stated that Alaska should 

adopt a curtailment program similar to 

one in Sacramento, California. The 

commenter also suggested that ‘‘to ease 

the impact of a mandatory, episodic 

wood-burning curtailment program on 

community members,’’ Alaska should 

adopt a ‘‘fuel oil subsidy program that 

would help offset the additional 

expense of fuel oil use.’’ 

Response 12.b. The EPA disagrees 

that the addition of new 18 AAC 

50.075(d) creates a relaxation of existing 

18 AAC 50.075(b) as contemplated by 

CAA section 110(l). We note that 

paragraph (b) only prohibits operation 

of a wood-fired heating device in an 

area for which Alaska has declared an 

air quality episode with respect to SO2, 

carbon monoxide (CO), or PM10, in 

accordance with 18 AAC 50.245. 

Neither 18 AAC 50.075(b) nor 18 AAC 

50.245 explicitly applied to PM2.5. 

Alaska has specifically added the new 

18 AAC 50.075(d), and the related new 

18 AAC 50.246, to impose a comparable 

prohibition on wood-fired heating 

devices in areas for which Alaska has 

declared an air quality episode 

specifically for purposes of the PM2.5

NAAQS. The existing prohibition on 

operation of wood-fired heating devices 

in 18 AAC 50.075(b) is thus unaffected 

by the addition of 18 AAC 50.075(d), 

which applies only to PM2.5. 

Furthermore, the addition of paragraph 

(d) provides limitations on solid-fuel 

heating device operation in PM2.5

nonattainment areas that previously did 

not exist in the Alaska SIP. Therefore, 

we consider the addition of paragraph 

(d) to be a necessary strengthening of 

the existing SIP, not a relaxation. 

However, we believe the commenter 

raised valid concerns with the waiver 

provisions in 18 AAC 50.075(d)(2). The 

EPA is not taking final action on these 

waiver provisions because they are no 

longer part of the submitted FNSB 

Moderate Plan. On July 26, 2017, Alaska 

withdrew 18 AAC 50.075(d)(2) from its 

SIP submission. The withdrawal letter is 

included in the docket for this action.9

With respect to the comments about 

the type of curtailment program and the 

suggestion that state and local officials 

provide a fuel oil subsidy, we note that 

states have discretion in formulating 

their attainment plans, so long as they 

meet the applicable requirements of the 

Act. In the FNSB NAA, Alaska has 

adopted a number of control measures 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 173 / Friday, September 8, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 42467 

to address emissions from solid fuel 

heating devices that are designed to 

help the area attain the 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS given the facts and 

circumstances of this particular area. As 

we stated in our proposed rule, we 

believe the mandatory solid-fuel heating 

device curtailment program in the FNSB 

Moderate Plan is appropriately suited 

for the FNSB NAA in that it provides for 

implementation of a curtailment 

program that will reduce emissions in a 

manner that can facilitate program 

adoption and implementation by the 

community. 82 FR 9046, February 2, 

2017. Again, we anticipate that Alaska 

will be reexamining its approach to 

controlling emissions from this source 

as part of the development of the 

Serious area attainment plan for the 

FNSB NAA, in order to identify and 

adopt BACM/BACT level controls, as 

appropriate. At that time, Alaska may 

reevaluate approaches that have been 

successfully adopted and implemented 

in other nonattainment areas and new 

approaches suggested by the public. 

Comment 12.c. 18 AAC 50.076. Solid 

Fuel-fired Heating Device Fuel 

Requirements; Registration of 

Commercial Wood Sellers. The 

commenter generally supported this 

regulation, which sets forth 

requirements for fuels that can be used 

in solid fuel-fired heating devices. 

However, the commenter expressed 

concern that it does not require yearround use of ‘‘dry’’ or ‘‘seasoned’’ wood 

like the Borough ordinance does and 

stated that the EPA must explicitly 

approve the Borough ordinance as an 

enforceable part of the SIP. In addition, 

the commenter stated that the 

mandatory component of Alaska’s wood 

seller registration program should apply 

immediately, not when the area is 

reclassified to Serious and suggested 

that Alaska use ‘‘a simple’’ wood 

moisture content labeling program that 

identifies the wood as ‘‘dry’’ or ‘‘wet.’’ 

Response 12.c. The EPA notes that 

Alaska included the provision identified 

by the commenter, Borough code 

21.28.030.F, in the FNSB Moderate Plan 

in its November 23, 2016 supplemental 

submission. Borough code 21.28.030.F 

lists the types of fuels that cannot be 

burned in a solid-fuel heating device. 

This provision applies at all times and 

prohibits the burning of wood that has 

a moisture content greater than 20 

percent. The local rules that Alaska 

included in the FNSB Moderate Plan 

will become a part of the federallyapproved SIP. Accordingly, upon the 

effective date of this action, Borough 

code 21.28.030.F will thus become a 

federally-enforceable component of the 

SIP applicable in the FNSB NAA. 

Regarding the commenter’s suggestion 

that Alaska use a more simplified wood 

moisture labeling system for this 

program, such as ‘‘dry’’ or ‘‘wet,’’ we 

note that states have discretion in 

formulating their attainment plans, so 

long as they meet the applicable 

requirements of the Act. In this 

instance, we believe that the method of 

labeling moisture content adopted by 

Alaska adequately conveys the 

necessary information to wood users to 

facilitate the related requirement to burn 

only dry wood, and thus the alternative 

form of labelling suggested by the 

commenter is not required. We are 

therefore approving Alaska’s 

regulations, including the requirement 

that wood sellers document three 

moisture content measurements on the 

moisture content disclosure. The EPA 

notes that the mandatory component of 

Alaska’s wood seller registration 

program was implemented on August 

15, 2017. 

Comment 12.d. 18 AAC 50.077. 

Standards for Wood-fired Heating 

Devices. The commenter supported 

Alaska’s emissions standard for new 

installations of wood-fired heating 

devices in 18 AAC 50.077 as a critical 

step toward improving air quality in the 

FNSB NAA, but objected to the ‘‘scaling 

of the standard’’ and asserted that there 

‘‘should be no exception for small or 

large devices’’ and that ‘‘devices larger 

than 350,000 BTUs should be required 

to meet the same emissions standard.’’ 

The commenter also stated that Alaska 

failed to give a reasonable justification 

for not strengthening 18 AAC 50.077 by 

establishing an emission standard for 

coal burning devices. Additionally, the 

commenter expressed concern that 

wood-fired heating devices that do not 

meet the 18 AAC 50.077 emission 

standards can be sold if they are to be 

installed outside the FNSB NAA and 

that only a written confirmation is 

required from the buyer stating that the 

device will be installed and used in an 

area other than the FNSB NAA. The 

commenter requested that the address 

where the non-conforming device will 

be installed should be included in the 

confirmation, that the confirmation be 

notarized, and that sellers be required to 

keep the confirmation for 5 years. 

Although not directly related to 18 AAC 

50.077, the commenter also stated that 

the requirement for replacing 

uncertified wood stoves at time of home 

sale should be adopted and 

implemented immediately, rather than 

set aside for future implementation as a 

contingency measure in the FNSB 

Moderate Plan. 

Response 12.d. The EPA agrees with 

the commenter that it is important that 

solid-fuel heating devices that are to be 

installed in the FNSB NAA meet 

stringent emissions standards. Alaska’s 

emissions standards for wood-fired 

heating devices in 18 AAC 50.077 are 

similar to, or more stringent than, the 

EPA’s current New Source Performance 

Standards for new residential wood 

heaters and hydronic heaters (wood 

heater NSPS). 80 FR 13672, March 16, 

2015. However, we believe the 

commenter is incorrect in claiming that 

18 AAC 50.077 contains exemptions 

based on device size because all devices 

are addressed, whether they are rated 

under 350,000 Btu per hour or greater 

than 350,000 Btu per hour. The 

provisions in 18 AAC 50.077(b) and (c) 

provide emissions standards for devices 

‘‘rated under 350,000 Btu per hour’’ for 

hydronic heaters and wood stoves, 

respectively, whereas 18 AAC 50.077(d) 

provides emissions standards for woodfired heating devices that have a ‘‘rated 

size of 350,000 Btu or greater per hour.’’ 

Thus, 18 AAC 50.077 does not contain 

the exemptions described by the 

commenter. Additionally, 18 AAC 

50.077(b), (c), and (d) each require 

devices to meet EPA standards or meet 

the same ‘‘particulate matter annual 

average emission limit of 2.5 grams per 

hour.’’ 

We disagree with the comment that 

Alaska did not establish emission 

standards for new coal-burning device 

installations in the FNSB Moderate 

Plan. Although the commenter is correct 

that 18 AAC 50.077 does not establish 

such emission standards, the emission 

standards for ‘‘Borough listed 

appliances’’ in section 020 of Borough 

code chapter 21.28 apply to coal heating 

devices. Additionally, section 030.A 

prohibits the installation of a solid fuel 

burning appliance in the FNSB NAA if 

the appliance is not listed by the 

Borough. We note that ‘‘solid fuel 

burning appliance’’ is defined in section 

010 to include coal stoves, coal-fired 

hydronic heaters, and coal-fired 

furnaces. Alaska adopted Borough code 

chapter 21.28 sections 010, 020, and 030 

into the FNSB Moderate Plan that was 

submitted to the EPA on November 23, 

2016. Upon the effective date of this 

action, these Borough provisions will be 

adopted into the federally-approved SIP. 

Thus, Alaska has imposed emission 

controls on coal fired stoves in the 

FNSB NAA sufficient for purposes of 

the FNSB Moderate Plan. Alaska 

acknowledged the public health 

concerns associated with emissions 

from coal fired stoves in the FNSB 

Moderate Plan and the EPA anticipates 

that Alaska will further evaluate 

potential controls for these sources in 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
42468 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 173 / Friday, September 8, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 

10See ADEC letter Wood-Fired Heating Device 

Requirement—Remove or Replace Non Compliant 

Devices Upon Property Sale, Lease or Conveyance— 

Effective Date: June 9, 2017, in the docket for this 

action. 

11The EPA notes that Alaska addresses PM2.5 air 

quality episodes and advisories in 18 AAC 50.246. 

the development of the Serious area 

plan. 

We also disagree with the commenter 

regarding the need to revise the written 

confirmation requirements in 18 AAC 

50.077(f) for sales of wood-fired heating 

devices to be installed outside of the 

FNSB NAA to include additional 

requirements such as notarization and 

retention of forms. The requirements of 

18 AAC 50.077(f) specify that all new 

wood-fired heating devices to be 

installed or used in the FNSB NAA 

must meet certain emission standards 

and provides that a person who intends 

to sell or otherwise convey a wood-fired 

heating device that does not meet those 

standards must receive written 

confirmation from the buyer or operator 

that the device will not be installed or 

used in the FNSB NAA. The EPA 

believes that this provision provides 

sufficient notice (in addition to the 

regulatory text of 18 AAC 50.077 and 

other education and outreach efforts 

conducted by ADEC and the Borough) to 

potential buyers of the prohibition on 

such installations in the FNSB NAA and 

adequately documents their awareness 

and agreement to comply. Although the 

additional requirements suggested by 

the commenter may be helpful, we 

believe the current requirements 

devised by Alaska are sufficient. 

With respect to the comment that 

Alaska should implement immediately 

the requirement for replacing 

uncertified wood stoves at the time of 

home sale, rather than implement it as 

a future contingency measure, the EPA 

notes that the measure has been 

implemented. The requirement became 

effective on June 9, 2017, the effective 

date of reclassification of the area to 

Serious. 82 FR 21711, May 10, 2017.10

Comment 12.e. 18 AAC 50.246. Air 

Quality Episodes and Advisories for 

PM2.5. The commenter expressed 

concerns that compliance with 

curtailments remain voluntary under 

the 18 AAC 50.246 provisions for PM2.5

air quality episodes and advisories and 

that the provisions ‘‘do not protect 

public health in Fairbanks or promote 

attainment of the 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS.’’ The commenter also objected 

to the lack of a definition for the word 

‘‘curtailment.’’ 

Response 12.e. First, we disagree with 

the commenter’s concern about the 

absence of a specific definition of the 

term curtailment. In Alaska’s current 

SIP-approved regulations and the 

regulations submitted with the FNSB 

Moderate Plan, the word ‘‘curtailment’’ 

is used in a general sense and does not 

apply to a particular category of sources. 

Therefore, we do not take issue with the 

use of the word ‘‘curtailment’’ in 18 

AAC 50.246 or the fact that it lacks a 

specific regulatory definition. 

Second, we acknowledge that under 

18 AAC 50.246(c)(1), curtailments are 

voluntary ‘‘from any person issued a 

permit under this chapter whose 

stationary source’s emissions might 

impact the area subject to the advisory.’’ 

Thus, the commenter is correct that 

compliance with the curtailment 

contemplated in this provision is 

voluntary for the affected stationary 

sources (Alaska defines ‘‘stationary 

source’’ in AS 46.14.990 as ‘‘any 

building, structure, facility, or 

installation which emits or may emit a 

regulated NSR pollutant’’). However, we 

note that 18 AAC 50.246(c)(1) applies 

only to permitted stationary sources and 

it applies statewide. 

By contrast, Alaska has adopted a 

mandatory curtailment program for the 

FNSB NAA that applies to all solid-fuel 

heating devices in the event that Alaska 

or the Borough issues an alert based on 

high ambient PM2.5 levels. Compliance 

with the solid-fuel heating device 

curtailment is mandatory, not voluntary. 

We believe that the provision at 18 AAC 

50.075(e), in conjunction with 18 AAC 

50.246, provides Alaska authority to 

prohibit the operation of solid-fuel 

heating devices in the FNSB NAA. The 

prohibition on the operation of solidfuel heating devices issued under 18 

AAC 50.075(e) and Borough code 

21.28.050 provide Alaska the ability to 

implement advisories and prescribe 

actions as a backstop to the Borough’s 

existing solid-fuel heating device 

curtailment program, which is 

incorporated in the State Air Quality 

Control Plan, adopted by reference in 18 

AAC 50.030, and is also being adopted 

into the federally-approved SIP in this 

action. Specifically, Borough code 

21.28.050 requires the issuance of 

advisories or alerts when PM2.5

concentrations are expected to reach 

certain levels (defined as Stage 1, Stage 

2 and Stage 3). These alerts impose 

mandatory restrictions on the operation 

of solid-fuel heating devices in the 

FNSB NAA, or specified Air Quality 

Control Zone. Accordingly, both Alaska 

and the Borough have authority to 

impose a mandatory curtailment on the 

operation of solid-fuel heating devices 

during PM2.5 air quality episodes. See 

FNSB Moderate Plan III.D.5.11–3. 

Comment 12.f. 18 AAC 50.245(b) and 

(c). Air Quality Episodes and Advisories 

for Air Pollutants other than PM2.5. The 

commenter noted that the current 

version of 18 AAC 50.245 approved into 

the Alaska SIP provides that ADEC will 

declare air quality advisories. In the 

FNSB Moderate Plan, Alaska has 

revised the rule to provide that either 

ADEC ‘‘or a local air quality control 

program’’ will declare the advisories. 

The commenter objected to these 

revisions because ‘‘they do not specify 

a single authority responsible for air 

alerts’’ and ‘‘there is potential for 

confusion and inaction.’’ The 

commenter also stated that Alaska 

‘‘should not delegate authority to a local 

air quality control program that is 

unwilling or unable to fully implement 

regulatory requirements.’’ 

Response 12.f. The EPA disagrees that 

authorizing the relevant local air quality 

control program (i.e., here the Borough) 

to declare advisories, as well as ADEC, 

is an inappropriate revision of the 

existing SIP. Under 18 AAC 50.245, 

ADEC or a local air quality control 

program may declare air quality 

episodes and advisories for SO2, PM10, 

and CO.11 The commenter’s concern 

about potential confusion in areas that 

have a local air quality program, such as 

the FNSB NAA, is addressed by the 

requirements of AS 46.14.400, which 

provides authority for ADEC to 

authorize local air quality control 

programs to operate in lieu of ADEC’s 

air quality program. Under AS 

46.14.400(d), a cooperative agreement 

between ADEC and the local air quality 

district must specify, among other 

things, the respective duties and 

enforcement responsibilities of the local 

air quality district and ADEC. Thus, 

where a local air quality district has 

been authorized to administer a local air 

quality control program and declare 

alerts, the Memorandum of 

Understanding (MOU) specifies that 

responsibility. The MOU between ADEC 

and the Borough (ADEC–FNSB MOU) 

was submitted with the FNSB Moderate 

Plan. FNSB Moderate Plan appendix 

III.D.5.12–54. It specifies that the 

Borough will ‘‘continue to implement, 

as needed, the Borough’s emergency 

episode prevention and response plan 

for CO.’’ The ADEC–FNSB MOU does 

not identify the Borough as the 

authority for declaring alerts for SO2

and PM10, thus ADEC would declare 

those air alerts. The EPA believes that 

although 18 AAC 50.245 does not 

specify one authority for calling SO2, 

PM10, and CO alerts, the MOU required 

by Alaska statute adequately specifies 

the entity responsible for calling alerts 

when it is not ADEC. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 173 / Friday, September 8, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 42469 

12The EPA approved the 2015 Alaska annual 

monitoring network plan on October 28, 2015. See 

2015 Alaska Monitoring Network Approval Letter in 

the docket for this action. 

We also believe that the requirements 

of AS 46.14.400(d) address the 

commenter’s concern that Alaska 

should not delegate authority to a local 

air quality control program that is 

unwilling or unable to fully implement 

regulatory requirements. The 

cooperative agreement must specify the 

respective enforcement responsibilities 

of the local air quality district and 

ADEC. According to the ADEC–FNSB 

MOU, ADEC has enforcement 

responsibility for all currently permitted 

facilities that are under ADEC authority. 

ADEC and the Borough have joint 

responsibility for responding to public 

complaints about air pollution within 

the Borough. The ADEC–FNSB MOU 

provides a flow chart for identifying 

appropriate enforcement actions for the 

Borough to take, for ADEC to take, or for 

joint enforcement actions. See FNSB 

Moderate Plan appendix III.D.5.12–57. 

Additionally, as we stated earlier, 

Alaska has provided necessary 

assurances that ‘‘where the State has 

relied on a local or regional government, 

agency, or instrumentality for the 

implementation of any SIP provision, 

the State has responsibility for ensuring 

adequate implementation of the SIP’’ 

with respect to the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS as required by CAA section 

110(a)(2)(E)(iii). 79 FR 66651, November 

10, 2014. In the event that a local air 

quality control program is not meeting 

its responsibilities, the EPA anticipates 

that Alaska will take appropriate steps 

to assure that the SIP is properly 

implemented and enforced within all 

areas of the state, as required by the 

CAA. 

D. Other Comments 

Comment 13: Two commenters 

expressed concern about the high PM2.5

values recorded by ambient air quality 

monitors in the FNSB NAA. One 

commenter noted that ‘‘the North Pole 

Fire Station monitor currently records 

the highest values in the non-attainment 

area’’ and ‘‘[t]he most recent design 

value was 124 mg/m3, that is, 354 

percent of the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.’’ 

The commenter further asserted that the 

‘‘EPA and the State have a legal and a 

moral obligation to develop a plan to 

clean up the Borough’s polluted air.’’ 

This commenter stated that ‘‘improved 

regulations to address wood smoke and 

other sources of PM2.5 pollution are 

necessary to protect the health and 

welfare of Fairbanks residents, 

especially children in the community.’’ 

In addition to expressing concerns about 

public health, the other commenter 

described personal experiences with 

health issues ‘‘because of chronically 

poor air quality’’ and stated that 

‘‘[a]nother study of premature mortality 

in our area is needed.’’ This commenter 

also expressed concerns about air 

quality monitoring, claiming that the 

‘‘air quality is getting worse,’’ that 

Alaska has tried ‘‘to disprove 

monitoring data from a Neighborhood 

site in North Pole by claiming it is a 

microliter,’’ and that Alaska removed a 

special purpose monitor ‘‘known as the 

Watershed Monitor from an area in 

Fairbanks where levels were recorded 

for many months (months in three 

consecutive years) often higher than the 

North Pole Monitor.’’ The commenter 

also noted that a ‘‘MetOne 

Neighborhood Monitor in the area 

continues to show dangerously high 

levels.’’ 

Response 13: We agree with the 

concerns about high ambient PM2.5

levels in the FNSB NAA. We 

acknowledge that control measures have 

been adopted into the FNSB Moderate 

Plan to improve air quality and although 

the PM2.5 values generally have 

decreased, they remain high. However, 

we note that the high monitored PM2.5

values are not a basis for disapproval of 

the FNSB Moderate Plan. The EPA has 

already reclassified the FNSB NAA from 

Moderate to Serious because these high 

monitored values indicated continued 

nonattainment, which under CAA 

sections 188 and 189, imposes 

additional and more stringent 

attainment plan requirements. 82 FR 

21711, May 10, 2017. This 

reclassification obligates Alaska to 

reevaluate and strengthen its attainment 

plan control strategy as necessary to 

meet the more stringent Serious area 

requirements and to provide for 

attainment of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS by the applicable Serious area 

attainment date. Regarding the comment 

that another study on premature 

mortality is needed, although such a 

study may be a valuable source of 

information to the community, it is not 

a requirement under the CAA as part of 

an attainment plan and is therefore 

beyond the scope of this action. 

In response to the comments about air 

quality monitors, we affirm that the 

North Pole Fire Station monitor 

continues to operate as a regulatory 

monitor and that it is a neighborhood 

scale monitor. As discussed in our 

proposal, the EPA expects that Alaska 

will include the data from the North 

Pole Fire Station monitor in the 

analyses for the development of a 

Serious area attainment plan for the 

FNSB NAA. 82 FR 9037, February 2, 

2017. Regarding the comment about the 

removal of the special purpose monitor, 

the EPA is aware that high 

concentrations of PM2.5 commonly exist 

in parts of the nonattainment area that 

are not routinely and continuously 

monitored by the Borough or the State. 

Special purpose monitors supplement 

the monitoring network used for 

meeting the EPA’s minimum monitoring 

requirements found in appendix D of 40 

CFR part 58. Monitors used for 

satisfying the EPA’s minimum 

monitoring requirements remain at a 

fixed location for an extended period 

(longer than 24 months) so that air 

quality measurements can be used for 

regulatory decision making purposes. 

Special purpose monitoring data 

augment the data collected from the 

minimum required network and are 

used to ensure that this minimum 

monitoring network is appropriately 

sited and adequately represents the air 

quality of the community. As such, it is 

not uncommon for special purpose 

monitors to be operated for only a short 

duration at any given location. In its 

monitoring network plan, Alaska 

explained that special purpose monitors 

are moved to better understand the air 

quality impacts experienced in various 

neighborhoods and that the special 

purpose monitoring sites usually remain 

in one location for two to six weeks.12

In addition, the EPA appreciates the 

community’s willingness to assist in 

citizen monitoring and recognizes that 

achieving air quality goals in the FNSB 

NAA is a collaborative effort. 

Comment 14: One commenter stated 

that the FNSB Moderate Plan included 

‘‘mitigation efforts from state legislative 

grants obtained by Rep. Tammie Wilson 

that were not scientifically or practically 

carried out and for which no report, 

data, or proper accounting is available.’’ 

Response 14: We reviewed the FNSB 

Moderate Plan and did not identify 

mitigation efforts as suggested by the 

commenter. Additionally, the 

commenter did not provide specific 

information for the EPA to evaluate the 

claim that the FNSB Moderate Plan 

relied on such efforts. The EPA 

therefore does not find this comment to 

provide a basis for disapproval of the 

FNSB Moderate Plan. 

Comment 15: One commenter stated 

that Alaska ‘‘claimed they can’t meet 

CAA requirements without making any 

reasonable effort to do so.’’ This 

commenter also stated that the FNSB 

Moderate Plan ‘‘does not appear to meet 

the Federal requirements or especially 

the spirit of the CAA,’’ and asked that 

‘‘[i]f Alaska’s Moderate SIP is being 

accepted because the Administrator of 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
42470 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 173 / Friday, September 8, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 

13We are not acting on the portions of the March 

11, 2016 submission that are unrelated to the FNSB 

Moderate Plan. We address those portions of the 

March 11, 2016 submission in separate actions. 

14See Alaska Department of Environmental 

Conservation letter, Withdrawal of items from the 

State Implementation Plan submittal for the 

Fairbanks North Star Borough nonattainment area, 

July 26, 2017, available in the docket for this action 15 62 FR 27968, May 22, 1997. 

the EPA failed to respond within the 

established timeline to Alaska’s SIP 

submission, then that should be made 

clear.’’ 

Response 15: The commenter did not 

provide specific information about the 

claims made by Alaska that they cannot 

meet CAA requirements. We have 

reviewed the FNSB Moderate Plan and 

did not identify any such claims. As 

discussed in our proposal, the EPA is 

approving the FNSB Moderate Plan 

because we found that it meets the 

substantive statutory and regulatory 

requirements for base-year and 

projected emissions inventories, 

precursor demonstrations, analysis and 

imposition of RACM/RACT, RFP, QMs, 

and a demonstration that attainment by 

the December 31, 2015 attainment date 

was impracticable. See 82 FR 9053, 

February 2, 2017. 

With respect to the commenter’s 

question concerning whether this 

approval was influenced by the timing 

of the action, the EPA acknowledges 

that our final action is outside of the 

timeline prescribed by the CAA. The 

EPA’s inability to take timely action was 

the result of a number of factors 

including our ongoing work with Alaska 

to supplement the FNSB Moderate Plan. 

However, as noted previously, the EPA’s 

decision to approve the FNSB Moderate 

Plan in this action is based on the 

content of the plan and its consistency 

with applicable statutory and regulatory 

requirements, and was not influenced 

by the timing of our final action. 

Comment 16: One commenter stated 

that because the RACM/RACT analysis 

is flawed, the impracticability and RFP 

demonstrations are inadequate. This 

commenter also stated that 

reclassification to Serious and the 

requirement that Alaska will ‘‘have to 

submit amendments to its plan applying 

stricter control measures to bring the 

area into compliance, do not diminish 

the importance of EPA’s decision on the 

State’s current plan . . .’’ and ‘‘does not 

relax the Clean Air Act’s requirements 

for the current submission.’’ 

Response 16: As discussed in section 

II.A of this preamble, we disagree with 

the comment that the RACM/RACT 

analysis is flawed and we therefore 

disagree with the comment that the 

impracticability and RFP 

demonstrations are not approvable. We 

agree with the comment that 

reclassification to Serious does not relax 

the Moderate area requirements. Where 

we discussed reclassifying the FNSB 

NAA to Serious in our proposal, our 

intention was to explain that although 

Alaska and the EPA considered certain 

control measures infeasible in the 

context of the FNSB Moderate Plan, the 

reclassification to Serious obligates 

Alaska to reevaluate potential control 

measures and strengthen its attainment 

plan control strategy as necessary to 

meet the more stringent Serious area 

requirements. 

III. Final Action 

Under CAA section 110(k), the EPA is 

approving the FNSB Moderate Plan for 

the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Specifically, the EPA finds that the 

FNSB Moderate Plan meets the 

substantive statutory and regulatory 

requirements for base-year and 

projected emissions inventories, 

precursor demonstrations, analysis and 

imposition of RACM/RACT level 

emission controls, RFP, QMs, and a 

demonstration that attainment by the 

December 31, 2015 attainment date was 

impracticable. In addition, the EPA is 

approving the 2017 motor vehicle 

emissions budgets because they are 

derived from an approvable RFP 

demonstration and meet the 

requirements of CAA section 176(c) and 

40 CFR part 93, subpart A. The EPA is 

also approving the exceptional events 

demonstrations. Accordingly, the EPA 

finds that the FNSB Moderate Plan, for 

the FNSB NAA for the 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS, meets applicable CAA 

title I, part D requirements for purposes 

of approval under section 110(k) of the 

CAA. 

The EPA is approving the State Air 

Quality Control Plan and state and local 

rules that were submitted as part of the 

FNSB Moderate Plan on December 31, 

2014; January 29, 2015; March 11, 

2016; 13 and November 23, 2016. The 

EPA is not acting on provisions that 

Alaska withdrew from the SIP 

submissions.14 Specifically, we are 

approving, but not incorporating by 

reference, the following two sections of 

the State Air Quality Control Plan: 

Volume II, section III.D.5 and Volume 

III, appendices, section III.D.5. We are 

incorporating by reference the 

submitted revisions to title 18 of Alaska 

Administrative Code (AAC), chapter 50 

(18 AAC 50) sections 007, 010, 025, 065, 

075, 076 (except (g)(11), 077, 245, 246, 

and 990. We are approving, but not 

incorporating by reference 18 AAC 

50.076(g)(11) because it relates to 

enforcement provisions that if 

incorporated by reference may conflict 

with the EPA’s independent authorities. 

With respect to local rules, we are 

incorporating by reference Fairbanks 

North Star Borough Code chapter 21.28 

sections 010, 020, 030 (except J), 050, 

and 060. We are approving, but not 

incorporating by reference, Fairbanks 

North Star Borough Code chapter 21.28 

section 030.J because it relates to 

penalty provisions that if incorporated 

by reference may conflict with the 

EPA’s independent authorities. We are 

also approving, but not incorporating by 

reference Fairbanks North Star Borough 

Code chapter 21.28 sections 040 and 

070 because they relate to funding for 

voluntary initiatives being undertaken 

by the Borough to reduce emissions of 

PM2.5. 

IV. Incorporation by Reference 

In this rule, the EPA is finalizing 

regulatory text that includes 

incorporation by reference. In 

accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 

51.5, the EPA is finalizing the 

incorporation by reference of state and 

local regulations for solid-fuel heaters 

and open burning, as set forth in the 

amendments to 40 CFR part 52. The 

EPA has made, and will continue to 

make, these materials generally 

available through http://

www.regulations.gov and/or at the EPA 

Region 10 Office (please contact the 

person identified in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section of this 

preamble for more information). 

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 federallyenforceable 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.15

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 

Act and applicable federal regulations. 

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

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this action 

merely approves state law as meeting 

federal requirements and does not 

impose additional requirements beyond 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 173 / Friday, September 8, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 42471 

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 the EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

The SIP is not approved to apply on 

any Indian reservation land or in any 

other area where the EPA or an Indian 

tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has 

jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian 

country, the rule does not have tribal 

implications and 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. The EPA will 

submit a report containing this action 

and other required information to the 

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

Representatives, and the Comptroller 

General of the United States prior to 

publication of the rule in the Federal 

Register. A major rule cannot take effect 

until 60 days after it is published in the 

Federal Register. This action is not a 

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

804(2). 

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

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of 

this action must be filed in the United 

States Court of Appeals for the 

appropriate circuit by November 7, 

2017. 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, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

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

Dated: August 21, 2017. 

Michelle L. Pirzadeh, 

Acting Regional Administrator, EPA 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 50.007’’, 

in numerical order; 

■ ii. Revising the entries ‘‘18 AAC 

50.010’’, ‘‘18 AAC 50.025’’, ‘‘18 AAC 

50.065’’, and ‘‘18 AAC 50.075’’; 

■ iii. Adding the entries ‘‘18 AAC 

50.076’’ and ‘‘18 AAC 50.077’’, in 

numerical order; 

■ iv. Revising the entry ‘‘18 AAC 

50.245’’; 

■ v. Adding the entry ‘‘18 AAC 50.246’’, 

in numerical order; 

■ vi. Revising the entry ‘‘18 AAC 

50.990’’; and 

■ vii. Adding at the end of the table the 

heading ‘‘Fairbanks North Star Borough 

Code Chapter 21.28 PM2.5 Air Quality 

Control Program’’ and entries for 

‘‘21.28.010’’, ‘‘21.28.020’’, ‘‘21.28.030’’, 

‘‘21.28.050’’, and ‘‘21.28.060’’, in 

numerical order; and 

■ b. The table in paragraph (e) is 

amended by: 

■ i. Adding at the end of the table the 

heading ‘‘Regulations Approved but not 

Incorporated by Reference’’ and entries 

for ‘‘18 AAC 50.076(g)(11)’’, 

‘‘21.28.030.J’’, ‘‘21.28.040’’, and 

‘‘21.28.070’’; and 

■ ii. Adding at the end of the table an 

undesignated heading entitled 

‘‘Recently-Approved Plans’’ and entries 

for ‘‘Volume II. Section III.D.5.’’ and 

‘‘Volume III. Appendices Section 

III.D.5.’’. 

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 50.007 ..... Local Government Powers or Obligations Under a 

Local Air Quality Control Program.

2/28/15 ......................................... 9/8/17, [Insert Federal Register 

citation].

18 AAC 50.010 ..... Ambient Air Quality Standards ............................... 3/2/16 ........................................... 9/8/17, [Insert Federal Register 

citation].

except (7) and (8). 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
42472 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 173 / Friday, September 8, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 

EPA-APPROVED ALASKA REGULATIONS AND STATUTES—Continued 

State citation Title/subject State effective date EPA approval date Explanations 

*******

18 AAC 50.025 ..... Visibility and Other Special Protection Areas ......... 11/26/16 ....................................... 9/8/17, [Insert Federal Register 

citation].

*******

18 AAC 50.065 ..... Open Burning .......................................................... 3/2/16 ........................................... 9/8/17, [Insert Federal Register 

citation].

*******

18 AAC 50.075 ..... Solid Fuel-fired Heating Device Visible Emission 

Standards.

11/26/16 ....................................... 9/8/17, [Insert Federal Register 

citation].

18 AAC 50.076 ..... Solid Fuel-fired Heating Device Fuel Requirements; Registration of Commercial Wood Sellers.11/26/16 ....................................... 9/8/17, [Insert Federal Register 

citation].

except (g)(11). 

18 AAC 50.077 ..... Standards for Wood-fired Heating Devices ............ 11/26/16 ....................................... 9/8/17, [Insert Federal Register 

citation].

*******

18 AAC 50.245 ..... Air Quality Episodes and Advisories for Air Pollutants Other Than PM–2.5.2/28/15 ......................................... 9/8/17, [Insert Federal Register 

citation].

18 AAC 50.246 ..... Air Quality Episodes and Advisories for PM–2.5 ... 2/28/15 ......................................... 9/8/17, [Insert Federal Register 

citation].

*******

18 AAC 50.990 ..... Definitions ............................................................... 3/2/16 ........................................... 9/8/17, [Insert Federal Register 

citation].

*******

Fairbanks North Star Borough Code 

Chapter 21.28—PM2.5 Air Quality Control Program 

21.28.010 ............. Definitions ............................................................... 3/2/15 (borough effective date) ... 9/8/17, [Insert Federal Register 

citation].

21.28.020 ............. Borough listed appliances ....................................... 1/15/16 (borough effective date) 9/8/17, [Insert Federal Register 

citation].

21.28.030 ............. Prohibited acts ........................................................ 10/1/16 (borough effective date) 9/8/17, [Insert Federal Register 

citation].

except J. 

21.28.050 ............. Forecasting exceedances and restrictions in the 

air quality control zone during an alert.

6/26/15 (borough effective date) 9/8/17, [Insert Federal Register 

citation].

21.28.060 ............. No other adequate source of heat determination ... 8/12/16 (borough effective date) 9/8/17, [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 Comments 

*******

Regulations Approved but not Incorporated by Reference 

18 AAC 50.076(g)(11) ..... Solid Fuel-fired Heating Device Fuel 

Requirements; Registration of Commercial Wood Sellers.

11/26/16 ........................... 9/8/17, [Insert Federal 

Register citation].

21.28.030.J ..................... Prohibited Acts. Penalties .................... 10/1/16 (borough effective 

date).

9/8/17, [Insert Federal 

Register citation].

Fairbanks North Star Borough Code 

Chapter 21.28 PM2.5 Air Quality 

Control Program. 

21.28.040 ........................ Enhanced voluntary removal, replacement and repair program.1/15/16 (borough effective 

date).

9/8/17, [Insert Federal 

Register citation].

Fairbanks North Star Borough Code 

Chapter 21.28 PM2.5 Air Quality 

Control Program. 

21.28.070 ........................ Voluntary burn cessation program ....... 4/24/15 (borough effective 

date).

9/8/17, [Insert Federal 

Register citation].

Fairbanks North Star Borough Code 

Chapter 21.28 PM2.5 Air Quality 

Control Program. 

Recently-Approved Plans 

Volume II. Section III.D.5 Fairbanks North Star Borough ............. 11/23/16 ........................... 9/8/17, [Insert Federal 

Register citation].

Fairbanks North Star Borough PM2.5

Moderate Area Plan. 

Volume III. Appendices 

Section III.D.5.

Fairbanks North Star Borough ............. 11/23/16 ........................... 9/8/17, [Insert Federal 

Register citation].

Only with respect to the Fairbanks 

North Star Borough PM2.5 Moderate 

Area Plan. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 173 / Friday, September 8, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 42473 

[FR Doc. 2017–18768 Filed 9–7–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 54 

[WC Docket No. 10–90, WT Docket No. 10– 

208; FCC 17–102] 

Connect America Fund; Universal 

Service Reform—Mobility Fund 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Final rule; petition for 

reconsideration. 

SUMMARY: In this Order on 

Reconsideration and Second Report and 

Order, the Commission adopts the 

parameters for the Mobility Fund Phase 

II challenge process, which will enable 

the Commission to resolve eligible-area 

disputes expeditiously. The challenge 

process will begin with a new, one-time 

collection of standardized, up-to-date 

4G LTE coverage data from mobile 

wireless providers. Interested parties 

will then have an opportunity to contest 

an initial determination that an area is 

ineligible for MF–II support, and 

providers will then have an opportunity 

to response to challenges. 

DATES: The Commission adopted this 

Order on Reconsideration and Second 

Report and Order on August 3, 2017, 

and the parameters set forth therein for 

the Mobility Fund Phase II challenge 

process, along with all associated 

requirements also set forth therein, go 

into effect October 10, 2017, except for 

the new or modified information 

collection requirements in the challenge 

process that require approval by the 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB). The Commission will publish a 

document in the Federal Register 

announcing approval of those 

information collection requirements and 

the date they will become operative. 

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications 

Commission, 445 12th Street SW., 

Washington, DC 20554. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, 

Auction and Spectrum Access Division, 

Jonathan McCormack or Audra HaleMaddox, at (202) 418–0660. For further 

information concerning the Paperwork 

Reduction Act information collection 

requirements contained in this 

document, contact Cathy Williams at 

(202) 418–2918 or via the Internet at 

PRA@fcc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Order on 

Reconsideration and Second Report and 

Order (MF–II Challenge Process Order), 

WC Docket No. 10–90, WT Docket No. 

10–208, FCC 17–102, adopted on 

August 3, 2017 and released on August 

4, 2017. The complete text of this 

document is available for public 

inspection and copying from 8:00 a.m. 

to 4:30 p.m. Eastern Time (ET) Monday 

through Thursday or from 8:00 a.m. to 

11:30 a.m. ET on Fridays in the FCC 

Reference Information Center, 445 12th 

Street SW., Room CY–A257, 

Washington, DC 20554. The complete 

text is also available on the 

Commission’s Web site at http://

transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_

Business/2017/db0804/FCC-17- 

102A1.pdf. Alternative formats are 

available to persons with disabilities by 

sending an email to FCC504@fcc.gov or 

by calling the Consumer & 

Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 

418–0530 (voice), (202) 418–0432 

(TTY). 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

As required by the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act of 1980, the Commission 

has prepared a Final Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) of the 

possible significant economic impact on 

small entities of the policies and rules 

adopted in this document. The FRFA is 

set forth in an appendix to the MF–II 

Challenge Process Order, and is 

summarized below. The Commission’s 

Consumer and Governmental Affairs 

Bureau, Reference Information Center, 

will send a copy of this MF–II Challenge 

Process Order, including the FRFA, to 

the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the 

Small Business Administration (SBA). 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

The MF–II Challenge Process Order 

contains new and modified information 

collection requirements subject to the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(PRA), Public Law 104–13. It will be 

submitted to the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) for review under 

section 3507(d) of the PRA. OMB, the 

general public, and other Federal 

agencies will be invited to comment on 

the new and modified information 

collection requirements contained in 

this proceeding. 

Congressional Review Act 

The Commission will send a copy of 

this MF–II Challenge Process Order in a 

report to Congress and the Government 

Accountability Office pursuant to the 

Congressional Review Act (CRA), see 5 

U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A). 

I. Introduction 

1. In the MF–II Challenge Process 

Order, the Commission takes the next 

step to extend mobile opportunities to 

rural America by fulfilling its 

commitment to design a robust 

challenge process that will direct 

Mobility Fund Phase II (MF–II) support 

to primarily rural areas that lack 

unsubsidized 4G Long Term Evolution 

(LTE) service. The MF–II challenge 

process the Commission establishes will 

be administratively efficient, fiscally 

responsible, and will enable it to resolve 

eligible area disputes quickly and 

expeditiously. This challenge process 

will begin with a new, one-time 

collection of standardized, up-to-date 

4G LTE coverage data from mobile 

wireless providers. Interested parties 

will then have an opportunity to contest 

an initial determination that an area is 

ineligible for MF–II support, and 

providers will then have an opportunity 

to respond to challenges. 

II. Background 

2. In February 2017, the Commission 

adopted rules to move forward 

expeditiously to an MF–II auction. The 

Commission established a budget of 

$4.53 billion over a term of ten years to 

provide ongoing support for the 

provision of service in areas that lack 

adequate mobile voice and broadband 

coverage absent subsidies. The 

Commission further decided that 

geographic areas lacking unsubsidized, 

qualified 4G LTE service would be 

deemed ‘‘eligible areas’’ for MF–II 

support, and that it would use a 

competitive bidding process 

(specifically, a reverse auction) to 

distribute funding to providers to serve 

those areas. For the purposes of MF–II, 

the Commission defined ‘‘qualified 4G 

LTE service’’ as mobile wireless service 

provided using 4G LTE technology with 

download speeds of at least 5 Mbps. The 

Commission also decided that, prior to 

an MF–II auction, it would compile a 

list of areas that were presumptively 

eligible for MF–II support based on 

information derived from the Form 477 

data submissions and high-cost support 

disbursement data available from the 

Universal Service Administrative 

Company (USAC), and it would provide 

a limited timeframe for challenges to 

those initial determinations during the 

pre-auction process. 

3. In order to make more informed 

decisions on the challenge process, the 

Commission deferred deciding the 

specific parameters of the challenge 

process and instead sought additional 

comment. Among other things, the 

Commission sought comment in the 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES