Air Plan Partial Approval and Partial Disapproval; AK, Fairbanks North Star Borough; 2006 24-Hour PM2.5, 1454-1495 [2022-28666]

Download as PDF 1454 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 6 / Tuesday, January 10, 2023 / Proposed Rules FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA–R10–OAR–2022–0115; FRL–9755–01– R10] Air Plan Partial Approval and Partial Disapproval; AK, Fairbanks North Star Borough; 2006 24-Hour PM2.5 Serious Area and 189(d) Plan Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. AGENCY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve in part and disapprove in part the 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 PM2.5 nonattainment area (Fairbanks PM2.5 Nonattainment Area). Alaska made these submissions on December 13, 2019, and December 15, 2020. DATES: Comments. Written comments must be received on or before March 13, 2023. Public Hearing. EPA plans to hold one public hearing concerning the proposed rule in Fairbanks, Alaska. The date, time and location will be announced separately. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R10– OAR–2022–0115, at https:// www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from regulations.gov. EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information the disclosure of which is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/ commenting-epa-dockets. khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 SUMMARY: VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:53 Jan 09, 2023 Jkt 259001 Matthew Jentgen, EPA Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue—Suite 155, Seattle, WA 98101, (206) 553–0340, jentgen.matthew@epa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document wherever ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, it is intended to refer to EPA. Table of Contents I. Background A. Environmental Justice Considerations II. Clean Air Act Requirements for PM2.5 Serious Area Plans and for PM2.5 Serious Areas That Fail To Attain A. Requirements for PM2.5 Serious Area Plans B. Requirements for PM2.5 Serious Areas That Fail To Attain C. Combined Requirements for PM2.5 Serious Areas and Serious Areas That Fail To Attain III. Review of the Fairbanks Serious Plan and Fairbanks 189(d) Plan A. Emission Inventories B. Pollutants Addressed C. Control Strategy D. Attainment Demonstration and Modeling E. Reasonable Further Progress F. Quantitative Milestones G. Contingency Measures H. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets for Transportation Conformity I. Nonattainment New Source Review Requirements Under CAA section 189(e) IV. Consequences of a Disapproval A. The Act’s Provisions for Sanctions B. Federal Implementation Plan Provisions That Apply If a State Fails To Submit an Approvable Plan C. Ramifications Regarding Transportation Conformity V. Summary of Proposed Action A. Proposed Approval B. Proposed Disapproval VI. Incorporation by Reference VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism F. Executive Order 13175: Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Population PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 I. Background In 2009, EPA designated a portion of the Fairbanks North Star Borough as ‘‘nonattainment’’ for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, which is set at the level of 35 micrograms per cubic meter (mg/ m3) (Fairbanks PM2.5 Nonattainment Area) (74 FR 58688, November 13, 2009).1 Effective July 2, 2014, EPA classified the area as ‘‘Moderate’’ (79 FR 31566, June 2, 2014). Subsequently, Alaska submitted, and EPA approved, a plan to meet Moderate nonattainment area requirements (82 FR 42457, September 8, 2017) (‘‘Fairbanks Moderate Plan’’). On May 10, 2017, EPA determined that the Fairbanks PM2.5 Nonattainment Area failed to attain the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in the area by the outermost statutory Moderate area attainment date of December 31, 2015 (82 FR 21711). As a result, the Fairbanks PM2.5 Nonattainment Area was reclassified as a ‘‘Serious’’ nonattainment area by operation of law. Upon reclassification as a Serious PM2.5 nonattainment area, the State was required to submit a Serious area attainment plan satisfying the requirements of CAA sections 172, 189(b), and 189(c) and 40 CFR 51.1003(b). In accordance with CAA section 188(c)(2), the outermost attainment date for a Serious area is no later than the end of the tenth calendar year following designation (i.e., December 31, 2019). Alaska submitted a plan to address the Serious PM2.5 nonattainment area requirements on December 13, 2019 (Fairbanks Serious Plan).2 Along with the required planning elements, the Fairbanks Serious Plan includes more stringent performance and operating requirements for residential and commercial heating devices, new regulations for wood sellers, and some requirements for stationary sources in the nonattainment area. The Fairbanks Serious Plan is comprised of revisions to Title 18, Chapter 50, of the Alaska Administrative Code (18 AAC 50) and the State Air Quality Control Plan, adopted and incorporated by reference into State law at 18 AAC 50.030(a).3 On January 9, 2020, in accordance with CAA section 110(k)(1)(B), EPA determined that the Fairbanks Serious 1 See 40 CFR 81.302. SIP revision submitted October 25, 2018, to address the nonattainment NSR element for the Fairbanks Serious area, among other things. EPA approved as meeting the nonattainment NSR element for the Serious Plan on August 29, 2019 (84 FR 45419). 3 We note that 18 AAC 50.030(a) is not submitted, rather Alaska submits the adopted provisions separately for EPA approval. 2 Alaska E:\FR\FM\10JAP2.SGM 10JAP2 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 6 / Tuesday, January 10, 2023 / Proposed Rules Plan was administratively and technically complete (85 FR 7760, February 11, 2020). Within the Fairbanks Serious Plan, the State sought an extension of the otherwise applicable attainment date through CAA section 188(e). On September 2, 2020, EPA determined that the area failed to attain by the Serious area attainment date and denied the State’s Serious area attainment date extension request (85 FR 54509). As a result, Alaska was required to submit a revised SIP submission to meet both the Serious area attainment plan requirements and the additional CAA requirements set forth in CAA section 189(d) by December 31, 2020.4 Alaska submitted the revised plan on December 15, 2020 (Fairbanks 189(d) Plan). The Fairbanks 189(d) Plan updated a number of chapters of the State Air Quality Control Plan (i.e., narrative portions of the SIP), adopted and incorporated by reference into State law at 18 AAC 50.030(a). Prior to EPA taking action to approve or disapprove the Fairbanks Serious Plan, Alaska withdrew and replaced several chapters of the Fairbanks Serious Plan with the Fairbanks 189(d) Plan submission.5 In this proposed action, EPA is not proposing to act on the withdrawn elements of the prior Fairbanks Serious Plan, only those elements that remain as revised by Alaska in the Fairbanks 189(d) Plan. On September 24, 2021, EPA approved as meeting the Serious area planning requirements the 2013 base year emissions inventory and the PM2.5 precursor demonstration elements of the Fairbanks Serious Plan (86 FR 52997). In the same action, EPA approved other plan components as SIP strengthening, including (1) the updated Fairbanks Emergency Episode Plan 6 that the State adopted on November 18, 2020 and submitted on December 15, 2020; and (2) emission control measures included in the SIP submissions on October 25, 2018 and November 28, 2018 (in addition to the December 13, 2019 submission).7 EPA did not determine as part of the September 24, 2021, approval whether these SIP strengthening components met specific nonattainment plan requirements, including control strategy requirements in CAA section 189 and 40 CFR 51.1010 or the contingency measure requirements in CAA section 172(c)(9) and 40 CFR 51.1014. EPA’s proposed determination on whether these components meet the nonattainment plan requirements is contained in this document. 1455 Alaska’s air quality monitoring network for the Fairbanks PM2.5 Nonattainment Area has included four regulatory monitor site locations. Table 1 in this document includes the site names, identification number, monitor data, and design values for the PM2.5 monitor site locations in Fairbanks. With EPA approval, the State discontinued the monitor location at the State Office Building and established the A Street monitor as a monitor location in 2019. Alaska established the A Street monitor location as a State or Local Air Monitoring Station (SLAMS) PM2.5 monitoring station to characterize PM2.5 concentrations in the City of Fairbanks. The Hurst Road monitor measures expected maximum concentrations for the nonattainment area.8 We note Alaska flagged monitor data in 2019 influenced by wildfire smoke. We discuss in section III.3 of this document how Alaska’s demonstration was considered for attainment modeling, but this wildfireinfluenced data in 2019 was not regulatory significant under 40 CFR 50.14(a), so the monitor data has not been excluded from the official design value in EPA’s Air Quality System (AQS).9 TABLE 1—FAIRBANKS PM2.5 MONITORING LOCATIONS AND RECENT SITE-LEVEL DESIGN VALUES Local site name Site location 98th percentile (μg/m3) AQS ID 2019 ** Hurst Road * ......................... A Street ................................ NCore ................................... State Office Building ............ 3288 Hurst Road, North Pole ....... 397 Hamilton Ave., Fairbanks ....... 809 Pioneer Road, Fairbanks ....... 675 7th Avenue, Fairbanks ........... 02–090–0035 02–090–0040 02–090–0034 02–090–0010 2020 78.3 *** 34.1 60.0 *** 34.7 71.4 36.1 26.6 n/a 2021 65.5 *** 29.6 27.5 n/a 2019–2021 24-hour design value ** 72 *** 33 38 *** 35 * Monitor location previously referred to as North Pole Fire Station. ** Data in this table includes state-flagged monitor days in 2019 that were influenced by wildfires. *** Incomplete monitor data and/or invalid 3-year design value. In July 2019, Alaska shut down the regulatory PM2.5 monitor at the State Office Building and established a new maximum impact PM2.5 monitoring site at the A Street location. Due to data issues in 2021, an official 98th percentile measurement for A Street could not be calculated. Source: EPA 2021 AQS Design Value Report. khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 A. Environmental Justice Considerations Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) requires that Federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, identify and address disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their actions on 4 40 CFR 51.1003(c). SIP submission cover letter, submitted by Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) Commissioner Jason Brune to EPA Regional Administrator, Chris Hladick, on December 15, 2020. 6 State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol II, III.D.7.12 (i.e., Alaska’s planning chapter related to air quality forecasting and curtailment levels). 5 See VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:53 Jan 09, 2023 Jkt 259001 minority and low-income populations. Additionally, Executive Order 13985 (86 FR 7009, January 25, 2021) directs Federal government agencies to assess whether, and to what extent, their programs and policies perpetuate systemic barriers to opportunities and benefits for people of color and other underserved groups, and Executive Order 14008 (86 FR 7619, February 1, 2021) directs Federal agencies to develop programs, policies, and activities to address the disproportionate health, environmental, economic, and climate impacts on disadvantaged communities. To identify environmental burdens and susceptible populations in 7 For a description of the specific control measures addressed across the State’s SIP submissions, see 86 FR 52997, September 24, 2021. 8 For further details of the air quality monitoring network in the Fairbanks PM2.5 Nonattainment Area, EPA’s approval letters of Alaska’s Annual Monitoring Network Plans for each year between 2019 to 2022 are included in the docket for this action. 9 Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation. (April 14, 2021). Exceptional Events Waiver Request, For Exceptional PM2.5 Events Between May 26, and July 26, 2019, in the Fairbanks North Star Borough, Alaska. Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, Air Quality Division PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10JAP2.SGM 10JAP2 1456 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 6 / Tuesday, January 10, 2023 / Proposed Rules khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 underserved communities in the Fairbanks Nonattainment Area and to better understand the context of our proposed action on the Fairbanks Serious Plan and Fairbanks 189(d) Plan on these communities, we conducted a screening-level analysis using EPA’s environmental justice (EJ) screening and mapping tool (‘‘EJSCREEN’’).10 There are 12 environmental justice indices available on EJSCREEN,11 each index combines demographic factors with a single environmental factor. Although the EJSCREEN indices for PM2.5 and Ozone are not available for Fairbanks, Alaska, we note that the Fairbanks Nonattainment Area has some of the highest PM2.5 concentrations in the country and has been designated a PM2.5 nonattainment area since 2009. Residents in Fairbanks and North Pole have been subject to a high pollution burden for many years. Other health and socioeconomic indices, identified in EJSCREEN, that are impacted by elevated PM2.5 concentrations include: low life expectancy (95–100 percentile) and asthma (90–95 percentile) in an area south of downtown Fairbanks and population under age 5 (95–100 percentile) in various areas in Fairbanks and North Pole. Most of Alaska, including the Fairbanks area, is considered ‘‘medically underserved.’’ 12 A review of other environmental justice indices in EJSCREEN for the cities of Fairbanks, AK and North Pole, AK are below the 80th percentile, with some areas around downtown Fairbanks in the 80–90th percentile for the following indices: Superfund proximity, Hazardous waste proximity, Underground storage tanks. No indices are above the 90th percentile for the Fairbanks Nonattainment Area. EJSCREEN reports for Fairbanks and North Pole are included in the docket for this action. As discussed in EPA’s EJ technical guidance, people of color and lowincome populations often experience greater exposure and disease burdens than the general population, which can 10 EJSCREEN provides a nationally consistent dataset and approach for combining environmental and demographic indicators. EJSCREEN is available at https://www.epa.gov/ejscreen/what-ejscreen. 11 Environmental indices include: particulate matter PM2.5; Ozone; Diesel particulate matter; Air Toxics cancer risk; Air toxics respiratory hazard index; Traffic proximity and volume; Lead paint; Superfund proximity; Risk management plan (RMP) facility proximity; Hazardous waste proximity; Underground storage tanks (UST) and leaking UST (LUST); and Wastewater discharge. 12 Medically Underserved Areas are defined by the Health Resources and Services Administration as geographic areas with a lack of access to primary care services. For more information see: https:// bhw.hrsa.gov/workforce-shortage-areas/shortagedesignation#mups. VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:53 Jan 09, 2023 Jkt 259001 increase their susceptibility to adverse health effects from environmental stressors.13 Underserved communities may have a compromised ability to cope with or recover from such exposures due to a range of physical, chemical, biological, social, and cultural factors.14 If EPA were to finalize the proposed disapprovals described in section III of this proposed rulemaking, Alaska would be required to submit a plan revision for the Fairbanks Nonattainment Area to address the identified deficiencies. In addition, as summarized in section IV of this proposed rulemaking, such final action would trigger clocks for the Fairbanks Nonattainment Area for offset sanctions 18 months after the final rule effective date, highway funding sanctions six months after the offset sanctions, and the obligation for EPA to promulgate a Federal implementation plan (FIP) within two years of the final rule effective date. Alaska’s expeditious submission of plan revisions that correct the deficiencies identified in this document will ensure the plan meets CAA requirements, and the measures in the plan when implemented achieves attainment as expeditiously as practicable. And in doing so, the plan revisions address harmful and disproportionate health and environmental effects on underserved and overburdened populations, consistent with the principles of environmental justice. II. Clean Air Act Requirements for PM2.5 Serious Area Plans and for PM2.5 Serious Areas That Fail To Attain A. Requirements for PM2.5 Serious Area Plans On August 24, 2016, EPA promulgated the final rule entitled, ‘‘Fine Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards: State Implementation Plan Requirements’’ (PM2.5 SIP Requirements Rule).15 The 13 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (June 2016). Technical Guidance for Assessing Environmental Justice in Regulatory Analysis. Section 4. 14 Id. at section 4.1. 15 81 FR 58010, August 24, 2016. Prior to promulgating the PM2.5 SIP Requirements Rule, EPA provided its interpretations of the CAA’s requirements for particulate matter plans under part D, title I of the Act in the following guidance documents: (1) ‘‘State Implementation Plans; General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990’’ (‘‘General Preamble’’); (2) ‘‘State Implementation Plans; General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990; Supplemental’’ (‘‘General Preamble Supplement’’); and (3) ‘‘State Implementation Plans for Serious PM–10 Nonattainment Areas, and Attainment Date Waivers for PM–10 Nonattainment Areas Generally; Addendum to the General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 PM2.5 SIP Requirements Rule is codified at 40 CFR part 51, subpart Z. The PM2.5 SIP Requirements Rule establishes regulatory requirements and provides interpretive guidance on the statutory SIP requirements that apply to states with areas designated nonattainment for the PM2.5 standards. Because this action addresses planning requirements for Serious nonattainment areas and the planning requirements under CAA section 189(d) for Serious nonattainment areas that failed to attain by the attainment date, both planning requirements will be discussed here. Upon reclassification of a Moderate nonattainment area as a Serious nonattainment area under subpart 4 of part D, title I of the CAA, the Act requires the State to submit a Serious area nonattainment plan that addresses specific requirements.16 In accordance with subpart 4 of part D, title I of the CAA and the PM2.5 SIP Requirements Rule at 40 CFR 51.1003(b), Serious area nonattainment plans must address the following requirements: 1. Base year emissions inventory meeting the requirements of CAA section 172(c)(3) 17 and 40 CFR 51.1008(b)(1); 2. Attainment projected emissions inventory meeting the requirements of CAA section 172(c)(1) 18 and 40 CFR 51.1008(b)(2); 3. Serious area nonattainment plan control strategy meeting the requirements of CAA section 189(b)(1)(B) 19 and 40 CFR 51.1010, including provisions to assure that the best available control measures (BACM) and best available control technologies (BACT), for the control of direct PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors are implemented no later than four years after the area is reclassified (CAA section 189(b)(1)(B) 20); 4. Attainment demonstration and modeling meeting the requirements of CAA sections 188(c)(2) and 189(b)(1)(A) 21 and 40 CFR 51.1011; 5. Reasonable further progress (RFP) provisions meeting the requirements of CAA section 172(c)(2) 22 and 40 CFR 51.1012; 6. Quantitative milestones meeting the requirements of CAA section 189(c) 23 and 40 CFR 51.1013; Amendments of 1990’’ (‘‘General Preamble Addendum’’). 16 CAA section 189(b), 42 U.S.C. 7513a(b); see also 81 FR 58010, at pp. 58074–58075, August 24, 2016. 17 42 U.S.C. 7502(c)(3). 18 42 U.S.C. 7502(c)(1). 19 42 U.S.C. 7513a(b)(1)(B). 20 Id. 21 42 U.S.C. 7513(c)(2) and 7513a(b)(1)(A). 22 42 U.S.C. 7502(c)(2). 23 42 U.S.C. 7513a(c). E:\FR\FM\10JAP2.SGM 10JAP2 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 6 / Tuesday, January 10, 2023 / Proposed Rules 7. An evaluation by the state of sources of all four PM2.5 precursors for regulation, and implementation of controls on all such precursors, unless the state provides an adequate demonstration establishing that it is either not necessary to regulate a particular precursor in the nonattainment area at issue in order to attain by the attainment date, or that emissions of the precursor do not make a significant contribution to PM2.5 levels that exceed the standard; 24 8. Contingency measures meeting the requirements of CAA section 172(c)(9) 25 and 40 CFR 51.1014; and 9. Nonattainment new source review provisions meeting the requirements of CAA section 189(b)(3) and 40 CFR 51.165. In the Serious area nonattainment plan, a state must also satisfy the requirements for the Moderate area plan in CAA section 189(a), to the extent the state has not already met those requirements in the Moderate area plan submitted for the area (see CAA section 189(b)(1), 40 CFR 51.1003(b), and 81 FR 58010, August 24, 2016, at page 58075). In addition, the Serious area nonattainment plan must meet the general requirements applicable to all SIP submissions under CAA section 110, including the requirement to provide necessary assurances that the implementing agencies have adequate personnel, funding, and authority under CAA section 110(a)(2)(E), and the requirements concerning enforcement provisions in CAA section 110(a)(2)(C). khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 B. Requirements for PM2.5 Serious Areas That Fail To Attain In the event that a Serious area fails to attain the PM2.5 NAAQS by the applicable attainment date, CAA section 189(d) 26 requires that ‘‘the State in which such area is located shall, after notice and opportunity for public comment, submit within 12 months after the applicable attainment date, plan revisions which provide for attainment of the . . . standard . . .’’ The attainment plan required under CAA section 189(d) must, among other things, demonstrate expeditious attainment of the NAAQS within the time period provided under CAA section 179(d)(3) 27 and provide for annual reductions in emissions of direct PM2.5 or a PM2.5 plan precursor pollutant within the area of not less than five percent per year from the most 24 CAA section 189(e), 42 U.S.C. 7513a(e) and 40 CFR 51.1006, 51.1010. 25 42 U.S.C. 7502(c)(9). 26 42 U.S.C. 7513a(d). 27 42 U.S.C. 7509(d)(3). VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:53 Jan 09, 2023 Jkt 259001 recent emissions inventory for the area until attainment.28 In addition to the requirement to submit control measures providing for a five percent reduction in emissions of certain pollutants on an annual basis, EPA interprets CAA section 189(d) as requiring a state to submit an attainment plan that includes the same basic statutory plan elements that are required for other attainment plans. Specifically, a state must submit to EPA its plan to meet the requirements of CAA section 189(d) in the form of a complete attainment plan submission that includes the following elements: 29 1. Base year emissions inventory meeting the requirements of CAA section 172(c)(3) 30 and 40 CFR 51.1008(c)(1); 2. Attainment projected emissions inventory meeting the requirements of CAA section 172(c)(1) 31 and 40 CFR 51.1008(c)(2); 3. Unless previously met, a Serious area nonattainment plan control strategy that ensures that best available control measures (BACM), including best available control technologies (BACT), for the control of direct PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors are implemented in the area (CAA section 189(b)(1)(B) 32 and 40 CFR 51.1010(a)). 4. Additional measures (beyond those already adopted in previous nonattainment plan SIP submissions for the area as RACM/RACT, BACM/BACT, and Most Stringent Measures (MSM) 33 (if applicable)) that provide for attainment of the NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable and, from the date of such submission until attainment, demonstrate that the plan will at a minimum achieve an annual five percent reduction in emission of direct PM2.5 or any PM2.5 plan precursor from the most recent emissions inventory for the area. The state must reconsider and reassess any measures previously rejected by the state during the development of any Moderate area or Serious area attainment plan control strategy for the area. 40 CFR 51.1010(c). 5. Attainment demonstration and modeling meeting the requirements of CAA sections 188(c)(2) and 189(b)(1)(A) 34 and 40 CFR 51.1011; 28 81 FR 58010, at page 58098. CFR 51.1003(c)(1). 30 42 U.S.C. 7502(c)(3). 31 42 U.S.C. 7502(c)(1). 32 42 U.S.C. 7513a(b)(1)(B). 33 MSM is applicable if EPA has previously granted an extension of the attainment date under CAA section 188(e) for the nonattainment area and NAAQS at issue. EPA denied Alaska’s request to extend the Serious area attainment date for the Fairbanks PM2.5 Nonattainment Area. Therefore, MSM is not applicable to the Fairbanks Serious Plan or Fairbanks 189(d) Plan. 34 42 U.S.C. 7513(c)(2) and 7513a(b)(1)(A). 29 40 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 1457 6. Reasonable further progress (RFP) provisions meeting the requirements of CAA section 172(c)(2) 35 and 40 CFR 51.1012; 7. Quantitative milestones meeting the requirements of CAA section 189(c) 36 and 40 CFR 51.1013; 8. An evaluation by the state of sources of all four PM2.5 precursors for regulation, and implementation of controls on all such precursors, unless the state provides an adequate demonstration establishing that it is either not necessary to regulate a particular precursor in the nonattainment area at issue in order to attain by the attainment date, or that emissions of the precursor do not make a significant contribution to PM2.5 levels that exceed the standard; 37 9. Contingency measures meeting the requirements of CAA section 172(c)(9) 38 and 40 CFR 51.1014; and 10. Nonattainment new source review provisions meeting the requirements of CAA section 189(b)(3) 39 and 40 CFR 51.165. C. Combined Requirements for PM2.5 Serious Areas and Serious Areas That Fail To Attain On September 2, 2020, EPA determined that the Fairbanks PM2.5 Nonattainment Area failed to attain the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS by the Serious area attainment date and denied the State’s Serious area attainment date extension request (85 FR 54509). This action triggered the obligation for the State to make a new SIP submission to meet the requirements laid out in Section II.B of this document, including submission of a new plan containing all the elements in 40 CFR 51.1003(c). EPA’s determination that Fairbanks PM2.5 Nonattainment Area failed to attain the NAAQS did not, however, nullify the State’s obligation to meet the still outstanding requirements for PM2.5 Serious areas laid out in Section II.A, including the requirement to adopt and submit a plan containing all the elements in 40 CFR 51.1003(b). Moreover, a result of the determination of failure to attain was to require the State to make a SIP submission meeting the requirements of CAA section 189(d) and providing for attainment by a later attainment date. Because CAA section 189(d) does not itself supply a specific date, EPA interprets the CAA to impose the attainment date requirements of CAA section 172 and 179, and as 35 42 U.S.C. 7502(c)(2). U.S.C. 7513a(c). 37 40 CFR 51.1006. 38 42 U.S.C. 7502(c)(9). 39 42 U.S.C. 7513a(b)(3). 36 42 E:\FR\FM\10JAP2.SGM 10JAP2 1458 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 6 / Tuesday, January 10, 2023 / Proposed Rules interpreted in 40 CFR 51.1004(a)(3), rather than the date imposed in CAA section 182(c)(2) and as interpreted in 40 CFR 51.1004(a)(2). Consistent with the deadlines laid out in the CAA, Serious area plans are intended to be submitted and approved or disapproved well before the Serious area attainment date.40 The Serious plan must be designed to achieve attainment as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than the outermost statutory attainment date, which is the end of the tenth calendar year following the area’s designation to nonattainment.41 If implementation of the Serious Plan fails to achieve attainment by the Serious area attainment date, the state must submit a new plan meeting the requirements for Serious areas that fail to attain in CAA section 189(d).42 The state must design this new CAA section 189(d)plan to achieve attainment as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than the deadlines in CAA sections 172 and 179.43 Thus, the CAA requires states to adopt and implement a plan meeting the requirement of CAA section 189(d) only after adopting and implementing a fully-approved Serious area plan. Accordingly, the CAA does not contain provisions that address precisely how a state should meet all of the planning requirements for a Serious nonattainment area, after such area has already failed to attain the NAAQS, but before the state has met all of the planning requirements for Serious nonattainment areas. By extension, the CAA does not account for potential conflicts between the required plan provisions for Serious area plans and Section 189(d) plans, particularly with respect to the attainment projected inventory, attainment demonstration, RFP, and quantitative milestone (QM) plan provisions. These elements are required for all PM2.5 nonattainment plans and are dependent on a single projected attainment date that complies with the statutory requirements governing the area. Thus, in the event that a state is obligated to submit both a Serious area plan and a Section 189(d) plan, a conflict arises between the applicable attainment date by which states should structure these plan provisions and against which EPA should evaluate them. Such conflict exists here. EPA acknowledges that the complicated series of events and chronology in this situation make it more difficult to evaluate the State’s remaining Serious area plan obligations and new section 189(d) plan obligations. Alaska submitted the Serious Area Plan on December 13, 2019, 18 days before the then-applicable attainment date of December 31, 2019. This plan included a request to extend the attainment date from December 31, 2019 to December 31, 2024, pursuant to CAA section 188(e), which EPA denied.44 EPA also has not fully approved this Plan. Notably, EPA has not approved the attainment projected inventory, attainment demonstration, RFP, and QM plan provisions of the Serious Area Plan submitted on December 13, 2019. As discussed in this section, on September 2, 2020, EPA determined that the area failed to attain the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS by December 31, 2019. As a result, the attainment projected inventory, attainment demonstration, RFP, and QM provisions of the December 13, 2019, Serious Area Plan submission did not meet CAA requirements for Serious areas. Moreover, no revisions to these plan provisions could satisfy the Serious area planning requirements because the Serious area attainment date has already passed. Alaska subsequently withdrew these plan provisions and replaced them with the submission of the Fairbanks 189(d) Plan and structured the new plan provisions around the applicable attainment date for Serious areas that fail to attain. EPA now needs to take action on the nonattainment plan SIP submissions for the Fairbanks Nonattainment Area that are currently before the agency in a way that is logical and most consistent with the statutory and regulatory requirements. Given the impossibility of the State now submitting a Serious area plan designed to achieve an attainment date that has already passed and that the applicable attainment date for the Fairbanks Nonattainment Area is now governed by CAA sections 172 and 179 and 40 CFR 51.1004(a)(3), EPA proposes that it should evaluate any previously unmet Serious area planning obligations based on the current, applicable attainment date under CAA section 189(d), and not the original Serious area attainment date.45 Thus, the combined planning requirements EPA is evaluating as part of the Fairbanks Serious Plan and Fairbanks 189(d) Plan submissions are included in Table 2: TABLE 2—COMBINED FAIRBANKS SERIOUS PLAN AND FAIRBANKS 189(d) PLAN REQUIREMENTS [CAA planning requirements for PM2.5 serious areas and areas that fail to attain] Legal/ regulatory requirement Description Base year emissions inventory for Serious areas subject to CAA section 189(b) * ..................................................... Base year emissions inventory for areas subject to CAA section 189(d) ..................................................................... khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 Attainment projected emissions inventory ..................................................................................................................... Serious area nonattainment plan control strategy that ensures that best available control measures (BACM), including best available control technologies (BACT), for the control of direct PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors are implemented in the area. Additional measures (beyond those already adopted in previous nonattainment plan SIP submissions for the area as RACM/RACT, BACM/BACT, and Most Stringent Measures (MSM) 46 (if applicable)) that provide for attainment of the NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable and, from the date of such submission until attainment, demonstrate that the plan will at a minimum achieve an annual five percent reduction in emission of direct PM2.5 or any PM2.5 plan precursor. The state must reconsider and reassess any measures previously rejected by the state during the development of any Moderate area or Serious area attainment plan control strategy for the area. 40 CAA section 189(b)(2) and 40 CFR 51.1003. section 189(b)(1) and 40 CFR 51.1004(a)(2). 41 CAA VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:53 Jan 09, 2023 Jkt 259001 42 CAA 44 85 43 CAA section 189(d) and 40 CFR 51.1003(c). sections 172 and 179 and 40 CFR 51.1004(a)(3) 45 86 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10JAP2.SGM CAA section 172(c)(3); 40 CFR 51.1008(b)(1). CAA section 172(c)(3); 40 CFR 51.1008(c)(1). CAA section 172(c)(1); 40 CFR 51.1008(c)(2). CAA section 189(b)(1)(B); 40 CFR 51.1010(a). CAA section 189(d);40 CFR 51.1010(c). FR 54509 FR 53150, September 24, 2021, at p. 53155. 10JAP2 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 6 / Tuesday, January 10, 2023 / Proposed Rules 1459 TABLE 2—COMBINED FAIRBANKS SERIOUS PLAN AND FAIRBANKS 189(d) PLAN REQUIREMENTS—Continued [CAA planning requirements for PM2.5 serious areas and areas that fail to attain] Description Legal/ regulatory requirement Attainment demonstration and modeling ....................................................................................................................... CAA sections 188(c)(2) and 189(b)(1)(A); 40 CFR 51.1003(c) and 51.1011. CAA section 172(c)(2); 40 CFR 51.1012. CAA section 189(c); 40 CFR 51.1013. CAA section 189(e);40 CFR 51.1006. Reasonable further progress (RFP) provisions ............................................................................................................. Quantitative milestones ................................................................................................................................................. An adequate evaluation by the state of sources of all four PM2.5 precursors for regulation, and implementation of controls on all such precursors, unless the state provides a demonstration establishing that it is either not necessary to regulate a particular precursor in the nonattainment area at issue in order to attain by the attainment date, or that emissions of the precursor do not make a significant contribution to PM2.5 levels that exceed the standard.** Contingency measures applicable to Serious areas subject to CAA section 189(b) ................................................... Contingency measures applicable to Serious areas subject to CAA section 189(d) ................................................... Nonattainment new source review provisions ............................................................................................................... CAA section 172(c)(9); 40 CFR 51.1014. CAA section 172(c)(9); 40 CFR 51.1014. CAA section 189(b)(3); 40 CFR 51.165. * EPA finalized approval of this requirement on September 24, 2021 (86 FR 52997). ** EPA finalized approval of this requirement applicable to Serious areas subject to CAA section 189(b) on September 24, 2021 (86 FR 52997). As noted in section I of this document, EPA approved parts of the Fairbanks Serious Plan as meeting the base year emission inventory requirements, PM2.5 precursor demonstration requirements, and the nonattainment new source review provisions (86 FR 52997, September 24, 2021; see also 84 FR 45419, August 29, 2019). Therefore, the ensuing evaluation focuses on the remaining statutory and regulatory requirements applicable to Serious nonattainment plan provisions. Additionally, we are also evaluating whether the December 15, 2020, submission meets the additional planning requirements of a revised Serious area attainment plan under CAA section 189(d) and 40 CFR 51.1003(c). III. Review of the Fairbanks Serious Plan and Fairbanks 189(d) Plan A. Emission Inventories khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 1. Statutory and Regulatory Requirements CAA section 172(c)(3) requires that states submit a comprehensive, accurate, and current inventory of actual emissions from all sources of the relevant pollutant or pollutants in the nonattainment area as part of a nonattainment plan for such area. The regulation at 40 CFR 51.1008 contains the requirements for emission 46 MSM is applicable if EPA has previously granted an extension of the attainment date under CAA section 188(e) for the nonattainment area and NAAQS at issue. EPA denied Alaska’s request to extend the Serious area attainment date for the Fairbanks Serious Nonattainment Area. VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:53 Jan 09, 2023 Jkt 259001 inventories.47 EPA has also issued additional guidance concerning emissions inventories for PM2.5 nonattainment areas.48 In accordance with 40 CFR 51.1008, the attainment plan must include a base year emissions inventory and attainment projected emissions inventory. The base year emissions inventory for a Serious PM2.5 nonattainment area must be one of the three years for which EPA used monitored data to reclassify the area to Serious, or another technically appropriate year justified by the state in its Serious area nonattainment plan SIP submission.49 Similarly, the base year emission inventory for a nonattainment area subject to CAA section 189(d) must be one of the three years for which monitored data were used by EPA to determine the area failed to attain by the PM2.5 NAAQS by the applicable Serious area attainment date, or another technically appropriate year justified by the state in its Serious area nonattainment plan SIP submission.50 The base year emissions inventory should provide a state’s best estimate of actual emissions from all sources, i.e., all emissions that contribute to the 47 81 FR 58010, August 24, 2016, at pp. 58078– 58079. 48 ‘‘Emissions Inventory Guidance for Implementation of Ozone and Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and Regional Haze Regulations,’’ EPA, May 2017 (‘‘Emissions Inventory Guidance’’), available at: https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-inventories/airemissions-inventory-guidance-implementationozone-and-particulate. 49 40 CFR 51.1008(b)(1). 50 40 CFR 51.1008(c)(1). PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 formation of PM2.5. The emissions must be either annual total emissions, average-season day emissions, or both, as appropriate for the relevant annual versus 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. The state must include a rationale for providing annual or seasonal emission inventories, and justification for the period used for any seasonal emissions calculations.51 According to 40 CFR 51.1008, the Serious Plan and 189(d) Plan must include an attainment projected inventory for the nonattainment area. The year of the projected inventory shall be the most expeditious year for which projected emissions show modeled PM2.5 concentrations below the level of the NAAQS. The emissions values shall be projected emissions of the same sources included in the base year inventory for the nonattainment area (i.e., those only within the nonattainment area) and any new sources. The state shall include in this inventory projected emissions growth and contraction from both controls and other causes during the relevant period. The temporal period of emissions shall be the same temporal period (annual, average-season-day, or both) as the base year inventory for the nonattainment area. The same sources reported as point sources in the base year inventory for the nonattainment area shall be included as point sources in the attainment projected inventory for the nonattainment area. Stationary nonpoint and mobile source projected emissions shall be provided using the same detail 51 40 E:\FR\FM\10JAP2.SGM CFR 51.1008. 10JAP2 1460 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 6 / Tuesday, January 10, 2023 / Proposed Rules (e.g., state, county, and process codes) as the base year inventory for the nonattainment area. The same detail of the emissions included shall be consistent with the level of detail and data elements as in the base year inventory for the nonattainment area (i.e., as required by 40 CFR part 51, subpart A). Consistent with the base year inventory for the nonattainment area, the inventory shall include direct PM2.5 emissions, separately reported PM2.5 filterable and condensable emissions, and emissions of the scientific PM2.5 precursors, including precursors that are not significant PM2.5 plan precursors pursuant to a precursor demonstration under 40 CFR 51.1006. A state’s SIP submission must include documentation explaining how it calculated emissions data for the inventory and be consistent with the data elements required by 40 CFR part 51, subpart A. In estimating mobile source emissions, a state must use the latest emissions models and planning assumptions available at the time the SIP is developed.52 States are also required to use EPA’s ‘‘Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors’’ (‘‘AP– 42’’) road dust method for calculating re-entrained road dust emissions from paved roads.53 54 2. Summary of State’s Submission The base year planning emissions inventory for direct PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors (nitrogen oxides (NOX), sulfur dioxide (SO2), volatile organic compounds (VOC), and ammonia (NH3)) and the documentation for the inventory for the Fairbanks PM2.5 Nonattainment Area are located in State Air Quality Control Plan, Chapter III.D.7.6 (‘‘Emissions Inventory Data’’) and Appendix III.D.7.6 of the Fairbanks 189(d) Plan.55 The State developed the inventory using data sources and emission calculation methodologies from the approved Fairbanks Serious Plan, 2013 base year emissions inventory, as its starting point and then updated the emissions totals based on additional source and activity data collected since preparation of that inventory. The State based the 2019 base year inventory included in the Fairbanks 189(d) Plan on historical source activity data in calendar year 2019 for all source sectors. EPA’s MOVES2014b model was used for on-road vehicles (including effects of the on-going Federal Motor Vehicle Control Program and Tier 3 fuel standards, coupled with Alaska Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel standards) and nonroad vehicles and equipment (including the effect of Federal fuel and Alaska ultra-low sulfur diesel (ULSD) programs for non-road fuel). TABLE 3—2019 BASELINE EPISODE AVERAGE DAILY EMISSIONS (TONS PER DAY) BY SOURCE SECTOR 2019 Base year emissions inventory (tons/day) Source sector PM2.5 NOX SO2 VOC NH3 Point Sources ....................................................................... Area, Space Heating ............................................................ Area, Space Heat, Wood .............................................. Area, Space Heat, Oil ................................................... Area, Space Heat, Coal ................................................ Area, Space Heat, Other .............................................. Area, Other .......................................................................... On-Road Mobile ................................................................... Non-Road Mobile ................................................................. 0.57 1.91 1.77 0.06 0.07 0.01 0.22 0.22 0.26 10.31 2.43 0.39 1.82 0.05 0.17 0.36 1.70 0.94 5.68 3.88 0.16 3.62 0.09 0.02 0.03 0.01 5.41 0.03 8.60 8.38 0.10 0.11 0.01 2.10 3.83 4.16 0.073 0.132 0.086 0.004 0.014 0.029 0.046 0.040 0.002 Totals ............................................................................ 3.17 15.73 15.01 18.72 0.293 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 Source: State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol II, III.D.7.6, Table 7.6–7 The State focused on what it identified as the three most important source types in the airshed: stationary point sources; space heating area (nonpoint) sources; and on-road mobile sources. At the time the State developed the emissions inventory, these three source types were the major contributors to both direct PM2.5 emissions as well as emissions of PM2.5 precursor pollutants gases SO2, NOX, VOC, and NH3 within the nonattainment area. The emission sources with the highest relative direct PM2.5 contributions were: • 55.8% for wood-fired space heating; 52 See CAA section 172(c)(3). released an update to AP–42 in January 2011 that revised the equation for estimating paved road dust emissions based on an updated data regression that included new emission tests results. 76 FR 6328 (February 4, 2011). 54 AP–42 has been published since 1972 as the primary source of EPA’s emission factor information. https://www.epa.gov/air53 EPA VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:53 Jan 09, 2023 Jkt 259001 • 17.9% stationary sources; • 8.1% non-road mobile; and • 6.8% on-road mobile. The emission sources with the highest relative SO2 contributions were: • 37.9% stationary sources; • 36% non-road mobile; and • 24.1% oil-fired space heating. The emission sources with the highest relative NOX contributions were: • 65.5% stationary sources; • 11.6% oil-fired space heating; • 10.8% on-road mobile; and • 6% non-road mobile. The emission sources with the highest relative VOC contributions were: • 44.8% for wood-fired space heating; • 22.2% non-road mobile; and • 20.5% on-road mobile. The emission sources with the highest relative NH3 contributions were: • 29.3% for wood-fired space heating; • 25% stationary sources; • 15.8% other area sources; and • 13.5% on-road mobile.56 EPA’s technical evaluation of Alaska’s Emissions Inventory planning sections is included in the docket for this action.57 emissionsfactors-and-quantification/ap-42compilation-airemissions-factors. It contains emission factors and process information for more than 200 air pollution source categories. A source category is a specific industry sector or group of similar emitting sources. The emission factors have been developed and compiled from source test data, material balance studies, and engineering estimates. 55 Adopted November 18, 2020. 56 State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol II, III.D.7.6, Figures 7.6–8—7.6–12. 57 Kotchenruther, B. (August 24, 2022). Technical support document for Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation’s amendments to: State Air Quality Control Plan, Emission Inventory Data (version adopted November 18, 2020). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, Laboratory Services and Applied Sciences Division. PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10JAP2.SGM 10JAP2 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 6 / Tuesday, January 10, 2023 / Proposed Rules khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 a. 2024 Attainment Projected Inventory The Fairbanks 189(d) Plan includes an attainment projected inventory for 2024.58 Previously Alaska stated that attainment by 2024 was not practicable and estimated that 2029 was the most expeditious attainment date.59 EPA did not take action on the attainment projected emissions inventory submitted as part of the Fairbanks Serious Plan (see 86 FR 52997, September 24, 2021). Alaska has subsequently withdrawn and replaced the applicable planning chapter from that SIP submission with a revised attainment projected emission inventory included in the Fairbanks 189(d) Plan. Consistent with these statements, EPA is proposing to evaluate any previously unmet Serious area planning obligations based on the current, applicable attainment date appropriate under CAA section 189(d) and not the original Serious area attainment date. Thus, EPA views the 2024 attainment projected inventory included in the Fairbanks 189(d) Plan as the applicable projected inventory, which is based on the 2019 base year inventory of actual emissions. The 2024 emissions projection follows two steps. First, the State projected the 2019 base year emissions to 2024 based on forecasted source activity changes coupled with changes in emission factors due to already adopted Federal, state, and local control measures that existed prior to the development of the Fairbanks 189(d) Plan. Second, the State modified these initial 2024 emissions projections based on the suite of additional emission reductions from measures the State will be implementing under the Fairbanks 189(d) Plan. The State forecasted emissions reductions from the ongoing Wood Stove Change Out Program 60 and the 58 State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol II, Chapter III.D.7.9. 59 The State included an attainment projected emissions inventory in the Fairbanks Serious Plan, submitted on December 13, 2019, which also projected attainment in 2024. However, the Attainment Demonstration chapter in the Fairbanks Serious Plan stated that attainment by 2024 was not practicable. Instead, the State estimated the most expeditious attainment date is 2029. However, Alaska did not identify a 2029 inventory in the Emissions Inventory chapter nor adequately demonstrate that 2029 was the most expeditious attainment date. The State did, however, produce a 2029 inventory for the Reasonable Further Progress plan. 60 The Woodstove Changeout Program, administered by the Fairbanks North Star Borough Air Quality Program, is primarily funded through EPA’s Targeted Airshed Grant, along with local and state funding. The program has received $32 million in total funding since 2010. The program upgrades or removes solid fuel-fired and oil-fired heating devices. Since 2010, the change out program has evolved to ensure the best emission VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:53 Jan 09, 2023 Jkt 259001 Oil-To-Gas Conversion Program 61 in Fairbanks beyond 2019 based on an analysis of the historical change out program activity and existing funding available for future changeouts, as well as certifying that no new staffing will be required to handle projected changeouts through 2024. Alaska projected the additional emissions reductions in PM2.5 and SO2 from these measures to be 0.6941 tons per day and 0.0083 tons per day, respectively, in 2024. The State based emissions reductions for the Solid-Fuel Burning Appliance Curtailment Program 62 in Fairbanks on Alaska’s revisions in the Fairbanks 189(d) Plan that increases the stringency of the existing curtailment program. Under the latest regulations, the State lowered the curtailment program’s two air quality alert stages to 20 mg/m3 and 30 mg/m3, respectively, for Stage 1 and Stage 2 alerts (down from 25 mg/m3 and 35 mg/m3, respectively). In addition, Alaska plans to utilize 2019–2020 Targeted Airshed Grant (TAG) funding to install several dynamic highway message signs, purchase an infrared camera, and expand staffing to increase compliance. As a result, Alaska estimated that the curtailment program compliance rate will increase from 30% in 2019 to 45% by 2024. Alaska projected the additional emissions reductions in PM2.5 and SO2 from these measures to be 0.351 tons per day and –0.058 tons per day, respectively, in 2024 (an increase in SO2 results from the projected increase in conversions to liquid-fueled heating devices). The State also incorporated point source SO2 emissions reductions under the Fairbanks Serious Plan into the 2024 attainment projected inventory. For a detailed summary of the attainment projected inventory, see EPA’s Fairbanks Emissions Inventory Technical Support Document in the docket for this action.63 outcomes by narrowing eligibility, and what types of devices may be installed. 61 Funded and managed by the Fairbanks North Star Borough Air Quality Program, residential oil heating appliances are changed out for natural gasfired heating devices to support natural gas expansion through conversion of to gas heating appliances. The program has received $2 million in total funding since 2019. 62 Fairbanks Emergency Episode Plan, State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol. II, Chapter III.D.7.12; 18 AAC 50.030(a); 18 AAC 50.075(e). 63 Kotchenruther, B. (August 24, 2022). Technical support document for Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation’s amendments to: State Air Quality Control Plan, Emission Inventory Data (version adopted November 18, 2020). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, Laboratory Services and Applied Sciences Division. PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 1461 3. EPA’s Evaluation and Proposed Action a. 2019 Base Year Emissions Inventory EPA proposes to find that the 2019 base year emissions inventory meets the requirements of CAA section 172(c)(3) and 40 CFR 51.1008. Calendar year 2019 is an appropriate base year for the Fairbanks 189(d) Plan because it is one of the three years for which EPA used monitored data to determine that the area failed to attain the PM2.5 NAAQS by the applicable Serious area attainment date.64 The base year emissions inventory is a seasonal inventory, based on two historical meteorological episodes considered by EPA to be representative of the range of meteorological conditions that lead to exceedances of the 24-hour NAAQS. This is an appropriate temporal scope for a base year emissions inventory where anthropogenic exceedances of the 24-hour NAAQS occur exclusively in winter. The emissions inventory is of actual emissions in 2019, as required in the PM2.5 SIP Requirements Rule and guidance.65 The emissions inventory also includes separate reporting for filterable and condensible PM2.5 for the relevant emissions sectors and SCC codes. The base year 2019 emissions inventory, reported as average season day emissions, is based on methodologies used by the State and vetted by EPA in the Fairbanks Moderate and Serious Plans and applied to the new base year of 2019. Therefore, the inventory reports emissions consistent with the Air Emissions Reporting Rule (AERR) and contains the detail and data elements required by 40 CFR part 51, subpart A. For these reasons, we are proposing to approve the 2019 base year emissions inventory in the Fairbanks 189(d) Plan as meeting the requirements of CAA section 172(c)(3) and 40 CFR 51.1008.66 b. 2024 Attainment Projected Inventory EPA proposes to find that the Fairbanks 189(d) Plan does not satisfy the requirement of 40 CFR 51.1008(c)(2) to include an attainment projected emission inventory for the most expeditious attainment date. The Fairbanks 189(d) Plan contains an attainment projected emissions inventory, and Alaska projects attainment by December 31, 2024. The updated State Air Quality Control Plan 64 85 FR 54509. CFR 51.1008(a)(1)(ii). 66 We note that EPA approved as meeting the Serious area planning requirements the 2013 base year emissions inventory on September 24, 2021 (86 FR 52997). 65 40 E:\FR\FM\10JAP2.SGM 10JAP2 1462 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 6 / Tuesday, January 10, 2023 / Proposed Rules contains the revisions and methodology for the 2024 projected inventory.67 These chapters supersede the chapters that contain the prior attainment projected inventory. As discussed further in section III.D of this document, regarding the Attainment Demonstration, Alaska’s proposed attainment date of 2024 is predicated on a modeling platform that is outdated and lacks the quantitative performance evaluation and speciated information at the air quality monitor (Hurst Road in North Pole) with highest PM2.5 concentrations. Alaska is currently in the process of updating the modeling using the latest model. Therefore, December 31, 2024, may not be the most expeditious year for which projected emissions show modeled concentrations below the level of the NAAQS. Moreover, as discussed further in section III.C in this document, the control strategy does not contain all required control measures. Therefore, the attainment projected emissions inventory does not necessarily take into consideration all required emissions reductions, so we propose to disapprove the projected emissions inventory. khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 B. Pollutants Addressed 1. Statutory and Regulatory Requirements Under subpart 4 of part D, title I of the CAA and the PM2.5 SIP Requirements Rule, each state containing a PM2.5 nonattainment area must evaluate all PM2.5 precursors for regulation unless, for any given PM2.5 precursor, the state demonstrates to the Administrator’s satisfaction that such precursor does not contribute significantly to PM2.5 levels that exceed the NAAQS in the nonattainment area.68 The provisions of subpart 4 do not define the term ‘‘precursor’’ for purposes of PM2.5, nor do they explicitly require the control of any specifically identified PM2.5 precursor. The statutory definition of ‘‘air pollutant,’’ however, provides that the term ‘‘includes any precursors to the formation of any air pollutant, to the extent the Administrator has identified such precursor or precursors for the particular purpose for which the term ‘air pollutant’ is used.’’ 69 EPA has identified SO2, NOX, VOCs, and NH3 as precursors to the formation of PM2.5.70 Accordingly, the attainment plan requirements of part D, title I of the CAA and the PM2.5 SIP Requirements 67 State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol. II, Chapter III.D.7.6.7–8. 68 40 CFR 51.1006, 51.1010; See 81 FR 58010, August 24, 2016, at pp. 58017–58020. 69 CAA section 302(g). 70 81 FR 58010, August 24, 2016, at p. 58015. VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:53 Jan 09, 2023 Jkt 259001 Rule apply to emissions of all four precursors and direct PM2.5 from all types of stationary, area, and mobile sources, except as otherwise provided in CAA section 189(e). A large number of chemical reactions, often non-linear in nature, can convert gaseous SO2, NOX, VOCs, and NH3 to PM2.5, making them precursors to PM2.5.71 Formation of secondary PM2.5 also depends on atmospheric conditions, including solar radiation, temperature, and relative humidity, and the interactions of precursors with particles and with cloud or fog droplets.72 According to the State, in the Fairbanks Serious Plan, total wintertime PM2.5 concentrations in the Fairbanks PM2.5 Nonattainment Area are a function of both primary PM2.5 emissions and secondary PM2.5 formed from precursors (see State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol II, Chapter III.D.7.8, section 7.8.1 of the Fairbanks Serious Plan in the docket for this action). CAA section 189(e) requires that the control requirements for major stationary sources of direct PM10 73 and PM2.5 74 also apply to major stationary sources of PM10 and PM2.5 precursors, except where the Administrator determines that such sources do not contribute significantly to PM10 or PM2.5 levels that exceed the standard in the area. CAA section 189(e) contains the only express exception to the control requirements under subpart 4 (e.g., requirements for reasonably available control measures (RACM) and reasonably available control technology (RACT), BACM and BACT, Most Stringent Measures (MSM), and New Source Review (NSR) for sources of direct PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursor emissions). Although section 189(e) explicitly addresses only major stationary sources, EPA interprets this provision as authorizing it also to determine, under appropriate circumstances, that regulation of specific PM10 or PM2.5 precursors from other source categories in a given nonattainment area is not necessary.75 For example, under EPA’s longstanding interpretation of the control requirements that apply to stationary, area, and mobile sources of PM10 precursors in the nonattainment area under CAA section 172(c)(1) and subpart 4,76 a state may demonstrate in a SIP submission that control of a certain precursor pollutant is not necessary in light of its insignificant contribution to ambient PM10 or PM2.5 levels in the nonattainment area.77 Under the PM2.5 SIP Requirements Rule, a state may elect to submit to EPA a ‘‘comprehensive precursor demonstration’’ for a specific nonattainment area to show that emissions of a particular precursor from all existing sources located in the nonattainment area do not contribute significantly to PM2.5 levels that exceed the NAAQS at issue in the nonattainment in the area.78 If EPA determines that the contribution of the precursor to PM2.5 levels in the area is not significant and approves the demonstration, then the state is not required to control emissions of the relevant precursor from existing sources in the attainment plan.79 In addition, in May 2019, EPA issued the ‘‘PM2.5 Precursor Demonstration Guidance’’ (‘‘PM2.5 Precursor Guidance’’), which provides recommendations to states for analyzing nonattainment area PM2.5 emissions and developing such optional precursor demonstrations, consistent with the PM2.5 SIP Requirements Rule.80 EPA is evaluating both the remaining elements of the Fairbanks Serious Plan before the agency and the Fairbanks 189(d) Plan in accordance with the presumption embodied within subpart 4 that the State must address all PM2.5 precursors in the evaluation and implementation of potential control measures, unless the State adequately demonstrates that emissions of a particular precursor or precursors do not contribute significantly to ambient 71 ‘‘Air Quality Criteria for Particulate Matter’’ (EPA/600/P–99/002aF), EPA, October 2004, Ch. 3. 72 ‘‘Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Final Revisions to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter’’ (EPA/452/R–12– 005), EPA, December 2012), 2–1. 73 The requirements for attainment plans for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS include the general nonattainment area planning requirements in CAA section 172 of title I, part D, subpart 1 and the additional planning requirements specific to particulate matter in CAA sections 188 and 189 of title I, part D, subpart 4. 81 FR 58010, August 24, 2016, at pp. 58012–58014. 74 The general attainment plan requirements of subpart 1, part D, of Title I of the CAA in addition to the specific requirements in subpart 4, part D, of Title I of the CAA apply to both PM10 and PM2.5. See 81 FR 58010, August 24, 2016, at pp. 58013. 75 81 FR 58010, August 24, 2016, at pp. 58018– 58019. 76 General Preamble, 57 FR 13498, April 16, 1992, at pp. 13539–42. 77 40 CFR 51.1006. See also 81 FR 58010, 58033. Courts have upheld this approach to the requirements of subpart 4 for PM10. See, e.g., Assoc. of Irritated Residents v. EPA, et al., 423 F.3d 989 (9th Cir. 2005). 78 40 CFR 51.1006(a)(1). 79 40 CFR 51.1006(a)(1). 80 ‘‘PM 2.5 Precursor Demonstration Guidance,’’ EPA–454/R–19–004, May 2019, including Memo dated May 30, 2019, from Scott Mathias, Acting Director, Air Quality Policy Division and Richard Wayland, Director, Air Quality Assessment Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS), EPA to Regional Air Division Directors, Regions 1–10, EPA. PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10JAP2.SGM 10JAP2 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 6 / Tuesday, January 10, 2023 / Proposed Rules khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 PM2.5 levels that exceed the PM2.5 NAAQS in the nonattainment area. In reviewing any determination by the state to exclude a PM2.5 precursor from the required evaluation of potential control measures, we considered both the magnitude of the precursor’s contribution to ambient PM2.5 concentrations in the nonattainment area and the sensitivity of ambient PM2.5 concentrations in the area to reductions in emissions of that precursor.81 2. Summary of State’s Submission On September 24, 2021, EPA approved Alaska’s PM2.5 precursor demonstration submitted as part of the Fairbanks Serious Plan for purposes of NOX and VOC emissions as it relates to control measure requirements (86 FR 52997). Alaska included its updated PM2.5 precursor analysis in the SIP submission to meet CAA 189(d) requirements.82 This submission included a new NOX model run that replaced a quantitative analysis conducted as part of the Fairbanks Serious Plan submission. Because there were no significant changes to the modeling platform during the short time period between the Fairbanks Serious Plan and 189(d) Plan submissions, the State reasoned that the other model runs and precursor analysis from the Fairbanks Serious Plan are still applicable as part of the updated precursor demonstration. Alaska’s precursor demonstration provided both concentration-based and sensitivity-based analyses of precursor contributions to ambient PM2.5 concentrations in the Fairbanks PM2.5 Nonattainment Area. For VOC emissions, Alaska’s demonstration was based on a comprehensive precursor analysis where a baseline model run was compared to a control model run with a 100% reduction of VOC emissions from anthropogenic sources. These results are well below the 1.5 mg/ m3 significance threshold. For NOX emissions, Alaska included a baseline model run in the Fairbanks 189(d) Plan evaluating a 50% reduction in NOX as part of the 189(d) Plan. According to the State, this provides further evidence that NOX does not contribute significantly to PM2.5 formation in the Fairbanks Nonattainment Area. The sensitivity precursor analysis showed that the maximum 24-hour average PM2.5 concentrations due to anthropogenic NOX emissions were less than or equal to 1.22 mg/m3 in 2019 for all model grid cells containing 81 40 CFR 51.1006(a)(1)(i) and (ii). Air Quality Control Plan, Vol II, Chapter III.D.7.8, section 7.8.14.3. 82 State VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:53 Jan 09, 2023 Jkt 259001 1463 measures for NOX and VOC emission sources in Fairbanks other than for NSR purposes or to impose motor vehicle emission budgets for NOX and VOC emissions. Our proposed approval of Alaska’s precursor demonstration does not extend to nonattainment NSR requirements for the area. Alaska previously determined that it was appropriate to regulate NOX, SO2, VOCs, and NH3 as precursors to PM2.5 with respect to nonattainment NSR and submitted rule changes to that effect on October 25, 2018. EPA approved the submitted revised program as meeting nonattainment NSR requirements triggered upon reclassification of the Fairbanks PM2.5 Nonattainment Area to Serious (84 FR 45419, August 29, 2019). Regarding the State’s analytical approach, EPA proposes to find that the State used appropriate methods and data to evaluate PM2.5 formation in the Fairbanks PM2.5 Nonattainment Area from precursor emissions. Alaska began with concentration-based analyses for the precursors and proceeded with sensitivity-based analyses if necessary, which is an acceptable progression of analyses under the PM2.5 SIP Requirements Rule. The State utilized the appropriate threshold recommended 3. EPA’s Evaluation and Proposed in EPA’s guidance (1.5 mg/m3) in Action evaluating the significance of precursor emissions to the formation of 24-hour EPA has evaluated the State’s precursor demonstration included in the PM2.5 and utilized data from all four monitors in the Fairbanks PM2.5 Fairbanks 189(d) Plan consistent with Nonattainment Area (see Table 1 of this the PM2.5 SIP Requirements Rule and document). the recommendations in the PM2.5 Regarding the results of the State’s Precursor Guidance. Noting that Alaska analysis, the concentration-based did not submit a precursor modeling analysis of VOC emissions determination for SO2 and NH3 demonstrates that anthropogenic VOCs emissions,84 EPA agrees that SO2 and NH3 emission sources, therefore, remain have impacts on PM2.5 concentrations in the Fairbanks PM2.5 Nonattainment Area subject to control requirements under that are well below the 1.5 mg/m3 subparts 1 and 4 of part D, title I of the significance threshold. Therefore, we Act. propose to concur with the State’s EPA proposes to approve the State’s conclusion that VOCs are not significant demonstration that NOX and VOC for PM2.5 formation in the Fairbanks emissions do not contribute significantly to ambient PM2.5 levels that PM2.5 Nonattainment Area. Further, we propose to find that the exceed the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in the Fairbanks PM2.5 Nonattainment Area for weight of evidence presented in the Fairbanks Serious Plan and Fairbanks purposes other than NSR program 189(d) Plan suggests that NOX emitted requirements. If EPA finalizes this proposed approval, Alaska would not be from all sources is an insignificant contributor to local PM2.5 required to identify and impose control concentrations. Additional details of EPA’s evaluation of Alaska’s precursor 83 Briggs and Kotchenruther. (August 24, 2022). Review of Fairbanks Nonattainment Area Precursor PM2.5 analyses are included in EPA’s Demonstrations for Volatile Organic Compounds PM2.5 precursor Technical Support and Nitrogen Oxides in the 2020 State Document in the docket for this Implementation Plan Submission. U.S. action.85 Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, regulatory monitors, and therefore were below the 1.5 mg/m3 threshold. These analyses led the State to conclude that SO2 and NH3 emissions contribute significantly to ambient PM2.5 levels that exceed the PM2.5 NAAQS in the Fairbanks Nonattainment Area, while NOX and VOC do not contribute significantly to such exceedances. Consistent with this conclusion, the State focused the control strategy and attainment demonstration on sources of PM2.5, SO2, and NH3 emissions. A technical summary of Alaska’s updated PM2.5 precursor demonstration is included in the docket for this action.83 Importantly, Alaska’s precursor analysis in the 189(d) Plan did not address nonattainment NSR requirements. The State previously made the determination to regulate all four EPA-identified legal precursors to PM2.5 in the nonattainment NSR regulations applicable to the Fairbanks PM2.5 Nonattainment Area. EPA approved Alaska’s October 25, 2018, SIP revision as meeting the nonattainment NSR requirements triggered upon reclassification of the area to Serious (84 FR 45419, August 29, 2019). Laboratory Services and Applied Science Division. 84 According to Alaska, there is a negligible amount of NH3 associated with coal-fired boilers, fuel oil-fired turbines or diesel engine emissions and this amount is not in the emissions inventory. See State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol II, Chapter III.D.7.7.8.1. PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 85 Briggs and Kotchenruther. (August 24, 2022). Review of Fairbanks Nonattainment Area Precursor Demonstrations for Volatile Organic Compounds and Nitrogen Oxides in the 2020 State Implementation Plan Submission. U.S. E:\FR\FM\10JAP2.SGM Continued 10JAP2 1464 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 6 / Tuesday, January 10, 2023 / Proposed Rules khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 C. Control Strategy 1. Statutory and Regulatory Requirements CAA section 189(b) and 40 CFR 51.1010(a) contain the control measure requirements for Serious areas. CAA section 189(d) and 40 CFR 51.1010(c) contain the control measure requirements for Serious areas that fail to attain. EPA summarizes these statutory and regulatory provisions in this section. Pursuant to CAA section 189(b) and 40 CFR 51.1010(a), the state must identify, adopt, and implement best available control measures, including best available control technologies, on sources of direct PM2.5 emissions and sources of emissions of PM2.5 plan precursors located in any Serious PM2.5 nonattainment area or portion thereof located within the state. This level of control stringency is commonly called ‘‘BACM’’ and ‘‘BACT.’’ The regulation at 40 CFR 51.1010(a) specifies the requirements states must meet to identify potential control measures and in determining the measures states must include in the control strategy as BACM or BACT for the nonattainment area: The state must identify all sources of direct PM2.5 emissions and sources of emissions of PM2.5 precursors in the nonattainment area, in accordance with the emissions inventory requirements in 40 CFR 51.1008(b). The state must identify all potential control measures to reduce emissions from all sources of direct PM2.5 emissions and sources of emissions of PM2.5 plan precursors in the nonattainment area. The state must survey other NAAQS nonattainment areas in the U.S. and identify any measures for direct PM2.5 and PM2.5 plan precursors not previously identified by the state during the development of the Moderate area attainment plan for the area. The state must identify, adopt, and implement the best available control measures for each emission source. However, the state may demonstrate that any measure identified under 40 CFR 51.1010(a)(2) is not technologically or economically feasible to implement in whole or in part by the end of the tenth calendar year following the effective date of designation of the area and may eliminate such whole or partial measure from further consideration. Overall, economic feasibility is a less significant factor in the BACM and BACT determination process.86 There Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, Laboratory Services and Applied Science Division. 86 Id. VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:53 Jan 09, 2023 Jkt 259001 are considerations for technological feasibility of a potential control measure, where a state may consider factors including but not limited to a source’s processes and operating procedures, raw materials, physical plant layout, and potential environmental impacts such as increased water pollution, waste disposal, and energy requirements.87 There are also considerations for economic feasibility of a potential control measure where a state may consider capital costs, operating and maintenance costs, and cost effectiveness of the measure.88 In assessing whether a control measure or technology is BACM or BACT, the state must consider emission reduction measures with higher costs per ton compared to the economic feasibility criteria applied in their RACM or RACT analysis.89 With respect to determining BACT pursuant to CAA section 189(b), EPA expects that states use the topdown BACT analysis process used in the Prevention of Significant Deterioration Program.90 Pursuant to CAA section 189(b), a state with a Serious nonattainment area must include provisions to assure that the implementation of BACM and BACT level controls on sources of direct PM2.5 and PM2.5 plan precursors no later than 4 years after the date the area is classified (or reclassified) as a Serious area. In the preamble to the final PM2.5 SIP Requirements Rule, EPA recommended the following 5-Step BACM/BACT selection process states should follow to satisfy the analytical and substantive requirements of 40 CFR 51.1010(a) and CAA section 189(b): 91 Step 1: Develop a comprehensive inventory of sources and source categories of directly emitted PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors. Step 2: Identify potential control measures for all such sources. Step 3: Determine whether an available control measure or technology is technologically feasible. Step 4: Determine whether an available control measure or technology is economically feasible. Step 5: Determine the earliest date by which a control measure or technology can be implemented in whole or in part in the area. CFR 51.1010(a)(3)(i); 81 FR 58010, 58084. CFR 51.1010(a)(3)(ii); 81 FR 58010, 58085. 89 81 FR 58010, 58085. 90 Id. 58010, 58080 (‘‘Consistent with past policy, BACT determinations for PM2.5 NAAQS implementation are to follow the same process and criteria that are applied to the BACT determination process for the PSD program.’’). 91 81 FR 58010, 58084–85. EPA’s interprets CAA section 189(b) to require the state to determine what is BACM or BACT for a particular source or source category.92 EPA’s longstanding interpretation of the CAA is that BACM and BACT determinations are to be generally independent of attainment for purposes of implementing the PM2.5 NAAQS.93 EPA interprets the CAA requirement to impose BACM/BACT level control as requiring more emphasis on what controls are the best for the relevant source and whether those controls are feasible rather than on the attainment needs of the area.94 States also may not decline to evaluate, or to control as necessary, sources or source categories on the basis that they are de minimis.95 Subsequently, for a state with a Serious PM2.5 nonattainment area that has failed to attain by the applicable attainment date, the state must submit a revised attainment plan with a control strategy that demonstrates that each year the area will achieve at least a 5 percent reduction in emissions of direct PM2.5 or a 5 percent reduction in emissions of a PM2.5 plan precursor based on the most recent emissions inventory for the area; and that the area will attain the standard as expeditiously as practicable consistent with the attainment date requirements under 40 CFR 51.1004(a)(3).96 The regulation at 40 CFR 51.1010(c) specifies the following process the state must follow in determining which measures must be included in the control strategy: The state shall identify all sources of direct PM2.5 emissions and sources of emissions of PM2.5 precursors in the nonattainment area in accordance with the emissions inventory requirements in 40 CFR 51.1008(b). The state shall identify all potential control measures to reduce emissions from all sources of direct PM2.5 emissions and sources of emissions of PM2.5 plan precursors in the nonattainment area. For the sources and source categories represented in the emission inventory for the nonattainment area, the state shall identify the most stringent measures for reducing direct PM2.5 and PM2.5 plan precursors adopted into any SIP or used in practice to control emissions in any state, as applicable. The state shall also reconsider and reassess any measures previously 87 40 88 40 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 92 81 FR 58010, 58081. to the General Preamble, 59 FR 41998, 42011 (August 16, 1994); 81 FR 58010, 58081. 94 Id. 95 Id. 58010, 58082. 96 CAA section 189(d), 42 U.S.C. 7513a(d), and 40 CFR 51.1010(c). 93 Addendum E:\FR\FM\10JAP2.SGM 10JAP2 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 6 / Tuesday, January 10, 2023 / Proposed Rules rejected by the state during the development of any Moderate area or Serious area attainment plan control strategy for the area. Similar to the requirements for Serious area plans, the state may make a demonstration for a 189(d) plan that a measure is not technologically or economically feasible to implement in whole or in part within 5 years or such longer period as EPA may determine is appropriate after EPA’s determination that the area failed to attain by the Serious area attainment date and may eliminate such whole or partial measure from further consideration. There are considerations for technological feasibility of a potential control measure, as described under 40 CFR 51.1010(c)(3)(i), where a state may consider factors including but not limited to a source’s processes and operating procedures, raw materials, physical plant layout, and potential environmental impacts such as increased water pollution, waste disposal, and energy requirements. There are also considerations for economic feasibility of a potential control measure, under 40 CFR 51.1010(c)(3)(ii), where a state may consider capital costs, operating and maintenance costs, and cost effectiveness of the measure. Unless the state has demonstrated that the measure is not technologically or economically feasible, the state shall adopt and implement all potential control measures identified. Finally, control measures adopted as part of the state’s control strategy must be permanent, enforceable as a practical matter, and quantifiable.97 In order to be enforceable as a practical matter, the state must adopt into the SIP not only the control measure or emission limit itself but also appropriate monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements to ensure compliance with the control measure.98 Without appropriate monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements, violations of the control measure could go undetected.99 Therefore, we will evaluate whether Alaska met the applicable planning khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 97 Control measures must be incorporated by reference into the regulatory portion of the SIP (52.70(c) and (d)) with appropriate monitoring and reporting requirements. See CAA section 110(a)(2)(A); 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2)(A); 81 FR 58010, at pp. 58046–47; 57 FR 13498, at pp.13567–68. 98 81 FR at 58046–47; 57 FR 13498, at p. 13567– 68; 67 FR 22168, at p. 22170; 80 FR 33840 at pp. 33843, 33865; Montana Sulphur & Chemical Co. v. EPA, 666 F.3d 1174, at pp. 1189–1190 (9th Cir. 2012). 99 67 FR 22168, at p. 22170; Montana Sulphur & Chemical Co. v. EPA, 666 F.3d 1174, at pp. 1189– 1190 (9th Cir. 2012). VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:53 Jan 09, 2023 Jkt 259001 requirements as part of the Fairbanks Serious Plan and Fairbanks 189(d) Plan. 2. Summary of State’s Submission a. Identification and Adoption of BACM We note that Alaska included its initial BACM analysis in the Fairbanks Serious Plan, submitted in 2019. EPA approved a number of specific control measures as SIP strengthening but did not approve them as meeting the BACM/BACT requirement at that time.100 Subsequently, Alaska updated its BACM analysis and resubmitted the updated analysis in 2020 as part of the Fairbanks 189(d) Plan, to meet Serious area and 189(d) requirements. Even though the State made a SIP submission intended to meet the requirements of CAA section 189(d), it remains obligated to meet the BACM/BACT level controls required as part of a Serious area nonattainment plan for the area. The State did not withdraw some parts of the Serious area plan with respect to the BACM/BACT requirements for certain sources. Accordingly, we are evaluating the Fairbanks 189(d) Plan submission where the State has updated parts of the BACM analysis, and otherwise evaluating the information the State initially included in the Fairbanks Serious Plan. Alaska followed EPA’s recommended 5-step process to evaluate BACM-level controls for sources of PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors. Alaska also analyzed controls for stationary sources of PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors to satisfy BACT requirements. Alaska’s process for analyzing BACT-level controls is discussed separately in this section following the BACM discussion. For Step 1, Alaska developed a comprehensive inventory of sources and source categories of PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors.101 Alaska identified the following source categories in the Fairbanks nonattainment area: solid fuel burning (outdoor hydronic heaters, solid fuel-fired heaters, fireplaces, burn barrels and open burning, and agricultural and forest burns); residential and commercial fuel oil combustion; transportation (automobiles and heavy-duty vehicles); and small area/commercial sources (coffee roasters, charbroilers, incinerators, and used oil burners). For Step 2, Alaska identified potential control measures for the source categories identified in Step 1. First, Alaska reviewed the control measures that were implemented under the Fairbanks Moderate Plan and discussed 100 86 FR 52997. Air Quality Control Plan, Vol II, Chapter III.D.7.6.6. 101 State PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 1465 their implementation status.102 Alaska then reconsidered and reassessed the measures that the State rejected as potential RACM/RACT for the Fairbanks Moderate Plan. As a means of identifying additional potential BACM/ BACT measures for the Fairbanks area, Alaska surveyed rules and regulations in other states and local governments and identified measures for reducing direct PM2.5 and PM2.5 plan precursors adopted into any nonattainment plan or used in practice to control emissions. Alaska also created a stakeholder group to identify, evaluate, and recommend community-based solutions to bring the area into compliance with Federal air quality standards for PM2.5, see State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol II, Chapter III.D.7.7, Table 7.7–3 and Table 7.7–4. Overall, Alaska identified 84 control measures for analysis which are included in State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol III, Appendix III.D.7.7. EPA’s review of each of the 84 control measures is included as a Technical Support Document in the docket for this action.103 With respect to controls for NH3 emissions, Alaska stated that processes that emit NH3 (biomass burning, mobile, home heating) differ in Fairbanks from those in the rest of the country, where NH3 from agricultural activities, vehicles, and other industrial activities form ammonium nitrate. Alaska conducted a literature review to identify potential controls for the sources of NH3 in the emissions inventory. Alaska was unable to identify any potential controls to control NH3 emissions specifically.104 As discussed further in this section, Alaska included in the Fairbanks 189(d) Plan an analysis that demonstrates that certain measures and technologies designed to reduce emissions of direct PM2.5 have the co-benefit of reducing emissions of NH3. For Step 3, Alaska evaluated technical feasibility for the potential control measures and identified and rejected certain control measures that the State determined to be technically infeasible.105 102 See State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol II, Chapter III.D.7.7, Table 7.7–1 103 Jentgen, M. (September 27, 2022). Technical support document for Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation’s (ADEC) control measure analysis, under 40 CFR 1010(a) and (c). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, Air and Radiation Division. 104 See State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol III, Appendix III.D.7.7 at 5354. Alaska also notes that in the Fairbanks Nonattainment Area, there is only a limited amount of particulate matter-nitrate measured at the monitors. 105 State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol III, Appendix III.D.7.7–5355. E:\FR\FM\10JAP2.SGM 10JAP2 1466 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 6 / Tuesday, January 10, 2023 / Proposed Rules khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 For Step 4, Alaska evaluated the economic feasibility of the control measures that it determined to be technically feasible. Alaska included these economic evaluations of potential emission control technologies in the Fairbanks 189(d) Plan.106 For Step 5, Alaska determined whether it could implement a control measure or technology in whole or in part no later than four years after reclassification of the area to Serious nonattainment, which would be June 2021.107 Below is a summary of the regulations adopted by Alaska, organized by source category, resulting from the BACM analyses included in the Fairbanks Serious Plan and Fairbanks 189(d) Plan, included in State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol II, Chapter III.D.7.7 and State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol III, Appendix III.D.7.7. i. Solid-Fuel Burning The solid-fuel burning source category includes a number of measures that the State adopted as part of the Fairbanks Serious Plan. These measures address direct PM2.5 SO2, and NH3 emissions. As discussed in Step 2, Alaska researched potential controls measures for NH3 for this source category and did not identify any ammonia-specific controls.108 However, according to Alaska, some measures identified and adopted by the State to control emissions of direct PM2.5 have the co-benefit of reducing emissions of NH3. • The owner, vendor, or dealer of a wood-fired heating device must register the device with Alaska upon the occurrence of events such as new device sale, home sale, or participating in a curtailment waiver program. 18 AAC 50.077(h). • Commercial wood sellers must register with Alaska and ensure that wood being sold must have a moisture content less than 20 percent. Noncommercial wood sellers are not permitted to sell wet wood. 18 AAC 50.076(d), (e), (g), (j), (k), and (l). According to the Fairbanks 189(d) Plan, this measure reduces both direct PM2.5 emissions as well as SO2 and NH3 emissions. • Wood-fired heating devices are prohibited in the nonattainment area unless specific device performance 106 State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol III, Appendix III.D.7.7–5440. 107 State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol III, Appendix III.D.7.7–5442; State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol III, Appendix III.D.7.7–174. 108 State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol III, Appendix III.D.7.7–5353–5354; State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol. II, Chapter III.D.7.10–5—10–7. VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:53 Jan 09, 2023 Jkt 259001 criteria are met, and outdoor hydronic heaters are not permitted except for pellet-fueled hydronic heaters that also meet specific performance criteria. New woodstoves and pellet-fueled woodstoves must be EPA-certified and meet specific performance criteria. A person may not install a new pelletfueled hydronic heaters within 300 feet from the closest property line or within 660 feet from a school, clinic, hospital, or senior housing unit. 18 AAC 50.077(a), (b), (c), (d), and (j). According to the Fairbanks 189(d) Plan, this measure reduces both direct PM2.5 and NH3 emissions as well as accounting for SO2 emissions. Alaska acknowledges that there is a resulting increase in SO2 emissions since measures designed to reduce direct PM2.5 through removal, curtailment, or replacement of solid-fuel devices trigger a shift in heating energy to heating oil, which has greater SO2 emissions compared to wood fuels.109 • Regulations that give Alaska the authority to review manufacturer test results and place a model on the department’s list of devices, which identifies what devices that are approved for operation in the Fairbanks PM2.5 Nonattainment Area. 18 AAC 50.077(e). According to the Fairbanks 189(d) Plan, this measure reduces both direct PM2.5 emissions as well as SO2 and NH3 emissions. • Alaska revised the woodstove curtailment program rules to lower curtailment thresholds and further restrict curtailment waivers. Specifically, Alaska revised the requirements for the exemption process to ensure a waiver is temporary and objective criteria are used to determine economic hardship. Alaska continues to implement this program. Fairbanks Emergency Episode Plan, State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol. II, Chapter III.D.7.12; 18 AAC 50.030(a) and 18 AAC 50.075(e). • When Alaska issues a curtailment alert, fuel to non-exempt devices must be withheld, and combustion in these devices—as evidenced by visible smoke from a chimney—must cease within three hours after the effective time of a curtailment of operation under an emergency episode. Solid fuel fired heating device shall be operated so that visible emissions do not cross property lines.18 AAC 50.075(e)(3) and (f)(2). Alaska has revised the requirements for curtailment program advisories and alerts. Now, an advisory is called when PM2.5 concentrations are expected to reach 15 mg/m3. A stage 1 alert is called when PM2.5 concentrations are expected to reach 20 mg/m3 (this alert stage allows for specific exemptions). A stage 2 alert is called when PM2.5 concentrations are expected to reach 30 mg/m3. Fairbanks Emergency Episode Plan, State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol. II, Chapter III.D.7.12. According to the Fairbanks 189(d) Plan, this measure reduces both direct PM2.5 and NH3 emissions as well as accounting for SO2 emissions. Alaska acknowledges that there is a resulting increase in SO2 emissions since measures designed to reduce direct PM2.5 through removal, curtailment, or replacement of solid-fuel devices trigger a shift in heating energy to heating oil, which has greater SO2 emissions compared to wood fuels.110 • Wood-fired heating devices and wood fired retrofit control devices must be professionally sized and professionally installed with confirmation of proper installation and location. 18 AAC 50.077(i). • New woodstoves cannot serve as the primary or only source of heat, unless the device is installed in a ‘‘dry cabin’’ or existing rental units that have qualified for No Other Adequate Source of Heat (NOASH) waivers. 18 AAC 50.077(j). According to the Fairbanks 189(d) Plan, this measure reduces both direct PM2.5 emissions as well as SO2 and NH3 emissions. • Wood-fired device vendors in the nonattainment area are required to provide curtailment information to the buyer at time of sale and review proper operating instructions. Wood-fired device vendors may not advertise devices prohibited for sale within the nonattainment area. 18 AAC 50.077(l). • All EPA uncertified devices, nonpellet fueled hydronic heaters, and coalfired heating devices must be removed or replaced by December 31, 2024, or upon sale, lease, or conveyance of an existing building, whichever is earlier; and these devices that may not be reinstalled within the area shall be rendered inoperable. 18 AAC 50.077(l) and (m); 18 AAC 50.079(f). According to the Fairbanks 189(d) Plan, this measure reduces both direct PM2.5 emissions as well as SO2 and NH3 emissions. 109 State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol II, Chapter III.D.7.10.3.3. 110 State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol. II, Chapter III.D.7.10.3.3. PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 ii. Residential and Commercial Fuel Oil Combustion The State developed and adopted these measures to address fuel oil combustion to reduce SO2 emissions. The State researched potential controls measures for NH3 for this source category and did not identify any ammonia-specific controls. Starting September 1, 2022, an individual or E:\FR\FM\10JAP2.SGM 10JAP2 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 6 / Tuesday, January 10, 2023 / Proposed Rules khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 business may only sell or purchase fuel oil containing no more than 1,000 parts per million (ppm) sulfur may be sold for use in fuel oil-fired equipment, including space heating devices.111 As part of its BACM analysis included in the Fairbanks Serious Plan and updated in the Fairbanks 189(d) Plan, Alaska evaluated requirements to use ULSD heating oil in homes.112 Alaska determined that the switch to ULSD is technologically feasible, while the economic analysis showed this change would result in a cost of $1,819 per ton of SO2 removed. As described in detail in the ‘‘Pollutants Addressed’’ section III.B of this document, SO2 is a significant precursor of PM2.5 concentrations in the Fairbanks PM2.5 Nonattainment Area. After completing the BACM analysis, Alaska stated that, while the ULSD measure appears to be technically and economically feasible, Alaska declined to adopt and implement the measure. Rather than mandate an area-wide fuel switch from Diesel #2 (2,566 ppm) to ULSD (15 ppm), Alaska elected to mandate a fuel switch to Diesel #1 (1,000 ppm) by September 1, 2022. The State determined that this initial step down, meant to be more economically feasible for local residents, reduced the environmental risks associated with the transport of an increased volume of fuel into the community and still provides a large sulfur reduction. As support for its rejection of mandating ULSD as BACM, Alaska cited a University of Alaska Fairbanks/Alaska cost analysis. This analysis estimated an increase in annual household heating expenditures of $68.31 (a 3 percent increase) under the selected measure, while the same cost analysis estimated an increase between $311.96 and $374.86 (a 13.5 to 16.5 percent increase) in annual household heating expenditures if Alaska mandated a switch to ULSD.113 Alaska also cited concerns from local residents that the increased cost in fuel oil could drive more residents to burning less expensive and higher PM emitting solid fuels. Alaska determined that the earliest date to implement the fuel switch to #1 Diesel was September 1, 2022. Alaska selected this date, in part, due to comments received during the public 111 18 AAC 50.078(b). Air Quality Control Plan, Vol II, Chapter III.D.7.7; State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol. III, Appendix III.D.7.7. 113 Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation. (February 2019). Residential Fuel Expenditure Assessment of a Transition to UltraLow Sulfur and High Sulfur No. 1 Heating Oil for the Fairbanks PM-2.5 Serious Nonattainment Area. State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol II, Appendix III.D.7.7, at p. III.D.7.7–226. 112 State VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:53 Jan 09, 2023 Jkt 259001 comment period. Also, Alaska stated that there is an inadequate supply of locally produced Diesel #1 and additional time was required to allow for the local refinery to modify its processes. Alaska also noted that the additional time allows residents to budget and prepare for the increased cost. Alaska received requests through the comment process to delay the conversion until 2024, but Alaska felt that was too long a delay and that the approximate two years provided should be sufficient to allow the local refinery and residents to plan and prepare for the change in fuel oil. Alaska did not reevaluate its rejection of mandating switching to use of ULSD as part of the Fairbanks 189(d) Plan submission. Alaska reasoned that circumstances did not change sufficiently between submission of the Fairbanks Serious Plan to warrant revisiting its decision. Alaska noted that after implementation of the fuel switch to Diesel #1 in 2022, Alaska will evaluate whether the fuel switch results in significant sulfur reduction and whether the additional expense to homeowners of requiring the use of ULSD heating oil is needed to further address the air pollution problem.114 iii. Small Commercial Area Sources The State evaluated potential measures from these sources to address direct PM2.5, SO2, and NH3 emissions. After a literature review, Alaska did not identify any NH3-specific controls for this source category.115 Thus, Alaska identified and evaluated potential measures from these sources to address direct PM2.5 and SO2. For small area sources, Alaska identified coffee roasters, charbroilers, incinerators, and waste oil burners. Initially, as part of the Fairbanks Serious Plan, Alaska adopted regulations 18 AAC 50.078(c) and (d) that required information from charbroilers, incinerators, and waste oil burners. Coffee roasters, per 18 AAC 50.078(d), are required to install a pollution control device on any unit that emits 24 pounds or more of particulate matter in a 12-month period and either install controls or demonstrate technological or economic infeasibility, not later than one year from effective date of regulation. As an update in the Fairbanks 189(d) Plan, Alaska conducted an economic evaluation of charbroilers (catalyst oxidizers) and found the cost to be $47,786 per ton of PM2.5 removed, 114 State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol. II, Chapter III.D.7.7, at pp. III.D.7.7–129—III.D.7.7–131. 115 State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol. III, Appendix III.7.7–5353–5354. PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 1467 concluding that installing catalyst oxidizers on charbroiling facilities is not cost effective. Regarding incinerators, Alaska states that, in fact, there are no incinerators within the Fairbanks PM2.5 Nonattainment Area so no additional controls are required. For used oil burners, Alaska presented a technological infeasibility determination in the 189(d) Plan. According to the State, the only acceptable disposal method available in the nonattainment area is through burning. Shipping the used oil to the continental United States, another potential disposal method, would require risky overland transport and cost $2.51 per gallon to pick up, ship, and dispose. Another factor the State considered is that restricting burning of used oil would likely lead to dumping the used oil on land or water. Therefore, the State determined that this measure is technologically infeasible in the Fairbanks PM2.5 Nonattainment Area. iv. Mobile Emissions The State evaluated measures from mobile sources to address direct PM2.5, SO2, and NH3 emissions. After a literature review, Alaska did not identify any NH3-specific controls for this source category.116 Thus, Alaska identified and evaluated potential measures from these sources to address direct PM2.5, SO2. Alaska considered mobile sources and transportation measures as part of the BACM analysis, including high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes, traffic flow improvement, vehicle inspection and maintenance (I/ M) programs, low-emission vehicle (LEV) program, retrofit diesel program, and van pools.117 Alaska noted that Fairbanks has expanded the availability of plug-ins and required electrification of certain parking lots. Fairbanks has also expanded transit service and a commuter van pool program. Alaska also has an anti-idle program. Alaska concluded that, due to relatively light traffic congestion in Fairbanks, low population and employment density, any additional transportation control measures would provide limited emission reduction benefits. b. Summary of Control Measures Selected by Alaska To Meet BACM Requirements Based on the BACM analysis, Alaska identified and implemented emissions controls, as described in Table 4. 116 State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol. III, Appendix III.7.7–5353–5354. 117 State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol III, Appendix III.D.7.7, Measures 57, 59, and R20. E:\FR\FM\10JAP2.SGM 10JAP2 1468 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 6 / Tuesday, January 10, 2023 / Proposed Rules Alaska’s identification and adoption of BACT is discussed in the next section. TABLE 4—ALASKA’S LIST OF EMISSION CONTROL MEASURES WITH QUANTIFIABLE EMISSION BENEFITS AND PROJECTED EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS IN 2024 [First year all control measures are implemented] Control measure 2024 emission reductions (tons per day) State rule Woodstove changeout program .................. Solid fuel burning curtailment program (Stage 1 and Stage 2 Alerts). Shift from #2 to #1 oil for residential/commercial space heating. Dry wood requirements for commercial wood sales. Removal of all uncertified device and cordwood outdoor hydronic heaters. New wood-fired device requirements (i.e., 2.0 g/hr). Removal of coal heaters ............................. Wood-fired devices may not be primary or only heating source. NOASH/exemption requirements ................ Combined BACM emissions reductions ...... Targeted Airshed Grant terms and conditions 18 AAC 50.077(a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (j), (m). Fairbanks Emergency Episode Plan, State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol. II, Chapter III.D.7.12; 18 AAC 50.030(a); 18 AAC 50.075(e). 18 AAC 50.078(b) .............................................................. Implementation date SO2 PM2.5 0.68 0.01 Ongoing, through 2025. 0.68 SO2: ¥0.23 0.01 1.95 2023. 18 AAC 50.076(d), (e), (g), (j), (k), and (l) ........................ 0.10 <0.01 2022. 18 AAC 50.077(l) and (m) ................................................. 0.16 <0.01 2024. 18 AAC 50.077(c) .............................................................. 0.39 0.01 2020. 18 AAC 50.079(f) ............................................................... 18 AAC 50.077(j) ............................................................... 0.02 0.35 0.02 ¥0.01 2024. 2020. Fairbanks Emergency Episode Plan, State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol. II, Chapter III.D.7.12; 18 AAC 50.077(g). ............................................................................................ <0.01 <0.01 2020. 2.39 1.74 Ongoing. Source: State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol II, Chapter III.D.7.7, Tables 7.7–28 and 7.7–29. c. Alaska’s Identification and Adoption of BACT Alaska noted that large stationary sources are a subgroup of emissions sources that have specific requirements in the BACM analysis. Alaska evaluated all stationary sources with potential to emit (PTE) greater than 70 tons per year (tpy) of PM2.5 or PM2.5 precursors for potential BACT-level controls. According to Alaska, sources with emissions below the 70 tpy threshold only require evaluation for BACM. Alaska states that this emissions threshold is in place to distinguish between the planning requirements for certain sources emitting above and below this threshold and is consistent with an emissions threshold in the 2016 PM2.5 Implementation Rule.118 We note that EPA disagrees with this assessment. All emissions sources identified in the emissions inventory are subject to BACM requirements, and the BACT evaluation process is merely a sub-set of BACM that includes a process to evaluate emissions control technologies that are the best available control measures for the emission source category. Accordingly, all sources of direct PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors are subject to BACM and BACT requirements regardless of PTE. There is no PTE threshold below which BACT requirements do not apply. The 70 tons per year PTE threshold cited by Alaska only has relevance in determining whether a new stationary source proposed to be constructed in a nonattainment area meets the definition of a major stationary source pursuant to the nonattainment new source review provisions.119 Alaska identified five stationary sources that it evaluated for potential BACT controls, see State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol II, Chapter III.D.7, section 7.7.8. Table 5 includes the annual emissions (tons/year) for each of the facilities: TABLE 5—ANNUAL EMISSIONS (TONS/YEAR), BY FACILITY, IN 2019 Facility PM2.5 Chena Power Plant ...................................................................................................... Fort Wainwright ............................................................................................................ UAF Campus Power Plant ........................................................................................... GVEA Zehnder ............................................................................................................. GVEA North Pole ......................................................................................................... 55.63 66.58 9.08 1.04 26.45 SO2 NOX 507.39 481.13 154.52 27.98 247.31 623.70 485.30 246.51 76.32 1,046.50 VOC 1.96 4.91 1.56 0.04 0.90 NH3 0.06 0.06 ................ 0.50 14.98 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 Source: State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol III, Appendix III.D.7.7–6–9–10–2020 fairbanks-5-percent-plan-sip-sector-emission-summary-calculation-spreadsheet. Below is a summary of Alaska’s BACT analysis for each source. Each source is comprised of multiple emission units, and the State performed the BACT analysis for each emission unit. After a literature review, Alaska did not 118 We note that Alaska applied this threshold to emissions sources at the GVEA Zehnder facility. VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:53 Jan 09, 2023 Jkt 259001 identify any NH3-specific controls for this source category.120 Thus, Alaska identified and evaluated potential measures from these sources to address direct PM2.5 and SO2 emissions. Alaska’s BACT determinations are 119 40 PO 00000 CFR 51.165(a)(1)(iv)(A)(1). Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 evaluated by EPA on an independent basis. Details of EPA’s analysis of Alaska’s BACT evaluation and determination are included as BACT 120 State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol. III, Appendix III.7.7–5353–5354. E:\FR\FM\10JAP2.SGM 10JAP2 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 6 / Tuesday, January 10, 2023 / Proposed Rules Technical Support Documents in the docket for this action.121 i. Chena Power Plant Chena Power Plant is an existing stationary source owned and operated by Aurora Energy, LLC, which consists of four existing coal-fired boilers: three 76 million British Thermal Units (MMBtu)/hour overfeed traveling grate stoker type boilers and one 269 MMBtu/ hr spreader-stoker type boiler that burn coal to produce steam for heating and power (497 MMBtu/hr combined). 1469 The State’s BACT Determination for the Chena Power Plant evaluated potential controls to reduce NOX, PM2.5, and SO2 emissions from its four coalfired boilers.122 TABLE 6—CHENA POWER PLANT BACT SUMMARY Chena Power Plant, Aurora Energy, LLC Pollutant Alaska’s BACT determination, by source category Coal-fired boilers (EUs 4–7)—3 boilers rated 76 MMBtu per hour and 1 boiler rated 269 MMBtu per hour PM2.5 ........................................... SO2* ............................................. N/A (Alaska claims installed single full steam baghouse is highest rated control available, but no PM2.5 BACT analysis or emission limitation was submitted). By June 9, 2021, Aurora Energy shall limit the sulfur content of coal to 0.25% sulfur by weight and limit SO2 emissions from the coal-fired boilers to no more than 0.301 lb/MMBtu. khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 * Alaska found it economically infeasible for Aurora Energy to implement retrofit SO2 controls on emission units at the Chena Power Plant. Source: State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol II, Chapter III.D.7.7, Table 7.7–10 and Section 7.7.8.2.5. Regarding PM2.5 controls, Alaska claimed that, because the Chena Power Plant has direct PM2.5 emissions less than 70 tons per year, a PM2.5 BACT analysis was not prepared or submitted by the State. EPA notes our disagreement with this interpretation. Nevertheless, Alaska states that the Chena Power Plant is already equipped with a single full stream baghouse for controlling particulate emissions from the four coal-fired boilers. Baghouses/ fabric filters are the highest rated control available (99.9% control efficiency) for PM2.5 emissions from coal-fired boilers. As noted in the paragraph above, while this would appear to be an efficient control measure for PM2.5 emissions, Alaska did not submit any further information regarding the PM2.5 BACT requirement for the Chena Power Plant or any further documentation to ensure use of the existing single full stream baghouse is adopted as a permanent and enforceable requirement of the EPA-approved SIP. Alaska identified SO2 as a significant precursor to PM2.5 formation in Fairbanks. Accordingly, the state evaluated potential SO2 controls for the Chena Power Plant. Alaska identified five technologies as technologically feasible for reduction of SO2 emissions from the industrial coal-fired boilers: (1) wet scrubbers; (2) spray dry absorber (SDA); (3) dry sorbent injection (DSI); (4) low sulfur coal; and (5) good combustion practices. Neither Alaska nor Aurora evaluated the circulating dry scrubber (CDS) technology, as EPA suggested in comments.123 For a detailed summary and evaluation of Alaska’s BACT submission, see EPA’s Technical Support Document.124 On November 19, 2018, Aurora proposed a BACT alternative to the State, contending that DSI, the least expensive SO2 control option, should not be required as BACT because Aurora cannot afford this control technology despite the fact it has been demonstrated to be economically feasible.] Aurora included information regarding the economic impact of requiring DSI based on the following financial indicators, consistent with the PM2.5 Implementation Rule and longstanding EPA policy:125 (1) fixed and variable production costs; (2) product supply and demand elasticity; (3) product prices (cost absorption vs. cost pass-through); (4) expected costs incurred by competitors; (5) company profits; (6) employment costs; (7) and other costs (e.g., for BACM implemented by public sector entities).126 Aurora concluded that even installing the least expensive SO2 control, DSI, is economically infeasible and would do very little to solve the air quality problem in the nonattainment area.127 Ultimately, Alaska determined that it would be economically infeasible for Aurora Energy to implement retrofit SO2 controls on its emission units at the Chena Power Plant. Alaska instead identified BACT for this source as the existing requirements to operate good combustion practices and to use a low sulfur coal as a fuel source. Alaska also 121 See Hedgpeth and Sorrels. (August 24, 2022). Review of Best Available Control Technology analyses submitted for the Aurora Energy, LLC Chena Power Plant as part of the Fairbanks PM2.5 Nonattainment SIP. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, Laboratory Services and Applied Science Division; Hedgpeth, Z. (August 24, 2022). Review of Best Available Control Technology analyses submitted for Fort Wainwright-US Army Garrison Alaska (FWA) and Doyon Utilities, LLC (DU) as part of the Fairbanks PM2.5 Nonattainment SIP. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, Laboratory Services and Applied Science Division; Hedgpeth and Sorrels. (August 24, 2022). Review of Best Available Control Technology analyses submitted for the University of Alaska, Fairbanks as part of the Fairbanks PM2.5 Nonattainment SIP. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, Laboratory Services and Applied Science Division; Hedgpeth, Z. (August 24, 2022). Review of Best Available Control Technology analyses submitted for the Golden Valley Electric Association (GVEA) Zehnder and North Pole Power Plants as part of the Fairbanks PM2.5 Nonattainment SIP. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, Laboratory Services and Applied Science Division. 122 Alaska evaluated potential NO controls for X each emission unit, but because Alaska determined and EPA is proposing to approve in this proposed action that NOX emissions are not significant for PM2.5 formation in the Fairbanks nonattainment area, ADEC does not plan to require implementation of BACT for NOX. Thus, EPA is not discussing ADEC’s BACT analysis for NOX here. 123 See EPA comments regarding site-specific quotes for high performing SO2 control technologies, such as a wet scrubber (WFGD), spray dry absorber (SDA), and circulating dry scrubber (CDS); ‘‘EPA Comments on 2020 Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) Proposed Regulations and SIP Amendments’’ Letter from Krishna Viswanathan, Director, EPA Region 10 Air and Radiation Division to Alice Edwards, Director, ADEC Division of Air Quality, October 29, 2020; ‘‘EPA Comments on 2019 DEC Proposed Regulations and SIP—Fairbanks North Star Borough Fine Particulate Matter’’ Letter from Krishna Viswanathan, Director, EPA Region 10 Air and Radiation Division to Alice Edwards, Director, ADEC Division of Air Quality, July 19, 2019. 124 Hedgpeth and Sorrels. (August 24, 2022). Review of Best Available Control Technology analyses submitted for the Aurora Energy, LLC Chena Power Plant as part of the Fairbanks PM2.5 Nonattainment SIP. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, Laboratory Services and Applied Science Division. 125 57 FR 18070, April 28, 1992. 126 Proposed BACT Alternative, Aurora Energy, November 19, 2018, State Air Quality Control Plan, Appendix III.D.7.7–4851 (PDF page 995). 127 Proposed BACT Alternative, Aurora Energy, November 19, 2018, State Air Quality Control Plan, Appendix III.D.7.7–4869 (PDF page 1014). VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:53 Jan 09, 2023 Jkt 259001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10JAP2.SGM 10JAP2 1470 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 6 / Tuesday, January 10, 2023 / Proposed Rules required as BACT that, by June 9, 2021, Aurora Energy shall limit the sulfur content of coal to 0.25% sulfur by weight and limit SO2 emissions from the coal-fired boilers to no more than 0.301 lb/MMBtu. ii. Fort Wainwright Fort Wainwright is an existing U.S. Army installation. Emission units located within the military installation include units such as boilers and generators that are owned and operated by the U.S. Army Garrison Alaska (referred to as FWA). The Central Heating and Power Plant (CHPP), also located within the installation footprint, is owned and operated by Doyon Utilities, LLC (DU), the regional Alaska Native corporation for Interior Alaska. The two entities, DU and FWA, comprise a single stationary source operating under two permits. In addition to the CHPP, the source contains additional emission units comprised of small and large emergency engines, fire pumps, and generators, diesel-fired boilers, and material handling equipment. Alaska included a BACT analysis for the CHPP and all other emission units at the Fort Wainwright source as part of the Fairbanks Serious Plan under State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol II, Chapter III.D.7.7 and Appendix III.D.7.7, Part 2. The CHPP is comprised of six spreaderstoker type coal-fired boilers each rated at 230 MMBtu/hr, that burn coal to produce steam for stationary sourcewide heating and power. Alaska’s BACT analysis for Fort Wainwright source evaluated potential controls to reduce NOX, PM2.5, and SO2 emissions from each of these emissions units at the stationary source.128 TABLE 7—FORT WAINWRIGHT BACT SUMMARY Fort Wainwright, Doyon Utilities Pollutant Alaska’s BACT determination, by source category Coal-fired boilers (EUs 1–6)—each unit rated 230 MMBtu per hour PM2.5 ................ SO2 ................... • • • • • • • • Operate and maintain a full stream baghouse at all times the units are in operation; PM2.5 emissions from DU EUs 1 through 6 shall not exceed 0.045 lb/MMBtu over a 3-hour averaging period; and Conduct an initial performance test to obtain an emission rate. On or before June 9, 2021, DU shall limit the gross as received sulfur content of coal to no greater than 0.25% sulfur by weight. On or before June 9, 2021, DU shall submit a Title I permit application to DEC that requires the permittee to install and operate a DSI pollution control system on the coal-fired boilers at CHPP effective no later than October 1, 2023. DEC intends to issue the minor permit and incorporate the Title I requirements into the operating permit within one year of receiving a complete application. On or before October 1, 2023, DU shall install and operate a DSI pollution control system on the coal-fired boilers at CHPP. The SO2 BACT limit for EUs 1 through 6 shall not exceed 0.12 lb/MMBtu averaged over a 3-hour period. Diesel-fired oil boilers (27 emissions units) PM2.5 ................ SO2 ................... • PM2.5 emissions from the diesel-fired boilers shall not exceed 0.012 lb/MMBtu averaged over a 3-hour period, with the exception of the waste fuel boilers which must comply with the State particulate matter emissions standard of 0.05 grains per dry standard cubic foot under 18 AAC 50.055(b)(1); • Limit combined operation of FWA EUs 8, 9, and 10 to 600 hours per year; and • Maintain good combustion practices by following the manufacturer’s maintenance procedures at all times of operation. • SO2 emissions from the diesel-fired boilers shall be controlled by only combusting ULSD, with the exception of the waste fuel boilers; • Combined operating limit of 600 hours per year for FWA EUs 8, 9, and 10; and • Maintain good combustion practices by following the manufacturer’s operating and maintenance procedures at all times of operation. khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 Large diesel-fired engines, fire pumps, and generators (8 emissions units; greater than 500 horsepower) PM2.5 ................ • • • • • • • SO2 ................... • • • • • Limit combined operation of FWA EUs 11, 12, and 13 to 600 hours per year; Limit operation of DU EU 8 to 500 hours per year; PM2.5 emissions from DU EU 8, FWA EUs 50, 51, and 53 shall not exceed 0.15 g/hp-hr; PM2.5 emissions from FWA EUs 11 through 13 and 54 shall not exceed 0.32 g/hp-hr; Limit non-emergency operation of FWA EUs 50, 51, 53, and 54 to no more than 100 hours each per year; Combust only ULSD; and Maintain good combustion practices by following the manufacturer’s operating and maintenance procedures at all times of operation. SO2 emissions from DU EU 8, and FWA EUs 11, 12, 13, 50, 51, 53, and 54 shall be controlled by only combusting ULSD; Limit operation of DU EU 8 to 500 hours per year; Combined operating limit of 600 hours per year for FWA EUs 11, 12, and 13; Limit non-emergency operation of FWA EUs 50, 51, 53, and 54 to no more than 100 hours each per year; and Maintain good combustion practices by following the manufacturer’s operating and maintenance procedures at all times of operation. 128 Alaska evaluated potential NO controls for X each emission unit, but because Alaska determined and EPA proposed to approve in this action that VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:53 Jan 09, 2023 Jkt 259001 NOX emissions are not significant for PM2.5 formation in the Fairbanks nonattainment area, ADEC does not plan to require implementation of PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 BACT for NOX. Thus, EPA is not discussing ADEC’s BACT analysis for NOX here. E:\FR\FM\10JAP2.SGM 10JAP2 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 6 / Tuesday, January 10, 2023 / Proposed Rules 1471 TABLE 7—FORT WAINWRIGHT BACT SUMMARY—Continued Fort Wainwright, Doyon Utilities Pollutant Alaska’s BACT determination, by source category Small emergency engines, fire pumps, and generators (41 emissions units) PM2.5 ................ SO2 ................... • Combust only ULSD; • Limit non-emergency operation of DU EUs 9, 12, 14, 22, 23, 29a, 30, 31a, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, FWA EUs 26 through 39, and 55 through 65 to no more than 100 hours each per year; • For engines manufactured after the applicability dates of 40 CFR part 60 subpart IIII, comply with the applicable particulate matter emission standards in 40 CFR part 60 subpart IIII; • Maintain good combustion practices by following the manufacturer’s operating procedures at all times of operation; and • Demonstrate compliance with the numerical BACT emission limits (emission limit of 0.015¥1 g/hp-hr (3-hour average) varies by emission unit, listed in the State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol II, Chapter III.D.7.7, Table 7.7–13) by maintaining records of maintenance procedures conducted in accordance with 40 CFR subparts 60 and 63, and the EU operating manuals. • Limit non-emergency operation of DU EUs 9, 12, 14, 22, 23, 29a, 30, 31a, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, FWA EUs 26 through 39, and 55 through 65 to no more than 100 hours each per year; • Combust only ULSD; and • Maintain good combustion practices by following the manufacturer’s operating and maintenance procedures at all times of operation. Material handling sources (6 emissions units; coal prep and ash handling) PM2.5 ................ SO2 ................... • PM2.5 emissions from the material handling equipment EUs 7a–7c, 51a, and 51b shall be controlled by operating and maintaining fabric filters at all times the units are in operation; • PM2.5 emissions from DU EU 7a shall not exceed 0.0025 gr/dscf; • PM2.5 emissions from DU EUs 7b, 7c, 51a, and 51 b shall not exceed 0.02 gr/dscf; • PM2.5 emissions from DU EU 52 shall not exceed 1.42 tpy. Continuous compliance with the PM2.5 emissions limit shall be demonstrated by complying with the fugitive dust control plan identified in the applicable operating permit issued to the source in accordance with 18 AAC 50 and AS 46.14; and • Compliance with the PM2.5 emission rates for the material handling units shall be demonstrated by following the fugitive dust control plan and the manufacturer’s operating and maintenance procedures at all times of operation. n/a. khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 Source: State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol II, Chapter III.D.7.7, Table 7.7–11 and Chapter III.D.7.7.8.3.4. For the coal-fired boilers, Alaska stated that three SO2 emission controls were evaluated: wet scrubbers, spray dry absorber (SDA), and DSI. Alaska estimated the economic cost of installing wet scrubbers to be $16,356 per SO2 ton removed. Alaska estimated the economic cost of installing SDA to be $16,748 per SO2 ton removed. Lastly, Alaska estimated the economic cost of installing DSI to be $11,383 per SO2 ton removed. Based on this evaluation, Alaska selected DSI as BACT and required DSI to be installed at Fort Wainwright by October 1, 2023. Alaska also included in the SIP submission the emission limits, emission controls, and operational limitations the State determined constituted BACT for the emission units in Fort Wainwright. However, Alaska did not submit as part of the Fairbanks Serious Plan all the monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting (MRR) requirements for VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:53 Jan 09, 2023 Jkt 259001 determining compliance with these BACT limits or requirements. Rather, Alaska indicated that such detailed requirements are already embodied in state-issued construction or operating permits or would be embodied in a state-issued Title I permit separate from the SIP. For a detailed summary and evaluation of Alaska’s BACT submission, see EPA’s Technical Support Document.129 iii. University of Alaska Fairbanks Campus Power Plant The Fairbanks Campus Power Plant is an existing stationary source owned and operated by University of Alaska Fairbanks, which consists of two coal129 Hedgpeth, Z. (August 24, 2022). Review of Best Available Control Technology analyses submitted for Fort Wainwright-US Army Garrison Alaska (FWA) and Doyon Utilities, LLC (DU) as part of the Fairbanks PM2.5 Nonattainment SIP. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, Laboratory Services and Applied Science Division. PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 fired boilers installed in 1962 that were later replaced by a circulating fluidized bed (CFB) dual fuel-fired boiler (coal and biomass) rated at 295.6 MMBtu/hr. Other emission units at the source include a 13,266 hp backup diesel generator, 13 diesel-fired boilers, one classroom engine, one diesel engine permitted but not yet installed, and a coal handling system for the new dualfuel fired boiler. The State’s BACT determination for the Fairbanks Campus Power Plant evaluated potential controls to reduce NOX, PM2.5, and SO2 emissions from each of the emissions units at the source.130 130 Alaska evaluated potential NO controls for X each emission unit, but because Alaska determined and EPA proposed to approve in this action that NOX emissions are not significant for PM2.5 formation in the Fairbanks nonattainment area, ADEC does not plan to require implementation of BACT for NOX. Thus, EPA is not discussing ADEC’s BACT analysis for NOX here. E:\FR\FM\10JAP2.SGM 10JAP2 1472 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 6 / Tuesday, January 10, 2023 / Proposed Rules TABLE 8—UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA FAIRBANKS CAMPUS POWER PLANT—BACT SUMMARY University of Alaska Fairbanks Pollutant Alaska’s BACT determination, by source category Dual fuel-fired boiler (EU 113)—unit rated at 295 MMBtu per hour; coal and woody biomass fuel; constructed in 2019 PM2.5 ................ SO2* .................. • Operate and maintain fabric filters at all times the unit is in operation; • PM2.5 emissions from EU 113 shall not exceed 0.012 lb/MMBtu over a 3-hour averaging period; and • Maintain good combustion practices at all times of operation by following the manufacturer’s operating and maintenance procedures. • Conduct an initial performance test to obtain an emission rate. • Maintaining good combustion practices by following the manufacturer’s operating and maintenance procedures, combustion of low sulfur coal as a fuel source, and the existing SO2 emission limit of 0.20 lb/MMBtu determined on a 30-day rolling average. • By June 9, 2021, UAF shall limit the gross as received sulfur content of coal delivered to the stationary source to 0.25% sulfur by weight. Mid-sized diesel-fired boilers (EUs 3 and 4)—each unit rated 180 MMBtu per hour PM2.5 ................ SO2 ................... • PM2.5 emissions from EUs 3 and 4 shall not exceed 0.012 lb/MMBtu averaged over a 3-hour period while firing diesel fuel; • PM2.5 emissions from EU 4 shall not exceed 0.0075 lb/MMBtu averaged over a 3-hour period while firing natural gas; • Maintain good combustion practices at all times of operation by following the manufacturer’s operating and maintenance procedures; and • Limit NOX emissions from EUs 4 and 8 to no more than 40 tons per year combined. • On or before June 9, 2020, UAF shall also submit a Title I permit application to Alaska that includes a BACT requirement to limit the sulfur content of fuel oil combusted in its diesel-fired boilers to no greater than 1,000 parts per million weight (ppmw) (S1000) from October 1 through March 31 with an effective date of no later than October 1, 2020. • On or before June 9, 2021, UAF shall also submit a Title I permit application to DEC that includes a BACT requirement to limit the sulfur content of fuel oil combusted in its diesel-fired boilers to no greater than 15 ppmw (ULSD) from October 1 through March 31 with an effective date of no later than October 1, 2023; • SO2 emissions from EU 4 will be limited by complying with the combined annual SO2 emission limit of 40 tons per 12 month rolling period for EUs 4 and 8; • SO2 emissions from EU 4 while firing natural gas shall not exceed 0.60 lb/MMscf; • Maintain good combustion practices by following the manufacturer’s maintenance procedures at all times of operation; and • Compliance with the proposed SO2 emission limit will be demonstrated through fuel shipment receipts and/or fuel testing for sulfur content. Small-sized diesel-fired boilers (EUs 19–21)—each unit rated 6 MMBtu per hour PM2.5 ................ SO2 ................... • Combined boilers operating limit of no more than 19,650 hours per year; • PM2.5 emissions from EUs 19–21 shall not exceed 0.012 lb/MMBtu; and • Maintain good combustion practices by following the manufacturer’s operating and maintenance procedures at all times of operation. • On or before June 9, 2020, UAF shall also submit a Title I permit application to DEC that includes a BACT requirement to limit the sulfur content of fuel oil combusted in its diesel-fired boilers to no greater than 1,000 ppmw (S1000) from October 1 through March 31 with an effective date of no later than October 1, 2020. • On or before June 9, 2021, UAF shall also submit a Title I permit application to DEC that includes a BACT requirement to limit the sulfur content of fuel oil combusted in its diesel-fired boilers to no greater than 15 ppmw (ULSD) from October 1 through March 31 with an effective date of no later than October 1, 2023; • Combined boilers operating limit of no more than 19,650 hours per year; • Maintain good combustion practices by following the manufacturer’s maintenance procedures at all times of operation; and • Compliance with the proposed SO2 emission limit will be demonstrated through fuel shipment receipts and/or fuel testing for sulfur content. Large diesel-fired engine (EU 8)—unit rated 13,266 horsepower PM2.5 ................ khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 SO2 ................... • PM2.5 emissions from EU 8 shall be controlled by operating positive crankcase ventilation and combusting only low ash diesel at all times of operation; • Limit NOX emissions from EUs 4 and 8 to no more than 40 tons per year combined; • Limit non-emergency operation of EU 8 to no more than 100 hours per year; and • PM2.5 emissions from EU 8 shall not exceed 0.32 g/hp-hr averaged over a 3-hour period. • On or before June 9, 2020, UAF shall submit a Title I permit application to Alaska that includes a BACT requirement to combust only ULSD in its diesel-fired engines no later than June 9, 2021; • Limit SO2 emissions from EUs 4 and 8 to no more than 40 tons per year combined; • Limit non-emergency operation of EU 8 to no more than 100 hours per year; • Maintain good combustion practices by following the manufacturer’s maintenance procedures at all times of operation; and • Compliance with the proposed SO2 emission limit will be demonstrated through fuel shipment receipts and/or fuel testing for sulfur content. Small diesel-fired engines (EUs 23–24, 26–29) PM2.5 ................ VerDate Sep<11>2014 • Limit the operation of EU 27 to no more than 4,380 hours per year; • Limit non-emergency operation of EUs 24, 28, and 29 to no more than 100 hours per year each; • EU 27 shall comply with the Federal emission standards of NSPS Subpart IIII, Tier 3; 18:53 Jan 09, 2023 Jkt 259001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10JAP2.SGM 10JAP2 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 6 / Tuesday, January 10, 2023 / Proposed Rules 1473 TABLE 8—UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA FAIRBANKS CAMPUS POWER PLANT—BACT SUMMARY—Continued University of Alaska Fairbanks Pollutant Alaska’s BACT determination, by source category SO2 ................... • Maintain good combustion practices at all times of operation by following the manufacturer’s operating and maintenance procedures; and Demonstrate compliance with the numerical BACT emission limits (emission limit of 0.015¥1 g/hp-hr (3hour average) varies by emission unit, listed in State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol II, Chapter III.D.7.7, Table 7.7–18) by maintaining records of maintenance procedures conducted in accordance with 40 C.F.R. Subparts 60 and 63, and the EU operating manuals. • On or before June 9, 2020, UAF shall submit a Title I permit application to Alaska that includes a BACT requirement to combust only ULSD in its diesel-fired engines no later than June 9, 2021. • Limit the operation of EU 27 to no more than 4,380 hours per year; • Limit non-emergency operation of EUs 24, 28, and 29 to no more than 100 hours per year each; • Maintain good combustion practices at all times of operation by following the manufacturer’s operating and maintenance procedures; • Compliance will be demonstrated with fuel shipment receipts and/or fuel tests for sulfur content; and • Compliance with the operating hours limit will be demonstrated by monitoring and recording the number of hours operated on a monthly basis. Pathogenic waste incinerator (EU 9a)—unit rated 533 lb per hour PM2.5 ................ • • • • • SO2 ................... • • • • PM2.5 emissions from EU 9A shall be controlled with a multiple chamber design; Limit the operation of EU 9A to no more than 109 tons of waste combusted per year; PM2.5 emissions from EU 9A shall not exceed 4.67 lb/ton; Maintain good combustion practices at all times of operation by following the manufacturer’s operating and maintenance procedures; and Compliance with the proposed operational limit will be demonstrated by recording pounds of waste combusted for the pathogenic waste incinerator. Limit the operation of EU 9A to no more than 109 tons of waste combusted per year; SO2 emissions from the operation of EU 9A shall be controlled by combusting ULSD at all times of operation; Maintain good combustion practices by following the manufacturer’s operational procedures at all times of operation; and Compliance shall be demonstrated by obtaining fuel shipment receipts and/or fuel tests for sulfur content. Material handling sources (EUs 105, 107, 109–111, 114, 128–130); coal prep and ash handling PM2.5 ................ SO2 ................... • PM2.5 emissions from EUs 105, 107, 109 through 111, 114, and 128 through 130 will be controlled by enclosing each EU; • PM2.5 emissions from the operation of the material handling units, except EU 111, will be controlled by installing, operating, and maintaining fabric filters and vents; • Initial compliance with the emission rates for the material handling units, except EU 111, will be demonstrated with a performance test to obtain an emission rate; and • Comply with the numerical emission limits (emission limit of 0.003–0.050 gr/dscf and .00005 lb/ton (EU 111) varies by emission unit listed in State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol II, Chapter III.D.7.7, Table 7.7–18—note double citation) n/a. khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 * Alaska finds it economically infeasible for the University of Alaska Fairbanks to implement retrofit SO2 controls on emission units at the Campus Power Plant. Source: State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol II, Chapter III.D.7.7, Table 7.7–16 and Chapter III.D.7.7.8.6. Alaska included in the SIP submission most of the emission limits, emission controls, and operational limitations the State determined constituted BACT for the emission units at the UAF Campus Power Plant. However, Alaska did not submit as part of the Fairbanks Serious Plan the emission limits corresponding to Alaska’s SO2 BACT findings for several emission units 131 nor all the MRR requirements for determining compliance with BACT limits or requirements. Rather, Alaska indicated that such requirements are already embodied in state-issued construction or operating permits or would be 131 Mid-sized diesel-fired boilers (EUs 3 and 4); Small-sized diesel-fired boilers (EUs 19–21); Large diesel-fired engine (EU 8); Small diesel-fired engines (EUs 23–24, 26–29). VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:53 Jan 09, 2023 Jkt 259001 embodied in a state-issued Title I permit separate from the SIP. Alaska identified SO2 as a significant precursor to PM2.5 formation in Fairbanks. Accordingly, Alaska identified six potential control measures as technologically feasible for reduction of SO2 emissions from the industrial dual-fired boiler (EU–113) at this source: (1) wet scrubbers; (2) SDA; (3) DSI; (4) low sulfur coal; and (5) good combustion practices. Notably, neither Alaska nor UAF evaluated the circulating dry scrubber (CDS) technology that EPA has commented is a proven technology for coal boilers that the State should analyze for BACT.132 132 See EPA Comments regarding site-specific quotes for high performing SO2 control technologies, such as a wet scrubber (WFGD), spray dry absorber (SDA), and circulating dry scrubber (CDS); ‘‘EPA Comments on 2020 DEC Proposed Regulations and SIP Amendments’’ Letter from PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 On April 29, 2019, UAF submitted an economic infeasibility assessment to the State, contending that UAF could not afford to install DSI, the technology Alaska identified as BACT. UAF’s assessment is based on the following financial indicators, consistent with the PM2.5 Implementation Rule and longstanding EPA policy:133 (1) fixed and variable production costs; (2) product supply and demand elasticity; (3) product prices (cost absorption vs. cost pass-through); (4) expected costs incurred by competitors; (5) company Krishna Viswanathan, Director, EPA Region 10 Air and Radiation Division to Alice Edwards, Director, ADEC Division of Air Quality, October 29, 2020; ‘‘EPA Comments on 2019 DEC Proposed Regulations and SIP- Fairbanks North Star Borough Fine Particulate Matter’’ Letter from Krishna Viswanathan, Director, EPA Region 10 Air and Radiation Division to Alice Edwards, Director, ADEC Division of Air Quality, July 19, 2019. 133 57 FR 18070, April 28, 1992. E:\FR\FM\10JAP2.SGM 10JAP2 1474 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 6 / Tuesday, January 10, 2023 / Proposed Rules profits; (6) employment costs; (7) and other costs (e.g., for BACM implemented by public sector entities).134 UAF contended that the Alaska proposed BACT is not financially feasible, given the proposed budget cuts in state funding impacting the university and that the duel fuel-fired boiler (EU–113) is an efficient and clean approach to generating electric power and heat from a single fuel source.135 Alaska ultimately found that it is economically infeasible for UAF to implement retrofit SO2 controls on the dual fuel-fired boiler at the Fairbanks Campus Power Plant. Regarding the other emission sources at the UAF Campus Power Plant, we note that ULSD was identified as BACT for the diesel-fired boilers (EUs 3, 4, and 19– 21), but Alaska delayed implementation of the requirement until 2023 and imposed an interim requirement (1000 ppmw sulfur content). Additionally, certain diesel-fired engines do not have hourly operation limits (EUs 23 and 26). For a detailed summary and evaluation of Alaska’s BACT submission, see EPA’s Technical Support Document.136 iv. Zehnder Facility The Zehnder Facility (Zehnder) is an electric generating facility that combusts distillate fuel in combustion turbines to provide power to the Golden Valley Electric Association (GVEA) grid. The power plant contains two fuel oil-fired simple cycle gas combustion turbines and two diesel-fired generators (electromotive diesels) used for emergency power and to serve as black start engines for the GVEA generation system. The primary fuel is stored in two 50,000 gallon above ground storage tanks. Turbine startup fuel and electromotive diesels primary fuel is stored in a 12,000 gallon above ground storage tank. Alaska’s BACT analysis for the Zehnder evaluated potential controls to reduce NOX, PM2.5, and SO2 emissions from its simple cycle gas turbines, large diesel-fired engines, and diesel-fired boilers.137 TABLE 9—ZEHNDER FACILITY BACT SUMMARY Zehnder facility, Golden Valley Electric Authority Pollutant Alaska’s BACT determination, by source category Fuel oil-fired simple cycle gas turbine (EUs 1 and 2)—each unit rated 268 MMBtu per hour PM2.5 ................ SO2* .................. • Combust only low ash fuel; • PM2.5 emissions from EUs 1 & 2 shall not exceed 0.012 lb/MMBtu over a 3-hour averaging period; • Initial compliance with the proposed PM2.5 emission limit will be demonstrated by conducting a performance test to obtain an emission rate; and • Maintain good combustion practices by following the manufacturer’s operating and maintenance procedures at all times of operation. • On or before June 9, 2020, GVEA shall submit a Title I permit application to DEC limiting the PTE for SO2 emissions from the Zehnder Facility to less than 70 tons per year. Æ According to Alaska, the facility will then be subject to the following requirement: After September 1, 2022, only fuel oil, containing no more than 1,000 parts per million sulfur, may be sold or purchased for use in fuel oil-fired equipment, in accordance with 18 AAC 50.078(b). • Maintain good combustion practices by following the manufacturer’s operating and maintenance procedures at all times of operation; and • Compliance with the proposed fuel sulfur content limit will be demonstrated with fuel shipment receipts and/or fuel test results for sulfur content. Diesel-fired emergency generators (EUs 3 and 4)—each unit rated 28 MMBtu per hour PM2.5 ................ • • • • SO2* .................. • • • khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 • Limit non-emergency operation of the large diesel-fired engines to no more than 100 hours per year each; PM2.5 emissions from EUs 3 and 4 shall not exceed 0.32 g/hp-hr over a 3-hour averaging period; Demonstrate compliance with the numerical BACT emission limit by complying with 40 CFR 63 Subpart ZZZZ; and Maintain good combustion practices by following the manufacturer’s operating and maintenance procedures at all times of operation. On or before June 9, 2020, GVEA shall submit a Title I permit application to DEC limiting the PTE for SO2 emissions from the Zehnder Facility to less than 70 tons per year. Æ According to Alaska, the facility will then be subject to the following requirement: After September 1, 2022, only fuel oil, containing no more than 1,000 parts per million sulfur, may be sold or purchased for use in fuel oil-fired equipment, in accordance with 18 AAC 50.078(b). Limit non-emergency operation of the large diesel-fired engines to no more than 100 hours per year each; Maintain good combustion practices by following the manufacturer’s operating maintenance procedures at all times of operation; and Compliance with the proposed fuel sulfur content limit will be demonstrated with fuel shipment receipts and/or fuel test results for sulfur content. 134 Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation. (April 23, 2019). Fairbanks Serious PM2.5 Nonattainment Area Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Determination—Economic Infeasibility of Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) Emission Controls, University of Alaska Fairbanks, State Air Quality Control Plan, Appendix, Part 3, III.D.7.7– 1479 (PDF page 497). 135 Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation. (April 23, 2019). Fairbanks Serious PM2.5 Nonattainment Area Best Available Control VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:53 Jan 09, 2023 Jkt 259001 Technology (BACT) Determination—Economic Infeasibility of Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) Emission Controls, University of Alaska Fairbanks. State Air Quality Control Plan, Appendix, Part 3, III.D.7.7– 1481 (PDF page 499). 136 Hedgpeth and Sorrels. (August 24, 2022). Review of Best Available Control Technology analyses submitted for the University of Alaska, Fairbanks as part of the Fairbanks PM2.5 Nonattainment SIP. U.S. Environmental Protection PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 Agency, Region 10, Laboratory Services and Applied Science Division. 137 Alaska evaluated potential NO controls for X each emission unit, but because Alaska determined and EPA proposed to approve in this action that NOX emissions are not significant for PM2.5 formation in the Fairbanks nonattainment area, ADEC does not plan to require implementation of BACT for NOX. Thus, EPA is not discussing ADEC’s BACT analysis for NOX here. E:\FR\FM\10JAP2.SGM 10JAP2 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 6 / Tuesday, January 10, 2023 / Proposed Rules 1475 TABLE 9—ZEHNDER FACILITY BACT SUMMARY—Continued Zehnder facility, Golden Valley Electric Authority Pollutant Alaska’s BACT determination, by source category Diesel-fired boilers (EUs 10 and 11)—each unit rated 1.7 MMBtu per hour PM2.5 ................ SO2* .................. • PM2.5 emissions shall not exceed 0.012 lb/MMBtu over a 3-hour averaging period; • Demonstrate compliance with the numerical BACT emission limit by complying with 40 CFR 63 Subpart JJJJJJ; and • Maintain good combustion practices by following the manufacturer’s operating and maintenance procedures at all times of operation. • On or before June 9, 2020, GVEA shall submit a Title I permit application to DEC limiting the PTE for SO2 emissions from the Zehnder Facility to less than 70 tons per year. Æ According to Alaska, the facility will then be subject to the following requirement: After September 1, 2022, only fuel oil, containing no more than 1,000 parts per million sulfur, may be sold or purchased for use in fuel oil-fired equipment, in accordance with 18 AAC 50.078(b). • Maintain good combustion practices by following the manufacturer’s operating and maintenance procedures at all times of operation; and • Compliance with the proposed fuel sulfur content limit will be demonstrated with fuel shipment receipts and/or fuel test results for sulfur content. khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 * Alaska’s initial BACT finding: SO2 emissions from EUs 1 and 2 shall be controlled by limiting the sulfur content of fuel combusted in the turbines to no more than 0.0015 percent by weight; requirements for the other emission units were to combust only ULSD. Source: State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol II, Chapter III.D.7.7, Table 7.7–14 and Chapter III.D.7.7.8.4. Alaska included in the SIP submission the emission limits, emission controls, and operational limitations the State determined constituted BACT for the emission units at the Zehnder facility. However, Alaska did not submit as part of the Fairbanks Serious Plan all the associated MRR requirements for determining compliance with these BACT limits or requirements. Rather, Alaska indicated that such requirements are already embodied in state-issued construction or operating permits. Regarding SO2 controls for each of the emission sources at this facility, Alaska evaluated four technologically feasible SO2 controls: ultra-low sulfur diesel (99.7 percent control of SO2 emissions); low-sulfur diesel (93 percent control of SO2 emissions); good combustion practices (less than 40 percent control of SO2 emissions); limited operation (0 percent control of SO2 emissions). Alaska reviewed the cost information provided by GVEA to evaluate appropriately the total capital investment of installing two new 1.5 million gallon ULSD storage tanks at GVEA’s North Pole Facility.138 Alaska concluded that the level of SO2 reduction justifies the required use of ULSD as BACT for the fuel oil-fired simple cycle gas turbines at an economic cost of $8,753 per ton of SO2 removed. However, GVEA provided updated and supplemental information in an alternative BACT proposal submitted to 138 Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation. (November 19, 2019). Golden Valley Electric Association North Pole Power Plant and Zehnder Facility BACT Appendix. State Air Quality Control Plan, Appendix, Part 4, III.D.7.7–1657 through 3855. VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:53 Jan 09, 2023 Jkt 259001 emissions units, to be a major stationary source for SO2 emissions subject to BACT limits. Instead, the Zehnder Facility will be subject to the BACM measures contained in Alaska regulations 18 AAC 50.078(b), that stipulate that after September 1, 2022, only fuel oil containing no more than 1,000 parts per million sulfur (i.e., diesel #1), may be sold or purchased for use in fuel oil-fired equipment. We again note our disagreement with this approach, regardless of BACM or BACT distinction, the best available control measure should be adopted. For a detailed summary and evaluation of Alaska’s BACT submission, see EPA Technical Support Document.141 Alaska on November 28, 2018.139 GVEA proposed to limit emissions from the Zehnder Facility to less than 70 tons per year in place of BACT for SO2, and, according to Alaska, eliminating the Zehnder Facility as a major source of SO2. EPA notes here our disagreement with this approach. BACT is a subset of BACM requirements. All sources of direct PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors are subject to BACM and BACT requirements regardless of PTE. There is no PTE threshold below which BACT requirements do not apply. The 70 tons per year PTE threshold cited by Alaska only has relevance in determining whether a new stationary source proposed to be constructed in a nonattainment area meets the definition of a major stationary source pursuant to the nonattainment new source review provisions.140 Thus, as part of selecting and adopting BACM for existing sources in Fairbanks, Alaska would need to select the best available measure that is technologically and economically feasible, which in this case is a requirement to use ULSD fuel. Nonetheless, Alaska relied on the approach to classify the Zehnder Facility as a ‘‘non-major’’ source and required GVEA to submit a Title I permit application no later than June 9, 2020, limiting the potential to emit of the Zehnder Facility to less than 70 tons per year. Once the Zehnder Facility’s SO2 limit goes into effect, Alaska will not consider the facility, including all The North Pole Power Plant is an electric generating facility that combusts distillate fuel in combustion turbines to provide power to the Golden Valley Electric Association (GVEA) grid. The power plant contains two fuel oil-fired simple cycle gas combustion turbines, two fuel oil-fired combined cycle gas combustion turbines, one fuel oil-fired emergency generator, and two propanefired boilers. The State’s BACT determination for the North Pole Power Plant evaluated potential controls to reduce NOX, PM2.5, and SO2 emissions from its simple cycle gas turbines, combined cycle gas turbines, large 139 Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation. (November 19, 2019). Golden Valley Electric Association North Pole Power Plant and Zehnder Facility BACT Appendix. State Air Quality Control Plan, Appendix, Part 4, III.D.7.7–3636 (PDF page 1979). 140 40 CFR 51.165(a)(1)(iv)(A)(1). 141 Hedgpeth, Z. (August 24, 2022). Review of Best Available Control Technology analyses submitted for the Golden Valley Electric Association (GVEA) Zehnder and North Pole Power Plants as part of the Fairbanks PM2.5 Nonattainment SIP. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, Laboratory Services and Applied Science Division PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 v. North Pole Power Plant E:\FR\FM\10JAP2.SGM 10JAP2 1476 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 6 / Tuesday, January 10, 2023 / Proposed Rules diesel-fired engines, and propane-fired boilers.142 TABLE 10—NORTH POLE POWER PLANT BACT SUMMARY North Pole Power Plant, Golden Valley Electric Authority Pollutant Alaska’s BACT determination, by source category Fuel oil-fired simple cycle gas turbine (EUs 1 and 2)—each unit rated 672 MMBtu PM2.5 ................ SO2* .................. • Combust only low ash fuel; • Maintain good combustion practices at all times of operation by following the manufacturer’s operating and maintenance procedures; • PM2.5 emissions from EUs 1 & 2 shall not exceed 0.012 lb/MMBtu over a 3-hour averaging period; and • Initial compliance with the proposed PM2.5 emission limit will be demonstrated by conducting a performance test to obtain an emission rate. • By October 1, 2020, BACT for EUs 1 and 2 is to begin taking delivery of fuel oil with a sulfur content no greater than 1,000 ppmw (S1000) immediately after the Air Quality Stage Alert 1 and 2 are announced and remain taking deliveries of exclusively S1000 for as long as the air episode exists. • On or before June 9, 2022, GVEA shall submit a Title I permit application to DEC that includes a BACT requirement to limit the sulfur content of fuel combusted in EUs 1 and 2 to no greater than 15 ppmw (ULSD) from October 1 through March 31 to be effective no later than October 1, 2023. • Compliance with the proposed fuel sulfur content limit will be demonstrated with fuel shipment receipts and/or fuel test results for sulfur content; and • Maintain good combustion practices by following the manufacturer’s operating and maintenance procedures at all times of operation. Fuel oil-fired combined cycle gas turbine (EUs 5 and 6)—each unit rated 455 MMBtu per hour PM2.5 ................ SO2 ................... • PM2.5 emissions from EUs 5 and 6 shall be limited by complying with the combined annual NOX limit listed in Operating Permit AQ0110TVP03 Conditions 13 and 12, respectively; • PM2.5 emissions from EUs 5 & 6 shall not exceed 0.012 lb/MMBtu over a 3-hour averaging period; • Initial compliance with the proposed PM2.5 emission limit will be demonstrated by conducting a performance test to obtain an emission rate; and • Maintain good combustion practices at all times of operation by following the manufacturer’s operating and maintenance procedures. • Except during startup, SO2 emissions from EUs 5 and 6 shall be controlled by limiting the fuel combusted in the turbines to light straight run turbine fuel (50 ppm sulfur in fuel); • Maintain good combustion practices by following the manufacturer’s operating and maintenance procedures at all times of operation; and • Compliance with the proposed fuel sulfur content limit will be demonstrated with fuel shipment receipts and/or fuel test results for sulfur content. Large diesel-fired engine (EU 7)—unit rated 400 kW/619 horsepower PM2.5 ................ • • • • SO2 ................... • • • • PM2.5 emissions from EU 7 shall be controlled by operating with positive crankcase ventilation; PM2.5 emissions from EU 7 shall be controlled by limiting operation to no more than 52 hours per 12 month rolling period; PM2.5 emissions from EU 7 shall not exceed 0.32 g/hp-hr over a 3-hour averaging period; and Maintain good combustion practices by following the manufacturer’s operating and maintenance procedures at all times of operation. SO2 emissions from EU 7 shall be controlled by combusting fuel that does not exceed 0.05 weight percent sulfur at all time the unit is in operation; SO2 emissions from EU 7 shall be controlled by limiting operation to no more than 52 hours per 12-month rolling period; Compliance with the SO2 emission limit while firing diesel fuel will be demonstrated by fuel shipment receipts and/or fuel test results for sulfur content; and Maintain good combustion practices by following the manufacturer’s operating and maintenance procedures at all times of operation. Propane-fired boiler (EUs 11 and 12)—each unit rated 5 MMBtu per hour khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 PM2.5 ................ SO2 ................... • Burn only propane as fuel in EUs 11 and 12; • PM2.5 emissions from EUs 11 and 12 shall not exceed 0.008 lb/MMBtu over a 3-hour averaging period; and • Compliance with the emission limit will be demonstrated with records of maintenance following original equipment manufacturer recommendations for operation and maintenance and periodic measurements of O2 balance. • Maintain good combustion practices by following the manufacturer’s operating and maintenance procedures at all times of operation. • SO2 emissions from EUs 11 and 12 shall be controlled by only combusting gas fuel (propane) with a total sulfur content of no more than 120 parts per million volume (ppmv), or direct emissions of 0.75 lb/1,000 gal; • Maintain good combustion practices by following the manufacturer’s operating and maintenance procedures at all times of operation; and 142 Alaska evaluated potential NO controls for X each emission unit, but because Alaska determined and EPA proposed to approve in this action that VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:53 Jan 09, 2023 Jkt 259001 NOX emissions are not significant for PM2.5 formation in the Fairbanks nonattainment area, ADEC does not plan to require implementation of PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 BACT for NOX. Thus, EPA is not discussing ADEC’s BACT analysis for NOX here. E:\FR\FM\10JAP2.SGM 10JAP2 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 6 / Tuesday, January 10, 2023 / Proposed Rules 1477 TABLE 10—NORTH POLE POWER PLANT BACT SUMMARY—Continued North Pole Power Plant, Golden Valley Electric Authority Pollutant Alaska’s BACT determination, by source category • Compliance with the preliminary emission rate limit will be demonstrated with fuel shipment receipts and/or fuel tests for sulfur content. khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 * Alaska’s initial BACT finding: SO2 emissions from EUs 1 and 2 shall be controlled by limiting the sulfur content of the fuel combusted in the turbines to no more than 0.0015 percent by weight (ULSD). Source: State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol II, Chapter III.D.7.7, Table 7.7–14 and Chapter III.D.7.7.8.5. Alaska included in the SIP submission most of the emission limits, emission controls, and operational limitations the State determined constituted BACT for the emission units at the North Pole Power Plant. However, Alaska did not submit as part of the Fairbanks Serious Plan the emission limits corresponding to Alaska’s SO2 or PM2.5 BACT findings for some emission units 143 nor the MRR requirements for determining compliance with all BACT limits or requirements. Rather, Alaska indicated that such requirements are already embodied in state-issued construction or operating permits or would be embodied in a state-issued Title I permit separate from the SIP. Alaska did not submit as part of the Fairbanks Serious Plan the MRR requirements for determining compliance with these BACT limits or requirements. For SO2 controls, Alaska evaluated four technologies as potential BACT for the simple cycle gas turbines: ultra-low sulfur diesel (controls 99.7 percent SO2 emissions); low sulfur fuel (controls 93 percent SO2 emissions); good combustion practices (controls less than 40 percent SO2 emissions) and limited operation (controls 0 percent SO2 emissions). Alaska reviewed the cost information provided by GVEA to evaluate the total capital investment of installing two new 1.5 million gallon ultra-low sulfur diesel storage tanks at GVEA’s North Pole Power Plant. Alaska concluded that the economic analysis indicates the level of SO2 reduction justifies the use of ultra-low sulfur diesel as BACT for the two simple cycle gas turbine emissions units at $13,838 per ton and $13,923 per ton respectively. We note that GVEA provided updated and supplemental information in an alternative BACT proposal submitted on November 28, 2018.144 GVEA proposed as BACT for 143 Fuel oil-fired simple cycle gas turbine (EUs 1 and 2); Fuel oil-fired combined cycle gas turbine (EUs 5 and 6). 144 Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation. (November 19, 2019. Golden Valley Electric Association North Pole Power Plant and Zehnder Facility BACT Appendix. State Air Quality VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:53 Jan 09, 2023 Jkt 259001 SO2 to combust diesel #1 (1,000 ppm sulfur) in the simple cycle gas turbines when curtailment days are called in Fairbanks. However, Alaska found that it was economically infeasible for GVEA to immediately switch to ULSD for the simple cycle gas turbines at the North Pole Power Plant. Therefore, the State concluded that BACT for this emission unit would be that starting October 1, 2020, GVEA must begin taking delivery of fuel oil with a sulfur content no greater than 1,000 ppmw immediately after an air quality curtailment (Air Quality Stage Alert 1 and 2) is announced and remain taking deliveries of exclusively S1000 for as long as the air episode exists. On or before June 9, 2022, GVEA shall submit a Title I permit application to Alaska that includes a BACT requirement to limit the sulfur content of fuel combusted in the simple cycle gas turbines to no greater than 15 ppmw (ULSD) from October 1 through March 31 to be effective no later than October 1, 2023. For the combined cycle gas turbines, Alaska evaluated similar control measures as the simple cycle gas turbines but noted lower control efficiency of ULSD (controls 50 percent SO2 emissions) and, according to Alaska, the light straight run turbine fuel currently in use has similar sulfur content as low sulfur fuel (light straight run turbine fuel has a sulfur content of 50 ppm, while the sulfur content for ULSD is 15 ppm). Alaska concluded that the economic analysis indicates the level of SO2 reduction does not justify the use of ULSD as BACT for EUs 5 and 6 at $1,040,822 per ton. Instead, Alaska identified BACT as requiring light straight run fuel (sulfur content approximately 50 ppm) and maintaining good combustion practices. We note that a fuel requirement during startup was not specified for the combined cycle turbines (EUs 5 and 6). Regarding the other emission sources, we note that ULSD was not required for the large diesel-fired engine (EU 7), rather a requirement to use fuel not exceeding Control Plan, Appendix, Part 4, III.D.7.7–3636 (PDF page 1979). PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 0.05 weight percent sulfur. We again note that Alaska did not submit as part of the Fairbanks Serious Plan or Fairbanks 189(d) Plan MRR requirements associated with these SO2 BACT requirements. For a detailed summary and evaluation of Alaska’s BACT submission, see EPA’s Technical Support Document.145 d. Alaska’s Identification and Adoption of Additional Measures and Demonstration of 5% Reduction in Emissions Pursuant to CAA section 189(d) The Fairbanks 189(d) Plan includes a reevaluation of previously rejected control measures.146 Alaska also made two revisions to the Fairbanks Emergency Episode Plan, Vol II Chapter III.D.7.12. First, Alaska added a burn down period of 3 hours for solid-fuel heating devices that begins upon the effective date and time of a curtailment announcement. Alaska states that this further clarifies existing state regulation at 18 AAC 50.075(e)(3). Second, Alaska added specific requirements to document economic hardship as part of a No Other Adequate Source of Heat (NOASH) curtailment program waiver for solid-fuel devices. As part of its reevaluation of control measures, Alaska provided additional information for a number of control measures considered in the BACM analysis. The Fairbanks 189(d) Plan submission included additional consideration of banning installation of solid-fuel devices in new construction, limiting heating oil to ultra-low sulfur diesel, dry wood requirements, emissions controls for small area sources, mobile sources, and most stringent measures.147 However, Alaska did not include a reevaluation of BACT145 Hedgpeth, Z. (August 24, 2022). Review of Best Available Control Technology analyses submitted for the Golden Valley Electric Association (GVEA) Zehnder and North Pole Power Plants as part of the Fairbanks PM2.5 Nonattainment SIP. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, Laboratory Services and Applied Science Division 146 State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol II, Chapter III.D.7.7, Table 7.7–26. 147 State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol II, Chapter III.D.7.7.12. E:\FR\FM\10JAP2.SGM 10JAP2 1478 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 6 / Tuesday, January 10, 2023 / Proposed Rules level controls for the stationary sources discussed in Section III.C.2.e of this document. Regarding the requirement to demonstrate five percent annual reductions, Alaska included in the Fairbanks 189(d) Plan a control strategy analysis that demonstrates projected annual reductions of direct PM2.5 emissions will be greater than five percent of the 2019 base year emissions inventory for each year through 2024, Alaska’s projected attainment year.148 Alaska compared the annual PM2.5 reductions required to attain to the annual PM2.5 reductions resulting from implementing the control strategy. We note that Alaska projects that SO2 emissions will not achieve annual reductions greater than five percent of the base year inventory until 2024. 3. EPA’s Evaluation and Proposed Action This section contains a summary of EPA’s evaluation and proposed action with regards to meeting the BACM and BACT requirements and the control strategy requirements for areas subject to CAA section 189(d). For EPA’s complete evaluation and basis for this proposal, see EPA’s Technical Support Document.149 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 a. Residential and Commercial Sources With respect to NH3-specific controls, EPA researched potential NH3 controls for sources in the emissions inventory. EPA did not identify any potential NH3 controls. According to available literature, most NH3 controls are designed for the NH3 manufacturing, fertilizer, coke manufacturing, livestock management industries, as well as to address NH3 emissions from the use of NOX controls such as selective catalytic reduction and selective noncatalytic reduction.150 148 State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol II, Chapter III.D.7.9, Table 7.9–6. 149 Jentgen, M. (September 27, 2022). Technical support document for Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation’s (ADEC) control measure analysis, under 40 CFR 1010(a) and (c). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, Air and Radiation Division. 150 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (April 1995). Control and Pollution Prevention Options for Ammonia Emissions. U.S. EPA Control Technology Center, Document No. EPA–456/R–95–002, available at https://www3.epa.gov/ttncatc1/dir1/ ammonia.pdf#:∼:text=The%20various%20 control%20technologies%20available%20 to%20control%20ammonia,ammonia%20 emissions%2C%20demonstrating%20control %20efficiencies%20up%20to%2099%25; see also Pinder, et al. ‘‘Ammonia emission controls as a cost-effective strategy for reducing atmospheric particulate matter in the Eastern United States,’’ Environmental Science & Technology, 2007, Volume 41, Number 2, pages 380–86, available at: https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/es060379a. VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:53 Jan 09, 2023 Jkt 259001 EPA similarly reviewed Alaska’s determination regarding the NH3 emissions co-benefits of measures designed to reduce emissions of direct PM2.5. First, EPA agrees that measures designed to eliminate all emissions from a source category, such as the woodstove curtailment program and the requirement to remove or replace uncertified devices, non-pellet fueled hydronic heaters, and coal-fired heating devices by December 31, 2024, or upon sale, lease, or conveyance of an existing building, whichever is earlier, will reduce emissions of direct PM2.5 and all plan precursors, including NH3. Second, EPA reviewed literature regarding NH3 emissions factors for various sources in the Space Heating source category.151 Based on this review, EPA confirms Alaska’s findings that the solid-fuel fired curtailment program, the woodstove change out program, and measures requiring the removal of uncertified devices and coal heaters, installation of certified woodstoves that meet specific performance standards, sale of dry wood, and conversions of woodstoves to liquid-fuel fired stoves, will reduce NH3 emissions from the Space Heating source category. Thus, as specified in this section, EPA is proposing to approve certain measures as meeting the BACM/BACT requirement for NH3 emissions. In other cases, we are proposing to approve ADEC’s BACM/BACT analysis that concluded there are no NH3-specific controls for the emission source categories contributing to PM2.5 formation in the Fairbanks Nonattainment Area, but that there are likely to be NH3 emissions co-benefits of measures designed to reduce emissions of direct PM2.5. i. Solid-Fuel Burning Alaska adopted a number of regulations based on the BACM review for this source category.152 We propose to find that Alaska’s analysis and adoption of control measures for this source category meet BACM requirements for PM2.5 and SO2 emissions. We also propose to approve Alaska’s analysis that found no NH3specific emission controls for this source category, We note that we approved as SIP strengthening and federally enforceable many of the control measures submitted as part of 151 S. M. Roe et al. (April 2004) Estimating Ammonia Emissions from Anthropogenic Nonagricultural Sources—Draft Final Report, available at https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/ 2015-08/documents/eiip_areasourcesnh3.pdf. 152 Alaska state regulations 18 AAC 50.075 (e)(3), (f)(2); 18 AAC 50.076 (d–e), (g), (j–l); 18 AAC 50.077(a–m); 18 AAC 50.078(b); 18 AAC 50.079(f). PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 the Fairbanks Serious Plan and prior SIP submissions in 2018 as part of a separate action (86 FR 52997, September 24, 2021). Alaska identified a number of solidfuel burning control measures that have been adopted by other states and local authorities to identify the full range of potential BACM/BACT measures for this source category. This analysis took into account technical and economic feasibility and other considerations included in the PM2.5 Implementation Rule. Alaska’s two-stage woodstove curtailment program, included in the Fairbanks Emergency Episode Plan, adopts the air quality threshold that are at least as stringent as comparable curtailment programs in Idaho, Utah, and California. Alaska accounts for the differences in natural gas availability, seasonal climate conditions, and woodstove changeout incentives in establishing the two-stage thresholds at 20 mg/m3 (Stage 1) and 30 mg/m3 (Stage 2), respectively. Alaska also has an advisory level set at 15 mg/m3 as part of the curtailment program. Alaska has placed further limitations on the NOASH waiver that limit applicability to those that have economic needs based on objective criteria and limited the number of years NOASH waivers are available. Therefore, we propose to approve of the wood stove curtailment program and associated updates to the NOASH waivers/temporary exemption as BACM for the solid-fuel burning source category (i.e., Alaska state regulations 18 AAC 50.075 (e)(3), (f)(2) for PM2.5 and SO2 emissions. Alaska identified and evaluated as BACM heating device performance standards adopted previously by Missoula County, Montana. Alaska adopted a regulation modeled after the rule in Missoula County. Under 18 AAC 50.077(c), Alaska’s regulations require that woodstoves meet emissions standards that are more stringent than EPA’s NSPS requirement and also include 1-hour testing requirements to ensure only the lowest-emitting woodstoves are allowed to be sold and installed in the nonattainment area. We propose to find that Alaska adopted measures sufficient to meet BACM for the solid-fuel burning source category (i.e., 18 AAC 50.077 (a–j) for PM2.5 and SO2 emissions. Alaska’s regulation 18 AAC 50.075(f), applicable to the Fairbanks Nonattainment Area, prohibits the operation of a solid fuel-fired heating device emissions when visible emissions exceed 20 percent opacity for more than six minutes in any one hour, except during the first 15 minutes after E:\FR\FM\10JAP2.SGM 10JAP2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 6 / Tuesday, January 10, 2023 / Proposed Rules initial firing of the device, when the opacity limit must be less than 50 percent. The rule also prohibits visible emissions from crossing property lines. These opacity limits provide a visual indicator for the proper operation of a solid-fuel heating device. EPA is proposing to approve this measure as BACM. With respect to the alternative emission limit during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction, on June 12, 2015, pursuant to CAA section 110(k)(5), EPA finalized ‘‘State Implementation Plans: Response to Petition for Rulemaking; Restatement and Update of EPA’s SSM Policy Applicable to SIPs; Findings of Substantial Inadequacy; and SIP Calls to Amend Provisions Applying to Excess Emissions During Periods of Startup, Shutdown and Malfunction,’’ hereafter referred to as the ‘‘2015 SSM SIP Action.’’ 153 The 2015 SSM SIP Action clarified, restated, and updated EPA’s interpretation that SSM exemptions and affirmative defense SIP provisions are inconsistent with CAA requirements. The 2015 SSM SIP Action found that certain SIP provisions in 36 states were substantially inadequate to meet CAA requirements and issued a SIP call to those states to submit SIP revisions to address the inadequacies. EPA established an 18-month deadline by which the affected states had to submit such SIP revisions. States were required to submit corrective revisions to their SIPs in response to the SIP calls by November 22, 2016. In the 2015 SSM SIP Action, EPA recommended States consider seven criteria when developing alternative emission limitations to replace automatic or discretionary exemptions from otherwise applicable SIP requirements. These recommended criteria assure the alternative emission limitations meet basic CAA requirements. EPA evaluated whether the alternative requirements provided under the Alaska SIP are consistent with the Agency’s 2015 SSM SIP Action, including the seven criteria recommended therein. For the reasons explained in this section, EPA finds that the opacity limits are consistent with the recommended criteria set forth in that policy and proposes to approve these provisions into the Alaska SIP as part of this action. First, the opacity limit for residential woodstoves apply to a narrow subset of source categories (solid fuel-fired heating devices) that use specific control strategies (limits on opacity). Second, application of the 20 percent opacity limit to startup (initial firing) 153 80 FR 33839. VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:53 Jan 09, 2023 Jkt 259001 would be technically infeasible because lower temperatures during these periods result in less complete combustion and, therefore, higher opacity. Third, for this source category, EPA believes the startup period is minimized to the greatest extent practicable. The startup period is limited to just fifteen minutes to account for starting the solid fuelfired burning device. Fifteen minutes represents a reasonable minimum time necessary to adequately start a fire in a solid fuel burning device, while also accounting for the extreme cold temperatures experienced during the winter in Fairbanks. With respect to the fourth factor, EPA believes that Alaska’s control strategy, specifically the episodic curtailment program, would effectively prohibit the use of solid fuel burning devices when poor air quality is anticipated. Fifth, the 50 percent opacity limit applicable during startup, the requirements for wood sellers to sell dry wood under 18 AAC 50.076, and the solid fuel-fired heating device standards applicable to the Fairbanks Nonattainment Area under 18 AAC 50.077 are designed to ensure that all feasible steps are taken to minimize the impact of emissions during the startup period. With respect to this factor, EPA again notes that the emission source at issue here is subject to curtailment requirements during periods of anticipated high PM2.5 ambient air concentration, which would further minimize potential air quality impacts from initial firing. Similarly, EPA believes the sixth factor—that the alternative emission limit requires operation of the facility in a manner consistent with good practices for minimizing emissions and best efforts regarding planning, design, and operating procedures—supports approval of the State’s chosen control strategy. As noted, dry wood requirements and the solid fuel-fired device standards used in conjunction with emission curtailment during air quality episodes represent the best practices available in this context. With respect to the last criterion for alternative emission limits, Alaska has not included a requirement that affected sources document startup periods using properly signed, contemporaneous logs or other evidence. Given that the rule at issue here generally applies to individual homeowners, rather than industrial sources accustomed to complying with such recordkeeping requirements, EPA believes a recordkeeping requirement would impose an unreasonable burden on both regulators implementing the rule and the regulated community, with virtually PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 1479 no enforcement benefit justifying the burden. For all of these reasons, EPA proposes to approve (and incorporate by reference) Alaska’s rule 18 AAC 50.075(f) as BACM because it is a permanent and enforceable measure that contributes to attainment of the 2006 PM2.5 24-hour NAAQS. This provision includes limits on emissions that apply during all modes of source operation and impose continuous emission controls on solid-fuel heating devices consistent with the requirements of the CAA applicable to SIP provisions. In addition, the provision supports progress toward attainment of the PM2.5 NAAQS in the Fairbanks Nonattainment Area. We also propose to find that the additional removal or render inoperable restrictions placed on non-certified EPA woodstoves, non-pellet outdoor hydronic heaters, coal-fired heating devices, and EPA-certified woodstoves greater than 25 years old meet BACM requirements for PM2.5 and SO2 emissions. These devices will need to be removed or rendered inoperable by December 31, 2024, or if a building or residence with such a device is sold prior to that date (or if a woodfired heating device is 25 years old prior to that date). These include Alaska state regulations 18 AAC 50.077 (l–m). We propose to find that the other solid-fuel burning regulations adopted by Alaska, including device registration under 18 AAC 50.077(h) and dry wood requirements for wood sellers 18 AAC 50.076 are at least as stringent as similar regulations adopted by other states and local authorities, and therefore represent BACM for PM2.5 and SO2 emissions for the solid-fuel burning source category. These include Alaska state regulations 18 AAC 50.076 (d–e), (g), (j–l). Collectively, we propose to find that Alaska met the BACM requirements for the solid-fuel burning source category for PM2.5 and SO2 emissions. We also propose to approve Alaska’s analysis that found no NH3-specific emission controls for this source category. ii. Residential and Commercial Fuel Oil Combustion Based on its BACM analysis, Alaska adopted the regulation at 18 AAC 50.078(b) that imposes a limit of 1,000 parts per million sulfur (diesel #1) for residential and commercial heating. This is a switch from diesel #2 (approximately 2,000 parts per million sulfur) to diesel #1. However, as part of its BACM analysis, Alaska identified 10 states plus large municipal areas that have instituted ULSD home heating requirements and found this measure to E:\FR\FM\10JAP2.SGM 10JAP2 1480 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 6 / Tuesday, January 10, 2023 / Proposed Rules be technologically feasible and economically feasible at a cost of $1,819 per ton SO2 removed (SO2 is a significant precursor in the Fairbanks nonattainment area). Alaska provided a number of community-based considerations were Fairbanks to undergo the switch from diesel #2 to ULSD. These considerations included potential environmental impacts caused by greater transportation requirements required to maintain an adequate ULSD supply through the winter in Fairbanks. A state must adopt and implement an identified BACM unless the state demonstrates the BACM is either technologically or economically infeasible. Alaska identified the ULSD requirement as BACM for this source category and its own analysis indicates this requirement is feasible. While EPA acknowledges that implementing a fuel switch from #2 to ULSD may be challenging, the challenges identified by Alaska are insufficient to support an infeasibility demonstration. This is particularly so when many jurisdictions have successfully required ULSD. EPA also notes that reducing SO2 emissions from this source category is particularly important to achieving expeditious attainment because conversions to liquid-fueled heating devices constitute the vast majority of activity in the woodstove changeout program (see Emissions Inventory, section III.A of this document). Thus, we propose to disapprove Alaska’s determination that the less stringent control measure under 18 AAC 50.078(b) meets BACM requirements for PM2.5 and SO2 emissions. However, we propose to approve Alaska’s analysis that found no NH3-specific emission controls for this source category.154 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 iii. Small Commercial Area Sources Alaska identified initial BACM requirements for small area source categories as part of the Fairbanks Serious Plan and then updated those findings as part of the Fairbanks 189(d) Plan. Below is a discussion for each of the small area sources identified in the Fairbanks nonattainment area. Alaska adopted a control measure for coffee roasters at 18 AAC 50.078(d) that required installation of an emissions control device unless the coffee roaster can demonstrate technological or economical infeasibility. As written, the state rule purporting to implement this measure does not appear to be enforceable as a practical matter. The 154 We note that Alaska state regulations 18 AAC 50.078 (a–b) were approved as SIP strengthening in our previous action (86 FR 52997, September 24, 2021). VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:53 Jan 09, 2023 Jkt 259001 rule does not require use of emissions controls once installed, specify any emission limits, nor monitoring requirements with which the subject sources must comply. In addition, the rule contains a waiver provision based on the facility providing information demonstrating that the control technology is technologically or economically infeasible. This provision is not adequately specific or bounded and, thus, may bar effective enforcement (see 81 FR 58010, 58047, August 24, 2016). In addition, the State must adopt permanent and enforceable control measures for this source category even if certain sources within the source category have existing emissions controls. Therefore, EPA proposes to disapprove Alaska’s determination that 18 AAC 50.078(d) satisfies BACM for coffee roasters. Alaska required commercial charbroilers to submit information to Alaska related to the type, operation, and performance of the device as part of the Fairbanks Serious Plan.155 Based on the information provided, Alaska then conducted an economic analysis as part of the Fairbanks 189(d) Plan that assessed the cost of installing an available control measure, catalytic oxidizers, on each of the charbroilers in the nonattainment area. The State estimated the cost of installing catalytic oxidizers at $47,786 per ton of PM2.5 removed (adjusted to 2019 dollars). Thus, Alaska ultimately determined that BACM is economically infeasible for this source. While we find that Alaska’s economic analysis is a reasonable estimate of the cost of installing one potential emission control device, Alaska did not evaluate all available control measures. Currently available emission control devices include electrostatic precipitators (ESP), wet scrubbers, and filtration.156 Moreover, Alaska did not explain whether there are chain-driven or underfire charbroilers in the Fairbanks Nonattainment Area, which have 155 18 AAC 50.078(c) Gysel, et al. ‘‘Particulate matter emissions and gaseous air toxic pollutants from commercial meat cooking operations.’’ Journal of Environmental Sciences,’’ 65, 162–170; Yang, et al, ‘‘Transient plasma-enhanced remediation of nanoscale particulate matter in restaurant smoke emissions via electrostatic precipitation’’ Particuology 55 (2021): pages 43–37; New York City Department of Environmental Protection (February 2021). Certified Emission Control Devices for Commercial UnderFired Char Broilers. Available at https:// www1.nyc.gov/assets/dep/downloads/pdf/air/ approved-under-fired-technology.pdf; Francis & R.E. Lipinski ‘‘Control of Air Pollution from Restaurant Charbroilers,’’ Journal of the Air Pollution Control Association, 27:7, pages 643–647, available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/0002 2470.1977.10470466. 156 See PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 different considerations for emission controls.157 Therefore we propose to disapprove Alaska’s evaluation of and BACM determination for charbroilers. Alaska identified and evaluated the prohibition of used oil burners as a potential BACM-level control measure. Alaska issued a regulation at 18 AAC 50.078(c) requiring owners and operators of used oil burners to provide certain information to assist Alaska in evaluating the feasibility of imposing the prohibition. Ultimately, Alaska did not adopt and submit any controls on used oil burners as part of the Fairbanks Serious Plan or Fairbanks 189(d) Plan. Alaska updated the BACM analysis in the Fairbanks 189(d) Plan to address environmental impacts if used oil burning were restricted in the Fairbanks nonattainment area. According to the State, the only way to dispose of used oil in the nonattainment area is through burning and that limiting this disposal method would likely lead to dumping the used oil on land or water. While one factor the State may consider in demonstrating the technological infeasibility of a measure is environmental impacts, Alaska’s evaluation is insufficient to demonstrate that prohibiting used oil burners is technologically infeasible. Notably, illegal dumping of used oil is prohibited under state and Federal laws.158 Thus, the State and EPA have a basis for preventing or mitigating any environmental impacts that may result from prohibiting used oil burning. Requiring used oil generators to collect and ship used oil to a central disposal facility appears feasible. Since Alaska did not adequately demonstrate that that BACM for this emission source is technologically or economically infeasible, we propose to disapprove Alaska’s BACM evaluation and determination for use oil burners. Similarly, incinerators are another source subject to the information requirements under 18 AAC 50.078(c). However, after receiving information related to this source category, Alaska determined that there are no permitted sources identified as incinerators in the Fairbanks nonattainment area and thus, evaluation of emissions controls is not necessary. We propose to find that Alaska reasonably determined that there were no affected sources for this source category, so BACM does not need to be identified for this source category in the Fairbanks nonattainment area. 157 Yang, et al, ‘‘Transient plasma-enhanced remediation of nanoscale particulate matter in restaurant smoke emissions via electrostatic precipitation’’ Particuology 55 (2021): pages 43–37. 158 18 AAC 60.020; 33 U.S.C. 1321; 40 CFR 279.12. E:\FR\FM\10JAP2.SGM 10JAP2 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 6 / Tuesday, January 10, 2023 / Proposed Rules In conclusion, we propose to approve of Alaska’s BACM determination for incinerators (18 AAC 50.078(c)(2)). We propose to disapprove Alaska’s BACM determination for coffee roasters, charbroilers, and used oil burners for the reasons stated in this section (18 AAC 50.078(c)(1); 18 AAC 50.078(c)(3); 18 AAC 50.078(d)). iv. Emissions From Mobile Sources khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 The Fairbanks Moderate Plan and the Fairbanks Serious Plan considered several transportation control measures and other mobile source emission reduction measures, including: HOV lanes; traffic flow improvement program; non-motorized traffic zones; employer-sponsored flexible work schedules; retrofitting the diesel fleet (school buses, transit fleets); on-road vehicle I/M program; heavy-duty vehicle I/M program; State LEV program. Fairbanks has expanded the availability of plug-ins and required electrification of certain parking lots. Fairbanks has also expanded transit service and a commuter van pool program. Alaska also has an anti-idle program. We note that none of these transportation programs have been submitted for SIP approval. Alaska stated in the Fairbanks Serious Plan and Fairbanks 189(d) Plan submissions that independent studies by NCHRP (a division of the Transportation Research Board) and ASHTO (the American Association of VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:53 Jan 09, 2023 Jkt 259001 State Highway and Transportation Officials) have documented that while states and communities continue to adopt them, where funding is available, growing experience in lower-48 states has demonstrated emissions benefits are limited. As a result, credit for Transportation Control Measures in SIPs has diminished and additional transportation control measures would provide limited emission reduction benefits. However, this appears to argue that mobile sources are a de minimis source category, which EPA has determined is not a valid basis for dismissing a source category or related control measures from consideration.159 Alaska did not provide a technological or economic infeasibility demonstration to reject these measures. Therefore, we propose to disapprove Alaska’s rejection of available control measures for the mobile source category for PM2.5 and SO2 emissions. However, we propose to approve Alaska’s analysis that found no NH3-specific emission controls for this source category, b. Summary of EPA’s Evaluation of Alaska’s Identification and Adoption of BACM The BACM analysis submitted in the Fairbanks Serious Plan and updated in the Fairbanks 189(d) Plan identified and evaluated potential BACM controls for several source categories. We will 159 81 PO 00000 FR 58010, August 24, 2016, at p. 58082. Frm 00029 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 1481 discuss in the next section Alaska’s approach to apply BACM findings for oil-fired heating devices (1,000 ppmw sulfur content requirement) to emission units at the GVEA Zehnder and UAF Campus Power Plant facilities. EPA proposes to approve Alaska’s determination that there are no specific NH3 emission controls for the sources or source categories in the emissions inventory discussed in this section of the document and that certain measures designed to reduce direct PM2.5 emissions also reduce NH3 emissions. Thus, EPA proposes to determine that Alaska has satisfied the requirement to identify, adopt and implement BACM and BACT for the sources and source categories of NH3 discussed in this section of the document. We propose to approve BACM for portions of the solid-fuel burning category and the small commercial area source category and propose to disapprove BACM for the other BACM emission source categories. A summary table of EPA’s evaluation is provided bin Table 11. For further details of each specific control measure Alaska analyzed for BACM, see EPA’s Control Measure Analysis Technical Support Document.160 160 Jentgen, M. (September 27, 2022). Technical support document for Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation’s (ADEC) control measure analysis, under 40 CFR 1010(a) and (c). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, Air and Radiation Division. E:\FR\FM\10JAP2.SGM 10JAP2 1482 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 6 / Tuesday, January 10, 2023 / Proposed Rules TABLE 11—SUMMARY OF EPA’S EVALUATION OF ALASKA’S BACM ANALYSIS Emissions source category EPA evaluation of specific BACM measures Solid-fuel burning ........................... Approve: wood-fired heating device requirements and resulting emissions. Disapprove: Wood seller/dry wood requirements; coal-fired heating devices. Approve: pot burners, waste oil; fuel oil boilers. Disapprove: ULSD as heating oil Approve: incinerators (no sources identified). Disapprove: coffee roasters; charbroilers; used oil burners. Disapprove: weatherization and energy efficiency. Approve: CARB standards; school bus retrofits; road paving. Disapprove: Other transportation measures; vehicle idling. Residential and commercial fuel oil combustion. Small commercial area sources .... Energy efficiency measures ........... Emissions from mobile sources ..... c. Alaska’s Identification and Adoption of BACT i. Chena Power Plant We propose to disapprove Alaska’s BACT determination for PM2.5 and SO2 controls for the four coal-fired boilers. For PM2.5, Alaska noted that the source currently uses the baghouse to achieve 99.9% capture efficiency, but did not definitively determine this control was required as BACT or submit for SIP approval an enforceable requirement to operate the baghouse. Operation of the baghouse to achieve 99.9% capture efficiency is likely to be BACT for PM2.5 for this source, but the State must revise State rules relevant to adopted BACM Specific BACM measures, as identified by Alaska 18 AAC 50.075, except (d)(2); 18 BACM Measures: 1–30, 33–47, AAC 50.077, except (g) and (q);. 63, 65–66, R1, R4–R7, R9– R12, R15, R16–R17, R29. 18 AAC 50.076(k); 18 AAC BACM Measures: 31–32; 48–49. 50.079(f). ....................................................... BACM Measures: 52–53, 61–62. 18 AAC 50.078(b) ......................... 18 AAC 50.078(c) ......................... BACM Measure: 51. BACM Measures: 69. 18 AAC 50.078(d) ......................... BACM Measures: 67–68; 70. ....................................................... BACM Measure: 64. ....................................................... BACM Measures: 54–56, 58, 59. ....................................................... BACM Measures: 57, 60, R20. the SIP to include an enforceable requirement to operate the baghouse to achieve this level of control before we can determine whether BACT requirements are satisfied. Therefore, EPA is proposing to disapprove Alaska’s BACT determination for PM2.5 for the four coal-fired boilers at the Chena Power Plant. For SO2, Alaska has not sufficiently evaluated all of the available control technologies, particularly the better performing SO2 control technologies that EPA has emphasized in previous comments.161 Alaska’s economic infeasibility demonstrations are also insufficient. Most significantly, Alaska’s cost analyses for wet flue gas desulfurization (WFGD) and spray-dry absorbers (SDA) were not based on study-level 162 vendor quotes and incorporated unsubstantiated cost variables that likely inflated the cost estimate. Alaska’s affordability assessment for DSI lacks necessary information and is unreliable. EPA’s complete evaluation of Alaska’s cost analysis for SO2 controls on the coalfired boilers is included in the docket for this action.163 We propose to approve Alaska’s analysis that found no NH3-specific emission controls for the sources at this facility. TABLE 12—CHENA POWER PLANT, EPA BACT EVALUATION Chena Power Plant, Aurora Energy, LLC—EPA BACT Evaluation Emission source category Alaska’s BACT selection Rationale for EPA’s proposed disapproval Coal-fired boilPM2.5: N/A ............................... ers (EUs 4–7). SO2: Existing emissions limit; coal content requirement. ii. Doyon-Fort Wainwright khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 We propose to disapprove Alaska’s BACT determination for PM2.5 and SO2 161 See EPA Comments regarding site-specific quotes for high performing SO2 control technologies, such as a wet scrubber (WFGD), spray dry absorber (SDA), and circulating dry scrubber (CDS); ‘‘EPA Comments on 2020 DEC Proposed Regulations and SIP Amendments’’ Letter from Krishna Viswanathan, Director, EPA Region 10 Air and Radiation Division to Alice Edwards, Director, ADEC Division of Air Quality, October 29, 2020; ‘‘EPA Comments on 2019 DEC Proposed VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:53 Jan 09, 2023 Jkt 259001 PM2.5: Operation of the baghouse to achieve 99.9% capture efficiency appears to be BACT for PM2.5 for this source, but state has not provided an enforceable requirement to operate the baghouse to achieve this level of control. SO2: Alaska’s BACT determinations are not sufficient to meet BACT requirements. Additionally, the economic infeasibility demonstration is inadequate. controls for each of the emission sources at the CHPP. Regarding PM2.5 controls for the coal-fired boilers and material handling equipment and PM2.5 and SO2 controls for the small and large emergency engines, fire pumps, and generators, and diesel-fired boilers, we find Alaska’s BACT findings are Regulations and SIP- Fairbanks North Star Borough Fine Particulate Matter’’ Letter from Krishna Viswanathan, Director, EPA Region 10 Air and Radiation Division to Alice Edwards, Director, ADEC Division of Air Quality, July 19, 2019. 162 A study-level cost estimate is one with a level of accuracy of plus or minus 30 percent. This level of accuracy is consistent with what is expected by the Agency in BACT determinations. Refer to the EPA Air Pollution Control Cost Manual, Section 1, Chapter 2, 7th Edition (November 2017) for more information. 163 Hedgpeth and Sorrels. (August 24, 2022). Review of Best Available Control Technology analyses submitted for the Aurora Energy, LLC Chena Power Plant as part of the Fairbanks PM2.5 Nonattainment SIP. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, Laboratory Services and Applied Science Division. 163 57 FR 18070, April 28, 1992. PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10JAP2.SGM 10JAP2 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 6 / Tuesday, January 10, 2023 / Proposed Rules appropriate. However, Alaska did not include the MRR requirements necessary to make these BACT requirements enforceable as a practical matter. Therefore, we are proposing to disapprove the BACM/BACT determination for these sources as not meeting the CAA requirement that the SIP include enforceable emission limitations. Alaska can rectify this issue by submitting the MRR requirements necessary (such as the requirements included in the current operating permit) to ensure the BACM/BACT requirements are enforceable as a practical matter. We propose to disapprove Alaska’s BACT evaluation and determination for SO2 emissions controls (installing DSI) for the coal-fired boilers comprising the CHPP. The analyses we received from Alaska and DU do not establish that the best performing control technologies (technologies with better control efficiency than DSI) Alaska identified as potential controls for these emission units are technologically or economically infeasible. Alaska’s initial BACT submission did not sufficiently evaluate all of the available control technologies, particularly the better performing SO2 control technologies that EPA has emphasized in previous comments.164 Most significantly, Alaska’s cost analyses for wet flue gas desulfurization (WFGD), spray-dry absorbers (SDA) and DSI were not based 1483 on study-level vendor quotes and incorporated unsubstantiated cost variables that likely inflated the cost estimate. Subsequently, DU submitted additional information that evaluated the costs of these technologies.165 However, the cost analysis continues to show that the best performing SO2 control technologies are technologically or economically feasible.166 EPA’s complete evaluation of Alaska’s cost analysis for SO2 controls on the coalfired boilers is included in the docket for this action.167 We propose to approve Alaska’s analysis that found no NH3-specific emission controls for the sources at this facility. TABLE 13—FORT WAINWRIGHT, EPA BACT EVALUATION khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 Fort Wainwright, Doyon utilities—EPA BACT evaluation Emission source category Alaska’s BACT selection Rationale for EPA’s proposed disapproval Coal-fired boilers (EUs 1–6) ........... PM2.5: Existing full stream baghouse. SO2: Install and operate DSI; coalsulfur content requirement. Diesel-fired oil boilers (27 emissions units). PM2.5: Existing emissions and operating limits. SO2: ULSD fuel requirement ......... Large diesel-fired engines, fire pumps, and generators (8 emissions units; greater than 500 horsepower). Small emergency engines, fire pumps, and generators (41 emissions units). PM2.5: Existing emissions and operating limits. SO2: ULSD fuel requirement ......... Material handling sources (6 emissions units; coal prep and ash handling). PM2.5: Existing emission limits ...... SO2: n/a ......................................... PM2.5: Alaska’s BACT determination is appropriate, but monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting (MRR) requirements not provided. SO2: Alaska’s BACT determination is not sufficient to meet BACT requirements, other better performing control technologies than DSI are feasible and cost effective. PM2.5: Alaska’s BACT determination is appropriate, but MRR requirements not provided. SO2: Alaska’s BACT determination is appropriate, but MRR requirements not provided. PM2.5: Alaska’s BACT determination is appropriate, but MRR requirements not provided. SO2: Alaska’s BACT determination is appropriate, but MRR requirements not provided. PM2.5: Alaska’s BACT determination is appropriate, but MRR requirements not provided. SO2: Alaska’s BACT determination is appropriate, but MRR requirements not provided. PM2.5: Alaska’s BACT determination is appropriate, but MRR requirements not provided. SO2: n/a. PM2.5: Existing emissions and operating limits. SO2: ULSD fuel requirement ......... iii. University of Alaska Fairbanks Campus Power Plant We propose to disapprove Alaska’s BACT determination for PM2.5 and SO2 controls for each of the emission sources at the Fairbanks Campus Power Plant. Regarding PM2.5 controls for the dual fuel-fired boiler, backup diesel generator, diesel-fired boilers, and material handling sources; the PM2.5 and SO2 controls for the pathogenic waste incinerator; and the SO2 controls for the diesel-fired engines, we find Alaska’s BACT findings are appropriate. However, Alaska did not submit as part of the Fairbanks Serious Plan the emission limits corresponding to Alaska’s SO2 or PM2.5 BACT findings for some emission units,168 Alaska also did not include the MRR requirements necessary to make these BACT requirements enforceable as a practical matter. Therefore, we are proposing to disapprove Alaska’s PM2.5 BACT requirements for these sources as not meeting the CAA requirement that the SIP include enforceable emission limitations. Alaska can rectify this issue by submitting the enforceable emission limitation and monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements necessary to ensure the BACT requirements are enforceable as a practical matter. We note that the MRR requirements for the material handling 164 See EPA Comments regarding site-specific quotes for high performing SO2 control technologies, such as a wet scrubber (WFGD), spray dry absorber (SDA), and circulating dry scrubber (CDS); ‘‘EPA Comments on 2020 DEC Proposed Regulations and SIP Amendments’’ Letter from Krishna Viswanathan, Director, EPA Region 10 Air and Radiation Division to Alice Edwards, Director, ADEC Division of Air Quality, October 29, 2020; ‘‘EPA Comments on 2019 DEC Proposed Regulations and SIP- Fairbanks North Star Borough Fine Particulate Matter’’ Letter from Krishna Viswanathan, Director, EPA Region 10 Air and Radiation Division to Alice Edwards, Director, ADEC Division of Air Quality, July 19, 2019. 165 ‘‘Revised Wainwright BACT SO Emission 2 Control Study,’’ Doyon Utilities, August 25, 2021, included in docket for this action. 166 See letter from Krishna Viswanathan, Director, Air and Radiation Division, EPA Region 10, to Shane Coiley, Senior Vice President, Doyon Utilities, LLC, and COL Nathan Surry, Commander, U.S. Army Garrison Alaska, October 26, 2021. Included in docket for this action. 167 Hedgpeth, Z. (August 24, 2022). Review of Best Available Control Technology analyses submitted for Fort Wainwright-US Army Garrison Alaska (FWA) and Doyon Utilities, LLC (DU) as part of the Fairbanks PM2.5 Nonattainment SIP. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, Laboratory Services and Applied Science Division. 168 Fuel oil-fired simple cycle gas turbine (EUs 1 and 2); Fuel oil-fired combined cycle gas turbine (EUs 5 and 6). VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:20 Jan 09, 2023 Jkt 259001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10JAP2.SGM 10JAP2 1484 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 6 / Tuesday, January 10, 2023 / Proposed Rules unit, EU 111, should include the operational requirement that the building doors remain closed at all times that ash loading is occurring. Appropriate MRR conditions should be included to ensure no visible emissions escape the building. We propose to disapprove Alaska’s BACT evaluation and determination for SO2 controls for the dual fuel-fired boiler. Alaska has not sufficiently evaluated all of the available SO2 emissions control technologies, as EPA has previously commented.169 Most significantly, Alaska’s cost analyses for wet flue gas desulfurization (WFGD), spray-dry absorbers (SDA) and dry sorbent injection (DSI) were not based on study-level vendor quotes and incorporated unsubstantiated cost variables that likely inflated the cost estimates. Alaska’s affordability assessment for DSI lacks necessary information and is unreliable. EPA’s complete evaluation of Alaska’s cost analysis of SO2 controls for the coalfired boilers is included in the docket for this action.170 Further, we propose to disapprove Alaska’s BACT determination for SO2 controls for the diesel-fired boilers. Alaska’s BACT determination requiring ULSD is appropriate, but the delayed implementation and interim requirement (1000 ppmw) is not supported as BACT. We also propose to disapprove Alaska’s BACT evaluation and determination for PM2.5 controls for certain diesel-fired engines. EUs 23 and 26 lack operating limits, and a diesel particulate filter on EU 27 is cost effective. For the remaining diesel-fired engines, Alaska’s BACT determination is appropriate, but MRR requirements are not submitted as part of the SIP. For additional details on EPA’s evaluation of Alaska’s cost analysis for PM2.5 controls, see EPA’s Technical Support Document. We propose to approve Alaska’s analysis that found no NH3-specific emission controls for the sources at this facility. TABLE 14—UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA FAIRBANKS CAMPUS POWER PLANT, EPA BACT EVALUATION University of Alaska Fairbanks Campus Power Plant—EPA BACT Evaluation Emission source category Dual fuel-fired units 113). boiler (Emission Mid-sized Diesel-fired boilers (EUs 3 and 4). Small-sized Diesel-fired (EUs 19–21). Alaska’s BACT selection Rationale for EPA’s proposed disapproval PM2.5: Emission limit achieved by use of existing fabric filter. SO2: Existing emissions limit achieved through limestone injection and low sulfur fuel. PM2.5: Existing emissions and operating limits. SO2: Sulfur content requirements PM2.5: Alaska’s BACT determination is appropriate, but MRR requirements not provided. SO2: Alaska’s BACT determination is not sufficient to meet BACT requirements. boilers PM2.5: Existing emissions and operating limits. SO2: Sulfur content requirements Large diesel-fired engine (EU 8) ..... PM2.5: Existing emissions and operating limits. SO2: ULSD fuel requirement ......... Small diesel-fired engines (EUs 23– 24, 26–29). PM2.5: Existing emissions and operating limits. SO2: ULSD fuel requirement ......... Pathogenic waste incinerator (EU 9a). PM2.5: Existing emissions and operating limits. SO2: ULSD fuel requirement ......... Material handling sources (EUs 105, 107, 109–111, 114, 128– 130). PM2.5: Existing emissions and operating limits. SO2: n/a ......................................... khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 iv. Zehnder Facility We propose to disapprove Alaska’s BACT determination for PM2.5 and SO2 controls for each of the emission sources at the Zehnder facility. Regarding PM2.5 169 See EPA Comments regarding site-specific quotes for high performing SO2 control technologies, such as a wet scrubber (WFGD), spray dry absorber (SDA), and circulating dry scrubber (CDS); ‘‘EPA Comments on 2020 DEC Proposed Regulations and SIP Amendments’’ Letter from Krishna Viswanathan, Director, EPA Region 10 Air and Radiation Division to Alice Edwards, Director, VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:53 Jan 09, 2023 Jkt 259001 PM2.5: Alaska’s BACT determination is appropriate, but MRR requirements not provided. SO2: Alaska’s BACT determination requiring ULSD is appropriate, but the delayed implementation and interim requirement (1000 ppmw) is not supported as BACT. PM2.5: Alaska’s BACT determination is appropriate, but MRR requirements not provided. SO2: Alaska’s BACT determination requiring ULSD is appropriate, but the delayed implementation and interim requirement (1000 ppmw) is not supported as BACT. PM2.5: Alaska’s BACT determination is appropriate, but MRR requirements not provided. SO2: Alaska’s BACT determination is appropriate, but MRR requirements not provided. PM2.5: Alaska’s BACT determination is not sufficient in part, EUs 23 and 26 lack operating limits, and a control device at EU 27 is cost effective. Otherwise, Alaska’s BACT determination is appropriate, but MRR requirements are not provided. SO2: Alaska’s BACT determination is appropriate, but MRR requirements not provided. PM2.5: Alaska’s BACT determination is appropriate, but MRR requirements not provided. SO2: Alaska’s BACT determination is appropriate, but MRR requirements not provided. PM2.5: Alaska’s BACT determination is appropriate, but specific MRR requirements are required and were not provided. SO2: n/a. controls for the two fuel oil-fired simple cycle gas combustion turbines, two diesel-fired generators, and two diesel fired boilers, we find Alaska’s BACT finding are appropriate. However, Alaska did not include the MRR requirements necessary to make these BACT requirements enforceable as a practical matter. Therefore, we are proposing to disapprove Alaska’s PM2.5 ADEC Division of Air Quality, October 29, 2020; ‘‘EPA Comments on 2019 DEC Proposed Regulations and SIP—Fairbanks North Star Borough Fine Particulate Matter’’ Letter from Krishna Viswanathan, Director, EPA Region 10 Air and Radiation Division to Alice Edwards, Director, ADEC Division of Air Quality, July 19, 2019. 170 Hedgpeth and Sorrels. (August 24, 2022). Review of Best Available Control Technology analyses submitted for the University of Alaska, Fairbanks as part of the Fairbanks PM2.5 Nonattainment SIP. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, Laboratory Services and Applied Science Division. PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10JAP2.SGM 10JAP2 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 6 / Tuesday, January 10, 2023 / Proposed Rules BACT requirements for these sources as not meeting the CAA requirement that the SIP include enforceable emission limitations. Alaska can rectify this issue by submitting the monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements necessary to ensure the BACT requirements are enforceable as a practical matter. We propose to disapprove Alaska’s BACT evaluation for SO2 controls for each of the emissions units. Based on Alaska’s finding that switching to ULSD is technologically and economically feasible for all area sources, Alaska did not select the best available measure to control SO2 emissions from this facility. EPA’s complete evaluation of Alaska’s 1485 BACT evaluation is included in the docket for this action.171 We propose to approve Alaska’s analysis that found no NH3-specific emission controls for the sources at this facility. TABLE 15—ZEHNDER FACILITY, EPA BACT EVALUATION Zehnder facility, Golden Valley Electric Authority—EPA BACT Evaluation Emission source category Alaska’s BACT selection Rationale for EPA’s proposed disapproval Fuel oil-fired simple cycle gas turbine (EUs 1 and 2). PM2.5: Existing emissions limit ...... SO2: 1000 ppmw fuel sulfur requirement, by September 1, 2022. Diesel-fired emergency generators (EUs 3 and 4). PM2.5: Existing emissions and operating limits. SO2: 1,000 ppmw fuel sulfur requirement, by September 1, 2022. PM2.5: Existing emissions limit ...... SO2: 10,00 ppmw fuel sulfur requirement, by September 1, 2022. PM2.5: Alaska’s BACT determination is appropriate, but MRR requirements not provided. SO2: Alaska’s BACT determination is not sufficient to meet BACT requirements. Alaska initially identified ULSD (15 ppmw sulfur) fuel as BACT. PM2.5: Alaska’s BACT determination is appropriate, but MRR requirements not provided. SO2: Alaska’s BACT determination is not sufficient to meet BACT requirements. Alaska initially identified ULSD (15 ppmw sulfur) fuel as BACT. PM2.5: Alaska’s BACT determination is appropriate, but MRR requirements not provided. SO2: Alaska’s BACT determination is not sufficient to meet BACT requirements. Alaska initially identified ULSD (15 ppmw sulfur) fuel as BACT. Diesel-fired boilers (EUs 10 and 11) v. North Pole Power Plant khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 We propose to disapprove Alaska’s BACT determination for PM2.5 and SO2 controls for each of the emission sources at the North Pole Power Plant. Regarding PM2.5 controls for the two fuel oil-fired simple cycle gas combustion turbines, two fuel oil-fired combined cycle gas combustion turbines, and large diesel-fired engine and PM2.5 and SO2 controls for the two propane-fired boilers, we find Alaska’s BACT findings are appropriate. However, Alaska did not submit as part of the Fairbanks Serious Plan the emission limits corresponding to Alaska’s SO2 or PM2.5 BACT findings for some emission units.172 Alaska also did not submit the MRR requirements needed for determining compliance with all BACT limits or requirements and to make the limits or requirements enforceable as a practical matter. Therefore, we are proposing to 171 Hedgpeth, Z. (August 24, 2022). Review of Best Available Control Technology analyses submitted for the Golden Valley Electric Association (GVEA) Zehnder and North Pole Power Plants as part of the Fairbanks PM2.5 Nonattainment SIP. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, Laboratory Services and Applied Science Division. VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:53 Jan 09, 2023 Jkt 259001 disapprove Alaska’s PM2.5 BACT requirements for these sources as not meeting the CAA requirement that the SIP include enforceable emission limitations. Alaska can rectify this issue by submitting the emission limits and monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements necessary to ensure the BACT requirements are enforceable as a practical matter. We propose to disapprove Alaska’s BACT evaluation for SO2 controls for the simple cycle gas turbines. Alaska determined that switching to ULSD is technologically and economically feasible for the simple cycle turbines. Alaska did not adequately justify delaying this requirement to October 1, 2023. Nor did Alaska demonstrate that year-round operation was infeasible. Additionally, Alaska did not sufficiently demonstrate how the intermediate measure, limiting sulfur content to 1,000 ppm from October 1, 2020, to October 1, 2023, only during Air Quality Stage Alert 1 and 2 (solid-fuel device curtailment is in effect), is enforceable as a practical matter. EPA’s complete evaluation of Alaska’s BACT determination is included in the docket.173 Further, for SO2 controls for the combined-cycle turbines, we propose to find that Alaska’s BACT determination is appropriate, but Alaska needs to specify in the BACT determination that only ULSD may be used during startup. Alaska can rectify this issue by clarifying this portion of the BACT requirement. For SO2 controls for the large diesel-fired engine, Alaska lacks the technical justification for not adopting ULSD as BACT. For additional details, see EPA’s Technical Support Document.174 We propose to approve Alaska’s analysis that found no NH3-specific emission controls for the sources at this facility. 172 Fuel oil-fired simple cycle gas turbine (EUs 1 and 2); Fuel oil-fired combined cycle gas turbine (EUs 5 and 6). 173 Hedgpeth, Z. (August 24, 2022). Review of Best Available Control Technology analyses submitted for the Golden Valley Electric Association (GVEA) Zehnder and North Pole Power Plants as part of the Fairbanks PM2.5 Nonattainment SIP. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, Laboratory Services and Applied Science Division 174 Hedgpeth, Z. (August 24, 2022). Review of Best Available Control Technology analyses submitted for the Golden Valley Electric Association (GVEA) Zehnder and North Pole Power Plants as part of the Fairbanks PM2.5 Nonattainment SIP. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, Laboratory Services and Applied Science Division PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10JAP2.SGM 10JAP2 1486 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 6 / Tuesday, January 10, 2023 / Proposed Rules TABLE 16—NORTH POLE POWER PLANT, EPA BACT EVALUATION North Pole Power Plant, Golden Valley Electric Authority—EPA BACT Evaluation Emission source category Alaska’s BACT selection Rationale for EPA’s proposed disapproval Fuel oil-fired simple cycle gas turbine (EUs 1 and 2). PM2.5: Existing emission limit, use of low ash fuel, limited operation, and good combustion practices. SO2: Sulfur content requirements PM2.5: Existing emissions limit ...... SO2: Sulfur content requirement— 50 ppmw sulfur fuel limit (i.e., ‘‘light straight run fuel’’). PM2.5: Alaska’s BACT determination is appropriate, but MRR requirements not provided. SO2: Alaska’s BACT determination requiring ULSD is appropriate, but the delayed implementation and interim requirement (1000 ppmw) is not supported as BACT. PM2.5: Alaska’s BACT determination is appropriate, but MRR requirements not provided. SO2: Alaska’s BACT determination is appropriate but need to specify in the BACT determination that only ULSD may be used during startup. PM2.5: Alaska’s BACT determination is appropriate, but MRR requirements not provided. SO2: Alaska’s BACT determination is not sufficient to meet BACT requirements. ULSD not adopted, lacks technical justification for rejection of measure. PM2.5: Alaska’s BACT determination is appropriate, but MRR requirements not provided. SO2: Alaska’s BACT determination is appropriate, but MRR requirements not provided. Fuel oil-fired combined cycle gas turbine (EUs 5 and 6). Large diesel-fired engine (EU 7) ..... Propane-fired boiler (EUs 11 and 12). PM2.5: Good combustion practices, positive crankcase ventilation, and limited operation. SO2: Use of fuel that does not exceed 0.05% sulfur by weight. PM2.5: Existing emissions limits .... SO2: Use of propane fuel .............. khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 d. Alaska’s Identification and Adoption of Additional Measures and Demonstration of 5% Reduction in Emissions Pursuant to CAA Section 189(d) The Fairbanks 189(d) Plan included a reevaluation of previously rejected control measures. First, Alaska added a burn down period of 3 hours for solidfuel heating devices that begins upon the effective date and time of a curtailment announcement. Second, Alaska added specific requirements to document economic hardship as part of a NOASH curtailment program waiver for solid-fuel devices. As part of its reevaluation of control measures, Alaska provided additional information for a number of control measures considered in the BACM analysis. The Fairbanks 189(d) Plan included additional consideration of banning installation of solid-fuel devices in new construction, limiting heating oil to ultra-low sulfur diesel, dry wood requirements, emissions controls for small area sources, mobile sources, and most stringent measures.175 However, Alaska did not reevaluate BACT-level controls for stationary sources. Specifically, there were a number of SO2 control technologies that were evaluated and dismissed under the Fairbanks Serious Plan that were not reconsidered in the Fairbanks 189(d) Plan. Therefore, we propose to find that Alaska has not sufficiently met the requirement under CAA section 189(d) to reevaluate additional measures that could lead to expeditious attainment. 175 State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol II, Chapter III.D.7.7.12. VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:53 Jan 09, 2023 Jkt 259001 Regarding the requirement to demonstrate five percent annual reductions, Alaska included in the Fairbanks 189(d) Plan a control strategy analysis that demonstrates annual reductions of PM2.5 are greater than five percent through 2024, Alaska’s projected attainment year. However, CAA section 189(d) and 40 CFR 51.1010(c)(4) and (5) require that the control strategy contain not just measures required to achieve five percent annual reductions, but all required BACM and additional measures that collectively achieve attainment as expeditiously as practicable. As discussed in Section III.D.3 of this document, Alaska did not adopt and implement all available and required control measures as part of the control strategy for either the Fairbanks Serious Plan or Fairbanks 189(d) Plan. Therefore, Alaska did not necessarily adopt and implement all control measures that collectively achieve attainment as expeditiously as possible. Thus, EPA is proposing to disapprove the control strategy included in the Fairbanks 189(d) Plan as not meeting the full requirements of CAA section 189(d) and 40 CFR 51.1010(c). D. Attainment Demonstration and Modeling 1. Statutory and Regulatory Requirements Pursuant to CAA sections 188(c) and 189(b) and 40 CFR 51.1003(b) and 51.1011(b), for nonattainment areas reclassified as Serious, the state must submit an attainment demonstration as part of the Serious Plan that meets the PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 requirements of 40 CFR 51.1011. Similarly, pursuant to 40 CFR 51.1003(c), for Serious areas subject to CAA section 189(d) for failing to attain by the Serious area attainment date, the state must submit an attainment demonstration as part of the 189(d) plan that meets the requirements of 40 CFR 51.1011. On September 2, 2020, EPA determined that the Fairbanks Nonattainment Area failed to attain the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS by the December 31, 2019, Serious area attainment date. Therefore, EPA is proposing to evaluate any previously unmet Serious area planning obligations based on the current, applicable attainment date appropriate under CAA section 189(d) and not the original Serious area attainment date.176 In accordance with 40 CFR 51.1011, the attainment demonstration must meet four requirements: 1. Identify the projected attainment date for the Serious nonattainment area that is as expeditious as practicable; 2. Meet the requirements of 40 CFR part 51, appendix W and include inventory data, modeling results, and emission reduction analyses on which the state has based its projected attainment date; 3. The base year for the emissions inventories shall be one of the 3 years 176 The term ‘‘applicable attainment date’’ is defined at 40 CFR 51.1000 to mean: ‘‘the latest statutory date by which an area is required to attain a particular PM2.5 NAAQS, unless EPA has approved an attainment plan for the area to attain such NAAQS, in which case the applicable attainment date is the date approved under such attainment plan. If EPA grants an extension of an approved attainment date, then the applicable attainment date for the area shall be the extended date.’’ E:\FR\FM\10JAP2.SGM 10JAP2 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 6 / Tuesday, January 10, 2023 / Proposed Rules khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 used for designations or another technically appropriate inventory year if justified by the state in the plan submission; and 4. The control strategies modeled as part of a Serious area attainment demonstration shall be consistent with the control strategies required pursuant to 40 CFR 51.1003 and 51.1010 (including the specific requirements in 40 CFR 51.1010(c) for Serious areas that fail to attain. Further, in accordance with 40 CFR 51.1011(b)(5), the attainment plan must provide for implementation of all control measures needed for attainment as expeditiously as practicable. Additionally, all control measures must be implemented no later than the beginning of the year containing the applicable attainment date, notwithstanding BACM implementation deadline requirements in 40 CFR 51.1010.177 2. Summary of State’s Submission The State included an attainment demonstration in the Fairbanks Serious Plan, submitted on December 13, 2019.178 EPA did not take action on the attainment demonstration submitted as part of the Fairbanks Serious Plan. Alaska subsequently withdrew and resubmitted a new attainment demonstration (State Air Quality Plan, Volume II, Chapter III.D.7.9), as part of its Fairbanks 189(d) Plan submission. Alaska also updated its modeling chapter to include State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol. II, Chapter III.D.7.8.14, as part of the Fairbanks 189(d) Plan. Alaska’s attainment demonstration in the Fairbanks 189(d) Plan projects attainment by December 31, 2024. Alaska evaluated the most expeditious attainment date and demonstrated that the earliest the controlling monitor for the nonattainment area at Hurst Road can model attainment of the NAAQS is 2024. Accordingly, Alaska identified December 31, 2024, as the most expeditious attainment date forecasted for the Fairbanks PM2.5 nonattainment area, based on currently available data.179 Alaska used the modeling platform (e.g., model versions, modeling domain, inputs, parameterizations, initial and boundary conditions) and meteorological episodes previously used 177 40 CFR 51.1011(b)(5). Air Quality Plan, Volume II, Chapter III.D.7.9 (version November 19, 2019). See section II.A in this document 58 for a discussion of Alaska’s attainment demonstration submitted as part of the Fairbanks Serious Area Plan. 179 State Air Quality Plan, Volume II, Chapter III.D.7.9.3. 178 State VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:53 Jan 09, 2023 Jkt 259001 for the Fairbanks Moderate Plan and the Fairbanks Serious Plan. For a detailed summary of Alaska’s attainment demonstration, see EPA’s Fairbanks Modeling Technical Support Document in the docket for this action.180 Alaska selected 2019 as the base year for modeling purposes. In consultation with EPA, Alaska decided to use a fouryear (2016–2019) time period in the Fairbanks 189(d) Plan to establish the base year value rather than five years. This is because PM2.5 levels decreased from 111 mg/m3 in 2015 to a range of 52.8 mg/m3 and 75.5 mg/m3 between 2016–2019. Design values were updated for each of the PM2.5 monitor locations in the Fairbanks PM2.5 Nonattainment Area (see Table 1 in this document). The new modeling value at the Hurst Road monitor is 64.7 mg/m3, the monitoring site located in the area of maximum concentration.181 The State could not calculate a base year design value for A Street because measurements began at that site in 2019. Future SIP modeling will include the A Street monitor, which is considered to be a location of maximum PM2.5 in Fairbanks. Finally, Alaska modeled the control strategies included in the Fairbanks 189(d) Plan.182 By 2024, Alaska anticipates emissions reductions of 2.11 PM2.5 tons per episodic day and 5.18 SO2 tons per episodic day, resulting from implementation of these control measures. 3. EPA’s Evaluation and Proposed Action EPA proposes to find that Alaska’s attainment demonstration does not fully meet CAA requirements. As part of the attainment demonstration, the state must identify the projected attainment date that is as expeditious as possible. As discussed in Section III.D.3 of this document, Alaska did not adopt and implement all available control measures. Correct identification of the most expeditious attainment date requires an evaluation based upon 180 Briggs and Kotchenruther. (August 24, 2022). Review of Fairbanks Nonattainment Area Modeling in the 2020 State Implementation Plan Submission. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, Laboratory Services and Applied Science Division. 181 The official 2017–2019 design value at the Hurst Road site is 69 mg/m3. The 64.7 mg/m3 value reflects the 2017–2019 design value excluding days in 2019 influenced by wildfires. A justification for the adjusted base year for modeling purposes is included in the docket for this action, see Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation. (April 14, 2021). Exceptional Events Waiver Request, For Exceptional PM2.5 Events Between May 26, and July 26, 2019, in the Fairbanks North Star Borough, Alaska. Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, Air Quality Division. 182 State Air Quality Plan, Volume II, Chapter III.D.7.9, Table 7.9–5. PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 1487 expeditious implementation of the required emission controls. Therefore, EPA cannot assess whether Alaska identified the expeditious attainment date for modeling purposes. The modeling platform the State used for the Fairbanks 189(d) Plan is outdated and does not reflect the current state of scientific knowledge about meteorological and photochemical processes contributing to PM2.5 formation. Additionally, there is no quantitative performance evaluation for the North Pole (Hurst Road) monitor because there were not sufficient speciated PM2.5 data for the time period of the model performance evaluation. The modeling is based on 2008 meteorological episodes that have not been updated or replaced since development of the Moderate Area SIP. Therefore, EPA proposes to find that the attainment demonstration in the Fairbanks 189(d) Plan does not meet the requirements of 40 CFR 51.1011(b)(2). For additional details of EPA’s evaluation, see the Technical Support Document included in the docket for this action.183 We note that Alaska is currently engaged in a multi-year effort to develop a new Fairbanks modeling platform, as outlined in State Air Quality Control Plan, Appendix III.D.7.8 of the Fairbanks 189(d) Plan. EPA will continue to support Alaska’s modeling efforts and will review updated modeling and attainment analysis when submitted by the State. EPA approves of the design value Alaska calculated for modeling purposes. For base year modeling purposes, the 64.7 mg/m3 four year average value is appropriate as measured between 2016–2019 at the Hurst Road monitor in the North Pole portion of the Fairbanks Nonattainment Area. The base year emissions inventory Alaska used for its attainment demonstration in the 189(d) Plan represented one of the three years that EPA used to determine that the area failed to attain by the Serious area attainment date. This base year is consistent with the requirements of 40 CFR 51.1011(b)(3). Finally, EPA is proposing to partially disapprove Alaska’s control strategy as not meeting the requirements of CAA section 189(b) and 40 CFR 51.1010. EPA’s basis for this proposed disapproval is discussed in detail in Section III.D.3 of this document. Accordingly, the control strategies modeled as part of Alaska’s attainment 183 Briggs and Kotchenruther. (August 24, 2022). Review of Fairbanks Nonattainment Area Modeling in the 2020 State Implementation Plan Submission. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, Laboratory Services and Applied Science Division. E:\FR\FM\10JAP2.SGM 10JAP2 1488 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 6 / Tuesday, January 10, 2023 / Proposed Rules demonstration are not consistent with the control strategies required pursuant to 40 CFR 51.1003 and 40 CFR 51.1010. For these reasons, EPA proposes to disapprove the modeling attainment requirements in the Fairbanks 189(d) Plan. E. Reasonable Further Progress khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 1. Statutory and Regulatory Requirements Pursuant to CAA section 172(c) and 40 CFR 51.1012 for the Fairbanks Serious Plan and Fairbanks 189(d) Plan, each attainment plan for a PM2.5 nonattainment area shall include Reasonable Further Progress (RFP) provisions that demonstrate that control measures in the area will achieve such annual incremental reductions in emissions of direct PM2.5 and PM2.5 plan precursors as are necessary to ensure attainment of the applicable PM2.5 NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable. As discussed in section I of this document, on September 2, 2020, EPA determined that the Fairbanks PM2.5 Nonattainment Area failed to attain the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS by the applicable December 31, 2019, Serious area attainment date. Therefore, EPA is proposing to evaluate any previously unmet Serious area planning obligations, including RFP and quantitative milestone requirements, based on the current, applicable attainment date appropriate under CAA section 189(d) and not the original Serious area attainment date. In accordance with 40 CFR 51.1012, the RFP plan shall include all of the following: a. A schedule describing the implementation of control measures during each year of the applicable attainment plan. Control measures for Moderate area attainment plans are required in 40 CFR 51.1009, and control measures for Serious area attainment plans are required in 40 CFR 51.1010. b. RFP projected emissions for direct PM2.5 and all PM2.5 plan precursors for each applicable milestone year, based on the anticipated implementation schedule for control measures required by 40 CFR 51.1009 and 51.1010. For purposes of establishing motor vehicle emissions budgets for transportation conformity purposes (as required in 40 CFR part 93, subpart A) for a PM2.5 nonattainment area, the state shall include in its RFP submission an inventory of on-road mobile source emissions in the nonattainment area for each milestone year.184 184 For an evaluation of motor vehicle emission budgets, see section III.H of this document. VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:53 Jan 09, 2023 Jkt 259001 c. An analysis that presents the schedule of control measures and estimated emissions changes to be achieved by each milestone year, and that demonstrates that the control strategy will achieve reasonable progress toward attainment between the applicable base year and the attainment year. The analysis shall rely on information from the base year inventory for the nonattainment area required in 40 CFR 51.1008(a)(1) and the attainment projected inventory for the nonattainment area required in 40 CFR 51.1008(a)(2), in addition to the RFP projected emissions required in 40 CFR 51.1012(a)(2). d. An analysis that demonstrates that by the end of the calendar year for each milestone date for the area determined in accordance with 40 CFR 51.1013(a), pollutant emissions will be at levels that reflect either generally linear progress or stepwise progress in reducing emissions on an annual basis between the base year and the attainment year. A demonstration of stepwise progress must be accompanied by appropriate justification for the selected implementation schedule. 2. Summary of State’s Submission Alaska included its RFP analysis in State Air Quality Plan, Vol II, III.D.7.10. Initially Alaska submitted an RFP plan in the Fairbanks Serious Plan based on the projected attainment year of 2029. Alaska withdrew and replaced the RFP plan in the Fairbanks 189(d) plan based on the revised 2024 attainment projection. Regarding the RFP requirements, Alaska included an implementation schedule for each control measure for each source category, see State Air Quality Plan, Vol II, Chapter III.D.7.10, Table 7.10–4. The table presents a start year and the phase-in percentage for each milestone year. Alaska included projected emissions for direct PM2.5 and all PM2.5 plan precursors for each applicable milestone year.185 Alaska included an analysis that presents the schedule of control measures (Table 7.10–4) and estimated emissions changes to be achieved by each milestone year (Table 7.10–5), and that demonstrates that the control strategy will achieve reasonable progress toward attainment between the applicable base year and the attainment year. Alaska noted that direct PM2.5 emission reductions achieved within each milestone year are projected to meet or exceed linear progress toward estimated 185 State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol. III, Appendix III.D.7.10 (corresponding Excel spreadsheets). PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 attainment by 2024 (and through 2026). Meanwhile, progress toward attainment for SO2 is expected to be non-linear. According to Alaska, this non-linearity in control measure reductions for SO2 is due to two causes. First, most of the measures designed to reduce direct PM2.5 through removal, curtailment or replacement of solid-fuel devices trigger a shift in heating energy to higher SO2 emitting heating oil. Second, decreases in SO2 emissions offsetting these increases are the result of the shift from diesel #2 to diesel #1 fuel oil for space heating by 2023, and point source SO2 BACT controls that phase in from 2021– 2024. Thus, control measure emission reductions for SO2 exhibit stepwise rather than linear progress. NH3 reductions meet linearly-established targets in the base year and 2024 attainment year, but to population growth, linear progress is not met in 2023 and 2026 for NH3. We note that Alaska is not taking credit for NH3 emission reductions co-benefits resulting from the implementation of control measures for PM2.5 and SO2 emissions. 3. EPA’s Evaluation and Proposed Action Alaska withdrew and replaced the State Air Quality Control Plan, Chapter III.D.7.10, as part of submission of the Fairbanks 189(d) Plan. The RFP provisions included in the Fairbanks 189(d) plan are based on Alaska’s proposed control strategy designed to meet the requirements of CAA sections 189(b) and 189(d), and 40 CFR 51.1010(a) and (c), based on a projected attainment date of 2024. Therefore, the approvability of the plan with respect to RFP requirements is dependent, in part, on the approvability of the control strategy and attainment demonstration. Specifically, to meet the RFP requirement, the State must include a schedule describing the implementation of control measures required by 40 CFR 51.1010.186 Moreover, the RFP projected emissions for each milestone year must be based on the anticipated implementation schedule for control measures required by 40 CFR 51.1010.187 Thus, if the control strategy does not include all required control measures, then the RFP provisions will necessarily be deficient. Similarly, the purpose of the RFP requirement is to demonstrate that the attainment plan will achieve annual incremental reductions in emissions between the base year and the attainment date that is as expeditious as 186 40 187 40 E:\FR\FM\10JAP2.SGM CFR 51.1012(a)(1). CFR 51.1012(a)(2). 10JAP2 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 6 / Tuesday, January 10, 2023 / Proposed Rules practicable.188 Accordingly, if the attainment year does not reflect the most expeditious year practicable, then the State’s evaluation of RFP will not accurately project progress towards the most expeditious attainment year. As discussed in sections III.C and III.D. of this document, EPA is proposing to disapprove Alaska’s attainment demonstration and to partially disapprove Alaska’s control strategy. Therefore, the RFP provisions in the Fairbanks 189(d) Plan are, by extension, deficient. Therefore, EPA is proposing to disapprove the Fairbanks 189(d) Plan with respect to RFP requirements. F. Quantitative Milestones 1. Statutory and Regulatory Requirements In accordance with CAA section 189(c)(1) and 40 CFR 51.1013, the state must submit in each attainment plan for a PM2.5 nonattainment area specific quantitative milestones that provide for objective evaluation of RFP toward timely attainment of the applicable PM2.5 NAAQS in the area. For an attainment plan submission for a Serious area subject to the requirements of CAA section 189(d) and 40 CFR 51.1003(c), each plan shall contain quantitative milestones (QM) that provide for objective evaluation of reasonable further progress toward timely attainment of the applicable PM2.5 NAAQS in the area. At a minimum, each plan for an area subject to CAA section 189(d) must include QMs for tracking progress achieved in implementing the SIP control measures by each milestone date. Regarding the specific timeframe for the Fairbanks PM2.5 Nonattainment Area, per 40 CFR 51.1013(a)(4), each attainment plan submission for an area designated nonattainment for the 1997 and/or 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS before January 15, 2015, shall contain quantitative milestones to be achieved no later than 3 years after December 31, 2014, and every 3 years thereafter until the milestone date that falls within 3 years after the applicable attainment date. khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 2. Summary of State’s Submission Similar to the RFP requirement discussed in section III.E of this document, Alaska revised submitted updated QM provisions as part of the Fairbanks 189(d) Plan. The Fairbanks 189(d) Plan, projecting attainment by 2024, contained a QM for each control measure to be achieved every three years until attainment is achieved (and 188 40 CFR 51.1012(a). VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:53 Jan 09, 2023 Jkt 259001 three years thereafter), State Air Quality Plan, Vol II, III.D.7.10, Table 7.10–4. The State created milestones for the woodstove changeout program to measure progress for that program by the number of changeouts expected for each milestone year. The State created milestones for other control measures to evaluate progress for those measures based on an expected percentage of combined penetration or the expected compliance rate. For the woodstove curtailment program, the State estimated the compliance rate to achieve 30 percent by 2020; 45 percent by 2023; and 50 percent by 2026. Notably, a number of control measures are not fully phased-in by the attainment date. These measures include the woodstove curtailment program, commercial dry wood requirements, removal of coal devices requirements, and the revised NOASH/ exemption requirements. 3. EPA’s Evaluation and Proposed Action Similar to the RFP requirements, Alaska withdrew and resubmitted State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol II, Chapter III.D.7.10 as part of submission of the Fairbanks 189(d) Plan. The QMs are based on Alaska’s proposed control strategy and attainment date of 2024. Therefore, the approvability of the QMs is dependent, in part, on the approvability of the control strategy and modeled attainment demonstration. Specifically, if the control strategy does not include all required control measures, then the QMs will necessarily be deficient. Alaska will need to submit a new attainment demonstration with new projected attainment date, and by extension, reevaluate whether the QMs for each milestone year are appropriate. Here, the control strategy does not contain all required control measures. Therefore, the QMs are, by extension, deficient and EPA is proposing to disapprove the State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol II, Chapter III.D.7.10, with respect to QMs. G. Contingency Measures 1. Statutory and Regulatory Requirements In accordance with CAA section 172(c)(9) and 40 CFR 51.1014, contingency measures are additional control measures to be implemented following a determination by EPA that a state or area has failed: (1) to meet RFP requirements, (2) to meet any quantitative milestone, (3) to submit a quantitative milestone report, or (4) to attain the PM2.5 standard by the PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 1489 applicable attainment date.189 In accordance with CAA section 172(c)(9) and 40 CFR 51.1014, a Serious area attainment plan and a 189(d) plan must include continency measure provisions that meet the following requirements: a. Each contingency measure shall take effect with minimal further action by the state or EPA following a determination by EPA that any of the triggering events occurs. b. Contingency measures shall consist of control measures that are not otherwise included in the control strategy or that achieve emissions reductions not otherwise relied upon in the control strategy. c. Each contingency measure shall specify the timeframe within which its requirements become effective following an applicable determination by EPA. d. The attainment plan submission shall contain a description of the specific trigger mechanisms for the contingency measure and specify a schedule for implementation. In addition to the regulatory requirements listed in this section, longstanding EPA guidance indicates that contingency measures should result in emission reductions approximately equivalent to one year’s worth of emissions reductions necessary to achieve RFP for the area. By extension, given this linkage between contingency measures and RFP, the contingency measures ought to achieve emissions reductions of both direct PM2.5 and PM2.5 plan precursors. In the rare event that an area is unable to identify contingency measures to account for approximately 1 year’s worth of emissions reductions, the state should provide a reasoned justification why the smaller amount of emissions reductions is appropriate.190 A state can rely on contingency measures that achieve emissions reductions on sources located outside the nonattainment area, but within the state provided that the measures on sources outside the designated nonattainment area are demonstrated to produce the appropriate air quality impact within the nonattainment area. The state cannot rely on already implemented Federal, state, or local measures to satisfy the contingency measure requirement.191 To be approvable, contingency measures have to be both conditional and prospective such that emissions reductions will occur after a triggering event, such as 189 81 FR 58010, August 24, 2016, at pp. 58092– 58093. 190 Id. at 58067 and 58093. 191 Bahr v. EPA, 836 F.3d 1218, at pp. 1235–36 (9th Cir. 2016). E:\FR\FM\10JAP2.SGM 10JAP2 1490 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 6 / Tuesday, January 10, 2023 / Proposed Rules khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 EPA’s determination that the area failed to attain by the applicable attainment date. Furthermore, if the contingency measures themselves do not provide for emissions reductions equal to one-year’s worth of RFP, the deficiency cannot be made up through additional emissions reductions projected due to already implemented measures even if the state has not relied upon those emission reductions for the purpose of meeting the RFP or attainment demonstration requirements.192 With regard to the timing for implementing contingency measures, EPA reiterates that the purpose of contingency measures is to ensure that corrective measures are put in place automatically at the time that EPA makes a determination that an area has failed to meet RFP, failed to meet any quantitative milestone, failed to submit a quantitative milestone report or failed to meet the NAAQS by the applicable attainment date. These measures are intended to provide additional emission reductions during the period that the state and EPA take necessary action to cure the deficiency through subsequent SIP submissions. For any nonattainment area, EPA is required to determine within 90 days after receiving a state’s QM Report, and within 6 months after the attainment date for an area, whether the state has met its statutory obligations for demonstrating RFP or attaining the standard, as appropriate. EPA expects that contingency measures should become effective within 60 days of EPA making its determination with respect to any of the four triggers for such measures. 2. Summary of State’s Submission As a threshold matter, Alaska submitted a revision to state regulations at 18 AAC 50.030(c) such that all contingency measures included in nonattainment area plans are triggered based on the effective date of an EPA finding that a particular nonattainment area failed: (i) to attain the applicable NAAQS by the applicable attainment date; (ii) to meet a quantitative milestone; (iii) to submit a required quantitative milestone report; or (iv) to meet a reasonable further progress requirement. In addition, Alaska included in the Fairbanks Serious Plan a new rule section 18 AAC 50.077(n) as part of the new wood-fired heating device regulations, that created two contingency measures. When initially adopted the measures were designed to be triggered upon any of the 192 Assoc. of Irritated Residents v. EPA, 10 F.4th 937, at pp. 946–947 (9th Cir. 2021). VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:53 Jan 09, 2023 Jkt 259001 determinations listed in 40 CFR 51.1014(a). The first measure requires owners of older EPA-certified wood fired heating devices with an emission rating above 2.0 grams per hour (g/hr), manufactured at least 25 years prior to the effective date of an EPA finding that triggers this measure, to remove the device upon the sale of a property or by December 31, 2024, whichever is earlier. The second measure requires owners of EPA-certified devices that were manufactured less than 25 years prior to EPA finding to remove the device prior to reaching 25 years from the date of manufacture. Control measures targeting the older EPA certified devices will provide additional emission reduction benefits beyond Alaska’s current home heating control measures. On September 24, 2021, EPA approved these two measures as SIP strengthening (86 FR 52997), but EPA did not determine whether these measures met contingency measure requirements. The Fairbanks 189(d) Plan included an additional contingency measure, as a revision to State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol II, Chapter III.D.7.12 (Fairbanks Emergency Episode Plan) that, if triggered, lowers the air quality woodstove curtailment Stage 2 threshold from 30 mg/m3 to 25 mg/m3. The approach the State used to calculate emission benefits that would result from the lower curtailment threshold was consistent with the approach it used to estimate emission benefits resulting from reductions of the curtailment program thresholds for Stage 1 from 25 mg/m3 to 20 mg/m3 and Stage 2 from 35 mg/m3 to 30 mg/m3, respectively. The State estimated this amount of emission reductions based on a weighting of the 35 modeling episode days under which either Stage 1, Stage 2, or no alert restrictions would have occurred based on measured PM2.5 concentrations for each episode day. In the Fairbanks 189(d) Plan submission, Alaska estimated that the combined PM2.5 emission benefits will be minimal if the measures are triggered prior to 2024 but then will be 0.08 tons per day by 2024. Based on data presented earlier in the Fairbanks 189(d) Plan, Table 7.10–5, the State reasoned that one year of RFP for the area under the Plan would be 0.24 tons per day of PM2.5 emission reductions. In addition, the State provided information related to additional emission reductions based on funding anticipated under the 2019– 2020 Targeted Airshed Grant program (for which benefits were not included in the attainment and RFP analysis). We again note here that the State cannot rely on already implemented Federal, state, or local measures to satisfy the PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 contingency measure requirement.193 Nonetheless, Alaska estimated an additional 0.66 tons per day of incremental PM2.5 reductions would result from Wood Stove Change Out Program expansion and Curtailment Program enhancements by 2024. Summing these benefits yields a total of 0.86 tons per day of direct PM2.5 emission reductions. After accounting for measure benefits overlap, the State calculated that combined reductions of 0.53 tons per day of PM2.5 reductions could result from the contingency measures and other additional measures, and this amount would be more than one year of RFP (0.24 tons per day of PM2.5). As shown in the bottom row if Table 7.10–7, these excess reductions above the one-year advancement target were estimated to be 0.29 tons per day. Moreover, the State’s modeled attainment demonstration projected attainment in 2024, and included the finding that the modeled 2024 design value at the controlling monitor within the nonattainment area would be 31 mg/ m3, leaving a margin between this modeled value and the 2006 24–hour PM2.5 NAAQS of 35 mg/m3. According to Alaska, this projected margin, combined with the surplus emission benefits from the additional woodstove changeout and curtailment measures discussed in section III.C of this document, would provide the emission reductions more than the equivalent of one year’s worth of RFP in the nonattainment area. 3. EPA’s Evaluation and Proposed Action EPA has reviewed the State’s contingency measures included in the Fairbanks Serious Plan and Fairbanks 189(d) Plan. Regarding Alaska’s revisions to 18 AAC 50.030(c) to incorporate central triggering mechanisms for contingency measures, we propose to find that this regulation is consistent with 40 CFR 51.1014(a). The regulation mirrors the triggering events in 40 CFR 51.1014(a). An evaluation of the specific contingency measures submitted under each nonattainment plan is included in this section. In summary, EPA proposes to approve the contingency measure submitted as part of the Fairbanks 189(d) Plan as SIP-strengthening, but proposes to disapprove the Fairbanks Serious Plan and Fairbanks 189(d) Plan submissions as not meeting the contingency measure requirements of CAA section 172(c)(9) and 40 CFR 51.1014. 193 Bahr v. EPA, 836 F.3d 1218, at pp. 1235–36 (9th Cir. 2016). E:\FR\FM\10JAP2.SGM 10JAP2 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 6 / Tuesday, January 10, 2023 / Proposed Rules khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 a. Fairbanks Serious Plan The first measure included in the Fairbanks Serious Plan requires owners of older, less efficient EPA-certified wood fired heating devices to remove the device upon the sale of a property or by December 31, 2024, whichever is earlier. The second measure requires owners of EPA-certified devices that were manufactured less than 25 years prior to EPA’s finding to remove the device prior to reaching 25 years from the date of manufacture. We note that, EPA approved these two measures as SIP strengthening on September 24, 2021, (86 FR 52997). Trigger mechanism: These two contingency measures are subject to Alaska’s regulation 18 AAC 50.030(c) that is consistent with the triggers in 40 CFR 51.1014(a). Measures not otherwise included in control strategy: At the time of adoption and submission to EPA, these measures were not otherwise included in the control strategy. These measures address the largest emissions source in the nonattainment area and were not otherwise included in the Fairbanks Serious Plan’s control strategy. At the time of adoption and submission to EPA, these measures were expected to produce emissions benefits in addition to the projected emissions reductions under the control strategy and were not required to meet RFP or to attain by the attainment date. However, these measures were triggered on October 2, 2020, the effective date of EPA’s determination that the Fairbanks Nonattainment Area failed to attain the NAAQS by the Serious area attainment date. Implementation schedule: The contingency measures are effective once triggered under 18 AAC 50.030(c). While the majority of emissions reductions are expected by 2024, components of the measure require immediate action, including when a device is sold, leased, or conveyed as part of an existing building) or removal once the device reaches a certain age based on the date of manufacture. The final deadline for removal of all EPAcertified stoves older than 25 years is December 31, 2024. We note that the emission reductions that would occur immediately, or within the first year of implementation, after the measures are triggered are not equal to 1 years’ worth of RFP. One year’s emissions reductions: Control measures targeting the older EPA certified devices will provide additional emission reduction benefits beyond Alaska’s current home heating control measures. The contingency VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:53 Jan 09, 2023 Jkt 259001 measures are expected to provide PM2.5 reductions of 0.01 tons per day (averaged over the modeling episodes) in its first year of implementation and each year thereafter through 2024.194 Alaska further calculated the emissions benefits of 0.025 tons per day that would begin in 2024 in the State Air Quality Control Plan, Appendix III.D.7.10, and 0.15 tons per day of direct PM2.5 can be achieved by 2029 based on a 70 percent penetration/ compliance rate.195 To attain by the projected attainment date, Alaska projected 1 years’ worth of emissions reductions are 0.24 tons per day. Therefore, the emissions reductions achieved through these contingency measures would not be sufficient to demonstrate 1 years’ worth of RFP. Further we note that Alaska did not evaluate whether these contingency measures would achieve emission reductions for the applicable PM2.5 plan precursors, including SO2 and NH3. Conclusion: Because these measures do not meet all of the statutory and regulatory requirements for contingency measures, we propose to disapprove these measures as meeting the contingency measure requirement under CAA section 172(c)(9) or 40 CFR 51.1014. b. Fairbanks 189(d) Plan The contingency measure Alaska identified as part of the Fairbanks 189(d) Plan increases the stringency of the curtailment program for wood-fired heating devices, a critical element of the Fairbanks attainment plan. The contingency measure would lower the Stage 2 curtailment threshold from 30 to 25 mg/m3, under the Fairbanks Emergency Episode Plan, State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol II, Chapter III.D.7.12. Trigger mechanism: This contingency measure, specified under the Fairbanks Emergency Episode Plan, State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol II, Chapter III.D.7.12, is subject to Alaska’s regulation 18 AAC 50.030(c), which 194 Fairbanks SIP Contingency Measure Emission Reductions, submitted to EPA on August 17, 2020, included in the docket for this proposed action. Alaska stated that a compliance rate of 10% was estimated based on the frequency these older stoves/inserts would be identified and replaced through residential home resales. Alaska identified data published in the Fairbanks Community Research Quarterly, that Fairbanks Borough averaged 1,215 home sales per year from 2017– 2019, the most recent period of available data. Accounting for the fraction that are re-sales (that trigger a compliance mechanism) and within the nonattainment area, along with the fraction of homes with 25-year old wood stoves, yielded the estimated ‘‘compliance’’ rate of 10%. 195 State Air Quality Control Plan, Appendix III.D.7.10 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 1491 includes the trigger mechanisms described in 40 CFR 51.1014(a). Measures not otherwise included in control strategy: this measure addresses the largest emissions source in the nonattainment area and was not otherwise included in the Fairbanks 189(d) Plan’s control strategy. Thus, this measure, if triggered, is expected to produce emissions benefits in addition to the project emissions reductions under the control strategy. Implementation schedule: The contingency measures are effective once triggered under 18 AAC 50.030(c) and can be implemented with minimal delay. One year’s emissions reductions: EPA projects an emissions benefit of 0.08 tons per day when this contingency measure becomes effective. We again note that Alaska projects one year of RFP advancement is 0.24 tons per day. Therefore, this measure is not equal to approximately 1 years’ worth of RFP. This measure meets many requirements for contingency measures, but does not provide adequate emissions reductions of direct PM2.5 or PM2.5 plan precursors. In addition, Alaska has not adequately evaluated whether this measure would achieve emissions reductions for PM2.5 precursors (SO2 or NH3) approximately equivalent to 1 years’ worth of RFP or whether additional contingency measures for PM2.5 precursors (SO2 or NH3) are necessary to do so. Nor has Alaska provided a reasoned explanation for why reductions in PM2.5 precursors (SO2 or NH3) via contingency measures is impracticable. Conclusion: The contingency measure included in the Fairbanks 189(d) Plan, lowering the Stage 2 curtailment threshold from 30 to 25 mg/m3, will improve the current SIP and so we propose to approve the measure under the Fairbanks Emergency Episode Plan, State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol II, Chapter III.D.7.12, as SIP-strengthening. However, this measure does not provide adequate emissions reductions of direct PM2.5 or PM2.5 plan precursors. Thus, the contingency measures fall short of serving the statutory and regulatory purposes of continuing air quality improvement. Alaska did not provide a reasoned justification for why the smaller amount of emissions reductions is appropriate. Additionally, while the contingency measures address direct PM2.5 emissions (and possibly NH3 emissions) from the source category that emits the most direct PM2.5, Alaska has not adequately evaluated contingency measures for all PM2.5 precursors (SO2 or NH3) or provided a reasoned explanation for why reductions in PM2.5 precursors (SO2 or E:\FR\FM\10JAP2.SGM 10JAP2 1492 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 6 / Tuesday, January 10, 2023 / Proposed Rules NH3) via contingency measures is impracticable. For these reasons, we are proposing to disapprove the contingency measures in the Fairbanks Serious Plan and Fairbanks 189(d) Plan as meeting the requirements of CAA section 172(c)(9) and 40 CFR 51.1014. We note that the woodstove device regulations under 18 AAC 50.077(n) are already federally enforceable, as they were approved in our September 24, 2021, final rule (86 FR 52997), and have been implemented based on EPA’s finding that the Fairbanks Nonattainment Area failed to attain by the Serious attainment date.196 H. Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets for Transportation Conformity khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 1. Statutory and Regulatory Requirements CAA section 176(c) requires Federal actions in nonattainment and maintenance areas to conform to the goals of the SIP to eliminate or reduce the severity and number of violations of the NAAQS and achieve expeditious attainment of the standards. Conformity to the goals of the SIP means that such actions will not (1) cause or contribute to any new violation of a NAAQS, (2) increase the frequency or the severity of an existing violation, or (3) delay timely attainment of any NAAQS or interim milestones. Actions involving Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) or Federal Transit Administration (FTA) funding or approval are subject to the transportation conformity rule (40 CFR 51.390 and part 93, subpart A). Under this rule, metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) in nonattainment and maintenance areas coordinate with state air quality and transportation agencies, EPA, FHWA and FTA to demonstrate that an area’s long-range transportation plan (‘‘transportation plan’’) and transportation improvement program (TIP) conform to the applicable SIP. This demonstration is typically made by showing that estimated emissions from existing and planned highway and transit systems are less than or equal to the motor vehicle emissions budgets (‘‘budgets’’) contained in all control strategy plans. An attainment plan for the PM2.5 NAAQS should include budgets for the attainment year and each required QM year, as appropriate. Budgets are generally established for specific years and specific pollutants or precursors and must reflect all of the motor vehicle control measures contained in the 196 85 FR 54509, September 2, 2020. Effective October 2, 2020. VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:53 Jan 09, 2023 Jkt 259001 attainment and RFP demonstrations (40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)(v)). Attainment plans for PM2.5 NAAQS should typically identify motor vehicle emission budgets for each QM year and the attainment year for direct PM2.5 and NOX (See 40 CFR 93.102(b)(2)(iv)), and for VOCs, SO2, and NH3, if certain criteria in the transportation conformity rule are met (See 40 CFR 93.102(b)(2)(v)). All direct PM2.5 emission budgets in an attainment plan should include direct PM2.5 motor vehicle emissions from tailpipe, brake wear, and tire wear. A state must also consider whether re-entrained paved and unpaved road dust are significant contributors and should be included in the direct PM2.5 budget. See 40 CFR 93.102(b) and 93.122(f) and the conformity rule preamble at 69 FR 40004, 40031–40036 (July 1, 2004).197 2. Summary of State’s Submission The Fairbanks 189(d) Plan provided budgets for direct PM2.5 for each of the upcoming RFP years (2020, 2023, and 2026) and the 2024 attainment year identified by Alaska. Budgets for NOX were not included because Alaska demonstrated that NOX does not significantly contribute to PM2.5 formation in the Fairbanks Nonattainment Area, see Section III.B in this document. For SO2 and NH3, in accordance with 40 CFR 93.102(b)(2)(v), transportation-related emissions of these precursors have not been found to be significant. The direct PM2.5 budgets were calculated using the MOVES2014b vehicle emissions model, which was the latest on-road mobile sources emissions model available at the time Alaska started developing the attainment plan inventory. Alaska used local fleet and fuel inputs and the Fairbanks Area Surface Transportation Planning (FAST Planning) travel demand model to generate local vehicle travel activity estimates over the six-month nonattainment season (October through March). The average winter day emissions were used by Alaska to set the motor vehicle emissions budgets. Exceedances of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in the Fairbanks PM2.5 Nonattainment Area occur almost exclusively during the winter months. Alaska executed MOVES2014b with locally developed inputs representative of wintertime calendar year 2019 conditions. Table 17 summarizes the regional average winter day on-road 197 For further information on transportation conformity rulemakings, policy guidance and outreach materials, see EPA’s website at https:// www3.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/ policy.htm. PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 vehicle PM2.5 emission budgets and the related CAA milestone for the nonattainment area. TABLE 17—MOTOR VEHICLE EMISSION BUDGETS BY MILESTONE YEAR Calendar year 2020 2023 2024 2026 .......... .......... .......... .......... On-road budgets (tons per day) 0.203 0.173 0.163 0.146 CAA-related milestone RFP. RFP. Attainment. RFP. Source: Air Quality Control Plan, Vol II, Chapter III.D.7.14, Table 7.14–3. 3. EPA’s Evaluation and Proposed Action We have evaluated the motor vehicle emissions budgets developed by Alaska against our adequacy criteria in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4) as part of our review of the approvability of the budgets according to the process in 40 CFR 93.118(f)(2). EPA finds that the budgets were clearly identified and precisely quantified using MOVES2014b, with appropriate consultation among Federal, State, and local agencies. However, budgets must be considered with other emissions sources, consistent with applicable RFP and attainment requirements, and be consistent with and clearly related to the emissions inventory and the control measures in the SIP, see 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)(iv) and (v). Since the budgets must account for other control measures to determine the appropriate motor vehicle budgets, and the control strategy does not include all required control measures, then the budgets will necessarily be deficient. Therefore, EPA is proposing to disapprove the budgets for the Fairbanks PM2.5 Nonattainment Area. I. Nonattainment New Source Review Requirements Under CAA Section 189(e) CAA section 189(e) specifically requires that the control requirements applicable to major stationary sources of direct PM2.5 also apply to major stationary sources of PM2.5 precursors, except where the Administrator determines that such sources do not contribute significantly to PM2.5 levels that exceed the NAAQS in the area.198 The control requirements applicable to major stationary sources of direct PM2.5 in a Serious PM2.5 nonattainment area include, at minimum, the requirements of a nonattainment NSR permit program meeting the requirements of CAA sections 172(c)(5) and 189(b)(3). We 198 General Preamble, 57 FR 13498, April 16, 1992, at pp. 13539 and 13541–13542. E:\FR\FM\10JAP2.SGM 10JAP2 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 6 / Tuesday, January 10, 2023 / Proposed Rules note that EPA approved the nonattainment new source review element of the Fairbanks Serious Plan on August 29, 2019 (84 FR 45419). Alaska adopted by reference the 40 tons per year significant emissions rates for NOX, SO2, and VOC set by EPA, and also established a significant emissions rate of 40 tons per year for NH3 as a precursor for PM2.5, consistent with the thresholds of the other PM2.5 precursors. We propose to find that these are reasonable thresholds for an NNSR program and is adequate for purposes of meeting requirements in the 189(d) Plan under 40 CFR 51.003(c)(1)(viii). IV. Consequences of a Disapproval This section explains the consequences of a disapproval of a required SIP. The Act provides for the imposition of sanctions and the promulgation of a Federal implementation plan (FIP) if a state fails to submit and fails to obtain EPA approval of a plan revision that corrects the deficiencies identified by EPA in its disapproval. khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 A. The Act’s Provisions for Sanctions If EPA finalizes disapproval of a required SIP submission, such as an attainment plan submission, or a portion thereof, CAA section 179(a) provides for the imposition of sanctions unless the deficiency is corrected within 18 months of the final rule of disapproval. The first sanction would apply 18 months after EPA disapproves the SIP. Under EPA’s sanctions regulations, 40 CFR 52.31, the first sanction imposed at 18 months following a disapproval is 2:1 offsets for sources subject to the new source review requirements under CAA section 173. If the deficiency remains uncorrected at 24 months after the disapproval a second sanction is imposed consisting of a prohibition on the approval or funding of certain highway projects.199 EPA also has authority under CAA section 110(m) to impose sanctions on a broader area but is not proposing to impose sanctions on a broader area in this action. The imposition of sanctions is avoided or stopped by a final EPA rulemaking action finding that the state corrected the SIP deficiencies resulting in the disapproval. B. Federal Implementation Plan Provisions That Apply if a State Fails To Submit an Approvable Plan CFR 51.1008(c)(1)) for areas subject to CAA section 189(d). 2. The State’s PM2.5 precursor demonstration for NOX and VOC In addition to sanctions, if EPA finds emissions (CAA section 189(e); 205 40 that a state failed to submit the required CFR 51.1006(a)). SIP revision or finalizes disapproval of 3. Partial approval of the control the required SIP revision, or a portion strategy as meeting BACM requirements thereof, EPA must promulgate a FIP no under CAA section 189(b)(1)(B) 206 and later than two years from the effective 40 CFR 51.1010(a) for the solid-fuel date of the disapproval unless the State home heating device source category, corrects the deficiency and EPA specific regulations under 18 AAC approves the plan or plan revisions 50.075 through 077, and Fairbanks 200 before that date. Emergency Episode Plan. C. Ramifications Regarding EPA is proposing to approve the Transportation Conformity submitted sections of the State Air Quality Control Plan for the Fairbanks One consequence of EPA action PM2.5 Nonattainment Area, State finalizing disapproval of a control effective January 8, 2020: strategy SIP submission is a conformity 4. Volume II, Chapter III.D.7.11 freeze.201 If EPA finalizes the Contingency Measures. disapproval of the attainment EPA is proposing to approve the demonstration SIP without a protective submitted chapters of the Alaska Air finding, a conformity freeze will be in Quality Control Plan for the Fairbanks place as of the effective date of the PM2.5 Nonattainment Area, State 202 disapproval. The area’s MPO, FAST effective December 25, 2020: Planning, produces the long-range 205. Volume II, Chapter III.D.7.06 and year metropolitan transportation plan and the short-range transportation plan. Volume III Chapter III.D.7.06 Emissions Inventory for purposes of the 2019 base During a conformity freeze, no new year emissions inventory. transportation projects in the Fairbanks 6. Volume II, Chapter III.D.7.07 and PM2.5 Nonattainment Area may be found Volume III Chapter III.D.7.07 Control to conform until another attainment Strategies for purposes of the solid-fuel demonstration SIP is submitted and the home heating device emissions source motor vehicle emissions budgets are category. found to be adequate or the attainment 7. Volume II, Chapter III.D.7.08 demonstration is approved and Precursor Demonstration, for the conformity to the revised attainment purposes of NOX and VOC emissions as demonstration SIP is determined. Only it relates to BACM/BACT control projects in the first four years of the measure requirements. currently conforming transportation 8. Volume II, Chapter III.D.7.11 plan and transportation improvement program may be found to conform while Contingency Measures. 9. Volume II, Chapter III.D.7.12 the conformity freeze is in effect. If the Emergency Episode Plan. SIP deficiency is not remedied after 24 months, highway sanctions would be EPA is proposing to approve and imposed and a conformity lapse occurs. incorporate by reference submitted regulatory changes into the Alaska SIP. V. Summary of Proposed Action Upon final approval, the Alaska SIP will include: A. Proposed Approval 10. 18 AAC 50.075, except (d)(2), In this action, EPA is proposing to State effective January 8, 2020, (solid approve the submitted revisions to the fuel-fired heating devices may not Alaska SIP as meeting the following exceed 20 percent opacity for more than 203 Serious Plan and CAA section 189(d) six minutes in any one hour when an air required elements for the 2006 24-hour quality advisory is in effect). PM2.5 NAAQS Fairbanks Nonattainment B. Proposed Disapproval Area: 1. The 2019 base year emissions inventory (CAA section 172(c)(3); 204 40 200 CAA section 110(c), 42 U.S.C. 7410(c). strategy SIP revisions as defined in the transportation conformity include reasonable further progress plans and attainment demonstrations (40 CFR 93.101). 202 40 CFR 93.120(a)(2). 203 42 U.S.C. 7513a(d). 204 42 U.S.C. 7502(c)(3). 201 Control 199 On April 1, 1996, the U.S. Department of Transportation published a document in the Federal Register describing the criteria to be used to determine which highway projects can be funded or approved during the time that the highway sanction is imposed in an area. (See 61 FR 14363). VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:53 Jan 09, 2023 Jkt 259001 1493 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 EPA is also proposing to disapprove the following revisions to the Alaska SIP as not meeting requirements for Serious areas and Serious PM2.5 areas that fail to attain: 1. Attainment projected emissions inventory meeting the requirements of 205 42 206 42 E:\FR\FM\10JAP2.SGM U.S.C. 7513a(e). U.S.C. 7513a(b)(1)(B) 10JAP2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 1494 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 6 / Tuesday, January 10, 2023 / Proposed Rules CAA section 172(c)(1) 207 and 40 CFR 51.1008(c)(2). 2. Partial disapproval of the control strategy BACM requirements (CAA section 189(b)(1)(B) 208 and 40 CFR 51.1010(a)) for the following emission source categories: a. Residential and commercial fuel oilfired devices b. Requirements for wood sellers c. Coal-fired heating devices d. Small commercial area sources, including coffee roasters, charbroilers, and used oil burners e. Weatherization and energy efficiency measures f. Mobile source emissions 3. Disapproval of the control strategy BACT requirements (CAA section 189(b)(1)(B) 209 and 40 CFR 51.1010(a)) for the following emission sources: a. Chena Power Plant i. Coal-fired boilers (PM2.5; NH3; SO2) b. Fort Wainwright i. Coal-fired boilers (PM2.5; NH3; SO2) ii. Diesel-fired boilers (PM2.5; NH3; SO2) iii. Large diesel-fired engines (PM2.5; NH3; SO2) iv. Small emergency engines (PM2.5; NH3; SO2) v. Materials handling (PM2.5; NH3) c. University of Alaska Fairbanks i. Dual fuel-fired boiler (PM2.5; NH3; SO2) ii. Mid-sized diesel-fired boilers (PM2.5; NH3; SO2) iii. Small-sized diesel-fired boilers (PM2.5; NH3; SO2) iv. Large diesel-fired engine (PM2.5; NH3; SO2) v. Small diesel-fired engines (PM2.5; NH3; SO2) vi. Pathogenic waste incinerator (PM2.5; NH3; SO2) vii. Material handling (PM2.5; NH3) d. Zehnder i. Oil-fired simple cycle gas turbines (PM2.5; NH3; SO2) ii. Diesel-fired emergency generators (PM2.5; NH3; SO2) iii. Diesel-fired boilers (PM2.5; NH3; SO2) e. North Pole Power Plant i. Oil-fired simple cycle gas turbines (PM2.5; NH3; SO2) ii. Oil-fired combined cycle gas turbines (PM2.5; NH3; SO2) iii. Large diesel-fired engine (PM2.5; NH3; SO2) iv. Propane-fired boiler (PM2.5; NH3; SO2) 4. Additional measures (beyond those already adopted in previous 207 42 208 42 U.S.C. 7502(c)(3). U.S.C. 7513a(b)(1)(B). 209 Id. VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:53 Jan 09, 2023 Jkt 259001 nonattainment plan SIP submissions for the area as RACM/RACT, BACM/BACT, and Most Stringent Measures (MSM) 210 (if applicable)) under 40 CFR 51.1010(c). 5. Attainment demonstration and modeling meeting the requirements of CAA sections 40 CFR 51.1003(c) and 51.1011. 6. Reasonable further progress (RFP) provisions meeting the requirements of CAA section 172(c)(2) 211 and 40 CFR 51.1012. 7. Motor vehicle emission budgets meeting the requirements under 40 CFR 93.118. 8. Quantitative milestones meeting the requirements of CAA section 189(c) 212 and 40 CFR 51.1013. 9. Contingency measures meeting the requirements of CAA section 172(c)(9) 213 and 40 CFR 51.1014 applicable to Serious areas subject to CAA section 189(b) and 189(d). EPA is soliciting public comments on these proposed actions. VI. Incorporation by Reference In this document, EPA is proposing to include regulatory text in an EPA final rule that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference the regulations described in section V.A. of this document. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available through https:// www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region 10 Office (please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for more information). VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders can be found at https://www.epa.gov/lawsregulations/laws-and-executive-orders. A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review This action is not a significant regulatory action and was therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review. 210 MSM is applicable if EPA has previously granted an extension of the attainment date under CAA section 188(e) for the nonattainment area and NAAQS at issue. EPA denied Alaska’s request to extend the Serious area attainment date for the Fairbanks Serious Nonattainment Area. 211 42 U.S.C. 7502(c)(2). 212 42 U.S.C. 7513a(c). 213 42 U.S.C. 7502(c)(9). PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) This action does not impose an information collection burden under the PRA, because this proposed SIP approval in part and disapproval in part, if finalized, will not in-and-of itself create any new information collection burdens, but will simply disapprove certain State requirements for inclusion in the SIP. C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This action will not impose any requirements on small entities. This proposed SIP partial disapproval, if finalized, will not inand-of itself create any new requirements but will simply disapprove certain State requirements for inclusion in the SIP. D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531–1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This action proposes to disapprove certain pre-existing requirements under State or local law, and imposes no new requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, or tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this action. E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. F. Executive Order 13175: Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175, because the SIP revision that EPA is proposing to partially disapprove would not apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction, and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action. E:\FR\FM\10JAP2.SGM 10JAP2 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 6 / Tuesday, January 10, 2023 / Proposed Rules G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks that EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, per the definition of ‘‘covered regulatory action’’ in section 2–202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because this proposed SIP partial disapproval, if finalized, will not inand-of itself create any new regulations, but will simply disapprove certain State requirements for inclusion in the SIP. H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:53 Jan 09, 2023 Jkt 259001 I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) Section 12(d) of the NTTAA directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. EPA believes that this action is not subject to the requirements of section 12(d) of the NTTAA because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA. J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Population Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629 (February 16, 1994)) establishes Federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision directs Federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 9990 1495 and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the United States. EPA’s evaluation of this issue is contained in the section of the preamble titled ‘‘Environmental Justice Considerations.’’ List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds. Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. Dated: December 30, 2022. Casey Sixkiller, Regional Administrator, Region 10. [FR Doc. 2022–28666 Filed 1–9–23; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560–50–P E:\FR\FM\10JAP2.SGM 10JAP2

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 6 (Tuesday, January 10, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 1454-1495]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-28666]



[[Page 1453]]

Vol. 88

Tuesday,

No. 6

January 10, 2023

Part II





Environmental Protection Agency





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





40 CFR Part 52





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

Federal Register / Vol. 88 , No. 6 / Tuesday, January 10, 2023 / 
Proposed Rules

[[Page 1454]]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R10-OAR-2022-0115; FRL-9755-01-R10]


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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to 
approve in part and disapprove in part the 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 PM2.5 
nonattainment area (Fairbanks PM2.5 Nonattainment Area). 
Alaska made these submissions on December 13, 2019, and December 15, 
2020.

DATES: 
    Comments. Written comments must be received on or before March 13, 
2023.
    Public Hearing. EPA plans to hold one public hearing concerning the 
proposed rule in Fairbanks, Alaska. The date, time and location will be 
announced separately.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R10-
OAR-2022-0115, at https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot 
be edited or removed from regulations.gov. EPA may publish any comment 
received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any 
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) 
or other information the disclosure of which is restricted by statute. 
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a 
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment 
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will 
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of 
the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing 
system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment 
policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general 
guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Matthew Jentgen, EPA Region 10, 1200 
Sixth Avenue--Suite 155, Seattle, WA 98101, (206) 553-0340, 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document wherever ``we,'' 
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, it is intended to refer to EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Background
    A. Environmental Justice Considerations
II. Clean Air Act Requirements for PM2.5 Serious Area 
Plans and for PM2.5 Serious Areas That Fail To Attain
    A. Requirements for PM2.5 Serious Area Plans
    B. Requirements for PM2.5 Serious Areas That Fail To 
Attain
    C. Combined Requirements for PM2.5 Serious Areas and 
Serious Areas That Fail To Attain
III. Review of the Fairbanks Serious Plan and Fairbanks 189(d) Plan
    A. Emission Inventories
    B. Pollutants Addressed
    C. Control Strategy
    D. Attainment Demonstration and Modeling
    E. Reasonable Further Progress
    F. Quantitative Milestones
    G. Contingency Measures
    H. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets for Transportation Conformity
    I. Nonattainment New Source Review Requirements Under CAA 
section 189(e)
IV. Consequences of a Disapproval
    A. The Act's Provisions for Sanctions
    B. Federal Implementation Plan Provisions That Apply If a State 
Fails To Submit an Approvable Plan
    C. Ramifications Regarding Transportation Conformity
V. Summary of Proposed Action
    A. Proposed Approval
    B. Proposed Disapproval
VI. Incorporation by Reference
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and 
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175: Coordination With Indian Tribal 
Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From 
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect 
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)
    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address 
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 
Population

I. Background

    In 2009, EPA designated a portion of the Fairbanks North Star 
Borough as ``nonattainment'' for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 
NAAQS, which is set at the level of 35 micrograms per cubic meter 
([mu]g/m\3\) (Fairbanks PM2.5 Nonattainment Area) (74 FR 
58688, November 13, 2009).\1\ Effective July 2, 2014, EPA classified 
the area as ``Moderate'' (79 FR 31566, June 2, 2014). Subsequently, 
Alaska submitted, and EPA approved, a plan to meet Moderate 
nonattainment area requirements (82 FR 42457, September 8, 2017) 
(``Fairbanks Moderate Plan'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See 40 CFR 81.302.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On May 10, 2017, EPA determined that the Fairbanks PM2.5 
Nonattainment Area failed to attain the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 
NAAQS in the area by the outermost statutory Moderate area attainment 
date of December 31, 2015 (82 FR 21711). As a result, the Fairbanks 
PM2.5 Nonattainment Area was reclassified as a ``Serious'' 
nonattainment area by operation of law.
    Upon reclassification as a Serious PM2.5 nonattainment 
area, the State was required to submit a Serious area attainment plan 
satisfying the requirements of CAA sections 172, 189(b), and 189(c) and 
40 CFR 51.1003(b). In accordance with CAA section 188(c)(2), the 
outermost attainment date for a Serious area is no later than the end 
of the tenth calendar year following designation (i.e., December 31, 
2019).
    Alaska submitted a plan to address the Serious PM2.5 
nonattainment area requirements on December 13, 2019 (Fairbanks Serious 
Plan).\2\ Along with the required planning elements, the Fairbanks 
Serious Plan includes more stringent performance and operating 
requirements for residential and commercial heating devices, new 
regulations for wood sellers, and some requirements for stationary 
sources in the nonattainment area. The Fairbanks Serious Plan is 
comprised of revisions to Title 18, Chapter 50, of the Alaska 
Administrative Code (18 AAC 50) and the State Air Quality Control Plan, 
adopted and incorporated by reference into State law at 18 AAC 
50.030(a).\3\ On January 9, 2020, in accordance with CAA section 
110(k)(1)(B), EPA determined that the Fairbanks Serious

[[Page 1455]]

Plan was administratively and technically complete (85 FR 7760, 
February 11, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Alaska SIP revision submitted October 25, 2018, to address 
the nonattainment NSR element for the Fairbanks Serious area, among 
other things. EPA approved as meeting the nonattainment NSR element 
for the Serious Plan on August 29, 2019 (84 FR 45419).
    \3\ We note that 18 AAC 50.030(a) is not submitted, rather 
Alaska submits the adopted provisions separately for EPA approval.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Within the Fairbanks Serious Plan, the State sought an extension of 
the otherwise applicable attainment date through CAA section 188(e). On 
September 2, 2020, EPA determined that the area failed to attain by the 
Serious area attainment date and denied the State's Serious area 
attainment date extension request (85 FR 54509). As a result, Alaska 
was required to submit a revised SIP submission to meet both the 
Serious area attainment plan requirements and the additional CAA 
requirements set forth in CAA section 189(d) by December 31, 2020.\4\ 
Alaska submitted the revised plan on December 15, 2020 (Fairbanks 
189(d) Plan). The Fairbanks 189(d) Plan updated a number of chapters of 
the State Air Quality Control Plan (i.e., narrative portions of the 
SIP), adopted and incorporated by reference into State law at 18 AAC 
50.030(a). Prior to EPA taking action to approve or disapprove the 
Fairbanks Serious Plan, Alaska withdrew and replaced several chapters 
of the Fairbanks Serious Plan with the Fairbanks 189(d) Plan 
submission.\5\ In this proposed action, EPA is not proposing to act on 
the withdrawn elements of the prior Fairbanks Serious Plan, only those 
elements that remain as revised by Alaska in the Fairbanks 189(d) Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 40 CFR 51.1003(c).
    \5\ See SIP submission cover letter, submitted by Alaska 
Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) Commissioner Jason 
Brune to EPA Regional Administrator, Chris Hladick, on December 15, 
2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On September 24, 2021, EPA approved as meeting the Serious area 
planning requirements the 2013 base year emissions inventory and the 
PM2.5 precursor demonstration elements of the Fairbanks 
Serious Plan (86 FR 52997). In the same action, EPA approved other plan 
components as SIP strengthening, including (1) the updated Fairbanks 
Emergency Episode Plan \6\ that the State adopted on November 18, 2020 
and submitted on December 15, 2020; and (2) emission control measures 
included in the SIP submissions on October 25, 2018 and November 28, 
2018 (in addition to the December 13, 2019 submission).\7\ EPA did not 
determine as part of the September 24, 2021, approval whether these SIP 
strengthening components met specific nonattainment plan requirements, 
including control strategy requirements in CAA section 189 and 40 CFR 
51.1010 or the contingency measure requirements in CAA section 
172(c)(9) and 40 CFR 51.1014. EPA's proposed determination on whether 
these components meet the nonattainment plan requirements is contained 
in this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol II, III.D.7.12 (i.e., 
Alaska's planning chapter related to air quality forecasting and 
curtailment levels).
    \7\ For a description of the specific control measures addressed 
across the State's SIP submissions, see 86 FR 52997, September 24, 
2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Alaska's air quality monitoring network for the Fairbanks 
PM2.5 Nonattainment Area has included four regulatory 
monitor site locations. Table 1 in this document includes the site 
names, identification number, monitor data, and design values for the 
PM2.5 monitor site locations in Fairbanks. With EPA 
approval, the State discontinued the monitor location at the State 
Office Building and established the A Street monitor as a monitor 
location in 2019. Alaska established the A Street monitor location as a 
State or Local Air Monitoring Station (SLAMS) PM2.5 
monitoring station to characterize PM2.5 concentrations in 
the City of Fairbanks. The Hurst Road monitor measures expected maximum 
concentrations for the nonattainment area.\8\ We note Alaska flagged 
monitor data in 2019 influenced by wildfire smoke. We discuss in 
section III.3 of this document how Alaska's demonstration was 
considered for attainment modeling, but this wildfire-influenced data 
in 2019 was not regulatory significant under 40 CFR 50.14(a), so the 
monitor data has not been excluded from the official design value in 
EPA's Air Quality System (AQS).\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ For further details of the air quality monitoring network in 
the Fairbanks PM2.5 Nonattainment Area, EPA's approval 
letters of Alaska's Annual Monitoring Network Plans for each year 
between 2019 to 2022 are included in the docket for this action.
    \9\ Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation. (April 14, 
2021). Exceptional Events Waiver Request, For Exceptional PM2.5 
Events Between May 26, and July 26, 2019, in the Fairbanks North 
Star Borough, Alaska. Alaska Department of Environmental 
Conservation, Air Quality Division

                                    Table 1--Fairbanks PM2.5 Monitoring Locations and Recent Site-Level Design Values
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                      98th percentile  ([micro]g/m\3\)    2019-2021  24-
                Local site name                           Site location                AQS ID     ---------------------------------------  hour  design
                                                                                                     2019 **        2020         2021        value **
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hurst Road *..................................  3288 Hurst Road, North Pole......     02-090-0035         78.3         71.4         65.5              72
A Street......................................  397 Hamilton Ave., Fairbanks.....     02-090-0040     *** 34.1         36.1     *** 29.6          *** 33
NCore.........................................  809 Pioneer Road, Fairbanks......     02-090-0034         60.0         26.6         27.5              38
State Office Building.........................  675 7th Avenue, Fairbanks........     02-090-0010     *** 34.7          n/a          n/a          *** 35
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Monitor location previously referred to as North Pole Fire Station.
** Data in this table includes state-flagged monitor days in 2019 that were influenced by wildfires.
*** Incomplete monitor data and/or invalid 3-year design value. In July 2019, Alaska shut down the regulatory PM2.5 monitor at the State Office Building
  and established a new maximum impact PM2.5 monitoring site at the A Street location. Due to data issues in 2021, an official 98th percentile
  measurement for A Street could not be calculated.
Source: EPA 2021 AQS Design Value Report.

A. Environmental Justice Considerations

    Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) requires that 
Federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by 
law, identify and address disproportionately high and adverse human 
health or environmental effects of their actions on minority and low-
income populations. Additionally, Executive Order 13985 (86 FR 7009, 
January 25, 2021) directs Federal government agencies to assess 
whether, and to what extent, their programs and policies perpetuate 
systemic barriers to opportunities and benefits for people of color and 
other underserved groups, and Executive Order 14008 (86 FR 7619, 
February 1, 2021) directs Federal agencies to develop programs, 
policies, and activities to address the disproportionate health, 
environmental, economic, and climate impacts on disadvantaged 
communities.
    To identify environmental burdens and susceptible populations in

[[Page 1456]]

underserved communities in the Fairbanks Nonattainment Area and to 
better understand the context of our proposed action on the Fairbanks 
Serious Plan and Fairbanks 189(d) Plan on these communities, we 
conducted a screening-level analysis using EPA's environmental justice 
(EJ) screening and mapping tool (``EJSCREEN'').\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ EJSCREEN provides a nationally consistent dataset and 
approach for combining environmental and demographic indicators. 
EJSCREEN is available at https://www.epa.gov/ejscreen/what-ejscreen.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There are 12 environmental justice indices available on 
EJSCREEN,\11\ each index combines demographic factors with a single 
environmental factor. Although the EJSCREEN indices for 
PM2.5 and Ozone are not available for Fairbanks, Alaska, we 
note that the Fairbanks Nonattainment Area has some of the highest 
PM2.5 concentrations in the country and has been designated 
a PM2.5 nonattainment area since 2009. Residents in 
Fairbanks and North Pole have been subject to a high pollution burden 
for many years. Other health and socioeconomic indices, identified in 
EJSCREEN, that are impacted by elevated PM2.5 concentrations 
include: low life expectancy (95-100 percentile) and asthma (90-95 
percentile) in an area south of downtown Fairbanks and population under 
age 5 (95-100 percentile) in various areas in Fairbanks and North Pole. 
Most of Alaska, including the Fairbanks area, is considered ``medically 
underserved.'' \12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Environmental indices include: particulate matter 
PM2.5; Ozone; Diesel particulate matter; Air Toxics 
cancer risk; Air toxics respiratory hazard index; Traffic proximity 
and volume; Lead paint; Superfund proximity; Risk management plan 
(RMP) facility proximity; Hazardous waste proximity; Underground 
storage tanks (UST) and leaking UST (LUST); and Wastewater 
discharge.
    \12\ Medically Underserved Areas are defined by the Health 
Resources and Services Administration as geographic areas with a 
lack of access to primary care services. For more information see: 
https://bhw.hrsa.gov/workforce-shortage-areas/shortage-designation#mups.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A review of other environmental justice indices in EJSCREEN for the 
cities of Fairbanks, AK and North Pole, AK are below the 80th 
percentile, with some areas around downtown Fairbanks in the 80-90th 
percentile for the following indices: Superfund proximity, Hazardous 
waste proximity, Underground storage tanks. No indices are above the 
90th percentile for the Fairbanks Nonattainment Area. EJSCREEN reports 
for Fairbanks and North Pole are included in the docket for this 
action.
    As discussed in EPA's EJ technical guidance, people of color and 
low-income populations often experience greater exposure and disease 
burdens than the general population, which can increase their 
susceptibility to adverse health effects from environmental 
stressors.\13\ Underserved communities may have a compromised ability 
to cope with or recover from such exposures due to a range of physical, 
chemical, biological, social, and cultural factors.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (June 2016). 
Technical Guidance for Assessing Environmental Justice in Regulatory 
Analysis. Section 4.
    \14\ Id. at section 4.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If EPA were to finalize the proposed disapprovals described in 
section III of this proposed rulemaking, Alaska would be required to 
submit a plan revision for the Fairbanks Nonattainment Area to address 
the identified deficiencies. In addition, as summarized in section IV 
of this proposed rulemaking, such final action would trigger clocks for 
the Fairbanks Nonattainment Area for offset sanctions 18 months after 
the final rule effective date, highway funding sanctions six months 
after the offset sanctions, and the obligation for EPA to promulgate a 
Federal implementation plan (FIP) within two years of the final rule 
effective date. Alaska's expeditious submission of plan revisions that 
correct the deficiencies identified in this document will ensure the 
plan meets CAA requirements, and the measures in the plan when 
implemented achieves attainment as expeditiously as practicable. And in 
doing so, the plan revisions address harmful and disproportionate 
health and environmental effects on underserved and overburdened 
populations, consistent with the principles of environmental justice.

II. Clean Air Act Requirements for PM2.5 Serious Area Plans and for 
PM2.5 Serious Areas That Fail To Attain

A. Requirements for PM2.5 Serious Area Plans

    On August 24, 2016, EPA promulgated the final rule entitled, ``Fine 
Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards: State 
Implementation Plan Requirements'' (PM2.5 SIP Requirements 
Rule).\15\ The PM2.5 SIP Requirements Rule is codified at 40 
CFR part 51, subpart Z. The PM2.5 SIP Requirements Rule 
establishes regulatory requirements and provides interpretive guidance 
on the statutory SIP requirements that apply to states with areas 
designated nonattainment for the PM2.5 standards. Because 
this action addresses planning requirements for Serious nonattainment 
areas and the planning requirements under CAA section 189(d) for 
Serious nonattainment areas that failed to attain by the attainment 
date, both planning requirements will be discussed here.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 81 FR 58010, August 24, 2016. Prior to promulgating the 
PM2.5 SIP Requirements Rule, EPA provided its 
interpretations of the CAA's requirements for particulate matter 
plans under part D, title I of the Act in the following guidance 
documents: (1) ``State Implementation Plans; General Preamble for 
the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 
1990'' (``General Preamble''); (2) ``State Implementation Plans; 
General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air 
Act Amendments of 1990; Supplemental'' (``General Preamble 
Supplement''); and (3) ``State Implementation Plans for Serious PM-
10 Nonattainment Areas, and Attainment Date Waivers for PM-10 
Nonattainment Areas Generally; Addendum to the General Preamble for 
the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 
1990'' (``General Preamble Addendum'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Upon reclassification of a Moderate nonattainment area as a Serious 
nonattainment area under subpart 4 of part D, title I of the CAA, the 
Act requires the State to submit a Serious area nonattainment plan that 
addresses specific requirements.\16\ In accordance with subpart 4 of 
part D, title I of the CAA and the PM2.5 SIP Requirements 
Rule at 40 CFR 51.1003(b), Serious area nonattainment plans must 
address the following requirements:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ CAA section 189(b), 42 U.S.C. 7513a(b); see also 81 FR 
58010, at pp. 58074-58075, August 24, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1. Base year emissions inventory meeting the requirements of CAA 
section 172(c)(3) \17\ and 40 CFR 51.1008(b)(1);
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 42 U.S.C. 7502(c)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. Attainment projected emissions inventory meeting the 
requirements of CAA section 172(c)(1) \18\ and 40 CFR 51.1008(b)(2);
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 42 U.S.C. 7502(c)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. Serious area nonattainment plan control strategy meeting the 
requirements of CAA section 189(b)(1)(B) \19\ and 40 CFR 51.1010, 
including provisions to assure that the best available control measures 
(BACM) and best available control technologies (BACT), for the control 
of direct PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors are 
implemented no later than four years after the area is reclassified 
(CAA section 189(b)(1)(B) \20\);
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 42 U.S.C. 7513a(b)(1)(B).
    \20\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    4. Attainment demonstration and modeling meeting the requirements 
of CAA sections 188(c)(2) and 189(b)(1)(A) \21\ and 40 CFR 51.1011;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 42 U.S.C. 7513(c)(2) and 7513a(b)(1)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    5. Reasonable further progress (RFP) provisions meeting the 
requirements of CAA section 172(c)(2) \22\ and 40 CFR 51.1012;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 42 U.S.C. 7502(c)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    6. Quantitative milestones meeting the requirements of CAA section 
189(c) \23\ and 40 CFR 51.1013;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 42 U.S.C. 7513a(c).

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

[[Page 1457]]

    7. An evaluation by the state of sources of all four 
PM2.5 precursors for regulation, and implementation of 
controls on all such precursors, unless the state provides an adequate 
demonstration establishing that it is either not necessary to regulate 
a particular precursor in the nonattainment area at issue in order to 
attain by the attainment date, or that emissions of the precursor do 
not make a significant contribution to PM2.5 levels that 
exceed the standard; \24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ CAA section 189(e), 42 U.S.C. 7513a(e) and 40 CFR 51.1006, 
51.1010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    8. Contingency measures meeting the requirements of CAA section 
172(c)(9) \25\ and 40 CFR 51.1014; and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 42 U.S.C. 7502(c)(9).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    9. Nonattainment new source review provisions meeting the 
requirements of CAA section 189(b)(3) and 40 CFR 51.165.
    In the Serious area nonattainment plan, a state must also satisfy 
the requirements for the Moderate area plan in CAA section 189(a), to 
the extent the state has not already met those requirements in the 
Moderate area plan submitted for the area (see CAA section 189(b)(1), 
40 CFR 51.1003(b), and 81 FR 58010, August 24, 2016, at page 58075). In 
addition, the Serious area nonattainment plan must meet the general 
requirements applicable to all SIP submissions under CAA section 110, 
including the requirement to provide necessary assurances that the 
implementing agencies have adequate personnel, funding, and authority 
under CAA section 110(a)(2)(E), and the requirements concerning 
enforcement provisions in CAA section 110(a)(2)(C).

B. Requirements for PM2.5 Serious Areas That Fail To Attain

    In the event that a Serious area fails to attain the 
PM2.5 NAAQS by the applicable attainment date, CAA section 
189(d) \26\ requires that ``the State in which such area is located 
shall, after notice and opportunity for public comment, submit within 
12 months after the applicable attainment date, plan revisions which 
provide for attainment of the . . . standard . . .'' The attainment 
plan required under CAA section 189(d) must, among other things, 
demonstrate expeditious attainment of the NAAQS within the time period 
provided under CAA section 179(d)(3) \27\ and provide for annual 
reductions in emissions of direct PM2.5 or a 
PM2.5 plan precursor pollutant within the area of not less 
than five percent per year from the most recent emissions inventory for 
the area until attainment.\28\ In addition to the requirement to submit 
control measures providing for a five percent reduction in emissions of 
certain pollutants on an annual basis, EPA interprets CAA section 
189(d) as requiring a state to submit an attainment plan that includes 
the same basic statutory plan elements that are required for other 
attainment plans. Specifically, a state must submit to EPA its plan to 
meet the requirements of CAA section 189(d) in the form of a complete 
attainment plan submission that includes the following elements: \29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ 42 U.S.C. 7513a(d).
    \27\ 42 U.S.C. 7509(d)(3).
    \28\ 81 FR 58010, at page 58098.
    \29\ 40 CFR 51.1003(c)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1. Base year emissions inventory meeting the requirements of CAA 
section 172(c)(3) \30\ and 40 CFR 51.1008(c)(1);
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ 42 U.S.C. 7502(c)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. Attainment projected emissions inventory meeting the 
requirements of CAA section 172(c)(1) \31\ and 40 CFR 51.1008(c)(2);
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ 42 U.S.C. 7502(c)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. Unless previously met, a Serious area nonattainment plan control 
strategy that ensures that best available control measures (BACM), 
including best available control technologies (BACT), for the control 
of direct PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors are 
implemented in the area (CAA section 189(b)(1)(B) \32\ and 40 CFR 
51.1010(a)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ 42 U.S.C. 7513a(b)(1)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    4. Additional measures (beyond those already adopted in previous 
nonattainment plan SIP submissions for the area as RACM/RACT, BACM/
BACT, and Most Stringent Measures (MSM) \33\ (if applicable)) that 
provide for attainment of the NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable 
and, from the date of such submission until attainment, demonstrate 
that the plan will at a minimum achieve an annual five percent 
reduction in emission of direct PM2.5 or any 
PM2.5 plan precursor from the most recent emissions 
inventory for the area. The state must reconsider and reassess any 
measures previously rejected by the state during the development of any 
Moderate area or Serious area attainment plan control strategy for the 
area. 40 CFR 51.1010(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ MSM is applicable if EPA has previously granted an 
extension of the attainment date under CAA section 188(e) for the 
nonattainment area and NAAQS at issue. EPA denied Alaska's request 
to extend the Serious area attainment date for the Fairbanks 
PM2.5 Nonattainment Area. Therefore, MSM is not 
applicable to the Fairbanks Serious Plan or Fairbanks 189(d) Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    5. Attainment demonstration and modeling meeting the requirements 
of CAA sections 188(c)(2) and 189(b)(1)(A) \34\ and 40 CFR 51.1011;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ 42 U.S.C. 7513(c)(2) and 7513a(b)(1)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    6. Reasonable further progress (RFP) provisions meeting the 
requirements of CAA section 172(c)(2) \35\ and 40 CFR 51.1012;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ 42 U.S.C. 7502(c)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    7. Quantitative milestones meeting the requirements of CAA section 
189(c) \36\ and 40 CFR 51.1013;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ 42 U.S.C. 7513a(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    8. An evaluation by the state of sources of all four 
PM2.5 precursors for regulation, and implementation of 
controls on all such precursors, unless the state provides an adequate 
demonstration establishing that it is either not necessary to regulate 
a particular precursor in the nonattainment area at issue in order to 
attain by the attainment date, or that emissions of the precursor do 
not make a significant contribution to PM2.5 levels that 
exceed the standard; \37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ 40 CFR 51.1006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    9. Contingency measures meeting the requirements of CAA section 
172(c)(9) \38\ and 40 CFR 51.1014; and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ 42 U.S.C. 7502(c)(9).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    10. Nonattainment new source review provisions meeting the 
requirements of CAA section 189(b)(3) \39\ and 40 CFR 51.165.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ 42 U.S.C. 7513a(b)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Combined Requirements for PM2.5 Serious Areas and Serious Areas That 
Fail To Attain

    On September 2, 2020, EPA determined that the Fairbanks 
PM2.5 Nonattainment Area failed to attain the 2006 24-hour 
PM2.5 NAAQS by the Serious area attainment date and denied 
the State's Serious area attainment date extension request (85 FR 
54509). This action triggered the obligation for the State to make a 
new SIP submission to meet the requirements laid out in Section II.B of 
this document, including submission of a new plan containing all the 
elements in 40 CFR 51.1003(c). EPA's determination that Fairbanks 
PM2.5 Nonattainment Area failed to attain the NAAQS did not, 
however, nullify the State's obligation to meet the still outstanding 
requirements for PM2.5 Serious areas laid out in Section 
II.A, including the requirement to adopt and submit a plan containing 
all the elements in 40 CFR 51.1003(b). Moreover, a result of the 
determination of failure to attain was to require the State to make a 
SIP submission meeting the requirements of CAA section 189(d) and 
providing for attainment by a later attainment date. Because CAA 
section 189(d) does not itself supply a specific date, EPA interprets 
the CAA to impose the attainment date requirements of CAA section 172 
and 179, and as

[[Page 1458]]

interpreted in 40 CFR 51.1004(a)(3), rather than the date imposed in 
CAA section 182(c)(2) and as interpreted in 40 CFR 51.1004(a)(2).
    Consistent with the deadlines laid out in the CAA, Serious area 
plans are intended to be submitted and approved or disapproved well 
before the Serious area attainment date.\40\ The Serious plan must be 
designed to achieve attainment as expeditiously as practicable, but no 
later than the outermost statutory attainment date, which is the end of 
the tenth calendar year following the area's designation to 
nonattainment.\41\ If implementation of the Serious Plan fails to 
achieve attainment by the Serious area attainment date, the state must 
submit a new plan meeting the requirements for Serious areas that fail 
to attain in CAA section 189(d).\42\ The state must design this new CAA 
section 189(d)plan to achieve attainment as expeditiously as 
practicable, but no later than the deadlines in CAA sections 172 and 
179.\43\ Thus, the CAA requires states to adopt and implement a plan 
meeting the requirement of CAA section 189(d) only after adopting and 
implementing a fully-approved Serious area plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ CAA section 189(b)(2) and 40 CFR 51.1003.
    \41\ CAA section 189(b)(1) and 40 CFR 51.1004(a)(2).
    \42\ CAA section 189(d) and 40 CFR 51.1003(c).
    \43\ CAA sections 172 and 179 and 40 CFR 51.1004(a)(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, the CAA does not contain provisions that address 
precisely how a state should meet all of the planning requirements for 
a Serious nonattainment area, after such area has already failed to 
attain the NAAQS, but before the state has met all of the planning 
requirements for Serious nonattainment areas. By extension, the CAA 
does not account for potential conflicts between the required plan 
provisions for Serious area plans and Section 189(d) plans, 
particularly with respect to the attainment projected inventory, 
attainment demonstration, RFP, and quantitative milestone (QM) plan 
provisions. These elements are required for all PM2.5 
nonattainment plans and are dependent on a single projected attainment 
date that complies with the statutory requirements governing the area. 
Thus, in the event that a state is obligated to submit both a Serious 
area plan and a Section 189(d) plan, a conflict arises between the 
applicable attainment date by which states should structure these plan 
provisions and against which EPA should evaluate them. Such conflict 
exists here.
    EPA acknowledges that the complicated series of events and 
chronology in this situation make it more difficult to evaluate the 
State's remaining Serious area plan obligations and new section 189(d) 
plan obligations. Alaska submitted the Serious Area Plan on December 
13, 2019, 18 days before the then-applicable attainment date of 
December 31, 2019. This plan included a request to extend the 
attainment date from December 31, 2019 to December 31, 2024, pursuant 
to CAA section 188(e), which EPA denied.\44\ EPA also has not fully 
approved this Plan. Notably, EPA has not approved the attainment 
projected inventory, attainment demonstration, RFP, and QM plan 
provisions of the Serious Area Plan submitted on December 13, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ 85 FR 54509
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed in this section, on September 2, 2020, EPA determined 
that the area failed to attain the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS 
by December 31, 2019. As a result, the attainment projected inventory, 
attainment demonstration, RFP, and QM provisions of the December 13, 
2019, Serious Area Plan submission did not meet CAA requirements for 
Serious areas. Moreover, no revisions to these plan provisions could 
satisfy the Serious area planning requirements because the Serious area 
attainment date has already passed. Alaska subsequently withdrew these 
plan provisions and replaced them with the submission of the Fairbanks 
189(d) Plan and structured the new plan provisions around the 
applicable attainment date for Serious areas that fail to attain.
    EPA now needs to take action on the nonattainment plan SIP 
submissions for the Fairbanks Nonattainment Area that are currently 
before the agency in a way that is logical and most consistent with the 
statutory and regulatory requirements. Given the impossibility of the 
State now submitting a Serious area plan designed to achieve an 
attainment date that has already passed and that the applicable 
attainment date for the Fairbanks Nonattainment Area is now governed by 
CAA sections 172 and 179 and 40 CFR 51.1004(a)(3), EPA proposes that it 
should evaluate any previously unmet Serious area planning obligations 
based on the current, applicable attainment date under CAA section 
189(d), and not the original Serious area attainment date.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ 86 FR 53150, September 24, 2021, at p. 53155.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Thus, the combined planning requirements EPA is evaluating as part 
of the Fairbanks Serious Plan and Fairbanks 189(d) Plan submissions are 
included in Table 2:

   Table 2--Combined Fairbanks Serious Plan and Fairbanks 189(d) Plan
                              Requirements
 [CAA planning requirements for PM2.5 serious areas and areas that fail
                               to attain]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Legal/ regulatory
                   Description                          requirement
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Base year emissions inventory for Serious areas   CAA section 172(c)(3);
 subject to CAA section 189(b) *.                  40 CFR 51.1008(b)(1).
Base year emissions inventory for areas subject   CAA section 172(c)(3);
 to CAA section 189(d).                            40 CFR 51.1008(c)(1).
Attainment projected emissions inventory........  CAA section 172(c)(1);
                                                   40 CFR 51.1008(c)(2).
Serious area nonattainment plan control strategy  CAA section
 that ensures that best available control          189(b)(1)(B); 40 CFR
 measures (BACM), including best available         51.1010(a).
 control technologies (BACT), for the control of
 direct PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors are
 implemented in the area.
Additional measures (beyond those already         CAA section 189(d);40
 adopted in previous nonattainment plan SIP        CFR 51.1010(c).
 submissions for the area as RACM/RACT, BACM/
 BACT, and Most Stringent Measures (MSM) \46\
 (if applicable)) that provide for attainment of
 the NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable and,
 from the date of such submission until
 attainment, demonstrate that the plan will at a
 minimum achieve an annual five percent
 reduction in emission of direct PM2.5 or any
 PM2.5 plan precursor. The state must reconsider
 and reassess any measures previously rejected
 by the state during the development of any
 Moderate area or Serious area attainment plan
 control strategy for the area.

[[Page 1459]]

 
Attainment demonstration and modeling...........  CAA sections 188(c)(2)
                                                   and 189(b)(1)(A); 40
                                                   CFR 51.1003(c) and
                                                   51.1011.
Reasonable further progress (RFP) provisions....  CAA section 172(c)(2);
                                                   40 CFR 51.1012.
Quantitative milestones.........................  CAA section 189(c); 40
                                                   CFR 51.1013.
An adequate evaluation by the state of sources    CAA section 189(e);40
 of all four PM2.5 precursors for regulation,      CFR 51.1006.
 and implementation of controls on all such
 precursors, unless the state provides a
 demonstration establishing that it is either
 not necessary to regulate a particular
 precursor in the nonattainment area at issue in
 order to attain by the attainment date, or that
 emissions of the precursor do not make a
 significant contribution to PM2.5 levels that
 exceed the standard.**
Contingency measures applicable to Serious areas  CAA section 172(c)(9);
 subject to CAA section 189(b).                    40 CFR 51.1014.
Contingency measures applicable to Serious areas  CAA section 172(c)(9);
 subject to CAA section 189(d).                    40 CFR 51.1014.
Nonattainment new source review provisions......  CAA section 189(b)(3);
                                                   40 CFR 51.165.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* EPA finalized approval of this requirement on September 24, 2021 (86
  FR 52997).
** EPA finalized approval of this requirement applicable to Serious
  areas subject to CAA section 189(b) on September 24, 2021 (86 FR
  52997).

    As noted in section I of this document, EPA approved parts of the 
Fairbanks Serious Plan as meeting the base year emission inventory 
requirements, PM2.5 precursor demonstration requirements, 
and the nonattainment new source review provisions (86 FR 52997, 
September 24, 2021; see also 84 FR 45419, August 29, 2019). Therefore, 
the ensuing evaluation focuses on the remaining statutory and 
regulatory requirements applicable to Serious nonattainment plan 
provisions. Additionally, we are also evaluating whether the December 
15, 2020, submission meets the additional planning requirements of a 
revised Serious area attainment plan under CAA section 189(d) and 40 
CFR 51.1003(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ MSM is applicable if EPA has previously granted an 
extension of the attainment date under CAA section 188(e) for the 
nonattainment area and NAAQS at issue. EPA denied Alaska's request 
to extend the Serious area attainment date for the Fairbanks Serious 
Nonattainment Area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Review of the Fairbanks Serious Plan and Fairbanks 189(d) Plan

A. Emission Inventories

1. Statutory and Regulatory Requirements
    CAA section 172(c)(3) requires that states submit a comprehensive, 
accurate, and current inventory of actual emissions from all sources of 
the relevant pollutant or pollutants in the nonattainment area as part 
of a nonattainment plan for such area. The regulation at 40 CFR 51.1008 
contains the requirements for emission inventories.\47\ EPA has also 
issued additional guidance concerning emissions inventories for 
PM2.5 nonattainment areas.\48\ In accordance with 40 CFR 
51.1008, the attainment plan must include a base year emissions 
inventory and attainment projected emissions inventory.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ 81 FR 58010, August 24, 2016, at pp. 58078-58079.
    \48\ ``Emissions Inventory Guidance for Implementation of Ozone 
and Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards 
(NAAQS) and Regional Haze Regulations,'' EPA, May 2017 (``Emissions 
Inventory Guidance''), available at: https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-inventories/air-emissions-inventory-guidance-implementation-ozone-and-particulate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The base year emissions inventory for a Serious PM2.5 
nonattainment area must be one of the three years for which EPA used 
monitored data to reclassify the area to Serious, or another 
technically appropriate year justified by the state in its Serious area 
nonattainment plan SIP submission.\49\ Similarly, the base year 
emission inventory for a nonattainment area subject to CAA section 
189(d) must be one of the three years for which monitored data were 
used by EPA to determine the area failed to attain by the 
PM2.5 NAAQS by the applicable Serious area attainment date, 
or another technically appropriate year justified by the state in its 
Serious area nonattainment plan SIP submission.\50\ The base year 
emissions inventory should provide a state's best estimate of actual 
emissions from all sources, i.e., all emissions that contribute to the 
formation of PM2.5. The emissions must be either annual 
total emissions, average-season day emissions, or both, as appropriate 
for the relevant annual versus 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. The 
state must include a rationale for providing annual or seasonal 
emission inventories, and justification for the period used for any 
seasonal emissions calculations.\51\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ 40 CFR 51.1008(b)(1).
    \50\ 40 CFR 51.1008(c)(1).
    \51\ 40 CFR 51.1008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to 40 CFR 51.1008, the Serious Plan and 189(d) Plan must 
include an attainment projected inventory for the nonattainment area. 
The year of the projected inventory shall be the most expeditious year 
for which projected emissions show modeled PM2.5 
concentrations below the level of the NAAQS. The emissions values shall 
be projected emissions of the same sources included in the base year 
inventory for the nonattainment area (i.e., those only within the 
nonattainment area) and any new sources. The state shall include in 
this inventory projected emissions growth and contraction from both 
controls and other causes during the relevant period. The temporal 
period of emissions shall be the same temporal period (annual, average-
season-day, or both) as the base year inventory for the nonattainment 
area. The same sources reported as point sources in the base year 
inventory for the nonattainment area shall be included as point sources 
in the attainment projected inventory for the nonattainment area. 
Stationary nonpoint and mobile source projected emissions shall be 
provided using the same detail

[[Page 1460]]

(e.g., state, county, and process codes) as the base year inventory for 
the nonattainment area. The same detail of the emissions included shall 
be consistent with the level of detail and data elements as in the base 
year inventory for the nonattainment area (i.e., as required by 40 CFR 
part 51, subpart A). Consistent with the base year inventory for the 
nonattainment area, the inventory shall include direct PM2.5 
emissions, separately reported PM2.5 filterable and 
condensable emissions, and emissions of the scientific PM2.5 
precursors, including precursors that are not significant 
PM2.5 plan precursors pursuant to a precursor demonstration 
under 40 CFR 51.1006.
    A state's SIP submission must include documentation explaining how 
it calculated emissions data for the inventory and be consistent with 
the data elements required by 40 CFR part 51, subpart A. In estimating 
mobile source emissions, a state must use the latest emissions models 
and planning assumptions available at the time the SIP is 
developed.\52\ States are also required to use EPA's ``Compilation of 
Air Pollutant Emission Factors'' (``AP-42'') road dust method for 
calculating re-entrained road dust emissions from paved 
roads.53 54
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ See CAA section 172(c)(3).
    \53\ EPA released an update to AP-42 in January 2011 that 
revised the equation for estimating paved road dust emissions based 
on an updated data regression that included new emission tests 
results. 76 FR 6328 (February 4, 2011).
    \54\ AP-42 has been published since 1972 as the primary source 
of EPA's emission factor information. https://www.epa.gov/air-emissionsfactors-and-quantification/ap-42-compilation-airemissions-factors. It contains emission factors and process information for 
more than 200 air pollution source categories. A source category is 
a specific industry sector or group of similar emitting sources. The 
emission factors have been developed and compiled from source test 
data, material balance studies, and engineering estimates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Summary of State's Submission
    The base year planning emissions inventory for direct 
PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors (nitrogen oxides 
(NOX), sulfur dioxide (SO2), volatile organic 
compounds (VOC), and ammonia (NH3)) and the documentation 
for the inventory for the Fairbanks PM2.5 Nonattainment Area 
are located in State Air Quality Control Plan, Chapter III.D.7.6 
(``Emissions Inventory Data'') and Appendix III.D.7.6 of the Fairbanks 
189(d) Plan.\55\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ Adopted November 18, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The State developed the inventory using data sources and emission 
calculation methodologies from the approved Fairbanks Serious Plan, 
2013 base year emissions inventory, as its starting point and then 
updated the emissions totals based on additional source and activity 
data collected since preparation of that inventory. The State based the 
2019 base year inventory included in the Fairbanks 189(d) Plan on 
historical source activity data in calendar year 2019 for all source 
sectors. EPA's MOVES2014b model was used for on-road vehicles 
(including effects of the on-going Federal Motor Vehicle Control 
Program and Tier 3 fuel standards, coupled with Alaska Ultra Low Sulfur 
Diesel standards) and non-road vehicles and equipment (including the 
effect of Federal fuel and Alaska ultra-low sulfur diesel (ULSD) 
programs for non-road fuel).

             Table 3--2019 Baseline Episode Average Daily Emissions (Tons per Day) by Source Sector
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   2019 Base year emissions inventory (tons/day)
          Source sector          -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       PM2.5            NOX             SO2             VOC             NH3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point Sources...................            0.57           10.31            5.68            0.03           0.073
Area, Space Heating.............            1.91            2.43            3.88            8.60           0.132
    Area, Space Heat, Wood......            1.77            0.39            0.16            8.38           0.086
    Area, Space Heat, Oil.......            0.06            1.82            3.62            0.10           0.004
    Area, Space Heat, Coal......            0.07            0.05            0.09            0.11           0.014
    Area, Space Heat, Other.....            0.01            0.17            0.02            0.01           0.029
Area, Other.....................            0.22            0.36            0.03            2.10           0.046
On-Road Mobile..................            0.22            1.70            0.01            3.83           0.040
Non-Road Mobile.................            0.26            0.94            5.41            4.16           0.002
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Totals......................            3.17           15.73           15.01           18.72           0.293
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol II, III.D.7.6, Table 7.6-7

    The State focused on what it identified as the three most important 
source types in the airshed: stationary point sources; space heating 
area (nonpoint) sources; and on-road mobile sources. At the time the 
State developed the emissions inventory, these three source types were 
the major contributors to both direct PM2.5 emissions as 
well as emissions of PM2.5 precursor pollutants gases 
SO2, NOX, VOC, and NH3 within the 
nonattainment area.
    The emission sources with the highest relative direct 
PM2.5 contributions were:
     55.8% for wood-fired space heating;
     17.9% stationary sources;
     8.1% non-road mobile; and
     6.8% on-road mobile.
    The emission sources with the highest relative SO2 
contributions were:
     37.9% stationary sources;
     36% non-road mobile; and
     24.1% oil-fired space heating.
    The emission sources with the highest relative NOX 
contributions were:
     65.5% stationary sources;
     11.6% oil-fired space heating;
     10.8% on-road mobile; and
     6% non-road mobile.
    The emission sources with the highest relative VOC contributions 
were:
     44.8% for wood-fired space heating;
     22.2% non-road mobile; and
     20.5% on-road mobile.
    The emission sources with the highest relative NH3 
contributions were:
     29.3% for wood-fired space heating;
     25% stationary sources;
     15.8% other area sources; and
     13.5% on-road mobile.\56\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \56\ State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol II, III.D.7.6, Figures 
7.6-8--7.6-12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA's technical evaluation of Alaska's Emissions Inventory planning 
sections is included in the docket for this action.\57\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \57\ Kotchenruther, B. (August 24, 2022). Technical support 
document for Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation's 
amendments to: State Air Quality Control Plan, Emission Inventory 
Data (version adopted November 18, 2020). U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, Region 10, Laboratory Services and Applied 
Sciences Division.

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

[[Page 1461]]

a. 2024 Attainment Projected Inventory
    The Fairbanks 189(d) Plan includes an attainment projected 
inventory for 2024.\58\ Previously Alaska stated that attainment by 
2024 was not practicable and estimated that 2029 was the most 
expeditious attainment date.\59\ EPA did not take action on the 
attainment projected emissions inventory submitted as part of the 
Fairbanks Serious Plan (see 86 FR 52997, September 24, 2021). Alaska 
has subsequently withdrawn and replaced the applicable planning chapter 
from that SIP submission with a revised attainment projected emission 
inventory included in the Fairbanks 189(d) Plan. Consistent with these 
statements, EPA is proposing to evaluate any previously unmet Serious 
area planning obligations based on the current, applicable attainment 
date appropriate under CAA section 189(d) and not the original Serious 
area attainment date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \58\ State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol II, Chapter III.D.7.9.
    \59\ The State included an attainment projected emissions 
inventory in the Fairbanks Serious Plan, submitted on December 13, 
2019, which also projected attainment in 2024. However, the 
Attainment Demonstration chapter in the Fairbanks Serious Plan 
stated that attainment by 2024 was not practicable. Instead, the 
State estimated the most expeditious attainment date is 2029. 
However, Alaska did not identify a 2029 inventory in the Emissions 
Inventory chapter nor adequately demonstrate that 2029 was the most 
expeditious attainment date. The State did, however, produce a 2029 
inventory for the Reasonable Further Progress plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Thus, EPA views the 2024 attainment projected inventory included in 
the Fairbanks 189(d) Plan as the applicable projected inventory, which 
is based on the 2019 base year inventory of actual emissions. The 2024 
emissions projection follows two steps. First, the State projected the 
2019 base year emissions to 2024 based on forecasted source activity 
changes coupled with changes in emission factors due to already adopted 
Federal, state, and local control measures that existed prior to the 
development of the Fairbanks 189(d) Plan. Second, the State modified 
these initial 2024 emissions projections based on the suite of 
additional emission reductions from measures the State will be 
implementing under the Fairbanks 189(d) Plan.
    The State forecasted emissions reductions from the ongoing Wood 
Stove Change Out Program \60\ and the Oil-To-Gas Conversion Program 
\61\ in Fairbanks beyond 2019 based on an analysis of the historical 
change out program activity and existing funding available for future 
changeouts, as well as certifying that no new staffing will be required 
to handle projected changeouts through 2024. Alaska projected the 
additional emissions reductions in PM2.5 and SO2 
from these measures to be 0.6941 tons per day and 0.0083 tons per day, 
respectively, in 2024.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \60\ The Woodstove Changeout Program, administered by the 
Fairbanks North Star Borough Air Quality Program, is primarily 
funded through EPA's Targeted Airshed Grant, along with local and 
state funding. The program has received $32 million in total funding 
since 2010. The program upgrades or removes solid fuel-fired and 
oil-fired heating devices. Since 2010, the change out program has 
evolved to ensure the best emission outcomes by narrowing 
eligibility, and what types of devices may be installed.
    \61\ Funded and managed by the Fairbanks North Star Borough Air 
Quality Program, residential oil heating appliances are changed out 
for natural gas-fired heating devices to support natural gas 
expansion through conversion of to gas heating appliances. The 
program has received $2 million in total funding since 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The State based emissions reductions for the Solid-Fuel Burning 
Appliance Curtailment Program \62\ in Fairbanks on Alaska's revisions 
in the Fairbanks 189(d) Plan that increases the stringency of the 
existing curtailment program. Under the latest regulations, the State 
lowered the curtailment program's two air quality alert stages to 20 
[mu]g/m\3\ and 30 [mu]g/m\3\, respectively, for Stage 1 and Stage 2 
alerts (down from 25 [mu]g/m\3\ and 35 [mu]g/m\3\, respectively). In 
addition, Alaska plans to utilize 2019-2020 Targeted Airshed Grant 
(TAG) funding to install several dynamic highway message signs, 
purchase an infrared camera, and expand staffing to increase 
compliance. As a result, Alaska estimated that the curtailment program 
compliance rate will increase from 30% in 2019 to 45% by 2024. Alaska 
projected the additional emissions reductions in PM2.5 and 
SO2 from these measures to be 0.351 tons per day and -0.058 
tons per day, respectively, in 2024 (an increase in SO2 
results from the projected increase in conversions to liquid-fueled 
heating devices).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \62\ Fairbanks Emergency Episode Plan, State Air Quality Control 
Plan, Vol. II, Chapter III.D.7.12; 18 AAC 50.030(a); 18 AAC 
50.075(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The State also incorporated point source SO2 emissions 
reductions under the Fairbanks Serious Plan into the 2024 attainment 
projected inventory. For a detailed summary of the attainment projected 
inventory, see EPA's Fairbanks Emissions Inventory Technical Support 
Document in the docket for this action.\63\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \63\ Kotchenruther, B. (August 24, 2022). Technical support 
document for Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation's 
amendments to: State Air Quality Control Plan, Emission Inventory 
Data (version adopted November 18, 2020). U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, Region 10, Laboratory Services and Applied 
Sciences Division.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. EPA's Evaluation and Proposed Action
a. 2019 Base Year Emissions Inventory
    EPA proposes to find that the 2019 base year emissions inventory 
meets the requirements of CAA section 172(c)(3) and 40 CFR 51.1008. 
Calendar year 2019 is an appropriate base year for the Fairbanks 189(d) 
Plan because it is one of the three years for which EPA used monitored 
data to determine that the area failed to attain the PM2.5 
NAAQS by the applicable Serious area attainment date.\64\ The base year 
emissions inventory is a seasonal inventory, based on two historical 
meteorological episodes considered by EPA to be representative of the 
range of meteorological conditions that lead to exceedances of the 24-
hour NAAQS. This is an appropriate temporal scope for a base year 
emissions inventory where anthropogenic exceedances of the 24-hour 
NAAQS occur exclusively in winter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \64\ 85 FR 54509.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The emissions inventory is of actual emissions in 2019, as required 
in the PM2.5 SIP Requirements Rule and guidance.\65\ The 
emissions inventory also includes separate reporting for filterable and 
condensible PM2.5 for the relevant emissions sectors and SCC 
codes. The base year 2019 emissions inventory, reported as average 
season day emissions, is based on methodologies used by the State and 
vetted by EPA in the Fairbanks Moderate and Serious Plans and applied 
to the new base year of 2019. Therefore, the inventory reports 
emissions consistent with the Air Emissions Reporting Rule (AERR) and 
contains the detail and data elements required by 40 CFR part 51, 
subpart A. For these reasons, we are proposing to approve the 2019 base 
year emissions inventory in the Fairbanks 189(d) Plan as meeting the 
requirements of CAA section 172(c)(3) and 40 CFR 51.1008.\66\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \65\ 40 CFR 51.1008(a)(1)(ii).
    \66\ We note that EPA approved as meeting the Serious area 
planning requirements the 2013 base year emissions inventory on 
September 24, 2021 (86 FR 52997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. 2024 Attainment Projected Inventory
    EPA proposes to find that the Fairbanks 189(d) Plan does not 
satisfy the requirement of 40 CFR 51.1008(c)(2) to include an 
attainment projected emission inventory for the most expeditious 
attainment date. The Fairbanks 189(d) Plan contains an attainment 
projected emissions inventory, and Alaska projects attainment by 
December 31, 2024. The updated State Air Quality Control Plan

[[Page 1462]]

contains the revisions and methodology for the 2024 projected 
inventory.\67\ These chapters supersede the chapters that contain the 
prior attainment projected inventory. As discussed further in section 
III.D of this document, regarding the Attainment Demonstration, 
Alaska's proposed attainment date of 2024 is predicated on a modeling 
platform that is outdated and lacks the quantitative performance 
evaluation and speciated information at the air quality monitor (Hurst 
Road in North Pole) with highest PM2.5 concentrations. 
Alaska is currently in the process of updating the modeling using the 
latest model. Therefore, December 31, 2024, may not be the most 
expeditious year for which projected emissions show modeled 
concentrations below the level of the NAAQS. Moreover, as discussed 
further in section III.C in this document, the control strategy does 
not contain all required control measures. Therefore, the attainment 
projected emissions inventory does not necessarily take into 
consideration all required emissions reductions, so we propose to 
disapprove the projected emissions inventory.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \67\ State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol. II, Chapter 
III.D.7.6.7-8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Pollutants Addressed

1. Statutory and Regulatory Requirements
    Under subpart 4 of part D, title I of the CAA and the 
PM2.5 SIP Requirements Rule, each state containing a 
PM2.5 nonattainment area must evaluate all PM2.5 
precursors for regulation unless, for any given PM2.5 
precursor, the state demonstrates to the Administrator's satisfaction 
that such precursor does not contribute significantly to 
PM2.5 levels that exceed the NAAQS in the nonattainment 
area.\68\ The provisions of subpart 4 do not define the term 
``precursor'' for purposes of PM2.5, nor do they explicitly 
require the control of any specifically identified PM2.5 
precursor. The statutory definition of ``air pollutant,'' however, 
provides that the term ``includes any precursors to the formation of 
any air pollutant, to the extent the Administrator has identified such 
precursor or precursors for the particular purpose for which the term 
`air pollutant' is used.'' \69\ EPA has identified SO2, 
NOX, VOCs, and NH3 as precursors to the formation 
of PM2.5.\70\ Accordingly, the attainment plan requirements 
of part D, title I of the CAA and the PM2.5 SIP Requirements 
Rule apply to emissions of all four precursors and direct 
PM2.5 from all types of stationary, area, and mobile 
sources, except as otherwise provided in CAA section 189(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \68\ 40 CFR 51.1006, 51.1010; See 81 FR 58010, August 24, 2016, 
at pp. 58017-58020.
    \69\ CAA section 302(g).
    \70\ 81 FR 58010, August 24, 2016, at p. 58015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A large number of chemical reactions, often non-linear in nature, 
can convert gaseous SO2, NOX, VOCs, and 
NH3 to PM2.5, making them precursors to 
PM2.5.\71\ Formation of secondary PM2.5 also 
depends on atmospheric conditions, including solar radiation, 
temperature, and relative humidity, and the interactions of precursors 
with particles and with cloud or fog droplets.\72\ According to the 
State, in the Fairbanks Serious Plan, total wintertime PM2.5 
concentrations in the Fairbanks PM2.5 Nonattainment Area are 
a function of both primary PM2.5 emissions and secondary 
PM2.5 formed from precursors (see State Air Quality Control 
Plan, Vol II, Chapter III.D.7.8, section 7.8.1 of the Fairbanks Serious 
Plan in the docket for this action).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \71\ ``Air Quality Criteria for Particulate Matter'' (EPA/600/P-
99/002aF), EPA, October 2004, Ch. 3.
    \72\ ``Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Final Revisions to the 
National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter'' 
(EPA/452/R-12-005), EPA, December 2012), 2-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CAA section 189(e) requires that the control requirements for major 
stationary sources of direct PM10 \73\ and PM2.5 
\74\ also apply to major stationary sources of PM10 and 
PM2.5 precursors, except where the Administrator determines 
that such sources do not contribute significantly to PM10 or 
PM2.5 levels that exceed the standard in the area. CAA 
section 189(e) contains the only express exception to the control 
requirements under subpart 4 (e.g., requirements for reasonably 
available control measures (RACM) and reasonably available control 
technology (RACT), BACM and BACT, Most Stringent Measures (MSM), and 
New Source Review (NSR) for sources of direct PM2.5 and 
PM2.5 precursor emissions). Although section 189(e) 
explicitly addresses only major stationary sources, EPA interprets this 
provision as authorizing it also to determine, under appropriate 
circumstances, that regulation of specific PM10 or 
PM2.5 precursors from other source categories in a given 
nonattainment area is not necessary.\75\ For example, under EPA's 
longstanding interpretation of the control requirements that apply to 
stationary, area, and mobile sources of PM10 precursors in 
the nonattainment area under CAA section 172(c)(1) and subpart 4,\76\ a 
state may demonstrate in a SIP submission that control of a certain 
precursor pollutant is not necessary in light of its insignificant 
contribution to ambient PM10 or PM2.5 levels in 
the nonattainment area.\77\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \73\ The requirements for attainment plans for the 2006 24-hour 
PM2.5 NAAQS include the general nonattainment area 
planning requirements in CAA section 172 of title I, part D, subpart 
1 and the additional planning requirements specific to particulate 
matter in CAA sections 188 and 189 of title I, part D, subpart 4. 81 
FR 58010, August 24, 2016, at pp. 58012-58014.
    \74\ The general attainment plan requirements of subpart 1, part 
D, of Title I of the CAA in addition to the specific requirements in 
subpart 4, part D, of Title I of the CAA apply to both 
PM10 and PM2.5. See 81 FR 58010, August 24, 
2016, at pp. 58013.
    \75\ 81 FR 58010, August 24, 2016, at pp. 58018-58019.
    \76\ General Preamble, 57 FR 13498, April 16, 1992, at pp. 
13539-42.
    \77\ 40 CFR 51.1006. See also 81 FR 58010, 58033. Courts have 
upheld this approach to the requirements of subpart 4 for 
PM10. See, e.g., Assoc. of Irritated Residents v. EPA, et 
al., 423 F.3d 989 (9th Cir. 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the PM2.5 SIP Requirements Rule, a state may elect 
to submit to EPA a ``comprehensive precursor demonstration'' for a 
specific nonattainment area to show that emissions of a particular 
precursor from all existing sources located in the nonattainment area 
do not contribute significantly to PM2.5 levels that exceed 
the NAAQS at issue in the nonattainment in the area.\78\ If EPA 
determines that the contribution of the precursor to PM2.5 
levels in the area is not significant and approves the demonstration, 
then the state is not required to control emissions of the relevant 
precursor from existing sources in the attainment plan.\79\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \78\ 40 CFR 51.1006(a)(1).
    \79\ 40 CFR 51.1006(a)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, in May 2019, EPA issued the ``PM2.5 
Precursor Demonstration Guidance'' (``PM2.5 Precursor 
Guidance''), which provides recommendations to states for analyzing 
nonattainment area PM2.5 emissions and developing such 
optional precursor demonstrations, consistent with the PM2.5 
SIP Requirements Rule.\80\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \80\ ``PM2.5 Precursor Demonstration Guidance,'' EPA-
454/R-19-004, May 2019, including Memo dated May 30, 2019, from 
Scott Mathias, Acting Director, Air Quality Policy Division and 
Richard Wayland, Director, Air Quality Assessment Division, Office 
of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS), EPA to Regional Air 
Division Directors, Regions 1-10, EPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA is evaluating both the remaining elements of the Fairbanks 
Serious Plan before the agency and the Fairbanks 189(d) Plan in 
accordance with the presumption embodied within subpart 4 that the 
State must address all PM2.5 precursors in the evaluation 
and implementation of potential control measures, unless the State 
adequately demonstrates that emissions of a particular precursor or 
precursors do not contribute significantly to ambient

[[Page 1463]]

PM2.5 levels that exceed the PM2.5 NAAQS in the 
nonattainment area. In reviewing any determination by the state to 
exclude a PM2.5 precursor from the required evaluation of 
potential control measures, we considered both the magnitude of the 
precursor's contribution to ambient PM2.5 concentrations in 
the nonattainment area and the sensitivity of ambient PM2.5 
concentrations in the area to reductions in emissions of that 
precursor.\81\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \81\ 40 CFR 51.1006(a)(1)(i) and (ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Summary of State's Submission
    On September 24, 2021, EPA approved Alaska's PM2.5 
precursor demonstration submitted as part of the Fairbanks Serious Plan 
for purposes of NOX and VOC emissions as it relates to 
control measure requirements (86 FR 52997). Alaska included its updated 
PM2.5 precursor analysis in the SIP submission to meet CAA 
189(d) requirements.\82\ This submission included a new NOX 
model run that replaced a quantitative analysis conducted as part of 
the Fairbanks Serious Plan submission. Because there were no 
significant changes to the modeling platform during the short time 
period between the Fairbanks Serious Plan and 189(d) Plan submissions, 
the State reasoned that the other model runs and precursor analysis 
from the Fairbanks Serious Plan are still applicable as part of the 
updated precursor demonstration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \82\ State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol II, Chapter III.D.7.8, 
section 7.8.14.3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Alaska's precursor demonstration provided both concentration-based 
and sensitivity-based analyses of precursor contributions to ambient 
PM2.5 concentrations in the Fairbanks PM2.5 
Nonattainment Area. For VOC emissions, Alaska's demonstration was based 
on a comprehensive precursor analysis where a baseline model run was 
compared to a control model run with a 100% reduction of VOC emissions 
from anthropogenic sources. These results are well below the 1.5 [mu]g/
m\3\ significance threshold. For NOX emissions, Alaska 
included a baseline model run in the Fairbanks 189(d) Plan evaluating a 
50% reduction in NOX as part of the 189(d) Plan. According 
to the State, this provides further evidence that NOX does 
not contribute significantly to PM2.5 formation in the 
Fairbanks Nonattainment Area. The sensitivity precursor analysis showed 
that the maximum 24-hour average PM2.5 concentrations due to 
anthropogenic NOX emissions were less than or equal to 1.22 
[mu]g/m\3\ in 2019 for all model grid cells containing regulatory 
monitors, and therefore were below the 1.5 [mu]g/m\3\ threshold.
    These analyses led the State to conclude that SO2 and 
NH3 emissions contribute significantly to ambient 
PM2.5 levels that exceed the PM2.5 NAAQS in the 
Fairbanks Nonattainment Area, while NOX and VOC do not 
contribute significantly to such exceedances. Consistent with this 
conclusion, the State focused the control strategy and attainment 
demonstration on sources of PM2.5, SO2, and 
NH3 emissions. A technical summary of Alaska's updated 
PM2.5 precursor demonstration is included in the docket for 
this action.\83\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \83\ Briggs and Kotchenruther. (August 24, 2022). Review of 
Fairbanks Nonattainment Area Precursor Demonstrations for Volatile 
Organic Compounds and Nitrogen Oxides in the 2020 State 
Implementation Plan Submission. U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency, Region 10, Laboratory Services and Applied Science Division.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Importantly, Alaska's precursor analysis in the 189(d) Plan did not 
address nonattainment NSR requirements. The State previously made the 
determination to regulate all four EPA-identified legal precursors to 
PM2.5 in the nonattainment NSR regulations applicable to the 
Fairbanks PM2.5 Nonattainment Area. EPA approved Alaska's 
October 25, 2018, SIP revision as meeting the nonattainment NSR 
requirements triggered upon reclassification of the area to Serious (84 
FR 45419, August 29, 2019).
3. EPA's Evaluation and Proposed Action
    EPA has evaluated the State's precursor demonstration included in 
the Fairbanks 189(d) Plan consistent with the PM2.5 SIP 
Requirements Rule and the recommendations in the PM2.5 
Precursor Guidance. Noting that Alaska did not submit a precursor 
determination for SO2 and NH3 emissions,\84\ EPA 
agrees that SO2 and NH3 emission sources, 
therefore, remain subject to control requirements under subparts 1 and 
4 of part D, title I of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \84\ According to Alaska, there is a negligible amount of 
NH3 associated with coal-fired boilers, fuel oil-fired 
turbines or diesel engine emissions and this amount is not in the 
emissions inventory. See State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol II, 
Chapter III.D.7.7.8.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA proposes to approve the State's demonstration that 
NOX and VOC emissions do not contribute significantly to 
ambient PM2.5 levels that exceed the 2006 PM2.5 
NAAQS in the Fairbanks PM2.5 Nonattainment Area for purposes 
other than NSR program requirements. If EPA finalizes this proposed 
approval, Alaska would not be required to identify and impose control 
measures for NOX and VOC emission sources in Fairbanks other 
than for NSR purposes or to impose motor vehicle emission budgets for 
NOX and VOC emissions. Our proposed approval of Alaska's 
precursor demonstration does not extend to nonattainment NSR 
requirements for the area. Alaska previously determined that it was 
appropriate to regulate NOX, SO2, VOCs, and 
NH3 as precursors to PM2.5 with respect to 
nonattainment NSR and submitted rule changes to that effect on October 
25, 2018. EPA approved the submitted revised program as meeting 
nonattainment NSR requirements triggered upon reclassification of the 
Fairbanks PM2.5 Nonattainment Area to Serious (84 FR 45419, 
August 29, 2019).
    Regarding the State's analytical approach, EPA proposes to find 
that the State used appropriate methods and data to evaluate 
PM2.5 formation in the Fairbanks PM2.5 
Nonattainment Area from precursor emissions. Alaska began with 
concentration-based analyses for the precursors and proceeded with 
sensitivity-based analyses if necessary, which is an acceptable 
progression of analyses under the PM2.5 SIP Requirements 
Rule. The State utilized the appropriate threshold recommended in EPA's 
guidance (1.5 [mu]g/m\3\) in evaluating the significance of precursor 
emissions to the formation of 24-hour PM2.5 and utilized 
data from all four monitors in the Fairbanks PM2.5 
Nonattainment Area (see Table 1 of this document).
    Regarding the results of the State's analysis, the concentration-
based modeling analysis of VOC emissions demonstrates that 
anthropogenic VOCs have impacts on PM2.5 concentrations in 
the Fairbanks PM2.5 Nonattainment Area that are well below 
the 1.5 [mu]g/m\3\ significance threshold. Therefore, we propose to 
concur with the State's conclusion that VOCs are not significant for 
PM2.5 formation in the Fairbanks PM2.5 
Nonattainment Area.
    Further, we propose to find that the weight of evidence presented 
in the Fairbanks Serious Plan and Fairbanks 189(d) Plan suggests that 
NOX emitted from all sources is an insignificant contributor 
to local PM2.5 concentrations. Additional details of EPA's 
evaluation of Alaska's precursor PM2.5 analyses are included 
in EPA's PM2.5 precursor Technical Support Document in the 
docket for this action.\85\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \85\ Briggs and Kotchenruther. (August 24, 2022). Review of 
Fairbanks Nonattainment Area Precursor Demonstrations for Volatile 
Organic Compounds and Nitrogen Oxides in the 2020 State 
Implementation Plan Submission. U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency, Region 10, Laboratory Services and Applied Science Division.

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

[[Page 1464]]

C. Control Strategy

1. Statutory and Regulatory Requirements
    CAA section 189(b) and 40 CFR 51.1010(a) contain the control 
measure requirements for Serious areas. CAA section 189(d) and 40 CFR 
51.1010(c) contain the control measure requirements for Serious areas 
that fail to attain. EPA summarizes these statutory and regulatory 
provisions in this section.
    Pursuant to CAA section 189(b) and 40 CFR 51.1010(a), the state 
must identify, adopt, and implement best available control measures, 
including best available control technologies, on sources of direct 
PM2.5 emissions and sources of emissions of PM2.5 
plan precursors located in any Serious PM2.5 nonattainment 
area or portion thereof located within the state. This level of control 
stringency is commonly called ``BACM'' and ``BACT.'' The regulation at 
40 CFR 51.1010(a) specifies the requirements states must meet to 
identify potential control measures and in determining the measures 
states must include in the control strategy as BACM or BACT for the 
nonattainment area:
    The state must identify all sources of direct PM2.5 
emissions and sources of emissions of PM2.5 precursors in 
the nonattainment area, in accordance with the emissions inventory 
requirements in 40 CFR 51.1008(b).
    The state must identify all potential control measures to reduce 
emissions from all sources of direct PM2.5 emissions and 
sources of emissions of PM2.5 plan precursors in the 
nonattainment area. The state must survey other NAAQS nonattainment 
areas in the U.S. and identify any measures for direct PM2.5 
and PM2.5 plan precursors not previously identified by the 
state during the development of the Moderate area attainment plan for 
the area.
    The state must identify, adopt, and implement the best available 
control measures for each emission source. However, the state may 
demonstrate that any measure identified under 40 CFR 51.1010(a)(2) is 
not technologically or economically feasible to implement in whole or 
in part by the end of the tenth calendar year following the effective 
date of designation of the area and may eliminate such whole or partial 
measure from further consideration. Overall, economic feasibility is a 
less significant factor in the BACM and BACT determination process.\86\ 
There are considerations for technological feasibility of a potential 
control measure, where a state may consider factors including but not 
limited to a source's processes and operating procedures, raw 
materials, physical plant layout, and potential environmental impacts 
such as increased water pollution, waste disposal, and energy 
requirements.\87\ There are also considerations for economic 
feasibility of a potential control measure where a state may consider 
capital costs, operating and maintenance costs, and cost effectiveness 
of the measure.\88\ In assessing whether a control measure or 
technology is BACM or BACT, the state must consider emission reduction 
measures with higher costs per ton compared to the economic feasibility 
criteria applied in their RACM or RACT analysis.\89\ With respect to 
determining BACT pursuant to CAA section 189(b), EPA expects that 
states use the top-down BACT analysis process used in the Prevention of 
Significant Deterioration Program.\90\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \86\ Id.
    \87\ 40 CFR 51.1010(a)(3)(i); 81 FR 58010, 58084.
    \88\ 40 CFR 51.1010(a)(3)(ii); 81 FR 58010, 58085.
    \89\ 81 FR 58010, 58085.
    \90\ Id. 58010, 58080 (``Consistent with past policy, BACT 
determinations for PM2.5 NAAQS implementation are to 
follow the same process and criteria that are applied to the BACT 
determination process for the PSD program.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to CAA section 189(b), a state with a Serious 
nonattainment area must include provisions to assure that the 
implementation of BACM and BACT level controls on sources of direct 
PM2.5 and PM2.5 plan precursors no later than 4 
years after the date the area is classified (or reclassified) as a 
Serious area.
    In the preamble to the final PM2.5 SIP Requirements 
Rule, EPA recommended the following 5-Step BACM/BACT selection process 
states should follow to satisfy the analytical and substantive 
requirements of 40 CFR 51.1010(a) and CAA section 189(b): \91\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \91\ 81 FR 58010, 58084-85.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Step 1: Develop a comprehensive inventory of sources and source 
categories of directly emitted PM2.5 and PM2.5 
precursors.
    Step 2: Identify potential control measures for all such sources.
    Step 3: Determine whether an available control measure or 
technology is technologically feasible.
    Step 4: Determine whether an available control measure or 
technology is economically feasible.
    Step 5: Determine the earliest date by which a control measure or 
technology can be implemented in whole or in part in the area.
    EPA's interprets CAA section 189(b) to require the state to 
determine what is BACM or BACT for a particular source or source 
category.\92\ EPA's longstanding interpretation of the CAA is that BACM 
and BACT determinations are to be generally independent of attainment 
for purposes of implementing the PM2.5 NAAQS.\93\ EPA 
interprets the CAA requirement to impose BACM/BACT level control as 
requiring more emphasis on what controls are the best for the relevant 
source and whether those controls are feasible rather than on the 
attainment needs of the area.\94\ States also may not decline to 
evaluate, or to control as necessary, sources or source categories on 
the basis that they are de minimis.\95\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \92\ 81 FR 58010, 58081.
    \93\ Addendum to the General Preamble, 59 FR 41998, 42011 
(August 16, 1994); 81 FR 58010, 58081.
    \94\ Id.
    \95\ Id. 58010, 58082.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Subsequently, for a state with a Serious PM2.5 
nonattainment area that has failed to attain by the applicable 
attainment date, the state must submit a revised attainment plan with a 
control strategy that demonstrates that each year the area will achieve 
at least a 5 percent reduction in emissions of direct PM2.5 
or a 5 percent reduction in emissions of a PM2.5 plan 
precursor based on the most recent emissions inventory for the area; 
and that the area will attain the standard as expeditiously as 
practicable consistent with the attainment date requirements under 40 
CFR 51.1004(a)(3).\96\ The regulation at 40 CFR 51.1010(c) specifies 
the following process the state must follow in determining which 
measures must be included in the control strategy:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \96\ CAA section 189(d), 42 U.S.C. 7513a(d), and 40 CFR 
51.1010(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The state shall identify all sources of direct PM2.5 
emissions and sources of emissions of PM2.5 precursors in 
the nonattainment area in accordance with the emissions inventory 
requirements in 40 CFR 51.1008(b).
    The state shall identify all potential control measures to reduce 
emissions from all sources of direct PM2.5 emissions and 
sources of emissions of PM2.5 plan precursors in the 
nonattainment area. For the sources and source categories represented 
in the emission inventory for the nonattainment area, the state shall 
identify the most stringent measures for reducing direct 
PM2.5 and PM2.5 plan precursors adopted into any 
SIP or used in practice to control emissions in any state, as 
applicable.
    The state shall also reconsider and reassess any measures 
previously

[[Page 1465]]

rejected by the state during the development of any Moderate area or 
Serious area attainment plan control strategy for the area.
    Similar to the requirements for Serious area plans, the state may 
make a demonstration for a 189(d) plan that a measure is not 
technologically or economically feasible to implement in whole or in 
part within 5 years or such longer period as EPA may determine is 
appropriate after EPA's determination that the area failed to attain by 
the Serious area attainment date and may eliminate such whole or 
partial measure from further consideration. There are considerations 
for technological feasibility of a potential control measure, as 
described under 40 CFR 51.1010(c)(3)(i), where a state may consider 
factors including but not limited to a source's processes and operating 
procedures, raw materials, physical plant layout, and potential 
environmental impacts such as increased water pollution, waste 
disposal, and energy requirements. There are also considerations for 
economic feasibility of a potential control measure, under 40 CFR 
51.1010(c)(3)(ii), where a state may consider capital costs, operating 
and maintenance costs, and cost effectiveness of the measure.
    Unless the state has demonstrated that the measure is not 
technologically or economically feasible, the state shall adopt and 
implement all potential control measures identified.
    Finally, control measures adopted as part of the state's control 
strategy must be permanent, enforceable as a practical matter, and 
quantifiable.\97\ In order to be enforceable as a practical matter, the 
state must adopt into the SIP not only the control measure or emission 
limit itself but also appropriate monitoring, recordkeeping, and 
reporting requirements to ensure compliance with the control 
measure.\98\ Without appropriate monitoring, recordkeeping, and 
reporting requirements, violations of the control measure could go 
undetected.\99\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \97\ Control measures must be incorporated by reference into the 
regulatory portion of the SIP (52.70(c) and (d)) with appropriate 
monitoring and reporting requirements. See CAA section 110(a)(2)(A); 
42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2)(A); 81 FR 58010, at pp. 58046-47; 57 FR 13498, 
at pp.13567-68.
    \98\ 81 FR at 58046-47; 57 FR 13498, at p. 13567-68; 67 FR 
22168, at p. 22170; 80 FR 33840 at pp. 33843, 33865; Montana Sulphur 
& Chemical Co. v. EPA, 666 F.3d 1174, at pp. 1189-1190 (9th Cir. 
2012).
    \99\ 67 FR 22168, at p. 22170; Montana Sulphur & Chemical Co. v. 
EPA, 666 F.3d 1174, at pp. 1189-1190 (9th Cir. 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Therefore, we will evaluate whether Alaska met the applicable 
planning requirements as part of the Fairbanks Serious Plan and 
Fairbanks 189(d) Plan.
2. Summary of State's Submission
a. Identification and Adoption of BACM
    We note that Alaska included its initial BACM analysis in the 
Fairbanks Serious Plan, submitted in 2019. EPA approved a number of 
specific control measures as SIP strengthening but did not approve them 
as meeting the BACM/BACT requirement at that time.\100\ Subsequently, 
Alaska updated its BACM analysis and resubmitted the updated analysis 
in 2020 as part of the Fairbanks 189(d) Plan, to meet Serious area and 
189(d) requirements. Even though the State made a SIP submission 
intended to meet the requirements of CAA section 189(d), it remains 
obligated to meet the BACM/BACT level controls required as part of a 
Serious area nonattainment plan for the area. The State did not 
withdraw some parts of the Serious area plan with respect to the BACM/
BACT requirements for certain sources. Accordingly, we are evaluating 
the Fairbanks 189(d) Plan submission where the State has updated parts 
of the BACM analysis, and otherwise evaluating the information the 
State initially included in the Fairbanks Serious Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \100\ 86 FR 52997.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Alaska followed EPA's recommended 5-step process to evaluate BACM-
level controls for sources of PM2.5 and PM2.5 
precursors. Alaska also analyzed controls for stationary sources of 
PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors to satisfy BACT 
requirements. Alaska's process for analyzing BACT-level controls is 
discussed separately in this section following the BACM discussion.
    For Step 1, Alaska developed a comprehensive inventory of sources 
and source categories of PM2.5 and PM2.5 
precursors.\101\ Alaska identified the following source categories in 
the Fairbanks nonattainment area: solid fuel burning (outdoor hydronic 
heaters, solid fuel-fired heaters, fireplaces, burn barrels and open 
burning, and agricultural and forest burns); residential and commercial 
fuel oil combustion; transportation (automobiles and heavy-duty 
vehicles); and small area/commercial sources (coffee roasters, 
charbroilers, incinerators, and used oil burners).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \101\ State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol II, Chapter 
III.D.7.6.6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For Step 2, Alaska identified potential control measures for the 
source categories identified in Step 1. First, Alaska reviewed the 
control measures that were implemented under the Fairbanks Moderate 
Plan and discussed their implementation status.\102\ Alaska then 
reconsidered and reassessed the measures that the State rejected as 
potential RACM/RACT for the Fairbanks Moderate Plan. As a means of 
identifying additional potential BACM/BACT measures for the Fairbanks 
area, Alaska surveyed rules and regulations in other states and local 
governments and identified measures for reducing direct 
PM2.5 and PM2.5 plan precursors adopted into any 
nonattainment plan or used in practice to control emissions. Alaska 
also created a stakeholder group to identify, evaluate, and recommend 
community-based solutions to bring the area into compliance with 
Federal air quality standards for PM2.5, see State Air 
Quality Control Plan, Vol II, Chapter III.D.7.7, Table 7.7-3 and Table 
7.7-4. Overall, Alaska identified 84 control measures for analysis 
which are included in State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol III, Appendix 
III.D.7.7. EPA's review of each of the 84 control measures is included 
as a Technical Support Document in the docket for this action.\103\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \102\ See State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol II, Chapter 
III.D.7.7, Table 7.7-1
    \103\ Jentgen, M. (September 27, 2022). Technical support 
document for Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation's 
(ADEC) control measure analysis, under 40 CFR 1010(a) and (c). U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, Air and Radiation 
Division.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to controls for NH3 emissions, Alaska 
stated that processes that emit NH3 (biomass burning, 
mobile, home heating) differ in Fairbanks from those in the rest of the 
country, where NH3 from agricultural activities, vehicles, 
and other industrial activities form ammonium nitrate. Alaska conducted 
a literature review to identify potential controls for the sources of 
NH3 in the emissions inventory. Alaska was unable to 
identify any potential controls to control NH3 emissions 
specifically.\104\ As discussed further in this section, Alaska 
included in the Fairbanks 189(d) Plan an analysis that demonstrates 
that certain measures and technologies designed to reduce emissions of 
direct PM2.5 have the co-benefit of reducing emissions of 
NH3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \104\ See State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol III, Appendix 
III.D.7.7 at 5354. Alaska also notes that in the Fairbanks 
Nonattainment Area, there is only a limited amount of particulate 
matter-nitrate measured at the monitors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For Step 3, Alaska evaluated technical feasibility for the 
potential control measures and identified and rejected certain control 
measures that the State determined to be technically infeasible.\105\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \105\ State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol III, Appendix 
III.D.7.7-5355.

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

[[Page 1466]]

    For Step 4, Alaska evaluated the economic feasibility of the 
control measures that it determined to be technically feasible. Alaska 
included these economic evaluations of potential emission control 
technologies in the Fairbanks 189(d) Plan.\106\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \106\ State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol III, Appendix 
III.D.7.7-5440.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For Step 5, Alaska determined whether it could implement a control 
measure or technology in whole or in part no later than four years 
after reclassification of the area to Serious nonattainment, which 
would be June 2021.\107\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \107\ State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol III, Appendix 
III.D.7.7-5442; State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol III, Appendix 
III.D.7.7-174.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Below is a summary of the regulations adopted by Alaska, organized 
by source category, resulting from the BACM analyses included in the 
Fairbanks Serious Plan and Fairbanks 189(d) Plan, included in State Air 
Quality Control Plan, Vol II, Chapter III.D.7.7 and State Air Quality 
Control Plan, Vol III, Appendix III.D.7.7.
i. Solid-Fuel Burning
    The solid-fuel burning source category includes a number of 
measures that the State adopted as part of the Fairbanks Serious Plan. 
These measures address direct PM2.5 SO2, and 
NH3 emissions. As discussed in Step 2, Alaska researched 
potential controls measures for NH3 for this source category 
and did not identify any ammonia-specific controls.\108\ However, 
according to Alaska, some measures identified and adopted by the State 
to control emissions of direct PM2.5 have the co-benefit of 
reducing emissions of NH3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \108\ State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol III, Appendix 
III.D.7.7-5353-5354; State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol. II, 
Chapter III.D.7.10-5--10-7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The owner, vendor, or dealer of a wood-fired heating 
device must register the device with Alaska upon the occurrence of 
events such as new device sale, home sale, or participating in a 
curtailment waiver program. 18 AAC 50.077(h).
     Commercial wood sellers must register with Alaska and 
ensure that wood being sold must have a moisture content less than 20 
percent. Non-commercial wood sellers are not permitted to sell wet 
wood. 18 AAC 50.076(d), (e), (g), (j), (k), and (l). According to the 
Fairbanks 189(d) Plan, this measure reduces both direct 
PM2.5 emissions as well as SO2 and NH3 
emissions.
     Wood-fired heating devices are prohibited in the 
nonattainment area unless specific device performance criteria are met, 
and outdoor hydronic heaters are not permitted except for pellet-fueled 
hydronic heaters that also meet specific performance criteria. New 
woodstoves and pellet-fueled woodstoves must be EPA-certified and meet 
specific performance criteria. A person may not install a new pellet-
fueled hydronic heaters within 300 feet from the closest property line 
or within 660 feet from a school, clinic, hospital, or senior housing 
unit. 18 AAC 50.077(a), (b), (c), (d), and (j). According to the 
Fairbanks 189(d) Plan, this measure reduces both direct 
PM2.5 and NH3 emissions as well as accounting for 
SO2 emissions. Alaska acknowledges that there is a resulting 
increase in SO2 emissions since measures designed to reduce 
direct PM2.5 through removal, curtailment, or replacement of 
solid-fuel devices trigger a shift in heating energy to heating oil, 
which has greater SO2 emissions compared to wood fuels.\109\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \109\ State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol II, Chapter 
III.D.7.10.3.3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Regulations that give Alaska the authority to review 
manufacturer test results and place a model on the department's list of 
devices, which identifies what devices that are approved for operation 
in the Fairbanks PM2.5 Nonattainment Area. 18 AAC 50.077(e). 
According to the Fairbanks 189(d) Plan, this measure reduces both 
direct PM2.5 emissions as well as SO2 and 
NH3 emissions.
     Alaska revised the woodstove curtailment program rules to 
lower curtailment thresholds and further restrict curtailment waivers. 
Specifically, Alaska revised the requirements for the exemption process 
to ensure a waiver is temporary and objective criteria are used to 
determine economic hardship. Alaska continues to implement this 
program. Fairbanks Emergency Episode Plan, State Air Quality Control 
Plan, Vol. II, Chapter III.D.7.12; 18 AAC 50.030(a) and 18 AAC 
50.075(e).
     When Alaska issues a curtailment alert, fuel to non-exempt 
devices must be withheld, and combustion in these devices--as evidenced 
by visible smoke from a chimney--must cease within three hours after 
the effective time of a curtailment of operation under an emergency 
episode. Solid fuel fired heating device shall be operated so that 
visible emissions do not cross property lines.18 AAC 50.075(e)(3) and 
(f)(2). Alaska has revised the requirements for curtailment program 
advisories and alerts. Now, an advisory is called when PM2.5 
concentrations are expected to reach 15 [mu]g/m\3\. A stage 1 alert is 
called when PM2.5 concentrations are expected to reach 20 
[mu]g/m\3\ (this alert stage allows for specific exemptions). A stage 2 
alert is called when PM2.5 concentrations are expected to 
reach 30 [mu]g/m\3\. Fairbanks Emergency Episode Plan, State Air 
Quality Control Plan, Vol. II, Chapter III.D.7.12. According to the 
Fairbanks 189(d) Plan, this measure reduces both direct 
PM2.5 and NH3 emissions as well as accounting for 
SO2 emissions. Alaska acknowledges that there is a resulting 
increase in SO2 emissions since measures designed to reduce 
direct PM2.5 through removal, curtailment, or replacement of 
solid-fuel devices trigger a shift in heating energy to heating oil, 
which has greater SO2 emissions compared to wood fuels.\110\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \110\ State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol. II, Chapter 
III.D.7.10.3.3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Wood-fired heating devices and wood fired retrofit control 
devices must be professionally sized and professionally installed with 
confirmation of proper installation and location. 18 AAC 50.077(i).
     New woodstoves cannot serve as the primary or only source 
of heat, unless the device is installed in a ``dry cabin'' or existing 
rental units that have qualified for No Other Adequate Source of Heat 
(NOASH) waivers. 18 AAC 50.077(j). According to the Fairbanks 189(d) 
Plan, this measure reduces both direct PM2.5 emissions as 
well as SO2 and NH3 emissions.
     Wood-fired device vendors in the nonattainment area are 
required to provide curtailment information to the buyer at time of 
sale and review proper operating instructions. Wood-fired device 
vendors may not advertise devices prohibited for sale within the 
nonattainment area. 18 AAC 50.077(l).
     All EPA uncertified devices, non-pellet fueled hydronic 
heaters, and coal-fired heating devices must be removed or replaced by 
December 31, 2024, or upon sale, lease, or conveyance of an existing 
building, whichever is earlier; and these devices that may not be 
reinstalled within the area shall be rendered inoperable. 18 AAC 
50.077(l) and (m); 18 AAC 50.079(f). According to the Fairbanks 189(d) 
Plan, this measure reduces both direct PM2.5 emissions as 
well as SO2 and NH3 emissions.
ii. Residential and Commercial Fuel Oil Combustion
    The State developed and adopted these measures to address fuel oil 
combustion to reduce SO2 emissions. The State researched 
potential controls measures for NH3 for this source category 
and did not identify any ammonia-specific controls. Starting September 
1, 2022, an individual or

[[Page 1467]]

business may only sell or purchase fuel oil containing no more than 
1,000 parts per million (ppm) sulfur may be sold for use in fuel oil-
fired equipment, including space heating devices.\111\ As part of its 
BACM analysis included in the Fairbanks Serious Plan and updated in the 
Fairbanks 189(d) Plan, Alaska evaluated requirements to use ULSD 
heating oil in homes.\112\ Alaska determined that the switch to ULSD is 
technologically feasible, while the economic analysis showed this 
change would result in a cost of $1,819 per ton of SO2 
removed. As described in detail in the ``Pollutants Addressed'' section 
III.B of this document, SO2 is a significant precursor of 
PM2.5 concentrations in the Fairbanks PM2.5 
Nonattainment Area. After completing the BACM analysis, Alaska stated 
that, while the ULSD measure appears to be technically and economically 
feasible, Alaska declined to adopt and implement the measure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \111\ 18 AAC 50.078(b).
    \112\ State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol II, Chapter III.D.7.7; 
State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol. III, Appendix III.D.7.7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rather than mandate an area-wide fuel switch from Diesel #2 (2,566 
ppm) to ULSD (15 ppm), Alaska elected to mandate a fuel switch to 
Diesel #1 (1,000 ppm) by September 1, 2022. The State determined that 
this initial step down, meant to be more economically feasible for 
local residents, reduced the environmental risks associated with the 
transport of an increased volume of fuel into the community and still 
provides a large sulfur reduction. As support for its rejection of 
mandating ULSD as BACM, Alaska cited a University of Alaska Fairbanks/
Alaska cost analysis. This analysis estimated an increase in annual 
household heating expenditures of $68.31 (a 3 percent increase) under 
the selected measure, while the same cost analysis estimated an 
increase between $311.96 and $374.86 (a 13.5 to 16.5 percent increase) 
in annual household heating expenditures if Alaska mandated a switch to 
ULSD.\113\ Alaska also cited concerns from local residents that the 
increased cost in fuel oil could drive more residents to burning less 
expensive and higher PM emitting solid fuels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \113\ Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation. (February 
2019). Residential Fuel Expenditure Assessment of a Transition to 
Ultra-Low Sulfur and High Sulfur No. 1 Heating Oil for the Fairbanks 
PM-2.5 Serious Nonattainment Area. State Air Quality Control Plan, 
Vol II, Appendix III.D.7.7, at p. III.D.7.7-226.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Alaska determined that the earliest date to implement the fuel 
switch to #1 Diesel was September 1, 2022. Alaska selected this date, 
in part, due to comments received during the public comment period. 
Also, Alaska stated that there is an inadequate supply of locally 
produced Diesel #1 and additional time was required to allow for the 
local refinery to modify its processes. Alaska also noted that the 
additional time allows residents to budget and prepare for the 
increased cost. Alaska received requests through the comment process to 
delay the conversion until 2024, but Alaska felt that was too long a 
delay and that the approximate two years provided should be sufficient 
to allow the local refinery and residents to plan and prepare for the 
change in fuel oil.
    Alaska did not reevaluate its rejection of mandating switching to 
use of ULSD as part of the Fairbanks 189(d) Plan submission. Alaska 
reasoned that circumstances did not change sufficiently between 
submission of the Fairbanks Serious Plan to warrant revisiting its 
decision. Alaska noted that after implementation of the fuel switch to 
Diesel #1 in 2022, Alaska will evaluate whether the fuel switch results 
in significant sulfur reduction and whether the additional expense to 
homeowners of requiring the use of ULSD heating oil is needed to 
further address the air pollution problem.\114\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \114\ State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol. II, Chapter 
III.D.7.7, at pp. III.D.7.7-129--III.D.7.7-131.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

iii. Small Commercial Area Sources
    The State evaluated potential measures from these sources to 
address direct PM2.5, SO2, and NH3 
emissions. After a literature review, Alaska did not identify any 
NH3-specific controls for this source category.\115\ Thus, 
Alaska identified and evaluated potential measures from these sources 
to address direct PM2.5 and SO2. For small area 
sources, Alaska identified coffee roasters, charbroilers, incinerators, 
and waste oil burners. Initially, as part of the Fairbanks Serious 
Plan, Alaska adopted regulations 18 AAC 50.078(c) and (d) that required 
information from charbroilers, incinerators, and waste oil burners. 
Coffee roasters, per 18 AAC 50.078(d), are required to install a 
pollution control device on any unit that emits 24 pounds or more of 
particulate matter in a 12-month period and either install controls or 
demonstrate technological or economic infeasibility, not later than one 
year from effective date of regulation. As an update in the Fairbanks 
189(d) Plan, Alaska conducted an economic evaluation of charbroilers 
(catalyst oxidizers) and found the cost to be $47,786 per ton of 
PM2.5 removed, concluding that installing catalyst oxidizers 
on charbroiling facilities is not cost effective. Regarding 
incinerators, Alaska states that, in fact, there are no incinerators 
within the Fairbanks PM2.5 Nonattainment Area so no 
additional controls are required. For used oil burners, Alaska 
presented a technological infeasibility determination in the 189(d) 
Plan. According to the State, the only acceptable disposal method 
available in the nonattainment area is through burning. Shipping the 
used oil to the continental United States, another potential disposal 
method, would require risky overland transport and cost $2.51 per 
gallon to pick up, ship, and dispose. Another factor the State 
considered is that restricting burning of used oil would likely lead to 
dumping the used oil on land or water. Therefore, the State determined 
that this measure is technologically infeasible in the Fairbanks 
PM2.5 Nonattainment Area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \115\ State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol. III, Appendix 
III.7.7-5353-5354.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

iv. Mobile Emissions
    The State evaluated measures from mobile sources to address direct 
PM2.5, SO2, and NH3 emissions. After a 
literature review, Alaska did not identify any NH3-specific 
controls for this source category.\116\ Thus, Alaska identified and 
evaluated potential measures from these sources to address direct 
PM2.5, SO2. Alaska considered mobile sources and 
transportation measures as part of the BACM analysis, including high 
occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes, traffic flow improvement, vehicle 
inspection and maintenance (I/M) programs, low-emission vehicle (LEV) 
program, retrofit diesel program, and van pools.\117\ Alaska noted that 
Fairbanks has expanded the availability of plug-ins and required 
electrification of certain parking lots. Fairbanks has also expanded 
transit service and a commuter van pool program. Alaska also has an 
anti-idle program. Alaska concluded that, due to relatively light 
traffic congestion in Fairbanks, low population and employment density, 
any additional transportation control measures would provide limited 
emission reduction benefits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \116\ State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol. III, Appendix 
III.7.7-5353-5354.
    \117\ State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol III, Appendix 
III.D.7.7, Measures 57, 59, and R20.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Summary of Control Measures Selected by Alaska To Meet BACM 
Requirements
    Based on the BACM analysis, Alaska identified and implemented 
emissions controls, as described in Table 4.

[[Page 1468]]

Alaska's identification and adoption of BACT is discussed in the next 
section.

 Table 4--Alaska's List of Emission Control Measures With Quantifiable Emission Benefits and Projected Emissions
                                               Reductions in 2024
                                [First year all control measures are implemented]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       2024 emission              Implementation date
       Control measure               State rule         reductions   -------------------------------------------
                                                      (tons per day)       PM2.5                  SO2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Woodstove changeout program..  Targeted Airshed                 0.68            0.01  Ongoing, through 2025.
                                Grant terms and
                                conditions 18 AAC
                                50.077(a), (b), (c),
                                (d), (e), (j), (m).
Solid fuel burning             Fairbanks Emergency              0.68      SO2: -0.23  Ongoing.
 curtailment program (Stage 1   Episode Plan, State
 and Stage 2 Alerts).           Air Quality Control
                                Plan, Vol. II,
                                Chapter III.D.7.12;
                                18 AAC 50.030(a); 18
                                AAC 50.075(e).
Shift from #2 to #1 oil for    18 AAC 50.078(b).....            0.01            1.95  2023.
 residential/commercial space
 heating.
Dry wood requirements for      18 AAC 50.076(d),                0.10           <0.01  2022.
 commercial wood sales.         (e), (g), (j), (k),
                                and (l).
Removal of all uncertified     18 AAC 50.077(l) and             0.16           <0.01  2024.
 device and cordwood outdoor    (m).
 hydronic heaters.
New wood-fired device          18 AAC 50.077(c).....            0.39            0.01  2020.
 requirements (i.e., 2.0 g/
 hr).
Removal of coal heaters......  18 AAC 50.079(f).....            0.02            0.02  2024.
Wood-fired devices may not be  18 AAC 50.077(j).....            0.35           -0.01  2020.
 primary or only heating
 source.
NOASH/exemption requirements.  Fairbanks Emergency             <0.01           <0.01  2020.
                                Episode Plan, State
                                Air Quality Control
                                Plan, Vol. II,
                                Chapter III.D.7.12;
                                18 AAC 50.077(g).
Combined BACM emissions        .....................            2.39            1.74  ..........................
 reductions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol II, Chapter III.D.7.7, Tables 7.7-28 and 7.7-29.

c. Alaska's Identification and Adoption of BACT
    Alaska noted that large stationary sources are a subgroup of 
emissions sources that have specific requirements in the BACM analysis. 
Alaska evaluated all stationary sources with potential to emit (PTE) 
greater than 70 tons per year (tpy) of PM2.5 or 
PM2.5 precursors for potential BACT-level controls. 
According to Alaska, sources with emissions below the 70 tpy threshold 
only require evaluation for BACM. Alaska states that this emissions 
threshold is in place to distinguish between the planning requirements 
for certain sources emitting above and below this threshold and is 
consistent with an emissions threshold in the 2016 PM2.5 
Implementation Rule.\118\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \118\ We note that Alaska applied this threshold to emissions 
sources at the GVEA Zehnder facility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We note that EPA disagrees with this assessment. All emissions 
sources identified in the emissions inventory are subject to BACM 
requirements, and the BACT evaluation process is merely a sub-set of 
BACM that includes a process to evaluate emissions control technologies 
that are the best available control measures for the emission source 
category. Accordingly, all sources of direct PM2.5 and 
PM2.5 precursors are subject to BACM and BACT requirements 
regardless of PTE. There is no PTE threshold below which BACT 
requirements do not apply. The 70 tons per year PTE threshold cited by 
Alaska only has relevance in determining whether a new stationary 
source proposed to be constructed in a nonattainment area meets the 
definition of a major stationary source pursuant to the nonattainment 
new source review provisions.\119\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \119\ 40 CFR 51.165(a)(1)(iv)(A)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Alaska identified five stationary sources that it evaluated for 
potential BACT controls, see State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol II, 
Chapter III.D.7, section 7.7.8. Table 5 includes the annual emissions 
(tons/year) for each of the facilities:

                           Table 5--Annual Emissions (Tons/Year), by Facility, in 2019
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         Facility                            PM2.5       SO2        NOX        VOC        NH3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chena Power Plant........................................      55.63     507.39     623.70       1.96       0.06
Fort Wainwright..........................................      66.58     481.13     485.30       4.91       0.06
UAF Campus Power Plant...................................       9.08     154.52     246.51       1.56  .........
GVEA Zehnder.............................................       1.04      27.98      76.32       0.04       0.50
GVEA North Pole..........................................      26.45     247.31   1,046.50       0.90      14.98
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol III, Appendix III.D.7.7-6-9-10-2020 fairbanks-5-percent-plan-sip-
  sector-emission-summary-calculation-spreadsheet.

    Below is a summary of Alaska's BACT analysis for each source. Each 
source is comprised of multiple emission units, and the State performed 
the BACT analysis for each emission unit. After a literature review, 
Alaska did not identify any NH3-specific controls for this 
source category.\120\ Thus, Alaska identified and evaluated potential 
measures from these sources to address direct PM2.5 and 
SO2 emissions. Alaska's BACT determinations are evaluated by 
EPA on an independent basis. Details of EPA's analysis of Alaska's BACT 
evaluation and determination are included as BACT

[[Page 1469]]

Technical Support Documents in the docket for this action.\121\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \120\ State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol. III, Appendix 
III.7.7-5353-5354.
    \121\ See Hedgpeth and Sorrels. (August 24, 2022). Review of 
Best Available Control Technology analyses submitted for the Aurora 
Energy, LLC Chena Power Plant as part of the Fairbanks 
PM2.5 Nonattainment SIP. U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency, Region 10, Laboratory Services and Applied Science Division; 
Hedgpeth, Z. (August 24, 2022). Review of Best Available Control 
Technology analyses submitted for Fort Wainwright-US Army Garrison 
Alaska (FWA) and Doyon Utilities, LLC (DU) as part of the Fairbanks 
PM2.5 Nonattainment SIP. U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency, Region 10, Laboratory Services and Applied Science Division; 
Hedgpeth and Sorrels. (August 24, 2022). Review of Best Available 
Control Technology analyses submitted for the University of Alaska, 
Fairbanks as part of the Fairbanks PM2.5 Nonattainment 
SIP. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, Laboratory 
Services and Applied Science Division; Hedgpeth, Z. (August 24, 
2022). Review of Best Available Control Technology analyses 
submitted for the Golden Valley Electric Association (GVEA) Zehnder 
and North Pole Power Plants as part of the Fairbanks 
PM2.5 Nonattainment SIP. U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency, Region 10, Laboratory Services and Applied Science Division.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

i. Chena Power Plant
    Chena Power Plant is an existing stationary source owned and 
operated by Aurora Energy, LLC, which consists of four existing coal-
fired boilers: three 76 million British Thermal Units (MMBtu)/hour 
overfeed traveling grate stoker type boilers and one 269 MMBtu/hr 
spreader-stoker type boiler that burn coal to produce steam for heating 
and power (497 MMBtu/hr combined).
    The State's BACT Determination for the Chena Power Plant evaluated 
potential controls to reduce NOX, PM2.5, and 
SO2 emissions from its four coal-fired boilers.\122\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \122\ Alaska evaluated potential NOX controls for 
each emission unit, but because Alaska determined and EPA is 
proposing to approve in this proposed action that NOX 
emissions are not significant for PM2.5 formation in the 
Fairbanks nonattainment area, ADEC does not plan to require 
implementation of BACT for NOX. Thus, EPA is not 
discussing ADEC's BACT analysis for NOX here.

                 Table 6--Chena Power Plant BACT Summary
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Chena Power Plant, Aurora Energy, LLC
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 Alaska's BACT determination, by source
          Pollutant                             category
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Coal-fired boilers (EUs 4-7)--3 boilers rated 76 MMBtu per hour and 1
                     boiler rated 269 MMBtu per hour
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM2.5........................  N/A (Alaska claims installed single full
                                steam baghouse is highest rated control
                                available, but no PM2.5 BACT analysis or
                                emission limitation was submitted).
SO2*.........................  By June 9, 2021, Aurora Energy shall
                                limit the sulfur content of coal to
                                0.25% sulfur by weight and limit SO2
                                emissions from the coal-fired boilers to
                                no more than 0.301 lb/MMBtu.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Alaska found it economically infeasible for Aurora Energy to implement
  retrofit SO2 controls on emission units at the Chena Power Plant.
Source: State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol II, Chapter III.D.7.7, Table
  7.7-10 and Section 7.7.8.2.5.

    Regarding PM2.5 controls, Alaska claimed that, because 
the Chena Power Plant has direct PM2.5 emissions less than 
70 tons per year, a PM2.5 BACT analysis was not prepared or 
submitted by the State. EPA notes our disagreement with this 
interpretation. Nevertheless, Alaska states that the Chena Power Plant 
is already equipped with a single full stream baghouse for controlling 
particulate emissions from the four coal-fired boilers. Baghouses/
fabric filters are the highest rated control available (99.9% control 
efficiency) for PM2.5 emissions from coal-fired boilers. As 
noted in the paragraph above, while this would appear to be an 
efficient control measure for PM2.5 emissions, Alaska did 
not submit any further information regarding the PM2.5 BACT 
requirement for the Chena Power Plant or any further documentation to 
ensure use of the existing single full stream baghouse is adopted as a 
permanent and enforceable requirement of the EPA-approved SIP.
    Alaska identified SO2 as a significant precursor to 
PM2.5 formation in Fairbanks. Accordingly, the state 
evaluated potential SO2 controls for the Chena Power Plant. 
Alaska identified five technologies as technologically feasible for 
reduction of SO2 emissions from the industrial coal-fired 
boilers: (1) wet scrubbers; (2) spray dry absorber (SDA); (3) dry 
sorbent injection (DSI); (4) low sulfur coal; and (5) good combustion 
practices. Neither Alaska nor Aurora evaluated the circulating dry 
scrubber (CDS) technology, as EPA suggested in comments.\123\ For a 
detailed summary and evaluation of Alaska's BACT submission, see EPA's 
Technical Support Document.\124\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \123\ See EPA comments regarding site-specific quotes for high 
performing SO2 control technologies, such as a wet 
scrubber (WFGD), spray dry absorber (SDA), and circulating dry 
scrubber (CDS); ``EPA Comments on 2020 Department of Environmental 
Conservation (DEC) Proposed Regulations and SIP Amendments'' Letter 
from Krishna Viswanathan, Director, EPA Region 10 Air and Radiation 
Division to Alice Edwards, Director, ADEC Division of Air Quality, 
October 29, 2020; ``EPA Comments on 2019 DEC Proposed Regulations 
and SIP--Fairbanks North Star Borough Fine Particulate Matter'' 
Letter from Krishna Viswanathan, Director, EPA Region 10 Air and 
Radiation Division to Alice Edwards, Director, ADEC Division of Air 
Quality, July 19, 2019.
    \124\ Hedgpeth and Sorrels. (August 24, 2022). Review of Best 
Available Control Technology analyses submitted for the Aurora 
Energy, LLC Chena Power Plant as part of the Fairbanks PM2.5 
Nonattainment SIP. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, 
Laboratory Services and Applied Science Division.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On November 19, 2018, Aurora proposed a BACT alternative to the 
State, contending that DSI, the least expensive SO2 control 
option, should not be required as BACT because Aurora cannot afford 
this control technology despite the fact it has been demonstrated to be 
economically feasible.] Aurora included information regarding the 
economic impact of requiring DSI based on the following financial 
indicators, consistent with the PM2.5 Implementation Rule 
and longstanding EPA policy:\125\ (1) fixed and variable production 
costs; (2) product supply and demand elasticity; (3) product prices 
(cost absorption vs. cost pass-through); (4) expected costs incurred by 
competitors; (5) company profits; (6) employment costs; (7) and other 
costs (e.g., for BACM implemented by public sector entities).\126\ 
Aurora concluded that even installing the least expensive 
SO2 control, DSI, is economically infeasible and would do 
very little to solve the air quality problem in the nonattainment 
area.\127\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \125\ 57 FR 18070, April 28, 1992.
    \126\ Proposed BACT Alternative, Aurora Energy, November 19, 
2018, State Air Quality Control Plan, Appendix III.D.7.7-4851 (PDF 
page 995).
    \127\ Proposed BACT Alternative, Aurora Energy, November 19, 
2018, State Air Quality Control Plan, Appendix III.D.7.7-4869 (PDF 
page 1014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Ultimately, Alaska determined that it would be economically 
infeasible for Aurora Energy to implement retrofit SO2 
controls on its emission units at the Chena Power Plant. Alaska instead 
identified BACT for this source as the existing requirements to operate 
good combustion practices and to use a low sulfur coal as a fuel 
source. Alaska also

[[Page 1470]]

required as BACT that, by June 9, 2021, Aurora Energy shall limit the 
sulfur content of coal to 0.25% sulfur by weight and limit 
SO2 emissions from the coal-fired boilers to no more than 
0.301 lb/MMBtu.
ii. Fort Wainwright
    Fort Wainwright is an existing U.S. Army installation. Emission 
units located within the military installation include units such as 
boilers and generators that are owned and operated by the U.S. Army 
Garrison Alaska (referred to as FWA). The Central Heating and Power 
Plant (CHPP), also located within the installation footprint, is owned 
and operated by Doyon Utilities, LLC (DU), the regional Alaska Native 
corporation for Interior Alaska. The two entities, DU and FWA, comprise 
a single stationary source operating under two permits.
    In addition to the CHPP, the source contains additional emission 
units comprised of small and large emergency engines, fire pumps, and 
generators, diesel-fired boilers, and material handling equipment. 
Alaska included a BACT analysis for the CHPP and all other emission 
units at the Fort Wainwright source as part of the Fairbanks Serious 
Plan under State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol II, Chapter III.D.7.7 
and Appendix III.D.7.7, Part 2. The CHPP is comprised of six spreader-
stoker type coal-fired boilers each rated at 230 MMBtu/hr, that burn 
coal to produce steam for stationary source-wide heating and power. 
Alaska's BACT analysis for Fort Wainwright source evaluated potential 
controls to reduce NOX, PM2.5, and SO2 
emissions from each of these emissions units at the stationary 
source.\128\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \128\ Alaska evaluated potential NOX controls for 
each emission unit, but because Alaska determined and EPA proposed 
to approve in this action that NOX emissions are not 
significant for PM2.5 formation in the Fairbanks 
nonattainment area, ADEC does not plan to require implementation of 
BACT for NOX. Thus, EPA is not discussing ADEC's BACT 
analysis for NOX here.

                  Table 7--Fort Wainwright BACT Summary
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Fort Wainwright, Doyon Utilities
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               Alaska's BACT determination, by source
        Pollutant                             category
------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Coal-fired boilers (EUs 1-6)--each unit rated 230 MMBtu per hour
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM2.5....................   Operate and maintain a full stream
                            baghouse at all times the units are in
                            operation;
                            PM2.5 emissions from DU EUs 1
                            through 6 shall not exceed 0.045 lb/MMBtu
                            over a 3-hour averaging period; and
                            Conduct an initial performance test
                            to obtain an emission rate.
SO2......................   On or before June 9, 2021, DU shall
                            limit the gross as received sulfur content
                            of coal to no greater than 0.25% sulfur by
                            weight.
                            On or before June 9, 2021, DU shall
                            submit a Title I permit application to DEC
                            that requires the permittee to install and
                            operate a DSI pollution control system on
                            the coal-fired boilers at CHPP effective no
                            later than October 1, 2023.
                            DEC intends to issue the minor
                            permit and incorporate the Title I
                            requirements into the operating permit
                            within one year of receiving a complete
                            application.
                            On or before October 1, 2023, DU
                            shall install and operate a DSI pollution
                            control system on the coal-fired boilers at
                            CHPP.
                            The SO2 BACT limit for EUs 1 through
                            6 shall not exceed 0.12 lb/MMBtu averaged
                            over a 3-hour period.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Diesel-fired oil boilers (27 emissions units)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM2.5....................   PM2.5 emissions from the diesel-
                            fired boilers shall not exceed 0.012 lb/
                            MMBtu averaged over a 3-hour period, with
                            the exception of the waste fuel boilers
                            which must comply with the State particulate
                            matter emissions standard of 0.05 grains per
                            dry standard cubic foot under 18 AAC
                            50.055(b)(1);
                            Limit combined operation of FWA EUs
                            8, 9, and 10 to 600 hours per year; and
                            Maintain good combustion practices
                            by following the manufacturer's maintenance
                            procedures at all times of operation.
SO2......................   SO2 emissions from the diesel-fired
                            boilers shall be controlled by only
                            combusting ULSD, with the exception of the
                            waste fuel boilers;
                            Combined operating limit of 600
                            hours per year for FWA EUs 8, 9, and 10; and
                            Maintain good combustion practices
                            by following the manufacturer's operating
                            and maintenance procedures at all times of
                            operation.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Large diesel-fired engines, fire pumps, and generators (8 emissions
                   units; greater than 500 horsepower)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM2.5....................   Limit combined operation of FWA EUs
                            11, 12, and 13 to 600 hours per year;
                            Limit operation of DU EU 8 to 500
                            hours per year;
                            PM2.5 emissions from DU EU 8, FWA
                            EUs 50, 51, and 53 shall not exceed 0.15 g/
                            hp-hr;
                            PM2.5 emissions from FWA EUs 11
                            through 13 and 54 shall not exceed 0.32 g/hp-
                            hr;
                            Limit non-emergency operation of FWA
                            EUs 50, 51, 53, and 54 to no more than 100
                            hours each per year;
                            Combust only ULSD; and
                            Maintain good combustion practices
                            by following the manufacturer's operating
                            and maintenance procedures at all times of
                            operation.
SO2......................   SO2 emissions from DU EU 8, and FWA
                            EUs 11, 12, 13, 50, 51, 53, and 54 shall be
                            controlled by only combusting ULSD;
                            Limit operation of DU EU 8 to 500
                            hours per year;
                            Combined operating limit of 600
                            hours per year for FWA EUs 11, 12, and 13;
                            Limit non-emergency operation of FWA
                            EUs 50, 51, 53, and 54 to no more than 100
                            hours each per year; and
                            Maintain good combustion practices
                            by following the manufacturer's operating
                            and maintenance procedures at all times of
                            operation.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 1471]]

 
Small emergency engines, fire pumps, and generators (41 emissions units)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM2.5....................   Combust only ULSD;
                            Limit non-emergency operation of DU
                            EUs 9, 12, 14, 22, 23, 29a, 30, 31a, 32, 33,
                            34, 35, 36, FWA EUs 26 through 39, and 55
                            through 65 to no more than 100 hours each
                            per year;
                            For engines manufactured after the
                            applicability dates of 40 CFR part 60
                            subpart IIII, comply with the applicable
                            particulate matter emission standards in 40
                            CFR part 60 subpart IIII;
                            Maintain good combustion practices
                            by following the manufacturer's operating
                            procedures at all times of operation; and
                            Demonstrate compliance with the
                            numerical BACT emission limits (emission
                            limit of 0.015-1 g/hp-hr (3-hour average)
                            varies by emission unit, listed in the State
                            Air Quality Control Plan, Vol II, Chapter
                            III.D.7.7, Table 7.7-13) by maintaining
                            records of maintenance procedures conducted
                            in accordance with 40 CFR subparts 60 and
                            63, and the EU operating manuals.
SO2......................   Limit non-emergency operation of DU
                            EUs 9, 12, 14, 22, 23, 29a, 30, 31a, 32, 33,
                            34, 35, 36, FWA EUs 26 through 39, and 55
                            through 65 to no more than 100 hours each
                            per year;
                            Combust only ULSD; and
                            Maintain good combustion practices
                            by following the manufacturer's operating
                            and maintenance procedures at all times of
                            operation.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Material handling sources (6 emissions units; coal prep and ash
                                handling)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM2.5....................   PM2.5 emissions from the material
                            handling equipment EUs 7a-7c, 51a, and 51b
                            shall be controlled by operating and
                            maintaining fabric filters at all times the
                            units are in operation;
                            PM2.5 emissions from DU EU 7a shall
                            not exceed 0.0025 gr/dscf;
                            PM2.5 emissions from DU EUs 7b, 7c,
                            51a, and 51 b shall not exceed 0.02 gr/dscf;
                            PM2.5 emissions from DU EU 52 shall
                            not exceed 1.42 tpy. Continuous compliance
                            with the PM2.5 emissions limit shall be
                            demonstrated by complying with the fugitive
                            dust control plan identified in the
                            applicable operating permit issued to the
                            source in accordance with 18 AAC 50 and AS
                            46.14; and
                            Compliance with the PM2.5 emission
                            rates for the material handling units shall
                            be demonstrated by following the fugitive
                            dust control plan and the manufacturer's
                            operating and maintenance procedures at all
                            times of operation.
SO2......................  n/a.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol II, Chapter III.D.7.7, Table
  7.7-11 and Chapter III.D.7.7.8.3.4.

    For the coal-fired boilers, Alaska stated that three SO2 
emission controls were evaluated: wet scrubbers, spray dry absorber 
(SDA), and DSI. Alaska estimated the economic cost of installing wet 
scrubbers to be $16,356 per SO2 ton removed. Alaska 
estimated the economic cost of installing SDA to be $16,748 per 
SO2 ton removed. Lastly, Alaska estimated the economic cost 
of installing DSI to be $11,383 per SO2 ton removed. Based 
on this evaluation, Alaska selected DSI as BACT and required DSI to be 
installed at Fort Wainwright by October 1, 2023. Alaska also included 
in the SIP submission the emission limits, emission controls, and 
operational limitations the State determined constituted BACT for the 
emission units in Fort Wainwright. However, Alaska did not submit as 
part of the Fairbanks Serious Plan all the monitoring, recordkeeping, 
and reporting (MRR) requirements for determining compliance with these 
BACT limits or requirements. Rather, Alaska indicated that such 
detailed requirements are already embodied in state-issued construction 
or operating permits or would be embodied in a state-issued Title I 
permit separate from the SIP. For a detailed summary and evaluation of 
Alaska's BACT submission, see EPA's Technical Support Document.\129\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \129\ Hedgpeth, Z. (August 24, 2022). Review of Best Available 
Control Technology analyses submitted for Fort Wainwright-US Army 
Garrison Alaska (FWA) and Doyon Utilities, LLC (DU) as part of the 
Fairbanks PM2.5 Nonattainment SIP. U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency, Region 10, Laboratory Services and Applied Science Division.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

iii. University of Alaska Fairbanks Campus Power Plant
    The Fairbanks Campus Power Plant is an existing stationary source 
owned and operated by University of Alaska Fairbanks, which consists of 
two coal-fired boilers installed in 1962 that were later replaced by a 
circulating fluidized bed (CFB) dual fuel-fired boiler (coal and 
biomass) rated at 295.6 MMBtu/hr. Other emission units at the source 
include a 13,266 hp backup diesel generator, 13 diesel-fired boilers, 
one classroom engine, one diesel engine permitted but not yet 
installed, and a coal handling system for the new dual-fuel fired 
boiler.
    The State's BACT determination for the Fairbanks Campus Power Plant 
evaluated potential controls to reduce NOX, 
PM2.5, and SO2 emissions from each of the 
emissions units at the source.\130\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \130\ Alaska evaluated potential NOX controls for 
each emission unit, but because Alaska determined and EPA proposed 
to approve in this action that NOX emissions are not 
significant for PM2.5 formation in the Fairbanks 
nonattainment area, ADEC does not plan to require implementation of 
BACT for NOX. Thus, EPA is not discussing ADEC's BACT 
analysis for NOX here.

[[Page 1472]]



Table 8--University of Alaska Fairbanks Campus Power Plant--BACT Summary
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     University of Alaska Fairbanks
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               Alaska's BACT determination, by source
        Pollutant                             category
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Dual fuel-fired boiler (EU 113)--unit rated at 295 MMBtu per hour; coal
               and woody biomass fuel; constructed in 2019
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM2.5....................   Operate and maintain fabric filters
                            at all times the unit is in operation;
                            PM2.5 emissions from EU 113 shall
                            not exceed 0.012 lb/MMBtu over a 3-hour
                            averaging period; and
                            Maintain good combustion practices
                            at all times of operation by following the
                            manufacturer's operating and maintenance
                            procedures.
                            Conduct an initial performance test
                            to obtain an emission rate.
SO2*.....................   Maintaining good combustion
                            practices by following the manufacturer's
                            operating and maintenance procedures,
                            combustion of low sulfur coal as a fuel
                            source, and the existing SO2 emission limit
                            of 0.20 lb/MMBtu determined on a 30-day
                            rolling average.
                            By June 9, 2021, UAF shall limit the
                            gross as received sulfur content of coal
                            delivered to the stationary source to 0.25%
                            sulfur by weight.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Mid-sized diesel-fired boilers (EUs 3 and 4)--each unit rated 180 MMBtu
                                per hour
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM2.5....................   PM2.5 emissions from EUs 3 and 4
                            shall not exceed 0.012 lb/MMBtu averaged
                            over a 3-hour period while firing diesel
                            fuel;
                            PM2.5 emissions from EU 4 shall not
                            exceed 0.0075 lb/MMBtu averaged over a 3-
                            hour period while firing natural gas;
                            Maintain good combustion practices
                            at all times of operation by following the
                            manufacturer's operating and maintenance
                            procedures; and
                            Limit NOX emissions from EUs 4 and 8
                            to no more than 40 tons per year combined.
SO2......................   On or before June 9, 2020, UAF shall
                            also submit a Title I permit application to
                            Alaska that includes a BACT requirement to
                            limit the sulfur content of fuel oil
                            combusted in its diesel-fired boilers to no
                            greater than 1,000 parts per million weight
                            (ppmw) (S1000) from October 1 through March
                            31 with an effective date of no later than
                            October 1, 2020.
                            On or before June 9, 2021, UAF shall
                            also submit a Title I permit application to
                            DEC that includes a BACT requirement to
                            limit the sulfur content of fuel oil
                            combusted in its diesel-fired boilers to no
                            greater than 15 ppmw (ULSD) from October 1
                            through March 31 with an effective date of
                            no later than October 1, 2023;
                            SO2 emissions from EU 4 will be
                            limited by complying with the combined
                            annual SO2 emission limit of 40 tons per 12
                            month rolling period for EUs 4 and 8;
                            SO2 emissions from EU 4 while firing
                            natural gas shall not exceed 0.60 lb/MMscf;
                            Maintain good combustion practices
                            by following the manufacturer's maintenance
                            procedures at all times of operation; and
                            Compliance with the proposed SO2
                            emission limit will be demonstrated through
                            fuel shipment receipts and/or fuel testing
                            for sulfur content.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Small-sized diesel-fired boilers (EUs 19-21)--each unit rated 6 MMBtu
                                per hour
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM2.5....................   Combined boilers operating limit of
                            no more than 19,650 hours per year;
                            PM2.5 emissions from EUs 19-21 shall
                            not exceed 0.012 lb/MMBtu; and
                            Maintain good combustion practices
                            by following the manufacturer's operating
                            and maintenance procedures at all times of
                            operation.
SO2......................   On or before June 9, 2020, UAF shall
                            also submit a Title I permit application to
                            DEC that includes a BACT requirement to
                            limit the sulfur content of fuel oil
                            combusted in its diesel-fired boilers to no
                            greater than 1,000 ppmw (S1000) from October
                            1 through March 31 with an effective date of
                            no later than October 1, 2020.
                            On or before June 9, 2021, UAF shall
                            also submit a Title I permit application to
                            DEC that includes a BACT requirement to
                            limit the sulfur content of fuel oil
                            combusted in its diesel-fired boilers to no
                            greater than 15 ppmw (ULSD) from October 1
                            through March 31 with an effective date of
                            no later than October 1, 2023;
                            Combined boilers operating limit of
                            no more than 19,650 hours per year;
                            Maintain good combustion practices
                            by following the manufacturer's maintenance
                            procedures at all times of operation; and
                            Compliance with the proposed SO2
                            emission limit will be demonstrated through
                            fuel shipment receipts and/or fuel testing
                            for sulfur content.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Large diesel-fired engine (EU 8)--unit rated 13,266 horsepower
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM2.5....................   PM2.5 emissions from EU 8 shall be
                            controlled by operating positive crankcase
                            ventilation and combusting only low ash
                            diesel at all times of operation;
                            Limit NOX emissions from EUs 4 and 8
                            to no more than 40 tons per year combined;
                            Limit non-emergency operation of EU
                            8 to no more than 100 hours per year; and
                            PM2.5 emissions from EU 8 shall not
                            exceed 0.32 g/hp-hr averaged over a 3-hour
                            period.
SO2......................   On or before June 9, 2020, UAF shall
                            submit a Title I permit application to
                            Alaska that includes a BACT requirement to
                            combust only ULSD in its diesel-fired
                            engines no later than June 9, 2021;
                            Limit SO2 emissions from EUs 4 and 8
                            to no more than 40 tons per year combined;
                            Limit non-emergency operation of EU
                            8 to no more than 100 hours per year;
                            Maintain good combustion practices
                            by following the manufacturer's maintenance
                            procedures at all times of operation; and
                            Compliance with the proposed SO2
                            emission limit will be demonstrated through
                            fuel shipment receipts and/or fuel testing
                            for sulfur content.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Small diesel-fired engines (EUs 23-24, 26-29)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM2.5....................   Limit the operation of EU 27 to no
                            more than 4,380 hours per year;
                            Limit non-emergency operation of EUs
                            24, 28, and 29 to no more than 100 hours per
                            year each;
                            EU 27 shall comply with the Federal
                            emission standards of NSPS Subpart IIII,
                            Tier 3;

[[Page 1473]]

 
                            Maintain good combustion practices
                            at all times of operation by following the
                            manufacturer's operating and maintenance
                            procedures; and Demonstrate compliance with
                            the numerical BACT emission limits (emission
                            limit of 0.015-1 g/hp-hr (3-hour average)
                            varies by emission unit, listed in State Air
                            Quality Control Plan, Vol II, Chapter
                            III.D.7.7, Table 7.7-18) by maintaining
                            records of maintenance procedures conducted
                            in accordance with 40 C.F.R. Subparts 60 and
                            63, and the EU operating manuals.
SO2......................   On or before June 9, 2020, UAF shall
                            submit a Title I permit application to
                            Alaska that includes a BACT requirement to
                            combust only ULSD in its diesel-fired
                            engines no later than June 9, 2021.
                            Limit the operation of EU 27 to no
                            more than 4,380 hours per year;
                            Limit non-emergency operation of EUs
                            24, 28, and 29 to no more than 100 hours per
                            year each;
                            Maintain good combustion practices
                            at all times of operation by following the
                            manufacturer's operating and maintenance
                            procedures;
                            Compliance will be demonstrated with
                            fuel shipment receipts and/or fuel tests for
                            sulfur content; and
                            Compliance with the operating hours
                            limit will be demonstrated by monitoring and
                            recording the number of hours operated on a
                            monthly basis.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Pathogenic waste incinerator (EU 9a)--unit rated 533 lb per hour
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM2.5....................   PM2.5 emissions from EU 9A shall be
                            controlled with a multiple chamber design;
                            Limit the operation of EU 9A to no
                            more than 109 tons of waste combusted per
                            year;
                            PM2.5 emissions from EU 9A shall not
                            exceed 4.67 lb/ton;
                            Maintain good combustion practices
                            at all times of operation by following the
                            manufacturer's operating and maintenance
                            procedures; and
                            Compliance with the proposed
                            operational limit will be demonstrated by
                            recording pounds of waste combusted for the
                            pathogenic waste incinerator.
SO2......................   Limit the operation of EU 9A to no
                            more than 109 tons of waste combusted per
                            year;
                            SO2 emissions from the operation of
                            EU 9A shall be controlled by combusting ULSD
                            at all times of operation;
                            Maintain good combustion practices
                            by following the manufacturer's operational
                            procedures at all times of operation; and
                            Compliance shall be demonstrated by
                            obtaining fuel shipment receipts and/or fuel
                            tests for sulfur content.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Material handling sources (EUs 105, 107, 109-111, 114, 128-130); coal
                          prep and ash handling
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM2.5....................   PM2.5 emissions from EUs 105, 107,
                            109 through 111, 114, and 128 through 130
                            will be controlled by enclosing each EU;
                            PM2.5 emissions from the operation
                            of the material handling units, except EU
                            111, will be controlled by installing,
                            operating, and maintaining fabric filters
                            and vents;
                            Initial compliance with the emission
                            rates for the material handling units,
                            except EU 111, will be demonstrated with a
                            performance test to obtain an emission rate;
                            and
                            Comply with the numerical emission
                            limits (emission limit of 0.003-0.050 gr/
                            dscf and .00005 lb/ton (EU 111) varies by
                            emission unit listed in State Air Quality
                            Control Plan, Vol II, Chapter III.D.7.7,
                            Table 7.7-18--note double citation)
SO2......................  n/a.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Alaska finds it economically infeasible for the University of Alaska
  Fairbanks to implement retrofit SO2 controls on emission units at the
  Campus Power Plant.
Source: State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol II, Chapter III.D.7.7, Table
  7.7-16 and Chapter III.D.7.7.8.6.

    Alaska included in the SIP submission most of the emission limits, 
emission controls, and operational limitations the State determined 
constituted BACT for the emission units at the UAF Campus Power Plant. 
However, Alaska did not submit as part of the Fairbanks Serious Plan 
the emission limits corresponding to Alaska's SO2 BACT 
findings for several emission units \131\ nor all the MRR requirements 
for determining compliance with BACT limits or requirements. Rather, 
Alaska indicated that such requirements are already embodied in state-
issued construction or operating permits or would be embodied in a 
state-issued Title I permit separate from the SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \131\ Mid-sized diesel-fired boilers (EUs 3 and 4); Small-sized 
diesel-fired boilers (EUs 19-21); Large diesel-fired engine (EU 8); 
Small diesel-fired engines (EUs 23-24, 26-29).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Alaska identified SO2 as a significant precursor to 
PM2.5 formation in Fairbanks. Accordingly, Alaska identified 
six potential control measures as technologically feasible for 
reduction of SO2 emissions from the industrial dual-fired 
boiler (EU-113) at this source: (1) wet scrubbers; (2) SDA; (3) DSI; 
(4) low sulfur coal; and (5) good combustion practices. Notably, 
neither Alaska nor UAF evaluated the circulating dry scrubber (CDS) 
technology that EPA has commented is a proven technology for coal 
boilers that the State should analyze for BACT.\132\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \132\ See EPA Comments regarding site-specific quotes for high 
performing SO2 control technologies, such as a wet 
scrubber (WFGD), spray dry absorber (SDA), and circulating dry 
scrubber (CDS); ``EPA Comments on 2020 DEC Proposed Regulations and 
SIP Amendments'' Letter from Krishna Viswanathan, Director, EPA 
Region 10 Air and Radiation Division to Alice Edwards, Director, 
ADEC Division of Air Quality, October 29, 2020; ``EPA Comments on 
2019 DEC Proposed Regulations and SIP- Fairbanks North Star Borough 
Fine Particulate Matter'' Letter from Krishna Viswanathan, Director, 
EPA Region 10 Air and Radiation Division to Alice Edwards, Director, 
ADEC Division of Air Quality, July 19, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On April 29, 2019, UAF submitted an economic infeasibility 
assessment to the State, contending that UAF could not afford to 
install DSI, the technology Alaska identified as BACT. UAF's assessment 
is based on the following financial indicators, consistent with the 
PM2.5 Implementation Rule and longstanding EPA policy:\133\ 
(1) fixed and variable production costs; (2) product supply and demand 
elasticity; (3) product prices (cost absorption vs. cost pass-through); 
(4) expected costs incurred by competitors; (5) company

[[Page 1474]]

profits; (6) employment costs; (7) and other costs (e.g., for BACM 
implemented by public sector entities).\134\ UAF contended that the 
Alaska proposed BACT is not financially feasible, given the proposed 
budget cuts in state funding impacting the university and that the duel 
fuel-fired boiler (EU-113) is an efficient and clean approach to 
generating electric power and heat from a single fuel source.\135\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \133\ 57 FR 18070, April 28, 1992.
    \134\ Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation. (April 
23, 2019). Fairbanks Serious PM2.5 Nonattainment Area 
Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Determination--Economic 
Infeasibility of Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) Emission Controls, 
University of Alaska Fairbanks, State Air Quality Control Plan, 
Appendix, Part 3, III.D.7.7-1479 (PDF page 497).
    \135\ Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation. (April 
23, 2019). Fairbanks Serious PM2.5 Nonattainment Area 
Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Determination--Economic 
Infeasibility of Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) Emission Controls, 
University of Alaska Fairbanks. State Air Quality Control Plan, 
Appendix, Part 3, III.D.7.7-1481 (PDF page 499).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Alaska ultimately found that it is economically infeasible for UAF 
to implement retrofit SO2 controls on the dual fuel-fired 
boiler at the Fairbanks Campus Power Plant. Regarding the other 
emission sources at the UAF Campus Power Plant, we note that ULSD was 
identified as BACT for the diesel-fired boilers (EUs 3, 4, and 19-21), 
but Alaska delayed implementation of the requirement until 2023 and 
imposed an interim requirement (1000 ppmw sulfur content). 
Additionally, certain diesel-fired engines do not have hourly operation 
limits (EUs 23 and 26). For a detailed summary and evaluation of 
Alaska's BACT submission, see EPA's Technical Support Document.\136\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \136\ Hedgpeth and Sorrels. (August 24, 2022). Review of Best 
Available Control Technology analyses submitted for the University 
of Alaska, Fairbanks as part of the Fairbanks PM2.5 
Nonattainment SIP. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, 
Laboratory Services and Applied Science Division.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

iv. Zehnder Facility
    The Zehnder Facility (Zehnder) is an electric generating facility 
that combusts distillate fuel in combustion turbines to provide power 
to the Golden Valley Electric Association (GVEA) grid. The power plant 
contains two fuel oil-fired simple cycle gas combustion turbines and 
two diesel-fired generators (electro-motive diesels) used for emergency 
power and to serve as black start engines for the GVEA generation 
system. The primary fuel is stored in two 50,000 gallon above ground 
storage tanks. Turbine startup fuel and electro-motive diesels primary 
fuel is stored in a 12,000 gallon above ground storage tank.
    Alaska's BACT analysis for the Zehnder evaluated potential controls 
to reduce NOX, PM2.5, and SO2 
emissions from its simple cycle gas turbines, large diesel-fired 
engines, and diesel-fired boilers.\137\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \137\ Alaska evaluated potential NOX controls for 
each emission unit, but because Alaska determined and EPA proposed 
to approve in this action that NOX emissions are not 
significant for PM2.5 formation in the Fairbanks 
nonattainment area, ADEC does not plan to require implementation of 
BACT for NOX. Thus, EPA is not discussing ADEC's BACT 
analysis for NOX here.

                 Table 9--Zehnder Facility BACT Summary
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Zehnder facility, Golden Valley Electric Authority
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               Alaska's BACT determination, by source
        Pollutant                             category
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Fuel oil-fired simple cycle gas turbine (EUs 1 and 2)--each unit rated
                           268 MMBtu per hour
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM2.5....................   Combust only low ash fuel;
                            PM2.5 emissions from EUs 1 & 2 shall
                            not exceed 0.012 lb/MMBtu over a 3-hour
                            averaging period;
                            Initial compliance with the proposed
                            PM2.5 emission limit will be demonstrated by
                            conducting a performance test to obtain an
                            emission rate; and
                            Maintain good combustion practices
                            by following the manufacturer's operating
                            and maintenance procedures at all times of
                            operation.
SO2*.....................   On or before June 9, 2020, GVEA
                            shall submit a Title I permit application to
                            DEC limiting the PTE for SO2 emissions from
                            the Zehnder Facility to less than 70 tons
                            per year.
                              [cir] According to Alaska, the facility
                               will then be subject to the following
                               requirement: After September 1, 2022,
                               only fuel oil, containing no more than
                               1,000 parts per million sulfur, may be
                               sold or purchased for use in fuel oil-
                               fired equipment, in accordance with 18
                               AAC 50.078(b).
                            Maintain good combustion practices
                            by following the manufacturer's operating
                            and maintenance procedures at all times of
                            operation; and
                            Compliance with the proposed fuel
                            sulfur content limit will be demonstrated
                            with fuel shipment receipts and/or fuel test
                            results for sulfur content.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Diesel-fired emergency generators (EUs 3 and 4)--each unit rated 28
                             MMBtu per hour
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM2.5....................   Limit non-emergency operation of the
                            large diesel-fired engines to no more than
                            100 hours per year each;
                            PM2.5 emissions from EUs 3 and 4
                            shall not exceed 0.32 g/hp-hr over a 3-hour
                            averaging period;
                            Demonstrate compliance with the
                            numerical BACT emission limit by complying
                            with 40 CFR 63 Subpart ZZZZ; and
                            Maintain good combustion practices
                            by following the manufacturer's operating
                            and maintenance procedures at all times of
                            operation.
SO2*.....................   On or before June 9, 2020, GVEA
                            shall submit a Title I permit application to
                            DEC limiting the PTE for SO2 emissions from
                            the Zehnder Facility to less than 70 tons
                            per year.
                              [cir] According to Alaska, the facility
                               will then be subject to the following
                               requirement: After September 1, 2022,
                               only fuel oil, containing no more than
                               1,000 parts per million sulfur, may be
                               sold or purchased for use in fuel oil-
                               fired equipment, in accordance with 18
                               AAC 50.078(b).
                            Limit non-emergency operation of the
                            large diesel-fired engines to no more than
                            100 hours per year each;
                            Maintain good combustion practices
                            by following the manufacturer's operating
                            maintenance procedures at all times of
                            operation; and
                            Compliance with the proposed fuel
                            sulfur content limit will be demonstrated
                            with fuel shipment receipts and/or fuel test
                            results for sulfur content.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 1475]]

 
Diesel-fired boilers (EUs 10 and 11)--each unit rated 1.7 MMBtu per hour
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM2.5....................   PM2.5 emissions shall not exceed
                            0.012 lb/MMBtu over a 3-hour averaging
                            period;
                            Demonstrate compliance with the
                            numerical BACT emission limit by complying
                            with 40 CFR 63 Subpart JJJJJJ; and
                            Maintain good combustion practices
                            by following the manufacturer's operating
                            and maintenance procedures at all times of
                            operation.
SO2*.....................   On or before June 9, 2020, GVEA
                            shall submit a Title I permit application to
                            DEC limiting the PTE for SO2 emissions from
                            the Zehnder Facility to less than 70 tons
                            per year.
                              [cir] According to Alaska, the facility
                               will then be subject to the following
                               requirement: After September 1, 2022,
                               only fuel oil, containing no more than
                               1,000 parts per million sulfur, may be
                               sold or purchased for use in fuel oil-
                               fired equipment, in accordance with 18
                               AAC 50.078(b).
                            Maintain good combustion practices
                            by following the manufacturer's operating
                            and maintenance procedures at all times of
                            operation; and
                            Compliance with the proposed fuel
                            sulfur content limit will be demonstrated
                            with fuel shipment receipts and/or fuel test
                            results for sulfur content.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Alaska's initial BACT finding: SO2 emissions from EUs 1 and 2 shall be
  controlled by limiting the sulfur content of fuel combusted in the
  turbines to no more than 0.0015 percent by weight; requirements for
  the other emission units were to combust only ULSD.
Source: State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol II, Chapter III.D.7.7, Table
  7.7-14 and Chapter III.D.7.7.8.4.

    Alaska included in the SIP submission the emission limits, emission 
controls, and operational limitations the State determined constituted 
BACT for the emission units at the Zehnder facility. However, Alaska 
did not submit as part of the Fairbanks Serious Plan all the associated 
MRR requirements for determining compliance with these BACT limits or 
requirements. Rather, Alaska indicated that such requirements are 
already embodied in state-issued construction or operating permits. 
Regarding SO2 controls for each of the emission sources at 
this facility, Alaska evaluated four technologically feasible 
SO2 controls: ultra-low sulfur diesel (99.7 percent control 
of SO2 emissions); low-sulfur diesel (93 percent control of 
SO2 emissions); good combustion practices (less than 40 
percent control of SO2 emissions); limited operation (0 
percent control of SO2 emissions). Alaska reviewed the cost 
information provided by GVEA to evaluate appropriately the total 
capital investment of installing two new 1.5 million gallon ULSD 
storage tanks at GVEA's North Pole Facility.\138\ Alaska concluded that 
the level of SO2 reduction justifies the required use of 
ULSD as BACT for the fuel oil-fired simple cycle gas turbines at an 
economic cost of $8,753 per ton of SO2 removed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \138\ Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation. (November 
19, 2019). Golden Valley Electric Association North Pole Power Plant 
and Zehnder Facility BACT Appendix. State Air Quality Control Plan, 
Appendix, Part 4, III.D.7.7-1657 through 3855.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    However, GVEA provided updated and supplemental information in an 
alternative BACT proposal submitted to Alaska on November 28, 
2018.\139\ GVEA proposed to limit emissions from the Zehnder Facility 
to less than 70 tons per year in place of BACT for SO2, and, 
according to Alaska, eliminating the Zehnder Facility as a major source 
of SO2. EPA notes here our disagreement with this approach. 
BACT is a subset of BACM requirements. All sources of direct 
PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors are subject to BACM 
and BACT requirements regardless of PTE. There is no PTE threshold 
below which BACT requirements do not apply. The 70 tons per year PTE 
threshold cited by Alaska only has relevance in determining whether a 
new stationary source proposed to be constructed in a nonattainment 
area meets the definition of a major stationary source pursuant to the 
nonattainment new source review provisions.\140\ Thus, as part of 
selecting and adopting BACM for existing sources in Fairbanks, Alaska 
would need to select the best available measure that is technologically 
and economically feasible, which in this case is a requirement to use 
ULSD fuel. Nonetheless, Alaska relied on the approach to classify the 
Zehnder Facility as a ``non-major'' source and required GVEA to submit 
a Title I permit application no later than June 9, 2020, limiting the 
potential to emit of the Zehnder Facility to less than 70 tons per 
year. Once the Zehnder Facility's SO2 limit goes into 
effect, Alaska will not consider the facility, including all emissions 
units, to be a major stationary source for SO2 emissions 
subject to BACT limits. Instead, the Zehnder Facility will be subject 
to the BACM measures contained in Alaska regulations 18 AAC 50.078(b), 
that stipulate that after September 1, 2022, only fuel oil containing 
no more than 1,000 parts per million sulfur (i.e., diesel #1), may be 
sold or purchased for use in fuel oil-fired equipment. We again note 
our disagreement with this approach, regardless of BACM or BACT 
distinction, the best available control measure should be adopted. For 
a detailed summary and evaluation of Alaska's BACT submission, see EPA 
Technical Support Document.\141\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \139\ Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation. (November 
19, 2019). Golden Valley Electric Association North Pole Power Plant 
and Zehnder Facility BACT Appendix. State Air Quality Control Plan, 
Appendix, Part 4, III.D.7.7-3636 (PDF page 1979).
    \140\ 40 CFR 51.165(a)(1)(iv)(A)(1).
    \141\ Hedgpeth, Z. (August 24, 2022). Review of Best Available 
Control Technology analyses submitted for the Golden Valley Electric 
Association (GVEA) Zehnder and North Pole Power Plants as part of 
the Fairbanks PM2.5 Nonattainment SIP. U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, Region 10, Laboratory Services and Applied 
Science Division
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

v. North Pole Power Plant
    The North Pole Power Plant is an electric generating facility that 
combusts distillate fuel in combustion turbines to provide power to the 
Golden Valley Electric Association (GVEA) grid. The power plant 
contains two fuel oil-fired simple cycle gas combustion turbines, two 
fuel oil-fired combined cycle gas combustion turbines, one fuel oil-
fired emergency generator, and two propane-fired boilers. The State's 
BACT determination for the North Pole Power Plant evaluated potential 
controls to reduce NOX, PM2.5, and SO2 
emissions from its simple cycle gas turbines, combined cycle gas 
turbines, large

[[Page 1476]]

diesel-fired engines, and propane-fired boilers.\142\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \142\ Alaska evaluated potential NOX controls for 
each emission unit, but because Alaska determined and EPA proposed 
to approve in this action that NOX emissions are not 
significant for PM2.5 formation in the Fairbanks 
nonattainment area, ADEC does not plan to require implementation of 
BACT for NOX. Thus, EPA is not discussing ADEC's BACT 
analysis for NOX here.

              Table 10--North Pole Power Plant BACT Summary
------------------------------------------------------------------------
        North Pole Power Plant, Golden Valley Electric Authority
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               Alaska's BACT determination, by source
        Pollutant                             category
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Fuel oil-fired simple cycle gas turbine (EUs 1 and 2)--each unit rated
                                672 MMBtu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM2.5....................   Combust only low ash fuel;
                            Maintain good combustion practices
                            at all times of operation by following the
                            manufacturer's operating and maintenance
                            procedures;
                            PM2.5 emissions from EUs 1 & 2 shall
                            not exceed 0.012 lb/MMBtu over a 3-hour
                            averaging period; and
                            Initial compliance with the proposed
                            PM2.5 emission limit will be demonstrated by
                            conducting a performance test to obtain an
                            emission rate.
SO2*.....................   By October 1, 2020, BACT for EUs 1
                            and 2 is to begin taking delivery of fuel
                            oil with a sulfur content no greater than
                            1,000 ppmw (S1000) immediately after the Air
                            Quality Stage Alert 1 and 2 are announced
                            and remain taking deliveries of exclusively
                            S1000 for as long as the air episode exists.
                            On or before June 9, 2022, GVEA
                            shall submit a Title I permit application to
                            DEC that includes a BACT requirement to
                            limit the sulfur content of fuel combusted
                            in EUs 1 and 2 to no greater than 15 ppmw
                            (ULSD) from October 1 through March 31 to be
                            effective no later than October 1, 2023.
                            Compliance with the proposed fuel
                            sulfur content limit will be demonstrated
                            with fuel shipment receipts and/or fuel test
                            results for sulfur content; and
                            Maintain good combustion practices
                            by following the manufacturer's operating
                            and maintenance procedures at all times of
                            operation.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fuel oil-fired combined cycle gas turbine (EUs 5 and 6)--each unit rated
                           455 MMBtu per hour
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM2.5....................   PM2.5 emissions from EUs 5 and 6
                            shall be limited by complying with the
                            combined annual NOX limit listed in
                            Operating Permit AQ0110TVP03 Conditions 13
                            and 12, respectively;
                            PM2.5 emissions from EUs 5 & 6 shall
                            not exceed 0.012 lb/MMBtu over a 3-hour
                            averaging period;
                            Initial compliance with the proposed
                            PM2.5 emission limit will be demonstrated by
                            conducting a performance test to obtain an
                            emission rate; and
                            Maintain good combustion practices
                            at all times of operation by following the
                            manufacturer's operating and maintenance
                            procedures.
SO2......................   Except during startup, SO2 emissions
                            from EUs 5 and 6 shall be controlled by
                            limiting the fuel combusted in the turbines
                            to light straight run turbine fuel (50 ppm
                            sulfur in fuel);
                            Maintain good combustion practices
                            by following the manufacturer's operating
                            and maintenance procedures at all times of
                            operation; and
                            Compliance with the proposed fuel
                            sulfur content limit will be demonstrated
                            with fuel shipment receipts and/or fuel test
                            results for sulfur content.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Large diesel-fired engine (EU 7)--unit rated 400 kW/619 horsepower
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM2.5....................   PM2.5 emissions from EU 7 shall be
                            controlled by operating with positive
                            crankcase ventilation;
                            PM2.5 emissions from EU 7 shall be
                            controlled by limiting operation to no more
                            than 52 hours per 12 month rolling period;
                            PM2.5 emissions from EU 7 shall not
                            exceed 0.32 g/hp-hr over a 3-hour averaging
                            period; and
                            Maintain good combustion practices
                            by following the manufacturer's operating
                            and maintenance procedures at all times of
                            operation.
SO2......................   SO2 emissions from EU 7 shall be
                            controlled by combusting fuel that does not
                            exceed 0.05 weight percent sulfur at all
                            time the unit is in operation;
                            SO2 emissions from EU 7 shall be
                            controlled by limiting operation to no more
                            than 52 hours per 12-month rolling period;
                            Compliance with the SO2 emission
                            limit while firing diesel fuel will be
                            demonstrated by fuel shipment receipts and/
                            or fuel test results for sulfur content; and
                            Maintain good combustion practices
                            by following the manufacturer's operating
                            and maintenance procedures at all times of
                            operation.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Propane-fired boiler (EUs 11 and 12)--each unit rated 5 MMBtu per hour
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM2.5....................   Burn only propane as fuel in EUs 11
                            and 12;
                            PM2.5 emissions from EUs 11 and 12
                            shall not exceed 0.008 lb/MMBtu over a 3-
                            hour averaging period; and
                            Compliance with the emission limit
                            will be demonstrated with records of
                            maintenance following original equipment
                            manufacturer recommendations for operation
                            and maintenance and periodic measurements of
                            O2 balance.
                            Maintain good combustion practices
                            by following the manufacturer's operating
                            and maintenance procedures at all times of
                            operation.
SO2......................   SO2 emissions from EUs 11 and 12
                            shall be controlled by only combusting gas
                            fuel (propane) with a total sulfur content
                            of no more than 120 parts per million volume
                            (ppmv), or direct emissions of 0.75 lb/1,000
                            gal;
                            Maintain good combustion practices
                            by following the manufacturer's operating
                            and maintenance procedures at all times of
                            operation; and

[[Page 1477]]

 
                            Compliance with the preliminary
                            emission rate limit will be demonstrated
                            with fuel shipment receipts and/or fuel
                            tests for sulfur content.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Alaska's initial BACT finding: SO2 emissions from EUs 1 and 2 shall be
  controlled by limiting the sulfur content of the fuel combusted in the
  turbines to no more than 0.0015 percent by weight (ULSD).
Source: State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol II, Chapter III.D.7.7, Table
  7.7-14 and Chapter III.D.7.7.8.5.

    Alaska included in the SIP submission most of the emission limits, 
emission controls, and operational limitations the State determined 
constituted BACT for the emission units at the North Pole Power Plant. 
However, Alaska did not submit as part of the Fairbanks Serious Plan 
the emission limits corresponding to Alaska's SO2 or 
PM2.5 BACT findings for some emission units \143\ nor the 
MRR requirements for determining compliance with all BACT limits or 
requirements. Rather, Alaska indicated that such requirements are 
already embodied in state-issued construction or operating permits or 
would be embodied in a state-issued Title I permit separate from the 
SIP. Alaska did not submit as part of the Fairbanks Serious Plan the 
MRR requirements for determining compliance with these BACT limits or 
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \143\ Fuel oil-fired simple cycle gas turbine (EUs 1 and 2); 
Fuel oil-fired combined cycle gas turbine (EUs 5 and 6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For SO2 controls, Alaska evaluated four technologies as 
potential BACT for the simple cycle gas turbines: ultra-low sulfur 
diesel (controls 99.7 percent SO2 emissions); low sulfur 
fuel (controls 93 percent SO2 emissions); good combustion 
practices (controls less than 40 percent SO2 emissions) and 
limited operation (controls 0 percent SO2 emissions). Alaska 
reviewed the cost information provided by GVEA to evaluate the total 
capital investment of installing two new 1.5 million gallon ultra-low 
sulfur diesel storage tanks at GVEA's North Pole Power Plant. Alaska 
concluded that the economic analysis indicates the level of 
SO2 reduction justifies the use of ultra-low sulfur diesel 
as BACT for the two simple cycle gas turbine emissions units at $13,838 
per ton and $13,923 per ton respectively. We note that GVEA provided 
updated and supplemental information in an alternative BACT proposal 
submitted on November 28, 2018.\144\ GVEA proposed as BACT for 
SO2 to combust diesel #1 (1,000 ppm sulfur) in the simple 
cycle gas turbines when curtailment days are called in Fairbanks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \144\ Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation. (November 
19, 2019. Golden Valley Electric Association North Pole Power Plant 
and Zehnder Facility BACT Appendix. State Air Quality Control Plan, 
Appendix, Part 4, III.D.7.7-3636 (PDF page 1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    However, Alaska found that it was economically infeasible for GVEA 
to immediately switch to ULSD for the simple cycle gas turbines at the 
North Pole Power Plant. Therefore, the State concluded that BACT for 
this emission unit would be that starting October 1, 2020, GVEA must 
begin taking delivery of fuel oil with a sulfur content no greater than 
1,000 ppmw immediately after an air quality curtailment (Air Quality 
Stage Alert 1 and 2) is announced and remain taking deliveries of 
exclusively S1000 for as long as the air episode exists. On or before 
June 9, 2022, GVEA shall submit a Title I permit application to Alaska 
that includes a BACT requirement to limit the sulfur content of fuel 
combusted in the simple cycle gas turbines to no greater than 15 ppmw 
(ULSD) from October 1 through March 31 to be effective no later than 
October 1, 2023.
    For the combined cycle gas turbines, Alaska evaluated similar 
control measures as the simple cycle gas turbines but noted lower 
control efficiency of ULSD (controls 50 percent SO2 
emissions) and, according to Alaska, the light straight run turbine 
fuel currently in use has similar sulfur content as low sulfur fuel 
(light straight run turbine fuel has a sulfur content of 50 ppm, while 
the sulfur content for ULSD is 15 ppm). Alaska concluded that the 
economic analysis indicates the level of SO2 reduction does 
not justify the use of ULSD as BACT for EUs 5 and 6 at $1,040,822 per 
ton. Instead, Alaska identified BACT as requiring light straight run 
fuel (sulfur content approximately 50 ppm) and maintaining good 
combustion practices. We note that a fuel requirement during startup 
was not specified for the combined cycle turbines (EUs 5 and 6). 
Regarding the other emission sources, we note that ULSD was not 
required for the large diesel-fired engine (EU 7), rather a requirement 
to use fuel not exceeding 0.05 weight percent sulfur. We again note 
that Alaska did not submit as part of the Fairbanks Serious Plan or 
Fairbanks 189(d) Plan MRR requirements associated with these 
SO2 BACT requirements. For a detailed summary and evaluation 
of Alaska's BACT submission, see EPA's Technical Support Document.\145\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \145\ Hedgpeth, Z. (August 24, 2022). Review of Best Available 
Control Technology analyses submitted for the Golden Valley Electric 
Association (GVEA) Zehnder and North Pole Power Plants as part of 
the Fairbanks PM2.5 Nonattainment SIP. U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, Region 10, Laboratory Services and Applied 
Science Division
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

d. Alaska's Identification and Adoption of Additional Measures and 
Demonstration of 5% Reduction in Emissions Pursuant to CAA section 
189(d)
    The Fairbanks 189(d) Plan includes a reevaluation of previously 
rejected control measures.\146\ Alaska also made two revisions to the 
Fairbanks Emergency Episode Plan, Vol II Chapter III.D.7.12. First, 
Alaska added a burn down period of 3 hours for solid-fuel heating 
devices that begins upon the effective date and time of a curtailment 
announcement. Alaska states that this further clarifies existing state 
regulation at 18 AAC 50.075(e)(3). Second, Alaska added specific 
requirements to document economic hardship as part of a No Other 
Adequate Source of Heat (NOASH) curtailment program waiver for solid-
fuel devices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \146\ State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol II, Chapter III.D.7.7, 
Table 7.7-26.
    \147\ State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol II, Chapter 
III.D.7.7.12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As part of its reevaluation of control measures, Alaska provided 
additional information for a number of control measures considered in 
the BACM analysis. The Fairbanks 189(d) Plan submission included 
additional consideration of banning installation of solid-fuel devices 
in new construction, limiting heating oil to ultra-low sulfur diesel, 
dry wood requirements, emissions controls for small area sources, 
mobile sources, and most stringent measures.\147\ However, Alaska did 
not include a reevaluation of BACT-

[[Page 1478]]

level controls for the stationary sources discussed in Section 
III.C.2.e of this document.
    Regarding the requirement to demonstrate five percent annual 
reductions, Alaska included in the Fairbanks 189(d) Plan a control 
strategy analysis that demonstrates projected annual reductions of 
direct PM2.5 emissions will be greater than five percent of 
the 2019 base year emissions inventory for each year through 2024, 
Alaska's projected attainment year.\148\ Alaska compared the annual 
PM2.5 reductions required to attain to the annual 
PM2.5 reductions resulting from implementing the control 
strategy. We note that Alaska projects that SO2 emissions 
will not achieve annual reductions greater than five percent of the 
base year inventory until 2024.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \148\ State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol II, Chapter III.D.7.9, 
Table 7.9-6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. EPA's Evaluation and Proposed Action
    This section contains a summary of EPA's evaluation and proposed 
action with regards to meeting the BACM and BACT requirements and the 
control strategy requirements for areas subject to CAA section 189(d). 
For EPA's complete evaluation and basis for this proposal, see EPA's 
Technical Support Document.\149\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \149\ Jentgen, M. (September 27, 2022). Technical support 
document for Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation's 
(ADEC) control measure analysis, under 40 CFR 1010(a) and (c). U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, Air and Radiation 
Division.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

a. Residential and Commercial Sources
    With respect to NH3-specific controls, EPA researched 
potential NH3 controls for sources in the emissions 
inventory. EPA did not identify any potential NH3 controls. 
According to available literature, most NH3 controls are 
designed for the NH3 manufacturing, fertilizer, coke 
manufacturing, livestock management industries, as well as to address 
NH3 emissions from the use of NOX controls such 
as selective catalytic reduction and selective noncatalytic 
reduction.\150\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \150\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (April 1995). 
Control and Pollution Prevention Options for Ammonia Emissions. U.S. 
EPA Control Technology Center, Document No. EPA-456/R-95-002, 
available at https://www3.epa.gov/ttncatc1/dir1/
ammonia.pdf#:~:text=The%20various%20control%20technologies%20availabl
e%20to%20control%20ammonia,ammonia%20emissions%2C%20demonstrating%20c
ontrol%20efficiencies%20up%20to%2099%25; see also Pinder, et al. 
``Ammonia emission controls as a cost-effective strategy for 
reducing atmospheric particulate matter in the Eastern United 
States,'' Environmental Science & Technology, 2007, Volume 41, 
Number 2, pages 380-86, available at: https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/es060379a.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA similarly reviewed Alaska's determination regarding the 
NH3 emissions co-benefits of measures designed to reduce 
emissions of direct PM2.5. First, EPA agrees that measures 
designed to eliminate all emissions from a source category, such as the 
wood-stove curtailment program and the requirement to remove or replace 
uncertified devices, non-pellet fueled hydronic heaters, and coal-fired 
heating devices by December 31, 2024, or upon sale, lease, or 
conveyance of an existing building, whichever is earlier, will reduce 
emissions of direct PM2.5 and all plan precursors, including 
NH3. Second, EPA reviewed literature regarding 
NH3 emissions factors for various sources in the Space 
Heating source category.\151\ Based on this review, EPA confirms 
Alaska's findings that the solid-fuel fired curtailment program, the 
woodstove change out program, and measures requiring the removal of 
uncertified devices and coal heaters, installation of certified 
woodstoves that meet specific performance standards, sale of dry wood, 
and conversions of woodstoves to liquid-fuel fired stoves, will reduce 
NH3 emissions from the Space Heating source category. Thus, 
as specified in this section, EPA is proposing to approve certain 
measures as meeting the BACM/BACT requirement for NH3 
emissions. In other cases, we are proposing to approve ADEC's BACM/BACT 
analysis that concluded there are no NH3-specific controls 
for the emission source categories contributing to PM2.5 
formation in the Fairbanks Nonattainment Area, but that there are 
likely to be NH3 emissions co-benefits of measures designed 
to reduce emissions of direct PM2.5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \151\ S. M. Roe et al. (April 2004) Estimating Ammonia Emissions 
from Anthropogenic Nonagricultural Sources--Draft Final Report, 
available at https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2015-08/documents/eiip_areasourcesnh3.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

i. Solid-Fuel Burning
    Alaska adopted a number of regulations based on the BACM review for 
this source category.\152\ We propose to find that Alaska's analysis 
and adoption of control measures for this source category meet BACM 
requirements for PM2.5 and SO2 emissions. We also 
propose to approve Alaska's analysis that found no NH3-
specific emission controls for this source category, We note that we 
approved as SIP strengthening and federally enforceable many of the 
control measures submitted as part of the Fairbanks Serious Plan and 
prior SIP submissions in 2018 as part of a separate action (86 FR 
52997, September 24, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \152\ Alaska state regulations 18 AAC 50.075 (e)(3), (f)(2); 18 
AAC 50.076 (d-e), (g), (j-l); 18 AAC 50.077(a-m); 18 AAC 50.078(b); 
18 AAC 50.079(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Alaska identified a number of solid-fuel burning control measures 
that have been adopted by other states and local authorities to 
identify the full range of potential BACM/BACT measures for this source 
category. This analysis took into account technical and economic 
feasibility and other considerations included in the PM2.5 
Implementation Rule.
    Alaska's two-stage woodstove curtailment program, included in the 
Fairbanks Emergency Episode Plan, adopts the air quality threshold that 
are at least as stringent as comparable curtailment programs in Idaho, 
Utah, and California. Alaska accounts for the differences in natural 
gas availability, seasonal climate conditions, and woodstove changeout 
incentives in establishing the two-stage thresholds at 20 [mu]g/m\3\ 
(Stage 1) and 30 [mu]g/m\3\ (Stage 2), respectively. Alaska also has an 
advisory level set at 15 [mu]g/m\3\ as part of the curtailment program. 
Alaska has placed further limitations on the NOASH waiver that limit 
applicability to those that have economic needs based on objective 
criteria and limited the number of years NOASH waivers are available. 
Therefore, we propose to approve of the wood stove curtailment program 
and associated updates to the NOASH waivers/temporary exemption as BACM 
for the solid-fuel burning source category (i.e., Alaska state 
regulations 18 AAC 50.075 (e)(3), (f)(2) for PM2.5 and 
SO2 emissions.
    Alaska identified and evaluated as BACM heating device performance 
standards adopted previously by Missoula County, Montana. Alaska 
adopted a regulation modeled after the rule in Missoula County. Under 
18 AAC 50.077(c), Alaska's regulations require that woodstoves meet 
emissions standards that are more stringent than EPA's NSPS requirement 
and also include 1-hour testing requirements to ensure only the lowest-
emitting woodstoves are allowed to be sold and installed in the 
nonattainment area. We propose to find that Alaska adopted measures 
sufficient to meet BACM for the solid-fuel burning source category 
(i.e., 18 AAC 50.077 (a-j) for PM2.5 and SO2 
emissions.
    Alaska's regulation 18 AAC 50.075(f), applicable to the Fairbanks 
Nonattainment Area, prohibits the operation of a solid fuel-fired 
heating device emissions when visible emissions exceed 20 percent 
opacity for more than six minutes in any one hour, except during the 
first 15 minutes after

[[Page 1479]]

initial firing of the device, when the opacity limit must be less than 
50 percent. The rule also prohibits visible emissions from crossing 
property lines. These opacity limits provide a visual indicator for the 
proper operation of a solid-fuel heating device. EPA is proposing to 
approve this measure as BACM.
    With respect to the alternative emission limit during periods of 
startup, shutdown, and malfunction, on June 12, 2015, pursuant to CAA 
section 110(k)(5), EPA finalized ``State Implementation Plans: Response 
to Petition for Rulemaking; Restatement and Update of EPA's SSM Policy 
Applicable to SIPs; Findings of Substantial Inadequacy; and SIP Calls 
to Amend Provisions Applying to Excess Emissions During Periods of 
Startup, Shutdown and Malfunction,'' hereafter referred to as the 
``2015 SSM SIP Action.'' \153\ The 2015 SSM SIP Action clarified, 
restated, and updated EPA's interpretation that SSM exemptions and 
affirmative defense SIP provisions are inconsistent with CAA 
requirements. The 2015 SSM SIP Action found that certain SIP provisions 
in 36 states were substantially inadequate to meet CAA requirements and 
issued a SIP call to those states to submit SIP revisions to address 
the inadequacies. EPA established an 18-month deadline by which the 
affected states had to submit such SIP revisions. States were required 
to submit corrective revisions to their SIPs in response to the SIP 
calls by November 22, 2016. In the 2015 SSM SIP Action, EPA recommended 
States consider seven criteria when developing alternative emission 
limitations to replace automatic or discretionary exemptions from 
otherwise applicable SIP requirements. These recommended criteria 
assure the alternative emission limitations meet basic CAA 
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \153\ 80 FR 33839.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA evaluated whether the alternative requirements provided under 
the Alaska SIP are consistent with the Agency's 2015 SSM SIP Action, 
including the seven criteria recommended therein. For the reasons 
explained in this section, EPA finds that the opacity limits are 
consistent with the recommended criteria set forth in that policy and 
proposes to approve these provisions into the Alaska SIP as part of 
this action.
    First, the opacity limit for residential woodstoves apply to a 
narrow subset of source categories (solid fuel-fired heating devices) 
that use specific control strategies (limits on opacity). Second, 
application of the 20 percent opacity limit to startup (initial firing) 
would be technically infeasible because lower temperatures during these 
periods result in less complete combustion and, therefore, higher 
opacity. Third, for this source category, EPA believes the startup 
period is minimized to the greatest extent practicable. The startup 
period is limited to just fifteen minutes to account for starting the 
solid fuel-fired burning device. Fifteen minutes represents a 
reasonable minimum time necessary to adequately start a fire in a solid 
fuel burning device, while also accounting for the extreme cold 
temperatures experienced during the winter in Fairbanks.
    With respect to the fourth factor, EPA believes that Alaska's 
control strategy, specifically the episodic curtailment program, would 
effectively prohibit the use of solid fuel burning devices when poor 
air quality is anticipated.
    Fifth, the 50 percent opacity limit applicable during startup, the 
requirements for wood sellers to sell dry wood under 18 AAC 50.076, and 
the solid fuel-fired heating device standards applicable to the 
Fairbanks Nonattainment Area under 18 AAC 50.077 are designed to ensure 
that all feasible steps are taken to minimize the impact of emissions 
during the startup period. With respect to this factor, EPA again notes 
that the emission source at issue here is subject to curtailment 
requirements during periods of anticipated high PM2.5 
ambient air concentration, which would further minimize potential air 
quality impacts from initial firing.
    Similarly, EPA believes the sixth factor--that the alternative 
emission limit requires operation of the facility in a manner 
consistent with good practices for minimizing emissions and best 
efforts regarding planning, design, and operating procedures--supports 
approval of the State's chosen control strategy. As noted, dry wood 
requirements and the solid fuel-fired device standards used in 
conjunction with emission curtailment during air quality episodes 
represent the best practices available in this context.
    With respect to the last criterion for alternative emission limits, 
Alaska has not included a requirement that affected sources document 
startup periods using properly signed, contemporaneous logs or other 
evidence. Given that the rule at issue here generally applies to 
individual homeowners, rather than industrial sources accustomed to 
complying with such recordkeeping requirements, EPA believes a 
recordkeeping requirement would impose an unreasonable burden on both 
regulators implementing the rule and the regulated community, with 
virtually no enforcement benefit justifying the burden.
    For all of these reasons, EPA proposes to approve (and incorporate 
by reference) Alaska's rule 18 AAC 50.075(f) as BACM because it is a 
permanent and enforceable measure that contributes to attainment of the 
2006 PM2.5 24-hour NAAQS. This provision includes limits on 
emissions that apply during all modes of source operation and impose 
continuous emission controls on solid-fuel heating devices consistent 
with the requirements of the CAA applicable to SIP provisions. In 
addition, the provision supports progress toward attainment of the 
PM2.5 NAAQS in the Fairbanks Nonattainment Area.
    We also propose to find that the additional removal or render 
inoperable restrictions placed on non-certified EPA woodstoves, non-
pellet outdoor hydronic heaters, coal-fired heating devices, and EPA-
certified woodstoves greater than 25 years old meet BACM requirements 
for PM2.5 and SO2 emissions. These devices will 
need to be removed or rendered inoperable by December 31, 2024, or if a 
building or residence with such a device is sold prior to that date (or 
if a woodfired heating device is 25 years old prior to that date). 
These include Alaska state regulations 18 AAC 50.077 (l-m). We propose 
to find that the other solid-fuel burning regulations adopted by 
Alaska, including device registration under 18 AAC 50.077(h) and dry 
wood requirements for wood sellers 18 AAC 50.076 are at least as 
stringent as similar regulations adopted by other states and local 
authorities, and therefore represent BACM for PM2.5 and 
SO2 emissions for the solid-fuel burning source category. 
These include Alaska state regulations 18 AAC 50.076 (d-e), (g), (j-l).
    Collectively, we propose to find that Alaska met the BACM 
requirements for the solid-fuel burning source category for 
PM2.5 and SO2 emissions. We also propose to 
approve Alaska's analysis that found no NH3-specific 
emission controls for this source category.
ii. Residential and Commercial Fuel Oil Combustion
    Based on its BACM analysis, Alaska adopted the regulation at 18 AAC 
50.078(b) that imposes a limit of 1,000 parts per million sulfur 
(diesel #1) for residential and commercial heating.
This is a switch from diesel #2 (approximately 2,000 parts per million 
sulfur) to diesel #1. However, as part of its BACM analysis, Alaska 
identified 10 states plus large municipal areas that have instituted 
ULSD home heating requirements and found this measure to

[[Page 1480]]

be technologically feasible and economically feasible at a cost of 
$1,819 per ton SO2 removed (SO2 is a significant 
precursor in the Fairbanks nonattainment area). Alaska provided a 
number of community-based considerations were Fairbanks to undergo the 
switch from diesel #2 to ULSD. These considerations included potential 
environmental impacts caused by greater transportation requirements 
required to maintain an adequate ULSD supply through the winter in 
Fairbanks.
    A state must adopt and implement an identified BACM unless the 
state demonstrates the BACM is either technologically or economically 
infeasible. Alaska identified the ULSD requirement as BACM for this 
source category and its own analysis indicates this requirement is 
feasible. While EPA acknowledges that implementing a fuel switch from 
#2 to ULSD may be challenging, the challenges identified by Alaska are 
insufficient to support an infeasibility demonstration. This is 
particularly so when many jurisdictions have successfully required 
ULSD. EPA also notes that reducing SO2 emissions from this 
source category is particularly important to achieving expeditious 
attainment because conversions to liquid-fueled heating devices 
constitute the vast majority of activity in the woodstove changeout 
program (see Emissions Inventory, section III.A of this document). 
Thus, we propose to disapprove Alaska's determination that the less 
stringent control measure under 18 AAC 50.078(b) meets BACM 
requirements for PM2.5 and SO2 emissions. 
However, we propose to approve Alaska's analysis that found no 
NH3-specific emission controls for this source 
category.\154\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \154\ We note that Alaska state regulations 18 AAC 50.078 (a-b) 
were approved as SIP strengthening in our previous action (86 FR 
52997, September 24, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

iii. Small Commercial Area Sources
    Alaska identified initial BACM requirements for small area source 
categories as part of the Fairbanks Serious Plan and then updated those 
findings as part of the Fairbanks 189(d) Plan. Below is a discussion 
for each of the small area sources identified in the Fairbanks 
nonattainment area.
    Alaska adopted a control measure for coffee roasters at 18 AAC 
50.078(d) that required installation of an emissions control device 
unless the coffee roaster can demonstrate technological or economical 
infeasibility. As written, the state rule purporting to implement this 
measure does not appear to be enforceable as a practical matter. The 
rule does not require use of emissions controls once installed, specify 
any emission limits, nor monitoring requirements with which the subject 
sources must comply. In addition, the rule contains a waiver provision 
based on the facility providing information demonstrating that the 
control technology is technologically or economically infeasible. This 
provision is not adequately specific or bounded and, thus, may bar 
effective enforcement (see 81 FR 58010, 58047, August 24, 2016). In 
addition, the State must adopt permanent and enforceable control 
measures for this source category even if certain sources within the 
source category have existing emissions controls. Therefore, EPA 
proposes to disapprove Alaska's determination that 18 AAC 50.078(d) 
satisfies BACM for coffee roasters.
    Alaska required commercial charbroilers to submit information to 
Alaska related to the type, operation, and performance of the device as 
part of the Fairbanks Serious Plan.\155\ Based on the information 
provided, Alaska then conducted an economic analysis as part of the 
Fairbanks 189(d) Plan that assessed the cost of installing an available 
control measure, catalytic oxidizers, on each of the charbroilers in 
the nonattainment area. The State estimated the cost of installing 
catalytic oxidizers at $47,786 per ton of PM2.5 removed 
(adjusted to 2019 dollars). Thus, Alaska ultimately determined that 
BACM is economically infeasible for this source.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \155\ 18 AAC 50.078(c)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While we find that Alaska's economic analysis is a reasonable 
estimate of the cost of installing one potential emission control 
device, Alaska did not evaluate all available control measures. 
Currently available emission control devices include electrostatic 
precipitators (ESP), wet scrubbers, and filtration.\156\ Moreover, 
Alaska did not explain whether there are chain-driven or underfire 
charbroilers in the Fairbanks Nonattainment Area, which have different 
considerations for emission controls.\157\ Therefore we propose to 
disapprove Alaska's evaluation of and BACM determination for 
charbroilers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \156\ See Gysel, et al. ``Particulate matter emissions and 
gaseous air toxic pollutants from commercial meat cooking 
operations.'' Journal of Environmental Sciences,'' 65, 162-170; 
Yang, et al, ``Transient plasma-enhanced remediation of nanoscale 
particulate matter in restaurant smoke emissions via electrostatic 
precipitation'' Particuology 55 (2021): pages 43-37; New York City 
Department of Environmental Protection (February 2021). Certified 
Emission Control Devices for Commercial Under-Fired Char Broilers. 
Available at https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/dep/downloads/pdf/air/approved-under-fired-technology.pdf; Francis & R.E. Lipinski 
``Control of Air Pollution from Restaurant Charbroilers,'' Journal 
of the Air Pollution Control Association, 27:7, pages 643-647, 
available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/00022470.1977.10470466.
    \157\ Yang, et al, ``Transient plasma-enhanced remediation of 
nanoscale particulate matter in restaurant smoke emissions via 
electrostatic precipitation'' Particuology 55 (2021): pages 43-37.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Alaska identified and evaluated the prohibition of used oil burners 
as a potential BACM-level control measure. Alaska issued a regulation 
at 18 AAC 50.078(c) requiring owners and operators of used oil burners 
to provide certain information to assist Alaska in evaluating the 
feasibility of imposing the prohibition. Ultimately, Alaska did not 
adopt and submit any controls on used oil burners as part of the 
Fairbanks Serious Plan or Fairbanks 189(d) Plan.
    Alaska updated the BACM analysis in the Fairbanks 189(d) Plan to 
address environmental impacts if used oil burning were restricted in 
the Fairbanks nonattainment area. According to the State, the only way 
to dispose of used oil in the nonattainment area is through burning and 
that limiting this disposal method would likely lead to dumping the 
used oil on land or water. While one factor the State may consider in 
demonstrating the technological infeasibility of a measure is 
environmental impacts, Alaska's evaluation is insufficient to 
demonstrate that prohibiting used oil burners is technologically 
infeasible. Notably, illegal dumping of used oil is prohibited under 
state and Federal laws.\158\ Thus, the State and EPA have a basis for 
preventing or mitigating any environmental impacts that may result from 
prohibiting used oil burning. Requiring used oil generators to collect 
and ship used oil to a central disposal facility appears feasible. 
Since Alaska did not adequately demonstrate that that BACM for this 
emission source is technologically or economically infeasible, we 
propose to disapprove Alaska's BACM evaluation and determination for 
use oil burners.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \158\ 18 AAC 60.020; 33 U.S.C. 1321; 40 CFR 279.12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similarly, incinerators are another source subject to the 
information requirements under 18 AAC 50.078(c). However, after 
receiving information related to this source category, Alaska 
determined that there are no permitted sources identified as 
incinerators in the Fairbanks nonattainment area and thus, evaluation 
of emissions controls is not necessary. We propose to find that Alaska 
reasonably determined that there were no affected sources for this 
source category, so BACM does not need to be identified for this source 
category in the Fairbanks nonattainment area.

[[Page 1481]]

    In conclusion, we propose to approve of Alaska's BACM determination 
for incinerators (18 AAC 50.078(c)(2)). We propose to disapprove 
Alaska's BACM determination for coffee roasters, charbroilers, and used 
oil burners for the reasons stated in this section (18 AAC 
50.078(c)(1); 18 AAC 50.078(c)(3); 18 AAC 50.078(d)).
iv. Emissions From Mobile Sources
    The Fairbanks Moderate Plan and the Fairbanks Serious Plan 
considered several transportation control measures and other mobile 
source emission reduction measures, including: HOV lanes; traffic flow 
improvement program; non-motorized traffic zones; employer-sponsored 
flexible work schedules; retrofitting the diesel fleet (school buses, 
transit fleets); on-road vehicle I/M program; heavy-duty vehicle I/M 
program; State LEV program. Fairbanks has expanded the availability of 
plug-ins and required electrification of certain parking lots. 
Fairbanks has also expanded transit service and a commuter van pool 
program. Alaska also has an anti-idle program. We note that none of 
these transportation programs have been submitted for SIP approval.
    Alaska stated in the Fairbanks Serious Plan and Fairbanks 189(d) 
Plan submissions that independent studies by NCHRP (a division of the 
Transportation Research Board) and ASHTO (the American Association of 
State Highway and Transportation Officials) have documented that while 
states and communities continue to adopt them, where funding is 
available, growing experience in lower-48 states has demonstrated 
emissions benefits are limited. As a result, credit for Transportation 
Control Measures in SIPs has diminished and additional transportation 
control measures would provide limited emission reduction benefits. 
However, this appears to argue that mobile sources are a de minimis 
source category, which EPA has determined is not a valid basis for 
dismissing a source category or related control measures from 
consideration.\159\ Alaska did not provide a technological or economic 
infeasibility demonstration to reject these measures. Therefore, we 
propose to disapprove Alaska's rejection of available control measures 
for the mobile source category for PM2.5 and SO2 
emissions. However, we propose to approve Alaska's analysis that found 
no NH3-specific emission controls for this source category,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \159\ 81 FR 58010, August 24, 2016, at p. 58082.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Summary of EPA's Evaluation of Alaska's Identification and Adoption 
of BACM
    The BACM analysis submitted in the Fairbanks Serious Plan and 
updated in the Fairbanks 189(d) Plan identified and evaluated potential 
BACM controls for several source categories. We will discuss in the 
next section Alaska's approach to apply BACM findings for oil-fired 
heating devices (1,000 ppmw sulfur content requirement) to emission 
units at the GVEA Zehnder and UAF Campus Power Plant facilities. EPA 
proposes to approve Alaska's determination that there are no specific 
NH3 emission controls for the sources or source categories 
in the emissions inventory discussed in this section of the document 
and that certain measures designed to reduce direct PM2.5 
emissions also reduce NH3 emissions. Thus, EPA proposes to 
determine that Alaska has satisfied the requirement to identify, adopt 
and implement BACM and BACT for the sources and source categories of 
NH3 discussed in this section of the document.
    We propose to approve BACM for portions of the solid-fuel burning 
category and the small commercial area source category and propose to 
disapprove BACM for the other BACM emission source categories. A 
summary table of EPA's evaluation is provided bin Table 11. For further 
details of each specific control measure Alaska analyzed for BACM, see 
EPA's Control Measure Analysis Technical Support Document.\160\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \160\ Jentgen, M. (September 27, 2022). Technical support 
document for Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation's 
(ADEC) control measure analysis, under 40 CFR 1010(a) and (c). U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, Air and Radiation 
Division.

[[Page 1482]]



                         Table 11--Summary of EPA's Evaluation of Alaska's BACM Analysis
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          EPA evaluation of     State rules relevant to  Specific BACM measures,
      Emissions source category         specific BACM measures        adopted BACM       as identified by Alaska
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Solid-fuel burning...................  Approve: wood-fired      18 AAC 50.075, except    BACM Measures: 1-30, 33-
                                        heating device           (d)(2); 18 AAC 50.077,   47, 63, 65-66, R1, R4-
                                        requirements and         except (g) and (q);.     R7, R9-R12, R15, R16-
                                        resulting emissions.                              R17, R29.
                                       Disapprove: Wood seller/ 18 AAC 50.076(k); 18     BACM Measures: 31-32;
                                        dry wood requirements;   AAC 50.079(f).           48-49.
                                        coal-fired heating
                                        devices.
Residential and commercial fuel oil    Approve: pot burners,    .......................  BACM Measures: 52-53,
 combustion.                            waste oil; fuel oil                               61-62.
                                        boilers.
                                       Disapprove: ULSD as      18 AAC 50.078(b).......  BACM Measure: 51.
                                        heating oil.
Small commercial area sources........  Approve: incinerators    18 AAC 50.078(c).......  BACM Measures: 69.
                                        (no sources
                                        identified).
                                       Disapprove: coffee       18 AAC 50.078(d).......  BACM Measures: 67-68;
                                        roasters;                                         70.
                                        charbroilers; used oil
                                        burners.
Energy efficiency measures...........  Disapprove:              .......................  BACM Measure: 64.
                                        weatherization and
                                        energy efficiency.
Emissions from mobile sources........  Approve: CARB            .......................  BACM Measures: 54-56,
                                        standards; school bus                             58, 59.
                                        retrofits; road paving.
                                       Disapprove: Other        .......................  BACM Measures: 57, 60,
                                        transportation                                    R20.
                                        measures; vehicle
                                        idling.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. Alaska's Identification and Adoption of BACT
i. Chena Power Plant
    We propose to disapprove Alaska's BACT determination for 
PM2.5 and SO2 controls for the four coal-fired 
boilers. For PM2.5, Alaska noted that the source currently 
uses the baghouse to achieve 99.9% capture efficiency, but did not 
definitively determine this control was required as BACT or submit for 
SIP approval an enforceable requirement to operate the baghouse. 
Operation of the baghouse to achieve 99.9% capture efficiency is likely 
to be BACT for PM2.5 for this source, but the State must 
revise the SIP to include an enforceable requirement to operate the 
baghouse to achieve this level of control before we can determine 
whether BACT requirements are satisfied. Therefore, EPA is proposing to 
disapprove Alaska's BACT determination for PM2.5 for the 
four coal-fired boilers at the Chena Power Plant.
    For SO2, Alaska has not sufficiently evaluated all of 
the available control technologies, particularly the better performing 
SO2 control technologies that EPA has emphasized in previous 
comments.\161\ Alaska's economic infeasibility demonstrations are also 
insufficient. Most significantly, Alaska's cost analyses for wet flue 
gas desulfurization (WFGD) and spray-dry absorbers (SDA) were not based 
on study-level \162\ vendor quotes and incorporated unsubstantiated 
cost variables that likely inflated the cost estimate. Alaska's 
affordability assessment for DSI lacks necessary information and is 
unreliable. EPA's complete evaluation of Alaska's cost analysis for 
SO2 controls on the coal-fired boilers is included in the 
docket for this action.\163\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \161\ See EPA Comments regarding site-specific quotes for high 
performing SO2 control technologies, such as a wet 
scrubber (WFGD), spray dry absorber (SDA), and circulating dry 
scrubber (CDS); ``EPA Comments on 2020 DEC Proposed Regulations and 
SIP Amendments'' Letter from Krishna Viswanathan, Director, EPA 
Region 10 Air and Radiation Division to Alice Edwards, Director, 
ADEC Division of Air Quality, October 29, 2020; ``EPA Comments on 
2019 DEC Proposed Regulations and SIP- Fairbanks North Star Borough 
Fine Particulate Matter'' Letter from Krishna Viswanathan, Director, 
EPA Region 10 Air and Radiation Division to Alice Edwards, Director, 
ADEC Division of Air Quality, July 19, 2019.
    \162\ A study-level cost estimate is one with a level of 
accuracy of plus or minus 30 percent. This level of accuracy is 
consistent with what is expected by the Agency in BACT 
determinations. Refer to the EPA Air Pollution Control Cost Manual, 
Section 1, Chapter 2, 7th Edition (November 2017) for more 
information.
    \163\ Hedgpeth and Sorrels. (August 24, 2022). Review of Best 
Available Control Technology analyses submitted for the Aurora 
Energy, LLC Chena Power Plant as part of the Fairbanks 
PM2.5 Nonattainment SIP. U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency, Region 10, Laboratory Services and Applied Science Division.
    \163\ 57 FR 18070, April 28, 1992.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We propose to approve Alaska's analysis that found no 
NH3-specific emission controls for the sources at this 
facility.

                                Table 12--Chena Power Plant, EPA BACT evaluation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           Chena Power Plant, Aurora Energy, LLC--EPA BACT Evaluation
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Emission source category            Alaska's BACT selection     Rationale for EPA's proposed disapproval
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coal-fired boilers (EUs 4-7)............  PM: N/A....................  PM: Operation of the baghouse to achieve
                                          SO: Existing emissions        99.9% capture efficiency appears to be
                                           limit; coal content          BACT for PM2.5 for this source, but
                                           requirement.                 state has not provided an enforceable
                                                                        requirement to operate the baghouse to
                                                                        achieve this level of control.
                                                                       SO: Alaska's BACT determinations are not
                                                                        sufficient to meet BACT requirements.
                                                                        Additionally, the economic infeasibility
                                                                        demonstration is inadequate.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ii. Doyon-Fort Wainwright
    We propose to disapprove Alaska's BACT determination for 
PM2.5 and SO2 controls for each of the emission 
sources at the CHPP. Regarding PM2.5 controls for the coal-
fired boilers and material handling equipment and PM2.5 and 
SO2 controls for the small and large emergency engines, fire 
pumps, and generators, and diesel-fired boilers, we find Alaska's BACT 
findings are

[[Page 1483]]

appropriate. However, Alaska did not include the MRR requirements 
necessary to make these BACT requirements enforceable as a practical 
matter. Therefore, we are proposing to disapprove the BACM/BACT 
determination for these sources as not meeting the CAA requirement that 
the SIP include enforceable emission limitations. Alaska can rectify 
this issue by submitting the MRR requirements necessary (such as the 
requirements included in the current operating permit) to ensure the 
BACM/BACT requirements are enforceable as a practical matter.
    We propose to disapprove Alaska's BACT evaluation and determination 
for SO2 emissions controls (installing DSI) for the coal-
fired boilers comprising the CHPP. The analyses we received from Alaska 
and DU do not establish that the best performing control technologies 
(technologies with better control efficiency than DSI) Alaska 
identified as potential controls for these emission units are 
technologically or economically infeasible. Alaska's initial BACT 
submission did not sufficiently evaluate all of the available control 
technologies, particularly the better performing SO2 control 
technologies that EPA has emphasized in previous comments.\164\ Most 
significantly, Alaska's cost analyses for wet flue gas desulfurization 
(WFGD), spray-dry absorbers (SDA) and DSI were not based on study-level 
vendor quotes and incorporated unsubstantiated cost variables that 
likely inflated the cost estimate. Subsequently, DU submitted 
additional information that evaluated the costs of these 
technologies.\165\ However, the cost analysis continues to show that 
the best performing SO2 control technologies are 
technologically or economically feasible.\166\ EPA's complete 
evaluation of Alaska's cost analysis for SO2 controls on the 
coal-fired boilers is included in the docket for this action.\167\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \164\ See EPA Comments regarding site-specific quotes for high 
performing SO2 control technologies, such as a wet 
scrubber (WFGD), spray dry absorber (SDA), and circulating dry 
scrubber (CDS); ``EPA Comments on 2020 DEC Proposed Regulations and 
SIP Amendments'' Letter from Krishna Viswanathan, Director, EPA 
Region 10 Air and Radiation Division to Alice Edwards, Director, 
ADEC Division of Air Quality, October 29, 2020; ``EPA Comments on 
2019 DEC Proposed Regulations and SIP- Fairbanks North Star Borough 
Fine Particulate Matter'' Letter from Krishna Viswanathan, Director, 
EPA Region 10 Air and Radiation Division to Alice Edwards, Director, 
ADEC Division of Air Quality, July 19, 2019.
    \165\ ``Revised Wainwright BACT SO2 Emission Control 
Study,'' Doyon Utilities, August 25, 2021, included in docket for 
this action.
    \166\ See letter from Krishna Viswanathan, Director, Air and 
Radiation Division, EPA Region 10, to Shane Coiley, Senior Vice 
President, Doyon Utilities, LLC, and COL Nathan Surry, Commander, 
U.S. Army Garrison Alaska, October 26, 2021. Included in docket for 
this action.
    \167\ Hedgpeth, Z. (August 24, 2022). Review of Best Available 
Control Technology analyses submitted for Fort Wainwright-US Army 
Garrison Alaska (FWA) and Doyon Utilities, LLC (DU) as part of the 
Fairbanks PM2.5 Nonattainment SIP. U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, Region 10, Laboratory Services and Applied 
Science Division.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We propose to approve Alaska's analysis that found no 
NH3-specific emission controls for the sources at this 
facility.

             Table 13--Fort Wainwright, EPA BACT Evaluation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Fort Wainwright, Doyon utilities--EPA BACT evaluation
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Alaska's BACT     Rationale for EPA's
   Emission source category         selection       proposed disapproval
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coal-fired boilers (EUs 1-6)..  PM: Existing full  PM: Alaska's BACT
                                 stream baghouse.   determination is
                                SO: Install and     appropriate, but
                                 operate DSI;       monitoring,
                                 coal-sulfur        recordkeeping, and
                                 content            reporting (MRR)
                                 requirement.       requirements not
                                                    provided.
                                                   SO: Alaska's BACT
                                                    determination is not
                                                    sufficient to meet
                                                    BACT requirements,
                                                    other better
                                                    performing control
                                                    technologies than
                                                    DSI are feasible and
                                                    cost effective.
Diesel-fired oil boilers (27    PM: Existing       PM: Alaska's BACT
 emissions units).               emissions and      determination is
                                 operating limits.  appropriate, but MRR
                                SO: ULSD fuel       requirements not
                                 requirement.       provided.
                                                   SO: Alaska's BACT
                                                    determination is
                                                    appropriate, but MRR
                                                    requirements not
                                                    provided.
Large diesel-fired engines,     PM: Existing       PM: Alaska's BACT
 fire pumps, and generators (8   emissions and      determination is
 emissions units; greater than   operating limits.  appropriate, but MRR
 500 horsepower).               SO: ULSD fuel       requirements not
                                 requirement.       provided.
                                                   SO: Alaska's BACT
                                                    determination is
                                                    appropriate, but MRR
                                                    requirements not
                                                    provided.
Small emergency engines, fire   PM: Existing       PM: Alaska's BACT
 pumps, and generators (41       emissions and      determination is
 emissions units).               operating limits.  appropriate, but MRR
                                SO: ULSD fuel       requirements not
                                 requirement.       provided.
                                                   SO: Alaska's BACT
                                                    determination is
                                                    appropriate, but MRR
                                                    requirements not
                                                    provided.
Material handling sources (6    PM: Existing       PM: Alaska's BACT
 emissions units; coal prep      emission limits.   determination is
 and ash handling).             SO: n/a..........   appropriate, but MRR
                                                    requirements not
                                                    provided.
                                                   SO: n/a.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

iii. University of Alaska Fairbanks Campus Power Plant
    We propose to disapprove Alaska's BACT determination for 
PM2.5 and SO2 controls for each of the emission 
sources at the Fairbanks Campus Power Plant. Regarding PM2.5 
controls for the dual fuel-fired boiler, backup diesel generator, 
diesel-fired boilers, and material handling sources; the 
PM2.5 and SO2 controls for the pathogenic waste 
incinerator; and the SO2 controls for the diesel-fired 
engines, we find Alaska's BACT findings are appropriate. However, 
Alaska did not submit as part of the Fairbanks Serious Plan the 
emission limits corresponding to Alaska's SO2 or 
PM2.5 BACT findings for some emission units,\168\ Alaska 
also did not include the MRR requirements necessary to make these BACT 
requirements enforceable as a practical matter. Therefore, we are 
proposing to disapprove Alaska's PM2.5 BACT requirements for 
these sources as not meeting the CAA requirement that the SIP include 
enforceable emission limitations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \168\ Fuel oil-fired simple cycle gas turbine (EUs 1 and 2); 
Fuel oil-fired combined cycle gas turbine (EUs 5 and 6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Alaska can rectify this issue by submitting the enforceable 
emission limitation and monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting 
requirements necessary to ensure the BACT requirements are enforceable 
as a practical matter. We note that the MRR requirements for the 
material handling

[[Page 1484]]

unit, EU 111, should include the operational requirement that the 
building doors remain closed at all times that ash loading is 
occurring. Appropriate MRR conditions should be included to ensure no 
visible emissions escape the building.
    We propose to disapprove Alaska's BACT evaluation and determination 
for SO2 controls for the dual fuel-fired boiler. Alaska has 
not sufficiently evaluated all of the available SO2 
emissions control technologies, as EPA has previously commented.\169\ 
Most significantly, Alaska's cost analyses for wet flue gas 
desulfurization (WFGD), spray-dry absorbers (SDA) and dry sorbent 
injection (DSI) were not based on study-level vendor quotes and 
incorporated unsubstantiated cost variables that likely inflated the 
cost estimates. Alaska's affordability assessment for DSI lacks 
necessary information and is unreliable. EPA's complete evaluation of 
Alaska's cost analysis of SO2 controls for the coal-fired 
boilers is included in the docket for this action.\170\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \169\ See EPA Comments regarding site-specific quotes for high 
performing SO2 control technologies, such as a wet 
scrubber (WFGD), spray dry absorber (SDA), and circulating dry 
scrubber (CDS); ``EPA Comments on 2020 DEC Proposed Regulations and 
SIP Amendments'' Letter from Krishna Viswanathan, Director, EPA 
Region 10 Air and Radiation Division to Alice Edwards, Director, 
ADEC Division of Air Quality, October 29, 2020; ``EPA Comments on 
2019 DEC Proposed Regulations and SIP--Fairbanks North Star Borough 
Fine Particulate Matter'' Letter from Krishna Viswanathan, Director, 
EPA Region 10 Air and Radiation Division to Alice Edwards, Director, 
ADEC Division of Air Quality, July 19, 2019.
    \170\ Hedgpeth and Sorrels. (August 24, 2022). Review of Best 
Available Control Technology analyses submitted for the University 
of Alaska, Fairbanks as part of the Fairbanks PM2.5 
Nonattainment SIP. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, 
Laboratory Services and Applied Science Division.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, we propose to disapprove Alaska's BACT determination for 
SO2 controls for the diesel-fired boilers. Alaska's BACT 
determination requiring ULSD is appropriate, but the delayed 
implementation and interim requirement (1000 ppmw) is not supported as 
BACT. We also propose to disapprove Alaska's BACT evaluation and 
determination for PM2.5 controls for certain diesel-fired 
engines. EUs 23 and 26 lack operating limits, and a diesel particulate 
filter on EU 27 is cost effective. For the remaining diesel-fired 
engines, Alaska's BACT determination is appropriate, but MRR 
requirements are not submitted as part of the SIP. For additional 
details on EPA's evaluation of Alaska's cost analysis for 
PM2.5 controls, see EPA's Technical Support Document.
    We propose to approve Alaska's analysis that found no 
NH3-specific emission controls for the sources at this 
facility.

  Table 14--University of Alaska Fairbanks Campus Power Plant, EPA BACT
                               Evaluation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 University of Alaska Fairbanks Campus Power Plant--EPA BACT Evaluation
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Alaska's BACT     Rationale for EPA's
   Emission source category         selection       proposed disapproval
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dual fuel-fired boiler          PM: Emission       PM: Alaska's BACT
 (Emission units 113).           limit achieved     determination is
                                 by use of          appropriate, but MRR
                                 existing fabric    requirements not
                                 filter.            provided.
                                SO: Existing       SO: Alaska's BACT
                                 emissions limit    determination is not
                                 achieved through   sufficient to meet
                                 limestone          BACT requirements.
                                 injection and
                                 low sulfur fuel.
Mid-sized Diesel-fired boilers  PM: Existing       PM: Alaska's BACT
 (EUs 3 and 4).                  emissions and      determination is
                                 operating limits.  appropriate, but MRR
                                SO: Sulfur          requirements not
                                 content            provided.
                                 requirements.     SO: Alaska's BACT
                                                    determination
                                                    requiring ULSD is
                                                    appropriate, but the
                                                    delayed
                                                    implementation and
                                                    interim requirement
                                                    (1000 ppmw) is not
                                                    supported as BACT.
Small-sized Diesel-fired        PM: Existing       PM: Alaska's BACT
 boilers (EUs 19-21).            emissions and      determination is
                                 operating limits.  appropriate, but MRR
                                SO: Sulfur          requirements not
                                 content            provided.
                                 requirements.     SO: Alaska's BACT
                                                    determination
                                                    requiring ULSD is
                                                    appropriate, but the
                                                    delayed
                                                    implementation and
                                                    interim requirement
                                                    (1000 ppmw) is not
                                                    supported as BACT.
Large diesel-fired engine (EU   PM: Existing       PM: Alaska's BACT
 8).                             emissions and      determination is
                                 operating limits.  appropriate, but MRR
                                SO: ULSD fuel       requirements not
                                 requirement.       provided.
                                                   SO: Alaska's BACT
                                                    determination is
                                                    appropriate, but MRR
                                                    requirements not
                                                    provided.
Small diesel-fired engines      PM: Existing       PM: Alaska's BACT
 (EUs 23-24, 26-29).             emissions and      determination is not
                                 operating limits.  sufficient in part,
                                SO: ULSD fuel       EUs 23 and 26 lack
                                 requirement.       operating limits,
                                                    and a control device
                                                    at EU 27 is cost
                                                    effective.
                                                    Otherwise, Alaska's
                                                    BACT determination
                                                    is appropriate, but
                                                    MRR requirements are
                                                    not provided.
                                                   SO: Alaska's BACT
                                                    determination is
                                                    appropriate, but MRR
                                                    requirements not
                                                    provided.
Pathogenic waste incinerator    PM: Existing       PM: Alaska's BACT
 (EU 9a).                        emissions and      determination is
                                 operating limits.  appropriate, but MRR
                                SO: ULSD fuel       requirements not
                                 requirement.       provided.
                                                   SO: Alaska's BACT
                                                    determination is
                                                    appropriate, but MRR
                                                    requirements not
                                                    provided.
Material handling sources (EUs  PM: Existing       PM: Alaska's BACT
 105, 107, 109-111, 114, 128-    emissions and      determination is
 130).                           operating limits.  appropriate, but
                                SO: n/a..........   specific MRR
                                                    requirements are
                                                    required and were
                                                    not provided.
                                                   SO: n/a.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

iv. Zehnder Facility
    We propose to disapprove Alaska's BACT determination for 
PM2.5 and SO2 controls for each of the emission 
sources at the Zehnder facility. Regarding PM2.5 controls 
for the two fuel oil-fired simple cycle gas combustion turbines, two 
diesel-fired generators, and two diesel fired boilers, we find Alaska's 
BACT finding are appropriate. However, Alaska did not include the MRR 
requirements necessary to make these BACT requirements enforceable as a 
practical matter. Therefore, we are proposing to disapprove Alaska's 
PM2.5

[[Page 1485]]

BACT requirements for these sources as not meeting the CAA requirement 
that the SIP include enforceable emission limitations. Alaska can 
rectify this issue by submitting the monitoring, recordkeeping, and 
reporting requirements necessary to ensure the BACT requirements are 
enforceable as a practical matter.
    We propose to disapprove Alaska's BACT evaluation for 
SO2 controls for each of the emissions units. Based on 
Alaska's finding that switching to ULSD is technologically and 
economically feasible for all area sources, Alaska did not select the 
best available measure to control SO2 emissions from this 
facility. EPA's complete evaluation of Alaska's BACT evaluation is 
included in the docket for this action.\171\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \171\ Hedgpeth, Z. (August 24, 2022). Review of Best Available 
Control Technology analyses submitted for the Golden Valley Electric 
Association (GVEA) Zehnder and North Pole Power Plants as part of 
the Fairbanks PM2.5 Nonattainment SIP. U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, Region 10, Laboratory Services and Applied 
Science Division.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We propose to approve Alaska's analysis that found no 
NH3-specific emission controls for the sources at this 
facility.

             Table 15--Zehnder Facility, EPA BACT Evaluation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Zehnder facility, Golden Valley Electric Authority--EPA BACT Evaluation
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Alaska's BACT     Rationale for EPA's
   Emission source category         selection       proposed disapproval
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fuel oil-fired simple cycle     PM: Existing       PM: Alaska's BACT
 gas turbine (EUs 1 and 2).      emissions limit.   determination is
                                SO: 1000 ppmw       appropriate, but MRR
                                 fuel sulfur        requirements not
                                 requirement, by    provided.
                                 September 1,      SO: Alaska's BACT
                                 2022.              determination is not
                                                    sufficient to meet
                                                    BACT requirements.
                                                    Alaska initially
                                                    identified ULSD (15
                                                    ppmw sulfur) fuel as
                                                    BACT.
Diesel-fired emergency          PM: Existing       PM: Alaska's BACT
 generators (EUs 3 and 4).       emissions and      determination is
                                 operating limits.  appropriate, but MRR
                                SO: 1,000 ppmw      requirements not
                                 fuel sulfur        provided.
                                 requirement, by   SO: Alaska's BACT
                                 September 1,       determination is not
                                 2022.              sufficient to meet
                                                    BACT requirements.
                                                    Alaska initially
                                                    identified ULSD (15
                                                    ppmw sulfur) fuel as
                                                    BACT.
Diesel-fired boilers (EUs 10    PM: Existing       PM: Alaska's BACT
 and 11).                        emissions limit.   determination is
                                SO: 10,00 ppmw      appropriate, but MRR
                                 fuel sulfur        requirements not
                                 requirement, by    provided.
                                 September 1,      SO: Alaska's BACT
                                 2022.              determination is not
                                                    sufficient to meet
                                                    BACT requirements.
                                                    Alaska initially
                                                    identified ULSD (15
                                                    ppmw sulfur) fuel as
                                                    BACT.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

v. North Pole Power Plant
    We propose to disapprove Alaska's BACT determination for 
PM2.5 and SO2 controls for each of the emission 
sources at the North Pole Power Plant. Regarding PM2.5 
controls for the two fuel oil-fired simple cycle gas combustion 
turbines, two fuel oil-fired combined cycle gas combustion turbines, 
and large diesel-fired engine and PM2.5 and SO2 
controls for the two propane-fired boilers, we find Alaska's BACT 
findings are appropriate. However, Alaska did not submit as part of the 
Fairbanks Serious Plan the emission limits corresponding to Alaska's 
SO2 or PM2.5 BACT findings for some emission 
units.\172\ Alaska also did not submit the MRR requirements needed for 
determining compliance with all BACT limits or requirements and to make 
the limits or requirements enforceable as a practical matter. 
Therefore, we are proposing to disapprove Alaska's PM2.5 
BACT requirements for these sources as not meeting the CAA requirement 
that the SIP include enforceable emission limitations. Alaska can 
rectify this issue by submitting the emission limits and monitoring, 
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements necessary to ensure the BACT 
requirements are enforceable as a practical matter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \172\ Fuel oil-fired simple cycle gas turbine (EUs 1 and 2); 
Fuel oil-fired combined cycle gas turbine (EUs 5 and 6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We propose to disapprove Alaska's BACT evaluation for 
SO2 controls for the simple cycle gas turbines. Alaska 
determined that switching to ULSD is technologically and economically 
feasible for the simple cycle turbines. Alaska did not adequately 
justify delaying this requirement to October 1, 2023. Nor did Alaska 
demonstrate that year-round operation was infeasible. Additionally, 
Alaska did not sufficiently demonstrate how the intermediate measure, 
limiting sulfur content to 1,000 ppm from October 1, 2020, to October 
1, 2023, only during Air Quality Stage Alert 1 and 2 (solid-fuel device 
curtailment is in effect), is enforceable as a practical matter. EPA's 
complete evaluation of Alaska's BACT determination is included in the 
docket.\173\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \173\ Hedgpeth, Z. (August 24, 2022). Review of Best Available 
Control Technology analyses submitted for the Golden Valley Electric 
Association (GVEA) Zehnder and North Pole Power Plants as part of 
the Fairbanks PM2.5 Nonattainment SIP. U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, Region 10, Laboratory Services and Applied 
Science Division
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, for SO2 controls for the combined-cycle 
turbines, we propose to find that Alaska's BACT determination is 
appropriate, but Alaska needs to specify in the BACT determination that 
only ULSD may be used during startup. Alaska can rectify this issue by 
clarifying this portion of the BACT requirement. For SO2 
controls for the large diesel-fired engine, Alaska lacks the technical 
justification for not adopting ULSD as BACT. For additional details, 
see EPA's Technical Support Document.\174\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \174\ Hedgpeth, Z. (August 24, 2022). Review of Best Available 
Control Technology analyses submitted for the Golden Valley Electric 
Association (GVEA) Zehnder and North Pole Power Plants as part of 
the Fairbanks PM2.5 Nonattainment SIP. U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, Region 10, Laboratory Services and Applied 
Science Division
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We propose to approve Alaska's analysis that found no 
NH3-specific emission controls for the sources at this 
facility.

[[Page 1486]]



          Table 16--North Pole Power Plant, EPA BACT Evaluation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
   North Pole Power Plant, Golden Valley Electric Authority--EPA BACT
                               Evaluation
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Alaska's BACT     Rationale for EPA's
   Emission source category         selection       proposed disapproval
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fuel oil-fired simple cycle     PM: Existing       PM: Alaska's BACT
 gas turbine (EUs 1 and 2).      emission limit,    determination is
                                 use of low ash     appropriate, but MRR
                                 fuel, limited      requirements not
                                 operation, and     provided.
                                 good combustion   SO: Alaska's BACT
                                 practices.         determination
                                SO: Sulfur          requiring ULSD is
                                 content            appropriate, but the
                                 requirements.      delayed
                                                    implementation and
                                                    interim requirement
                                                    (1000 ppmw) is not
                                                    supported as BACT.
Fuel oil-fired combined cycle   PM: Existing       PM: Alaska's BACT
 gas turbine (EUs 5 and 6).      emissions limit.   determination is
                                SO: Sulfur          appropriate, but MRR
                                 content            requirements not
                                 requirement--50    provided.
                                 ppmw sulfur fuel  SO: Alaska's BACT
                                 limit (i.e.,       determination is
                                 ``light straight   appropriate but need
                                 run fuel'').       to specify in the
                                                    BACT determination
                                                    that only ULSD may
                                                    be used during
                                                    startup.
Large diesel-fired engine (EU   PM: Good           PM: Alaska's BACT
 7).                             combustion         determination is
                                 practices,         appropriate, but MRR
                                 positive           requirements not
                                 crankcase          provided.
                                 ventilation, and  SO: Alaska's BACT
                                 limited            determination is not
                                 operation.         sufficient to meet
                                SO: Use of fuel     BACT requirements.
                                 that does not      ULSD not adopted,
                                 exceed 0.05%       lacks technical
                                 sulfur by weight.  justification for
                                                    rejection of
                                                    measure.
Propane-fired boiler (EUs 11    PM: Existing       PM: Alaska's BACT
 and 12).                        emissions limits.  determination is
                                SO: Use of          appropriate, but MRR
                                 propane fuel.      requirements not
                                                    provided.
                                                   SO: Alaska's BACT
                                                    determination is
                                                    appropriate, but MRR
                                                    requirements not
                                                    provided.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

d. Alaska's Identification and Adoption of Additional Measures and 
Demonstration of 5% Reduction in Emissions Pursuant to CAA Section 
189(d)
    The Fairbanks 189(d) Plan included a reevaluation of previously 
rejected control measures. First, Alaska added a burn down period of 3 
hours for solid-fuel heating devices that begins upon the effective 
date and time of a curtailment announcement. Second, Alaska added 
specific requirements to document economic hardship as part of a NOASH 
curtailment program waiver for solid-fuel devices.
    As part of its reevaluation of control measures, Alaska provided 
additional information for a number of control measures considered in 
the BACM analysis. The Fairbanks 189(d) Plan included additional 
consideration of banning installation of solid-fuel devices in new 
construction, limiting heating oil to ultra-low sulfur diesel, dry wood 
requirements, emissions controls for small area sources, mobile 
sources, and most stringent measures.\175\ However, Alaska did not 
reevaluate BACT-level controls for stationary sources. Specifically, 
there were a number of SO2 control technologies that were 
evaluated and dismissed under the Fairbanks Serious Plan that were not 
reconsidered in the Fairbanks 189(d) Plan. Therefore, we propose to 
find that Alaska has not sufficiently met the requirement under CAA 
section 189(d) to reevaluate additional measures that could lead to 
expeditious attainment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \175\ State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol II, Chapter 
III.D.7.7.12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regarding the requirement to demonstrate five percent annual 
reductions, Alaska included in the Fairbanks 189(d) Plan a control 
strategy analysis that demonstrates annual reductions of 
PM2.5 are greater than five percent through 2024, Alaska's 
projected attainment year. However, CAA section 189(d) and 40 CFR 
51.1010(c)(4) and (5) require that the control strategy contain not 
just measures required to achieve five percent annual reductions, but 
all required BACM and additional measures that collectively achieve 
attainment as expeditiously as practicable.
    As discussed in Section III.D.3 of this document, Alaska did not 
adopt and implement all available and required control measures as part 
of the control strategy for either the Fairbanks Serious Plan or 
Fairbanks 189(d) Plan. Therefore, Alaska did not necessarily adopt and 
implement all control measures that collectively achieve attainment as 
expeditiously as possible. Thus, EPA is proposing to disapprove the 
control strategy included in the Fairbanks 189(d) Plan as not meeting 
the full requirements of CAA section 189(d) and 40 CFR 51.1010(c).

D. Attainment Demonstration and Modeling

1. Statutory and Regulatory Requirements
    Pursuant to CAA sections 188(c) and 189(b) and 40 CFR 51.1003(b) 
and 51.1011(b), for nonattainment areas reclassified as Serious, the 
state must submit an attainment demonstration as part of the Serious 
Plan that meets the requirements of 40 CFR 51.1011. Similarly, pursuant 
to 40 CFR 51.1003(c), for Serious areas subject to CAA section 189(d) 
for failing to attain by the Serious area attainment date, the state 
must submit an attainment demonstration as part of the 189(d) plan that 
meets the requirements of 40 CFR 51.1011. On September 2, 2020, EPA 
determined that the Fairbanks Nonattainment Area failed to attain the 
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS by the December 31, 2019, Serious 
area attainment date. Therefore, EPA is proposing to evaluate any 
previously unmet Serious area planning obligations based on the 
current, applicable attainment date appropriate under CAA section 
189(d) and not the original Serious area attainment date.\176\ In 
accordance with 40 CFR 51.1011, the attainment demonstration must meet 
four requirements:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \176\ The term ``applicable attainment date'' is defined at 40 
CFR 51.1000 to mean: ``the latest statutory date by which an area is 
required to attain a particular PM2.5 NAAQS, unless EPA 
has approved an attainment plan for the area to attain such NAAQS, 
in which case the applicable attainment date is the date approved 
under such attainment plan. If EPA grants an extension of an 
approved attainment date, then the applicable attainment date for 
the area shall be the extended date.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1. Identify the projected attainment date for the Serious 
nonattainment area that is as expeditious as practicable;
    2. Meet the requirements of 40 CFR part 51, appendix W and include 
inventory data, modeling results, and emission reduction analyses on 
which the state has based its projected attainment date;
    3. The base year for the emissions inventories shall be one of the 
3 years

[[Page 1487]]

used for designations or another technically appropriate inventory year 
if justified by the state in the plan submission; and
    4. The control strategies modeled as part of a Serious area 
attainment demonstration shall be consistent with the control 
strategies required pursuant to 40 CFR 51.1003 and 51.1010 (including 
the specific requirements in 40 CFR 51.1010(c) for Serious areas that 
fail to attain.
    Further, in accordance with 40 CFR 51.1011(b)(5), the attainment 
plan must provide for implementation of all control measures needed for 
attainment as expeditiously as practicable. Additionally, all control 
measures must be implemented no later than the beginning of the year 
containing the applicable attainment date, notwithstanding BACM 
implementation deadline requirements in 40 CFR 51.1010.\177\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \177\ 40 CFR 51.1011(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Summary of State's Submission
    The State included an attainment demonstration in the Fairbanks 
Serious Plan, submitted on December 13, 2019.\178\ EPA did not take 
action on the attainment demonstration submitted as part of the 
Fairbanks Serious Plan. Alaska subsequently withdrew and resubmitted a 
new attainment demonstration (State Air Quality Plan, Volume II, 
Chapter III.D.7.9), as part of its Fairbanks 189(d) Plan submission. 
Alaska also updated its modeling chapter to include State Air Quality 
Control Plan, Vol. II, Chapter III.D.7.8.14, as part of the Fairbanks 
189(d) Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \178\ State Air Quality Plan, Volume II, Chapter III.D.7.9 
(version November 19, 2019). See section II.A in this document 58 
for a discussion of Alaska's attainment demonstration submitted as 
part of the Fairbanks Serious Area Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Alaska's attainment demonstration in the Fairbanks 189(d) Plan 
projects attainment by December 31, 2024. Alaska evaluated the most 
expeditious attainment date and demonstrated that the earliest the 
controlling monitor for the nonattainment area at Hurst Road can model 
attainment of the NAAQS is 2024. Accordingly, Alaska identified 
December 31, 2024, as the most expeditious attainment date forecasted 
for the Fairbanks PM2.5 nonattainment area, based on 
currently available data.\179\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \179\ State Air Quality Plan, Volume II, Chapter III.D.7.9.3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Alaska used the modeling platform (e.g., model versions, modeling 
domain, inputs, parameterizations, initial and boundary conditions) and 
meteorological episodes previously used for the Fairbanks Moderate Plan 
and the Fairbanks Serious Plan. For a detailed summary of Alaska's 
attainment demonstration, see EPA's Fairbanks Modeling Technical 
Support Document in the docket for this action.\180\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \180\ Briggs and Kotchenruther. (August 24, 2022). Review of 
Fairbanks Nonattainment Area Modeling in the 2020 State 
Implementation Plan Submission. U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency, Region 10, Laboratory Services and Applied Science Division.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Alaska selected 2019 as the base year for modeling purposes. In 
consultation with EPA, Alaska decided to use a four-year (2016-2019) 
time period in the Fairbanks 189(d) Plan to establish the base year 
value rather than five years. This is because PM2.5 levels 
decreased from 111 [micro]g/m\3\ in 2015 to a range of 52.8 [micro]g/
m\3\ and 75.5 [micro]g/m\3\ between 2016-2019. Design values were 
updated for each of the PM2.5 monitor locations in the 
Fairbanks PM2.5 Nonattainment Area (see Table 1 in this 
document). The new modeling value at the Hurst Road monitor is 64.7 
[micro]g/m\3\, the monitoring site located in the area of maximum 
concentration.\181\ The State could not calculate a base year design 
value for A Street because measurements began at that site in 2019. 
Future SIP modeling will include the A Street monitor, which is 
considered to be a location of maximum PM2.5 in Fairbanks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \181\ The official 2017-2019 design value at the Hurst Road site 
is 69 [micro]g/m\3\. The 64.7 [micro]g/m\3\ value reflects the 2017-
2019 design value excluding days in 2019 influenced by wildfires. A 
justification for the adjusted base year for modeling purposes is 
included in the docket for this action, see Alaska Department of 
Environmental Conservation. (April 14, 2021). Exceptional Events 
Waiver Request, For Exceptional PM2.5 Events Between May 26, and 
July 26, 2019, in the Fairbanks North Star Borough, Alaska. Alaska 
Department of Environmental Conservation, Air Quality Division.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, Alaska modeled the control strategies included in the 
Fairbanks 189(d) Plan.\182\ By 2024, Alaska anticipates emissions 
reductions of 2.11 PM2.5 tons per episodic day and 5.18 
SO2 tons per episodic day, resulting from implementation of 
these control measures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \182\ State Air Quality Plan, Volume II, Chapter III.D.7.9, 
Table 7.9-5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. EPA's Evaluation and Proposed Action
    EPA proposes to find that Alaska's attainment demonstration does 
not fully meet CAA requirements. As part of the attainment 
demonstration, the state must identify the projected attainment date 
that is as expeditious as possible. As discussed in Section III.D.3 of 
this document, Alaska did not adopt and implement all available control 
measures. Correct identification of the most expeditious attainment 
date requires an evaluation based upon expeditious implementation of 
the required emission controls. Therefore, EPA cannot assess whether 
Alaska identified the expeditious attainment date for modeling 
purposes.
    The modeling platform the State used for the Fairbanks 189(d) Plan 
is outdated and does not reflect the current state of scientific 
knowledge about meteorological and photochemical processes contributing 
to PM2.5 formation. Additionally, there is no quantitative 
performance evaluation for the North Pole (Hurst Road) monitor because 
there were not sufficient speciated PM2.5 data for the time 
period of the model performance evaluation. The modeling is based on 
2008 meteorological episodes that have not been updated or replaced 
since development of the Moderate Area SIP.
    Therefore, EPA proposes to find that the attainment demonstration 
in the Fairbanks 189(d) Plan does not meet the requirements of 40 CFR 
51.1011(b)(2). For additional details of EPA's evaluation, see the 
Technical Support Document included in the docket for this action.\183\ 
We note that Alaska is currently engaged in a multi-year effort to 
develop a new Fairbanks modeling platform, as outlined in State Air 
Quality Control Plan, Appendix III.D.7.8 of the Fairbanks 189(d) Plan. 
EPA will continue to support Alaska's modeling efforts and will review 
updated modeling and attainment analysis when submitted by the State.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \183\ Briggs and Kotchenruther. (August 24, 2022). Review of 
Fairbanks Nonattainment Area Modeling in the 2020 State 
Implementation Plan Submission. U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency, Region 10, Laboratory Services and Applied Science Division.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA approves of the design value Alaska calculated for modeling 
purposes. For base year modeling purposes, the 64.7 [micro]g/m\3\ four 
year average value is appropriate as measured between 2016-2019 at the 
Hurst Road monitor in the North Pole portion of the Fairbanks 
Nonattainment Area. The base year emissions inventory Alaska used for 
its attainment demonstration in the 189(d) Plan represented one of the 
three years that EPA used to determine that the area failed to attain 
by the Serious area attainment date. This base year is consistent with 
the requirements of 40 CFR 51.1011(b)(3).
    Finally, EPA is proposing to partially disapprove Alaska's control 
strategy as not meeting the requirements of CAA section 189(b) and 40 
CFR 51.1010. EPA's basis for this proposed disapproval is discussed in 
detail in Section III.D.3 of this document. Accordingly, the control 
strategies modeled as part of Alaska's attainment

[[Page 1488]]

demonstration are not consistent with the control strategies required 
pursuant to 40 CFR 51.1003 and 40 CFR 51.1010. For these reasons, EPA 
proposes to disapprove the modeling attainment requirements in the 
Fairbanks 189(d) Plan.

E. Reasonable Further Progress

1. Statutory and Regulatory Requirements
    Pursuant to CAA section 172(c) and 40 CFR 51.1012 for the Fairbanks 
Serious Plan and Fairbanks 189(d) Plan, each attainment plan for a 
PM2.5 nonattainment area shall include Reasonable Further 
Progress (RFP) provisions that demonstrate that control measures in the 
area will achieve such annual incremental reductions in emissions of 
direct PM2.5 and PM2.5 plan precursors as are 
necessary to ensure attainment of the applicable PM2.5 NAAQS 
as expeditiously as practicable. As discussed in section I of this 
document, on September 2, 2020, EPA determined that the Fairbanks 
PM2.5 Nonattainment Area failed to attain the 2006 24-hour 
PM2.5 NAAQS by the applicable December 31, 2019, Serious 
area attainment date. Therefore, EPA is proposing to evaluate any 
previously unmet Serious area planning obligations, including RFP and 
quantitative milestone requirements, based on the current, applicable 
attainment date appropriate under CAA section 189(d) and not the 
original Serious area attainment date. In accordance with 40 CFR 
51.1012, the RFP plan shall include all of the following:
    a. A schedule describing the implementation of control measures 
during each year of the applicable attainment plan. Control measures 
for Moderate area attainment plans are required in 40 CFR 51.1009, and 
control measures for Serious area attainment plans are required in 40 
CFR 51.1010.
    b. RFP projected emissions for direct PM2.5 and all 
PM2.5 plan precursors for each applicable milestone year, 
based on the anticipated implementation schedule for control measures 
required by 40 CFR 51.1009 and 51.1010. For purposes of establishing 
motor vehicle emissions budgets for transportation conformity purposes 
(as required in 40 CFR part 93, subpart A) for a PM2.5 
nonattainment area, the state shall include in its RFP submission an 
inventory of on-road mobile source emissions in the nonattainment area 
for each milestone year.\184\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \184\ For an evaluation of motor vehicle emission budgets, see 
section III.H of this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    c. An analysis that presents the schedule of control measures and 
estimated emissions changes to be achieved by each milestone year, and 
that demonstrates that the control strategy will achieve reasonable 
progress toward attainment between the applicable base year and the 
attainment year. The analysis shall rely on information from the base 
year inventory for the nonattainment area required in 40 CFR 
51.1008(a)(1) and the attainment projected inventory for the 
nonattainment area required in 40 CFR 51.1008(a)(2), in addition to the 
RFP projected emissions required in 40 CFR 51.1012(a)(2).
    d. An analysis that demonstrates that by the end of the calendar 
year for each milestone date for the area determined in accordance with 
40 CFR 51.1013(a), pollutant emissions will be at levels that reflect 
either generally linear progress or stepwise progress in reducing 
emissions on an annual basis between the base year and the attainment 
year. A demonstration of stepwise progress must be accompanied by 
appropriate justification for the selected implementation schedule.
2. Summary of State's Submission
    Alaska included its RFP analysis in State Air Quality Plan, Vol II, 
III.D.7.10. Initially Alaska submitted an RFP plan in the Fairbanks 
Serious Plan based on the projected attainment year of 2029. Alaska 
withdrew and replaced the RFP plan in the Fairbanks 189(d) plan based 
on the revised 2024 attainment projection.
    Regarding the RFP requirements, Alaska included an implementation 
schedule for each control measure for each source category, see State 
Air Quality Plan, Vol II, Chapter III.D.7.10, Table 7.10-4. The table 
presents a start year and the phase-in percentage for each milestone 
year. Alaska included projected emissions for direct PM2.5 
and all PM2.5 plan precursors for each applicable milestone 
year.\185\ Alaska included an analysis that presents the schedule of 
control measures (Table 7.10-4) and estimated emissions changes to be 
achieved by each milestone year (Table 7.10-5), and that demonstrates 
that the control strategy will achieve reasonable progress toward 
attainment between the applicable base year and the attainment year. 
Alaska noted that direct PM2.5 emission reductions achieved 
within each milestone year are projected to meet or exceed linear 
progress toward estimated attainment by 2024 (and through 2026). 
Meanwhile, progress toward attainment for SO2 is expected to 
be non-linear. According to Alaska, this non-linearity in control 
measure reductions for SO2 is due to two causes. First, most 
of the measures designed to reduce direct PM2.5 through 
removal, curtailment or replacement of solid-fuel devices trigger a 
shift in heating energy to higher SO2 emitting heating oil. 
Second, decreases in SO2 emissions offsetting these 
increases are the result of the shift from diesel #2 to diesel #1 fuel 
oil for space heating by 2023, and point source SO2 BACT 
controls that phase in from 2021-2024. Thus, control measure emission 
reductions for SO2 exhibit stepwise rather than linear 
progress. NH3 reductions meet linearly-established targets 
in the base year and 2024 attainment year, but to population growth, 
linear progress is not met in 2023 and 2026 for NH3. We note 
that Alaska is not taking credit for NH3 emission reductions 
co-benefits resulting from the implementation of control measures for 
PM2.5 and SO2 emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \185\ State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol. III, Appendix 
III.D.7.10 (corresponding Excel spreadsheets).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. EPA's Evaluation and Proposed Action
    Alaska withdrew and replaced the State Air Quality Control Plan, 
Chapter III.D.7.10, as part of submission of the Fairbanks 189(d) Plan. 
The RFP provisions included in the Fairbanks 189(d) plan are based on 
Alaska's proposed control strategy designed to meet the requirements of 
CAA sections 189(b) and 189(d), and 40 CFR 51.1010(a) and (c), based on 
a projected attainment date of 2024. Therefore, the approvability of 
the plan with respect to RFP requirements is dependent, in part, on the 
approvability of the control strategy and attainment demonstration. 
Specifically, to meet the RFP requirement, the State must include a 
schedule describing the implementation of control measures required by 
40 CFR 51.1010.\186\ Moreover, the RFP projected emissions for each 
milestone year must be based on the anticipated implementation schedule 
for control measures required by 40 CFR 51.1010.\187\ Thus, if the 
control strategy does not include all required control measures, then 
the RFP provisions will necessarily be deficient.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \186\ 40 CFR 51.1012(a)(1).
    \187\ 40 CFR 51.1012(a)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similarly, the purpose of the RFP requirement is to demonstrate 
that the attainment plan will achieve annual incremental reductions in 
emissions between the base year and the attainment date that is as 
expeditious as

[[Page 1489]]

practicable.\188\ Accordingly, if the attainment year does not reflect 
the most expeditious year practicable, then the State's evaluation of 
RFP will not accurately project progress towards the most expeditious 
attainment year. As discussed in sections III.C and III.D. of this 
document, EPA is proposing to disapprove Alaska's attainment 
demonstration and to partially disapprove Alaska's control strategy. 
Therefore, the RFP provisions in the Fairbanks 189(d) Plan are, by 
extension, deficient. Therefore, EPA is proposing to disapprove the 
Fairbanks 189(d) Plan with respect to RFP requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \188\ 40 CFR 51.1012(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

F. Quantitative Milestones

1. Statutory and Regulatory Requirements
    In accordance with CAA section 189(c)(1) and 40 CFR 51.1013, the 
state must submit in each attainment plan for a PM2.5 
nonattainment area specific quantitative milestones that provide for 
objective evaluation of RFP toward timely attainment of the applicable 
PM2.5 NAAQS in the area.
    For an attainment plan submission for a Serious area subject to the 
requirements of CAA section 189(d) and 40 CFR 51.1003(c), each plan 
shall contain quantitative milestones (QM) that provide for objective 
evaluation of reasonable further progress toward timely attainment of 
the applicable PM2.5 NAAQS in the area. At a minimum, each 
plan for an area subject to CAA section 189(d) must include QMs for 
tracking progress achieved in implementing the SIP control measures by 
each milestone date.
    Regarding the specific timeframe for the Fairbanks PM2.5 
Nonattainment Area, per 40 CFR 51.1013(a)(4), each attainment plan 
submission for an area designated nonattainment for the 1997 and/or 
2006 PM2.5 NAAQS before January 15, 2015, shall contain 
quantitative milestones to be achieved no later than 3 years after 
December 31, 2014, and every 3 years thereafter until the milestone 
date that falls within 3 years after the applicable attainment date.
2. Summary of State's Submission
    Similar to the RFP requirement discussed in section III.E of this 
document, Alaska revised submitted updated QM provisions as part of the 
Fairbanks 189(d) Plan. The Fairbanks 189(d) Plan, projecting attainment 
by 2024, contained a QM for each control measure to be achieved every 
three years until attainment is achieved (and three years thereafter), 
State Air Quality Plan, Vol II, III.D.7.10, Table 7.10-4. The State 
created milestones for the woodstove changeout program to measure 
progress for that program by the number of changeouts expected for each 
milestone year. The State created milestones for other control measures 
to evaluate progress for those measures based on an expected percentage 
of combined penetration or the expected compliance rate. For the 
woodstove curtailment program, the State estimated the compliance rate 
to achieve 30 percent by 2020; 45 percent by 2023; and 50 percent by 
2026. Notably, a number of control measures are not fully phased-in by 
the attainment date. These measures include the woodstove curtailment 
program, commercial dry wood requirements, removal of coal devices 
requirements, and the revised NOASH/exemption requirements.
3. EPA's Evaluation and Proposed Action
    Similar to the RFP requirements, Alaska withdrew and resubmitted 
State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol II, Chapter III.D.7.10 as part of 
submission of the Fairbanks 189(d) Plan. The QMs are based on Alaska's 
proposed control strategy and attainment date of 2024. Therefore, the 
approvability of the QMs is dependent, in part, on the approvability of 
the control strategy and modeled attainment demonstration. 
Specifically, if the control strategy does not include all required 
control measures, then the QMs will necessarily be deficient. Alaska 
will need to submit a new attainment demonstration with new projected 
attainment date, and by extension, reevaluate whether the QMs for each 
milestone year are appropriate. Here, the control strategy does not 
contain all required control measures. Therefore, the QMs are, by 
extension, deficient and EPA is proposing to disapprove the State Air 
Quality Control Plan, Vol II, Chapter III.D.7.10, with respect to QMs.

G. Contingency Measures

1. Statutory and Regulatory Requirements
    In accordance with CAA section 172(c)(9) and 40 CFR 51.1014, 
contingency measures are additional control measures to be implemented 
following a determination by EPA that a state or area has failed: (1) 
to meet RFP requirements, (2) to meet any quantitative milestone, (3) 
to submit a quantitative milestone report, or (4) to attain the 
PM2.5 standard by the applicable attainment date.\189\ In 
accordance with CAA section 172(c)(9) and 40 CFR 51.1014, a Serious 
area attainment plan and a 189(d) plan must include continency measure 
provisions that meet the following requirements:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \189\ 81 FR 58010, August 24, 2016, at pp. 58092-58093.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    a. Each contingency measure shall take effect with minimal further 
action by the state or EPA following a determination by EPA that any of 
the triggering events occurs.
    b. Contingency measures shall consist of control measures that are 
not otherwise included in the control strategy or that achieve 
emissions reductions not otherwise relied upon in the control strategy.
    c. Each contingency measure shall specify the timeframe within 
which its requirements become effective following an applicable 
determination by EPA.
    d. The attainment plan submission shall contain a description of 
the specific trigger mechanisms for the contingency measure and specify 
a schedule for implementation.
    In addition to the regulatory requirements listed in this section, 
longstanding EPA guidance indicates that contingency measures should 
result in emission reductions approximately equivalent to one year's 
worth of emissions reductions necessary to achieve RFP for the area. By 
extension, given this linkage between contingency measures and RFP, the 
contingency measures ought to achieve emissions reductions of both 
direct PM2.5 and PM2.5 plan precursors. In the 
rare event that an area is unable to identify contingency measures to 
account for approximately 1 year's worth of emissions reductions, the 
state should provide a reasoned justification why the smaller amount of 
emissions reductions is appropriate.\190\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \190\ Id. at 58067 and 58093.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A state can rely on contingency measures that achieve emissions 
reductions on sources located outside the nonattainment area, but 
within the state provided that the measures on sources outside the 
designated nonattainment area are demonstrated to produce the 
appropriate air quality impact within the nonattainment area. The state 
cannot rely on already implemented Federal, state, or local measures to 
satisfy the contingency measure requirement.\191\ To be approvable, 
contingency measures have to be both conditional and prospective such 
that emissions reductions will occur after a triggering event, such as

[[Page 1490]]

EPA's determination that the area failed to attain by the applicable 
attainment date. Furthermore, if the contingency measures themselves do 
not provide for emissions reductions equal to one-year's worth of RFP, 
the deficiency cannot be made up through additional emissions 
reductions projected due to already implemented measures even if the 
state has not relied upon those emission reductions for the purpose of 
meeting the RFP or attainment demonstration requirements.\192\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \191\ Bahr v. EPA, 836 F.3d 1218, at pp. 1235-36 (9th Cir. 
2016).
    \192\ Assoc. of Irritated Residents v. EPA, 10 F.4th 937, at pp. 
946-947 (9th Cir. 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With regard to the timing for implementing contingency measures, 
EPA reiterates that the purpose of contingency measures is to ensure 
that corrective measures are put in place automatically at the time 
that EPA makes a determination that an area has failed to meet RFP, 
failed to meet any quantitative milestone, failed to submit a 
quantitative milestone report or failed to meet the NAAQS by the 
applicable attainment date. These measures are intended to provide 
additional emission reductions during the period that the state and EPA 
take necessary action to cure the deficiency through subsequent SIP 
submissions. For any nonattainment area, EPA is required to determine 
within 90 days after receiving a state's QM Report, and within 6 months 
after the attainment date for an area, whether the state has met its 
statutory obligations for demonstrating RFP or attaining the standard, 
as appropriate. EPA expects that contingency measures should become 
effective within 60 days of EPA making its determination with respect 
to any of the four triggers for such measures.
2. Summary of State's Submission
    As a threshold matter, Alaska submitted a revision to state 
regulations at 18 AAC 50.030(c) such that all contingency measures 
included in nonattainment area plans are triggered based on the 
effective date of an EPA finding that a particular nonattainment area 
failed: (i) to attain the applicable NAAQS by the applicable attainment 
date; (ii) to meet a quantitative milestone; (iii) to submit a required 
quantitative milestone report; or (iv) to meet a reasonable further 
progress requirement.
    In addition, Alaska included in the Fairbanks Serious Plan a new 
rule section 18 AAC 50.077(n) as part of the new wood-fired heating 
device regulations, that created two contingency measures. When 
initially adopted the measures were designed to be triggered upon any 
of the determinations listed in 40 CFR 51.1014(a). The first measure 
requires owners of older EPA-certified wood fired heating devices with 
an emission rating above 2.0 grams per hour (g/hr), manufactured at 
least 25 years prior to the effective date of an EPA finding that 
triggers this measure, to remove the device upon the sale of a property 
or by December 31, 2024, whichever is earlier. The second measure 
requires owners of EPA-certified devices that were manufactured less 
than 25 years prior to EPA finding to remove the device prior to 
reaching 25 years from the date of manufacture. Control measures 
targeting the older EPA certified devices will provide additional 
emission reduction benefits beyond Alaska's current home heating 
control measures. On September 24, 2021, EPA approved these two 
measures as SIP strengthening (86 FR 52997), but EPA did not determine 
whether these measures met contingency measure requirements.
    The Fairbanks 189(d) Plan included an additional contingency 
measure, as a revision to State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol II, 
Chapter III.D.7.12 (Fairbanks Emergency Episode Plan) that, if 
triggered, lowers the air quality woodstove curtailment Stage 2 
threshold from 30 [micro]g/m\3\ to 25 [micro]g/m\3\. The approach the 
State used to calculate emission benefits that would result from the 
lower curtailment threshold was consistent with the approach it used to 
estimate emission benefits resulting from reductions of the curtailment 
program thresholds for Stage 1 from 25 [micro]g/m\3\ to 20 [micro]g/
m\3\ and Stage 2 from 35 [micro]g/m\3\ to 30 [micro]g/m\3\, 
respectively. The State estimated this amount of emission reductions 
based on a weighting of the 35 modeling episode days under which either 
Stage 1, Stage 2, or no alert restrictions would have occurred based on 
measured PM2.5 concentrations for each episode day.
    In the Fairbanks 189(d) Plan submission, Alaska estimated that the 
combined PM2.5 emission benefits will be minimal if the 
measures are triggered prior to 2024 but then will be 0.08 tons per day 
by 2024. Based on data presented earlier in the Fairbanks 189(d) Plan, 
Table 7.10-5, the State reasoned that one year of RFP for the area 
under the Plan would be 0.24 tons per day of PM2.5 emission 
reductions. In addition, the State provided information related to 
additional emission reductions based on funding anticipated under the 
2019-2020 Targeted Airshed Grant program (for which benefits were not 
included in the attainment and RFP analysis). We again note here that 
the State cannot rely on already implemented Federal, state, or local 
measures to satisfy the contingency measure requirement.\193\ 
Nonetheless, Alaska estimated an additional 0.66 tons per day of 
incremental PM2.5 reductions would result from Wood Stove 
Change Out Program expansion and Curtailment Program enhancements by 
2024. Summing these benefits yields a total of 0.86 tons per day of 
direct PM2.5 emission reductions. After accounting for 
measure benefits overlap, the State calculated that combined reductions 
of 0.53 tons per day of PM2.5 reductions could result from 
the contingency measures and other additional measures, and this amount 
would be more than one year of RFP (0.24 tons per day of 
PM2.5). As shown in the bottom row if Table 7.10-7, these 
excess reductions above the one-year advancement target were estimated 
to be 0.29 tons per day.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \193\ Bahr v. EPA, 836 F.3d 1218, at pp. 1235-36 (9th Cir. 
2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Moreover, the State's modeled attainment demonstration projected 
attainment in 2024, and included the finding that the modeled 2024 
design value at the controlling monitor within the nonattainment area 
would be 31 [micro]g/m\3\, leaving a margin between this modeled value 
and the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS of 35 [micro]g/m\3\. 
According to Alaska, this projected margin, combined with the surplus 
emission benefits from the additional woodstove changeout and 
curtailment measures discussed in section III.C of this document, would 
provide the emission reductions more than the equivalent of one year's 
worth of RFP in the nonattainment area.
3. EPA's Evaluation and Proposed Action
    EPA has reviewed the State's contingency measures included in the 
Fairbanks Serious Plan and Fairbanks 189(d) Plan. Regarding Alaska's 
revisions to 18 AAC 50.030(c) to incorporate central triggering 
mechanisms for contingency measures, we propose to find that this 
regulation is consistent with 40 CFR 51.1014(a). The regulation mirrors 
the triggering events in 40 CFR 51.1014(a). An evaluation of the 
specific contingency measures submitted under each nonattainment plan 
is included in this section. In summary, EPA proposes to approve the 
contingency measure submitted as part of the Fairbanks 189(d) Plan as 
SIP-strengthening, but proposes to disapprove the Fairbanks Serious 
Plan and Fairbanks 189(d) Plan submissions as not meeting the 
contingency measure requirements of CAA section 172(c)(9) and 40 CFR 
51.1014.

[[Page 1491]]

a. Fairbanks Serious Plan
    The first measure included in the Fairbanks Serious Plan requires 
owners of older, less efficient EPA-certified wood fired heating 
devices to remove the device upon the sale of a property or by December 
31, 2024, whichever is earlier. The second measure requires owners of 
EPA-certified devices that were manufactured less than 25 years prior 
to EPA's finding to remove the device prior to reaching 25 years from 
the date of manufacture. We note that, EPA approved these two measures 
as SIP strengthening on September 24, 2021, (86 FR 52997).
    Trigger mechanism: These two contingency measures are subject to 
Alaska's regulation 18 AAC 50.030(c) that is consistent with the 
triggers in 40 CFR 51.1014(a).
    Measures not otherwise included in control strategy: At the time of 
adoption and submission to EPA, these measures were not otherwise 
included in the control strategy. These measures address the largest 
emissions source in the nonattainment area and were not otherwise 
included in the Fairbanks Serious Plan's control strategy. At the time 
of adoption and submission to EPA, these measures were expected to 
produce emissions benefits in addition to the projected emissions 
reductions under the control strategy and were not required to meet RFP 
or to attain by the attainment date. However, these measures were 
triggered on October 2, 2020, the effective date of EPA's determination 
that the Fairbanks Nonattainment Area failed to attain the NAAQS by the 
Serious area attainment date.
    Implementation schedule: The contingency measures are effective 
once triggered under 18 AAC 50.030(c). While the majority of emissions 
reductions are expected by 2024, components of the measure require 
immediate action, including when a device is sold, leased, or conveyed 
as part of an existing building) or removal once the device reaches a 
certain age based on the date of manufacture. The final deadline for 
removal of all EPA-certified stoves older than 25 years is December 31, 
2024. We note that the emission reductions that would occur 
immediately, or within the first year of implementation, after the 
measures are triggered are not equal to 1 years' worth of RFP.
    One year's emissions reductions: Control measures targeting the 
older EPA certified devices will provide additional emission reduction 
benefits beyond Alaska's current home heating control measures. The 
contingency measures are expected to provide PM2.5 
reductions of 0.01 tons per day (averaged over the modeling episodes) 
in its first year of implementation and each year thereafter through 
2024.\194\ Alaska further calculated the emissions benefits of 0.025 
tons per day that would begin in 2024 in the State Air Quality Control 
Plan, Appendix III.D.7.10, and 0.15 tons per day of direct 
PM2.5 can be achieved by 2029 based on a 70 percent 
penetration/compliance rate.\195\ To attain by the projected attainment 
date, Alaska projected 1 years' worth of emissions reductions are 0.24 
tons per day. Therefore, the emissions reductions achieved through 
these contingency measures would not be sufficient to demonstrate 1 
years' worth of RFP. Further we note that Alaska did not evaluate 
whether these contingency measures would achieve emission reductions 
for the applicable PM2.5 plan precursors, including 
SO2 and NH3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \194\ Fairbanks SIP Contingency Measure Emission Reductions, 
submitted to EPA on August 17, 2020, included in the docket for this 
proposed action. Alaska stated that a compliance rate of 10% was 
estimated based on the frequency these older stoves/inserts would be 
identified and replaced through residential home resales. Alaska 
identified data published in the Fairbanks Community Research 
Quarterly, that Fairbanks Borough averaged 1,215 home sales per year 
from 2017-2019, the most recent period of available data. Accounting 
for the fraction that are re-sales (that trigger a compliance 
mechanism) and within the nonattainment area, along with the 
fraction of homes with 25-year old wood stoves, yielded the 
estimated ``compliance'' rate of 10%.
    \195\ State Air Quality Control Plan, Appendix III.D.7.10
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Conclusion: Because these measures do not meet all of the statutory 
and regulatory requirements for contingency measures, we propose to 
disapprove these measures as meeting the contingency measure 
requirement under CAA section 172(c)(9) or 40 CFR 51.1014.
b. Fairbanks 189(d) Plan
    The contingency measure Alaska identified as part of the Fairbanks 
189(d) Plan increases the stringency of the curtailment program for 
wood-fired heating devices, a critical element of the Fairbanks 
attainment plan. The contingency measure would lower the Stage 2 
curtailment threshold from 30 to 25 [micro]g/m\3\, under the Fairbanks 
Emergency Episode Plan, State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol II, Chapter 
III.D.7.12.
    Trigger mechanism: This contingency measure, specified under the 
Fairbanks Emergency Episode Plan, State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol 
II, Chapter III.D.7.12, is subject to Alaska's regulation 18 AAC 
50.030(c), which includes the trigger mechanisms described in 40 CFR 
51.1014(a).
    Measures not otherwise included in control strategy: this measure 
addresses the largest emissions source in the nonattainment area and 
was not otherwise included in the Fairbanks 189(d) Plan's control 
strategy. Thus, this measure, if triggered, is expected to produce 
emissions benefits in addition to the project emissions reductions 
under the control strategy.
    Implementation schedule: The contingency measures are effective 
once triggered under 18 AAC 50.030(c) and can be implemented with 
minimal delay.
    One year's emissions reductions: EPA projects an emissions benefit 
of 0.08 tons per day when this contingency measure becomes effective. 
We again note that Alaska projects one year of RFP advancement is 0.24 
tons per day. Therefore, this measure is not equal to approximately 1 
years' worth of RFP. This measure meets many requirements for 
contingency measures, but does not provide adequate emissions 
reductions of direct PM2.5 or PM2.5 plan 
precursors. In addition, Alaska has not adequately evaluated whether 
this measure would achieve emissions reductions for PM2.5 
precursors (SO2 or NH3) approximately equivalent 
to 1 years' worth of RFP or whether additional contingency measures for 
PM2.5 precursors (SO2 or NH3) are 
necessary to do so. Nor has Alaska provided a reasoned explanation for 
why reductions in PM2.5 precursors (SO2 or 
NH3) via contingency measures is impracticable.
    Conclusion: The contingency measure included in the Fairbanks 
189(d) Plan, lowering the Stage 2 curtailment threshold from 30 to 25 
[micro]g/m\3\, will improve the current SIP and so we propose to 
approve the measure under the Fairbanks Emergency Episode Plan, State 
Air Quality Control Plan, Vol II, Chapter III.D.7.12, as SIP-
strengthening.
    However, this measure does not provide adequate emissions 
reductions of direct PM2.5 or PM2.5 plan 
precursors. Thus, the contingency measures fall short of serving the 
statutory and regulatory purposes of continuing air quality 
improvement. Alaska did not provide a reasoned justification for why 
the smaller amount of emissions reductions is appropriate. 
Additionally, while the contingency measures address direct 
PM2.5 emissions (and possibly NH3 emissions) from 
the source category that emits the most direct PM2.5, Alaska 
has not adequately evaluated contingency measures for all 
PM2.5 precursors (SO2 or NH3) or 
provided a reasoned explanation for why reductions in PM2.5 
precursors (SO2 or

[[Page 1492]]

NH3) via contingency measures is impracticable.
    For these reasons, we are proposing to disapprove the contingency 
measures in the Fairbanks Serious Plan and Fairbanks 189(d) Plan as 
meeting the requirements of CAA section 172(c)(9) and 40 CFR 51.1014. 
We note that the woodstove device regulations under 18 AAC 50.077(n) 
are already federally enforceable, as they were approved in our 
September 24, 2021, final rule (86 FR 52997), and have been implemented 
based on EPA's finding that the Fairbanks Nonattainment Area failed to 
attain by the Serious attainment date.\196\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \196\ 85 FR 54509, September 2, 2020. Effective October 2, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

H. Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets for Transportation Conformity

1. Statutory and Regulatory Requirements
    CAA section 176(c) requires Federal actions in nonattainment and 
maintenance areas to conform to the goals of the SIP to eliminate or 
reduce the severity and number of violations of the NAAQS and achieve 
expeditious attainment of the standards. Conformity to the goals of the 
SIP means that such actions will not (1) cause or contribute to any new 
violation of a NAAQS, (2) increase the frequency or the severity of an 
existing violation, or (3) delay timely attainment of any NAAQS or 
interim milestones.
    Actions involving Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) or Federal 
Transit Administration (FTA) funding or approval are subject to the 
transportation conformity rule (40 CFR 51.390 and part 93, subpart A). 
Under this rule, metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) in 
nonattainment and maintenance areas coordinate with state air quality 
and transportation agencies, EPA, FHWA and FTA to demonstrate that an 
area's long-range transportation plan (``transportation plan'') and 
transportation improvement program (TIP) conform to the applicable SIP. 
This demonstration is typically made by showing that estimated 
emissions from existing and planned highway and transit systems are 
less than or equal to the motor vehicle emissions budgets (``budgets'') 
contained in all control strategy plans. An attainment plan for the 
PM2.5 NAAQS should include budgets for the attainment year 
and each required QM year, as appropriate. Budgets are generally 
established for specific years and specific pollutants or precursors 
and must reflect all of the motor vehicle control measures contained in 
the attainment and RFP demonstrations (40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)(v)).
    Attainment plans for PM2.5 NAAQS should typically 
identify motor vehicle emission budgets for each QM year and the 
attainment year for direct PM2.5 and NOX (See 40 
CFR 93.102(b)(2)(iv)), and for VOCs, SO2, and 
NH3, if certain criteria in the transportation conformity 
rule are met (See 40 CFR 93.102(b)(2)(v)). All direct PM2.5 
emission budgets in an attainment plan should include direct 
PM2.5 motor vehicle emissions from tailpipe, brake wear, and 
tire wear. A state must also consider whether re-entrained paved and 
unpaved road dust are significant contributors and should be included 
in the direct PM2.5 budget. See 40 CFR 93.102(b) and 
93.122(f) and the conformity rule preamble at 69 FR 40004, 40031-40036 
(July 1, 2004).\197\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \197\ For further information on transportation conformity 
rulemakings, policy guidance and outreach materials, see EPA's 
website at https://www3.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/policy.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Summary of State's Submission
    The Fairbanks 189(d) Plan provided budgets for direct 
PM2.5 for each of the upcoming RFP years (2020, 2023, and 
2026) and the 2024 attainment year identified by Alaska. Budgets for 
NOX were not included because Alaska demonstrated that 
NOX does not significantly contribute to PM2.5 
formation in the Fairbanks Nonattainment Area, see Section III.B in 
this document. For SO2 and NH3, in accordance 
with 40 CFR 93.102(b)(2)(v), transportation-related emissions of these 
precursors have not been found to be significant.
    The direct PM2.5 budgets were calculated using the 
MOVES2014b vehicle emissions model, which was the latest on-road mobile 
sources emissions model available at the time Alaska started developing 
the attainment plan inventory. Alaska used local fleet and fuel inputs 
and the Fairbanks Area Surface Transportation Planning (FAST Planning) 
travel demand model to generate local vehicle travel activity estimates 
over the six-month nonattainment season (October through March). The 
average winter day emissions were used by Alaska to set the motor 
vehicle emissions budgets. Exceedances of the 2006 24-hour 
PM2.5 NAAQS in the Fairbanks PM2.5 Nonattainment 
Area occur almost exclusively during the winter months. Alaska executed 
MOVES2014b with locally developed inputs representative of wintertime 
calendar year 2019 conditions. Table 17 summarizes the regional average 
winter day on-road vehicle PM2.5 emission budgets and the 
related CAA milestone for the nonattainment area.

       Table 17--Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets by Milestone Year
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      On-road
          Calendar year            budgets (tons   CAA-related milestone
                                     per day)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2020............................           0.203  RFP.
2023............................           0.173  RFP.
2024............................           0.163  Attainment.
2026............................           0.146  RFP.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Air Quality Control Plan, Vol II, Chapter III.D.7.14, Table 7.14-
  3.

3. EPA's Evaluation and Proposed Action
    We have evaluated the motor vehicle emissions budgets developed by 
Alaska against our adequacy criteria in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4) as part of 
our review of the approvability of the budgets according to the process 
in 40 CFR 93.118(f)(2). EPA finds that the budgets were clearly 
identified and precisely quantified using MOVES2014b, with appropriate 
consultation among Federal, State, and local agencies. However, budgets 
must be considered with other emissions sources, consistent with 
applicable RFP and attainment requirements, and be consistent with and 
clearly related to the emissions inventory and the control measures in 
the SIP, see 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)(iv) and (v). Since the budgets must 
account for other control measures to determine the appropriate motor 
vehicle budgets, and the control strategy does not include all required 
control measures, then the budgets will necessarily be deficient. 
Therefore, EPA is proposing to disapprove the budgets for the Fairbanks 
PM2.5 Nonattainment Area.

I. Nonattainment New Source Review Requirements Under CAA Section 
189(e)

    CAA section 189(e) specifically requires that the control 
requirements applicable to major stationary sources of direct 
PM2.5 also apply to major stationary sources of 
PM2.5 precursors, except where the Administrator determines 
that such sources do not contribute significantly to PM2.5 
levels that exceed the NAAQS in the area.\198\ The control requirements 
applicable to major stationary sources of direct PM2.5 in a 
Serious PM2.5 nonattainment area include, at minimum, the 
requirements of a nonattainment NSR permit program meeting the 
requirements of CAA sections 172(c)(5) and 189(b)(3). We

[[Page 1493]]

note that EPA approved the nonattainment new source review element of 
the Fairbanks Serious Plan on August 29, 2019 (84 FR 45419). Alaska 
adopted by reference the 40 tons per year significant emissions rates 
for NOX, SO2, and VOC set by EPA, and also 
established a significant emissions rate of 40 tons per year for 
NH3 as a precursor for PM2.5, consistent with the 
thresholds of the other PM2.5 precursors. We propose to find 
that these are reasonable thresholds for an NNSR program and is 
adequate for purposes of meeting requirements in the 189(d) Plan under 
40 CFR 51.003(c)(1)(viii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \198\ General Preamble, 57 FR 13498, April 16, 1992, at pp. 
13539 and 13541-13542.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Consequences of a Disapproval

    This section explains the consequences of a disapproval of a 
required SIP. The Act provides for the imposition of sanctions and the 
promulgation of a Federal implementation plan (FIP) if a state fails to 
submit and fails to obtain EPA approval of a plan revision that 
corrects the deficiencies identified by EPA in its disapproval.

A. The Act's Provisions for Sanctions

    If EPA finalizes disapproval of a required SIP submission, such as 
an attainment plan submission, or a portion thereof, CAA section 179(a) 
provides for the imposition of sanctions unless the deficiency is 
corrected within 18 months of the final rule of disapproval. The first 
sanction would apply 18 months after EPA disapproves the SIP. Under 
EPA's sanctions regulations, 40 CFR 52.31, the first sanction imposed 
at 18 months following a disapproval is 2:1 offsets for sources subject 
to the new source review requirements under CAA section 173. If the 
deficiency remains uncorrected at 24 months after the disapproval a 
second sanction is imposed consisting of a prohibition on the approval 
or funding of certain highway projects.\199\ EPA also has authority 
under CAA section 110(m) to impose sanctions on a broader area but is 
not proposing to impose sanctions on a broader area in this action. The 
imposition of sanctions is avoided or stopped by a final EPA rulemaking 
action finding that the state corrected the SIP deficiencies resulting 
in the disapproval.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \199\ On April 1, 1996, the U.S. Department of Transportation 
published a document in the Federal Register describing the criteria 
to be used to determine which highway projects can be funded or 
approved during the time that the highway sanction is imposed in an 
area. (See 61 FR 14363).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Federal Implementation Plan Provisions That Apply if a State Fails 
To Submit an Approvable Plan

    In addition to sanctions, if EPA finds that a state failed to 
submit the required SIP revision or finalizes disapproval of the 
required SIP revision, or a portion thereof, EPA must promulgate a FIP 
no later than two years from the effective date of the disapproval 
unless the State corrects the deficiency and EPA approves the plan or 
plan revisions before that date.\200\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \200\ CAA section 110(c), 42 U.S.C. 7410(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Ramifications Regarding Transportation Conformity

    One consequence of EPA action finalizing disapproval of a control 
strategy SIP submission is a conformity freeze.\201\ If EPA finalizes 
the disapproval of the attainment demonstration SIP without a 
protective finding, a conformity freeze will be in place as of the 
effective date of the disapproval.\202\ The area's MPO, FAST Planning, 
produces the long-range 20-year metropolitan transportation plan and 
the short-range transportation plan. During a conformity freeze, no new 
transportation projects in the Fairbanks PM2.5 Nonattainment 
Area may be found to conform until another attainment demonstration SIP 
is submitted and the motor vehicle emissions budgets are found to be 
adequate or the attainment demonstration is approved and conformity to 
the revised attainment demonstration SIP is determined. Only projects 
in the first four years of the currently conforming transportation plan 
and transportation improvement program may be found to conform while 
the conformity freeze is in effect. If the SIP deficiency is not 
remedied after 24 months, highway sanctions would be imposed and a 
conformity lapse occurs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \201\ Control strategy SIP revisions as defined in the 
transportation conformity include reasonable further progress plans 
and attainment demonstrations (40 CFR 93.101).
    \202\ 40 CFR 93.120(a)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Summary of Proposed Action

A. Proposed Approval

    In this action, EPA is proposing to approve the submitted revisions 
to the Alaska SIP as meeting the following Serious Plan and CAA section 
189(d) \203\ required elements for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 
NAAQS Fairbanks Nonattainment Area:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \203\ 42 U.S.C. 7513a(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1. The 2019 base year emissions inventory (CAA section 172(c)(3); 
\204\ 40 CFR 51.1008(c)(1)) for areas subject to CAA section 189(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \204\ 42 U.S.C. 7502(c)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. The State's PM2.5 precursor demonstration for 
NOX and VOC emissions (CAA section 189(e); \205\ 40 CFR 
51.1006(a)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \205\ 42 U.S.C. 7513a(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. Partial approval of the control strategy as meeting BACM 
requirements under CAA section 189(b)(1)(B) \206\ and 40 CFR 51.1010(a) 
for the solid-fuel home heating device source category, specific 
regulations under 18 AAC 50.075 through 077, and Fairbanks Emergency 
Episode Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \206\ 42 U.S.C. 7513a(b)(1)(B)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA is proposing to approve the submitted sections of the State Air 
Quality Control Plan for the Fairbanks PM2.5 Nonattainment 
Area, State effective January 8, 2020:
    4. Volume II, Chapter III.D.7.11 Contingency Measures.
    EPA is proposing to approve the submitted chapters of the Alaska 
Air Quality Control Plan for the Fairbanks PM2.5 
Nonattainment Area, State effective December 25, 2020:
    5. Volume II, Chapter III.D.7.06 and Volume III Chapter III.D.7.06 
Emissions Inventory for purposes of the 2019 base year emissions 
inventory.
    6. Volume II, Chapter III.D.7.07 and Volume III Chapter III.D.7.07 
Control Strategies for purposes of the solid-fuel home heating device 
emissions source category.
    7. Volume II, Chapter III.D.7.08 Precursor Demonstration, for the 
purposes of NOX and VOC emissions as it relates to BACM/BACT 
control measure requirements.
    8. Volume II, Chapter III.D.7.11 Contingency Measures.
    9. Volume II, Chapter III.D.7.12 Emergency Episode Plan.
    EPA is proposing to approve and incorporate by reference submitted 
regulatory changes into the Alaska SIP. Upon final approval, the Alaska 
SIP will include:
    10. 18 AAC 50.075, except (d)(2), State effective January 8, 2020, 
(solid fuel-fired heating devices may not exceed 20 percent opacity for 
more than six minutes in any one hour when an air quality advisory is 
in effect).

B. Proposed Disapproval

    EPA is also proposing to disapprove the following revisions to the 
Alaska SIP as not meeting requirements for Serious areas and Serious 
PM2.5 areas that fail to attain:
    1. Attainment projected emissions inventory meeting the 
requirements of

[[Page 1494]]

CAA section 172(c)(1) \207\ and 40 CFR 51.1008(c)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \207\ 42 U.S.C. 7502(c)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. Partial disapproval of the control strategy BACM requirements 
(CAA section 189(b)(1)(B) \208\ and 40 CFR 51.1010(a)) for the 
following emission source categories:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \208\ 42 U.S.C. 7513a(b)(1)(B).

a. Residential and commercial fuel oil-fired devices
b. Requirements for wood sellers
c. Coal-fired heating devices
d. Small commercial area sources, including coffee roasters, 
charbroilers, and used oil burners
e. Weatherization and energy efficiency measures
f. Mobile source emissions

    3. Disapproval of the control strategy BACT requirements (CAA 
section 189(b)(1)(B) \209\ and 40 CFR 51.1010(a)) for the following 
emission sources:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \209\ Id.

a. Chena Power Plant
    i. Coal-fired boilers (PM2.5; NH3; 
SO2)
b. Fort Wainwright
    i. Coal-fired boilers (PM2.5; NH3; 
SO2)
    ii. Diesel-fired boilers (PM2.5; NH3; 
SO2)
    iii. Large diesel-fired engines (PM2.5; NH3; 
SO2)
    iv. Small emergency engines (PM2.5; NH3; 
SO2)
    v. Materials handling (PM2.5; NH3)
c. University of Alaska Fairbanks
    i. Dual fuel-fired boiler (PM2.5; NH3; 
SO2)
    ii. Mid-sized diesel-fired boilers (PM2.5; 
NH3; SO2)
    iii. Small-sized diesel-fired boilers (PM2.5; 
NH3; SO2)
    iv. Large diesel-fired engine (PM2.5; NH3; 
SO2)
    v. Small diesel-fired engines (PM2.5; NH3; 
SO2)
    vi. Pathogenic waste incinerator (PM2.5; NH3; 
SO2)
    vii. Material handling (PM2.5; NH3)
d. Zehnder
    i. Oil-fired simple cycle gas turbines (PM2.5; 
NH3; SO2)
    ii. Diesel-fired emergency generators (PM2.5; 
NH3; SO2)
    iii. Diesel-fired boilers (PM2.5; NH3; 
SO2)
    e. North Pole Power Plant
    i. Oil-fired simple cycle gas turbines (PM2.5; 
NH3; SO2)
    ii. Oil-fired combined cycle gas turbines (PM2.5; 
NH3; SO2)
    iii. Large diesel-fired engine (PM2.5; NH3; 
SO2)
    iv. Propane-fired boiler (PM2.5; NH3; 
SO2)

    4. Additional measures (beyond those already adopted in previous 
nonattainment plan SIP submissions for the area as RACM/RACT, BACM/
BACT, and Most Stringent Measures (MSM) \210\ (if applicable)) under 40 
CFR 51.1010(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \210\ MSM is applicable if EPA has previously granted an 
extension of the attainment date under CAA section 188(e) for the 
nonattainment area and NAAQS at issue. EPA denied Alaska's request 
to extend the Serious area attainment date for the Fairbanks Serious 
Nonattainment Area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    5. Attainment demonstration and modeling meeting the requirements 
of CAA sections 40 CFR 51.1003(c) and 51.1011.
    6. Reasonable further progress (RFP) provisions meeting the 
requirements of CAA section 172(c)(2) \211\ and 40 CFR 51.1012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \211\ 42 U.S.C. 7502(c)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    7. Motor vehicle emission budgets meeting the requirements under 40 
CFR 93.118.
    8. Quantitative milestones meeting the requirements of CAA section 
189(c) \212\ and 40 CFR 51.1013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \212\ 42 U.S.C. 7513a(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    9. Contingency measures meeting the requirements of CAA section 
172(c)(9) \213\ and 40 CFR 51.1014 applicable to Serious areas subject 
to CAA section 189(b) and 189(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \213\ 42 U.S.C. 7502(c)(9).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA is soliciting public comments on these proposed actions.

VI. Incorporation by Reference

    In this document, EPA is proposing to include regulatory text in an 
EPA final rule that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance 
with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is proposing to incorporate by 
reference the regulations described in section V.A. of this document. 
EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally 
available through https://www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region 10 
Office (please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for more information).

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders 
can be found at https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive 
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This action is not a significant regulatory action and was 
therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 
for review.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under 
the PRA, because this proposed SIP approval in part and disapproval in 
part, if finalized, will not in-and-of itself create any new 
information collection burdens, but will simply disapprove certain 
State requirements for inclusion in the SIP.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This 
action will not impose any requirements on small entities. This 
proposed SIP partial disapproval, if finalized, will not in-and-of 
itself create any new requirements but will simply disapprove certain 
State requirements for inclusion in the SIP.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in 
UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect 
small governments. This action proposes to disapprove certain pre-
existing requirements under State or local law, and imposes no new 
requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, or 
tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this action.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have 
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between 
the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power 
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

F. Executive Order 13175: Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

    This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in 
Executive Order 13175, because the SIP revision that EPA is proposing 
to partially disapprove would not apply on any Indian reservation land 
or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that 
a tribe has jurisdiction, and will not impose substantial direct costs 
on tribal governments or preempt tribal law. Thus, Executive Order 
13175 does not apply to this action.

[[Page 1495]]

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental 
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those 
regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks 
that EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, 
per the definition of ``covered regulatory action'' in section 2-202 of 
the Executive Order. This action is not subject to Executive Order 
13045 because this proposed SIP partial disapproval, if finalized, will 
not in-and-of itself create any new regulations, but will simply 
disapprove certain State requirements for inclusion in the SIP.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy 
Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is 
not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

    Section 12(d) of the NTTAA directs EPA to use voluntary consensus 
standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be 
inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. EPA believes 
that this action is not subject to the requirements of section 12(d) of 
the NTTAA because application of those requirements would be 
inconsistent with the CAA.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental 
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Population

    Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629 (February 16, 1994)) establishes 
Federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision 
directs Federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and 
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission 
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high 
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, 
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income 
populations in the United States. EPA's evaluation of this issue is 
contained in the section of the preamble titled ``Environmental Justice 
Considerations.''

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen 
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

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

    Dated: December 30, 2022.
Casey Sixkiller,
Regional Administrator, Region 10.
[FR Doc. 2022-28666 Filed 1-9-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.