Air Plan Approval; AK, Fairbanks North Star Borough; 2006 24-Hour PM2.5 Serious Area and 189(d) Plan, 1600-1634 [2024-30648]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
1600
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 5 / Wednesday, January 8, 2025 / Proposed Rules
https://www.epa.gov/dockets/
commenting-epa-dockets.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R10–OAR–2024–0595; FRL–12391–
02–R10]
Air Plan Approval; AK, Fairbanks North
Star Borough; 2006 24-Hour PM2.5
Serious Area and 189(d) Plan
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Table of Contents
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve
the state implementation plan (SIP)
revisions submitted by the State of
Alaska (Alaska or the State) on
December 4, 2024, to address Clean Air
Act requirements for the 2006 24-hour
fine particulate matter (PM2.5) national
ambient air quality standards in the
Fairbanks North Star Borough Serious
PM2.5 nonattainment area. Alaska’s
submission includes SIP revisions to
meet nonattainment planning
requirements for emissions inventories,
modeling and sulfur dioxide precursor
demonstration for major stationary
sources, control measures, attainment
projections and progress to attainment
and associated motor vehicle emissions
budgets, and contingency measures. The
EPA is also starting the adequacy
process for the budgets.
DATES: Comments. Written comments
must be received on or before February
7, 2025.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R10–
OAR–2024–0595, at https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
Once submitted, comments cannot be
edited or removed from Regulations.gov.
The 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. The 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
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:42 Jan 07, 2025
Jkt 265001
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 the EPA.
I. Background
II. Review of the SIP Revisions to the
Fairbanks Serious Plan and Fairbanks
189(d) Plan
A. Emissions Inventory
B. Pollutants Addressed
C. Control Strategy
D. Attainment Demonstration and
Modeling
E. Reasonable Further Progress
F. Quantitative Milestones
G. Contingency Measures
H. Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets for
Transportation Conformity
III. Summary of Proposed Action
A. Proposed Approval
B. Adequacy Process
IV. Interim Final Determination and Deferral
of Sanctions
V. Incorporation by Reference
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background
In 2009, the EPA designated a portion
of the Fairbanks North Star Borough as
‘‘nonattainment’’ for the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (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, the EPA
classified the area as ‘‘Moderate’’ (79 FR
31566, June 2, 2014). Subsequently,
Alaska submitted, and the EPA
approved, a plan to meet the Moderate
nonattainment area requirements (82 FR
42457, September 8, 2017) (Fairbanks
Moderate Plan).
On May 10, 2017, the 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). The outermost
attainment date is the latest date by
which an area can attain the NAAQS
per statute. 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
1 See
PO 00000
40 CFR 81.302.
Frm 00002
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
requirements of Clean Air Act (CAA or
Act) 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 included 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), the EPA
determined that the Fairbanks Serious
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, the 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
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 narrative
portion of the State Air Quality Control
Plan, adopted and incorporated by
reference into State law at 18 AAC
50.030(a).
On September 24, 2021, the EPA
approved the 2013 base year emissions
inventory and the PM2.5 precursor
2 We note that Alaska submitted a SIP revision on
October 25, 2018, to address the preconstruction
permitting new source review (NSR) requirements
for the Fairbanks Serious nonattainment area,
among other things. The EPA approved the
submission as meeting the nonattainment NSR
requirements for the Fairbanks 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.
4 40 CFR 51.1003(c).
E:\FR\FM\08JAP2.SGM
08JAP2
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 5 / Wednesday, January 8, 2025 / Proposed Rules
demonstration elements of the
Fairbanks Serious Plan as meeting the
Serious area planning requirements (86
FR 52997). In the same action, the EPA
approved other plan components as SIP
strengthening, including: (1) the
updated Fairbanks Emergency Episode
Plan 5 that the State adopted on
November 18, 2020, and submitted on
December 15, 2020; and (2) the
regulatory control measures included in
the SIP submissions on October 25,
2018, and November 28, 2018 (in
addition to the December 13, 2019,
submission).6 The 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.
1601
Finally, on December 5, 2023, the
EPA acted on the remaining elements
required for a Serious nonattainment
area that failed to attain by the Serious
area attainment date. Table 1 of this
preamble provides a summary of the
December 5, 2023, final rule approving
in part and disapproving in part the
Fairbanks Serious Plan and Fairbanks
189(d) Plan.7
TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF THE EPA’S DECEMBER 5, 2023, FINAL RULE
Description of CAA planning requirement
Approval
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Base year emissions inventory for Serious areas subject to
CAA section 189(b) * (CAA section 172(c)(3); 8 40 CFR
51.1008(b)(1)).
Base year emissions inventory for areas subject to CAA
section 189(d) (CAA section 172(c)(3); 40 CFR
51.1008(c)(1)).
Attainment projected emissions inventory (CAA section
172(c)(1); 9 40 CFR 51.1008(c)(2)).
Serious area nonattainment plan control strategy that ensures that best available control measures (BACM), including best available control technologies (BACT), for the
control of direct PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors are implemented in the nonattainment area (CAA section
189(b)(1)(B); 10 40 CFR 51.1010(a)).
Additional measures (beyond those already adopted in previous nonattainment plan SIP submissions for the area as
RACM/RACT, BACM/BACT, and Most Stringent Measures (MSM) 15 (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 emissions of direct PM2.5 or any
PM2.5 plan precursor. (CAA section 189(d); 16 40 CFR
51.1010(c)).
Attainment demonstration and modeling (CAA sections
188(c)(2) and 189(b)(1)(A); 17 40 CFR 51.1003(c) and
51.1011).
Reasonable further progress (RFP) provisions (CAA section
172(c)(2); 18 40 CFR 51.1012).
Quantitative milestones (CAA section 189(c); 19 40 CFR
51.1013).
5 State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol. II, section
III.D.7.12 (i.e., Alaska’s planning chapter related to
air quality forecasting and curtailment levels).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:42 Jan 07, 2025
Jkt 265001
Disapproval
Approval of the 2013 base year emissions inventory.
Approval of the 2019 base year emissions inventory.
.................................................................................
Disapproval.
Partial approval of the control strategy as meeting
BACM and BACT requirements under CAA section 189(b)(1)(B) 11 and 40 CFR 51.1010(a) for
the solid fuel home heating device source category and residential and commercial fuel oil
combustion source category;
Partial approval of the control strategy approved
as meeting BACM and BACT requirements
under CAA section 189(b)(1)(B) 12 and 40 CFR
51.1010(a) for the charbroiler, used oil burner,
and mobile source categories (except for rejection of vehicle anti-idling requirements);
Approval of specific regulations under 18 AAC
50.075 through 077 (except the requirements
for dry wood sellers under 18 AAC 50.076(k)),
and Fairbanks Emergency Episode Plan (except the contingency measure portion);
Partial approval as meeting applicable control
strategy BACM and BACT requirements (CAA
section 189(b)(1)(B) and 40 CFR 51.1010(a))
for ammonia (NH3) for the Chena Power Plant,
Doyon-Fort Wainwright Central Heating and
Power Plant, University of Alaska Fairbanks
Campus Power Plant, Zehnder Power Plant,
and North Pole Power Plant;
Partial approval of Alaska’s PM2.5 and NH3 BACT
determinations for the Doyon-Fort Wainwright
Central Heating and Power Plant; PM2.5 and
NH3 BACT determination for the University of
Alaska Fairbanks Campus Power Plant, except
for the three small diesel fired engines (EUs 23,
26, and 27); PM2.5 and NH3 BACT determinations for the Zehnder Power Plant; PM2.5 and
NH3 BACT determinations for the North Pole
Power Plant.
.................................................................................
Disapproval of the control strategy BACM and
BACT requirements (CAA section
189(b)(1)(B) 13 and 40 CFR 51.1010(a)) for the
following emissions source categories: (1) Requirements for wood sellers; (2) Coal-fired heating devices; (3) Coffee roasters; (4) Weatherization and energy efficiency measures; (5) Mobile source category (disapproving for lack of
vehicle anti-idling requirements);
Disapproval of the control strategy BACM and
BACT requirements (CAA section
189(b)(1)(B) 14 and 40 CFR 51.1010(a)) for
PM2.5 and sulfur dioxide (SO2) for the DoyonFort Wainwright Central Heating and Power
Plant, University of Alaska Fairbanks Campus
Power Plant, Zehnder Power Plant, and North
Pole Power Plant.
Disapproval.
.................................................................................
Disapproval.
.................................................................................
Disapproval.
.................................................................................
Disapproval.
6 For a description of the specific control
measures addressed across the State’s SIP
submissions, see 86 FR 52997, September 24, 2021.
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
7 88
E:\FR\FM\08JAP2.SGM
FR 84626, December 5, 2023.
08JAP2
1602
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 5 / Wednesday, January 8, 2025 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF THE EPA’S DECEMBER 5, 2023, FINAL RULE—Continued
Description of CAA planning requirement
Approval
Motor vehicle emission budgets (CAA section 176, 40 CFR
51.1003(d) and 93.118).
An adequate evaluation by the state of sources of all four
PM2.5 precursors for regulation, and implementation of
controls on all such precursors, unless the state provides
a demonstration establishing that it is either not necessary
to regulate a particular precursor in the nonattainment
area at issue in order to attain by the attainment date, or
that emissions of the precursor do not make a significant
contribution to PM2.5 levels that exceed the standard.*
(CAA section 189(e); 20 40 CFR 51.1006).
Contingency measures applicable to Serious areas subject
to CAA section 189(b) (CAA section 172(c)(9); 21 40 CFR
51.1014).
.................................................................................
Disapproval
Disapproval.
Approval of the State’s comprehensive PM2.5 precursor demonstrations for NOX and VOC emissions.
.................................................................................
Contingency measures applicable to Serious areas subject
to CAA section 189(d) (CAA section 172(c)(9); 40 CFR
51.1014).
.................................................................................
Nonattainment new source review provisions (CAA sections
172(c)(5), 189(b)(3), 189(d), and 189(e), and 40 CFR
51.165, 40 CFR 51.1003(b)(1)(viii), and 40 CFR
51.1003(c)(1)(viii) 24.
Approval.
Disapproval of the contingency measures requirements of CAA section 172(c)(9) 22 and 40 CFR
51.1014 applicable to Serious areas subject to
CAA sections 189(b) and 189(d).
The EPA finalized a limited disapproval of the
Fairbanks 189(d) Plan contingency measure because the contingency measure did not fully
meet the contingency measure requirements of
CAA section 172(c)(9) and 40 CFR 51.1014 but
otherwise strengthened the SIP.23
* The EPA finalized approval of this requirement on September 24, 2021 (86 FR 52997).
On December 4, 2024, Alaska made a
SIP submission (Fairbanks Revised
189(d) Plan) intended to address the
nonattainment requirements that were
disapproved as part of the EPA’s
December 5, 2023, final rule. CAA
sections 110(a)(1) and (2) and 110(l)
require each state to provide reasonable
public notice and opportunity for public
hearing prior to the adoption and
submission of a SIP or SIP revision to
the EPA. To meet this requirement,
every SIP submission must include
evidence that the state provided
adequate public notice and an
opportunity for a public hearing
consistent with the EPA’s implementing
regulations in 40 CFR 51.102.
8 42
U.S.C. 7502(c)(3).
U.S.C. 7502(c)(1).
U.S.C. 7513a(b)(1)(B).
11 42 U.S.C. 7513a(b)(1)(B).
12 Id.
13 42 U.S.C. 7513a(b)(1)(B).
14 42 U.S.C. 7513a(b)(1)(B).
15 MSM is applicable if the EPA has previously
granted an extension of the attainment date under
CAA section 188(e) for the nonattainment area and
NAAQS at issue. The EPA denied Alaska’s request
to extend the Serious area attainment date for the
Fairbanks PM2.5 Nonattainment Area.
16 42 U.S.C. 7513a(d).
17 42 U.S.C. 7513(c)(2) and 7513a(b)(1)(A).
18 42 U.S.C. 7502(c)(2).
19 42 U.S.C. 7513a(c).
20 42 U.S.C. 7513a(e).
21 42 U.S.C. 7502(c)(9).
22 42 U.S.C. 7502(c)(9).
23 The EPA finalized a limited approval of the
Fairbanks Emergency Episode Plan, State Air
Quality Control Plan, Vol. II, section III.D.7.12, as
SIP-strengthening on September 24, 2021. 86 FR
52997, September 24, 2021, at pp. 52997, 53004.
24 42 U.S.C. 7502(c)(5), 7513a(b)(3), 7513a(d), and
7513a(e).
9 42
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
10 42
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:42 Jan 07, 2025
Jkt 265001
On March 11, 2024, Alaska notified
the public of the opportunity to review
and comment on proposed regulatory
changes related to the Fairbanks
nonattainment area and announced two
formal public hearings on April 10,
2024. The public comment period
closed on May 10, 2024. Later, on
August 26, 2024, Alaska opened a
public comment period to solicit public
review of amendments to numerous SIP
sections and appendices and to notify
the public of two hearings scheduled on
September 26, 2024. On September 20
and 23, 2024, Alaska opened comment
periods for the public to review each
proposed permit revision to implement
the State’s proposed regulatory changes.
The comment periods closed on October
22 and 25, 2024, respectively. The SIP
submission includes evidence of the
public notices and copies of written and
oral comments received, with the State’s
associated responses. Therefore, we find
that the submission meets the
procedural requirements for public
notice and hearing in CAA sections
110(a) and 110(l) and 40 CFR 51.102.
CAA section 110(k)(1)(B) requires the
EPA to determine whether a SIP
submission is complete within 60 days
of receipt. This section also provides
that any plan that the EPA has not
affirmatively determined to be complete
or incomplete will become complete by
operation of law six months after the
date of submission. The EPA reviewed
the submission and finds it complete
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
based on the EPA’s SIP completeness
criteria in 40 CFR part 51, appendix V.25
Section II of this document
summarizes the EPA’s review of
Alaska’s SIP submission against the
relevant CAA requirements. The EPA’s
technical analysis is detailed in
technical support documents in the
docket for this action.
II. Review of the SIP Revisions to the
Fairbanks Serious Plan and Fairbanks
189(d) Plan
A. Emissions Inventory
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. On
August 24, 2016, the EPA finalized
regulations implementing SIP
requirements for states with areas
designated as nonattainment for the
PM2.5 NAAQS.26 This rule is codified at
40 CFR part 51, subpart Z and is
referred to herein as the PM2.5 SIP
Requirements Rule. The PM2.5 SIP
Requirements Rule at 40 CFR 51.1008
contains the requirements for emissions
25 See ‘‘SIP Submittal Checklist for the Fairbanks
North Star Borough PM2.5 Nonattainment Area—
2024 SIP revision,’’ EPA Region 10, Air and
Radiation Division, included in the docket for this
action.
26 Fine Particulate Matter National Ambient Air
Quality Standards: State Implementation Plan
Requirements, 81 FR 58010, August 24, 2016, at p.
58149.
E:\FR\FM\08JAP2.SGM
08JAP2
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 5 / Wednesday, January 8, 2025 / Proposed Rules
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
inventories.27 The EPA has also issued
additional guidance concerning
emissions inventories for PM2.5
nonattainment areas.28 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
the 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.29
Similarly, the base year emissions
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 the EPA to
determine the area failed to attain 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.30
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 emissions
inventories, and justification for the
period used for any seasonal emissions
calculations.31
According to 40 CFR 51.1008, the
Fairbanks Revised 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
27 81 FR 58010, August 24, 2016, at pp. 58078–
58079.
28 ‘‘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.
29 40 CFR 51.1008(b)(1).
30 40 CFR 51.1008(c)(1).
31 40 CFR 51.1008.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:42 Jan 07, 2025
Jkt 265001
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
(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.32 In estimating mobile
source emissions, a state must use the
latest emissions models and planning
assumptions available at the time the
SIP is developed.33 States are also
required to use the EPA’s ‘‘Compilation
of Air Pollutant Emission Factors’’
(‘‘AP–42’’) road dust method for
calculating re-entrained road dust
emissions from paved roads.34 35
32 40 CFR 51.1008(c); (a)(1)(v); 81 FR 58010,
August 24, 2016, at pp. 58027–29.
33 See CAA section 172(c)(3).
34 The 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
emissions tests results. 76 FR 6328 (February 4,
2011).
35 AP–42 has been published since 1972 as the
primary source of the EPA’s emission factor
information. https://www.epa.gov/airemissionsfactors-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.
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
1603
2. Summary of the EPA’s Prior
Rulemaking Regarding the Emissions
Inventory
On December 5, 2023, the EPA
finalized approval of the base year
emissions inventory, but the EPA
finalized disapproval of the projected
attainment year emissions inventory.
The EPA stated that, due to the
insufficient control strategy, the
attainment projected emissions
inventory did not necessarily take into
consideration all required emissions
reductions.
3. Summary of the State’s Submission
Regarding the Emissions Inventory
Based on the EPA’s approval of the
initial Fairbanks 189(d) Plan’s base year
emissions inventory, Alaska retained
State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol. II,
section III.D.7.6.2. However, Alaska has
since updated the modeling platform
and included a 2020 base year
emissions inventory in the Fairbanks
Revised 189(d) Plan. The modeling
platform includes key elements such as
the meteorological modeling, air quality
modeling, and model emissions
inventories. The base year planning
emissions inventory for direct PM2.5 and
PM2.5 precursors (nitrogen oxides
(NOX), SO2, volatile organic compounds
(VOC), and ammonia (NH3)) and the
documentation for the inventory for the
Fairbanks PM2.5 Nonattainment Area are
located in the updated Fairbanks
Emissions Inventory section.36
For projecting attainment, the 2020
base year emissions inventory
incorporates the ambient monitoring
data used to establish the baseline
design value. Alaska stated that the
2020 base year emissions inventory
accounts for emissions reductions from
control measures adopted and
implemented through December 31,
2019. Projected control measure-driven
emissions reductions are then applied to
evaluate the appropriate attainment
date. Alaska also noted that, for
planning purposes, the base year
emissions inventory represents a
baseline of nonattainment area
emissions to demonstrate five percent
per year emissions reductions.
Alaska stated that the Fairbanks
Revised 189(d) Plan includes an entirely
new photochemical modeling platform
and, for the emissions inventory,
features a new, more current winter
2019–2020 modeling episode. Episodic
emissions for the 2020 base year
inventory were based on activity
collected to represent this 74-day 2019–
2020 period.
36 State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol. II, section
III.D.7.6.9.
E:\FR\FM\08JAP2.SGM
08JAP2
1604
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 5 / Wednesday, January 8, 2025 / Proposed Rules
For point sources, day- and hourspecific fuel use for the new 2019–2020
modeling episode were obtained by
Alaska from each of the point source
facilities within the nonattainment area.
Alaska noted that unlike the base year
emissions inventories from earlier
versions of the nonattainment plan,
which projected episodic emissions
from 2008 to 2013 and 2019,
respectively, Alaska stated that the 2020
base year point source emissions
inventory was based on the actual data
during the modeling episodes.
Alaska stated that, for space heating
area sources, space heating energy usage
estimates for the 2020 base year
emissions inventory were based on a
comprehensive new Fairbanks Home
Heating survey, conducted in the spring
of 2023. Respondents were asked to
provide information on fuel usage by
device in their household for the most
recent two calendar years (2021 and
2022) as well as the six-month winter
period between October 2022 and
March 2023. Data from this 2023 survey
were used to replace projected space
heating emissions developed under
previous SIP revisions using earlier
2011–2015 surveys. Alaska noted that
decreases in the fraction of wood
devices used in the nonattainment area
and the amount of wood use per device
from the survey respondents tracked
well with downward trajectories of
wood use expected from existing and
on-going control programs such as the
Fairbanks North Star Borough’s (FNSB)
Wood Stove Change Out Program and
the Alaska DEC’s Solid Fuel-Burning
Appliance Curtailment Program. Alaska
stated that survey results were then
back-casted to calendar year 2020 to
provide a more realistic estimate of
wood-fired heating use for the 2020 base
year emissions inventory.37
For on-road and non-road mobile
sources, Alaska noted that the previous
base year emissions inventories
included on-road vehicle populations
and age distributions based on 2014 and
2018 department of motor vehicle
(DMV) registration data, respectively.
For the Fairbanks Revised 189(d) Plan,
2020 DMV registration data were used
to align with the 2020 base year
emissions inventory year. For on-road
mobile sources, these 2020 DMV data
were used to develop vehicle
population, age distribution, and fuel
type/technology inputs to the MOVES3
vehicle emissions model. For aircraft
activity specifically, a recent adjustment
to aircraft activity in the initial
Fairbanks 189(d) Plan was made to
reflect lower aircraft activity during the
winter months. Otherwise, the estimates
of aircraft activity in the Fairbanks
Revised 189(d) Plan were unchanged.
Table 2 of this preamble includes a
summary of the base year emissions
inventory.
TABLE 2—2020 BASE YEAR EPISODE AVERAGE DAILY EMISSIONS BY SOURCE SECTOR
2020 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 ..................................................................................................................
Mobile, On-Road ..........................................................................................................
Mobile, Aircraft .............................................................................................................
Mobile, Non-Road excluding aircraft ...........................................................................
0.58
1.97
1.89
0.06
0.00
0.02
0.11
0.07
0.12
0.09
13.54
2.17
0.23
1.72
0.00
0.22
0.36
1.18
0.43
0.29
6.63
3.61
0.04
3.54
0.00
0.02
0.03
0.000
5.44
0.00
0.04
6.66
6.55
0.10
0.00
0.01
2.21
1.42
0.15
2.64
0.888
0.109
0.067
0.003
0.00
0.039
0.047
0.040
0.000
0.0001
Totals ....................................................................................................................
2.95
17.96
15.71
13.04
0.285
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Source: State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol. II, section III.D.7.6, Table 7.6–9.
Alaska noted for PM2.5 overall, the
2020 base year emissions in the
Fairbanks Revised 189(d) Plan are nine
percent lower than the 2019 base year
emissions inventory in the initial
Fairbanks 189(d) Plan, with differences
coming from space heating and mobile
sources that are likely the result of ongoing emissions controls.38
Alaska stated that NOX and SO2
emissions in the Fairbanks Revised
189(d) Plan are 17 and nine percent
higher respectively than in the initial
Fairbanks 189(d) Plan. Alaska asserted
that these emissions increases are
largely driven by changes in the Point
(and Other Area) source emissions,
since the new 74-day 2019–2020
modeling episode was based on actual
emissions. In addition, the increases in
NOX and SO2 emissions for the Other
Area source sector under the Fairbanks
Revised 189(d) Plan are due to moving
stationary source emissions from
Eielson AFB to this sector. Under the
previous base year emissions
inventories, stationary source emissions
from Eielson were contained in the
Point source portion of the inventory.
The reductions in VOC emissions in
the Fairbanks Revised 189(d) Plan are
due to mobile source sector reductions
in the MOVES3 model. The initial
Fairbanks 189(d) Plan inventory was
based on an earlier version of MOVES
that reflected higher VOC emission
factors. In addition, Alaska stated that
VOC reductions in the Space Heating
sector are likely the result of differences
in the mix of wood use by device
between the two inventories. The
Fairbanks Revised 189(d) Plan inventory
reflects higher usage fractions of
certified and pellet-based wood burning
devices based on data from new 2023
Home Heating survey, and these devices
have lower VOC emission factors.
Finally, Alaska noted that the
difference in overall NH3 emissions
between the two base year inventories is
very modest (one percent lower under
37 For a description of the ‘‘back-cast’’ method,
see Kotchenruther, Robert. (November 21, 2024).
Technical support document for Alaska
Department of Environmental Conservation’s
amendments to: State Air Quality Control Plan,
Emission Inventory Data (version August 19, 2024).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10,
Laboratory Services and Applied Science Division,
EPA–R10–OAR–2024–0595, section 1.5.
38 For more details of the 2019 base year
emissions inventory, see 88 FR 1454, January 10,
2023, at p. 1460.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:42 Jan 07, 2025
Jkt 265001
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\08JAP2.SGM
08JAP2
1605
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 5 / Wednesday, January 8, 2025 / Proposed Rules
the Fairbanks Revised 189(d) base year
emissions inventory). These source
sector-specific variations mirror the
adjustments made to PM2.5, SO2, NOX,
and VOC emissions discussed earlier in
this section II.A of this preamble.
Building from Alaska’s new 2020 base
year emissions inventory, Alaska
developed its attainment projections. As
a first step, Alaska constructed a 2027
baseline emissions inventory that
reflected projected activity growth
factors, previously implemented control
measures, and other adjustments to
point sources and wood usage.39
As a second step, Alaska developed
the 2027 projected attainment emissions
inventory by adjusting the 2027 baseline
inventory to account for projected
emissions reductions from the control
strategy included in the Fairbanks
Revised 189(d) Plan. For a complete list
of measures included in Alaska’s
control strategy, see Table 4 in section
II.D of this preamble below. Notably, as
part of the control strategy, the Wood
Stove Change Out Program and the OilTo-Gas Conversion Program are
managed by the local Fairbanks North
Star Borough. Direct PM2.5 reductions
from these programs in 2020 through
2026 totaled over 1.3 tons per episode
day. The State of Alaska manages the
Solid Fuel-Burning Appliance
Curtailment Program as well as seven
other control measures for which
emissions benefits were quantified and
incorporated into the 2027 attainment
projected inventory. Notably, the State
recently increased the stringency of the
curtailment program by lowering the
alert stages to 20 mg/m3 and 30 mg/m3,
respectively. Alaska also utilized
funding from the 2019–2020 Targeted
Airshed Grant (TAG) to purchase three
dynamic message highway signs and an
infrared camera and to expand staffing
to increase compliance. For details of
these projected emissions reductions,
see the spreadsheet calculations in the
State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol. III,
Appendix III.D.7.6.
Alaska concluded that, after
considering the emissions reductions
from these control measures, the
Fairbanks PM2.5 Nonattainment Area
could demonstrate attainment by 2027,
based on the 2027 attainment year
emissions inventory, as summarized in
Table 3 of this preamble.
TABLE 3—2027 PROJECTED ATTAINMENT EMISSIONS INVENTORY, AVERAGE DAILY EMISSIONS BY SOURCE SECTOR
2027 Projected attainment 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 ..................................................................................................................
Mobile, On-Road ..........................................................................................................
Mobile, Aircraft .............................................................................................................
Mobile, Nonroad excluding aircraft ..............................................................................
0.62
0.74
0.70
0.02
0.00
0.02
0.13
0.05
0.12
0.08
14.60
2.34
0.28
1.83
0.00
0.22
0.40
0.65
0.45
0.32
7.15
1.98
0.04
1.91
0.00
0.02
0.03
0.00
5.70
0.00
0.04
8.01
7.90
0.10
0.00
0.01
2.33
1.08
0.17
2.22
0.095
0.124
0.081
0.004
0.00
0.039
0.051
0.038
0.000
0.002
Totals ....................................................................................................................
1.74
18.75
14.86
13.85
0.310
Source: State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol. II, section III.D.7.6, Table 7.6–19.
The EPA proposes to approve the
2020 base year emissions inventory as
meeting the requirements of CAA
section 172(c)(3) and 40 CFR 51.1008.
The EPA is proposing to determine that
Alaska has justified that 2020 is a
technically appropriate inventory year
consistent with 40 CFR 51.1008(c)(1).
The base year emissions inventory
includes actual emissions of all sources
within the nonattainment area. The EPA
proposes to determine that a seasonal
episode daily average inventory is
appropriate for the Fairbanks PM2.5
Nonattainment Area because the area
experiences episodic elevated
concentrations of PM2.5 during
wintertime cold weather events. The
emissions inventory includes direct
PM2.5 emissions, separately reported as
filterable and condensable emissions, as
well as all scientific PM2.5 precursors
(SO2, NOX, VOC, and NH3). Alaska
reported emissions for point sources
according to the point source emissions
thresholds of the Air Emissions
Reporting Rule in 40 CFR part 51,
subpart A. Finally, the emissions
39 State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol. II, section
III.D.7.6, Table 7.6–11.
40 Kotchenruther, Robert. (November 21, 2024).
Technical support document for Alaska
Department of Environmental Conservation’s
amendments to: State Air Quality Control Plan,
Emission Inventory Data (version August 19, 2024).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10,
Alaska observed that the 2027
projected attainment emissions
inventory provides reductions in total
PM2.5 and SO2 emissions within the
nonattainment area of 41 percent and
five percent respectively. Within the
space heating sector, which has a
proportionally higher impact on
ambient PM2.5, Alaska noted that the
2027 projected attainment emissions
inventory reductions were 63 percent
and 45 percent for direct PM2.5 and SO2,
respectively.
4. EPA Evaluation and Proposed Action
Regarding the Emissions Inventory
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
a. 2020 Base Year Emissions Inventory
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:42 Jan 07, 2025
Jkt 265001
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
inventory is consistent with the detail
and data elements required by 40 CFR
part 51, subpart A. For the EPA’s full
evaluation, see the EPA’s technical
evaluation of Alaska’s emissions
inventory included in the docket for this
action.40
b. 2027 Projected Attainment Emissions
Inventory
The EPA proposes to approve the
2027 projected attainment emissions
inventory as meeting the requirements
of CAA section 172(c)(3) and 40 CFR
51.1008. The EPA is proposing to
determine that 2027 is the most
expeditious year for which projected
emissions show modeled PM2.5
concentrations below the level of the
NAAQS. As discussed in section II.D of
this preamble, Alaska included a model
output for 2026 that resulted in
emissions levels exceeding the 2006 24Laboratory Services and Applied Science Division,
EPA–R10–OAR–2024–0595.
E:\FR\FM\08JAP2.SGM
08JAP2
1606
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 5 / Wednesday, January 8, 2025 / Proposed Rules
hour PM2.5 NAAQS. The attainment
projected inventory includes the sources
in the base year emissions inventory
and accounts for growth and contraction
from both controls and other causes.
Consistent with the base year emissions
inventory, the attainment projected
emissions inventory is based on episode
average daily emissions. The attainment
projected emissions inventory includes
direct PM2.5 emissions, separately
reported as filterable and condensable
emissions, as well as all scientific
precursors. The attainment projected
emissions inventory includes the same
level of emissions detail for the same
point sources and for mobile sources
reported in the base year emissions
inventory. For the EPA’s full evaluation,
see the EPA’s technical evaluation of
Alaska’s emissions inventory, included
in the docket for this action.41
B. Pollutants Addressed
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
1. Statutory and Regulatory
Requirements Regarding the Pollutants
Addressed
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.42 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.’’ 43 The EPA has
identified SO2, NOX, VOCs, and NH3 as
precursors to the formation of PM2.5.44
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
41 Kotchenruther, Robert. (November 21, 2024).
Technical support document for Alaska
Department of Environmental Conservation’s
amendments to: State Air Quality Control Plan,
Emission Inventory Data (version August 19, 2024).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10,
Laboratory Services and Applied Science Division,
EPA–R10–OAR–2024–0595.
42 40 CFR 51.1006, 51.1010; See 81 FR 58010,
August 24, 2016, at pp. 58017–58020.
43 CAA section 302(g).
44 81 FR 58010, August 24, 2016, at p. 58015.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:42 Jan 07, 2025
Jkt 265001
types of stationary, area, and mobile
sources, except as otherwise provided in
CAA section 189(e).,
As noted in the EPA’s Final Policy
Assessment for the reconsideration of
the PM2.5 NAAQS, secondary
particulate matter is formed in the
atmosphere by photochemical oxidation
reactions of both inorganic and organic
gas-phase precursors. Precursor gases
include SO2, NOX, NH3, and VOC gases
of anthropogenic or natural origin.
Anthropogenic SO2 and NOX are the
predominant precursor gases in the
formation of secondary PM2.5 sulfate
and nitrate, and NH3 is the gas-phase
precursor for PM2.5 ammonium. PM2.5
ammonium formation is enhanced by
particle acidity resulting from sulfuric
acid and nitric acid condensation onto
particles. Atmospheric oxidation of
VOCs, both anthropogenic and biogenic,
is an important source of organic
aerosols, particularly in summer. The
semi-volatile and nonvolatile products
of VOC oxidation reactions can
condense onto existing particles or can
form new particles.45
According to the State, 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, section III.D.7.8.1).
CAA section 189(e) requires that the
control requirements for major
stationary sources of direct PM10 46 and
PM2.5 47 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
45 ‘‘Policy Assessment for the Reconsideration of
the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for
Particulate Matter’’ (EPA/452/R–22–004), EPA, May
2022), p. 2–10.
46 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.
47 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.
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
emissions). Although CAA section
189(e) explicitly addresses only major
stationary sources, the 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.48
For example, under the 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 4,49 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.50
Under the PM2.5 SIP Requirements
Rule, a state may elect to submit to the
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 area.51 If the 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.52
Relatedly, under the PM2.5 SIP
Requirements Rule, a state may submit
to the EPA a ‘‘major stationary source
precursor demonstration’’ for a specific
nonattainment area that shows that
emissions of a particular precursor from
all existing major stationary sources
located in the nonattainment area do not
contribute significantly to PM2.5 levels
that exceed the standard in the area.53
If the EPA approves a major stationary
source precursor demonstration, then
the state is not required to control
emissions of the relevant precursor from
existing major stationary sources in the
current attainment plan.54
48 81 FR 58010, August 24, 2016, at pp. 58018–
58019.
49 State Implementation Plan; General Preamble
for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air
Act Amendments of 1990 (‘‘General Preamble’’), 57
FR 13498, April 16, 1992, at pp. 13539–42.
50 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).
51 40 CFR 51.1006(a)(1).
52 40 CFR 51.1006(a)(1).
53 40 CFR 51.1006(a)(2).
54 40 CFR 51.1006(a)(2)(iii).
E:\FR\FM\08JAP2.SGM
08JAP2
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 5 / Wednesday, January 8, 2025 / Proposed Rules
In addition, in May 2019, the 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.55
The EPA evaluated the Fairbanks
Revised 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
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 consider 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.56
2. Summary of the EPA’s Prior
Rulemaking Regarding the Pollutants
Addressed
On December 5, 2023, the EPA
finalized approval of Alaska’s precursor
demonstration that NOX and VOCs are
not significant precursors to PM2.5
formation in the Fairbanks PM2.5
Nonattainment Area.57
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
3. Summary of the State’s Submission
Regarding the Pollutants Addressed
In the Fairbanks Revised 189(d) Plan,
in accordance with 40 CFR
51.1006(a)(2), Alaska included a
demonstration that SO2 emissions from
major stationary sources do not
significantly contribute to PM2.5
formation in the Fairbanks PM2.5
Nonattainment Area. As discussed in
the State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol.
II, section III.D.7.8.15, Alaska stated that
it utilized a new model platform that
accurately simulated the formation of
precursors into PM2.5 in the Fairbanks
environment. The new model platform
also demonstrated marked improvement
in the simulation of sulfate formation
55 ‘‘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.
56 40 CFR 51.1006(a)(1)(i) and (ii).
57 88 FR 84626, December 5, 2023, at p. 84675.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:42 Jan 07, 2025
Jkt 265001
from SO2 emissions as compared to
prior platforms used by Alaska. Using
the new model platform, Alaska
performed a concentration-based
contribution analysis using air quality
modeling with ‘‘zero-out’’ model runs.
Alaska’s analysis showed that major
stationary sources contributed 0.21 mg/
m3 PM2.5 at regulatory monitoring sites
in Fairbanks including the North Pole
monitor (Hurst Road), which is below
the 1.5 mg/m3 PM2.5 threshold included
in the EPA’s guidance.58
According to Alaska, the updated
analysis of precursor impacts on PM2.5
utilized a photochemical grid model
(PGM) that accounted for the non-linear
secondary effects of precursor gases.
PGMs account for the atmospheric
chemistry, transport, and deposition of
pollutants using local emissions and
meteorological data. The zero-out
approach compared a baseline model
run with a model run where a
precursor’s emissions are set to zero to
determine the influence of that
precursor on PM2.5 formation.
Alaska noted that a concentrationbased analysis was completed that
excluded all sources of SO2. The
monitored filter sulfate and the
concentrations from the 5-year design
value showed total sulfate from all
sectors was 5.9 mg/m3 or 21 percent of
the PM2.5 at an air quality monitor
located in the City of Fairbanks (NCore)
and 5.9 mg/m3 or nine percent of the
PM2.5 at the North Pole air quality
monitor (Hurst Road). When accounting
for all emissions sources, SO2 remained
a significant precursor to PM2.5
formation in the Fairbanks PM2.5
Nonattainment Area.
After completing the first step, the
major stationary source sector SO2
precursor model runs were then
performed based on the emissions for
the 2020 base year and a model run that
excluded SO2 emissions. The difference
in sulfate for a model simulation using
base year emissions and a second model
simulation with major stationary-source
SO2 emissions set to zero was compared
with the 1.5 ug/m3 threshold. Alaska
stated that this concentration-based
modeling demonstrated the
insignificance of SO2 from major
stationary sources when compared with
the 1.5 mg/m3 threshold in the EPA’s
guidance, and therefore, a sensitivitybased contribution analysis was not
needed, in accordance with 40 CFR
51.1006(a)(2)(ii).
58 See State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol. II.,
section III.D.7.8.15, Table 7.8.18–1.
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
1607
4. The EPA’s Evaluation and Proposed
Action Regarding the Pollutants
Addressed
The EPA evaluated the State’s
precursor demonstration included in the
Fairbanks Revised 189(d) Plan. The EPA
proposes to determine that Alaska’s
submission meets the requirements of
40 CFR 51.1006(a)(2) and is consistent
with the EPA guidance.59 Regarding the
State’s analytical approach, the 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. Consistent
with 40 CFR 51.1006(a)(2), Alaska’s
submission includes a concentrationbased contribution analysis. The
concentration-based analysis shows that
the SO2 emissions from major stationary
sources do not significantly contribute
to PM2.5 formation in the Fairbanks
PM2.5 Nonattainment Area. Specifically,
Alaska’s analysis shows that SO2
emissions from major stationary sources
contribute 0.21 mg/m3 of PM2.5 at the
North Pole Hurst Road air quality
monitor—far below the 1.5 mg/m3
threshold included in the EPA
guidance. For the EPA’s full evaluation,
see EPA’s Technical Support
Document.60 Therefore, the EPA
proposes to approve Alaska’s precursor
demonstration submitted as part of the
Fairbanks Revised 189(d) Plan as
demonstrating that the contribution of
SO2 from existing major stationary
sources to PM2.5 levels in the Fairbanks
PM2.5 Nonattainment Area is not
significant in accordance with 40 CFR
51.1006(a)(2)(i). If the EPA finalizes
approval as proposed, Alaska will not
be required to control SO2 emissions
from existing major stationary sources
in the Fairbanks PM2.5 Nonattainment
Area, pursuant to CAA section 189 and
40 CFR 51.1010. For purposes of the
Fairbanks Revised 189(d) Plan, the
PM2.5 plan precursors are: NH3 and SO2
for all sources except for major
stationary sources.
Consistent with its past actions, if
finalized, the EPA’s approval of Alaska’s
59 ‘‘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.
60 Briggs, Nicole. (December 2, 2024). Review of
Attainment Demonstration Modeling and SO2
Precursor Demonstration in the 2024 State
Implementation Plan Submission for the Fairbanks
24-hour PM2.5 Nonattainment Area. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10,
Laboratory Services and Applied Science Division,
EPA–R10–OAR–2024–0595.
E:\FR\FM\08JAP2.SGM
08JAP2
1608
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 5 / Wednesday, January 8, 2025 / Proposed Rules
precursor demonstration would 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. The 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).
C. Control Strategy
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
1. Statutory and Regulatory
Requirements Regarding the Control
Strategy
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.
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 or
Serious area attainment plan for the
area.
The state must identify, adopt, and
implement the best available control
measures for each emission source.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:42 Jan 07, 2025
Jkt 265001
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.61 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.62
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.63 In
assessing whether a control measure or
technology is BACM or BACT, the state
must consider emissions reduction
measures with higher costs per ton
compared to the economic feasibility
criteria applied in their RACM or RACT
analysis.64 With respect to determining
BACT pursuant to CAA section 189(b),
the EPA expects that states use the topdown BACT analysis process used in
the Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD) Program.65
Pursuant to CAA section 189(b), a
state with a Serious nonattainment area
must include provisions to assure the
implementation of BACM and BACTlevel 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, the EPA
recommended the following the 5-Step
BACM/BACT selection process that
states should follow to satisfy the
analytical and substantive requirements
of 40 CFR 51.1010(a) and CAA section
189(b): 66
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.
The EPA interprets CAA section
189(b) to require the state to determine
what is BACM or BACT for a particular
source or source category.67 The EPA’s
longstanding interpretation of the CAA
is that BACM and BACT determinations
are to be generally independent of
attainment for purposes of
implementing the PM2.5 NAAQS.68 The
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.69 States also may not
decline to evaluate, or to control as
necessary, sources or source categories
on the basis that they are de minimis.70
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 five
percent reduction in emissions of direct
PM2.5 or a five 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).71 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
67 Id.
61 Id.
62 40 CFR 51.1010(a)(3)(i); 81 FR 58010, August
24, 2016, at p. 58084.
63 40 CFR 51.1010(a)(3)(ii); 81 FR 58010, August
24, 2016, at p. 58085.
64 81 FR 58010, August 24, 2016, at p. 58085.
65 Id. at p. 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.’’).
66 Id. at pp. 58084–85.
PO 00000
Frm 00010
at p. 58081.
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 (‘‘Addendum to the General
Preamble’’), 59 FR 41998, at p. 42011 (August 16,
1994); 81 FR 58010, August 24, 2016, at p. 58081.
69 Id.
70 Id. at p. 58082.
71 CAA section 189(d), 42 U.S.C. 7513a(d), and 40
CFR 51.1010(c).
68 State
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\08JAP2.SGM
08JAP2
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 5 / Wednesday, January 8, 2025 / Proposed Rules
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
emissions inventory for the
nonattainment area, the state shall
identify the most stringent measures
(MSM) 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
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 the EPA
may determine is appropriate after the
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.72 In order to be
72 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,
August 24, 2016, at pp. 58046–47; 57 FR 13498,
April 16, 1992, at pp.13567–68.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:42 Jan 07, 2025
Jkt 265001
enforceable as a practical matter, the
state must adopt into the SIP not only
the control measure or emissions limit
itself but also appropriate monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements to ensure compliance with
the control measure.73 Without
appropriate monitoring, recordkeeping,
and reporting requirements, violations
of the control measure could go
undetected.74
2. Summary of the EPA’s Prior
Rulemaking Regarding the Control
Strategy
On December 5, 2023, the EPA
finalized an approval in part and
disapproval in part of the BACM
requirements for the Fairbanks PM2.5
Nonattainment Area. The EPA’s action
for each emissions source category is
described in the following paragraphs.
a. Alaska’s Identification and Adoption
of BACM for Home Heating and Other
Area Sources
i. Solid Fuel-Burning
The EPA approved in part and
disapproved in part Alaska’s analysis
and adoption of control measures for
this source category as meeting the
BACM requirements for PM2.5 and SO2
emissions.75 The EPA approved
Alaska’s analysis that found no NH3specific emissions controls for this
source category. The EPA also
previously 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).
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 SIP Requirements
Rule.
Alaska’s two-stage Solid Fuel-Burning
Appliance Curtailment Program,
included in the Fairbanks Emergency
Episode Plan, adopts air quality
thresholds that are at least as stringent
as comparable curtailment programs in
73 81 FR 58010, August 24, 2016, at pp. 58046–
47; 57 FR 13498, April 16, 1992, at pp. 13567–68;
67 FR 22168, May 2, 2002, at p. 22170; 80 FR
33840, June 12, 2015, at pp. 33843, 33865; Montana
Sulphur & Chemical Co. v. EPA, 666 F.3d 1174, at
pp. 1189–1190 (9th Cir. 2012).
74 67 FR 22168, May 2, 2022, at p. 22170;
Montana Sulphur & Chemical Co. v. EPA, 666 F.3d
1174, at pp. 1189–1190 (9th Cir. 2012).
75 88 FR 84626, December 5, 2023, at p. 84674.
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
1609
Idaho, Utah, and California. Alaska
accounted for the differences in natural
gas availability, seasonal climate
conditions, and wood stove change-out
incentives in establishing the two-stage
thresholds at 20 mg/m3 (Stage 1) and 30
mg/m3 (Stage 2), respectively. Alaska
also had an advisory level set at 15 mg/
m3 as part of the curtailment program.
Alaska placed further limitations on the
‘‘No Other Adequate Source of Heat’’
(NOASH) waiver (available to
households as a temporary waiver from
certain curtailment requirements),
limiting applicability to those that have
economic needs based on objective
criteria and limiting the number of years
NOASH waivers are available.
Therefore, the EPA approved the Solid
Fuel-Burning Appliance Curtailment
Program and associated updates to the
NOASH waivers and 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.76
Alaska identified and evaluated as
BACM the 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 wood stoves meet emissions
standards that are more stringent than
the EPA’s New Source Performance
Standards (NSPS) requirement for
residential wood heaters at 40 CFR part
60 and also include one-hour testing
requirements to ensure only the lowestemitting wood stoves are allowed to be
sold and installed in the nonattainment
area. The EPA approved these measures
as BACM for the solid-fuel burning
source category (i.e., 18 AAC 50.077 (a–
j)) for PM2.5 and SO2 emissions.77
Alaska’s regulation 18 AAC 50.075(f),
applicable to the Fairbanks PM2.5
Nonattainment Area, prohibits the
operation of a solid fuel-fired heating
device emissions when visible
emissions exceed 20 percent opacity for
more than six minutes in any one hour,
except during the first 15 minutes after
initial firing of the device, when the
opacity limit must be less than 50
percent. The rule also prohibits visible
emissions from crossing property lines.
These opacity limits provide a visual
indicator for the proper operation of a
solid-fuel heating device. The EPA
approved this measure as BACM.78
The EPA approved as BACM the
additional removal or render inoperable
76 88 FR 84626, December 5, 2023, at pp. 84699,
84673–84675.
77 Id.
78 Id.
E:\FR\FM\08JAP2.SGM
08JAP2
1610
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 5 / Wednesday, January 8, 2025 / Proposed Rules
restrictions placed on non-certified EPA
wood stoves, non-pellet outdoor
hydronic heaters, coal-fired heating
devices, and EPA-certified wood stoves
greater than 25 years-old meet BACM
requirements for PM2.5 and SO2
emissions.79 These devices are 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 wood-fired
heating device is 25 years old prior to
that date). These include Alaska state
regulations 18 AAC 50.077 (l–m). The
EPA approved 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, which 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.80 These include Alaska
state regulations 18 AAC 50.076 (d–e),
(g), (j–l).
However, the EPA partially
disapproved as BACM Alaska’s
measures regarding dry wood seller
requirements and coal-fired heating
devices.81 The EPA recommended
Alaska revise 18 AAC 50.076(k)(3) to
require a specific frequency wood
sellers are required to measure the
moisture content of the seller’s wood
stock. Likewise, the EPA also
recommended Alaska revise the
regulations at 18 AAC 50.079(d), (e) and
(f) to remove (or revise to BACM and
BACT-level stringency) the testing
exemption in (d), remove or properly
bound the waiver provision in (e), and
add requirements to verify compliance
with the requirement for the owner and
operator to render the device
inoperative.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
ii. Residential and Commercial Fuel Oil
Combustion
Alaska adopted the regulation at 18
AAC 50.078(b) that imposed a limit of
1,000 parts per million sulfur (diesel no.
1) for residential and commercial
heating. This was a switch from diesel
no. 2 (approximately 2,000 parts per
million sulfur) to diesel no. 1. Alaska
also evaluated the potential for adopting
ULSD for fuel oil combustion, but the
State determined that this measure is
economically infeasible. The EPA
approved 18 AAC 50.078(b) as meeting
the SO2 BACM and BACT requirements
79 Id.
80 Id.
81 88
FR 84626, December 5, 2023, at pp. 84670,
84675–76.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:42 Jan 07, 2025
Jkt 265001
for the space heating area source
category.82
iii. Small Commercial Area Sources
The EPA approved Alaska’s
determination that there were no
incinerators in the nonattainment area.
Therefore, Alaska need not identify,
adopt, or implement controls for the
incinerator source category. The EPA
also approved Alaska’s BACM
infeasibility demonstrations for add-on
control for charbroilers and restrictions
on used oil burners. By extension, the
EPA approved 18 AAC 50.055 as
BACM/BACT for the charbroiler source
category.83
However, the EPA disapproved
Alaska’s BACM requirements for coffee
roasters. The EPA cited a number of
deficiencies with Alaska’s adopted
control measure for coffee roasters at 18
AAC 50.078(d).84
iv. Weatherization and Energy
Efficiency
The EPA disapproved Alaska’s BACM
analysis with respect to potential energy
efficiency and weatherization measures.
The State provided a number of reasons
for declining to adopt and implement
any such measures, each of which the
EPA rejected as bases to not adopt
weatherization and energy efficiency
measures.85
v. Emissions From Mobile Sources
The EPA approved Alaska’s rejection
of the CARB vehicle standards as
economically infeasible. The EPA
likewise finalized approval of Alaska’s
rejection of school bus retrofits, road
paving, and controls on road sanding
and salting as technologically infeasible.
The EPA approved Alaska’s rejection of
a motor vehicle inspection and
maintenance (I/M) program. The EPA
approved Alaska’s determination that
no NH3-specific emissions controls exist
for this source category.86
The EPA approved Alaska’s rejection
of other transportation measures as
either technologically infeasible (HOV
lanes) or economically infeasible (traffic
flow improvements, diesel retrofit
projects, and ridesharing programs).87
However, the EPA approved in part
and disapproved in part Alaska’s
rejection of vehicle idling restrictions
82 88
FR 84626, December 5, 2023, at p. 84674–
75.
83 Id.
84 88 FR 84626, December 5, 2023, at p. 84676;
See also 81 FR 58010, August 24, 2016, at p. 58047.
85 88 FR 84626, December 5, 2023, at pp. 84641,
84676; See also 81 FR 58010, August 24, 2016, at
p. p. 58085.
86 88 FR 84626, December 5, 2023, at p 84675–
76.
87 Id.
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
and other transportation measures.88
Specifically, the EPA approved Alaska’s
rejection of vehicle idling restrictions
for heavy-duty diesel vehicles as
economically infeasible. However, the
EPA disapproved Alaska’s rejection of
vehicle idling restrictions for light-duty
vehicles at schools and commercial
establishments. The EPA determined
that Alaska had not demonstrated that
vehicle anti-idling restrictions for lightduty passenger vehicles are infeasible.
b. Alaska’s Identification and Adoption
of BACT for Major Stationary Sources
In its December 5, 2023, action, the
EPA partially approved and partially
disapproved the Fairbanks Serious Plan
as meeting the BACM and BACT
requirements for major stationary
sources.
i. Chena Power Plant
The EPA partially approved and
partially disapproved Alaska’s BACM/
BACT evaluation for the Chena Power
Plant. The EPA partially disapproved
the BACT determination because Alaska
did not identify, adopt, and implement
BACT for PM2.5 and SO2. The EPA
approved Alaska’s BACT analysis for
NH3 emissions controls for the Chena
Power Plant.89
ii. Doyon-Fort Wainwright Central
Heating and Power Plant
The EPA partially approved and
partially disapproved Alaska’s BACM/
BACT determinations for PM2.5 controls
for each of the emission sources at
Doyon-Fort Wainwright Central Heating
and Power Plant. The EPA partially
approved the BACT determinations
because Alaska’s BACT findings for
PM2.5 (embodied in State Air Quality
Control Plan, Vol. II, section III.D.7.7,
Tables 7.7–11 and 7.7–13 and section
III.D.7.7.8.3.4) were consistent with
CAA section 189(b) and 40 CFR
51.1010(a). The EPA partially
disapproved the BACT determinations
because the Fairbanks Serious Plan and
initial Fairbanks 189(d) Plan lacked
provisions necessary to ensure the
BACT determinations for PM2.5 are
enforceable as a practical matter as
required by CAA sections 110(a)(2)(A)
and 172(c)(7).90
On September 25, 2023, Alaska
withdrew its SO2 BACT determinations
for Doyon-Fort Wainwright Central
Heating and Power Plant. Therefore, the
EPA finalized disapproval of Alaska’s
SO2 BACT determinations because the
88 Id.
89 88 FR 84626, December 5, 2023, at pp. 84670–
71, 84675–76.
90 Id.
E:\FR\FM\08JAP2.SGM
08JAP2
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 5 / Wednesday, January 8, 2025 / Proposed Rules
Fairbanks Serious Plan and initial
Fairbanks 189(d) Plan did not identify,
adopt, and implement BACT for SO2 at
the Doyon-Fort Wainwright Central
Heating and Power Plant. The EPA
approved Alaska’s analysis that found
no NH3-specific emissions controls for
the sources at this facility.91
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
iii. University of Alaska Fairbanks
Campus Power Plant
The EPA disapproved Alaska’s
BACM/BACT determination for PM2.5
controls for the Small Diesel-Fired
Engines (EU IDs 23, 26, and 27). The
EPA partially approved and partially
disapproved the Alaska’s BACT
determinations for PM2.5 controls for the
remaining emission units. The EPA
partially approved the PM2.5 BACT
determinations because Alaska’s BACT
determinations embodied in State Air
Quality Control Plan, Vol. II, section
III.D.7.7, Table 7.7–16 and section
III.D.7.7.8.6 were consistent with CAA
section 189(b) and 40 CFR 51.1010(a).
The EPA partially disapproved Alaska’s
BACT determinations because the
Fairbanks Serious Plan and initial
Fairbanks 189(d) Plan lacked provisions
necessary to ensure the BACT
determinations are enforceable as a
practical matter as required by CAA
sections 110(a)(2)(A) and 172(c)(7).92
On September 25, 2023, Alaska
withdrew its SO2 BACT determinations
for the Fairbanks Campus Power Plant.
Therefore, the EPA disapproved
Alaska’s SO2 BACT determinations
because the Fairbanks Serious Plan and
initial Fairbanks 189(d) Plan did not
identify, adopt, and implement BACT
for SO2 at the Fairbanks Campus Power
Plant. The EPA approved Alaska’s
analysis that found no NH3-specific
emissions controls for the sources at this
facility.93
iv. Zehnder Power Plant
The EPA partially approved and
partially disapproved Alaska’s BACM/
BACT provisions for PM2.5 controls for
all emission units at the Zehnder Power
Plant. The EPA partially approved the
PM2.5 BACT determination because
Alaska’s BACT determinations
embodied in the State Air Quality
Control Plan, Vol. II, section III.D.7.7,
Table 7.7–14 and Appendix III.D.7.7.8.4
are consistent with CAA section 189(b)
and 40 CFR 51.1010(a). The EPA
partially disapproved Alaska’s PM2.5
BACT determinations because the
Fairbanks Serious Plan and initial
Fairbanks 189(d) Plan lacked provisions
necessary to ensure the PM2.5 BACT
determinations are enforceable as a
practical matter as required by CAA
sections 110(a)(2)(A) and 172(c)(7).94
On September 25, 2023, Alaska
withdrew its SO2 BACT determinations
for the Zehnder Power Plant. Therefore,
the EPA partially disapproved the SO2
BACT determinations because Fairbanks
Serious Plan and initial Fairbanks
189(d) Plan did not identify, adopt, and
implement BACT for SO2 at the Zehnder
Power Plant. The EPA approved
Alaska’s analysis that found no NH3specific emissions controls for the
sources at this facility.95
v. North Pole Power Plant
The EPA partially approved and
partially disapproved Alaska’s BACM/
BACT provisions for PM2.5 controls for
all emission units at the North Pole
Power Plant. The EPA partially
approved Alaska’s PM2.5 BACT
determinations because these findings
embodied in State Air Quality Control
Plan, Vol. II, section III.D.7.7, Table 7.7–
14 and Appendix III.D.7.7.8.5 are
consistent with CAA section 189(b) and
40 CFR 51.1010(a). The EPA partially
disapproved Alaska’s PM2.5 BACT
determinations because the Fairbanks
Serious Plan and initial Fairbanks
189(d) Plan lacked provisions necessary
to ensure the BACT determinations are
enforceable as a practical matter as
required by CAA sections 110(a)(2)(A)
and 172(c)(7).96
On September 25, 2023, Alaska
withdrew its SO2 BACT determinations
for the North Pole Power Plant.
Therefore, the EPA partially
disapproved Alaska’s SO2 BACT
determinations because the Fairbanks
Serious Plan and initial Fairbanks
189(d) Plan did not identify, adopt, and
implement BACT for SO2 at the North
Pole Power Plant. The EPA approved
Alaska’s analysis that found no NH3specific emissions controls for the
sources at this facility.
c. NH3 Emissions Controls
With respect to NH3 controls, for
residential and commercial area
sources, the EPA approved certain
measures as meeting the BACM/BACT
requirement for NH3 emissions. In other
cases, the EPA approved Alaska’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 PM2.5 Nonattainment Area,
but that there are likely to be NH3
91 Id.
94 Id.
92 Id.
95 Id.
at p. 84657
93 Id. at pp. 84670–71, 84675–76.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:42 Jan 07, 2025
PO 00000
Frm 00013
emissions co-benefits of measures
designed to reduce emissions of direct
PM2.5.97
3. Summary of the State’s Submission
and the EPA’s Evaluation and Proposed
Action Regarding the Control Strategy
a. Updates to the Identification and
Adoption of BACM
Below is a summary of the regulations
and SIP revisions adopted as part of the
Fairbanks Revised 189(d) Plan,
organized by source category,
responding to EPA’s December 5, 2023,
disapproval.98
i. Solid-Fuel Burning
Alaska revised the dry wood seller
measure, adopted as regulation 18 AAC
50.076(k)(3), by setting a frequency at
monthly intervals to measure the
moisture content. Alaska also revised
regulation 18 AAC 50.076(k)(1) by
improving the labeling to indicate ‘‘dry
wood.’’
Regarding the EPA’s disapproval of
coal-fired heating device requirements,
Alaska revised 18 AAC 50.079 by
lowering the emissions threshold to test
out of the mandatory removal
requirements in 18 AAC 50.079(d) from
18 grams per hour to 0.10 pounds per
million British thermal units (Btu)
which is equivalent to the pellet
hydronic heater limit in 18 AAC 50.077.
Alaska amended 18 AAC 50.079(d) to
require a testing protocol be approved
by the department prior to any test
attempting to exempt a coal device from
the mandatory removal requirement.
Alaska revised 18 AAC 50.079(e) limit
the duration of the waiver to one
calendar year.
The EPA previously approved 18
AAC 50.079(f), which requires the
owner of a coal-fired heating device to
render it inoperable not later than
December 31, 2024. As a consequence of
Alaska’s revisions to 18 AAC 50.079(f),
the latest an individual with a coal-fired
heating device could remove that device
is December 31, 2025—provided the
individual meets the eligibility
requirements in 18 AAC 50.079(e).
Alaska stated that 18 AAC 50.079(f) is
revised for clarity by adding section (3),
which requires coal-fired heating
devices to be rendered inoperable after
the expiration of a waiver granted under
subsection (e) of 18 AAC 50.079. Alaska
stated that newly adopted section 18
AAC 50.079(h) requires documentation
on the removal and rendering of the
device inoperable and submitting an
affidavit that the coal stove will not be
97 Id.
98 State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol. II, section
III.D.7.7.13.
96 Id.
Jkt 265001
1611
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\08JAP2.SGM
08JAP2
1612
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 5 / Wednesday, January 8, 2025 / Proposed Rules
report to the buyer. Alaska also
committed to a robust advertising and
education program that includes best
practices to improve efficiency in an
arctic environment and available
economic and practical mechanisms
that can assist homeowners in
improving both efficiency and
regulatory compliance. Alaska asserted
that these components will improve the
compliance rate for other control
measures, including the solid fuel-fired
heating device curtailment program and
the requirement to remove older,
ii. Residential and Commercial Fuel Oil uncertified heating appliances. Alaska
noted that any improvements identified
Combustion
by the energy rater will be voluntary.
In the EPA’s December 5, 2023, rule,
Alaska evaluated adopting building
the EPA approved as BACM Alaska’s
energy efficiency codes or mandatory
regulation under 18 AAC 50.078(b) that
weatherization requirements and
imposes a limit of 1,000 parts per
dismissed them as technologically
million sulfur content in fuel limit
infeasible. According to Alaska, there is
(diesel no. 1) for residential and
a lack of technical expertise and
commercial heating.99 This was a switch resources to implement (lack of energy
from diesel no. 2 (approximately 2,000
auditors and training resources),
parts per million sulfur content in fuel
enforce, and ensure code compliance.
limit) to diesel no. 1. The EPA agreed
Alaska further contended that the
with Alaska’s demonstration that further earliest date Alaska can implement
strengthening this requirement to 15
building codes exceeded not only the
parts per million sulfur (i.e., Ultra-low
statutory requirement for the
sulfur diesel) was economically
implementation of BACM by December
infeasible.
31, 2024, but also beyond the 2027
attainment date identified in the
iii. Small Commercial Area Sources
Fairbanks Revised 189(d) Plan.
Alaska revised its regulations for
The EPA proposes to approve the
coffee roasters, under 18 AAC 50.078(d). submitted revisions to 18 AAC 50.081 as
These updated regulations clarify the
meeting the requirements of CAA
specific emission limit required for this
sections 110(a)(2), 172(c)(7), and 189(b)
source category and ensures the limit is
and 40 CFR 51.1010(a) with respect to
enforceable as a practical matter. The
weatherization and energy efficiency.
EPA proposes to approve the submitted
Accordingly, the EPA proposes to
revisions to 18 AAC 50.078(d) as
determine that the Fairbanks Revised
meeting the requirements of CAA
189(d) Plan rectifies the disapproved
section 110(a)(2), 172(c)(7), and 189(b)
portions of the Fairbanks Serious Plan
and 40 CFR 51.1010(a) for this source
and initial Fairbanks 189(d) Plan for
category. Accordingly, the EPA
weatherization and energy efficiency.
proposes to determine that the
v. Emissions From Mobile Sources
Fairbanks Revised 189(d) Plan rectifies
the disapproved portions of the
The EPA previously approved as part
Fairbanks Serious Plan and initial
of Fairbanks Moderate Plan, a
Fairbanks 189(d) Plan for coffee
requirement that businesses with 275 or
roasters.
more parking spaces provide power to
electrical outlets at temperatures of 20
iv. Energy Efficiency and
degrees Fahrenheit or lower for engine
Weatherization
block heaters.100 In addition, Alaska
To address the EPA’s disapproval,
continues to install new plug-ins
Alaska reviewed weatherization and
throughout the Fairbanks PM2.5
energy efficiency measures adopted by
Nonattainment Area.101
other jurisdictions. Based on this
As part of the Fairbanks Revised
review, Alaska adopted a weatherization 189(d) Plan, Alaska re-evaluated antiand energy efficiency measure at 18
AAC 50.081. The measure mandates
100 82 FR 42457, September 8, 2017; State Air
that a building owner have an energy
Quality Control Plan, Vol. III, Appendix III.D.5.7,
rating completed on the building before adopted December 24, 2014, at p. 43; State Air
Quality Control Plan, Vol. III, Appendix III.D.5.12,
listing it for sale. The rule requires that
adopted December 24, 2014, at p. 43.
the seller provide the energy rating
101 There are nearly 10,000 plug-ins available in
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
reinstalled in the Fairbanks PM2.5
Nonattainment Area.
Based on these updates, the EPA
proposes to approve the submitted
revisions to 18 AAC 50.076 and 18 AAC
50.079 as meeting the requirements of
CAA sections 110(a)(2)(A), 172(c)(7),
and 189(b) and 40 CFR 51.1010(a).
Accordingly, the EPA proposes to
determine that the Fairbanks Revised
189(d) Plan rectifies the disapproved
portions of the Fairbanks Serious Plan
and initial Fairbanks 189(d) Plan for the
solid fuel-burning source category.
99 88
FR 84626, December 5, 2023, at pp. 84669,
84674.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:42 Jan 07, 2025
Jkt 265001
the nonattainment area. See State Air Quality
Control Plan, Appendix III.D.7.7 (adopted
November 19, 2019), at p. 17.
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
idling for light-duty vehicles as a
potential control measure. Alaska
provided additional analysis
demonstrating that such a measure is
technologically and economically
infeasible in the Fairbanks PM2.5
Nonattainment Area. In particular,
Alaska noted that other jurisdictions
that implement this measure include a
temperature threshold, below which
restrictions do not apply. These
temperature cut offs range from 40
degrees Fahrenheit to 10 degrees
Fahrenheit. These thresholds are
intended to protect human health and
safety.
Accordingly, Alaska evaluated
implementing idling restrictions during
the winter months of October through
March at temperatures above 21 degrees
Fahrenheit. Given that episodic
emissions contributing to PM2.5
concentrations occur at sub-zero
temperatures, Alaska’s evaluation
indicates that the measure would not
achieve any emissions reductions.
The EPA notes that in order to
achieve emissions reductions in the
extreme Fairbanks environment, Alaska
would have to prohibit idling regardless
of ambient temperature, which presents
unacceptable risks to human health. In
light of these concerns, rather than
regulate the vehicle users, Alaska
requires owners of parking areas to
provide electricity for engine-block
heaters. Alaska and the EPA have
previously determined that expanding
plug-in availability is economically
infeasible.102 Therefore, the EPA
proposes to approve Alaska’s current
plug-in program as meeting BACM and
BACT requirements for light-duty
vehicles.
Accordingly, the EPA proposes to
determine that Alaska has rectified the
EPA’s December 5, 2023, disapproval of
the Fairbanks Serious Plan and initial
Fairbanks 189(d) Plan with respect to
control strategy requirements for mobile
sources.
b. Alaska’s Identification and Adoption
of BACT for Major Stationary Sources
Alaska submitted revisions to its
BACM/BACT determinations for the
five major stationary sources in the
Fairbanks PM2.5 Nonattainment Area, as
described in the following
paragraphs.103 Alaska also submitted
permits for each of the five major
102 88 FR 84626, December 5, 2023, at pp. 84649,
84652 (determining that anti-idling restrictions on
heavy-duty vehicles had a cost effectiveness of over
$400,000 per ton of SO2 reduced).
103 State Air Quality Control Plan Vol. II,
Appendix III.D.7.7 (adopted November 5, 2024).
E:\FR\FM\08JAP2.SGM
08JAP2
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 5 / Wednesday, January 8, 2025 / Proposed Rules
stationary sources that adopt and
implement BACT for direct PM2.5.
i. Chena Power Plant
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Chena Power Plant is an existing
stationary source owned and operated
by Aurora Energy, LLC, which consists
of four existing coal-fired boilers: three
76 million British Thermal Units
(MMBtu) per hour overfeed traveling
grate stoker type boilers and one 269
MMBtu per hour spreader-stoker type
boiler that burn coal to produce steam
for heating and power (497 MMBtu per
hour combined). The source also
includes a coal preparation plant, coal
stockpile, ash vacuum pump exhaust,
and truck bay ash loadout.
Alaska revised its State Air Quality
Control Plan to include its BACT
determinations for PM2.5 and SO2 for
each of the emission units at the Chena
Power Plant.104 We note that Alaska
removed its BACT evaluation and
determinations for NOX because the
EPA approved a comprehensive NOX
precursor demonstration. Alaska also
submitted conditions from Air Quality
Control Minor Permit AQ0315MSS02
Revision 1 for the Aurora Energy, LLC—
Chena Power Plant (Aurora Permit). The
Aurora Permit conditions include
enforceable PM2.5 BACT emissions
limitations for the emission units at the
Chena Power Plant comprised of
numerical emissions limits and work
practice standards and associated
monitoring, recordkeeping and
reporting requirements. The permits are
included in the docket for this action.105
The EPA previously reviewed
Alaska’s BACM/BACT evaluation for
the Chena Power Plant.106 Alaska has
since clarified that PM2.5 BACT for the
coal-fired boilers is operating and
maintaining fabric filters (full steam
baghouse) during operation.107 Thus, in
this action, the EPA is proposing to
approve Alaska’s PM2.5 BACT
determinations for the Chena Power
Plant, the submitted revisions to State
Air Quality Control Plan, Vol. III,
Appendix III.D.7.7, related to direct
PM2.5 emissions and the submitted
104 See State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol. III,
Appendix III.D.7.7–164. Note, Alaska’s prior SIP
submissions only evaluated BACT for the coal-fired
boilers.
105 See State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol. III,
Appendix III.D.7.7–187.
106 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, EPA–R10–OAR–2022–
0115.
107 See State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol. III,
Appendix III.D.7.7–173.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:42 Jan 07, 2025
Jkt 265001
Aurora Permit conditions108 as
satisfying CAA section 189(b) and 40
CFR 51.1010.
The EPA is not proposing to take
action on Alaska’s SO2 BACT
determinations in State Air Quality
Control Plan, Vol. III, Appendix
III.D.7.7, at this time. As discussed in
the preceding paragraphs, the EPA is
proposing to approve Alaska’s SO2
precursor demonstration for major
stationary sources. If approved, Alaska
will not be required to identify, adopt,
or implement SO2 BACT for the Chena
Power Plant. If the EPA does not finalize
approval of the SO2 precursor
demonstration, then the EPA will
propose action on Alaska’s SO2 BACT
determinations in a separate, future
action.
ii. Doyon-Fort Wainwright Central
Heating and Power Plant
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.
The CHPP is comprised of six
spreader-stoker type coal-fired boilers,
each rated at 230 MMBtu per hour, that
burn coal to produce steam for
stationary source-wide heating and
power. In addition to the CHPP, the
source contains emission units
comprised of small and large emergency
engines, fire pumps, and generators,
diesel-fired boilers, and material
handling equipment. Alaska’s BACM/
BACT analysis in the Fairbanks Serious
Plan for the stationary source evaluated
potential controls to reduce NOX, PM2.5,
and SO2 emissions from each of these
emissions units at the stationary
source.109
As part of the Fairbanks Revised
189(d) Plan, Alaska revised its Air
Quality Control Plan sections related to
the Doyon-Fort Wainwright CHPP to
reflect new engines powering lift pumps
108 See section III.A of this preamble for the
specific permit conditions proposed for approval.
109 Alaska evaluated potential NO controls for
X
each emission unit, but because Alaska determined
and the EPA approved that NOX emissions are not
significant for PM2.5 formation in the Fairbanks
PM2.5 Nonattainment Area, Alaska does not plan to
require implementation of BACT for NOX. See 88
FR 84626, December 5, 2023. Thus, EPA is not
discussing Alaska’s BACT analysis for NOX here.
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
1613
and generators, correct typographical
errors, improve clarity, and to include
updated SO2 BACT determinations.110
With respect to the new engines, all are
EPA-certified engines ranging in size
from 74 horsepower to 324 horsepower.
Alaska updated its PM2.5 BACT
determinations for these new engines.
Alaska removed its BACT evaluation
and determinations for NOX because the
EPA approved a comprehensive NOX
precursor demonstration.
Alaska also submitted conditions
from two Air Quality Control Minor
Permits: AQ0236MSS03 Revision 2
(U.S. Army Garrison—USAG Alaska
Fort Wainwright) and AQ1121MSS04
Revision 1 (Doyon Utilities, LLC—Fort
Wainwright) (collectively referred to as
the Fort Wainwright Permits). The Fort
Wainwright Permits include enforceable
PM2.5 BACT emissions limitations for
the emission units at Fort Wainwright
comprised of numerical emissions
limits and work practice standards and
associated monitoring, recordkeeping
and reporting requirements. The permits
are included in the docket for this
action.111
The EPA previously reviewed
Alaska’s BACM/BACT evaluation for
the Doyon-Fort Wainwright Central
Heating and Power Plant.112 In addition
to the submitted conditions discussed in
this section x.x.ii of this preamble,
Alaska’s updated BACT determination
clarified the maintenance and testing
requirements for the diesel-fired boilers
and added enclosed conveying system
requirements.113 The EPA previously
approved Alaska’s BACT
determinations for older pump engines
and generator engines. Alaska updated
its BACT determinations and associated
permit limits to reflect grams per hour
emission limits appropriate to the size
and model year of the engine. Alaska
also imposed limits on the hours of
operations of these engines. Thus, in
this action, the EPA is proposing to
approve Alaska’s updated PM2.5 BACT
determinations for the emissions units
110 See State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol. III,
Appendix III.D.7.7–202.
111 See State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol. III,
Appendix III.D.7.7–248.
112 See 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,
EPA–R10–OAR–2022–0115.
113 See State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol. III,
Appendix III.D.7.7–217; State Air Quality Control
Plan, Vol. III, Appendix III.D.7.7–225.
E:\FR\FM\08JAP2.SGM
08JAP2
1614
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 5 / Wednesday, January 8, 2025 / Proposed Rules
at Doyon-Fort Wainwright CHPP,114 the
submitted revisions to State Air Quality
Control Plan, Vol. III, Appendix III.D.7.7
related to direct PM2.5 emissions from
the Doyon-Fort Wainwright CHPP,115
and the submitted conditions from the
Fort Wainwright Permits116 as satisfying
CAA section 189(b) and 40 CFR
51.1010.
The EPA is not proposing to take
action on Alaska’s SO2 BACT
determinations in State Air Quality
Control Plan, Vol. III, Appendix III.D.7.7
at this time for the same reasons
discussed in the preceding paragraphs
regarding the Chena Power Plant. If the
EPA does not finalize approval of the
SO2 precursor demonstration, then the
EPA will propose action on Alaska’s
SO2 BACT determinations in a separate,
future action.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
iii. University of Alaska Fairbanks
Campus Power Plant
The Fairbanks Campus Power Plant is
an existing stationary source owned and
operated by the University of Alaska
Fairbanks, which consists of two coalfired 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 per
hour. Other emission units at the source
include a backup diesel generator,
diesel-fired boilers, engines, and a coal
handling system for the new dual-fuel
fired boiler.
In the Fairbanks Revised 189(d) Plan,
Alaska updated its Air Quality Control
Plan regarding the Fairbanks Campus
Power Plant to reflect permanently
removed emission units, add new diesel
boilers and engines, update the PM2.5
BACT determinations for small dieselfired boilers and large and small
engines, correct typographical errors,
and improve clarity.117 Alaska also
added updated SO2 BACT
determinations for the Fairbanks
Campus Power Plant.
With respect to the small diesel-fired
boilers (EUs 17 through 22), Alaska
updated its BACT determination for
PM2.5 to consist of a partial limit on
hours of operation, an emission limit of
0.016 lb/MMBtu,118 compliance with 40
114 Industrial coal-fired boilers; diesel-fired
boilers; diesel-fired engines, fire pumps, and
generators; and material handling equipment.
115 The EPA is not proposing to approve the NO
X
related emissions limits as meeting BACT for NOX.
For some emission units, Alaska imposed NOX
emissions limits as surrogates for direct PM2.5
emissions.
116 See section III.A of this preamble for the
specific permit conditions proposed to be approved.
117 See State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol. III,
Appendix III.D.7.7–356.
118 Alaska noted that it previously selected a
0.012 lb/MMBtu limit erroneously. This limit is
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:42 Jan 07, 2025
Jkt 265001
CFR part 63, subpart JJJJJJ, and work
practice standards. Alaska evaluated
whether installation of a scrubber was
feasible for these boilers and determined
that it was economically infeasible.119
Alaska noted that taking into
consideration the enforceable limit on
operation, the combined potential to
emit of PM2.5 for the six boilers is two
tons per year.
With respect to large diesel fired
engines (EUs 8 and 35) and small diesel
fired engines (EUs 24, 26, 27, 29, and
34), 120 Alaska reevaluated the
feasibility of add-on PM2.5 controls,
namely a diesel particulate filter
(DPF).121 EUs 24, 29, and 34 are limited
to 100 hours per year of non-emergency
operation, so additional BACT controls
were not evaluated for these units.
Alaska determined that a DPF is not
technologically feasible for EU 8 due to
an unacceptable increase in back
pressure. Alaska determined that DPFs
were technologically feasible for the
other engines, but Alaska determined
that the high cost per unit of emissions
reductions rendered them economically
infeasible. Updating the costeffectiveness analysis to reflect
comments from the EPA’s Technical
Support Document,122 Alaska
determined that the cost-effectiveness
ranged from over $17,000 at EU 26 to
over $20,000 per ton of PM2.5 reduced
at EU 27. Alaska stated that EU 35 has
potential PM2.5 emissions of 0.03 tons
per year, which is an order of magnitude
lower than the two other diesel engines,
EUs 26 and 27. Therefore, Alaska did
not perform a cost analysis for installing
and operating a DPF on EU 35 as it
would have an even higher cost per ton
estimate than EUs 26 and 27.
Furthermore, Alaska noted that EU 35 is
limited to 100 hours per calendar year
of non-emergency operation and
required to combust ULSD under the
associated with industrial boilers while the boilers
at the Fairbanks Campus Power Plant are
commercial boilers.
119 State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol. III,
Appendix III.D.7.7–369.
120 In comments, the University of Alaska
Fairbanks clarified that EU 23 has been
permanently removed from service and are no
longer permitted EUs at the facility. See Comments
on Proposed Rule—Air Plan Partial Approval and
Partial Disapproval; AK, Fairbanks North Star
Borough; 2006 24-Hour PM2.5 Serious Area and
189(d) Plan, at p. 9, Docket ID No. EPA–R10–OAR–
2022–0115.
121 State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol. III,
Appendix III.D.7.7–372.
122 See 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, p.15. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 10, Laboratory Services
and Applied Science Division, EPA–R10–OAR–
2022–0115.
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
existing Federal NSPS Subpart IIII
requirements.123
Alaska removed its BACT evaluation
and determinations for NOX because the
EPA approved a comprehensive NOX
precursor demonstration.124
Alaska also submitted conditions
from Air Quality Control Minor Permit
AQ0316MSS08 Revision 1 (University
of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF)—University
of Alaska Fairbanks Campus) (UAF
Permit). The UAF Permit conditions
include enforceable PM2.5 BACT
emissions limitations comprised of
numerical emissions limits and work
practice standards with associated
monitoring, recordkeeping, and
reporting. The permits are included in
the docket for this action.125
The EPA previously reviewed
Alaska’s BACT evaluation for the
Fairbanks Campus Power Plant.126 In
this action, the EPA is proposing to
approve Alaska’s updated PM2.5 BACT
determinations for the small diesel-fired
boilers (EUs 17 through 22), large dieselfired engines (EUs 8 and 35), and small
diesel-fired engines (EUs 24, 26, 27, 29,
and 34) at the Fairbanks Campus Power
Plant. The EPA previously approved
Alaska’s PM2.5 BACT determinations for
EUs 8, 17–19, 24, and 29. Alaska’s
updates are consistent with these past
approvals. With respect to EUs 26, 27,
and 35, the EPA proposes to approve
Alaska’s economic infeasibility
demonstrations for DPFs. The EPA is
proposing to approve Alaska’s PM2.5
BACT emissions limits for small dieselfired boilers (EUs 17 through 22), large
diesel-fired engines (EUs 8 and 35), and
small diesel-fired engines (EUs 24, 26,
27, 29, and 34) at the Fairbanks Campus
Power Plant, which consist of numerical
emissions limits, limits on operation,
fuel requirements, and work practice
standards.
Therefore, the EPA proposes to
approve the submitted revisions to State
Air Quality Control Plan, Vol. III,
Appendix III.D.7.7 related to direct
PM2.5 emissions and NOX emissions127
from the Fairbanks Campus Power Plant
123 State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol. III,
Appendix III.D.7.7–374.
124 88 FR 84626, December 5, 2023.
125 See State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol. III,
Appendix III.D.7.7–414.
126 See 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, EPA–R10–OAR–2022–
0115.
127 The EPA is not proposing to approve the NO
X
related emissions limits as meeting BACT for NOX.
For some emission units, Alaska imposed NOX
emissions limits as surrogates for direct PM2.5
emissions.
E:\FR\FM\08JAP2.SGM
08JAP2
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 5 / Wednesday, January 8, 2025 / Proposed Rules
and the submitted conditions from the
UAF Permit128 as satisfying CAA
section 189(b) and 40 CFR 51.1010.
The EPA is not proposing to take
action on Alaska’s SO2 BACT
determinations in State Air Quality
Control Plan, Vol. III, Appendix III.D.7.7
at this time for the same reasons
discussed in the preceding paragraphs
regarding the Chena Power Plant. If the
EPA does not finalize approval of the
SO2 precursor demonstration, then the
EPA will propose action on Alaska’s
SO2 BACT determinations in a separate,
future action.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
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
(each unit rated at 268 MMBtu per hour)
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.
In the Fairbanks Revised 189(d) Plan,
Alaska revised its Air Quality Control
Plan for the Zehnder Facility to correct
errors and improve clarity.129 Alaska
also submitted conditions from Air
Quality Control Minor Permit
AQ0109MSS01 Revision 1 (Golden
Valley Electric Association—Zehnder
Facility) (Zehnder Permit). The Zehnder
Permit contains enforceable PM2.5 BACT
emissions limitations for the emission
units at the Zehnder Facility comprised
of numerical emissions limits and work
practice standards with associated
monitoring, recordkeeping, and
reporting. The permits are included in
the docket for this action.130
Similar to the small diesel-fired
boilers (EUs 17 through 22) at the
Fairbanks Campus Power Plant
discussed in the preceding paragraphs
of section II.C of this preamble, Alaska
imposed, in the Fairbanks Serious Plan
and Fairbanks 189(d) Plan, an erroneous
emissions limit on the small diesel fired
boilers at the Zehnder Facility. The
revised Air Quality Control Plan and
128 See section III.A of this preamble for the
specific permit conditions proposed to be approved.
129 State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol. III,
Appendix III.D.7.7–316.
130 See State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol. III,
Appendix III.D.7.7–342.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:42 Jan 07, 2025
Jkt 265001
associated conditions in the Zehnder
Permit reflect the corrected limit.131
The EPA previously reviewed
Alaska’s BACT evaluation for the
Zehnder Facility.132 In EPA’s prior
analysis, the EPA agreed with Alaska’s
BACT determinations for PM2.5. For the
turbines, no technologically feasible
add-on control options exist to reduce
PM2.5 emissions. For the emergency
generators, the EPA agreed that the
limits on annual hours of operation of
100 hours per year or less will result in
add-on control equipment such as DPF
being cost prohibitive. Further, the EPA
stated that similar to the turbines, no
technologically feasible add-on control
options exist to reduce PM2.5 emissions
from the small diesel and propane fired
boilers.133
Thus, in this action, the EPA proposes
to approve the submitted revisions to
State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol. III,
Appendix III.D.7.7 related to direct
PM2.5 emissions and NOX134 emissions
from Zehnder and the submitted
Zehnder Permit conditions as satisfying
CAA section 189(b) and 40 CFR
51.1010.
The EPA is not proposing to take
action on Alaska’s SO2 BACT
determinations in State Air Quality
Control Plan, Vol. III, Appendix III.D.7.7
at this time for the same reasons
discussed in the preceding paragraphs
regarding the Chena Power Plant. If the
EPA does not finalize approval of the
SO2 precursor demonstration, then the
EPA will propose action on Alaska’s
SO2 BACT determinations in a separate,
future action.
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
(each unit rated at 672 MMBtu per
hour), two fuel oil-fired combined cycle
gas combustion turbines (each unit rated
at 455 MMBtu per hour), one fuel oil131 State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol. III,
Appendix III.D.7.7–327.
132 See 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, EPA–R10–OAR–2022–
0115.
133 Id. at p. 11.
134 The EPA is not proposing to approve the NO
X
related emissions limits as meeting BACT for NOX.
For some emission units, Alaska imposed NOX
emissions limits as surrogates for direct PM2.5
emissions.
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
1615
fired emergency generator, and two
propane-fired boilers.
In the Fairbanks Revised 189(d) Plan,
Alaska revised its Air Quality Control
Plan for the North Pole Power Plant to
correct errors and improve clarity.135
Alaska also submitted conditions from
Air Quality Control Minor Permit
AQ0110MSS01 Revision 1 (Golden
Valley Electric Association—North Pole
Power Plant) (NPPP Permit). The NPPP
Permit conditions include enforceable
PM2.5 BACT emissions limitations for
the emission units at the North Pole
Power Plant comprised of numerical
emissions limits and work practice
standards with associated monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting. The
permits are included in the docket for
this action.136
The EPA previously reviewed
Alaska’s BACT evaluation for the North
Pole Power Plant.137 Similar to the
Zehnder facility discussion in the
preceding paragraphs in this section
II.C, the EPA agreed with Alaska that no
additional PM2.5 BACT controls are
feasible for emissions units at the North
Pole Power Plant.138 Thus, in this
action, the EPA proposes to approve the
submitted revisions to State Air Quality
Control Plan, Vol. III, Appendix III.D.7.7
related to direct PM2.5 emissions and
NOX139 emissions from the North Pole
Power Plant and the submitted NPPP
Permit conditions 140 as satisfying CAA
section 189(b) and 40 CFR 51.1010.
The EPA is not proposing to take
action on Alaska’s SO2 BACT
determinations in State Air Quality
Control Plan, Vol. III, Appendix III.D.7.7
at this time for the same reasons
discussed in the preceding paragraphs
regarding the Chena Power Plant. If the
EPA does not finalize approval of the
SO2 precursor demonstration, then the
EPA will propose action on Alaska’s
SO2 BACT determinations separately.
135 State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol. III,
Appendix III.D.7.7–267.
136 See State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol. III,
Appendix III.D.7.7–300.
137 See 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, EPA–R10–OAR–2022–
0115.
138 Id. at p. 11.
139 The EPA is not proposing to approve the NO
X
related emissions limits as meeting BACT for NOX.
For some emission units, Alaska imposed NOX
emissions limits as surrogates for direct PM2.5
emissions.
140 See section III.A of this preamble for the
specific permit conditions proposed to be approved.
E:\FR\FM\08JAP2.SGM
08JAP2
1616
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 5 / Wednesday, January 8, 2025 / Proposed Rules
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
c. Alaska’s Identification and Adoption
of Additional Measures and
Demonstration of Five Percent
Reduction in Emissions Pursuant to
CAA Section 189(d)
D. Attainment Demonstration and
Modeling
1. Statutory and Regulatory
Requirements Regarding the Attainment
Demonstration and Modeling
Pursuant to CAA sections 188(c) and
The Fairbanks Revised 189(d) Plan
retained the identification of all sources 189(b) and 40 CFR 51.1003(b) and
of direct PM2.5 emissions and PM2.5 plan 51.1011(b), for nonattainment areas
precursors, identification of all potential reclassified as Serious, the state must
submit an attainment demonstration as
controls to reduce direct PM2.5
part of the Serious Plan that meets the
emissions and PM2.5 plan precursors,
requirements of 40 CFR 51.1011.
and reevaluation of previously rejected
control measures included in the initial Similarly, pursuant to 40 CFR
51.1003(c), for Serious areas subject to
Fairbanks 189(d) Plan, as well as
identification of the MSMs adopted into CAA section 189(d) for failing to attain
by the Serious area attainment date, the
any SIP or used in practice to control
state must submit an attainment
emissions in any state.
demonstration as part of the 189(d) plan
As part of its reevaluation of control
that meets the requirements of 40 CFR
measures, Alaska provided additional
51.1011. On September 2, 2020, the EPA
information for many of the control
determined that the Fairbanks PM2.5
measures considered in the BACM
Nonattainment Area failed to attain the
analysis. The Fairbanks Revised 189(d)
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS by the
Plan includes additional consideration
December 31, 2019, Serious area
of banning installation of solid-fuel
attainment date. Therefore, the EPA is
devices in new construction, limiting
proposing to evaluate any previously
heating oil to ultra-low sulfur diesel, dry unmet Serious area planning obligations
wood requirements, emissions controls
based on the current, applicable
for small area sources, mobile sources,
attainment date appropriate under CAA
section 189(d) and not the original
and MSMs.141
143 In
Alaska identified a burn-down period Serious area attainment date.
accordance
with
CAA
section
as part of other jurisdictions’ solid fuel172(a)(2)(A) and 40 CFR 51.1004(a)(3),
fired heating device curtailment
program. Accordingly, Alaska adopted a the projected attainment date for
Serious nonattainment areas subject to
burn down period of three hours for
CAA section 189(d) shall be as
solid-fuel heating devices that begins
expeditious as practicable, but no later
upon the effective date and time of a
than five years following the effective
curtailment announcement. In addition, date of the EPA’s finding that the area
Alaska added specific requirements to
failed to attain by the original Serious
document economic hardship as part of area attainment date, except that the
a NOASH curtailment program waiver
Administrator may extend the
for solid-fuel devices.
attainment date to the extent the
Regarding the requirement to
Administrator deems appropriate, for a
period no greater than 10 years from the
demonstrate five percent annual
effective date of the EPA’s
reductions, Alaska included in the
Fairbanks Revised 189(d) Plan a control determination that the area failed to
attain, considering the severity of
strategy analysis that demonstrates
nonattainment and the availability and
annual reductions of PM2.5 are greater
than five percent through 2027, Alaska’s feasibility of pollution control measures.
In accordance with 40 CFR 51.1011, the
projected attainment year.142 Alaska
attainment demonstration must meet
noted that the State can demonstrate
either five percent annual reductions in four requirements:
a. Identify the projected attainment
emissions of direct PM2.5 or a five
date for the Serious nonattainment area
percent annual reductions in emissions
of a PM2.5 plan precursor. Alaska elected that is as expeditious as practicable;
b. Meet the requirements of 40 CFR
to demonstrate five percent annual
part 51, appendix W and include
reductions in direct PM2.5 emissions.
Thus, the EPA is proposing to approve
143 The term ‘‘applicable attainment date’’ is
the control strategy included in the
defined at 40 CFR 51.1000 to mean: ‘‘the latest
Fairbanks Revised 189(d) Plan as
statutory date by which an area is required to attain
meeting the requirements of CAA
a particular PM2.5 NAAQS, unless EPA has
approved an attainment plan for the area to attain
section 189(d) and 40 CFR 51.1010(c).
141 State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol. II, section
III.D.7.7.12 (adopted November 5, 2024).
142 State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol. II, section
III.D.7.9.2.3, Table 7.9–9.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:42 Jan 07, 2025
Jkt 265001
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.’’
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
inventory data, modeling results, and
emissions reduction analyses on which
the state has based its projected
attainment date;
c. The base year for the emissions
inventories shall be one of the 3 years
used for designations or another
technically appropriate inventory year if
justified by the state in the plan
submission; and
d. 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 the BACM
implementation deadline requirements
in 40 CFR 51.1010.144
2. Summary of the EPA’s Prior
Rulemaking Regarding Attainment
Demonstration and Modeling
The EPA disapproved Alaska’s
attainment demonstration in the initial
Fairbanks 189(d) Plan because it did not
fully meet CAA requirements.145 As part
of the attainment demonstration, the
state must identify the projected
attainment date that is as expeditious as
practicable. Alaska did not adopt and
implement all available control
measures. The correct identification of
the most expeditious attainment date
requires an evaluation based upon
expeditious implementation of the
required emissions controls. Therefore,
the EPA could not assess whether
Alaska identified the expeditious
attainment date for modeling purposes.
3. Summary of the State’s Submission
Regarding Attainment Demonstration
and Modeling
The State included an updated
attainment demonstration in the
Fairbanks Revised 189(d) Plan.146 In the
plan, Alaska asserted that calendar year
2027 reflects attainment ‘‘as
expeditiously as practicable,’’ based on
air quality improvements from the base
year to attainment year, as measured by
the quantified emissions reductions
144 40
CFR 51.1011(b)(5).
FR 84626, December 5, 2023, at p. 84676.
146 State Air Quality Plan, Vol. II, section III.D.7.9
(adopted November 5, 2024).
145 88
E:\FR\FM\08JAP2.SGM
08JAP2
1617
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 5 / Wednesday, January 8, 2025 / Proposed Rules
associated with the implementation of
control measures.147
Alaska noted that for attainment
modeling, five-year design values are
generally recommended. For the earlier
Fairbanks Serious Plan, the base year
modeling design value was 131.6 mg/m3.
However, the latest five-year (2017–
2021) design value is 64.9 mg/m3 at the
North Pole air quality monitor (Hurst
Road), the area of expected highest
PM2.5 concentrations in the Fairbanks
PM2.5 Nonattainment Area. As part of
updating its attainment analysis, Alaska
identified this five-year design value of
64.9 mg/m3 as the base year modeling
design value for the Fairbanks Revised
189(d) Plan.
Building on the 2020 base year
emissions inventory, Alaska developed
a series of future year emissions
inventories for each calendar year from
2020 through 2029. Alaska noted that
each of these future year inventories
accounted for growth in source activity
over time (e.g., increases in residential
heating emissions resulting from
forecasted housing growth). The
emissions inventory also accounted for
emissions reductions associated with
both on-going state and local control
programs (such as the Wood Stove
Change Out and Solid Fuel-Burning
Appliance Curtailment programs), along
with other control measures included in
the SIP that were adopted since the area
was classified as a Serious area.
Alaska stated that source activity
growth rates used to project the 2020
base year inventory emissions in
calendar years 2021 through 2029 were
generally based on the 2020–2024 and
2024–2035 annualized growth rates by
source sector included in the Fairbanks
Revised 189(d) Plan.148 However,
Alaska noted that the source activity
growth rate for space heating was
capped after model year 2027, and
claimed this is due to the difficulty in
reliably forecasting long-term energy
prices and the likely peak in energy
costs in 2024. Alaska also stated that the
effects of the Federal mobile source and
fuel control programs in projecting
mobile source emissions from 2021
through 2029 were accounted for using
the EPA’s MOVES3 vehicle emissions
model.
Alaska included a list of the state and
local control measures for which
emissions benefits were quantified and
included in the attainment date
analysis.149 Further, Alaska included a
phase-in forecast for each control
measure for 2020–2027 inventory years.
See Table 4 of this preamble for a
summary of these control measures:
TABLE 4—ALASKA CONTROL MEASURES AND PHASE-IN SCHEDULE
Percent compliance
Control measure
Fairbanks Wood Stove Change
Out Program.
2027
Attainment
year
Details
PM2.5
SO2
2,791
5,628
1.09 ...........................................
0.11 ...........................................
30%
38%
Stage 1: 0.02; Stage 2: 0.12 .....
Stage 1:—0.000; Stage 2:—
0.02.
Shift to diesel no. 1 fuel oil .......
n/a
50%
0.02 ...........................................
1.73 ...........................................
Requires commercially sold
wood to be dry before sale.
n/a
50%
0.06 ...........................................
Less than 0.01 ..........................
Removal of all uncertified devices & cordwood outdoor
hydronic heaters.
0%
30%
0.25 ...........................................
¥0.01 ........................................
2.0 g/hr and 0.10 lb/MMBtu certified emission rates for new
or re-conveyed wood devices.
22%
35%
0.09 ...........................................
Less than 0.01 ..........................
Removal of coal heaters ...........
n/a
25%
Less than 0.01 ..........................
Less than 0.01.
Solid Fuel-Burning Appliance
Curtailment Program.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
2020
Base
year
2027 Projected emissions
(tons per episodic day)
147 State
Air Quality Plan, Vol. II, section III.D.7.9.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:42 Jan 07, 2025
Jkt 265001
148 State Air Quality Plan, Vol. II, section III.D.7.6,
Table 7.6–10.
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Based on funding from the
2016, 2017, 2018, 2019–
2020, 2021, and 2022 Targeted Airshed Grants.
In winter 2022–2023, Alaska
conducted an observational
field study from which compliance was estimated to be
38.1%.
This measure required a onetime shift from the current mix
of diesel no. 2 and diesel no.
1 heating oil refined and sold
in the nonattainment area by
September 2022.
Requires commercially sold
wood after October 1, 2021,
to be dry, or if sold as 8-ft
length rounds, requires proof
of proper/adequate storage
for drying by the buyer.
2024 is first year of implementation. Compliance rate estimates based on existing and
on-going public education and
outreach efforts.
The compliance rate estimated
for this measure reflect the
volume of home sales (projected from historical data)
coupled with the requirement
to register wood-fired heating
devices upon sale or conveyance of a property.
149 State Air Quality Plan, Vol. II, section III.D.7.9,
Table 7.9–1.
E:\FR\FM\08JAP2.SGM
08JAP2
1618
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 5 / Wednesday, January 8, 2025 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 4—ALASKA CONTROL MEASURES AND PHASE-IN SCHEDULE—Continued
Percent compliance
Control measure
2020
Base
year
Details
PM2.5
SO2
Wood-fired devices may not be
primary or only heating
source.
0%
20%
(existing
homes);
40% (new
homes)
0.09 ...........................................
Less than 0.01 ..........................
NOASH/Exemption requirements.
0%
50%
Less than 0.01 ..........................
Less than 0.01 ..........................
Alaska noted that, based on these
phase-in forecasts, a detailed
spreadsheet was developed to calculate
PM2.5 and SO2 emissions reductions
within the space heating sector for each
measure in each inventory year. 150 The
source activity data includes device and
fuel splits, emission factors, and
methods used to calculate control
measure emissions benefits to support
the control inventories developed for
the attainment date analysis. Alaska
further stated that the control measure
emissions benefits calculations also
account for the effects of overlap
between measures that impact the same
source category, properly eliminating
double counting.
Alaska stated that projected emissions
control inventories for each year from
2020 through 2029 were prepared to
support the analysis of expeditious
attainment. Full modeling runs were
completed for 2029, 2027, and 2026 in
that order. After the 2029 modeling
results demonstrated attainment of the
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
2027 Projected emissions
(tons per episodic day)
2027
Attainment
year
PM2.5 NAAQS, 2027 was selected as the
next year to evaluate expeditious
attainment.
To begin analyzing the 2027
attainment year, Alaska noted that the
2027 episodic modeling inventory was
incorporated into the CMAQ air quality
model. Modeled concentration outputs
for this 2027 control inventory run were
post-processed for each grid cell
corresponding to ambient air quality
monitors for which design values could
be computed and processed through
Alaska’s Speciated Modeled Attainment
Test (SMAT) tool (see State Air Quality
Control Plan, Vol. II, section III.D.7.8.9).
Alaska stated that the modeled design
value at the controlling North Pole
(Hurst Road) air quality monitor was
found to be 31.9 mg/m3, below the 35 mg/
m3 NAAQS for 24-hour PM2.5 and thus
demonstrating modeled attainment by
2027.
To evaluate whether attainment could
be advanced any sooner than 2027,
Alaska compiled another emissions
inventory for the 2026 model year. The
2026 CMAQ gridded outputs were then
post-processed for the key monitorbased grid cells through the SMAT tool
to develop modeled design values that
reflected penetration of the State’s
control strategy package in 2026. Alaska
stated that the 2026 modeled design
value at the North Pole (Hurst Road)
monitor was found to be 38.1 mg/m3,
which exceeds the 35 mg/m3 NAAQS.
As shown in Table 5 of this preamble,
modeled design values in 2027 at all
three regulatory air quality monitor
locations in the Fairbanks PM2.5
Nonattainment Area are below the 35
mg/m3 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. Alaska
noted that the modeled design value at
the controlling North Pole (Hurst Road)
monitor is 31.9 mg/m3, more than 3 mg/
m3 below the NAAQS, which provides
a ‘‘buffer’’ to account for concentrations
in unmonitored grid cells across the
nonattainment area. Modeled 2027
design values at the other two monitors
near downtown Fairbanks are well
below the PM2.5 NAAQS.
150 See State Air Quality Plan, Vol. III, Appendix
III.D.7.9.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:42 Jan 07, 2025
Jkt 265001
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Beginning in 2024, compliance
rates of 20% for new home
sales (discounted for large
lot, 2-acre cabin exemption)
and 40% for home resales.
The new home sale compliance rate is discounted from
40% to 20% to account for
the estimated portion of large
lot (greater than 2 acre) cabins which are exempted from
this requirement.
Compliance rates reflect projected penetration rate increases associated with annual renewal and device registration requirements, proper
installation and maintenance
determinations from thirdparty verifiers, and requirements for catalyst replacement when manufacturer-recommended catalyst useful life
is reached (estimated at six
years averaged across manufacturers). These elements
are also coupled with projected impacts from the
NOASH reduction program
funded under currently secured TAGs.
E:\FR\FM\08JAP2.SGM
08JAP2
1619
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 5 / Wednesday, January 8, 2025 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 5—FAIRBANKS MODELED ATTAINMENT SUMMARY
Base year 2020
5-year PM2.5
modeling design
value (μg/m3),
2017–2021
Fairbanks PM2.5 air quality
monitor
North Pole (Hurst Road) ............................................................................................
NCORE ......................................................................................................................
A Street ......................................................................................................................
Future 5-year
PM2.5 modeling
design value
(μg/m3), 2026
64.9
27.7
34.8
Future 5-year
PM2.5 modeling
design value
(μg/m3), 2027
38.1
19.8
24.5
31.9
18.4
22.7
Source: State Air Quality Plan, Vol. II, section III.D.7.9, Table 7.9–12.
4. The EPA’s Evaluation and Proposed
Action Regarding the Attainment
Demonstration and Modeling
The EPA proposes to approve
Alaska’s attainment demonstration as
meeting the requirements under 40 CFR
51.1011(b). Alaska demonstrated that
the 2027 projected attainment date for
the Serious nonattainment area is as
expeditious as practicable. The
attainment demonstration meets the
requirements of Appendix W and
includes inventory data, modeling
results, and emissions reduction
analyses on which the state has based
its projected attainment date. As
discussed in section II.A of this
preamble, the base year for the
emissions inventories for Alaska was
2020, which the EPA is proposing to
determine is the technically appropriate
inventory year. The EPA is proposing to
determine that the control strategies in
Alaska’s SIP as rectified by the
Fairbanks Revised 189(d) Plan satisfy
the requirements of 40 CFR 51.1010.
Therefore, the control strategies
modeled as part of the attainment
demonstration are consistent with the
control strategies required pursuant to
40 CFR 51.1003 and 51.1010. With
respect to the required timeframe for
obtaining emissions reductions, all
control measures needed for attainment
will be implemented as expeditiously as
practicable and implemented to attain
the PM2.5 NAAQS by 2027.
Pursuant to CAA section 172(a)(2)(A)
and 40 CFR 51.1004(a)(3), the EPA is
proposing to extend the attainment date
for the Fairbanks PM2.5 Nonattainment
Area to December 31, 2027. As shown
in Table 5 of this preamble, the 2020
base year design value at the Hurst Road
monitoring station is 64.9 mg/m3. This
design value is well above the PM2.5 24hour NAAQS of 35 mg/m3, indicating
the air quality problem in the Fairbanks
PM2.5 Nonattainment Area remains
severe. However, Alaska has
demonstrated that attainment earlier
than 2027 is not feasible. Moreover, the
EPA has reviewed Alaska’s evaluations
(and re-evaluations) of available control
measures and proposes to determine
that Alaska’s control strategy meets the
requirements of CAA section 189(b) and
189(d) and 40 CFR 51.1010. By
extension, the EPA proposes to
determine that there are no other
feasible measures that Alaska could
implement that would advance
attainment to a date earlier than
December 31, 2027.
As discussed in section II.E of this
preamble regarding Reasonable Further
Progress, the primary drivers of
emissions reductions will be continued
implementation of the wood stove
change out program, the Solid FuelBurning Appliance Curtailment
Program, and the switch from diesel no.
2 fuel oil to diesel no. 1 fuel oil. The rate
of wood stove change-outs in a single
season is constrained based on the
availability of certified installers and
residential demand. Similarly, higher
sulfur fuel cannot feasibly be eliminated
from the Fairbanks PM2.5 Nonattainment
Area until 2026152 due to the time
necessary to expend all residual diesel
no. 2 fuel oil and for diesel no. 1 to fully
flush out any remaining higher sulfur
residue. Finally, Alaska conducted a
recent assessment of compliance with
the Solid Fuel-Burning Appliance
Curtailment Program that indicated a
Pursuant to CAA section 172(c) and
40 CFR 51.1012, 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 preamble,
on September 2, 2020, the 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, the 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
151 State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol. II, section
III.D.7.9.3
152 State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol. II, section
III.D.7.10, Table 7.10–4.
153 State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol. III,
Appendix III.D.7.9, at p. Appendix III.D.7.14–12.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Alaska noted that even if emission
controls were applied for precursor
pollutants within applicable source
sectors for which precursor significance
determinations have been made (i.e.,
SO2 emissions from major stationary
sources in the Fairbanks PM2.5
Nonattainment Area), the reduction in
secondary PM2.5 from such controls
would not be sufficient to advance
attainment sooner than 2027.151
Therefore, Alaska asserted that this
evaluation demonstrates that 2027 is the
most expeditious attainment date based
on currently available data and
demonstrate attainment ‘‘as
expeditiously as practicable.’’
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:54 Jan 07, 2025
Jkt 265001
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
compliance rate of 38 percent.153 Given
the variability of compliance with this
program in past, Alaska does not project
a near-term improvement in the
compliance rate. Therefore, the EPA has
considered the severity of
nonattainment and the availability and
feasibility of control measures as
required under CAA section
172(a)(2)(A) and 40 CFR 51.1004(a)(3).
E. Reasonable Further Progress
1. Statutory and Regulatory
Requirements Regarding Reasonable
Further Progress
E:\FR\FM\08JAP2.SGM
08JAP2
1620
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 5 / Wednesday, January 8, 2025 / Proposed Rules
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.154
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.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
2. Summary of the EPA’s Prior
Rulemaking Regarding Reasonable
Further Progress
The EPA disapproved the RFP
provisions in the Fairbanks Serious Plan
and Fairbanks 189(d) Plan because the
control strategies in those prior plans
did not include all required control
measures.155 This caused uncertainty as
to whether the RFP provisions of those
plans accurately projected progress
towards the most expeditious
attainment year, per CAA section
172(c)(2) and 40 CFR 51.1012.
154 For
an evaluation of motor vehicle emission
budgets, see section II.H of this preamble.
155 88 FR 84626, December 5, 2023, at p. 84676.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:42 Jan 07, 2025
Jkt 265001
3. Summary of the State’s Submission
Regarding Reasonable Further Progress
The Fairbanks Revised 189(d) Plan
includes updated RFP provisions at
State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol. II,
section III.D.7.10.156 Consistent with the
attainment demonstration provisions
discussed in the preceding paragraphs,
these updated RFP provisions reflect the
attainment year of 2027.157 The updated
RFP analysis includes a schedule that
includes 2020 as the base year, 2027 as
the attainment year, and the following
years as RFP and quantitative milestone
analysis years: 2023, 2026, and 2029.158
Alaska included an analysis of
implementation of all control measures
that establishes the scheduled phase-in
of each measure adopted and estimation
of emissions reductions for each
significant pollutant (also accounting for
the overlapping of measures to
eliminate double counting) for each
milestone year based on the phase-in
schedule. Alaska calculated the RFP and
quantitative milestone (QM) milestone
year emissions reduction targets based
on linear progress towards attainment
by 2027. Based on the control measure
phase-in schedule, Alaska calculated
projected emissions reductions for each
pollutant in each milestone year and
compared these emissions reductions to
their targets to evaluate linear progress
toward attainment.
Alaska has continued to assess the
appropriate compliance rate estimate.
As Alaska noted in the Fairbanks
Revised 189(d) Plan, the State is
currently utilizing funding from the
2019–2020 TAG to purchase three
dynamic message highway signs and an
infrared camera and to expand staffing
to increase compliance.159 Alaska
continues to conduct field studies
during the wintertime to observe
compliance rates. Based on the recent
2022–2023 wintertime field study,
Alaska determined that the combined
compliance rate in Fairbanks and the
North Pole is 38.1 percent. Based on
these observations and the increased use
of TAG funding to improve compliance,
Alaska increased its compliance
estimate with the curtailment program
to 38 percent for the 2023 model year,
156 Adopted
November 5, 2024.
provisions in prior SIP submissions for
the Fairbanks PM2.5 Nonattainment Area reflected
varying projected attainment dates. 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.
158 See State Air Quality Plan, Vol. II, section
III.D.7.10.2.
159 State Air Quality Plan, Vol. II, section
III.D.7.9.1.1.
157 RFP
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
an increase from 30 percent in 2020.
Alaska plans to conduct additional
wintertime curtailment program
compliance observations to inform
anticipated improvements in
compliance beyond 2023. For the
attainment year projected emissions
inventory, Alaska stated that it
conservatively assumed no further
compliance rate increases pending
further evaluation of additional
wintertime compliance observations.160
Alaska stated that direct PM2.5
emissions reductions achieved within
the first two milestone years (2023 and
2026) achieve stepwise progress.161
However, reductions in direct PM2.5
emissions in the attainment year of 2027
reflect linear progress. According to
Alaska’s submission, this is attributable
to a spike in participation in the wood
stove change out program anticipated by
2027 (based on increased incentives and
deadlines for older device turnover) and
gradual improvements in household
compliance with control strategies
impacting solid fuel-burning devices.
With respect to SO2, Alaska stated
that SO2 emissions reductions are
expected to be non-linear but includes
early year (2023 and 2026) progress that
significantly exceeds the linear progress
trajectory.162 Alaska stated that 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 from space
heating devices that emit high levels of
direct PM2.5 to oil-fired devices that
emit very low levels of direct PM2.5 (but
can lead to higher levels of SO2
emissions depending on the fuel sulfur
content). Second, initial reductions in
SO2 emissions are the result of Alaska
implementing an SO2-specific control
measure in 2022 mandating a shift from
diesel no. 2 to diesel no. 1 heating oil.
Thus, emissions reductions for SO2
exhibit stepwise rather than linear
progress.
Regarding NH3, Alaska stated that
linearly established targets for NH3 will
not be met until the forecasted 2027
attainment year.163 Alaska noted that
the increases in NH3 emissions are not
due to control measure benefits or lack
thereof. Although Alaska adopted and
implemented control measures to
reduce NH3, Alaska did not calculate
any NH3 emissions reductions for these
measures for the purposes of RFP due to
160 Id.
161 State Air Quality Plan, Vol. II, section
III.D.7.10.3.3.
162 Id.
163 Id.
E:\FR\FM\08JAP2.SGM
08JAP2
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 5 / Wednesday, January 8, 2025 / Proposed Rules
the large uncertainty in NH3 emissions
factors for key sources.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
4. The EPA’s Evaluation and Proposed
Action Regarding Reasonable Further
Progress
The EPA is proposing to approve the
Fairbanks Revised 189(d) Plan as
meeting the RFP requirements in CAA
section 172(c)(2) and 40 CFR 51.1012.
The RFP provisions in the Fairbanks
Revised 189(d) Plan meet each of the
requirements in 40 CFR 51.1012(a)(1)–
(4). First, the RFP provisions include a
schedule describing the implementation
of control measures during each year of
the applicable attainment plan.164
Second, the Fairbanks Revised 189(d)
Plan includes RFP projected emissions
for direct PM2.5 and all PM2.5 plan
precursors for each applicable milestone
year based on the phase-in schedule.165
Third, the Fairbanks Revised 189(d)
Plan includes an analysis that presents
the schedule of control measures and
estimated emissions changes to be
achieved by each milestone year: 2023,
2026, and 2029.166 This analysis relies
on information from the base year
inventory and attainment projected
inventories in State Air Quality Control
Plan, Vol. II, section III.D.7.8, as well as
the RFP projected emissions. The
analysis demonstrates that the control
strategy will achieve reasonable
progress toward attainment between the
applicable base year and the attainment
year.167
Finally, the Fairbanks Revised 189(d)
Plan includes an analysis that
demonstrates that by the end of the
calendar year for each milestone date,
pollutant emissions will be at levels that
reflect either linear progress or stepwise
progress in reducing emissions on an
annual basis between the base year and
attainment year. As discussed in section
II.E.3 of this preamble, Alaska’s
projections for reductions in direct
PM2.5 reductions closely track linear
progress. The EPA proposes to
determine that the slight deviations
from linear progress in the initial years
of implementation are justified. The
EPA recognizes the episodic nature of
164 Id. at section III.D.7.10.3.2; See also State Air
Quality Control Plan, Vol. III, Appendix III.D.7.10.
165 Id. at section III.D.7.10.3.3, Table 7.10–5.
166 Id. at section III.D.7.10.3.2, Table 7.10–4.
167 Id. at section III.D.7.10.3, Tables 7.10–4–7.10–
5; Figures 7.10–3–7.10–5. Note that NH3 emissions
are projected to increase from base year to the
projected attainment year. As discussed in the
preceding paragraphs regarding the control strategy,
the EPA either has previously approved Alaska’s
control strategy as meet planning requirements for
sources of NH3. This is primarily because there are
either no controls for sources of NH3 emissions in
the Fairbanks PM2.5 Nonattainment Area or the
direct PM2.5 emissions controls are sufficient to
control NH3 emissions.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:42 Jan 07, 2025
Jkt 265001
wood-stove change outs and the time lag
between state enforcement and
deterrence.
With respect to SO2 emissions
reductions, Alaska projects emissions
well below linear progress in 2023 and
2026 milestone years. As discussed in
section II.E.3 of this preamble, the earlyyear reductions are due to near-term
implementation of the control strategy
requirement to switch to lower sulfur
fuels. These early reductions are
consistent with the overall goal of
achieving attainment as expeditiously as
practicable.168 The EPA proposes to
determine that Alaska adequately
justified the leveling off of SO2
emissions reductions in 2027 as due to
the near-term implementation of the
fuel switch as well as the increase in
SO2 emissions from residents switching
from solid fuel-fired heating devices to
liquid fuel-fired heating devices to
comply with other measures in the
control strategy targeting sources of
direct PM2.5.
Finally, with respect to NH3, the EPA
proposes to determine that Alaska
adequately justified the increase in
emissions. The EPA has previously
approved Alaska control strategy for
NH3, noting that sources in the
Fairbanks PM2.5 Nonattainment Area
emit a negligible amount of NH3 and
there are no specific controls for the
types of sources in the area.169
Therefore, the EPA is proposing to
approve the Fairbanks Revised 189(d)
Plan as meeting the RFP requirements in
CAA section 172(c)(2) and 40 CFR
51.1012.
F. Quantitative Milestones
1. Statutory and Regulatory
Requirements Regarding the
Quantitative Milestones
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 that
provide for objective evaluation of
reasonable further progress toward
timely attainment of the applicable
PM2.5 NAAQS in the area.170 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.171
In the preamble to the PM2.5 SIP
Requirements Rule, the EPA stated that
it interprets the CAA as allowing states
to identify milestones that are suitable
for the specific facts and circumstances
of the attainment area.172 The EPA
suggested possible metrics, including
tracking air quality improvement,
tracking emissions reductions,
percentage implementation of control
strategies, or percent compliance with
implemented control measures.173
Finally, the EPA stated in the preamble
that quantitative milestones will be met
by showing that emissions reductions
scheduled to be made between the SIP
due date and the attainment date were
actually achieved.174
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 the EPA’s Prior Action
Regarding the Quantitative Milestones
The EPA disapproved the quantitative
milestones in the Fairbanks Serious
Plan and Fairbanks 189(d) Plan because
the control strategies in those prior
plans did not include all required
control measures.175 This caused
uncertainty as the whether the
quantitative milestones were based on
progress towards the most expeditious
attainment year.
3. Summary of the State’s Submission
Regarding the Quantitative Milestones
Alaska submitted revised quantitative
milestones in the Fairbanks Revised
189(d) Plan. As noted in section II.E of
this preamble, Alaska’s updated RFP
analysis is based on a schedule that
includes 2020 as the base year, 2027 as
the attainment year, and the following
years as quantitative milestone years:
171 40
168 See
CAA section 189, 42 U.S.C. 7513a,
Addendum to the General Preamble, 59 FR 41998
(August 16, 1994), at p. 42016.
169 88 FR 84626, December 5, 2023, at p. 84636
170 40 CFR 51.1013(a)(3).
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
1621
CFR 51.1013(a)(3)(ii).
172 Id.
173 81 FR 58010, Aug. 24, 2016, at pp. 58064,
58104.
174 Id.
175 88 FR 84626, December 5, 2023, at p. 84676.
E:\FR\FM\08JAP2.SGM
08JAP2
1622
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 5 / Wednesday, January 8, 2025 / Proposed Rules
2023, 2026, and 2029.176 Alaska used
emissions reductions achieved
compared to projected emissions
reductions as the metric to objectively
evaluate progress toward attainment.177
Alaska calculated expected emissions
reductions based on the control measure
phase-in schedule.178 In its Quantitative
Milestone Reports required by CAA
section 189(c) and 40 CFR 51.1013(b),
Alaska reported the emissions
reductions achieved by the end of the
milestone year compared to the
projected emissions reductions included
in the quantitative milestone provisions
in the Fairbanks Revised 189(d) Plan,
specifically, State Air Control Quality
Plan, Vol. II, section III.D.7.10.3. Alaska
made clear that the state will include in
its QM reports completion statistics and
phase-in percentages for each measure
included in the Fairbanks Revised
189(d) Plan.179
According to the Fairbanks Revised
189(d) Plan, one of Alaska’s reasons for
selecting emissions reductions achieved
compared to projected emissions
reductions as the objective metric is
because doing so allows Alaska to take
credit for emissions reductions from
voluntary measures that are not part of
its control strategy.180 Alaska provided
the example of emissions reductions
attributable to natural gas expansion. As
discussed further below in section II.F.4
of this preamble, the EPA disagrees with
this specific rationale for allowing the
state to take credit for emissions
reductions from voluntary measures that
are not part of its control strategy.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
4. The EPA’s Evaluation and Proposed
Action Regarding the Quantitative
Milestones
The EPA is proposing to approve the
Fairbanks Revised 189(d) Plan as
meeting the quantitative milestone
requirements of CAA section 189(c)(1)
and 40 CFR 51.1013. First, in
accordance with 40 CFR
51.1013(a)(3)(ii) and (4), the Fairbanks
Revised 189(d) Plan includes
quantitative milestones for the years
2023, 2026, and 2029. Second, the
Fairbanks Revised 189(d) Plan includes
phase-in metrics for each measure in the
control strategy, including measures
necessary to meet the BACM and BACT
requirements in CAA section 189(b) and
40 CFR 51.1010(a) and the requirements
of CAA section 189(d) and 40 CFR
51.1010(c).
176 See State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol. II,
section III.D.7.10.2.
177 Id.
178 Id. at section III.D.7.10.3.3, Table 7.10–5.
179 Id. at section III.D.7.10.2.
180 Id.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:42 Jan 07, 2025
Jkt 265001
Finally, the measures allow for
objective evaluation of RFP. As stated in
the preceding paragraphs, the EPA
interprets the CAA as allowing states to
identify milestones that are suitable for
the specific facts and circumstances of
the attainment area. The EPA proposes
to determine that Alaska’s quantitative
milestones provide objective evaluation
of RFP and are suitable for the specific
facts and circumstances for the
Fairbanks PM2.5 Nonattainment Area.
Although the EPA agrees that comparing
emissions reductions achieved to
projected emissions reductions allows
for objective evaluation of RFP for the
Fairbanks PM2.5 Nonattainment Area,
the EPA disagrees with Alaska’s stated
rationale for selecting this metric. The
purpose of QMs is to provide an
objective evaluation of the state’s
implementation of the SIP control
measures.181 Therefore, crediting
emissions reductions attributable to
non-SIP measures toward achieving a
QM is inconsistent with CAA section
189(c) and 40 CFR 51.1013.
Nevertheless, using emissions
reductions as the metric is appropriate
for the Fairbanks Revised 189(d) Plan
because of the overlapping nature of
control measures and associated
emissions reductions, particularly those
focused on the space heating area source
sector. Specifically, the implementation
of specific measures designed to reduce
emissions from solid fuel-fired burning
devices impacts nearly all other areasource controls measures. For example,
the wood stove change out program
removes wood stoves from the
emissions inventory. This reduces direct
PM2.5 emissions, but also impacts the
emissions reductions achieved by the
Solid Fuel-Burning Appliance
Curtailment Program and dry wood
requirements.
Alaska could achieve more wood
stove change-outs than it projects in a
milestone year and, thus, achieve more
emissions reductions attributable to that
measure. However, that measure, by its
nature, changes the makeup of the
remaining wood stove users and their
collective compliance with dry wood
requirements and the curtailment
program. Thus, there could be an
instance where Alaska overperforms on
one wood stove control measure, and
that overperformance causes an
underperformance on one or more other
similar measures, but that collectively
the measures achieve RFP.
181 See 40 CFR 51.1013(a)(3)(ii) (‘‘At a minimum,
each quantitative milestone plan must include a
milestone for tracking progress achieved in
implementing the SIP control measures by each
milestone date.’’) (emphasis added).
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Relatedly, the wood stove change out
program has the potential to moderate
the benefits of measures designed to
reduce SO2 emissions by increasing the
number of residences using oil fuel-fired
heating devices. Comparing emissions
reductions achieved to projected
emissions reductions as the milestone
metric allows Alaska to take into
consideration these complex
interactions and ultimately provides a
more meaningful assessment of whether
Alaska’s plan is achieving RFP.
In addition to the emissions reduction
metric, the Fairbanks Revised 189(d)
Plan includes several other objective
metrics for RFP, including the number
of wood stoves changed out, compliance
percentage for tracking the progress of
the solid-fuel burning device change out
program, and percent implementation as
metrics for the fuel sulfur content shift
mandate, dry wood requirements,
mandatory wood device removal, and
more stringent no other adequate source
of heat requirements.
Alaska has demonstrated its ability to
include emissions reduction statistics in
its quantitative milestone reports. On
March 29, 2024, Alaska submitted its
quantitative milestone report for
quantitative milestone year 2023 (‘‘2023
QM Report’’). The EPA determined the
2023 QM Report was adequate on
November 14, 2024. Both the 2023 QM
Report and the EPA’s adequacy
determination are included in the
docket for this action.
The 2023 QM Report included a
certification from the Governor’s
designee that the control strategy in the
Fairbanks Revised 189(d) Plan is being
implemented consistent with the RFP
provisions in the Fairbanks Revised
189(d) Plan. The 2023 QM Report also
included calculations and associated
technical support for emissions
reductions attributable to the measures
in the control strategy. The report
compared emissions reductions
achieved to date to those projected
based on the control measure phase-in
schedule. The report also included, for
example, the number of wood stoves
changed out as of 2023 as well as the
basis for implementation percentages
and compliance rates for each control
measure. Finally, the 2023 QM Report
included a discussion as to whether the
area will attain the PM2.5 NAAQS by
2027. Therefore, the EPA proposes to
approve the Fairbanks Revised 189(d)
Plan as meeting the quantitative
milestone requirements of CAA section
189(c)(1) and 40 CFR 51.1013.
E:\FR\FM\08JAP2.SGM
08JAP2
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 5 / Wednesday, January 8, 2025 / Proposed Rules
G. Contingency Measures
1. Statutory and Regulatory
Requirements Regarding the
Contingency Measures
Under CAA section 172(c)(9), states
required to make an attainment plan SIP
submission must include contingency
measures to be implemented if the area
fails to meet RFP or fails to attain the
NAAQS by the applicable attainment
date. Under the PM2.5 SIP Requirements
Rule, states must include contingency
measures that the state will implement
following a determination by the EPA
that the state has failed: (1) to meet any
RFP requirement in the approved SIP;
(2) to meet any QM in the approved SIP;
(3) to submit a required QM report; or
(4) to attain the applicable PM2.5
NAAQS by the applicable attainment
date.182
In accordance with the statute,
contingency measures must be fully
adopted rules or control measures that
are ready to be implemented upon the
EPA determination of a failure of any of
the four types specified by statute and
regulation for purposes of the PM2.5
NAAQS at issue.183 The contingency
measures must be included in the state’s
SIP and explicitly provide that they will
take effect in the case of any such
finding of failure, without further
significant action by the State or the
EPA. In general, the EPA expects all
actions needed to effect full
implementation of the measures to
occur within 60 days after the EPA
notifies the state of a failure to meet RFP
or of a failure to attain.184 The EPA has
historically recommended that the
additional emissions reductions from
the contingency measures should be
achieved within a year of the triggering
event.185 The EPA has recently revised
its guidance concerning the period of
time during which contingency
measures should provide emissions
reductions, and now recommends that it
may be appropriate for contingency
measures to achieve emissions
reductions within two years under
certain circumstances.186 The purpose
182 40
CFR 51.1014(a).
FR 58010, August 24, 2016, at p. 58066; see
also Addendum to the General Preamble for the
Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1990, 59 FR 41998, August 16,
1994, at 42015 (‘‘General Preamble Addendum’’).
184 81 FR 58010, August 24, 2016, at p. 58066; see
also General Preamble at pp. 13512, 13543–13544,
and General Preamble Addendum, at pp. 42014–
42015.
185 General Preamble, at p. 13511.
186 ‘‘Guidance on the Preparation of State
Implementation Plans Provisions that Address the
Nonattainment Area Contingency Measure
Requirements for Ozone and Particulate Matter,’’
Joseph Goffman, U.S. Environmental Protection
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
183 81
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:42 Jan 07, 2025
Jkt 265001
of contingency measures is to continue
progress toward attainment, as the state
develops and submits, and the EPA acts
on, a SIP submission to address the
underlying deficiency.
Neither the CAA nor the EPA’s
implementing regulations establish a
specific level of emissions reductions
that implementation of contingency
measures must achieve, but the EPA has
historically recommended that
contingency measures should provide
for emissions reductions equivalent to
approximately one year of reductions
needed for RFP in the nonattainment
area.187 For PM2.5 NAAQS SIP planning
purposes, prior to issuing the recent
contingency measure guidance, the EPA
has recommended that RFP should be
calculated as the overall level of
reductions needed to demonstrate
attainment divided by the number of
years from the base year to the
attainment year.188 As part of the
attainment plan SIP submission, the
EPA expects states to explain the
amount of anticipated emissions
reductions that the contingency
measures will achieve. In the event that
a state is unable to identify and adopt
contingency measures that will provide
for approximately one year’s worth of
emissions reductions, then the EPA
recommends that the state provide a
reasoned justification why the smaller
amount of emissions reductions is
appropriate.189 As further described
below, the EPA revised and updated its
guidance concerning the amount of
emissions reductions that contingency
measures should achieve and expanded
its recommendations concerning how
states may justify having contingency
measures that achieve fewer reductions,
in light of recent court decisions and the
changed factual circumstances.
To satisfy the contingency measure
requirements of 40 CFR 51.1014, the
contingency measures adopted as part of
a PM2.5 NAAQS attainment plan must
consist of control measures for sources
in the area that are not otherwise
required to meet other attainment plan
requirements (e.g., BACM or BACT
requirements). By definition,
contingency measures are measures that
are over and above what a state must
adopt and impose to meet RFP and to
provide for attainment by the applicable
attainment date. Contingency measures
serve the purpose of providing
Agency, Assistant Administrator, Office of Air and
Radiation, December 3, 2024.
187 81 FR 58010, August 24, 2016, at p. 58066; see
also General Preamble, at pp. 13511, 13543–13544,
and General Preamble Addendum, at pp. 42014–
42015.
188 81 FR 58010, August 24, 2016, at p. 58066.
189 Id. at p. 58067.
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
1623
additional emissions reductions during
the period after a failure to meet RFP or
failure to attain as the state prepares a
new SIP submission to rectify the
problem. Accordingly, contingency
measures must provide such additional
emissions reductions during an
appropriate period and must specify the
timeframe by which their requirements
would become effective following any of
the EPA determinations specified in 40
CFR 51.1014(a).
To comply with CAA section
172(c)(9), contingency measures must be
both conditional and prospective, so
that they will go into effect and achieve
emissions reductions only in the event
of a future triggering event such as a
failure to meet RFP or a failure to attain.
In the 2016 Bahr v. EPA decision,190 the
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that
CAA section 172(c)(9) does not allow
EPA approval of already-implemented
control measures as contingency
measures. Thus, already-implemented
measures cannot serve as contingency
measures under CAA section 172(c)(9).
For purposes of the PM2.5 NAAQS, a
state must develop, adopt, and submit
one or more contingency measures to be
triggered upon a failure to meet any RFP
requirement, failure to meet a
quantitative milestone requirement, or
failure to attain the NAAQS by the
applicable attainment date, regardless of
the extent to which already
implemented measures would achieve
surplus emissions reductions beyond
those necessary to meet RFP or
quantitative milestone requirements and
beyond those predicted to achieve
attainment of the NAAQS.
In another recent decision concerning
contingency measures for the ozone
NAAQS, the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals held that the surplus emissions
reductions from already-implemented
measures cannot be relied upon to
justify the approval of a contingency
measure that would achieve far less
than one year’s worth of RFP as
sufficient by itself to meet the
contingency measure requirements of
CAA sections 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9) for
the nonattainment area.191
a. Revised Contingency Measure
Guidance
On December 3, 2024, the EPA issued
new guidance addressing the
contingency measures requirement of
CAA section 172(c)(9), herein referred to
as the ‘‘Contingency Measure
190 Bahr v. EPA, 836 F.3d 1218, 1235–1237 (9th
Cir. 2016). See also Sierra Club v. EPA, 21 F.4th
815, 827–28 (D.C. Cir. 2021).
191 Assoc. of Irritated Residents v. EPA, 10 F.4th
937, 946–47 (9th Cir. 2021) (‘‘AIR v. EPA’’ or
‘‘AIR’’).
E:\FR\FM\08JAP2.SGM
08JAP2
1624
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 5 / Wednesday, January 8, 2025 / Proposed Rules
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Guidance.’’192 The principal differences
between the latest Contingency Measure
Guidance and prior guidance on
contingency measures relate to the
EPA’s recommendations concerning the
specific amount of emissions reductions
that implementation of contingency
measures should achieve and to the
timing for when the emissions
reductions from the contingency
measures should occur. The
Contingency Measure Guidance also
provides recommended procedures for
developing a demonstration, if
applicable, that the area lacks sufficient
feasible measures to achieve one year’s
worth of reductions, building on
existing guidance that the state may
provide a reasoned justification why the
smaller amount of emissions reductions
is appropriate.193
The EPA has historically
recommended that contingency
measures should achieve approximately
one year’s worth of RFP, calculated
based upon the initial emissions
inventory of the attainment plan for the
area in question. As explained in the
updated guidance, however, the EPA is
revising its interpretation of the
requirements of CAA section 172(c)(9).
Under the Contingency Measure
Guidance, the EPA recommends that the
amount of emissions reductions that
contingency measures should achieve
should be one year’s worth of
‘‘progress,’’ as opposed to one year’s
worth of RFP.194 One year’s worth of
‘‘progress’’ is calculated by determining
the average annual reductions between
the base year emissions inventory and
the projected attainment year emissions
inventory, determining what percentage
of the base year emissions inventory this
amount represents, then applying that
percentage to the projected attainment
year emissions inventory to determine
the amount of reductions appropriate
from contingency measures to ensure
ongoing progress if the measures are
triggered.
With respect to the time period that
reductions from contingency measures
should occur, the EPA previously
recommended that contingency
measures take effect within 60 days of
being triggered, and that the resulting
emissions reductions generally occur
within one year of the triggering event.
Under the Contingency Measure
192 ‘‘Guidance on the Preparation of State
Implementation Plans Provisions that Address the
Nonattainment Area Contingency Measure
Requirements for Ozone and Particulate Matter,’’
Joseph Goffman, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Assistant Administrator, Office of Air and
Radiation, December 3, 2024.
193 See 81 FR 58010, Aug. 24, 2016, at p. 58067.
194 Contingency Measure Guidance, at p. 23.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:42 Jan 07, 2025
Jkt 265001
Guidance, in instances where there are
insufficient contingency measures
available to achieve the recommended
amount of emissions reductions within
one year of the triggering event, the EPA
is recommending that contingency
measures that provide reductions within
two years of the triggering event would
be appropriate to consider towards
achieving the recommended amount of
emissions reductions.195 The
Contingency Measure Guidance does
not alter the 60-day recommendation for
the contingency measures to take initial
effect.196
If, after adequately evaluating
additional control measures, the state is
unable to identify contingency measures
that would provide a sufficient amount
of emissions reductions, the EPA
recommends that the state provide an
analysis to establish that there are no
additional feasible contingency
measures. The EPA has recommended
this approach for attainment plans for
the PM2.5 NAAQS since promulgating
the PM2.5 SIP Requirements Rule.197 In
the Contingency Measure Guidance, the
EPA provides additional guidance to
states for establishing that there are no
additional feasible contingency
measures. The EPA recommends that
the state should provide a reasoned
justification that explains and
documents how it has evaluated all
existing and potential control measures
relevant to the appropriate source
categories and pollutants in the
nonattainment area, and has reached
reasonable conclusions regarding
whether such measures are feasible as
contingency measures.198
As explained in the Contingency
Measure Guidance, while the EPA notes
that CAA section 172(c)(9) and section
182(c)(9) do not explicitly provide for
consideration of whether specific
measures are feasible, the Agency
believes that the best reading of these
provisions is that they do not require
states to adopt contingency measures
regardless of any technological or cost
constraints whatsoever.199 Thus, the
EPA views the contingency measure
requirements as not to require air
agencies to adopt and impose infeasible
measures. The statutory provisions
applicable to other nonattainment area
plan control measure requirements,
including RACM/RACT (for ozone and
PM), BACM/BACT (for PM), and MSM
(for PM), allow air agencies to exclude
certain control measures that are
195 Contingency
Measure Guidance, at p. 46
196 Id.
197 See
2. Summary of the EPA’s Prior Action
Regarding the Contingency Measures
In the Fairbanks Serious Plan, Alaska
submitted revisions to 18 AAC
50.077(n) that included two contingency
measures purporting to meet the
requirements of CAA section 172(c)(9)
and 40 CFR 51.1014. 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 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
the EPA finding to remove the device
prior to reaching 25 years from the date
of manufacture. On September 24, 2021,
the EPA approved the submitted
revisions to 18 AAC 50.077(n) as SIPstrengthening, but otherwise did not
determine whether the revisions
satisfied the contingency measure
requirement of CAA section 172(c)(9)
and 40 CFR 51.1014.
On September 2, 2020, the EPA issued
a determination that the Fairbanks PM2.5
Nonattainment Area failed to attain the
2006 24-hour NAAQS by the Serious
area attainment date.201 This action
triggered the contingency measures
included in the Fairbanks Serious Plan
at 18 AAC 50.077(n).
In the initial Fairbanks 189(d) Plan,
Alaska: (1) retained the revisions to 18
AAC 50.077(n); (2) submitted a revision
to state regulations at 18 AAC 50.030(c),
to act as a central trigger mechanism for
all contingency measures contained in
Alaska’s nonattainment plans,202 and (3)
200 Contingency
201 85
81 FR 58010, Aug. 24, 2016, at p. 58067.
Measure Guidance, at p. 33.
198 Contingency
199 Id.
PO 00000
deemed unreasonable or infeasible
(depending on the requirement). For
example, the MSM provision in CAA
section 188(e) requires plans to include
‘‘the most stringent measures that are
included in the implementation plan of
any state or are achieved in practice in
any state, and can feasibly be
implemented in the area.’’ The EPA
concludes that Congress similarly did
not expect air agencies to satisfy the
contingency measure requirement with
infeasible measures. Thus, the EPA
anticipates that a demonstrated lack of
feasible measures would be a reasoned
justification for adopting contingency
measures that only achieve a lesser
amount of emissions reductions.200
Frm 00026
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Measure Guidance, at p. 34.
FR 54509, September 2, 2020, at pp. 54509–
10.
202 ‘‘Contingency measures in nonattainment and
maintenance areas identified in 18 AAC 50.015(b),
E:\FR\FM\08JAP2.SGM
08JAP2
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 5 / Wednesday, January 8, 2025 / Proposed Rules
included an additional contingency
measure, as a revision to State Air
Quality Control Plan, Vol. II, section
III.D.7.12 (Fairbanks Emergency Episode
Plan) that, if triggered, lowers the wood
stove curtailment Stage 2 alert threshold
from 30 mg/m3 to 25 mg/m3.
On January 10, 2023, the EPA
approved the submitted revisions to 18
AAC 50.030(c) as consistent with the
triggering events in 40 CFR 51.1014. The
EPA also approved as SIP-strengthening
the submitted revisions to the Fairbanks
Emergency Episode Plan regarding the
wood stove curtailment thresholds.
However, the EPA determined that the
revisions to 18 AAC 50.077(n) did not
meet contingency measures
requirements because they were already
triggered and implemented.
With respect to the revision in the
Fairbanks Emergency Episode Plan, the
EPA determined that this measure alone
is insufficient to meet contingency
measures requirements, and Alaska did
not provide a reasoned justification for
why the state could not adopt additional
contingency measures. Thus, the EPA
disapproved the Fairbanks Serious Plan
and initial Fairbanks 189(d) Plan with
respect to the contingency measures
element. The State is addressing this
prior disapproval for the contingency
measures element by submitting new
provisions intended to meet the
requirement in the Fairbanks Revised
189(d) Plan.
3. Summary of the State’s Submission
Regarding the Contingency Measures
In the Fairbanks Revised 189(d) Plan,
Alaska includes: (1) calculations of one
year’s worth of progress and RFP
metrics; (2) an evaluation of potential
contingency measures; (3) three
contingency measures purporting to
meet the requirements of CAA section
172(c)(9) and 40 CFR 51.1014; and (4)
an evaluation of whether the
contingency measures achieve sufficient
emissions reductions.
a. Alaska’s Calculation of One Year’s
Worth of Progress
Alaska used the one year’s worth of
progress metric to demonstrate that its
contingency measures achieve sufficient
emissions reductions.203 According to
the Fairbanks Revised 189(d) Plan, the
one year’s worth of progress target is
0.102 tons per episode day for direct
PM2.5 emissions and 0.115 tons per
episode day for SO2 emissions. Alaska
also calculated the one year’s worth of
RFP target for direct PM2.5 and SO2 as
0.172 tons per episode day and 0.122
tons per episode day, respectively.204
b. Alaska’s Identification and Evaluation
of Contingency Measures
Alaska evaluated 25 potential
measures as contingency measures.205
Alaska evaluated measures to reduce
SO2 emissions and direct PM2.5
emissions. Alaska determined that there
were no NH3 control measures that
could serve as contingency measures.206
With respect to SO2 emissions, Alaska
evaluated requiring the use of ULSD
heating oil (i.e., a 15 parts per million
sulfur content fuel oil requirement).
According to Alaska, the ULSD mandate
would significantly reduce SO2
emissions from the residential space
heating source category. However,
Alaska determined that the ULSD
mandate could not achieve emissions
reductions until year three of
implementation and also posed
technological feasibility concerns.207
Alaska also identified major
stationary source SO2 controls, aircraft
SO2 controls, residential fuel oil boilers
repair and replacement requirements as
potential measures. Alaska determined
that, based on the major stationary
source SO2 precursor demonstration,
SO2 controls on these sources would
achieve negligible reductions in sulfate
formation in the nonattainment area.208
Similarly, Alaska determined that
requiring residents to replace or upgrade
their fuel oil boilers would result in
negligible SO2 emissions reductions.209
With respect to aircraft, Alaska
explained that the State does not have
authority to regulate fuel sulfur content
for commercial aircraft. Thus, Alaska
determined that there were no
technologically feasible contingency
measures for SO2.
Alaska also evaluated several
potential contingency measures
designed to reduce emissions of direct
PM2.5. Specifically, Alaska evaluated
enhancements to the existing
curtailment program, enhancements to
the existing wood device removal
204 Id.
at section III.D.7.10, Table 7.10–8.
at section III.D.7.11.2.2.
206 Id. at section III.D.7.11.3.3.8.
207 Id. at section III.D.7.11.3.3.1.1.
208 Id. at section III.D.7.11.3.3.1
209 Id. at section III.D.7.11.3.3.1.3. According to
the Fairbanks Revised 189(d) Plan, requiring
residents to repair their fuel oil boilers would
achieve at most 0.001 tons per day of SO2 emissions
reductions. Requiring replacement of fuel oil boilers
would achieve at most 0.006 tons per day of SO2
emissions reductions.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
205 Id.
(d), and (e) must be implemented as described in
the State Air Quality Control Plan for an area
upon. . .the effective date of an EPA finding that
the 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.’’
203 State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol. II, section
III.D.7.11.2.1 (adopted November 5, 2024).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:42 Jan 07, 2025
Jkt 265001
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
1625
program, used oil burning restrictions,
vehicle idling restrictions, making
existing control measures more
stringent, and various economic
incentive programs suggested by
commenters.210 Alaska ultimately
determined that enhancing the existing
curtailment program and existing wood
device removal program were the only
technologically feasible measures that
would achieve more than negligible
emissions reductions.
Alaska determined that prohibiting
small ‘‘pot burners’’ and used oil
burners would achieve negligible
emissions reductions.211 According to
the Fairbanks Revised 189(d) Plan,
prohibiting small pot burners would
achieve emissions reductions of 0.002
tons per episode day of direct PM2.5.212
Likewise, prohibiting used oil burners
would achieve less than 0.0001 tons per
episode day of direct PM2.5 emissions
reductions.213 Similarly, Alaska
determined that imposing vehicle idling
restrictions would achieve 0.002 tons
per episode day of direct PM2.5
emissions reductions.
Alaska also evaluated adopting a 1.0
grams per hour PM emissions standard
for new solid fuel-fired heating devices,
similar to the measure implemented by
Missoula, Montana.214 Alaska
determined that this measure would
achieve emissions reductions through
attrition (phase-out of old stoves) and
would not achieve significant emissions
reductions in the aggregate given
Alaska’s already stringent restrictions
on new wood stoves.215 Alaska also
noted that the measure effectively
restricts new solid-fuel burning devices
to pellet-fuel fired stoves. Alaska
explained that pellet stoves require
electricity to operate. According to
Alaska, Fairbanks experiences frequent
power outages during the winter months
and residents must have a reliable
source of heat during these periods.
According to Alaska, this renders the
measure technologically infeasible as a
contingency measure.
In addition, Alaska evaluated
reducing the allowable moisture content
in commercial dry wood.216 Under
Alaska’s current regulations, all
commercial dry wood must have a
moisture content of 20 percent or
less.217 Alaska determined that reducing
the moisture content percentage to 15
210 Id.
211 Id.
at section III.D.7.11.3.3.
at section III.D.7.11.3.3.3.
212 Id.
213 Id.
214 Id.
at section III.D.7.11.3.3.2.
215 Id.
216 Id.
217 18
E:\FR\FM\08JAP2.SGM
at section III.D.7.11.3.3.5.
AAC 50.076(g).
08JAP2
1626
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 5 / Wednesday, January 8, 2025 / Proposed Rules
would reduce PM2.5 emissions by 0.011
tons per episode day, while reducing
the moisture percentage to 10 would
reduce PM2.5 emissions by 0.022 tons
per episode day. However, Alaska
determined that achieving these
emissions reductions within two years
of a triggering event is not
technologically feasible due to
infrastructure constraints.218 According
to Alaska, there is a single dry wood
kiln in Fairbanks that supplies 31
percent of the commercial dry wood in
the area. Requiring the kiln to achieve
lower wood moisture content would
require longer dry times, which would
restrict the availability of dry wood in
the area unless the kiln expanded
capacity.
Alaska also evaluated granting
citation authority to the Alaska
Department of Environmental
Conservation and increasing civil
penalties for SIP violations as potential
contingency measures.219 Alaska
determined that neither measure would
improve compliance or achieve
emissions reductions.220 Alaska
explained that it has broad and efficient
state judicial authority to enforce
violations of the SIP. Alaska included a
discussion of its process for enforcing
SIP violations. Alaska also explained
that its civil penalty authority under
Alaska Statute 46.03.760(e) does not set
a maximum penalty for SIP
violations.221
Finally, Alaska evaluated whether
several economic incentive programs
suggested by commenters could satisfy
contingency measure requirements.222
These included subsidizing the cost of
ULSD, subsidizing natural gas, and
various electricity cost subsidy
programs.223 Alaska determined that
each of these programs would not be
enforceable contingency measures.
Alaska also noted that implementing the
programs would require more than
minimal further effort on the part of the
state.224 Therefore, Alaska concluded
that these economic incentive programs
would not meet the legal requirements
for contingency measures.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
c. Alaska’s Contingency Measures
Included in the Fairbanks Revised
189(d) Plan
Based on the analysis discussed in the
preceding paragraphs, Alaska concluded
218 State
Air Quality Control Plan, Vol. II, section
III.D.7.11.3.3.5.
219 Id. at section III.D.7.11.3.3.6; Id. at section
III.D.7.11.3.3.4.
220 Id.
221 Id. at section III.D.7.11.3.3.6.
222 Id. at section III.D.7.11.3.3.7.
223 Id.
224 Id.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:42 Jan 07, 2025
Jkt 265001
that the only technologically feasible
contingency measures were enhancing
the solid fuel burning device
curtailment and removal programs.
Therefore, in the Fairbanks Revised
189(d) Plan, the State includes three
measures intended to meet the
contingency measures requirements: (1)
lower alert levels under the Solid FuelBurning Appliance Curtailment
Program; (2) an enforceable commitment
to increase the staff hours dedicated to
implementing the Solid Fuel-Burning
Appliance Curtailment Program; and (3)
an enforceable commitment to increase
staff hours dedicated to compliance and
enforcement with the state regulations
requiring replacement of older wood
stoves by December 31, 2024.225
Alaska’s current EPA-approved Solid
Fuel-Burning Appliance Curtailment
Program includes two stages. Alaska
calls a Stage 1 burn ban when Alaska
projects ambient PM2.5 concentrations to
be at or above 20 mg/m3. Under a Stage
1 burn ban, individuals may only
operate their solid fuel-burning device if
the individual has an Alaska-approved
‘‘no other adequate source of heat’’
(NOASH) waiver or an Alaska-approved
solid fuel-burning device that meets
specific stage 1 waiver age and emission
rate criteria.226 Under the current
curtailment program, Alaska calls a
Stage 2 burn ban when the state projects
ambient PM2.5 concentrations to exceed
30 mg/m3. Under a Stage 2 burn ban,
individuals may only operate their solid
fuel burning device if they have an
Alaska-approved NOASH waiver.227
As the first intended contingency
measure, the State adopted revisions to
the Fairbanks Emergency Episode Plan
that would reduce the alert levels under
the Solid Fuel-Burning Appliance
Curtailment Program.228 Upon a
triggering event, such as failure to attain
or failure to meet a QM, the Stage 1 alert
level will be lowered to 15 mg/m3 and
the Stage 2 alert level will be lowered
to 20 mg/m3.229 The State anticipates
that lowering these alert levels would
result in Alaska calling burn bans more
frequently and for longer durations, thus
lowering the emissions from the solid
fuel burning device source category.230
Alaska projected this first contingency
measure will result in emissions
reductions of 0.086 tons per day PM2.5
225 18 AAC 50.075(e); State Air Quality Control
Plan, Vol. II, section III.D.7.11.4.
226 Id.
227 Id.
228 State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol. II, section
III.D.7.12.2.
229 Id. See also State Air Quality Control Plan,
Vol. II, section III.D.7.12, Table 7.12–1.
230 State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol. II, section
III.D.7.11.3.1.
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
but increase SO2 emissions by 0.047
tons per day.
As a second intended contingency
measure in the Fairbanks Revised 189(d)
Plan, the State submitted an enforceable
commitment to increase the Alaska
Department of Environmental
Conservation staff hours dedicated to
the compliance and enforcement of the
Solid Fuel-Burning Appliance
Curtailment Program to 2,800 hours per
year, within 60 days of any triggering
event.231 This would be an increase
from the current 2,200 hours per
year.232 Under the current allocation of
staff hours, Alaska achieved 38 percent
compliance with the curtailment
program.233 Alaska projected that with
the additional staff hours, the
compliance rate would increase to 65
percent.234 Alaska committed to
maintain the increased allocation of
staff hours, unless or until the state
could later relax the measure through a
SIP revision.235 Alaska further
committed to publishing an annual
report that includes the staff hours
dedicated to compliance and
enforcement of the Solid Fuel-Burning
Appliance Curtailment Program and the
results of the Alaska Department of
Environmental Conservation’s annual
assessments of the compliance rate.236
As the third intended contingency
measure, the State submitted a second
enforceable commitment to dedicate 300
staff hours to compliance and
enforcement with the SIP-approved
rules requiring replacement of older
wood stoves (18 AAC 50.077(l–n)).237
Alaska projects this staffing level would
increase the compliance rate from 30
percent to 45 percent.238 Alaska
committed to maintaining the allocation
of staffing hours unless or until the state
can relax the measure through a SIP
revision.239 Alaska further committed to
publishing an annual report that
includes the staff hours dedicated to
compliance and enforcement with the
regulations mandating replacement of
older wood stoves.240
231 18 AAC 50.075(e); State Air Quality Control
Plan, Vol. II, section III.D.7.12. See State Air Quality
Control Plan, Vol. II, section III.D.7.11.4.3.
232 State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol. II, section
III.D.7.11.4.1.
233 Id.; See also State Air Quality Control Plan,
Vol. II, section III.D.7.10.3.2.
234 Id. at section III.D.7.11.4.1.
235 Id. at section III.D.7.11.4.3.
236 Id.
237 Id.
238 Id. at section III.D.7.11.4.2.
239 Id. at section III.D.7.11.4.3.
240 Id.
E:\FR\FM\08JAP2.SGM
08JAP2
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 5 / Wednesday, January 8, 2025 / Proposed Rules
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
d. Emissions Reductions From Alaska’s
Contingency Measures
Alaska projected that these three
contingency measures would achieve
emissions reductions of 0.151 tons per
episode day of direct PM2.5 emissions
(0.142 tons per day when accounting for
some overlap) and increase SO2
emissions by 0.038 tons per episode
day. As stated in the preceding
paragraphs, Alaska proposed to use the
one year’s worth of progress metric for
contingency measures. According to the
Fairbanks Revised 189(d) Plan, the one
year’s worth of progress target is 0.102
tons per episode day for direct PM2.5
and 0.115 tons per episode day for SO2.
Alaska purported to justify the
increase in SO2 emissions with the
surplus emissions reductions of direct
PM2.5 emissions through ‘‘interpollutant trading.’’ 241 Alaska developed
a 5:1 ratio to compare reductions of
direct PM2.5 emissions to reductions of
SO2 emissions. For the purposes of
developing the ratio, Alaska
conservatively estimated that SO2
emissions contribute 20 percent of
ambient PM2.5 levels in the area.242
Thus, Alaska calculated that achieving
an additional 0.023 tons per episode day
(0.125 tons per episode day total) of
direct PM2.5 emissions would achieve
the required one year’s worth of
attainment for both direct PM2.5 and SO2
emissions.243 Because Alaska’s
contingency measures would achieve
0.151 tons per episode day of direct
PM2.5 emissions, Alaska stated that its
contingency measures would achieve
sufficient emissions reductions.244
Alaska also compared the projected
emissions reductions from its
contingency measures to the one year’s
worth of RFP metric. Alaska calculated
that the one year’s worth of RFP target
for direct PM2.5 and SO2 emissions as
0.172 tons per episode day and 0.122
tons per episode day respectively.245
The State acknowledged that its
contingency measures would not
achieve emissions reductions equivalent
to one year’s worth of RFP even taking
into consideration inter-pollutant
trading.246
4. The EPA’s Evaluation and Proposed
Action
The EPA has reviewed the three
measures that the State included in the
Fairbanks Revised 189(d) Plan to meet
the contingency measures requirement
241 Id.
at section III.D.7.11.2.1.
242 Id.
243 Id.
246 Id.
a. Alaska’s Calculation of One Year’s
Worth of Progress
Alaska proposed to use the one year’s
worth of progress metric to measure the
sufficiency of its contingency measures.
The EPA proposes to determine this is
an appropriate metric. As discussed
above, CAA section 172(c)(9) does not
specify the amount of emissions
reductions contingency measures must
achieve. The EPA’s recent revised
guidance explains its view that one
year’s worth of progress approach is
consistent with the primary objective of
attaining the NAAQS.
This approach takes into account the
declining emissions inventories
between the base year and attainment
year. The EPA expects that Alaska’s
control strategy in the Fairbanks
Revised 189(d) Plan will achieve
projected emissions reductions prior to
any triggering event. Specifically, public
participation in the wood stove change
out program should continue given the
mandatory change out requirements in
18 AAC 50.077(l)–(n), along with the
EPA grant funding through the Targeted
Airshed Grant program. Moreover, the
continued phase-in of diesel no. 1 fuel
oil in place of diesel no. 2 fuel oil will
reduce SO2 emissions.
b. Alaska’s Identification and Evaluation
of Contingency Measures
As summarized in section II.G.3 of
this preamble, Alaska evaluated several
control measures that could serve as
contingency measures to reduce
emissions of the relevant pollutants
from the relevant sources. The EPA has
reviewed the State’s identification and
evaluation of potential contingency
measures. The EPA’s detailed review is
included in a Technical Support
Document included in the docket for
this action.247 For the reasons stated in
247 Jentgen,
244 Id.
245 Id.
for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. For
the reasons explained in the following
sections and the accompanying TSD, the
EPA: (i) proposes to approve one of the
State’s submitted measures as a
contingency measure; (ii) proposes to
approve the other two measures as SIPstrengthening; (iii) proposes to find that
the State has provided an adequate
reasoned justification that no other
contingency measures are feasible; and
(iv) proposes to approve the Fairbanks
Revised 189(d) Plan as meeting the
contingency measure requirements in
CAA Section 179(c)(9) and 40 CFR
51.1014(a).
at section III.D.7.10, Table 7.10–8.
at section III.D.7.10.3.4.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:42 Jan 07, 2025
Jkt 265001
Matthew. (December 4, 2024).
Contingency Measure assessment of available
control measures in the Fairbanks Revised 189(d)
Plan. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
1627
the following paragraphs, as well as in
the Technical Support Document, the
EPA is proposing to determine that
Alaska adequately identified and
evaluated potential contingency
measures.
In a prior action, the EPA approved
comprehensive NOX and VOC precursor
demonstrations submitted by Alaska.
Therefore, these are not regulatory
pollutants for purposes of the 2006 24hour PM2.5 NAAQS in the Fairbanks
PM2.5 Nonattainment Area. Accordingly,
the State is not required to evaluate and
adopt contingency measures for these
pollutants.248 In this action, the EPA is
proposing to approve an SO2 precursor
demonstration for major stationary
sources. If the EPA finalizes an approval
of this precursor demonstration, then
stationary sources that emit SO2 will not
be subject to BACM/BACT.
Accordingly, the State would not be
required to evaluate and adopt
contingency measures for SO2 emissions
from such sources, but Alaska would
still be required to evaluate and adopt
SO2 emissions controls from other area
and mobile sources.
With respect to NH3, the EPA has
previously approved Alaska’s
determination that there are no NH3
controls for major stationary sources in
the nonattainment area.249 The EPA also
previously approved as BACM for NH3
Alaska’s suite of controls for direct
PM2.5 on area sources.250 The EPA
agrees with Alaska’s determination that
there are no additional NH3 controls
that could serve as potential
contingency measures.
Alaska focused its evaluation of
potential contingency measures on
measures that could reduce direct PM2.5
emissions and SO2 emissions from areas
sources and mobile sources. The EPA is
proposing to approve the State’s
approach to identifying and adopting
potential contingency measures for
these specific pollutants and sources as
part of its proposed approval of the
contingency measures element of the
Fairbanks Revised 189(d) Plan.
With respect to contingency measures
to reduce SO2 emissions, the EPA
proposes to approve Alaska’s
determinations that (1) mandating ULSD
is not technologically feasible as a
contingency measure because it would
not achieve emissions reductions within
two years of being triggered; (2)
requiring residents to repair or replace
their fuel oil boilers would achieve
Region 10, Air and Radiation Division, EPA–R10–
OAR–2024–0595.
248 88 FR 84626, December 5, 2023, at p. 84635.
249 88 FR 84626, December 5, 2023, at p. 84636.
250 Id. at pp. 84,638–49.
E:\FR\FM\08JAP2.SGM
08JAP2
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
1628
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 5 / Wednesday, January 8, 2025 / Proposed Rules
negligible emissions reductions; and (3)
regulating aircraft emissions is not
viable as a contingency measure because
of limitations on legal authority.
Regarding mandating ULSD, the EPA
agrees with the State that, if
implemented, such a contingency
measure could reduce SO2 emissions
from the residential home heating
source category, which is the dominant
contributor to sulfate formation in the
nonattainment area. However, the EPA
agrees with Alaska’s determination that
mandating USLD would not achieve
emissions reductions until at least three
years following the triggering event.251
This is due to the need to improve
storage and distribution infrastructure
in the area, the need to allow the
distribution market to shift to new
demands, and the time needed to phase
out higher-sulfur fuels from existing
storage vessels in the area.252 A
contingency measure that required the
use of ULSD fuel factually could not be
implemented quickly following a
triggering event, or achieve emissions
reductions until several years following
the triggering event. Thus, mandating
ULSD as a contingency measure would
not satisfy the key purpose of
contingency measures of continuing
progress towards attainment between
the triggering event and submission of a
revised plan. Based upon this analysis,
the EPA agrees that a measure
mandating sale and use of ULSD fuel in
the Fairbanks PM2.5 Nonattainment Area
is not viable as a contingency measure
because of the time it would take to
achieve emissions reductions.
In addition, the EPA has reviewed
Alaska’s emissions reductions
calculations, including for the fuel oil
boiler measures, and determined
Alaska’s methodology is reasonable.
Based on these calculations, the fuel oil
boiler measures would achieve
negligible emissions reductions.
Regarding emissions from aircraft, states
are prohibited under CAA section 233
from adopting more stringent standards
than those set by the Federal
Government.253 Therefore, the EPA
agrees that none of these potential
measures are viable as contingency
measures.
Regarding potential contingency
measures to control direct PM2.5
emissions, the EPA proposes to approve
Alaska’s determinations of: (1) measures
that would only achieve negligible
emissions reductions; (2) measures that
are technologically infeasible as
251 State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol. II, section
III.D.7.11.3.3.1.1.
252 Id.
253 42 U.S.C. 7573.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:42 Jan 07, 2025
Jkt 265001
contingency measures because they
would not achieve emissions reductions
within two years of being triggered; and
(3) other measures that are
technologically infeasible due to
infrastructure constraints and local
conditions. The EPA agrees that
prohibiting operation and sale of small
pot burners, used oil burners, and
restricting vehicle idling would achieve
negligible emissions reductions. The
EPA also agrees that granting citation
authority to the Alaska Department of
Environmental Conservation and
increasing state penalties for SIP
requirement violations would have
negligible emissions benefits as a
contingency measure.
The EPA also reviewed Alaska’s
evaluation of a potential requirement
that all new solid fuel-burning devices
meet a 1.0 gram per hour PM2.5
emissions standard as a potential
contingency measure. The EPA agrees
that, in practice, the only wood heaters
that can achieve this standard are pelletfuel fired stoves and certain highly
controlled cordwood stoves. The EPA
also notes that, this measure has the
potential to reduce direct PM2.5
emissions from the solid fuel-burning
source category. However, the EPA
agrees with Alaska’s assessment that
this requirement would necessarily be
an attrition-based measure that only
achieves emissions reductions as
homeowners replace older stoves. In its
prior action on the Fairbanks Serious
Plan, the EPA disapproved a similar
Alaska contingency measure mandating
the removal of older certified wood
stoves, in part because the measure
would have achieved virtually no
emissions reductions in the first year of
implementation.254
In addition, the EPA agrees that this
measure is technologically infeasible as
a contingency measure. In particular, as
Alaska states in the Fairbanks Revised
189(d) Plan, pellet stoves require
electricity to function, whereas
cordwood stoves do not, and Fairbanks
experiences power outages during the
winter months. The EPA agrees that
given the extremely cold temperatures
residents experience, having a source of
heat that does not rely on electricity
remains a necessity. Based upon this
analysis, the EPA agrees that a measure
mandating that all new solid fuelburning devices meet a 1.0 gram per
hour PM2.5 emissions standard in the
Fairbanks area is not viable as a
contingency measure because emissions
reductions could not be achieved within
two years and the measure is otherwise
technologically infeasible.
254 88
PO 00000
FR 84626, December 5, 2023, at p. 84664.
Frm 00030
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Regarding reducing the required
moisture content for dry cordwood, the
EPA notes that this measure has the
potential to reduce emissions of direct
PM2.5. Alaska estimated that a measure
requiring all dry wood to meet a 10
percent moisture content would reduce
PM2.5 emissions by 0.022 tons per
episode day, which equates to 18
percent of one’s years-worth of
progress.255 However, the EPA agrees
with Alaska’s assessment that
mandating a reduction in moisture
content as a contingency measure would
not be technologically feasible given the
constraint on the dry wood supply in
Fairbanks. In order to further reduce the
moisture content of cordwood while
satisfying consumer demand for
commercial dry wood, additional kilns
would need to be built in the Fairbanks
area. This type of large capital project is
unlikely to be accomplished quickly
such that dry wood at less than 10
percent moisture content could be
reliably supplied to residents to achieve
emissions reductions within two years
of a triggering event.
Therefore, the EPA proposes to
determine that, to the extent the
contingency measures in the Fairbanks
Revised 189(d) Plan fall short of the
emissions reductions necessary for one
year’s worth of attainment, Alaska has
provided an adequate reasoned
justification for not adopting additional
measures as contingency measures.
c. Evaluation of Submitted Contingency
Measures
i. Lowered Alert Levels
The submitted contingency measure
lowering the alert levels for the Solid
Fuel-Burning Appliance Curtailment
Program is subject to Alaska’s regulation
at 18 AAC 50.030(c) that is consistent
with the triggers in 40 CFR 51.1014(a).
The measure is thus conditional and
prospective, as required by statute. This
measure will take effect with minimal
further effort from the State or the EPA.
Neither Alaska nor the EPA will need to
engage in any additional rulemaking or
other significant action to implement
the measure. Alaska already issues
alerts through its preexisting program
approved into the SIP. Thus,
implementing the contingency measure
will be ministerial, in terms of adjusting
the curtailment alert thresholds.
At the time of adoption and
submission to the EPA, these
contingency measure alert levels are not
otherwise included in the control
strategy to meet any other attainment
plan requirements. This measure
255 State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol. II, section
III.D.7.11.3.3.5.
E:\FR\FM\08JAP2.SGM
08JAP2
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 5 / Wednesday, January 8, 2025 / Proposed Rules
addresses the largest source category of
direct PM2.5 emissions in the
nonattainment area and is not otherwise
included in the Fairbanks Revised
189(d) Plan control strategy. The EPA
expects this continency measure would
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.
This contingency measure would go
into effect once triggered by an EPA
determination, as provided in 18 AAC
50.030(c). Alaska projected this first
contingency measure will result in
emissions reductions of 0.086 tons per
day PM2.5 but increase SO2 emissions by
0.047 tons per day.256 This contingency
measure represents 84 percent of one
year’s worth of progress for direct PM2.5
reductions, but, the increase in SO2
emissions would not meet the one year’s
worth of progress metric for SO2.
For the reasons provided in the
preceding paragraphs, the EPA is
proposing to determine that this
measure meets the requirements for
contingency measures in 40 CFR
51.1014 and CAA Section 172(c)(9). In
section II.G.4.d of this preamble, we
address whether approval of this
contingency measure also supports
approval of the overarching attainment
plan contingency measures element of
the Fairbanks Revised 189(d) Plan for
purposes of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS in the Fairbanks PM2.5
Nonattainment Area.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
ii. Enforceable Commitments To
Enhance Enforcement of the Solid FuelBurning Appliance Curtailment Program
and Removal of Wood Stoves
These submitted measures take the
form of enforceable commitments.
According to Alaska, these measures
would achieve surplus emissions
reductions by increasing the compliance
rate with the curtailment program from
38 percent to 65 percent and the wood
stove removal measure from 30 percent
to 45 percent. For the reasons stated in
the following paragraphs, the EPA
proposes to determine that these
measures meet the CAA requirements
for enforceable commitments. The EPA
is further proposing to approve these
commitments into the Alaska SIP as
SIP-strengthening but not as
contingency measures.
256 Applying Alaska’s interpollutant trading
mechanism, the combined emissions reductions for
PM2.5 and SO2 are estimated to be 0.077 tons per
day, representing 62 percent of the one year’s of
interpollutant emissions reductions for PM2.5 and
SO2. See State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol. II,
section III.D.7.11.5.2; see also State Air Quality
Control Plan, Vol. II, section III.D.7.11, Table 7.11–
6.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:42 Jan 07, 2025
Jkt 265001
1629
First, Alaska’s commitments meet the
CAA’s requirements for enforceable
commitments. Under the CAA, an
enforceable commitment must be: (1) a
specific enforceable requirement, not
merely an aspirational goal; and (2)
enforceable as a practical matter (i.e.,
the public will have sufficient
information to enforce the state’s
compliance with its commitment).257 In
the submitted measures, Alaska
committed to increase the allocation of
annual staff hours by a specific number
of hours dedicated to implementing and
enforcing specific SIP measures. Thus,
the commitment is sufficiently concrete
and not merely an aspirational goal.
Moreover, Alaska committed to publish
a report of its compliance with these
commitments. The report will not only
include the number of hours dedicated
to implementing and enforcing the
specific measures, but also other
compliance metrics such as number of
warning letters and the number of wood
stoves removed. Thus, the commitments
are enforceable as a practical matter.
In addition to the two criteria above,
the EPA has assessed whether to
approve an enforceable commitment
based on consideration of the following
three factors: (1) whether the
commitment addresses a limited portion
of the CAA requirement; (2) whether the
state is capable of fulfilling its
commitment; and (3) whether the
commitment is for a reasonable and
appropriate period of time.258 Regarding
the first factor, in the past, states have
relied on enforceable commitments as
part of their overall control strategy to
achieve the NAAQS.259 Thus, the EPA
has typically assessed whether the
emissions reductions attributable to the
state’s enforceable commitments are a
limited portion of the emissions
reductions necessary to achieve
attainment or RFP.
The EPA notes that Alaska structured
its enforceable commitments as
contingency measures. Thus, in the
Fairbanks Revised 189(d) Plan, Alaska
assessed the amount of emissions
reductions that the commitments could
achieve with respect to the one year’s
worth of progress and one year’s worth
of RFP metrics for contingency
measures. Alaska determined that the
emissions reductions attributable to the
commitments are a small portion of the
emissions reductions towards the
recommended one year’s worth of
progress and one year’s worth of RFP
metrics for contingency measures,
respectively.260 Alaska projected that
emissions reductions attributable to the
commitments will yield 38 percent of
the emissions reductions towards oneyear’s work of progress target.261
The EPA is proposing to determine
that Alaska’s enforceable commitments
included in State Air Quality Control
Plan, Vol. II, section III.D.7.11.2.1
address a limited portion of the CAA
requirement. The EPA is not proposing
to approve these commitments as
contingency measures under CAA
section 172(c)(9). If the EPA finalizes
approval, these commitments will
become part of Alaska’s overall control
strategy. Viewed in this light, Alaska
would not rely on the enforceable
commitments to achieve attainment or
RFP.
As to the second enforceable
commitments factor, Alaska has
demonstrated that it can fulfill its
commitments. According to Alaska, the
commitment to re-allocate staff hours is
within the Alaska Department of
Environmental Conservation Air Quality
Division’s existing budget and control.
In the Fairbanks Revised 189(d) Plan,
Alaska stated that it has the capacity to
implement the reallocation of staffing
hours it is making in the enforceable
commitments and to maintain them
indefinitely.262
Finally, the commitments are for a
reasonable and appropriate period of
time. For this factor, the EPA typically
assesses the state’s schedule for
promulgating specific control measures
to achieve the promised emissions
reductions and whether the schedule
comports with the RFP and attainment
deadlines.263 Here, Alaska is not relying
on the enforceable commitment to
achieve RFP or attainment. Therefore,
the EPA proposes to determine that this
factor is not determinative with respect
to Alaska’s enforceable commitments.
257 See Comm. for a Better Arvin v. EPA, 786 F.3d
1169, 1181 (9th Cir. 2015).
258 See 75 FR 74518, November 30, 2010, at pp.
74535–56; see also BCCA Appeal Grp. v. EPA, 355
F.3d 817, 840 (5th Cir. 2003).
259 See, e.g., Approval of Air Quality
Implementation Plans; California; South Coast;
Attainment Plan for 1997 PM2.5 Standards, 76 FR
69928, November 9, 2011, at p. 69941; Approval
and Promulgation of Implementation Plans;
Arizona—Maricopa County PM–10 Nonattainment
Area; Serious Area Plan for Attainment of the
Annual PM–10 Standard, 65 FR 19964, April 13,
2000, at pp. 19983–19984.
260 The enhanced enforcement of the curtailment
program is expected to yield 0.090 tons per day in
PM2.5 emissions reductions and increase SO2
emissions by 0.038 tons per day (the increase in
SO2 caused by the shift from wood burning to
heating oil). See State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol.
II, section III.D.7.11.5.1.
261 State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol. II, section
III.D.7.11.5.
262 Id. at section III.D.7.11.6.
263 See, e.g., Approval of Air Quality
Implementation Plans; California; South Coast;
Attainment Plan for 1997 PM2.5 Standards, 76 FR
69928, November 9, 2011, at p. 69941.
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\08JAP2.SGM
08JAP2
1630
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 5 / Wednesday, January 8, 2025 / Proposed Rules
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Rather, Alaska structured the
commitments as contingency measures
triggered upon any of the EPA findings
in 40 CFR 51.1014. Once triggered,
Alaska committed to increasing staff
hours within 60 days of the triggering
event and maintain the staff hours
unless and until the State could revise
them through a SIP revision.264
The EPA is proposing to approve the
measures as SIP-strengthening but not
as contingency measures under CAA
section 172(c)(9) for the following
reasons. The EPA acknowledges that the
enforceable commitments meet many of
the regulatory requirements in 40 CFR
51.1014. Specifically, the enforceable
commitments are subject to Alaska’s
regulation 18 AAC 50.030(c) that is
consistent with the triggers in 40 CFR
51.1014(a). The Fairbanks Revised
189(d) Plan also includes a description
of the specific trigger mechanisms for
the commitment. The commitments also
specify the timeframe within which
they would become effective. Finally,
Alaska is not relying on the emissions
reductions that may occur as a result of
increased compliance rates attributable
to the enforceable commitments as part
of its control strategy, to meet RFP
requirements, or in its attainment
demonstration.
However, outside of the SO2
nonattainment context, the EPA has not
considered increased enforcement of
existing measures in the control strategy
as ‘‘implementation of specific
measures’’ that would ‘‘take effect with
minimal further action by the state of
the EPA’’ following a triggering
event.265 The EPA has approved
enhanced enforcement as satisfying the
contingency measure requirement in the
context of SO2 NAAQS nonattainment
areas.266 This is for several reasons.
First, the procedures and methods for
quantifying and predicting SO2
concentrations are less uncertain than
for other criteria pollutants, especially
those that may result from secondary
formation from multiple precursors,
264 State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol. II, section
III.D.7.11.4.3.
265 40 CFR 51.1014(a). See Clean Air Plans; 2008
8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area Requirements;
San Joaquin Valley, California, 84 FR 11198, March
25, 2019, at pp. 11200, 11203.
266 See Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality
Implementation Plans; Michigan; Federal
Implementation Plan for the Detroit Sulfur Dioxide
Nonattainment Area, 87 FR 61514, Oct. 12, 2022,
at p. 61522; see also SO2 Guideline Document, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle
Park, NC 27711, EPA–452/R–94–008, February 1994
(1994 SO2 Guideline); Guidance for 1-Hour SO2
Nonattainment Area SIP Submissions, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, Stephen D. Page,
April 23, 2014.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:42 Jan 07, 2025
Jkt 265001
such as PM2.5.267 Second, the regulated
sources in SO2 nonattainment areas are
typically one or a few major stationary
sources that are the main cause of
exceedances of the SO2 NAAQS.268
Third, the control efficiencies for SO2
control measures are well understood
and are less prone to uncertainty than
for other criteria pollutants.269 Thus, the
EPA has reasoned in the context of SO2
NAAQS nonattainment areas that if the
nonattainment area fails to meet RFP or
achieve attainment, then that failure is
likely due to violations of the control
strategy by the major stationary source
regulated in the attainment plan
—rather than an inadequacy of the
control strategy.270 Hence, for purposes
of the SO2 NAAQS, contingency
measures comprised of a comprehensive
enforcement program are sufficient.
By contrast, PM2.5 NAAQS
nonattainment areas typically include
hundreds or thousands of individual
sources (including multiple categories
of major stationary, area, and mobile
sources) of emissions of direct PM2.5 and
multiple PM2.5 precursors. Thus, it is
not appropriate for a state or the EPA to
presume that a failure to meet RFP or to
attain is presumptively the result of a
single easily identified source to have
violated the emissions limitations in an
attainment plan for the PM2.5 NAAQS.
Accordingly, the EPA has assessed
whether the situation in the Fairbanks
PM2.5 Nonattainment Area is
sufficiently analogous to an SO2
nonattainment area to warrant
extending the EPA’s approach to SO2
contingency measures to Alaska’s
enforceable commitments. The EPA
acknowledges that the emissions
inventories and RFP provisions of the
Fairbanks Revised 189(d) Plan make
clear that the dominant contributor to
elevated PM2.5 concentrations in the
nonattainment area is the solid fuelburning device source category, i.e.,
wood stoves. The EPA has approved
Alaska’s control strategy as meeting
BACM for this source category and is
proposing to determine that the
Fairbanks Revised 189(d) Plan meets the
CAA section 189(d) requirements. Thus,
a failure to achieve RFP or QM
requirements, or to achieve attainment
could be attributable to widespread
noncompliance with preexisting
measures limiting emissions from the
solid fuel-burning device source
category. Although comprised of
267 Id.
268 Guidance for 1-Hour SO Nonattainment Area
2
SIP Submissions, Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards, Stephen D. Page, April 23, 2014, at
p. 69.
269 87 FR 61514, Oct. 12, 2022, at p. 61522.
270 Id.
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
numerous relatively small sources,
widespread noncompliance could
cumulatively be comparable to that by
a single major stationary source.
Therefore, if the State were to fail to
meet an RFP or QM requirement or fail
to attain the NAAQS by the applicable
attainment date, then improving
compliance with the Solid Fuel-Burning
Appliance Curtailment Program and
date certain removal requirement could
be critical to ensuring the area achieves
progress towards attainment. As
previously discussed, the EPA is
proposing to approve the State’s
determination that there are no other
feasible measures that would meet
contingency measures requirements.
The EPA also acknowledges that
Alaska’s methods of assessing current
and predicting future compliance rates
with its control strategy have improved
over time. This is evident by the results
of Alaska’s Fairbanks Winter Home
Heating Energy Model and Multiple
Residential Heating Surveys.271 In these
ways, the situation in Fairbanks shares
similarities to SO2 nonattainment areas.
However, critical distinctions remain
that suggest the Fairbanks PM2.5
Nonattainment Area should not be
treated the same as an SO2
nonattainment area for the purposes of
contingency measures requirements. In
particular, the major contributors to
ambient PM2.5 levels in Fairbanks are
wood stoves, which emit direct PM2.5,
and oil furnaces, which emit SO2, a
PM2.5 precursor for area source
purposes. There are tens of thousands of
these area sources throughout the
nonattainment area.272 They vary in
make, model, age, and emissions
potential.273 Importantly, actual
emissions are highly dependent on
operator behavior—particularly for
wood stoves. This is different from the
single or handful of major stationary
sources that a state typically regulates in
SO2 NAAQS nonattainment areas.
By extension, measuring and
predicting compliance with controls on
wood stoves and oil furnaces is less
precise than SO2 emissions controls on
major stationary sources. In addition,
assuring compliance by thousands of
individual wood stove operators is
significantly more resource intensive
than enforcement against an SO2
source—particularly in detecting
violations. Thus, while a comprehensive
enforcement program to assure
compliance by major stationary sources
in SO2 nonattainment areas satisfies the
271 State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol. II, section
III.D.7.6.9.3.
272 Id.
273 Id.
E:\FR\FM\08JAP2.SGM
08JAP2
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 5 / Wednesday, January 8, 2025 / Proposed Rules
CAA requirement that contingency
measures be comprised of ‘‘specific
measures’’ that would ‘‘take effect with
minimal further action by the state or
EPA’’ following a triggering event, this
is not the case for PM2.5 nonattainment
areas.274
Thus, the EPA proposes to approve
the enforceable commitments in State
Air Quality Control Plan, Vol. II, section
III.D.7.2.1 as SIP-strengthening that will
enhance the State’s overall approach to
attaining and maintaining the NAAQS
in the Fairbanks PM2.5 Nonattainment
Area.
d. Sufficiency of Emissions Reductions
From Alaska’s Contingency Measures
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Alaska’s contingency measure,
reducing the solid fuel-burning device
curtailment thresholds, would achieve
approximately 0.086 tons per day PM2.5
emissions reductions with an increase
of 0.047 tons per day SO2 emissions.275
This falls short of the one year’s worth
of progress metric for both pollutants,
0.102 tons per episode day of direct
PM2.5 emissions and 0.115 tons per day
of SO2 emissions. The estimates of
emissions reductions from the other two
contingency measures related to
enhanced enforcement are not included
in this calculation because the EPA is
proposing to approve them as SIPstrengthening measures. However, as
discussed in section II.G.3 of this
preamble, the EPA proposes to
determine that Alaska has provided a
reasoned justification for why the state
cannot adopt additional contingency
measures to make up the shortfall.
Based on the reasons in the preceding
paragraphs, the EPA is proposing to
approve the Fairbanks Revised 189(d)
Plan as meeting the contingency
measures requirements in CAA section
172(c)(9) and 40 CFR 51.1014.
274 The EPA solicits comments on this assessment
and conclusion. Given that Alaska’s enforceable
commitments meet all other requirements in 40
CFR 51.1014, the EPA may approve these
commitments as contingency measures if
commenters provide a compelling basis to show
that the EPA should treat the Fairbanks PM2.5
Nonattainment Area as analogous to an SO2
nonattainment area for the purposes of contingency
measures.
275 Applying Alaska’s interpollutant trading
mechanism, the combined emissions reductions for
PM2.5 and SO2 are estimated to be 0.077 tons per
day, representing 62 percent of the one year’s of
interpollutant emissions reductions for PM2.5 and
SO2. See State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol. II,
section III.D.7.11.5.2; see also State Air Quality
Control Plan, Vol. II, section III.D.7.11, Table 7.11–
6.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:42 Jan 07, 2025
Jkt 265001
H. Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets for
Transportation Conformity
1. Statutory and Regulatory
Requirements Regarding the Motor
Vehicle Emission Budgets
CAA section 176(c) requires Federal
activities in nonattainment and
maintenance areas to conform to the
SIP’s purpose of eliminating or reducing
the severity and number of violations of
the NAAQS and achieving expeditious
attainment of the standards. Conformity
to the SIP means that such activities
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.
Transportation plans, transportation
improvement programs (TIPs), and
transportation projects 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, the EPA, FHWA and FTA to
demonstrate that an area’s
transportation plan and TIP conform to
the applicable SIP. This demonstration
typically includes a regional emissions
analysis that shows that estimated
emissions from existing and planned
highway and transit systems are less
than or equal to the SIP’s motor vehicle
emissions budgets (‘‘budgets’’) that the
EPA has found adequate or approved.
An attainment plan for the PM2.5
NAAQS should include budgets for the
attainment year and each required RFP
year, as appropriate. Budgets are
generally established for specific years
and specific pollutants or precursors
and 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
would identify motor vehicle emission
budgets for the attainment year and each
RFP year for direct PM2.5 and typically
for NOX (unless certain criteria are met
in the transportation conformity rule,
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)). Direct
PM2.5 emission budgets would include
direct PM2.5 motor vehicle emissions
from tailpipe, brake wear, and tire wear.
A state should also consider whether reentrained paved and unpaved road dust
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
1631
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, July 1, 2004, at pp. 40031–
40036.276
2. Summary of the EPA’s Prior Action
Regarding the Motor Vehicle Emission
Budgets
The EPA disapproved the budgets for
the Fairbanks PM2.5 Nonattainment Area
in the December 5, 2023, final rule.277
The EPA 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
submitted SIP. The EPA found that the
budgets were clearly identified and
precisely quantified using
MOVES2014b, with appropriate
consultation among Federal, State, and
local agencies. However, the EPA found
that the budgets did not meet other
adequacy criteria: the budgets, when
considered together with all other
emissions sources, must be consistent
with applicable RFP or attainment
requirements, and must 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). Because the control strategy in the
Fairbanks Serious Plan and Fairbanks
189(d) Plan did not include all required
control measures, the budgets did not
reflect all the required control measures.
3. Summary of the State’s Submission
Regarding the Motor Vehicle Emission
Budgets
The Fairbanks Revised 189(d) Plan
includes budgets for direct PM2.5 for
each of the upcoming RFP years (2023,
2026, and 2029) and the 2027
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 PM2.5
Nonattainment Area, and the EPA
finalized approval of that precursor
demonstration on December 5, 2023.278
For VOC, SO2 and NH3, in accordance
with 40 CFR 93.102(b)(2)(v),
transportation-related emissions of these
276 For further information on transportation
conformity rulemakings, policy guidance and
outreach materials, see the EPA’s website at https://
www.epa.gov/state-and-local-transportation.
277 88 FR 84626, December 5, 2023, at p. 84676.
278 See section II.B.2. Note that 40 CFR
93.102(b)(2)(iv) indicates that NOX would apply in
transportation conformity unless the appropriate
finding has been made or if the SIP does not
establish a budget for NOX.
E:\FR\FM\08JAP2.SGM
08JAP2
1632
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 5 / Wednesday, January 8, 2025 / Proposed Rules
precursors have not been found to be
significant.279
The direct PM2.5 budgets were
calculated using the MOVES3 vehicle
emissions model, which was the latest
on-road mobile sources emissions
model available at the time Alaska
started developing the attainment plan
inventory. Although a major model
update was released in September 2023,
MOVES4, the motor vehicle emission
budgets were developed using
MOVES3.0.3 (released January 2022) as
significant work had already been
completed on the SIP amendment prior
to the release of MOVES4. The use of
MOVES3 was agreed upon following
consultation with applicable Federal,
state, and local agencies.
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 MOVES3 with locally
developed inputs representative of
wintertime 2019–2020 conditions. Table
6 of this preamble summarizes the
regional average winter day on-road
vehicle PM2.5 emission budgets and the
related CAA milestone for the
nonattainment area.
TABLE 6—PM2.5 MOTOR VEHICLE
EMISSION BUDGETS BY MILESTONE
YEAR
Calendar
year
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
2020
2023
2026
2027
.........
.........
.........
.........
PM2.5
on-road
budgets
(tons per day)
0.074
0.062
0.054
0.052
CAA-related
milestone
Base year.
RFP.
RFP.
Attainment.
279 Under 40 CFR 93.102(b)(2)(v), the
requirements of the transportation conformity rule
apply for VOC, SO2, and/or NH3 in a PM2.5 area if
either (1) the EPA Regional Administrator or the
director of the state air agency makes a finding that
transportation-related emissions of any of these
precursors within the nonattainment area are a
significant contributor to the PM2.5 nonattainment
problem and has so notified the MPO and DOT, or
(2) if the applicable implementation plan or
submission establishes an approved or adequate
budget for such emissions as part of the reasonable
further progress, attainment or maintenance
strategy. Because neither criterion is met for the
Fairbanks area, budgets were not included for VOC,
SO2, and NH3.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:42 Jan 07, 2025
Jkt 265001
conformity purposes, that budget must
TABLE 6—PM2.5 MOTOR VEHICLE
EMISSION BUDGETS BY MILESTONE be used by state and Federal agencies in
determining whether proposed
YEAR—Continued
Calendar
year
PM2.5
on-road
budgets
(tons per day)
2029 .........
0.049
CAA-related
milestone
RFP.
Source: State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol
II, section III.D.7.14, Table 7.14–2.
4. The EPA’s Evaluation and Proposed
Action Regarding the Motor Vehicle
Emission Budgets
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.
Because the EPA believes the budgets
meet the criteria in the transportation
conformity regulation at 40 CFR
93.118(e)(4), the EPA proposes to
approve them as part of this SIP
submission that addresses attainment
and RFP.
The Fairbanks Revised 189(d) Plan
was submitted by the Alaska Governor’s
designee—the Commissioner of Alaska
Department of Environmental
Conservations.280 Consultation among
Federal, State, and local agencies
occurred prior to Alaska’s submission of
the Fairbanks Revised 189(d) Plan.281
This consultation is documented in the
State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol. II,
section III.D.7.14. The budgets are
clearly identified and precisely
quantified (40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)(iii)).282
The EPA proposes to find that the
budgets are consistent with applicable
RFP and attainment requirements (40
CFR 93.118(e)(4)(iv)), as well as the
emissions inventory and control
measures in the Fairbanks Revised
189(d) Plan (40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)(v)).
The Fairbanks Revised 189(d) Plan also
includes Alaska’s explanations and
documentation for any revisions to the
Fairbanks Serious Plan and initial
Fairbanks 189(d) Plan, including
revisions to control measures,
previously submitted budgets, and prior
attainment projections.283
In addition to proposing approval of
the budgets, the EPA is also initiating
the adequacy review process for the
budgets in this proposed rulemaking.
When reviewing submitted SIPs
containing budgets, the EPA reviews
budgets for adequacy. Once the EPA
affirmatively finds the submitted budget
is adequate for transportation
280 40
CFR 93.118(e)(4)(i).
CFR 93.118(e)(4)(ii).
282 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)(vi).
283 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)(vi).
281 40
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
transportation activities conform to the
SIP as required by section 176(c) of the
CAA. See 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)(1).284 The
EPA may find budgets adequate before
the SIP is approved in a final rule.
The substantive criteria the EPA uses
for determining adequacy of a budget
are set out in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4); these
criteria were discussed above as the
basis for the EPA’s proposed approval.
The process for determining adequacy is
found in 40 CFR 93.118(f) and consists
of three basic steps: (1) public
notification of a SIP submission; (2) a
public comment period; and (3) the
EPA’s adequacy determination. The
EPA can begin an adequacy review
through a proposed rulemaking in the
Federal Register based on the
transportation conformity regulation at
40 CFR 93.118(f)(2). This proposed
rulemaking notifies the public that the
EPA has received a SIP submission with
budgets that the EPA will review for
adequacy and begins the public
comment period. The EPA invites the
public to comment on the adequacy of
budgets as well as other actions the EPA
is proposing in this proposed
rulemaking. Comments must be
submitted by the close of the comment
period. See the DATES section of this
document for details.
Interested members of the public can
access the Fairbanks Revised 189(d)
Plan and other relevant information at
https://www.regulations.gov, under
Docket ID No. EPA–R10–OAR–0595.
Following the EPA’s public comment
period, the EPA will consider any
comments received.
III. Summary of Proposed Action
A. Proposed Approval
In this action, the EPA is proposing to
approve the submitted revisions to the
Alaska SIP as meeting the following
Serious Plan and CAA section 189(d) 285
required elements for the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS Fairbanks Nonattainment
Area:
1. The 2020 base year emissions
inventory (CAA section 172(c)(3); 286 40
CFR 51.1008(c)(1)) for areas subject to
CAA section 189(d));
284 However, the budgets in submitted
implementation plans do not supersede the budgets
in an approved SIP submission for the same CAA
requirement and the period of years addressed by
the previously approved SIP submission, unless the
EPA specifies otherwise in its approval of a SIP
submission. 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)(1).
285 42 U.S.C. 7513a(d).
286 42 U.S.C. 7502(c)(3).
E:\FR\FM\08JAP2.SGM
08JAP2
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 5 / Wednesday, January 8, 2025 / Proposed Rules
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
2. The 2027 attainment projected
emissions inventory (CAA section
172(c)(1); 287 40 CFR 51.1008(c)(2));
3. The State’s PM2.5 major stationary
source precursor demonstration for SO2
emissions (CAA section 189(e); 288 40
CFR 51.1006(a));
4. The control strategy as meeting the
BACM requirements under CAA section
189(b)(1)(B) 289 and 40 CFR 51.1010(a)
for the following emission source
categories:
a. Requirements for wood sellers;
b. Coal-fired heating devices;
c. Coffee roasters;
d. Weatherization and energy
efficiency measures; and
e. Mobile source emissions;
5. Control strategy BACT
requirements for direct PM2.5 emissions
(CAA section 189(b)(1)(B) 290 and 40
CFR 51.1010(a)) for the following
emission sources:
a. Chena Power Plant;
b. Doyon-Fort Wainwright Central
Heating and Power Plant;
c. University of Alaska Fairbanks
Power Plant;
d. Zehnder Facility;
e. North Pole Power Plant;
6. 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) (if
applicable) under CAA section
189(d) 291 and 40 CFR 51.1010(c);
7. Attainment demonstration and
modeling meeting the requirements of
CAA sections 188(c)(2) and
189(b)(1)(A) 292 and 40 CFR 51.1003(c)
and 51.1011;
8. Reasonable further progress
provisions meeting the requirements of
CAA section 172(c)(2) 293 and 40 CFR
51.1012;
9. Motor vehicle emission budgets
meeting the requirements under 40 CFR
93.118;
10. Quantitative milestones meeting
the requirements of CAA section
189(c) 294 and 40 CFR 51.1013;
11. Contingency measures meeting the
requirements of CAA section
172(c)(9) 295 and 40 CFR 51.1014
applicable to Serious areas subject to
CAA section 189(b) and 189(d).
The EPA is proposing to approve the
following submitted sections of the
State Air Quality Control Plan for the
287 42
U.S.C. 7502(c)(1).
U.S.C. 7513a(e).
289 42 U.S.C. 7513a(b)(1)(B).
290 Id.
291 42 U.S.C. 7513a(d).
292 42 U.S.C. 7513(c)(2); 7513a(b)(1)(A).
293 42 U.S.C. 7502(c)(2).
294 42 U.S.C. 7513a(c).
295 42 U.S.C. 7502(c)(9).
288 42
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:42 Jan 07, 2025
Jkt 265001
Fairbanks PM2.5 Nonattainment Area,
State effective December 14, 2024:
1. Volume II, section III.D.7.06
Emissions Inventory;
2. Volume II, section III.D.7.07
Control Strategy;
3. Volume II, section III.D.7.08
Modeling;
4. Volume II, section III.D.7.09
Attainment Demonstration;
5. Volume II, section III.D.7.10
Reasonable Further Progress and
Quantitative Milestones;
6. Volume II, section III.D.7.11
Contingency Measures;
7. Volume II, section III.D.7.12
Emergency Episode Plan;
8. Volume II, section III.D.7.14
Conformity and Motor Vehicle Emission
Budgets;
9. Volume III, Appendix III.D.7.06
Emissions Inventory;
10. Volume III, Appendix III.D.7.07
Control Strategy; 296
11. Volume III, Appendix III.D.7.08
Modeling;
12. Volume III, Appendix III.D.7.09
Attainment Demonstration;
13. Volume III, Appendix III.D.7.10
Reasonable Further Progress and
Quantitative Milestones;
14. Volume III, Appendix III.D.7.14
Conformity and Motor Vehicle Emission
Budgets.
The EPA is also proposing to approve
and incorporate by reference submitted
regulatory changes into the Alaska SIP.
Upon final approval, the Alaska SIP will
include the following regulations, State
effective December 8, 2024:
1. 18 AAC 50.055 (industrial
processes and fuel-burning equipment
requirements), except (d)(2)(B);
2. 18 AAC 50.076 (solid fuel-fired
heating device fuel requirements;
registration of commercial wood
sellers), except (g)(11);
3. 18 AAC 50.077 (standards for wood
fired heating devices), except (g);
4. 18 AAC 50.078 (additional control
measures for a serious PM2.5
nonattainment area), except (c);
5. 18 AAC 50.079 (provisions for coalfired heating devices); and
6. 18 AAC 50.081 (Real estate
transaction requirements;
weatherization and energy efficiency).
The EPA is also proposing to approve
and incorporate by reference submitted
permits into the Alaska SIP. Upon final
approval, the Alaska SIP will include:
1. Minor Permit AQ1121MSS04 Rev.
1, Title Page, Table of Contents, List of
296 The EPA is not proposing to take action on
Alaska’s SO2 BACT determinations in State Air
Quality Control Plan, Vol. III, Appendix III.D.7.7 at
this time. If the EPA does not finalize approval of
the SO2 precursor demonstration, then the EPA will
propose action on Alaska’s SO2 BACT
determinations separately.
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
1633
Abbreviations and Acronyms, Section 1,
Section 3, Section 4, and Section 6,
only, State effective December 14, 2024
(Doyon Utilities, LLC—Fort Wainwright
(Privatized Emission Units);
2. Minor Permit AQ0236MSS03 Rev.
2, Title Page, Table of Contents, List of
Abbreviations and Acronyms, Section 1,
Section 3, Section 4, and Section 6, only
State effective December 14, 2024 (U.S.
Army Garrison Fort Wainwright);
3. Minor Permit AQ0110MSS01 Rev.
1, Title Page, Table of Contents, List of
Abbreviations and Acronyms, Section 1,
Section 3, Section 4, and Section 6,
only, State effective December 14, 2024
(Golden Valley Electric Association,
North Pole Power Plant);
4. Minor Permit AQ0109MSS01 Rev.
2, Title Page, Table of Contents, List of
Abbreviations and Acronyms, Section 1,
Section 3, Section 4, and Section 6,
only, State effective December 14, 2024
(Golden Valley Electric Association,
Zehnder Facility);
5. Minor Permit AQ0315MSS02
Revision 1, Title Page, Table of
Contents, List of Abbreviations and
Acronyms, Section 1, Section 3, Section
4, and Section 6, only, State effective
December 14, 2024 (Aurora Energy LLC,
Chena Power Plant);
6. Minor Permit AQ0316MSS08
Revision 1, Title Page, Table of
Contents, List of Abbreviations and
Acronyms, Section 1, Section 3, Section
4, and Section 6, only, State effective
December 14, 2024 (University of
Alaska Fairbanks, University of Alaska
Fairbanks Campus).
B. Adequacy Process
In this action, the EPA is also
initiating the adequacy process for the
PM2.5 budgets included in this SIP
submission. For further details, see
section II.H.4.
IV. Interim Final Determination and
Deferral of Sanctions
Please see the EPA’s Interim Final
Determination published in the ‘‘Rules’’
section of this Federal Register.
V. Incorporation by Reference
In this document, the 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, the EPA is proposing to
incorporate by reference the regulations
described in section III. of this
document. The EPA has made, and will
continue to make, these materials
generally available through https://
www.regulations.gov and at the EPA
Region 10 Office (please contact the
person identified in the FOR FURTHER
E:\FR\FM\08JAP2.SGM
08JAP2
1634
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 5 / Wednesday, January 8, 2025 / Proposed Rules
section of this
document for more information).
INFORMATION CONTACT
VI. 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 as Amended by
Executive Order 14094: Modernizing
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) (44
U.S.C. 3401 et. seq.)
This action does not impose an
information collection burden under the
PRA, because this proposed SIP
approval, if finalized, will not in-and-of
itself create any new information
collection burdens, but will simply
approve certain State requirements for
inclusion in the SIP.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5
U.S.C. 601 et. seq.)
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 approval, if
finalized, will not in-and-of itself create
any new requirements but will simply
approve certain State requirements for
inclusion in the SIP.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
(UMRA) (Pub. L. 104–4)
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
approve 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.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
This action does not have federalism
implications. It will not have substantial
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:42 Jan 07, 2025
Jkt 265001
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 approve would
not apply on any Indian reservation
land or in any other area where the EPA
or an Indian Tribe has demonstrated
that a Tribe has jurisdiction, and will
not impose substantial direct costs on
Tribal governments or preempt Tribal
law. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does
not apply to this action.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of
Children From Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks
The EPA interprets Executive Order
13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that concern
environmental health or safety risks that
the 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 approval, if
finalized, will not in-and-of itself create
any new regulations, but will simply
approve 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
the EPA to use voluntary consensus
standards in its regulatory activities
unless to do so would be inconsistent
with applicable law or otherwise
impractical. The 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.
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 9990
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal
Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Population
Executive Order 12898 (Federal
Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629,
February 16, 1994) directs Federal
agencies to identify and address
‘‘disproportionately high and adverse
human health or environmental effects’’
of their actions on communities with
environmental justice (EJ) concerns to
the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law. Executive Order
14096 (Revitalizing Our Nation’s
Commitment to Environmental Justice
for All, 88 FR 25251, April 26, 2023)
builds on and supplements Executive
Order 12898 and defines EJ as, among
other things, the just treatment and
meaningful involvement of all people,
regardless of income, race, color,
national origin, or Tribal affiliation, or
disability in agency decision-making
and other Federal activities that affect
human health and the environment.’’
The air agency did not evaluate EJ
considerations as part of its SIP
submission; the CAA and applicable
implementing regulations neither
prohibit nor require such an evaluation.
The EPA did not perform an EJ analysis
and did not consider EJ in this action.
Consideration of EJ is not required as
part of this action, and there is no
information in the record inconsistent
with the stated goal of Executive Order
12898/14096 of achieving EJ for
communities with EJ concerns.
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 17, 2024.
Casey Sixkiller,
Regional Administrator, Region 10.
[FR Doc. 2024–30648 Filed 1–7–25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
E:\FR\FM\08JAP2.SGM
08JAP2
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 5 (Wednesday, January 8, 2025)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 1600-1634]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-30648]
[[Page 1599]]
Vol. 90
Wednesday,
No. 5
January 8, 2025
Part II
Environmental Protection Agency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR Part 52
Air Plan Approval; AK, Fairbanks North Star Borough; 2006 24-Hour PM2.5
Serious Area and 189(d) Plan; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 5 / Wednesday, January 8, 2025 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 1600]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R10-OAR-2024-0595; FRL-12391-02-R10]
Air Plan Approval; 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 the state implementation plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the
State of Alaska (Alaska or the State) on December 4, 2024, to address
Clean Air Act requirements for the 2006 24-hour fine particulate matter
(PM2.5) national ambient air quality standards in the
Fairbanks North Star Borough Serious PM2.5 nonattainment
area. Alaska's submission includes SIP revisions to meet nonattainment
planning requirements for emissions inventories, modeling and sulfur
dioxide precursor demonstration for major stationary sources, control
measures, attainment projections and progress to attainment and
associated motor vehicle emissions budgets, and contingency measures.
The EPA is also starting the adequacy process for the budgets.
DATES: Comments. Written comments must be received on or before
February 7, 2025.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R10-
OAR-2024-0595, at https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. The 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. The 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 the EPA.
Table of Contents
I. Background
II. Review of the SIP Revisions to the Fairbanks Serious Plan and
Fairbanks 189(d) Plan
A. Emissions Inventory
B. Pollutants Addressed
C. Control Strategy
D. Attainment Demonstration and Modeling
E. Reasonable Further Progress
F. Quantitative Milestones
G. Contingency Measures
H. Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets for Transportation Conformity
III. Summary of Proposed Action
A. Proposed Approval
B. Adequacy Process
IV. Interim Final Determination and Deferral of Sanctions
V. Incorporation by Reference
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background
In 2009, the EPA designated a portion of the Fairbanks North Star
Borough as ``nonattainment'' for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (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, the EPA classified the area as
``Moderate'' (79 FR 31566, June 2, 2014). Subsequently, Alaska
submitted, and the EPA approved, a plan to meet the Moderate
nonattainment area requirements (82 FR 42457, September 8, 2017)
(Fairbanks Moderate Plan).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See 40 CFR 81.302.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On May 10, 2017, the 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). The outermost
attainment date is the latest date by which an area can attain the
NAAQS per statute. 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 Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) 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 included 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), the EPA determined that the Fairbanks Serious Plan was
administratively and technically complete (85 FR 7760, February 11,
2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ We note that Alaska submitted a SIP revision on October 25,
2018, to address the preconstruction permitting new source review
(NSR) requirements for the Fairbanks Serious nonattainment area,
among other things. The EPA approved the submission as meeting the
nonattainment NSR requirements for the Fairbanks 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, the 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
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 narrative portion of the State Air Quality Control Plan, adopted
and incorporated by reference into State law at 18 AAC 50.030(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ 40 CFR 51.1003(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On September 24, 2021, the EPA approved the 2013 base year
emissions inventory and the PM2.5 precursor
[[Page 1601]]
demonstration elements of the Fairbanks Serious Plan as meeting the
Serious area planning requirements (86 FR 52997). In the same action,
the EPA approved other plan components as SIP strengthening, including:
(1) the updated Fairbanks Emergency Episode Plan \5\ that the State
adopted on November 18, 2020, and submitted on December 15, 2020; and
(2) the regulatory control measures included in the SIP submissions on
October 25, 2018, and November 28, 2018 (in addition to the December
13, 2019, submission).\6\ The 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol. II, section III.D.7.12
(i.e., Alaska's planning chapter related to air quality forecasting
and curtailment levels).
\6\ For a description of the specific control measures addressed
across the State's SIP submissions, see 86 FR 52997, September 24,
2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, on December 5, 2023, the EPA acted on the remaining
elements required for a Serious nonattainment area that failed to
attain by the Serious area attainment date. Table 1 of this preamble
provides a summary of the December 5, 2023, final rule approving in
part and disapproving in part the Fairbanks Serious Plan and Fairbanks
189(d) Plan.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ 88 FR 84626, December 5, 2023.
Table 1--Summary of the EPA's December 5, 2023, Final Rule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Description of CAA planning
requirement Approval Disapproval
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Base year emissions inventory Approval of the
for Serious areas subject to 2013 base year
CAA section 189(b) * (CAA emissions
section 172(c)(3); \8\ 40 CFR inventory.
51.1008(b)(1)).
Base year emissions inventory Approval of the
for areas subject to CAA 2019 base year
section 189(d) (CAA section emissions
172(c)(3); 40 CFR inventory.
51.1008(c)(1)).
Attainment projected emissions .................. Disapproval.
inventory (CAA section
172(c)(1); \9\ 40 CFR
51.1008(c)(2)).
Serious area nonattainment plan Partial approval Disapproval of the
control strategy that ensures of the control control strategy
that best available control strategy as BACM and BACT
measures (BACM), including best meeting BACM and requirements (CAA
available control technologies BACT requirements section
(BACT), for the control of under CAA section 189(b)(1)(B) \13\
direct PM2.5 and PM2.5 189(b)(1)(B) \11\ and 40 CFR
precursors are implemented in and 40 CFR 51.1010(a)) for
the nonattainment area (CAA 51.1010(a) for the following
section 189(b)(1)(B); \10\ 40 the solid fuel emissions source
CFR 51.1010(a)). home heating categories: (1)
device source Requirements for
category and wood sellers; (2)
residential and Coal-fired
commercial fuel heating devices;
oil combustion (3) Coffee
source category; roasters; (4)
Partial approval Weatherization
of the control and energy
strategy approved efficiency
as meeting BACM measures; (5)
and BACT Mobile source
requirements category
under CAA section (disapproving for
189(b)(1)(B) \12\ lack of vehicle
and 40 CFR anti-idling
51.1010(a) for requirements);
the charbroiler, Disapproval of the
used oil burner, control strategy
and mobile source BACM and BACT
categories requirements (CAA
(except for section
rejection of 189(b)(1)(B) \14\
vehicle anti- and 40 CFR
idling 51.1010(a)) for
requirements);. PM2.5 and sulfur
Approval of dioxide (SO2) for
specific the Doyon-Fort
regulations under Wainwright
18 AAC 50.075 Central Heating
through 077 and Power Plant,
(except the University of
requirements for Alaska Fairbanks
dry wood sellers Campus Power
under 18 AAC Plant, Zehnder
50.076(k)), and Power Plant, and
Fairbanks North Pole Power
Emergency Episode Plant.
Plan (except the
contingency
measure portion);.
Partial approval
as meeting
applicable
control strategy
BACM and BACT
requirements (CAA
section
189(b)(1)(B) and
40 CFR
51.1010(a)) for
ammonia (NH3) for
the Chena Power
Plant, Doyon-Fort
Wainwright
Central Heating
and Power Plant,
University of
Alaska Fairbanks
Campus Power
Plant, Zehnder
Power Plant, and
North Pole Power
Plant;
Partial approval
of Alaska's PM2.5
and NH3 BACT
determinations
for the Doyon-
Fort Wainwright
Central Heating
and Power Plant;
PM2.5 and NH3
BACT
determination for
the University of
Alaska Fairbanks
Campus Power
Plant, except for
the three small
diesel fired
engines (EUs 23,
26, and 27);
PM2.5 and NH3
BACT
determinations
for the Zehnder
Power Plant;
PM2.5 and NH3
BACT
determinations
for the North
Pole Power Plant.
Additional measures (beyond .................. Disapproval.
those already adopted in
previous nonattainment plan SIP
submissions for the area as
RACM/RACT, BACM/BACT, and Most
Stringent Measures (MSM) \15\
(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
emissions of direct PM2.5 or
any PM2.5 plan precursor. (CAA
section 189(d); \16\ 40 CFR
51.1010(c)).
Attainment demonstration and .................. Disapproval.
modeling (CAA sections
188(c)(2) and 189(b)(1)(A);
\17\ 40 CFR 51.1003(c) and
51.1011).
Reasonable further progress .................. Disapproval.
(RFP) provisions (CAA section
172(c)(2); \18\ 40 CFR 51.1012).
Quantitative milestones (CAA .................. Disapproval.
section 189(c); \19\ 40 CFR
51.1013).
[[Page 1602]]
Motor vehicle emission budgets .................. Disapproval.
(CAA section 176, 40 CFR
51.1003(d) and 93.118).
An adequate evaluation by the Approval of the
state of sources of all four State's
PM2.5 precursors for comprehensive
regulation, and implementation PM2.5 precursor
of controls on all such demonstrations
precursors, unless the state for NOX and VOC
provides a demonstration emissions.
establishing that it is either
not necessary to regulate a
particular precursor in the
nonattainment area at issue in
order to attain by the
attainment date, or that
emissions of the precursor do
not make a significant
contribution to PM2.5 levels
that exceed the standard.* (CAA
section 189(e); \20\ 40 CFR
51.1006).
Contingency measures applicable .................. Disapproval of the
to Serious areas subject to CAA contingency
section 189(b) (CAA section measures
172(c)(9); \21\ 40 CFR 51.1014). requirements of
CAA section
172(c)(9) \22\
and 40 CFR
51.1014
applicable to
Serious areas
subject to CAA
sections 189(b)
and 189(d).
Contingency measures applicable .................. The EPA finalized
to Serious areas subject to CAA a limited
section 189(d) (CAA section disapproval of
172(c)(9); 40 CFR 51.1014). the Fairbanks
189(d) Plan
contingency
measure because
the contingency
measure did not
fully meet the
contingency
measure
requirements of
CAA section
172(c)(9) and 40
CFR 51.1014 but
otherwise
strengthened the
SIP.\23\
Nonattainment new source review Approval..........
provisions (CAA sections
172(c)(5), 189(b)(3), 189(d),
and 189(e), and 40 CFR 51.165,
40 CFR 51.1003(b)(1)(viii), and
40 CFR 51.1003(c)(1)(viii) \24\.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The EPA finalized approval of this requirement on September 24, 2021
(86 FR 52997).
On December 4, 2024, Alaska made a SIP submission (Fairbanks
Revised 189(d) Plan) intended to address the nonattainment requirements
that were disapproved as part of the EPA's December 5, 2023, final
rule. CAA sections 110(a)(1) and (2) and 110(l) require each state to
provide reasonable public notice and opportunity for public hearing
prior to the adoption and submission of a SIP or SIP revision to the
EPA. To meet this requirement, every SIP submission must include
evidence that the state provided adequate public notice and an
opportunity for a public hearing consistent with the EPA's implementing
regulations in 40 CFR 51.102.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ 42 U.S.C. 7502(c)(3).
\9\ 42 U.S.C. 7502(c)(1).
\10\ 42 U.S.C. 7513a(b)(1)(B).
\11\ 42 U.S.C. 7513a(b)(1)(B).
\12\ Id.
\13\ 42 U.S.C. 7513a(b)(1)(B).
\14\ 42 U.S.C. 7513a(b)(1)(B).
\15\ MSM is applicable if the EPA has previously granted an
extension of the attainment date under CAA section 188(e) for the
nonattainment area and NAAQS at issue. The EPA denied Alaska's
request to extend the Serious area attainment date for the Fairbanks
PM2.5 Nonattainment Area.
\16\ 42 U.S.C. 7513a(d).
\17\ 42 U.S.C. 7513(c)(2) and 7513a(b)(1)(A).
\18\ 42 U.S.C. 7502(c)(2).
\19\ 42 U.S.C. 7513a(c).
\20\ 42 U.S.C. 7513a(e).
\21\ 42 U.S.C. 7502(c)(9).
\22\ 42 U.S.C. 7502(c)(9).
\23\ The EPA finalized a limited approval of the Fairbanks
Emergency Episode Plan, State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol. II,
section III.D.7.12, as SIP-strengthening on September 24, 2021. 86
FR 52997, September 24, 2021, at pp. 52997, 53004.
\24\ 42 U.S.C. 7502(c)(5), 7513a(b)(3), 7513a(d), and 7513a(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On March 11, 2024, Alaska notified the public of the opportunity to
review and comment on proposed regulatory changes related to the
Fairbanks nonattainment area and announced two formal public hearings
on April 10, 2024. The public comment period closed on May 10, 2024.
Later, on August 26, 2024, Alaska opened a public comment period to
solicit public review of amendments to numerous SIP sections and
appendices and to notify the public of two hearings scheduled on
September 26, 2024. On September 20 and 23, 2024, Alaska opened comment
periods for the public to review each proposed permit revision to
implement the State's proposed regulatory changes. The comment periods
closed on October 22 and 25, 2024, respectively. The SIP submission
includes evidence of the public notices and copies of written and oral
comments received, with the State's associated responses. Therefore, we
find that the submission meets the procedural requirements for public
notice and hearing in CAA sections 110(a) and 110(l) and 40 CFR 51.102.
CAA section 110(k)(1)(B) requires the EPA to determine whether a
SIP submission is complete within 60 days of receipt. This section also
provides that any plan that the EPA has not affirmatively determined to
be complete or incomplete will become complete by operation of law six
months after the date of submission. The EPA reviewed the submission
and finds it complete based on the EPA's SIP completeness criteria in
40 CFR part 51, appendix V.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ See ``SIP Submittal Checklist for the Fairbanks North Star
Borough PM2.5 Nonattainment Area--2024 SIP revision,''
EPA Region 10, Air and Radiation Division, included in the docket
for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section II of this document summarizes the EPA's review of Alaska's
SIP submission against the relevant CAA requirements. The EPA's
technical analysis is detailed in technical support documents in the
docket for this action.
II. Review of the SIP Revisions to the Fairbanks Serious Plan and
Fairbanks 189(d) Plan
A. Emissions Inventory
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. On August 24, 2016, the EPA
finalized regulations implementing SIP requirements for states with
areas designated as nonattainment for the PM2.5 NAAQS.\26\
This rule is codified at 40 CFR part 51, subpart Z and is referred to
herein as the PM2.5 SIP Requirements Rule. The
PM2.5 SIP Requirements Rule at 40 CFR 51.1008 contains the
requirements for emissions
[[Page 1603]]
inventories.\27\ The EPA has also issued additional guidance concerning
emissions inventories for PM2.5 nonattainment areas.\28\ In
accordance with 40 CFR 51.1008, the attainment plan must include a base
year emissions inventory and attainment projected emissions inventory.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ Fine Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality
Standards: State Implementation Plan Requirements, 81 FR 58010,
August 24, 2016, at p. 58149.
\27\ 81 FR 58010, August 24, 2016, at pp. 58078-58079.
\28\ ``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 the 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.\29\ Similarly, the base year
emissions 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 the EPA to determine the area failed to attain 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.\30\ 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
emissions inventories, and justification for the period used for any
seasonal emissions calculations.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ 40 CFR 51.1008(b)(1).
\30\ 40 CFR 51.1008(c)(1).
\31\ 40 CFR 51.1008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to 40 CFR 51.1008, the Fairbanks Revised 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 (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.\32\ In
estimating mobile source emissions, a state must use the latest
emissions models and planning assumptions available at the time the SIP
is developed.\33\ States are also required to use the EPA's
``Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors'' (``AP-42'') road dust
method for calculating re-entrained road dust emissions from paved
roads.34 35
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ 40 CFR 51.1008(c); (a)(1)(v); 81 FR 58010, August 24, 2016,
at pp. 58027-29.
\33\ See CAA section 172(c)(3).
\34\ The 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 emissions tests
results. 76 FR 6328 (February 4, 2011).
\35\ AP-42 has been published since 1972 as the primary source
of the 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 the EPA's Prior Rulemaking Regarding the Emissions
Inventory
On December 5, 2023, the EPA finalized approval of the base year
emissions inventory, but the EPA finalized disapproval of the projected
attainment year emissions inventory. The EPA stated that, due to the
insufficient control strategy, the attainment projected emissions
inventory did not necessarily take into consideration all required
emissions reductions.
3. Summary of the State's Submission Regarding the Emissions Inventory
Based on the EPA's approval of the initial Fairbanks 189(d) Plan's
base year emissions inventory, Alaska retained State Air Quality
Control Plan, Vol. II, section III.D.7.6.2. However, Alaska has since
updated the modeling platform and included a 2020 base year emissions
inventory in the Fairbanks Revised 189(d) Plan. The modeling platform
includes key elements such as the meteorological modeling, air quality
modeling, and model emissions inventories. The base year planning
emissions inventory for direct PM2.5 and PM2.5
precursors (nitrogen oxides (NOX), SO2, volatile
organic compounds (VOC), and ammonia (NH3)) and the
documentation for the inventory for the Fairbanks PM2.5
Nonattainment Area are located in the updated Fairbanks Emissions
Inventory section.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol. II, section
III.D.7.6.9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For projecting attainment, the 2020 base year emissions inventory
incorporates the ambient monitoring data used to establish the baseline
design value. Alaska stated that the 2020 base year emissions inventory
accounts for emissions reductions from control measures adopted and
implemented through December 31, 2019. Projected control measure-driven
emissions reductions are then applied to evaluate the appropriate
attainment date. Alaska also noted that, for planning purposes, the
base year emissions inventory represents a baseline of nonattainment
area emissions to demonstrate five percent per year emissions
reductions.
Alaska stated that the Fairbanks Revised 189(d) Plan includes an
entirely new photochemical modeling platform and, for the emissions
inventory, features a new, more current winter 2019-2020 modeling
episode. Episodic emissions for the 2020 base year inventory were based
on activity collected to represent this 74-day 2019-2020 period.
[[Page 1604]]
For point sources, day- and hour-specific fuel use for the new
2019-2020 modeling episode were obtained by Alaska from each of the
point source facilities within the nonattainment area. Alaska noted
that unlike the base year emissions inventories from earlier versions
of the nonattainment plan, which projected episodic emissions from 2008
to 2013 and 2019, respectively, Alaska stated that the 2020 base year
point source emissions inventory was based on the actual data during
the modeling episodes.
Alaska stated that, for space heating area sources, space heating
energy usage estimates for the 2020 base year emissions inventory were
based on a comprehensive new Fairbanks Home Heating survey, conducted
in the spring of 2023. Respondents were asked to provide information on
fuel usage by device in their household for the most recent two
calendar years (2021 and 2022) as well as the six-month winter period
between October 2022 and March 2023. Data from this 2023 survey were
used to replace projected space heating emissions developed under
previous SIP revisions using earlier 2011-2015 surveys. Alaska noted
that decreases in the fraction of wood devices used in the
nonattainment area and the amount of wood use per device from the
survey respondents tracked well with downward trajectories of wood use
expected from existing and on-going control programs such as the
Fairbanks North Star Borough's (FNSB) Wood Stove Change Out Program and
the Alaska DEC's Solid Fuel-Burning Appliance Curtailment Program.
Alaska stated that survey results were then back-casted to calendar
year 2020 to provide a more realistic estimate of wood-fired heating
use for the 2020 base year emissions inventory.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ For a description of the ``back-cast'' method, see
Kotchenruther, Robert. (November 21, 2024). Technical support
document for Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation's
amendments to: State Air Quality Control Plan, Emission Inventory
Data (version August 19, 2024). U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 10, Laboratory Services and Applied Science Division,
EPA-R10-OAR-2024-0595, section 1.5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For on-road and non-road mobile sources, Alaska noted that the
previous base year emissions inventories included on-road vehicle
populations and age distributions based on 2014 and 2018 department of
motor vehicle (DMV) registration data, respectively. For the Fairbanks
Revised 189(d) Plan, 2020 DMV registration data were used to align with
the 2020 base year emissions inventory year. For on-road mobile
sources, these 2020 DMV data were used to develop vehicle population,
age distribution, and fuel type/technology inputs to the MOVES3 vehicle
emissions model. For aircraft activity specifically, a recent
adjustment to aircraft activity in the initial Fairbanks 189(d) Plan
was made to reflect lower aircraft activity during the winter months.
Otherwise, the estimates of aircraft activity in the Fairbanks Revised
189(d) Plan were unchanged. Table 2 of this preamble includes a summary
of the base year emissions inventory.
Table 2--2020 Base Year Episode Average Daily Emissions by Source Sector
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2020 base year emissions inventory (tons/day)
Source sector ------------------------------------------------------
PM2.5 NOX SO2 VOC NH3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point Sources............................................ 0.58 13.54 6.63 0.04 0.888
Area, Space Heating...................................... 1.97 2.17 3.61 6.66 0.109
Area, Space Heat, Wood................................... 1.89 0.23 0.04 6.55 0.067
Area, Space Heat, Oil.................................... 0.06 1.72 3.54 0.10 0.003
Area, Space Heat, Coal................................... 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Area, Space Heat, Other.................................. 0.02 0.22 0.02 0.01 0.039
Area, Other.............................................. 0.11 0.36 0.03 2.21 0.047
Mobile, On-Road.......................................... 0.07 1.18 0.000 1.42 0.040
Mobile, Aircraft......................................... 0.12 0.43 5.44 0.15 0.000
Mobile, Non-Road excluding aircraft...................... 0.09 0.29 0.00 2.64 0.0001
------------------------------------------------------
Totals............................................... 2.95 17.96 15.71 13.04 0.285
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol. II, section III.D.7.6, Table 7.6-9.
Alaska noted for PM2.5 overall, the 2020 base year
emissions in the Fairbanks Revised 189(d) Plan are nine percent lower
than the 2019 base year emissions inventory in the initial Fairbanks
189(d) Plan, with differences coming from space heating and mobile
sources that are likely the result of on-going emissions controls.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ For more details of the 2019 base year emissions inventory,
see 88 FR 1454, January 10, 2023, at p. 1460.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alaska stated that NOX and SO2 emissions in
the Fairbanks Revised 189(d) Plan are 17 and nine percent higher
respectively than in the initial Fairbanks 189(d) Plan. Alaska asserted
that these emissions increases are largely driven by changes in the
Point (and Other Area) source emissions, since the new 74-day 2019-2020
modeling episode was based on actual emissions. In addition, the
increases in NOX and SO2 emissions for the Other
Area source sector under the Fairbanks Revised 189(d) Plan are due to
moving stationary source emissions from Eielson AFB to this sector.
Under the previous base year emissions inventories, stationary source
emissions from Eielson were contained in the Point source portion of
the inventory.
The reductions in VOC emissions in the Fairbanks Revised 189(d)
Plan are due to mobile source sector reductions in the MOVES3 model.
The initial Fairbanks 189(d) Plan inventory was based on an earlier
version of MOVES that reflected higher VOC emission factors. In
addition, Alaska stated that VOC reductions in the Space Heating sector
are likely the result of differences in the mix of wood use by device
between the two inventories. The Fairbanks Revised 189(d) Plan
inventory reflects higher usage fractions of certified and pellet-based
wood burning devices based on data from new 2023 Home Heating survey,
and these devices have lower VOC emission factors.
Finally, Alaska noted that the difference in overall NH3
emissions between the two base year inventories is very modest (one
percent lower under
[[Page 1605]]
the Fairbanks Revised 189(d) base year emissions inventory). These
source sector-specific variations mirror the adjustments made to
PM2.5, SO2, NOX, and VOC emissions
discussed earlier in this section II.A of this preamble.
Building from Alaska's new 2020 base year emissions inventory,
Alaska developed its attainment projections. As a first step, Alaska
constructed a 2027 baseline emissions inventory that reflected
projected activity growth factors, previously implemented control
measures, and other adjustments to point sources and wood usage.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol. II, section III.D.7.6,
Table 7.6-11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As a second step, Alaska developed the 2027 projected attainment
emissions inventory by adjusting the 2027 baseline inventory to account
for projected emissions reductions from the control strategy included
in the Fairbanks Revised 189(d) Plan. For a complete list of measures
included in Alaska's control strategy, see Table 4 in section II.D of
this preamble below. Notably, as part of the control strategy, the Wood
Stove Change Out Program and the Oil-To-Gas Conversion Program are
managed by the local Fairbanks North Star Borough. Direct
PM2.5 reductions from these programs in 2020 through 2026
totaled over 1.3 tons per episode day. The State of Alaska manages the
Solid Fuel-Burning Appliance Curtailment Program as well as seven other
control measures for which emissions benefits were quantified and
incorporated into the 2027 attainment projected inventory. Notably, the
State recently increased the stringency of the curtailment program by
lowering the alert stages to 20 [mu]g/m\3\ and 30 [mu]g/m\3\,
respectively. Alaska also utilized funding from the 2019-2020 Targeted
Airshed Grant (TAG) to purchase three dynamic message highway signs and
an infrared camera and to expand staffing to increase compliance. For
details of these projected emissions reductions, see the spreadsheet
calculations in the State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol. III, Appendix
III.D.7.6.
Alaska concluded that, after considering the emissions reductions
from these control measures, the Fairbanks PM2.5
Nonattainment Area could demonstrate attainment by 2027, based on the
2027 attainment year emissions inventory, as summarized in Table 3 of
this preamble.
Table 3--2027 Projected Attainment Emissions Inventory, Average Daily Emissions by Source Sector
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2027 Projected attainment emissions inventory (tons/
day)
Source sector ------------------------------------------------------
PM2.5 NOX SO2 VOC NH3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point Sources............................................ 0.62 14.60 7.15 0.04 0.095
Area, Space Heating...................................... 0.74 2.34 1.98 8.01 0.124
Area, Space Heat, Wood................................... 0.70 0.28 0.04 7.90 0.081
Area, Space Heat, Oil.................................... 0.02 1.83 1.91 0.10 0.004
Area, Space Heat, Coal................................... 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Area, Space Heat, Other.................................. 0.02 0.22 0.02 0.01 0.039
Area, Other.............................................. 0.13 0.40 0.03 2.33 0.051
Mobile, On-Road.......................................... 0.05 0.65 0.00 1.08 0.038
Mobile, Aircraft......................................... 0.12 0.45 5.70 0.17 0.000
Mobile, Nonroad excluding aircraft....................... 0.08 0.32 0.00 2.22 0.002
------------------------------------------------------
Totals............................................... 1.74 18.75 14.86 13.85 0.310
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol. II, section III.D.7.6, Table 7.6-19.
Alaska observed that the 2027 projected attainment emissions
inventory provides reductions in total PM2.5 and
SO2 emissions within the nonattainment area of 41 percent
and five percent respectively. Within the space heating sector, which
has a proportionally higher impact on ambient PM2.5, Alaska
noted that the 2027 projected attainment emissions inventory reductions
were 63 percent and 45 percent for direct PM2.5 and
SO2, respectively.
4. EPA Evaluation and Proposed Action Regarding the Emissions Inventory
a. 2020 Base Year Emissions Inventory
The EPA proposes to approve the 2020 base year emissions inventory
as meeting the requirements of CAA section 172(c)(3) and 40 CFR
51.1008. The EPA is proposing to determine that Alaska has justified
that 2020 is a technically appropriate inventory year consistent with
40 CFR 51.1008(c)(1). The base year emissions inventory includes actual
emissions of all sources within the nonattainment area. The EPA
proposes to determine that a seasonal episode daily average inventory
is appropriate for the Fairbanks PM2.5 Nonattainment Area
because the area experiences episodic elevated concentrations of
PM2.5 during wintertime cold weather events. The emissions
inventory includes direct PM2.5 emissions, separately
reported as filterable and condensable emissions, as well as all
scientific PM2.5 precursors (SO2, NOX,
VOC, and NH3). Alaska reported emissions for point sources
according to the point source emissions thresholds of the Air Emissions
Reporting Rule in 40 CFR part 51, subpart A. Finally, the emissions
inventory is consistent with the detail and data elements required by
40 CFR part 51, subpart A. For the EPA's full evaluation, see the EPA's
technical evaluation of Alaska's emissions inventory included in the
docket for this action.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ Kotchenruther, Robert. (November 21, 2024). Technical
support document for Alaska Department of Environmental
Conservation's amendments to: State Air Quality Control Plan,
Emission Inventory Data (version August 19, 2024). U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, Laboratory Services and
Applied Science Division, EPA-R10-OAR-2024-0595.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. 2027 Projected Attainment Emissions Inventory
The EPA proposes to approve the 2027 projected attainment emissions
inventory as meeting the requirements of CAA section 172(c)(3) and 40
CFR 51.1008. The EPA is proposing to determine that 2027 is the most
expeditious year for which projected emissions show modeled
PM2.5 concentrations below the level of the NAAQS. As
discussed in section II.D of this preamble, Alaska included a model
output for 2026 that resulted in emissions levels exceeding the 2006
24-
[[Page 1606]]
hour PM2.5 NAAQS. The attainment projected inventory
includes the sources in the base year emissions inventory and accounts
for growth and contraction from both controls and other causes.
Consistent with the base year emissions inventory, the attainment
projected emissions inventory is based on episode average daily
emissions. The attainment projected emissions inventory includes direct
PM2.5 emissions, separately reported as filterable and
condensable emissions, as well as all scientific precursors. The
attainment projected emissions inventory includes the same level of
emissions detail for the same point sources and for mobile sources
reported in the base year emissions inventory. For the EPA's full
evaluation, see the EPA's technical evaluation of Alaska's emissions
inventory, included in the docket for this action.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ Kotchenruther, Robert. (November 21, 2024). Technical
support document for Alaska Department of Environmental
Conservation's amendments to: State Air Quality Control Plan,
Emission Inventory Data (version August 19, 2024). U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, Laboratory Services and
Applied Science Division, EPA-R10-OAR-2024-0595.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Pollutants Addressed
1. Statutory and Regulatory Requirements Regarding the Pollutants
Addressed
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.\42\ 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.'' \43\ The EPA has identified SO2,
NOX, VOCs, and NH3 as precursors to the formation
of PM2.5.\44\ 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).,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ 40 CFR 51.1006, 51.1010; See 81 FR 58010, August 24, 2016,
at pp. 58017-58020.
\43\ CAA section 302(g).
\44\ 81 FR 58010, August 24, 2016, at p. 58015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As noted in the EPA's Final Policy Assessment for the
reconsideration of the PM2.5 NAAQS, secondary particulate
matter is formed in the atmosphere by photochemical oxidation reactions
of both inorganic and organic gas-phase precursors. Precursor gases
include SO2, NOX, NH3, and VOC gases
of anthropogenic or natural origin. Anthropogenic SO2 and
NOX are the predominant precursor gases in the formation of
secondary PM2.5 sulfate and nitrate, and NH3 is
the gas-phase precursor for PM2.5 ammonium. PM2.5
ammonium formation is enhanced by particle acidity resulting from
sulfuric acid and nitric acid condensation onto particles. Atmospheric
oxidation of VOCs, both anthropogenic and biogenic, is an important
source of organic aerosols, particularly in summer. The semi-volatile
and nonvolatile products of VOC oxidation reactions can condense onto
existing particles or can form new particles.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\45\ ``Policy Assessment for the Reconsideration of the National
Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter'' (EPA/452/R-
22-004), EPA, May 2022), p. 2-10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to the State, 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, section III.D.7.8.1).
CAA section 189(e) requires that the control requirements for major
stationary sources of direct PM10 \46\ and PM2.5
\47\ 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 CAA section 189(e)
explicitly addresses only major stationary sources, the 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.\48\ For example, under the 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,\49\ 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.\50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\46\ 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.
\47\ 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.
\48\ 81 FR 58010, August 24, 2016, at pp. 58018-58019.
\49\ State Implementation Plan; General Preamble for the
Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990
(``General Preamble''), 57 FR 13498, April 16, 1992, at pp. 13539-
42.
\50\ 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 the 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 area.\51\ If the 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.\52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\51\ 40 CFR 51.1006(a)(1).
\52\ 40 CFR 51.1006(a)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Relatedly, under the PM2.5 SIP Requirements Rule, a
state may submit to the EPA a ``major stationary source precursor
demonstration'' for a specific nonattainment area that shows that
emissions of a particular precursor from all existing major stationary
sources located in the nonattainment area do not contribute
significantly to PM2.5 levels that exceed the standard in
the area.\53\ If the EPA approves a major stationary source precursor
demonstration, then the state is not required to control emissions of
the relevant precursor from existing major stationary sources in the
current attainment plan.\54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\53\ 40 CFR 51.1006(a)(2).
\54\ 40 CFR 51.1006(a)(2)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 1607]]
In addition, in May 2019, the 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.\55\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\55\ ``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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA evaluated the Fairbanks Revised 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 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 consider 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.\56\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\56\ 40 CFR 51.1006(a)(1)(i) and (ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Summary of the EPA's Prior Rulemaking Regarding the Pollutants
Addressed
On December 5, 2023, the EPA finalized approval of Alaska's
precursor demonstration that NOX and VOCs are not
significant precursors to PM2.5 formation in the Fairbanks
PM2.5 Nonattainment Area.\57\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\57\ 88 FR 84626, December 5, 2023, at p. 84675.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Summary of the State's Submission Regarding the Pollutants Addressed
In the Fairbanks Revised 189(d) Plan, in accordance with 40 CFR
51.1006(a)(2), Alaska included a demonstration that SO2
emissions from major stationary sources do not significantly contribute
to PM2.5 formation in the Fairbanks PM2.5
Nonattainment Area. As discussed in the State Air Quality Control Plan,
Vol. II, section III.D.7.8.15, Alaska stated that it utilized a new
model platform that accurately simulated the formation of precursors
into PM2.5 in the Fairbanks environment. The new model
platform also demonstrated marked improvement in the simulation of
sulfate formation from SO2 emissions as compared to prior
platforms used by Alaska. Using the new model platform, Alaska
performed a concentration-based contribution analysis using air quality
modeling with ``zero-out'' model runs. Alaska's analysis showed that
major stationary sources contributed 0.21 [mu]g/m\3\ PM2.5
at regulatory monitoring sites in Fairbanks including the North Pole
monitor (Hurst Road), which is below the 1.5 [mu]g/m\3\
PM2.5 threshold included in the EPA's guidance.\58\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\58\ See State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol. II., section
III.D.7.8.15, Table 7.8.18-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to Alaska, the updated analysis of precursor impacts on
PM2.5 utilized a photochemical grid model (PGM) that
accounted for the non-linear secondary effects of precursor gases. PGMs
account for the atmospheric chemistry, transport, and deposition of
pollutants using local emissions and meteorological data. The zero-out
approach compared a baseline model run with a model run where a
precursor's emissions are set to zero to determine the influence of
that precursor on PM2.5 formation.
Alaska noted that a concentration-based analysis was completed that
excluded all sources of SO2. The monitored filter sulfate
and the concentrations from the 5-year design value showed total
sulfate from all sectors was 5.9 [mu]g/m\3\ or 21 percent of the
PM2.5 at an air quality monitor located in the City of
Fairbanks (NCore) and 5.9 [mu]g/m\3\ or nine percent of the
PM2.5 at the North Pole air quality monitor (Hurst Road).
When accounting for all emissions sources, SO2 remained a
significant precursor to PM2.5 formation in the Fairbanks
PM2.5 Nonattainment Area.
After completing the first step, the major stationary source sector
SO2 precursor model runs were then performed based on the
emissions for the 2020 base year and a model run that excluded
SO2 emissions. The difference in sulfate for a model
simulation using base year emissions and a second model simulation with
major stationary-source SO2 emissions set to zero was
compared with the 1.5 ug/m\3\ threshold. Alaska stated that this
concentration-based modeling demonstrated the insignificance of
SO2 from major stationary sources when compared with the 1.5
[mu]g/m\3\ threshold in the EPA's guidance, and therefore, a
sensitivity-based contribution analysis was not needed, in accordance
with 40 CFR 51.1006(a)(2)(ii).
4. The EPA's Evaluation and Proposed Action Regarding the Pollutants
Addressed
The EPA evaluated the State's precursor demonstration included in
the Fairbanks Revised 189(d) Plan. The EPA proposes to determine that
Alaska's submission meets the requirements of 40 CFR 51.1006(a)(2) and
is consistent with the EPA guidance.\59\ Regarding the State's
analytical approach, the 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. Consistent with 40 CFR 51.1006(a)(2), Alaska's submission
includes a concentration-based contribution analysis. The
concentration-based analysis shows that the SO2 emissions
from major stationary sources do not significantly contribute to
PM2.5 formation in the Fairbanks PM2.5
Nonattainment Area. Specifically, Alaska's analysis shows that
SO2 emissions from major stationary sources contribute 0.21
[mu]g/m\3\ of PM2.5 at the North Pole Hurst Road air quality
monitor--far below the 1.5 [mu]g/m\3\ threshold included in the EPA
guidance. For the EPA's full evaluation, see EPA's Technical Support
Document.\60\ Therefore, the EPA proposes to approve Alaska's precursor
demonstration submitted as part of the Fairbanks Revised 189(d) Plan as
demonstrating that the contribution of SO2 from existing
major stationary sources to PM2.5 levels in the Fairbanks
PM2.5 Nonattainment Area is not significant in accordance
with 40 CFR 51.1006(a)(2)(i). If the EPA finalizes approval as
proposed, Alaska will not be required to control SO2
emissions from existing major stationary sources in the Fairbanks
PM2.5 Nonattainment Area, pursuant to CAA section 189 and 40
CFR 51.1010. For purposes of the Fairbanks Revised 189(d) Plan, the
PM2.5 plan precursors are: NH3 and SO2
for all sources except for major stationary sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\59\ ``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.
\60\ Briggs, Nicole. (December 2, 2024). Review of Attainment
Demonstration Modeling and SO2 Precursor Demonstration in the 2024
State Implementation Plan Submission for the Fairbanks 24-hour PM2.5
Nonattainment Area. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10,
Laboratory Services and Applied Science Division, EPA-R10-OAR-2024-
0595.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consistent with its past actions, if finalized, the EPA's approval
of Alaska's
[[Page 1608]]
precursor demonstration would 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. The 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).
C. Control Strategy
1. Statutory and Regulatory Requirements Regarding the Control Strategy
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.
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 or Serious 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.\61\
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.\62\ 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.\63\ In assessing whether a control measure or
technology is BACM or BACT, the state must consider emissions reduction
measures with higher costs per ton compared to the economic feasibility
criteria applied in their RACM or RACT analysis.\64\ With respect to
determining BACT pursuant to CAA section 189(b), the EPA expects that
states use the top-down BACT analysis process used in the Prevention of
Significant Deterioration (PSD) Program.\65\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\61\ Id.
\62\ 40 CFR 51.1010(a)(3)(i); 81 FR 58010, August 24, 2016, at
p. 58084.
\63\ 40 CFR 51.1010(a)(3)(ii); 81 FR 58010, August 24, 2016, at
p. 58085.
\64\ 81 FR 58010, August 24, 2016, at p. 58085.
\65\ Id. at p. 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 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, the EPA recommended the following the 5-Step BACM/BACT selection
process that states should follow to satisfy the analytical and
substantive requirements of 40 CFR 51.1010(a) and CAA section 189(b):
\66\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\66\ Id. at pp. 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.
The EPA interprets CAA section 189(b) to require the state to
determine what is BACM or BACT for a particular source or source
category.\67\ The EPA's longstanding interpretation of the CAA is that
BACM and BACT determinations are to be generally independent of
attainment for purposes of implementing the PM2.5 NAAQS.\68\
The 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.\69\ States also may not decline to
evaluate, or to control as necessary, sources or source categories on
the basis that they are de minimis.\70\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\67\ Id. at p. 58081.
\68\ 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 (``Addendum to
the General Preamble''), 59 FR 41998, at p. 42011 (August 16, 1994);
81 FR 58010, August 24, 2016, at p. 58081.
\69\ Id.
\70\ Id. at p. 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 five percent reduction in emissions of direct
PM2.5 or a five 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).\71\ 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:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\71\ 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
[[Page 1609]]
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 emissions inventory for the nonattainment area, the state shall
identify the most stringent measures (MSM) 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 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 the EPA may determine is appropriate
after the 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.\72\ In order to be enforceable as a practical matter, the
state must adopt into the SIP not only the control measure or emissions
limit itself but also appropriate monitoring, recordkeeping, and
reporting requirements to ensure compliance with the control
measure.\73\ Without appropriate monitoring, recordkeeping, and
reporting requirements, violations of the control measure could go
undetected.\74\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\72\ 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, August 24, 2016, at pp. 58046-
47; 57 FR 13498, April 16, 1992, at pp.13567-68.
\73\ 81 FR 58010, August 24, 2016, at pp. 58046-47; 57 FR 13498,
April 16, 1992, at pp. 13567-68; 67 FR 22168, May 2, 2002, at p.
22170; 80 FR 33840, June 12, 2015, at pp. 33843, 33865; Montana
Sulphur & Chemical Co. v. EPA, 666 F.3d 1174, at pp. 1189-1190 (9th
Cir. 2012).
\74\ 67 FR 22168, May 2, 2022, at p. 22170; Montana Sulphur &
Chemical Co. v. EPA, 666 F.3d 1174, at pp. 1189-1190 (9th Cir.
2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Summary of the EPA's Prior Rulemaking Regarding the Control Strategy
On December 5, 2023, the EPA finalized an approval in part and
disapproval in part of the BACM requirements for the Fairbanks
PM2.5 Nonattainment Area. The EPA's action for each
emissions source category is described in the following paragraphs.
a. Alaska's Identification and Adoption of BACM for Home Heating and
Other Area Sources
i. Solid Fuel-Burning
The EPA approved in part and disapproved in part Alaska's analysis
and adoption of control measures for this source category as meeting
the BACM requirements for PM2.5 and SO2
emissions.\75\ The EPA approved Alaska's analysis that found no
NH3-specific emissions controls for this source category.
The EPA also previously 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\75\ 88 FR 84626, December 5, 2023, at p. 84674.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
SIP Requirements Rule.
Alaska's two-stage Solid Fuel-Burning Appliance Curtailment
Program, included in the Fairbanks Emergency Episode Plan, adopts air
quality thresholds that are at least as stringent as comparable
curtailment programs in Idaho, Utah, and California. Alaska accounted
for the differences in natural gas availability, seasonal climate
conditions, and wood stove change-out incentives in establishing the
two-stage thresholds at 20 [micro]g/m\3\ (Stage 1) and 30 [micro]g/m\3\
(Stage 2), respectively. Alaska also had an advisory level set at 15
[micro]g/m\3\ as part of the curtailment program. Alaska placed further
limitations on the ``No Other Adequate Source of Heat'' (NOASH) waiver
(available to households as a temporary waiver from certain curtailment
requirements), limiting applicability to those that have economic needs
based on objective criteria and limiting the number of years NOASH
waivers are available. Therefore, the EPA approved the Solid Fuel-
Burning Appliance Curtailment Program and associated updates to the
NOASH waivers and 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.\76\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\76\ 88 FR 84626, December 5, 2023, at pp. 84699, 84673-84675.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alaska identified and evaluated as BACM the 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 wood stoves
meet emissions standards that are more stringent than the EPA's New
Source Performance Standards (NSPS) requirement for residential wood
heaters at 40 CFR part 60 and also include one-hour testing
requirements to ensure only the lowest-emitting wood stoves are allowed
to be sold and installed in the nonattainment area. The EPA approved
these measures as BACM for the solid-fuel burning source category
(i.e., 18 AAC 50.077 (a-j)) for PM2.5 and SO2
emissions.\77\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\77\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alaska's regulation 18 AAC 50.075(f), applicable to the Fairbanks
PM2.5 Nonattainment Area, prohibits the operation of a solid
fuel-fired heating device emissions when visible emissions exceed 20
percent opacity for more than six minutes in any one hour, except
during the first 15 minutes after initial firing of the device, when
the opacity limit must be less than 50 percent. The rule also prohibits
visible emissions from crossing property lines. These opacity limits
provide a visual indicator for the proper operation of a solid-fuel
heating device. The EPA approved this measure as BACM.\78\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\78\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA approved as BACM the additional removal or render
inoperable
[[Page 1610]]
restrictions placed on non-certified EPA wood stoves, non-pellet
outdoor hydronic heaters, coal-fired heating devices, and EPA-certified
wood stoves greater than 25 years-old meet BACM requirements for
PM2.5 and SO2 emissions.\79\ These devices are 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 wood-fired heating device is 25 years old prior to that date).
These include Alaska state regulations 18 AAC 50.077 (l-m). The EPA
approved 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, which 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.\80\ These include Alaska state regulations 18 AAC 50.076 (d-
e), (g), (j-l).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\79\ Id.
\80\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, the EPA partially disapproved as BACM Alaska's measures
regarding dry wood seller requirements and coal-fired heating
devices.\81\ The EPA recommended Alaska revise 18 AAC 50.076(k)(3) to
require a specific frequency wood sellers are required to measure the
moisture content of the seller's wood stock. Likewise, the EPA also
recommended Alaska revise the regulations at 18 AAC 50.079(d), (e) and
(f) to remove (or revise to BACM and BACT-level stringency) the testing
exemption in (d), remove or properly bound the waiver provision in (e),
and add requirements to verify compliance with the requirement for the
owner and operator to render the device inoperative.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\81\ 88 FR 84626, December 5, 2023, at pp. 84670, 84675-76.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ii. Residential and Commercial Fuel Oil Combustion
Alaska adopted the regulation at 18 AAC 50.078(b) that imposed a
limit of 1,000 parts per million sulfur (diesel no. 1) for residential
and commercial heating. This was a switch from diesel no. 2
(approximately 2,000 parts per million sulfur) to diesel no. 1. Alaska
also evaluated the potential for adopting ULSD for fuel oil combustion,
but the State determined that this measure is economically infeasible.
The EPA approved 18 AAC 50.078(b) as meeting the SO2 BACM
and BACT requirements for the space heating area source category.\82\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\82\ 88 FR 84626, December 5, 2023, at p. 84674-75.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
iii. Small Commercial Area Sources
The EPA approved Alaska's determination that there were no
incinerators in the nonattainment area. Therefore, Alaska need not
identify, adopt, or implement controls for the incinerator source
category. The EPA also approved Alaska's BACM infeasibility
demonstrations for add-on control for charbroilers and restrictions on
used oil burners. By extension, the EPA approved 18 AAC 50.055 as BACM/
BACT for the charbroiler source category.\83\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\83\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, the EPA disapproved Alaska's BACM requirements for coffee
roasters. The EPA cited a number of deficiencies with Alaska's adopted
control measure for coffee roasters at 18 AAC 50.078(d).\84\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\84\ 88 FR 84626, December 5, 2023, at p. 84676; See also 81 FR
58010, August 24, 2016, at p. 58047.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
iv. Weatherization and Energy Efficiency
The EPA disapproved Alaska's BACM analysis with respect to
potential energy efficiency and weatherization measures. The State
provided a number of reasons for declining to adopt and implement any
such measures, each of which the EPA rejected as bases to not adopt
weatherization and energy efficiency measures.\85\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\85\ 88 FR 84626, December 5, 2023, at pp. 84641, 84676; See
also 81 FR 58010, August 24, 2016, at p. p. 58085.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
v. Emissions From Mobile Sources
The EPA approved Alaska's rejection of the CARB vehicle standards
as economically infeasible. The EPA likewise finalized approval of
Alaska's rejection of school bus retrofits, road paving, and controls
on road sanding and salting as technologically infeasible. The EPA
approved Alaska's rejection of a motor vehicle inspection and
maintenance (I/M) program. The EPA approved Alaska's determination that
no NH3-specific emissions controls exist for this source
category.\86\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\86\ 88 FR 84626, December 5, 2023, at p 84675-76.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA approved Alaska's rejection of other transportation
measures as either technologically infeasible (HOV lanes) or
economically infeasible (traffic flow improvements, diesel retrofit
projects, and ridesharing programs).\87\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\87\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, the EPA approved in part and disapproved in part Alaska's
rejection of vehicle idling restrictions and other transportation
measures.\88\ Specifically, the EPA approved Alaska's rejection of
vehicle idling restrictions for heavy-duty diesel vehicles as
economically infeasible. However, the EPA disapproved Alaska's
rejection of vehicle idling restrictions for light-duty vehicles at
schools and commercial establishments. The EPA determined that Alaska
had not demonstrated that vehicle anti-idling restrictions for light-
duty passenger vehicles are infeasible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\88\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Alaska's Identification and Adoption of BACT for Major Stationary
Sources
In its December 5, 2023, action, the EPA partially approved and
partially disapproved the Fairbanks Serious Plan as meeting the BACM
and BACT requirements for major stationary sources.
i. Chena Power Plant
The EPA partially approved and partially disapproved Alaska's BACM/
BACT evaluation for the Chena Power Plant. The EPA partially
disapproved the BACT determination because Alaska did not identify,
adopt, and implement BACT for PM2.5 and SO2. The
EPA approved Alaska's BACT analysis for NH3 emissions
controls for the Chena Power Plant.\89\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\89\ 88 FR 84626, December 5, 2023, at pp. 84670-71, 84675-76.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ii. Doyon-Fort Wainwright Central Heating and Power Plant
The EPA partially approved and partially disapproved Alaska's BACM/
BACT determinations for PM2.5 controls for each of the
emission sources at Doyon-Fort Wainwright Central Heating and Power
Plant. The EPA partially approved the BACT determinations because
Alaska's BACT findings for PM2.5 (embodied in State Air
Quality Control Plan, Vol. II, section III.D.7.7, Tables 7.7-11 and
7.7-13 and section III.D.7.7.8.3.4) were consistent with CAA section
189(b) and 40 CFR 51.1010(a). The EPA partially disapproved the BACT
determinations because the Fairbanks Serious Plan and initial Fairbanks
189(d) Plan lacked provisions necessary to ensure the BACT
determinations for PM2.5 are enforceable as a practical
matter as required by CAA sections 110(a)(2)(A) and 172(c)(7).\90\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\90\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On September 25, 2023, Alaska withdrew its SO2 BACT
determinations for Doyon-Fort Wainwright Central Heating and Power
Plant. Therefore, the EPA finalized disapproval of Alaska's
SO2 BACT determinations because the
[[Page 1611]]
Fairbanks Serious Plan and initial Fairbanks 189(d) Plan did not
identify, adopt, and implement BACT for SO2 at the Doyon-
Fort Wainwright Central Heating and Power Plant. The EPA approved
Alaska's analysis that found no NH3-specific emissions
controls for the sources at this facility.\91\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\91\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
iii. University of Alaska Fairbanks Campus Power Plant
The EPA disapproved Alaska's BACM/BACT determination for
PM2.5 controls for the Small Diesel-Fired Engines (EU IDs
23, 26, and 27). The EPA partially approved and partially disapproved
the Alaska's BACT determinations for PM2.5 controls for the
remaining emission units. The EPA partially approved the
PM2.5 BACT determinations because Alaska's BACT
determinations embodied in State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol. II,
section III.D.7.7, Table 7.7-16 and section III.D.7.7.8.6 were
consistent with CAA section 189(b) and 40 CFR 51.1010(a). The EPA
partially disapproved Alaska's BACT determinations because the
Fairbanks Serious Plan and initial Fairbanks 189(d) Plan lacked
provisions necessary to ensure the BACT determinations are enforceable
as a practical matter as required by CAA sections 110(a)(2)(A) and
172(c)(7).\92\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\92\ Id. at p. 84657
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On September 25, 2023, Alaska withdrew its SO2 BACT
determinations for the Fairbanks Campus Power Plant. Therefore, the EPA
disapproved Alaska's SO2 BACT determinations because the
Fairbanks Serious Plan and initial Fairbanks 189(d) Plan did not
identify, adopt, and implement BACT for SO2 at the Fairbanks
Campus Power Plant. The EPA approved Alaska's analysis that found no
NH3-specific emissions controls for the sources at this
facility.\93\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\93\ Id. at pp. 84670-71, 84675-76.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
iv. Zehnder Power Plant
The EPA partially approved and partially disapproved Alaska's BACM/
BACT provisions for PM2.5 controls for all emission units at
the Zehnder Power Plant. The EPA partially approved the
PM2.5 BACT determination because Alaska's BACT
determinations embodied in the State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol. II,
section III.D.7.7, Table 7.7-14 and Appendix III.D.7.7.8.4 are
consistent with CAA section 189(b) and 40 CFR 51.1010(a). The EPA
partially disapproved Alaska's PM2.5 BACT determinations
because the Fairbanks Serious Plan and initial Fairbanks 189(d) Plan
lacked provisions necessary to ensure the PM2.5 BACT
determinations are enforceable as a practical matter as required by CAA
sections 110(a)(2)(A) and 172(c)(7).\94\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\94\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On September 25, 2023, Alaska withdrew its SO2 BACT
determinations for the Zehnder Power Plant. Therefore, the EPA
partially disapproved the SO2 BACT determinations because
Fairbanks Serious Plan and initial Fairbanks 189(d) Plan did not
identify, adopt, and implement BACT for SO2 at the Zehnder
Power Plant. The EPA approved Alaska's analysis that found no
NH3-specific emissions controls for the sources at this
facility.\95\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\95\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
v. North Pole Power Plant
The EPA partially approved and partially disapproved Alaska's BACM/
BACT provisions for PM2.5 controls for all emission units at
the North Pole Power Plant. The EPA partially approved Alaska's
PM2.5 BACT determinations because these findings embodied in
State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol. II, section III.D.7.7, Table 7.7-
14 and Appendix III.D.7.7.8.5 are consistent with CAA section 189(b)
and 40 CFR 51.1010(a). The EPA partially disapproved Alaska's
PM2.5 BACT determinations because the Fairbanks Serious Plan
and initial Fairbanks 189(d) Plan lacked provisions necessary to ensure
the BACT determinations are enforceable as a practical matter as
required by CAA sections 110(a)(2)(A) and 172(c)(7).\96\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\96\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On September 25, 2023, Alaska withdrew its SO2 BACT
determinations for the North Pole Power Plant. Therefore, the EPA
partially disapproved Alaska's SO2 BACT determinations
because the Fairbanks Serious Plan and initial Fairbanks 189(d) Plan
did not identify, adopt, and implement BACT for SO2 at the
North Pole Power Plant. The EPA approved Alaska's analysis that found
no NH3-specific emissions controls for the sources at this
facility.
c. NH3 Emissions Controls
With respect to NH3 controls, for residential and
commercial area sources, the EPA approved certain measures as meeting
the BACM/BACT requirement for NH3 emissions. In other cases,
the EPA approved Alaska'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
PM2.5 Nonattainment Area, but that there are likely to be
NH3 emissions co-benefits of measures designed to reduce
emissions of direct PM2.5.\97\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\97\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Summary of the State's Submission and the EPA's Evaluation and
Proposed Action Regarding the Control Strategy
a. Updates to the Identification and Adoption of BACM
Below is a summary of the regulations and SIP revisions adopted as
part of the Fairbanks Revised 189(d) Plan, organized by source
category, responding to EPA's December 5, 2023, disapproval.\98\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\98\ State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol. II, section
III.D.7.7.13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
i. Solid-Fuel Burning
Alaska revised the dry wood seller measure, adopted as regulation
18 AAC 50.076(k)(3), by setting a frequency at monthly intervals to
measure the moisture content. Alaska also revised regulation 18 AAC
50.076(k)(1) by improving the labeling to indicate ``dry wood.''
Regarding the EPA's disapproval of coal-fired heating device
requirements, Alaska revised 18 AAC 50.079 by lowering the emissions
threshold to test out of the mandatory removal requirements in 18 AAC
50.079(d) from 18 grams per hour to 0.10 pounds per million British
thermal units (Btu) which is equivalent to the pellet hydronic heater
limit in 18 AAC 50.077. Alaska amended 18 AAC 50.079(d) to require a
testing protocol be approved by the department prior to any test
attempting to exempt a coal device from the mandatory removal
requirement. Alaska revised 18 AAC 50.079(e) limit the duration of the
waiver to one calendar year.
The EPA previously approved 18 AAC 50.079(f), which requires the
owner of a coal-fired heating device to render it inoperable not later
than December 31, 2024. As a consequence of Alaska's revisions to 18
AAC 50.079(f), the latest an individual with a coal-fired heating
device could remove that device is December 31, 2025--provided the
individual meets the eligibility requirements in 18 AAC 50.079(e).
Alaska stated that 18 AAC 50.079(f) is revised for clarity by adding
section (3), which requires coal-fired heating devices to be rendered
inoperable after the expiration of a waiver granted under subsection
(e) of 18 AAC 50.079. Alaska stated that newly adopted section 18 AAC
50.079(h) requires documentation on the removal and rendering of the
device inoperable and submitting an affidavit that the coal stove will
not be
[[Page 1612]]
reinstalled in the Fairbanks PM2.5 Nonattainment Area.
Based on these updates, the EPA proposes to approve the submitted
revisions to 18 AAC 50.076 and 18 AAC 50.079 as meeting the
requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(2)(A), 172(c)(7), and 189(b) and 40
CFR 51.1010(a). Accordingly, the EPA proposes to determine that the
Fairbanks Revised 189(d) Plan rectifies the disapproved portions of the
Fairbanks Serious Plan and initial Fairbanks 189(d) Plan for the solid
fuel-burning source category.
ii. Residential and Commercial Fuel Oil Combustion
In the EPA's December 5, 2023, rule, the EPA approved as BACM
Alaska's regulation under 18 AAC 50.078(b) that imposes a limit of
1,000 parts per million sulfur content in fuel limit (diesel no. 1) for
residential and commercial heating.\99\ This was a switch from diesel
no. 2 (approximately 2,000 parts per million sulfur content in fuel
limit) to diesel no. 1. The EPA agreed with Alaska's demonstration that
further strengthening this requirement to 15 parts per million sulfur
(i.e., Ultra-low sulfur diesel) was economically infeasible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\99\ 88 FR 84626, December 5, 2023, at pp. 84669, 84674.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
iii. Small Commercial Area Sources
Alaska revised its regulations for coffee roasters, under 18 AAC
50.078(d). These updated regulations clarify the specific emission
limit required for this source category and ensures the limit is
enforceable as a practical matter. The EPA proposes to approve the
submitted revisions to 18 AAC 50.078(d) as meeting the requirements of
CAA section 110(a)(2), 172(c)(7), and 189(b) and 40 CFR 51.1010(a) for
this source category. Accordingly, the EPA proposes to determine that
the Fairbanks Revised 189(d) Plan rectifies the disapproved portions of
the Fairbanks Serious Plan and initial Fairbanks 189(d) Plan for coffee
roasters.
iv. Energy Efficiency and Weatherization
To address the EPA's disapproval, Alaska reviewed weatherization
and energy efficiency measures adopted by other jurisdictions. Based on
this review, Alaska adopted a weatherization and energy efficiency
measure at 18 AAC 50.081. The measure mandates that a building owner
have an energy rating completed on the building before listing it for
sale. The rule requires that the seller provide the energy rating
report to the buyer. Alaska also committed to a robust advertising and
education program that includes best practices to improve efficiency in
an arctic environment and available economic and practical mechanisms
that can assist homeowners in improving both efficiency and regulatory
compliance. Alaska asserted that these components will improve the
compliance rate for other control measures, including the solid fuel-
fired heating device curtailment program and the requirement to remove
older, uncertified heating appliances. Alaska noted that any
improvements identified by the energy rater will be voluntary.
Alaska evaluated adopting building energy efficiency codes or
mandatory weatherization requirements and dismissed them as
technologically infeasible. According to Alaska, there is a lack of
technical expertise and resources to implement (lack of energy auditors
and training resources), enforce, and ensure code compliance. Alaska
further contended that the earliest date Alaska can implement building
codes exceeded not only the statutory requirement for the
implementation of BACM by December 31, 2024, but also beyond the 2027
attainment date identified in the Fairbanks Revised 189(d) Plan.
The EPA proposes to approve the submitted revisions to 18 AAC
50.081 as meeting the requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(2),
172(c)(7), and 189(b) and 40 CFR 51.1010(a) with respect to
weatherization and energy efficiency. Accordingly, the EPA proposes to
determine that the Fairbanks Revised 189(d) Plan rectifies the
disapproved portions of the Fairbanks Serious Plan and initial
Fairbanks 189(d) Plan for weatherization and energy efficiency.
v. Emissions From Mobile Sources
The EPA previously approved as part of Fairbanks Moderate Plan, a
requirement that businesses with 275 or more parking spaces provide
power to electrical outlets at temperatures of 20 degrees Fahrenheit or
lower for engine block heaters.\100\ In addition, Alaska continues to
install new plug-ins throughout the Fairbanks PM2.5
Nonattainment Area.\101\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\100\ 82 FR 42457, September 8, 2017; State Air Quality Control
Plan, Vol. III, Appendix III.D.5.7, adopted December 24, 2014, at p.
43; State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol. III, Appendix III.D.5.12,
adopted December 24, 2014, at p. 43.
\101\ There are nearly 10,000 plug-ins available in the
nonattainment area. See State Air Quality Control Plan, Appendix
III.D.7.7 (adopted November 19, 2019), at p. 17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As part of the Fairbanks Revised 189(d) Plan, Alaska re-evaluated
anti-idling for light-duty vehicles as a potential control measure.
Alaska provided additional analysis demonstrating that such a measure
is technologically and economically infeasible in the Fairbanks
PM2.5 Nonattainment Area. In particular, Alaska noted that
other jurisdictions that implement this measure include a temperature
threshold, below which restrictions do not apply. These temperature cut
offs range from 40 degrees Fahrenheit to 10 degrees Fahrenheit. These
thresholds are intended to protect human health and safety.
Accordingly, Alaska evaluated implementing idling restrictions
during the winter months of October through March at temperatures above
21 degrees Fahrenheit. Given that episodic emissions contributing to
PM2.5 concentrations occur at sub-zero temperatures,
Alaska's evaluation indicates that the measure would not achieve any
emissions reductions.
The EPA notes that in order to achieve emissions reductions in the
extreme Fairbanks environment, Alaska would have to prohibit idling
regardless of ambient temperature, which presents unacceptable risks to
human health. In light of these concerns, rather than regulate the
vehicle users, Alaska requires owners of parking areas to provide
electricity for engine-block heaters. Alaska and the EPA have
previously determined that expanding plug-in availability is
economically infeasible.\102\ Therefore, the EPA proposes to approve
Alaska's current plug-in program as meeting BACM and BACT requirements
for light-duty vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\102\ 88 FR 84626, December 5, 2023, at pp. 84649, 84652
(determining that anti-idling restrictions on heavy-duty vehicles
had a cost effectiveness of over $400,000 per ton of SO2
reduced).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Accordingly, the EPA proposes to determine that Alaska has
rectified the EPA's December 5, 2023, disapproval of the Fairbanks
Serious Plan and initial Fairbanks 189(d) Plan with respect to control
strategy requirements for mobile sources.
b. Alaska's Identification and Adoption of BACT for Major Stationary
Sources
Alaska submitted revisions to its BACM/BACT determinations for the
five major stationary sources in the Fairbanks PM2.5
Nonattainment Area, as described in the following paragraphs.\103\
Alaska also submitted permits for each of the five major
[[Page 1613]]
stationary sources that adopt and implement BACT for direct
PM2.5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\103\ State Air Quality Control Plan Vol. II, Appendix III.D.7.7
(adopted November 5, 2024).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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) per hour
overfeed traveling grate stoker type boilers and one 269 MMBtu per hour
spreader-stoker type boiler that burn coal to produce steam for heating
and power (497 MMBtu per hour combined). The source also includes a
coal preparation plant, coal stockpile, ash vacuum pump exhaust, and
truck bay ash loadout.
Alaska revised its State Air Quality Control Plan to include its
BACT determinations for PM2.5 and SO2 for each of
the emission units at the Chena Power Plant.\104\ We note that Alaska
removed its BACT evaluation and determinations for NOX
because the EPA approved a comprehensive NOX precursor
demonstration. Alaska also submitted conditions from Air Quality
Control Minor Permit AQ0315MSS02 Revision 1 for the Aurora Energy,
LLC--Chena Power Plant (Aurora Permit). The Aurora Permit conditions
include enforceable PM2.5 BACT emissions limitations for the
emission units at the Chena Power Plant comprised of numerical
emissions limits and work practice standards and associated monitoring,
recordkeeping and reporting requirements. The permits are included in
the docket for this action.\105\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\104\ See State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol. III, Appendix
III.D.7.7-164. Note, Alaska's prior SIP submissions only evaluated
BACT for the coal-fired boilers.
\105\ See State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol. III, Appendix
III.D.7.7-187.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA previously reviewed Alaska's BACM/BACT evaluation for the
Chena Power Plant.\106\ Alaska has since clarified that
PM2.5 BACT for the coal-fired boilers is operating and
maintaining fabric filters (full steam baghouse) during operation.\107\
Thus, in this action, the EPA is proposing to approve Alaska's
PM2.5 BACT determinations for the Chena Power Plant, the
submitted revisions to State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol. III,
Appendix III.D.7.7, related to direct PM2.5 emissions and
the submitted Aurora Permit conditions \108\ as satisfying CAA section
189(b) and 40 CFR 51.1010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\106\ 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, EPA-R10-OAR-2022-
0115.
\107\ See State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol. III, Appendix
III.D.7.7-173.
\108\ See section III.A of this preamble for the specific permit
conditions proposed for approval.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA is not proposing to take action on Alaska's SO2
BACT determinations in State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol. III,
Appendix III.D.7.7, at this time. As discussed in the preceding
paragraphs, the EPA is proposing to approve Alaska's SO2
precursor demonstration for major stationary sources. If approved,
Alaska will not be required to identify, adopt, or implement
SO2 BACT for the Chena Power Plant. If the EPA does not
finalize approval of the SO2 precursor demonstration, then
the EPA will propose action on Alaska's SO2 BACT
determinations in a separate, future action.
ii. Doyon-Fort Wainwright Central Heating and Power Plant
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.
The CHPP is comprised of six spreader-stoker type coal-fired
boilers, each rated at 230 MMBtu per hour, that burn coal to produce
steam for stationary source-wide heating and power. In addition to the
CHPP, the source contains emission units comprised of small and large
emergency engines, fire pumps, and generators, diesel-fired boilers,
and material handling equipment. Alaska's BACM/BACT analysis in the
Fairbanks Serious Plan for the stationary source evaluated potential
controls to reduce NOX, PM2.5, and SO2
emissions from each of these emissions units at the stationary
source.\109\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\109\ Alaska evaluated potential NOX controls for
each emission unit, but because Alaska determined and the EPA
approved that NOX emissions are not significant for
PM2.5 formation in the Fairbanks PM2.5
Nonattainment Area, Alaska does not plan to require implementation
of BACT for NOX. See 88 FR 84626, December 5, 2023. Thus,
EPA is not discussing Alaska's BACT analysis for NOX
here.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As part of the Fairbanks Revised 189(d) Plan, Alaska revised its
Air Quality Control Plan sections related to the Doyon-Fort Wainwright
CHPP to reflect new engines powering lift pumps and generators, correct
typographical errors, improve clarity, and to include updated
SO2 BACT determinations.\110\ With respect to the new
engines, all are EPA-certified engines ranging in size from 74
horsepower to 324 horsepower. Alaska updated its PM2.5 BACT
determinations for these new engines. Alaska removed its BACT
evaluation and determinations for NOX because the EPA
approved a comprehensive NOX precursor demonstration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\110\ See State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol. III, Appendix
III.D.7.7-202.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alaska also submitted conditions from two Air Quality Control Minor
Permits: AQ0236MSS03 Revision 2 (U.S. Army Garrison--USAG Alaska Fort
Wainwright) and AQ1121MSS04 Revision 1 (Doyon Utilities, LLC--Fort
Wainwright) (collectively referred to as the Fort Wainwright Permits).
The Fort Wainwright Permits include enforceable PM2.5 BACT
emissions limitations for the emission units at Fort Wainwright
comprised of numerical emissions limits and work practice standards and
associated monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting requirements. The
permits are included in the docket for this action.\111\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\111\ See State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol. III, Appendix
III.D.7.7-248.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA previously reviewed Alaska's BACM/BACT evaluation for the
Doyon-Fort Wainwright Central Heating and Power Plant.\112\ In addition
to the submitted conditions discussed in this section x.x.ii of this
preamble, Alaska's updated BACT determination clarified the maintenance
and testing requirements for the diesel-fired boilers and added
enclosed conveying system requirements.\113\ The EPA previously
approved Alaska's BACT determinations for older pump engines and
generator engines. Alaska updated its BACT determinations and
associated permit limits to reflect grams per hour emission limits
appropriate to the size and model year of the engine. Alaska also
imposed limits on the hours of operations of these engines. Thus, in
this action, the EPA is proposing to approve Alaska's updated
PM2.5 BACT determinations for the emissions units
[[Page 1614]]
at Doyon-Fort Wainwright CHPP,\114\ the submitted revisions to State
Air Quality Control Plan, Vol. III, Appendix III.D.7.7 related to
direct PM2.5 emissions from the Doyon-Fort Wainwright
CHPP,\115\ and the submitted conditions from the Fort Wainwright
Permits \116\ as satisfying CAA section 189(b) and 40 CFR 51.1010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\112\ See 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, EPA-R10-OAR-2022-0115.
\113\ See State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol. III, Appendix
III.D.7.7-217; State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol. III, Appendix
III.D.7.7-225.
\114\ Industrial coal-fired boilers; diesel-fired boilers;
diesel-fired engines, fire pumps, and generators; and material
handling equipment.
\115\ The EPA is not proposing to approve the NOX
related emissions limits as meeting BACT for NOX. For
some emission units, Alaska imposed NOX emissions limits
as surrogates for direct PM2.5 emissions.
\116\ See section III.A of this preamble for the specific permit
conditions proposed to be approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA is not proposing to take action on Alaska's SO2
BACT determinations in State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol. III,
Appendix III.D.7.7 at this time for the same reasons discussed in the
preceding paragraphs regarding the Chena Power Plant. If the EPA does
not finalize approval of the SO2 precursor demonstration,
then the EPA will propose action on Alaska's SO2 BACT
determinations in a separate, future action.
iii. University of Alaska Fairbanks Campus Power Plant
The Fairbanks Campus Power Plant is an existing stationary source
owned and operated by the 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 per hour. Other emission units
at the source include a backup diesel generator, diesel-fired boilers,
engines, and a coal handling system for the new dual-fuel fired boiler.
In the Fairbanks Revised 189(d) Plan, Alaska updated its Air
Quality Control Plan regarding the Fairbanks Campus Power Plant to
reflect permanently removed emission units, add new diesel boilers and
engines, update the PM2.5 BACT determinations for small
diesel-fired boilers and large and small engines, correct typographical
errors, and improve clarity.\117\ Alaska also added updated
SO2 BACT determinations for the Fairbanks Campus Power
Plant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\117\ See State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol. III, Appendix
III.D.7.7-356.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to the small diesel-fired boilers (EUs 17 through 22),
Alaska updated its BACT determination for PM2.5 to consist
of a partial limit on hours of operation, an emission limit of 0.016
lb/MMBtu,\118\ compliance with 40 CFR part 63, subpart JJJJJJ, and work
practice standards. Alaska evaluated whether installation of a scrubber
was feasible for these boilers and determined that it was economically
infeasible.\119\ Alaska noted that taking into consideration the
enforceable limit on operation, the combined potential to emit of
PM2.5 for the six boilers is two tons per year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\118\ Alaska noted that it previously selected a 0.012 lb/MMBtu
limit erroneously. This limit is associated with industrial boilers
while the boilers at the Fairbanks Campus Power Plant are commercial
boilers.
\119\ State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol. III, Appendix
III.D.7.7-369.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to large diesel fired engines (EUs 8 and 35) and small
diesel fired engines (EUs 24, 26, 27, 29, and 34), \120\ Alaska
reevaluated the feasibility of add-on PM2.5 controls, namely
a diesel particulate filter (DPF).\121\ EUs 24, 29, and 34 are limited
to 100 hours per year of non-emergency operation, so additional BACT
controls were not evaluated for these units. Alaska determined that a
DPF is not technologically feasible for EU 8 due to an unacceptable
increase in back pressure. Alaska determined that DPFs were
technologically feasible for the other engines, but Alaska determined
that the high cost per unit of emissions reductions rendered them
economically infeasible. Updating the cost-effectiveness analysis to
reflect comments from the EPA's Technical Support Document,\122\ Alaska
determined that the cost-effectiveness ranged from over $17,000 at EU
26 to over $20,000 per ton of PM2.5 reduced at EU 27. Alaska
stated that EU 35 has potential PM2.5 emissions of 0.03 tons
per year, which is an order of magnitude lower than the two other
diesel engines, EUs 26 and 27. Therefore, Alaska did not perform a cost
analysis for installing and operating a DPF on EU 35 as it would have
an even higher cost per ton estimate than EUs 26 and 27. Furthermore,
Alaska noted that EU 35 is limited to 100 hours per calendar year of
non-emergency operation and required to combust ULSD under the existing
Federal NSPS Subpart IIII requirements.\123\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\120\ In comments, the University of Alaska Fairbanks clarified
that EU 23 has been permanently removed from service and are no
longer permitted EUs at the facility. See Comments on Proposed
Rule--Air Plan Partial Approval and Partial Disapproval; AK,
Fairbanks North Star Borough; 2006 24-Hour PM2.5 Serious
Area and 189(d) Plan, at p. 9, Docket ID No. EPA-R10-OAR-2022-0115.
\121\ State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol. III, Appendix
III.D.7.7-372.
\122\ See 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, p.15. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 10, Laboratory Services and Applied Science Division, EPA-
R10-OAR-2022-0115.
\123\ State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol. III, Appendix
III.D.7.7-374.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alaska removed its BACT evaluation and determinations for
NOX because the EPA approved a comprehensive NOX
precursor demonstration.\124\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\124\ 88 FR 84626, December 5, 2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alaska also submitted conditions from Air Quality Control Minor
Permit AQ0316MSS08 Revision 1 (University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF)--
University of Alaska Fairbanks Campus) (UAF Permit). The UAF Permit
conditions include enforceable PM2.5 BACT emissions
limitations comprised of numerical emissions limits and work practice
standards with associated monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting. The
permits are included in the docket for this action.\125\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\125\ See State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol. III, Appendix
III.D.7.7-414.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA previously reviewed Alaska's BACT evaluation for the
Fairbanks Campus Power Plant.\126\ In this action, the EPA is proposing
to approve Alaska's updated PM2.5 BACT determinations for
the small diesel-fired boilers (EUs 17 through 22), large diesel-fired
engines (EUs 8 and 35), and small diesel-fired engines (EUs 24, 26, 27,
29, and 34) at the Fairbanks Campus Power Plant. The EPA previously
approved Alaska's PM2.5 BACT determinations for EUs 8, 17-
19, 24, and 29. Alaska's updates are consistent with these past
approvals. With respect to EUs 26, 27, and 35, the EPA proposes to
approve Alaska's economic infeasibility demonstrations for DPFs. The
EPA is proposing to approve Alaska's PM2.5 BACT emissions
limits for small diesel-fired boilers (EUs 17 through 22), large
diesel-fired engines (EUs 8 and 35), and small diesel-fired engines
(EUs 24, 26, 27, 29, and 34) at the Fairbanks Campus Power Plant, which
consist of numerical emissions limits, limits on operation, fuel
requirements, and work practice standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\126\ See 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, EPA-R10-OAR-2022-
0115.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Therefore, the EPA proposes to approve the submitted revisions to
State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol. III, Appendix III.D.7.7 related to
direct PM2.5 emissions and NOX emissions \127\
from the Fairbanks Campus Power Plant
[[Page 1615]]
and the submitted conditions from the UAF Permit \128\ as satisfying
CAA section 189(b) and 40 CFR 51.1010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\127\ The EPA is not proposing to approve the NOX
related emissions limits as meeting BACT for NOX. For
some emission units, Alaska imposed NOX emissions limits
as surrogates for direct PM2.5 emissions.
\128\ See section III.A of this preamble for the specific permit
conditions proposed to be approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA is not proposing to take action on Alaska's SO2
BACT determinations in State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol. III,
Appendix III.D.7.7 at this time for the same reasons discussed in the
preceding paragraphs regarding the Chena Power Plant. If the EPA does
not finalize approval of the SO2 precursor demonstration,
then the EPA will propose action on Alaska's SO2 BACT
determinations in a separate, future action.
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 (each
unit rated at 268 MMBtu per hour) 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.
In the Fairbanks Revised 189(d) Plan, Alaska revised its Air
Quality Control Plan for the Zehnder Facility to correct errors and
improve clarity.\129\ Alaska also submitted conditions from Air Quality
Control Minor Permit AQ0109MSS01 Revision 1 (Golden Valley Electric
Association--Zehnder Facility) (Zehnder Permit). The Zehnder Permit
contains enforceable PM2.5 BACT emissions limitations for
the emission units at the Zehnder Facility comprised of numerical
emissions limits and work practice standards with associated
monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting. The permits are included in
the docket for this action.\130\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\129\ State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol. III, Appendix
III.D.7.7-316.
\130\ See State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol. III, Appendix
III.D.7.7-342.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Similar to the small diesel-fired boilers (EUs 17 through 22) at
the Fairbanks Campus Power Plant discussed in the preceding paragraphs
of section II.C of this preamble, Alaska imposed, in the Fairbanks
Serious Plan and Fairbanks 189(d) Plan, an erroneous emissions limit on
the small diesel fired boilers at the Zehnder Facility. The revised Air
Quality Control Plan and associated conditions in the Zehnder Permit
reflect the corrected limit.\131\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\131\ State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol. III, Appendix
III.D.7.7-327.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA previously reviewed Alaska's BACT evaluation for the
Zehnder Facility.\132\ In EPA's prior analysis, the EPA agreed with
Alaska's BACT determinations for PM2.5. For the turbines, no
technologically feasible add-on control options exist to reduce
PM2.5 emissions. For the emergency generators, the EPA
agreed that the limits on annual hours of operation of 100 hours per
year or less will result in add-on control equipment such as DPF being
cost prohibitive. Further, the EPA stated that similar to the turbines,
no technologically feasible add-on control options exist to reduce
PM2.5 emissions from the small diesel and propane fired
boilers.\133\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\132\ See 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, EPA-R10-OAR-2022-0115.
\133\ Id. at p. 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thus, in this action, the EPA proposes to approve the submitted
revisions to State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol. III, Appendix
III.D.7.7 related to direct PM2.5 emissions and
NOX \134\ emissions from Zehnder and the submitted Zehnder
Permit conditions as satisfying CAA section 189(b) and 40 CFR 51.1010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\134\ The EPA is not proposing to approve the NOX
related emissions limits as meeting BACT for NOX. For
some emission units, Alaska imposed NOX emissions limits
as surrogates for direct PM2.5 emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA is not proposing to take action on Alaska's SO2
BACT determinations in State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol. III,
Appendix III.D.7.7 at this time for the same reasons discussed in the
preceding paragraphs regarding the Chena Power Plant. If the EPA does
not finalize approval of the SO2 precursor demonstration,
then the EPA will propose action on Alaska's SO2 BACT
determinations in a separate, future action.
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 (each
unit rated at 672 MMBtu per hour), two fuel oil-fired combined cycle
gas combustion turbines (each unit rated at 455 MMBtu per hour), one
fuel oil-fired emergency generator, and two propane-fired boilers.
In the Fairbanks Revised 189(d) Plan, Alaska revised its Air
Quality Control Plan for the North Pole Power Plant to correct errors
and improve clarity.\135\ Alaska also submitted conditions from Air
Quality Control Minor Permit AQ0110MSS01 Revision 1 (Golden Valley
Electric Association--North Pole Power Plant) (NPPP Permit). The NPPP
Permit conditions include enforceable PM2.5 BACT emissions
limitations for the emission units at the North Pole Power Plant
comprised of numerical emissions limits and work practice standards
with associated monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting. The permits
are included in the docket for this action.\136\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\135\ State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol. III, Appendix
III.D.7.7-267.
\136\ See State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol. III, Appendix
III.D.7.7-300.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA previously reviewed Alaska's BACT evaluation for the North
Pole Power Plant.\137\ Similar to the Zehnder facility discussion in
the preceding paragraphs in this section II.C, the EPA agreed with
Alaska that no additional PM2.5 BACT controls are feasible
for emissions units at the North Pole Power Plant.\138\ Thus, in this
action, the EPA proposes to approve the submitted revisions to State
Air Quality Control Plan, Vol. III, Appendix III.D.7.7 related to
direct PM2.5 emissions and NOX \139\ emissions
from the North Pole Power Plant and the submitted NPPP Permit
conditions \140\ as satisfying CAA section 189(b) and 40 CFR 51.1010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\137\ See 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, EPA-R10-OAR-2022-0115.
\138\ Id. at p. 11.
\139\ The EPA is not proposing to approve the NOX
related emissions limits as meeting BACT for NOX. For
some emission units, Alaska imposed NOX emissions limits
as surrogates for direct PM2.5 emissions.
\140\ See section III.A of this preamble for the specific permit
conditions proposed to be approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA is not proposing to take action on Alaska's SO2
BACT determinations in State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol. III,
Appendix III.D.7.7 at this time for the same reasons discussed in the
preceding paragraphs regarding the Chena Power Plant. If the EPA does
not finalize approval of the SO2 precursor demonstration,
then the EPA will propose action on Alaska's SO2 BACT
determinations separately.
[[Page 1616]]
c. Alaska's Identification and Adoption of Additional Measures and
Demonstration of Five Percent Reduction in Emissions Pursuant to CAA
Section 189(d)
The Fairbanks Revised 189(d) Plan retained the identification of
all sources of direct PM2.5 emissions and PM2.5
plan precursors, identification of all potential controls to reduce
direct PM2.5 emissions and PM2.5 plan precursors,
and reevaluation of previously rejected control measures included in
the initial Fairbanks 189(d) Plan, as well as identification of the
MSMs adopted into any SIP or used in practice to control emissions in
any state.
As part of its reevaluation of control measures, Alaska provided
additional information for many of the control measures considered in
the BACM analysis. The Fairbanks Revised 189(d) Plan includes
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 MSMs.\141\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\141\ State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol. II, section
III.D.7.7.12 (adopted November 5, 2024).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alaska identified a burn-down period as part of other
jurisdictions' solid fuel-fired heating device curtailment program.
Accordingly, Alaska adopted a burn down period of three hours for
solid-fuel heating devices that begins upon the effective date and time
of a curtailment announcement. In addition, Alaska added specific
requirements to document economic hardship as part of a NOASH
curtailment program waiver for solid-fuel devices.
Regarding the requirement to demonstrate five percent annual
reductions, Alaska included in the Fairbanks Revised 189(d) Plan a
control strategy analysis that demonstrates annual reductions of
PM2.5 are greater than five percent through 2027, Alaska's
projected attainment year.\142\ Alaska noted that the State can
demonstrate either five percent annual reductions in emissions of
direct PM2.5 or a five percent annual reductions in
emissions of a PM2.5 plan precursor. Alaska elected to
demonstrate five percent annual reductions in direct PM2.5
emissions. Thus, the EPA is proposing to approve the control strategy
included in the Fairbanks Revised 189(d) Plan as meeting the
requirements of CAA section 189(d) and 40 CFR 51.1010(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\142\ State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol. II, section
III.D.7.9.2.3, Table 7.9-9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Attainment Demonstration and Modeling
1. Statutory and Regulatory Requirements Regarding the Attainment
Demonstration and Modeling
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, the EPA
determined that the Fairbanks PM2.5 Nonattainment Area
failed to attain the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS by the
December 31, 2019, Serious area attainment date. Therefore, the 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.\143\ In accordance with CAA section 172(a)(2)(A) and
40 CFR 51.1004(a)(3), the projected attainment date for Serious
nonattainment areas subject to CAA section 189(d) shall be as
expeditious as practicable, but no later than five years following the
effective date of the EPA's finding that the area failed to attain by
the original Serious area attainment date, except that the
Administrator may extend the attainment date to the extent the
Administrator deems appropriate, for a period no greater than 10 years
from the effective date of the EPA's determination that the area failed
to attain, considering the severity of nonattainment and the
availability and feasibility of pollution control measures. In
accordance with 40 CFR 51.1011, the attainment demonstration must meet
four requirements:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\143\ 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.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
a. Identify the projected attainment date for the Serious
nonattainment area that is as expeditious as practicable;
b. Meet the requirements of 40 CFR part 51, appendix W and include
inventory data, modeling results, and emissions reduction analyses on
which the state has based its projected attainment date;
c. The base year for the emissions inventories shall be one of the
3 years used for designations or another technically appropriate
inventory year if justified by the state in the plan submission; and
d. 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 the BACM
implementation deadline requirements in 40 CFR 51.1010.\144\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\144\ 40 CFR 51.1011(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Summary of the EPA's Prior Rulemaking Regarding Attainment
Demonstration and Modeling
The EPA disapproved Alaska's attainment demonstration in the
initial Fairbanks 189(d) Plan because it did not fully meet CAA
requirements.\145\ As part of the attainment demonstration, the state
must identify the projected attainment date that is as expeditious as
practicable. Alaska did not adopt and implement all available control
measures. The correct identification of the most expeditious attainment
date requires an evaluation based upon expeditious implementation of
the required emissions controls. Therefore, the EPA could not assess
whether Alaska identified the expeditious attainment date for modeling
purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\145\ 88 FR 84626, December 5, 2023, at p. 84676.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Summary of the State's Submission Regarding Attainment Demonstration
and Modeling
The State included an updated attainment demonstration in the
Fairbanks Revised 189(d) Plan.\146\ In the plan, Alaska asserted that
calendar year 2027 reflects attainment ``as expeditiously as
practicable,'' based on air quality improvements from the base year to
attainment year, as measured by the quantified emissions reductions
[[Page 1617]]
associated with the implementation of control measures.\147\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\146\ State Air Quality Plan, Vol. II, section III.D.7.9
(adopted November 5, 2024).
\147\ State Air Quality Plan, Vol. II, section III.D.7.9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alaska noted that for attainment modeling, five-year design values
are generally recommended. For the earlier Fairbanks Serious Plan, the
base year modeling design value was 131.6 [mu]g/m\3\. However, the
latest five-year (2017-2021) design value is 64.9 [mu]g/m\3\ at the
North Pole air quality monitor (Hurst Road), the area of expected
highest PM2.5 concentrations in the Fairbanks
PM2.5 Nonattainment Area. As part of updating its attainment
analysis, Alaska identified this five-year design value of 64.9 [mu]g/
m\3\ as the base year modeling design value for the Fairbanks Revised
189(d) Plan.
Building on the 2020 base year emissions inventory, Alaska
developed a series of future year emissions inventories for each
calendar year from 2020 through 2029. Alaska noted that each of these
future year inventories accounted for growth in source activity over
time (e.g., increases in residential heating emissions resulting from
forecasted housing growth). The emissions inventory also accounted for
emissions reductions associated with both on-going state and local
control programs (such as the Wood Stove Change Out and Solid Fuel-
Burning Appliance Curtailment programs), along with other control
measures included in the SIP that were adopted since the area was
classified as a Serious area.
Alaska stated that source activity growth rates used to project the
2020 base year inventory emissions in calendar years 2021 through 2029
were generally based on the 2020-2024 and 2024-2035 annualized growth
rates by source sector included in the Fairbanks Revised 189(d)
Plan.\148\ However, Alaska noted that the source activity growth rate
for space heating was capped after model year 2027, and claimed this is
due to the difficulty in reliably forecasting long-term energy prices
and the likely peak in energy costs in 2024. Alaska also stated that
the effects of the Federal mobile source and fuel control programs in
projecting mobile source emissions from 2021 through 2029 were
accounted for using the EPA's MOVES3 vehicle emissions model.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\148\ State Air Quality Plan, Vol. II, section III.D.7.6, Table
7.6-10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alaska included a list of the state and local control measures for
which emissions benefits were quantified and included in the attainment
date analysis.\149\ Further, Alaska included a phase-in forecast for
each control measure for 2020-2027 inventory years. See Table 4 of this
preamble for a summary of these control measures:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\149\ State Air Quality Plan, Vol. II, section III.D.7.9, Table
7.9-1.
Table 4--Alaska Control Measures and Phase-In Schedule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent compliance 2027 Projected emissions (tons per
-------------------------- episodic day)
Control measure 2027 -------------------------------------- Details
2020 Base Attainment
year year PM2.5 SO2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fairbanks Wood Stove Change 2,791 5,628 1.09............. 0.11............. Based on funding
Out Program. from the 2016,
2017, 2018,
2019-2020,
2021, and 2022
Targeted
Airshed Grants.
Solid Fuel-Burning Appliance 30% 38% Stage 1: 0.02; Stage 1:--0.000; In winter 2022-
Curtailment Program. Stage 2: 0.12. Stage 2:--0.02. 2023, Alaska
conducted an
observational
field study
from which
compliance was
estimated to be
38.1%.
Shift to diesel no. 1 fuel oil n/a 50% 0.02............. 1.73............. This measure
required a one-
time shift from
the current mix
of diesel no. 2
and diesel no.
1 heating oil
refined and
sold in the
nonattainment
area by
September 2022.
Requires commercially sold n/a 50% 0.06............. Less than 0.01... Requires
wood to be dry before sale. commercially
sold wood after
October 1,
2021, to be
dry, or if sold
as 8-ft length
rounds,
requires proof
of proper/
adequate
storage for
drying by the
buyer.
Removal of all uncertified 0% 30% 0.25............. -0.01............ 2024 is first
devices & cordwood outdoor year of
hydronic heaters. implementation.
Compliance rate
estimates based
on existing and
on-going public
education and
outreach
efforts.
2.0 g/hr and 0.10 lb/MMBtu 22% 35% 0.09............. Less than 0.01... The compliance
certified emission rates for rate estimated
new or re-conveyed wood for this
devices. measure reflect
the volume of
home sales
(projected from
historical
data) coupled
with the
requirement to
register wood-
fired heating
devices upon
sale or
conveyance of a
property.
Removal of coal heaters....... n/a 25% Less than 0.01... Less than 0.01...
[[Page 1618]]
Wood-fired devices may not be 0% 20% 0.09............. Less than 0.01... Beginning in
primary or only heating (existing 2024,
source. homes); 40% compliance
(new homes) rates of 20%
for new home
sales
(discounted for
large lot, 2-
acre cabin
exemption) and
40% for home
resales. The
new home sale
compliance rate
is discounted
from 40% to 20%
to account for
the estimated
portion of
large lot
(greater than 2
acre) cabins
which are
exempted from
this
requirement.
NOASH/Exemption requirements.. 0% 50% Less than 0.01... Less than 0.01... Compliance rates
reflect
projected
penetration
rate increases
associated with
annual renewal
and device
registration
requirements,
proper
installation
and maintenance
determinations
from third-
party
verifiers, and
requirements
for catalyst
replacement
when
manufacturer-
recommended
catalyst useful
life is reached
(estimated at
six years
averaged across
manufacturers).
These elements
are also
coupled with
projected
impacts from
the NOASH
reduction
program funded
under currently
secured TAGs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alaska noted that, based on these phase-in forecasts, a detailed
spreadsheet was developed to calculate PM2.5 and
SO2 emissions reductions within the space heating sector for
each measure in each inventory year. \150\ The source activity data
includes device and fuel splits, emission factors, and methods used to
calculate control measure emissions benefits to support the control
inventories developed for the attainment date analysis. Alaska further
stated that the control measure emissions benefits calculations also
account for the effects of overlap between measures that impact the
same source category, properly eliminating double counting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\150\ See State Air Quality Plan, Vol. III, Appendix III.D.7.9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alaska stated that projected emissions control inventories for each
year from 2020 through 2029 were prepared to support the analysis of
expeditious attainment. Full modeling runs were completed for 2029,
2027, and 2026 in that order. After the 2029 modeling results
demonstrated attainment of the PM2.5 NAAQS, 2027 was
selected as the next year to evaluate expeditious attainment.
To begin analyzing the 2027 attainment year, Alaska noted that the
2027 episodic modeling inventory was incorporated into the CMAQ air
quality model. Modeled concentration outputs for this 2027 control
inventory run were post-processed for each grid cell corresponding to
ambient air quality monitors for which design values could be computed
and processed through Alaska's Speciated Modeled Attainment Test (SMAT)
tool (see State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol. II, section
III.D.7.8.9). Alaska stated that the modeled design value at the
controlling North Pole (Hurst Road) air quality monitor was found to be
31.9 [mu]g/m\3\, below the 35 [mu]g/m\3\ NAAQS for 24-hour
PM2.5 and thus demonstrating modeled attainment by 2027.
To evaluate whether attainment could be advanced any sooner than
2027, Alaska compiled another emissions inventory for the 2026 model
year. The 2026 CMAQ gridded outputs were then post-processed for the
key monitor-based grid cells through the SMAT tool to develop modeled
design values that reflected penetration of the State's control
strategy package in 2026. Alaska stated that the 2026 modeled design
value at the North Pole (Hurst Road) monitor was found to be 38.1
[mu]g/m\3\, which exceeds the 35 [mu]g/m\3\ NAAQS.
As shown in Table 5 of this preamble, modeled design values in 2027
at all three regulatory air quality monitor locations in the Fairbanks
PM2.5 Nonattainment Area are below the 35 [mu]g/m\3\ 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS. Alaska noted that the modeled design value at
the controlling North Pole (Hurst Road) monitor is 31.9 [mu]g/m\3\,
more than 3 [mu]g/m\3\ below the NAAQS, which provides a ``buffer'' to
account for concentrations in unmonitored grid cells across the
nonattainment area. Modeled 2027 design values at the other two
monitors near downtown Fairbanks are well below the PM2.5
NAAQS.
[[Page 1619]]
Table 5--Fairbanks Modeled Attainment Summary
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Base year 2020 5- Future 5-year Future 5-year
year PM2.5 PM2.5 modeling PM2.5 modeling
Fairbanks PM2.5 air quality monitor modeling design design value design value
value ([micro]g/ ([micro]g/m\3\), ([micro]g/m\3\),
m\3\), 2017-2021 2026 2027
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
North Pole (Hurst Road)................................ 64.9 38.1 31.9
NCORE.................................................. 27.7 19.8 18.4
A Street............................................... 34.8 24.5 22.7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: State Air Quality Plan, Vol. II, section III.D.7.9, Table 7.9-12.
Alaska noted that even if emission controls were applied for
precursor pollutants within applicable source sectors for which
precursor significance determinations have been made (i.e.,
SO2 emissions from major stationary sources in the Fairbanks
PM2.5 Nonattainment Area), the reduction in secondary
PM2.5 from such controls would not be sufficient to advance
attainment sooner than 2027.\151\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\151\ State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol. II, section
III.D.7.9.3
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Therefore, Alaska asserted that this evaluation demonstrates that
2027 is the most expeditious attainment date based on currently
available data and demonstrate attainment ``as expeditiously as
practicable.''
4. The EPA's Evaluation and Proposed Action Regarding the Attainment
Demonstration and Modeling
The EPA proposes to approve Alaska's attainment demonstration as
meeting the requirements under 40 CFR 51.1011(b). Alaska demonstrated
that the 2027 projected attainment date for the Serious nonattainment
area is as expeditious as practicable. The attainment demonstration
meets the requirements of Appendix W and includes inventory data,
modeling results, and emissions reduction analyses on which the state
has based its projected attainment date. As discussed in section II.A
of this preamble, the base year for the emissions inventories for
Alaska was 2020, which the EPA is proposing to determine is the
technically appropriate inventory year. The EPA is proposing to
determine that the control strategies in Alaska's SIP as rectified by
the Fairbanks Revised 189(d) Plan satisfy the requirements of 40 CFR
51.1010. Therefore, the control strategies modeled as part of the
attainment demonstration are consistent with the control strategies
required pursuant to 40 CFR 51.1003 and 51.1010. With respect to the
required timeframe for obtaining emissions reductions, all control
measures needed for attainment will be implemented as expeditiously as
practicable and implemented to attain the PM2.5 NAAQS by
2027.
Pursuant to CAA section 172(a)(2)(A) and 40 CFR 51.1004(a)(3), the
EPA is proposing to extend the attainment date for the Fairbanks
PM2.5 Nonattainment Area to December 31, 2027. As shown in
Table 5 of this preamble, the 2020 base year design value at the Hurst
Road monitoring station is 64.9 [micro]g/m\3\. This design value is
well above the PM2.5 24-hour NAAQS of 35 [micro]g/m\3\,
indicating the air quality problem in the Fairbanks PM2.5
Nonattainment Area remains severe. However, Alaska has demonstrated
that attainment earlier than 2027 is not feasible. Moreover, the EPA
has reviewed Alaska's evaluations (and re-evaluations) of available
control measures and proposes to determine that Alaska's control
strategy meets the requirements of CAA section 189(b) and 189(d) and 40
CFR 51.1010. By extension, the EPA proposes to determine that there are
no other feasible measures that Alaska could implement that would
advance attainment to a date earlier than December 31, 2027.
As discussed in section II.E of this preamble regarding Reasonable
Further Progress, the primary drivers of emissions reductions will be
continued implementation of the wood stove change out program, the
Solid Fuel-Burning Appliance Curtailment Program, and the switch from
diesel no. 2 fuel oil to diesel no. 1 fuel oil. The rate of wood stove
change-outs in a single season is constrained based on the availability
of certified installers and residential demand. Similarly, higher
sulfur fuel cannot feasibly be eliminated from the Fairbanks
PM2.5 Nonattainment Area until 2026 \152\ due to the time
necessary to expend all residual diesel no. 2 fuel oil and for diesel
no. 1 to fully flush out any remaining higher sulfur residue. Finally,
Alaska conducted a recent assessment of compliance with the Solid Fuel-
Burning Appliance Curtailment Program that indicated a compliance rate
of 38 percent.\153\ Given the variability of compliance with this
program in past, Alaska does not project a near-term improvement in the
compliance rate. Therefore, the EPA has considered the severity of
nonattainment and the availability and feasibility of control measures
as required under CAA section 172(a)(2)(A) and 40 CFR 51.1004(a)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\152\ State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol. II, section
III.D.7.10, Table 7.10-4.
\153\ State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol. III, Appendix
III.D.7.9, at p. Appendix III.D.7.14-12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
E. Reasonable Further Progress
1. Statutory and Regulatory Requirements Regarding Reasonable Further
Progress
Pursuant to CAA section 172(c) and 40 CFR 51.1012, 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 preamble, on September 2, 2020, the 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, the 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
[[Page 1620]]
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.\154\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\154\ For an evaluation of motor vehicle emission budgets, see
section II.H of this preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 the EPA's Prior Rulemaking Regarding Reasonable Further
Progress
The EPA disapproved the RFP provisions in the Fairbanks Serious
Plan and Fairbanks 189(d) Plan because the control strategies in those
prior plans did not include all required control measures.\155\ This
caused uncertainty as to whether the RFP provisions of those plans
accurately projected progress towards the most expeditious attainment
year, per CAA section 172(c)(2) and 40 CFR 51.1012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\155\ 88 FR 84626, December 5, 2023, at p. 84676.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Summary of the State's Submission Regarding Reasonable Further
Progress
The Fairbanks Revised 189(d) Plan includes updated RFP provisions
at State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol. II, section III.D.7.10.\156\
Consistent with the attainment demonstration provisions discussed in
the preceding paragraphs, these updated RFP provisions reflect the
attainment year of 2027.\157\ The updated RFP analysis includes a
schedule that includes 2020 as the base year, 2027 as the attainment
year, and the following years as RFP and quantitative milestone
analysis years: 2023, 2026, and 2029.\158\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\156\ Adopted November 5, 2024.
\157\ RFP provisions in prior SIP submissions for the Fairbanks
PM2.5 Nonattainment Area reflected varying projected
attainment dates. 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.
\158\ See State Air Quality Plan, Vol. II, section III.D.7.10.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alaska included an analysis of implementation of all control
measures that establishes the scheduled phase-in of each measure
adopted and estimation of emissions reductions for each significant
pollutant (also accounting for the overlapping of measures to eliminate
double counting) for each milestone year based on the phase-in
schedule. Alaska calculated the RFP and quantitative milestone (QM)
milestone year emissions reduction targets based on linear progress
towards attainment by 2027. Based on the control measure phase-in
schedule, Alaska calculated projected emissions reductions for each
pollutant in each milestone year and compared these emissions
reductions to their targets to evaluate linear progress toward
attainment.
Alaska has continued to assess the appropriate compliance rate
estimate. As Alaska noted in the Fairbanks Revised 189(d) Plan, the
State is currently utilizing funding from the 2019-2020 TAG to purchase
three dynamic message highway signs and an infrared camera and to
expand staffing to increase compliance.\159\ Alaska continues to
conduct field studies during the wintertime to observe compliance
rates. Based on the recent 2022-2023 wintertime field study, Alaska
determined that the combined compliance rate in Fairbanks and the North
Pole is 38.1 percent. Based on these observations and the increased use
of TAG funding to improve compliance, Alaska increased its compliance
estimate with the curtailment program to 38 percent for the 2023 model
year, an increase from 30 percent in 2020. Alaska plans to conduct
additional wintertime curtailment program compliance observations to
inform anticipated improvements in compliance beyond 2023. For the
attainment year projected emissions inventory, Alaska stated that it
conservatively assumed no further compliance rate increases pending
further evaluation of additional wintertime compliance
observations.\160\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\159\ State Air Quality Plan, Vol. II, section III.D.7.9.1.1.
\160\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alaska stated that direct PM2.5 emissions reductions
achieved within the first two milestone years (2023 and 2026) achieve
stepwise progress.\161\ However, reductions in direct PM2.5
emissions in the attainment year of 2027 reflect linear progress.
According to Alaska's submission, this is attributable to a spike in
participation in the wood stove change out program anticipated by 2027
(based on increased incentives and deadlines for older device turnover)
and gradual improvements in household compliance with control
strategies impacting solid fuel-burning devices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\161\ State Air Quality Plan, Vol. II, section III.D.7.10.3.3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to SO2, Alaska stated that SO2
emissions reductions are expected to be non-linear but includes early
year (2023 and 2026) progress that significantly exceeds the linear
progress trajectory.\162\ Alaska stated that 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 from space heating devices that emit high levels of
direct PM2.5 to oil-fired devices that emit very low levels
of direct PM2.5 (but can lead to higher levels of
SO2 emissions depending on the fuel sulfur content). Second,
initial reductions in SO2 emissions are the result of Alaska
implementing an SO2-specific control measure in 2022
mandating a shift from diesel no. 2 to diesel no. 1 heating oil. Thus,
emissions reductions for SO2 exhibit stepwise rather than
linear progress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\162\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regarding NH3, Alaska stated that linearly established
targets for NH3 will not be met until the forecasted 2027
attainment year.\163\ Alaska noted that the increases in NH3
emissions are not due to control measure benefits or lack thereof.
Although Alaska adopted and implemented control measures to reduce
NH3, Alaska did not calculate any NH3 emissions
reductions for these measures for the purposes of RFP due to
[[Page 1621]]
the large uncertainty in NH3 emissions factors for key
sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\163\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. The EPA's Evaluation and Proposed Action Regarding Reasonable
Further Progress
The EPA is proposing to approve the Fairbanks Revised 189(d) Plan
as meeting the RFP requirements in CAA section 172(c)(2) and 40 CFR
51.1012. The RFP provisions in the Fairbanks Revised 189(d) Plan meet
each of the requirements in 40 CFR 51.1012(a)(1)-(4). First, the RFP
provisions include a schedule describing the implementation of control
measures during each year of the applicable attainment plan.\164\
Second, the Fairbanks Revised 189(d) Plan includes RFP projected
emissions for direct PM2.5 and all PM2.5 plan
precursors for each applicable milestone year based on the phase-in
schedule.\165\ Third, the Fairbanks Revised 189(d) Plan includes an
analysis that presents the schedule of control measures and estimated
emissions changes to be achieved by each milestone year: 2023, 2026,
and 2029.\166\ This analysis relies on information from the base year
inventory and attainment projected inventories in State Air Quality
Control Plan, Vol. II, section III.D.7.8, as well as the RFP projected
emissions. The analysis demonstrates that the control strategy will
achieve reasonable progress toward attainment between the applicable
base year and the attainment year.\167\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\164\ Id. at section III.D.7.10.3.2; See also State Air Quality
Control Plan, Vol. III, Appendix III.D.7.10.
\165\ Id. at section III.D.7.10.3.3, Table 7.10-5.
\166\ Id. at section III.D.7.10.3.2, Table 7.10-4.
\167\ Id. at section III.D.7.10.3, Tables 7.10-4-7.10-5; Figures
7.10-3-7.10-5. Note that NH3 emissions are projected to
increase from base year to the projected attainment year. As
discussed in the preceding paragraphs regarding the control
strategy, the EPA either has previously approved Alaska's control
strategy as meet planning requirements for sources of
NH3. This is primarily because there are either no
controls for sources of NH3 emissions in the Fairbanks
PM2.5 Nonattainment Area or the direct PM2.5
emissions controls are sufficient to control NH3
emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, the Fairbanks Revised 189(d) Plan includes an analysis
that demonstrates that by the end of the calendar year for each
milestone date, pollutant emissions will be at levels that reflect
either linear progress or stepwise progress in reducing emissions on an
annual basis between the base year and attainment year. As discussed in
section II.E.3 of this preamble, Alaska's projections for reductions in
direct PM2.5 reductions closely track linear progress. The
EPA proposes to determine that the slight deviations from linear
progress in the initial years of implementation are justified. The EPA
recognizes the episodic nature of wood-stove change outs and the time
lag between state enforcement and deterrence.
With respect to SO2 emissions reductions, Alaska
projects emissions well below linear progress in 2023 and 2026
milestone years. As discussed in section II.E.3 of this preamble, the
early-year reductions are due to near-term implementation of the
control strategy requirement to switch to lower sulfur fuels. These
early reductions are consistent with the overall goal of achieving
attainment as expeditiously as practicable.\168\ The EPA proposes to
determine that Alaska adequately justified the leveling off of
SO2 emissions reductions in 2027 as due to the near-term
implementation of the fuel switch as well as the increase in
SO2 emissions from residents switching from solid fuel-fired
heating devices to liquid fuel-fired heating devices to comply with
other measures in the control strategy targeting sources of direct
PM2.5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\168\ See CAA section 189, 42 U.S.C. 7513a, Addendum to the
General Preamble, 59 FR 41998 (August 16, 1994), at p. 42016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, with respect to NH3, the EPA proposes to
determine that Alaska adequately justified the increase in emissions.
The EPA has previously approved Alaska control strategy for
NH3, noting that sources in the Fairbanks PM2.5
Nonattainment Area emit a negligible amount of NH3 and there
are no specific controls for the types of sources in the area.\169\
Therefore, the EPA is proposing to approve the Fairbanks Revised 189(d)
Plan as meeting the RFP requirements in CAA section 172(c)(2) and 40
CFR 51.1012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\169\ 88 FR 84626, December 5, 2023, at p. 84636
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
F. Quantitative Milestones
1. Statutory and Regulatory Requirements Regarding the Quantitative
Milestones
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 that provide for objective
evaluation of reasonable further progress toward timely attainment of
the applicable PM2.5 NAAQS in the area.\170\ 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.\171\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\170\ 40 CFR 51.1013(a)(3).
\171\ 40 CFR 51.1013(a)(3)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the preamble to the PM2.5 SIP Requirements Rule, the
EPA stated that it interprets the CAA as allowing states to identify
milestones that are suitable for the specific facts and circumstances
of the attainment area.\172\ The EPA suggested possible metrics,
including tracking air quality improvement, tracking emissions
reductions, percentage implementation of control strategies, or percent
compliance with implemented control measures.\173\ Finally, the EPA
stated in the preamble that quantitative milestones will be met by
showing that emissions reductions scheduled to be made between the SIP
due date and the attainment date were actually achieved.\174\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\172\ Id.
\173\ 81 FR 58010, Aug. 24, 2016, at pp. 58064, 58104.
\174\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 the EPA's Prior Action Regarding the Quantitative
Milestones
The EPA disapproved the quantitative milestones in the Fairbanks
Serious Plan and Fairbanks 189(d) Plan because the control strategies
in those prior plans did not include all required control
measures.\175\ This caused uncertainty as the whether the quantitative
milestones were based on progress towards the most expeditious
attainment year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\175\ 88 FR 84626, December 5, 2023, at p. 84676.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Summary of the State's Submission Regarding the Quantitative
Milestones
Alaska submitted revised quantitative milestones in the Fairbanks
Revised 189(d) Plan. As noted in section II.E of this preamble,
Alaska's updated RFP analysis is based on a schedule that includes 2020
as the base year, 2027 as the attainment year, and the following years
as quantitative milestone years:
[[Page 1622]]
2023, 2026, and 2029.\176\ Alaska used emissions reductions achieved
compared to projected emissions reductions as the metric to objectively
evaluate progress toward attainment.\177\ Alaska calculated expected
emissions reductions based on the control measure phase-in
schedule.\178\ In its Quantitative Milestone Reports required by CAA
section 189(c) and 40 CFR 51.1013(b), Alaska reported the emissions
reductions achieved by the end of the milestone year compared to the
projected emissions reductions included in the quantitative milestone
provisions in the Fairbanks Revised 189(d) Plan, specifically, State
Air Control Quality Plan, Vol. II, section III.D.7.10.3. Alaska made
clear that the state will include in its QM reports completion
statistics and phase-in percentages for each measure included in the
Fairbanks Revised 189(d) Plan.\179\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\176\ See State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol. II, section
III.D.7.10.2.
\177\ Id.
\178\ Id. at section III.D.7.10.3.3, Table 7.10-5.
\179\ Id. at section III.D.7.10.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to the Fairbanks Revised 189(d) Plan, one of Alaska's
reasons for selecting emissions reductions achieved compared to
projected emissions reductions as the objective metric is because doing
so allows Alaska to take credit for emissions reductions from voluntary
measures that are not part of its control strategy.\180\ Alaska
provided the example of emissions reductions attributable to natural
gas expansion. As discussed further below in section II.F.4 of this
preamble, the EPA disagrees with this specific rationale for allowing
the state to take credit for emissions reductions from voluntary
measures that are not part of its control strategy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\180\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. The EPA's Evaluation and Proposed Action Regarding the Quantitative
Milestones
The EPA is proposing to approve the Fairbanks Revised 189(d) Plan
as meeting the quantitative milestone requirements of CAA section
189(c)(1) and 40 CFR 51.1013. First, in accordance with 40 CFR
51.1013(a)(3)(ii) and (4), the Fairbanks Revised 189(d) Plan includes
quantitative milestones for the years 2023, 2026, and 2029. Second, the
Fairbanks Revised 189(d) Plan includes phase-in metrics for each
measure in the control strategy, including measures necessary to meet
the BACM and BACT requirements in CAA section 189(b) and 40 CFR
51.1010(a) and the requirements of CAA section 189(d) and 40 CFR
51.1010(c).
Finally, the measures allow for objective evaluation of RFP. As
stated in the preceding paragraphs, the EPA interprets the CAA as
allowing states to identify milestones that are suitable for the
specific facts and circumstances of the attainment area. The EPA
proposes to determine that Alaska's quantitative milestones provide
objective evaluation of RFP and are suitable for the specific facts and
circumstances for the Fairbanks PM2.5 Nonattainment Area.
Although the EPA agrees that comparing emissions reductions achieved to
projected emissions reductions allows for objective evaluation of RFP
for the Fairbanks PM2.5 Nonattainment Area, the EPA
disagrees with Alaska's stated rationale for selecting this metric. The
purpose of QMs is to provide an objective evaluation of the state's
implementation of the SIP control measures.\181\ Therefore, crediting
emissions reductions attributable to non-SIP measures toward achieving
a QM is inconsistent with CAA section 189(c) and 40 CFR 51.1013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\181\ See 40 CFR 51.1013(a)(3)(ii) (``At a minimum, each
quantitative milestone plan must include a milestone for tracking
progress achieved in implementing the SIP control measures by each
milestone date.'') (emphasis added).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nevertheless, using emissions reductions as the metric is
appropriate for the Fairbanks Revised 189(d) Plan because of the
overlapping nature of control measures and associated emissions
reductions, particularly those focused on the space heating area source
sector. Specifically, the implementation of specific measures designed
to reduce emissions from solid fuel-fired burning devices impacts
nearly all other area-source controls measures. For example, the wood
stove change out program removes wood stoves from the emissions
inventory. This reduces direct PM2.5 emissions, but also
impacts the emissions reductions achieved by the Solid Fuel-Burning
Appliance Curtailment Program and dry wood requirements.
Alaska could achieve more wood stove change-outs than it projects
in a milestone year and, thus, achieve more emissions reductions
attributable to that measure. However, that measure, by its nature,
changes the makeup of the remaining wood stove users and their
collective compliance with dry wood requirements and the curtailment
program. Thus, there could be an instance where Alaska overperforms on
one wood stove control measure, and that overperformance causes an
underperformance on one or more other similar measures, but that
collectively the measures achieve RFP.
Relatedly, the wood stove change out program has the potential to
moderate the benefits of measures designed to reduce SO2
emissions by increasing the number of residences using oil fuel-fired
heating devices. Comparing emissions reductions achieved to projected
emissions reductions as the milestone metric allows Alaska to take into
consideration these complex interactions and ultimately provides a more
meaningful assessment of whether Alaska's plan is achieving RFP.
In addition to the emissions reduction metric, the Fairbanks
Revised 189(d) Plan includes several other objective metrics for RFP,
including the number of wood stoves changed out, compliance percentage
for tracking the progress of the solid-fuel burning device change out
program, and percent implementation as metrics for the fuel sulfur
content shift mandate, dry wood requirements, mandatory wood device
removal, and more stringent no other adequate source of heat
requirements.
Alaska has demonstrated its ability to include emissions reduction
statistics in its quantitative milestone reports. On March 29, 2024,
Alaska submitted its quantitative milestone report for quantitative
milestone year 2023 (``2023 QM Report''). The EPA determined the 2023
QM Report was adequate on November 14, 2024. Both the 2023 QM Report
and the EPA's adequacy determination are included in the docket for
this action.
The 2023 QM Report included a certification from the Governor's
designee that the control strategy in the Fairbanks Revised 189(d) Plan
is being implemented consistent with the RFP provisions in the
Fairbanks Revised 189(d) Plan. The 2023 QM Report also included
calculations and associated technical support for emissions reductions
attributable to the measures in the control strategy. The report
compared emissions reductions achieved to date to those projected based
on the control measure phase-in schedule. The report also included, for
example, the number of wood stoves changed out as of 2023 as well as
the basis for implementation percentages and compliance rates for each
control measure. Finally, the 2023 QM Report included a discussion as
to whether the area will attain the PM2.5 NAAQS by 2027.
Therefore, the EPA proposes to approve the Fairbanks Revised 189(d)
Plan as meeting the quantitative milestone requirements of CAA section
189(c)(1) and 40 CFR 51.1013.
[[Page 1623]]
G. Contingency Measures
1. Statutory and Regulatory Requirements Regarding the Contingency
Measures
Under CAA section 172(c)(9), states required to make an attainment
plan SIP submission must include contingency measures to be implemented
if the area fails to meet RFP or fails to attain the NAAQS by the
applicable attainment date. Under the PM2.5 SIP Requirements
Rule, states must include contingency measures that the state will
implement following a determination by the EPA that the state has
failed: (1) to meet any RFP requirement in the approved SIP; (2) to
meet any QM in the approved SIP; (3) to submit a required QM report; or
(4) to attain the applicable PM2.5 NAAQS by the applicable
attainment date.\182\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\182\ 40 CFR 51.1014(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In accordance with the statute, contingency measures must be fully
adopted rules or control measures that are ready to be implemented upon
the EPA determination of a failure of any of the four types specified
by statute and regulation for purposes of the PM2.5 NAAQS at
issue.\183\ The contingency measures must be included in the state's
SIP and explicitly provide that they will take effect in the case of
any such finding of failure, without further significant action by the
State or the EPA. In general, the EPA expects all actions needed to
effect full implementation of the measures to occur within 60 days
after the EPA notifies the state of a failure to meet RFP or of a
failure to attain.\184\ The EPA has historically recommended that the
additional emissions reductions from the contingency measures should be
achieved within a year of the triggering event.\185\ The EPA has
recently revised its guidance concerning the period of time during
which contingency measures should provide emissions reductions, and now
recommends that it may be appropriate for contingency measures to
achieve emissions reductions within two years under certain
circumstances.\186\ The purpose of contingency measures is to continue
progress toward attainment, as the state develops and submits, and the
EPA acts on, a SIP submission to address the underlying deficiency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\183\ 81 FR 58010, August 24, 2016, at p. 58066; see also
Addendum to the General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I
of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, 59 FR 41998, August 16,
1994, at 42015 (``General Preamble Addendum'').
\184\ 81 FR 58010, August 24, 2016, at p. 58066; see also
General Preamble at pp. 13512, 13543-13544, and General Preamble
Addendum, at pp. 42014-42015.
\185\ General Preamble, at p. 13511.
\186\ ``Guidance on the Preparation of State Implementation
Plans Provisions that Address the Nonattainment Area Contingency
Measure Requirements for Ozone and Particulate Matter,'' Joseph
Goffman, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Assistant
Administrator, Office of Air and Radiation, December 3, 2024.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Neither the CAA nor the EPA's implementing regulations establish a
specific level of emissions reductions that implementation of
contingency measures must achieve, but the EPA has historically
recommended that contingency measures should provide for emissions
reductions equivalent to approximately one year of reductions needed
for RFP in the nonattainment area.\187\ For PM2.5 NAAQS SIP
planning purposes, prior to issuing the recent contingency measure
guidance, the EPA has recommended that RFP should be calculated as the
overall level of reductions needed to demonstrate attainment divided by
the number of years from the base year to the attainment year.\188\ As
part of the attainment plan SIP submission, the EPA expects states to
explain the amount of anticipated emissions reductions that the
contingency measures will achieve. In the event that a state is unable
to identify and adopt contingency measures that will provide for
approximately one year's worth of emissions reductions, then the EPA
recommends that the state provide a reasoned justification why the
smaller amount of emissions reductions is appropriate.\189\ As further
described below, the EPA revised and updated its guidance concerning
the amount of emissions reductions that contingency measures should
achieve and expanded its recommendations concerning how states may
justify having contingency measures that achieve fewer reductions, in
light of recent court decisions and the changed factual circumstances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\187\ 81 FR 58010, August 24, 2016, at p. 58066; see also
General Preamble, at pp. 13511, 13543-13544, and General Preamble
Addendum, at pp. 42014-42015.
\188\ 81 FR 58010, August 24, 2016, at p. 58066.
\189\ Id. at p. 58067.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To satisfy the contingency measure requirements of 40 CFR 51.1014,
the contingency measures adopted as part of a PM2.5 NAAQS
attainment plan must consist of control measures for sources in the
area that are not otherwise required to meet other attainment plan
requirements (e.g., BACM or BACT requirements). By definition,
contingency measures are measures that are over and above what a state
must adopt and impose to meet RFP and to provide for attainment by the
applicable attainment date. Contingency measures serve the purpose of
providing additional emissions reductions during the period after a
failure to meet RFP or failure to attain as the state prepares a new
SIP submission to rectify the problem. Accordingly, contingency
measures must provide such additional emissions reductions during an
appropriate period and must specify the timeframe by which their
requirements would become effective following any of the EPA
determinations specified in 40 CFR 51.1014(a).
To comply with CAA section 172(c)(9), contingency measures must be
both conditional and prospective, so that they will go into effect and
achieve emissions reductions only in the event of a future triggering
event such as a failure to meet RFP or a failure to attain. In the 2016
Bahr v. EPA decision,\190\ the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that
CAA section 172(c)(9) does not allow EPA approval of already-
implemented control measures as contingency measures. Thus, already-
implemented measures cannot serve as contingency measures under CAA
section 172(c)(9). For purposes of the PM2.5 NAAQS, a state
must develop, adopt, and submit one or more contingency measures to be
triggered upon a failure to meet any RFP requirement, failure to meet a
quantitative milestone requirement, or failure to attain the NAAQS by
the applicable attainment date, regardless of the extent to which
already implemented measures would achieve surplus emissions reductions
beyond those necessary to meet RFP or quantitative milestone
requirements and beyond those predicted to achieve attainment of the
NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\190\ Bahr v. EPA, 836 F.3d 1218, 1235-1237 (9th Cir. 2016). See
also Sierra Club v. EPA, 21 F.4th 815, 827-28 (D.C. Cir. 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In another recent decision concerning contingency measures for the
ozone NAAQS, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the surplus
emissions reductions from already-implemented measures cannot be relied
upon to justify the approval of a contingency measure that would
achieve far less than one year's worth of RFP as sufficient by itself
to meet the contingency measure requirements of CAA sections 172(c)(9)
and 182(c)(9) for the nonattainment area.\191\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\191\ Assoc. of Irritated Residents v. EPA, 10 F.4th 937, 946-47
(9th Cir. 2021) (``AIR v. EPA'' or ``AIR'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
a. Revised Contingency Measure Guidance
On December 3, 2024, the EPA issued new guidance addressing the
contingency measures requirement of CAA section 172(c)(9), herein
referred to as the ``Contingency Measure
[[Page 1624]]
Guidance.'' \192\ The principal differences between the latest
Contingency Measure Guidance and prior guidance on contingency measures
relate to the EPA's recommendations concerning the specific amount of
emissions reductions that implementation of contingency measures should
achieve and to the timing for when the emissions reductions from the
contingency measures should occur. The Contingency Measure Guidance
also provides recommended procedures for developing a demonstration, if
applicable, that the area lacks sufficient feasible measures to achieve
one year's worth of reductions, building on existing guidance that the
state may provide a reasoned justification why the smaller amount of
emissions reductions is appropriate.\193\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\192\ ``Guidance on the Preparation of State Implementation
Plans Provisions that Address the Nonattainment Area Contingency
Measure Requirements for Ozone and Particulate Matter,'' Joseph
Goffman, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Assistant
Administrator, Office of Air and Radiation, December 3, 2024.
\193\ See 81 FR 58010, Aug. 24, 2016, at p. 58067.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA has historically recommended that contingency measures
should achieve approximately one year's worth of RFP, calculated based
upon the initial emissions inventory of the attainment plan for the
area in question. As explained in the updated guidance, however, the
EPA is revising its interpretation of the requirements of CAA section
172(c)(9). Under the Contingency Measure Guidance, the EPA recommends
that the amount of emissions reductions that contingency measures
should achieve should be one year's worth of ``progress,'' as opposed
to one year's worth of RFP.\194\ One year's worth of ``progress'' is
calculated by determining the average annual reductions between the
base year emissions inventory and the projected attainment year
emissions inventory, determining what percentage of the base year
emissions inventory this amount represents, then applying that
percentage to the projected attainment year emissions inventory to
determine the amount of reductions appropriate from contingency
measures to ensure ongoing progress if the measures are triggered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\194\ Contingency Measure Guidance, at p. 23.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to the time period that reductions from contingency
measures should occur, the EPA previously recommended that contingency
measures take effect within 60 days of being triggered, and that the
resulting emissions reductions generally occur within one year of the
triggering event. Under the Contingency Measure Guidance, in instances
where there are insufficient contingency measures available to achieve
the recommended amount of emissions reductions within one year of the
triggering event, the EPA is recommending that contingency measures
that provide reductions within two years of the triggering event would
be appropriate to consider towards achieving the recommended amount of
emissions reductions.\195\ The Contingency Measure Guidance does not
alter the 60-day recommendation for the contingency measures to take
initial effect.\196\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\195\ Contingency Measure Guidance, at p. 46
\196\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
If, after adequately evaluating additional control measures, the
state is unable to identify contingency measures that would provide a
sufficient amount of emissions reductions, the EPA recommends that the
state provide an analysis to establish that there are no additional
feasible contingency measures. The EPA has recommended this approach
for attainment plans for the PM2.5 NAAQS since promulgating
the PM2.5 SIP Requirements Rule.\197\ In the Contingency
Measure Guidance, the EPA provides additional guidance to states for
establishing that there are no additional feasible contingency
measures. The EPA recommends that the state should provide a reasoned
justification that explains and documents how it has evaluated all
existing and potential control measures relevant to the appropriate
source categories and pollutants in the nonattainment area, and has
reached reasonable conclusions regarding whether such measures are
feasible as contingency measures.\198\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\197\ See 81 FR 58010, Aug. 24, 2016, at p. 58067.
\198\ Contingency Measure Guidance, at p. 33.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As explained in the Contingency Measure Guidance, while the EPA
notes that CAA section 172(c)(9) and section 182(c)(9) do not
explicitly provide for consideration of whether specific measures are
feasible, the Agency believes that the best reading of these provisions
is that they do not require states to adopt contingency measures
regardless of any technological or cost constraints whatsoever.\199\
Thus, the EPA views the contingency measure requirements as not to
require air agencies to adopt and impose infeasible measures. The
statutory provisions applicable to other nonattainment area plan
control measure requirements, including RACM/RACT (for ozone and PM),
BACM/BACT (for PM), and MSM (for PM), allow air agencies to exclude
certain control measures that are deemed unreasonable or infeasible
(depending on the requirement). For example, the MSM provision in CAA
section 188(e) requires plans to include ``the most stringent measures
that are included in the implementation plan of any state or are
achieved in practice in any state, and can feasibly be implemented in
the area.'' The EPA concludes that Congress similarly did not expect
air agencies to satisfy the contingency measure requirement with
infeasible measures. Thus, the EPA anticipates that a demonstrated lack
of feasible measures would be a reasoned justification for adopting
contingency measures that only achieve a lesser amount of emissions
reductions.\200\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\199\ Id.
\200\ Contingency Measure Guidance, at p. 34.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Summary of the EPA's Prior Action Regarding the Contingency Measures
In the Fairbanks Serious Plan, Alaska submitted revisions to 18 AAC
50.077(n) that included two contingency measures purporting to meet the
requirements of CAA section 172(c)(9) and 40 CFR 51.1014. 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 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 the EPA finding to remove the device prior
to reaching 25 years from the date of manufacture. On September 24,
2021, the EPA approved the submitted revisions to 18 AAC 50.077(n) as
SIP-strengthening, but otherwise did not determine whether the
revisions satisfied the contingency measure requirement of CAA section
172(c)(9) and 40 CFR 51.1014.
On September 2, 2020, the EPA issued a determination that the
Fairbanks PM2.5 Nonattainment Area failed to attain the 2006
24-hour NAAQS by the Serious area attainment date.\201\ This action
triggered the contingency measures included in the Fairbanks Serious
Plan at 18 AAC 50.077(n).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\201\ 85 FR 54509, September 2, 2020, at pp. 54509-10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the initial Fairbanks 189(d) Plan, Alaska: (1) retained the
revisions to 18 AAC 50.077(n); (2) submitted a revision to state
regulations at 18 AAC 50.030(c), to act as a central trigger mechanism
for all contingency measures contained in Alaska's nonattainment
plans,\202\ and (3)
[[Page 1625]]
included an additional contingency measure, as a revision to State Air
Quality Control Plan, Vol. II, section III.D.7.12 (Fairbanks Emergency
Episode Plan) that, if triggered, lowers the wood stove curtailment
Stage 2 alert threshold from 30 [micro]g/m\3\ to 25 [micro]g/m\3\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\202\ ``Contingency measures in nonattainment and maintenance
areas identified in 18 AAC 50.015(b), (d), and (e) must be
implemented as described in the State Air Quality Control Plan for
an area upon. . .the effective date of an EPA finding that the 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.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On January 10, 2023, the EPA approved the submitted revisions to 18
AAC 50.030(c) as consistent with the triggering events in 40 CFR
51.1014. The EPA also approved as SIP-strengthening the submitted
revisions to the Fairbanks Emergency Episode Plan regarding the wood
stove curtailment thresholds. However, the EPA determined that the
revisions to 18 AAC 50.077(n) did not meet contingency measures
requirements because they were already triggered and implemented.
With respect to the revision in the Fairbanks Emergency Episode
Plan, the EPA determined that this measure alone is insufficient to
meet contingency measures requirements, and Alaska did not provide a
reasoned justification for why the state could not adopt additional
contingency measures. Thus, the EPA disapproved the Fairbanks Serious
Plan and initial Fairbanks 189(d) Plan with respect to the contingency
measures element. The State is addressing this prior disapproval for
the contingency measures element by submitting new provisions intended
to meet the requirement in the Fairbanks Revised 189(d) Plan.
3. Summary of the State's Submission Regarding the Contingency Measures
In the Fairbanks Revised 189(d) Plan, Alaska includes: (1)
calculations of one year's worth of progress and RFP metrics; (2) an
evaluation of potential contingency measures; (3) three contingency
measures purporting to meet the requirements of CAA section 172(c)(9)
and 40 CFR 51.1014; and (4) an evaluation of whether the contingency
measures achieve sufficient emissions reductions.
a. Alaska's Calculation of One Year's Worth of Progress
Alaska used the one year's worth of progress metric to demonstrate
that its contingency measures achieve sufficient emissions
reductions.\203\ According to the Fairbanks Revised 189(d) Plan, the
one year's worth of progress target is 0.102 tons per episode day for
direct PM2.5 emissions and 0.115 tons per episode day for
SO2 emissions. Alaska also calculated the one year's worth
of RFP target for direct PM2.5 and SO2 as 0.172
tons per episode day and 0.122 tons per episode day, respectively.\204\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\203\ State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol. II, section
III.D.7.11.2.1 (adopted November 5, 2024).
\204\ Id. at section III.D.7.10, Table 7.10-8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Alaska's Identification and Evaluation of Contingency Measures
Alaska evaluated 25 potential measures as contingency
measures.\205\ Alaska evaluated measures to reduce SO2
emissions and direct PM2.5 emissions. Alaska determined that
there were no NH3 control measures that could serve as
contingency measures.\206\ With respect to SO2 emissions,
Alaska evaluated requiring the use of ULSD heating oil (i.e., a 15
parts per million sulfur content fuel oil requirement). According to
Alaska, the ULSD mandate would significantly reduce SO2
emissions from the residential space heating source category. However,
Alaska determined that the ULSD mandate could not achieve emissions
reductions until year three of implementation and also posed
technological feasibility concerns.\207\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\205\ Id. at section III.D.7.11.2.2.
\206\ Id. at section III.D.7.11.3.3.8.
\207\ Id. at section III.D.7.11.3.3.1.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alaska also identified major stationary source SO2
controls, aircraft SO2 controls, residential fuel oil
boilers repair and replacement requirements as potential measures.
Alaska determined that, based on the major stationary source
SO2 precursor demonstration, SO2 controls on
these sources would achieve negligible reductions in sulfate formation
in the nonattainment area.\208\ Similarly, Alaska determined that
requiring residents to replace or upgrade their fuel oil boilers would
result in negligible SO2 emissions reductions.\209\ With
respect to aircraft, Alaska explained that the State does not have
authority to regulate fuel sulfur content for commercial aircraft.
Thus, Alaska determined that there were no technologically feasible
contingency measures for SO2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\208\ Id. at section III.D.7.11.3.3.1
\209\ Id. at section III.D.7.11.3.3.1.3. According to the
Fairbanks Revised 189(d) Plan, requiring residents to repair their
fuel oil boilers would achieve at most 0.001 tons per day of
SO2 emissions reductions. Requiring replacement of fuel
oil boilers would achieve at most 0.006 tons per day of
SO2 emissions reductions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alaska also evaluated several potential contingency measures
designed to reduce emissions of direct PM2.5. Specifically,
Alaska evaluated enhancements to the existing curtailment program,
enhancements to the existing wood device removal program, used oil
burning restrictions, vehicle idling restrictions, making existing
control measures more stringent, and various economic incentive
programs suggested by commenters.\210\ Alaska ultimately determined
that enhancing the existing curtailment program and existing wood
device removal program were the only technologically feasible measures
that would achieve more than negligible emissions reductions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\210\ Id. at section III.D.7.11.3.3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alaska determined that prohibiting small ``pot burners'' and used
oil burners would achieve negligible emissions reductions.\211\
According to the Fairbanks Revised 189(d) Plan, prohibiting small pot
burners would achieve emissions reductions of 0.002 tons per episode
day of direct PM2.5.\212\ Likewise, prohibiting used oil
burners would achieve less than 0.0001 tons per episode day of direct
PM2.5 emissions reductions.\213\ Similarly, Alaska
determined that imposing vehicle idling restrictions would achieve
0.002 tons per episode day of direct PM2.5 emissions
reductions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\211\ Id. at section III.D.7.11.3.3.3.
\212\ Id.
\213\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alaska also evaluated adopting a 1.0 grams per hour PM emissions
standard for new solid fuel-fired heating devices, similar to the
measure implemented by Missoula, Montana.\214\ Alaska determined that
this measure would achieve emissions reductions through attrition
(phase-out of old stoves) and would not achieve significant emissions
reductions in the aggregate given Alaska's already stringent
restrictions on new wood stoves.\215\ Alaska also noted that the
measure effectively restricts new solid-fuel burning devices to pellet-
fuel fired stoves. Alaska explained that pellet stoves require
electricity to operate. According to Alaska, Fairbanks experiences
frequent power outages during the winter months and residents must have
a reliable source of heat during these periods. According to Alaska,
this renders the measure technologically infeasible as a contingency
measure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\214\ Id. at section III.D.7.11.3.3.2.
\215\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, Alaska evaluated reducing the allowable moisture
content in commercial dry wood.\216\ Under Alaska's current
regulations, all commercial dry wood must have a moisture content of 20
percent or less.\217\ Alaska determined that reducing the moisture
content percentage to 15
[[Page 1626]]
would reduce PM2.5 emissions by 0.011 tons per episode day,
while reducing the moisture percentage to 10 would reduce
PM2.5 emissions by 0.022 tons per episode day. However,
Alaska determined that achieving these emissions reductions within two
years of a triggering event is not technologically feasible due to
infrastructure constraints.\218\ According to Alaska, there is a single
dry wood kiln in Fairbanks that supplies 31 percent of the commercial
dry wood in the area. Requiring the kiln to achieve lower wood moisture
content would require longer dry times, which would restrict the
availability of dry wood in the area unless the kiln expanded capacity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\216\ Id. at section III.D.7.11.3.3.5.
\217\ 18 AAC 50.076(g).
\218\ State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol. II, section
III.D.7.11.3.3.5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alaska also evaluated granting citation authority to the Alaska
Department of Environmental Conservation and increasing civil penalties
for SIP violations as potential contingency measures.\219\ Alaska
determined that neither measure would improve compliance or achieve
emissions reductions.\220\ Alaska explained that it has broad and
efficient state judicial authority to enforce violations of the SIP.
Alaska included a discussion of its process for enforcing SIP
violations. Alaska also explained that its civil penalty authority
under Alaska Statute 46.03.760(e) does not set a maximum penalty for
SIP violations.\221\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\219\ Id. at section III.D.7.11.3.3.6; Id. at section
III.D.7.11.3.3.4.
\220\ Id.
\221\ Id. at section III.D.7.11.3.3.6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, Alaska evaluated whether several economic incentive
programs suggested by commenters could satisfy contingency measure
requirements.\222\ These included subsidizing the cost of ULSD,
subsidizing natural gas, and various electricity cost subsidy
programs.\223\ Alaska determined that each of these programs would not
be enforceable contingency measures. Alaska also noted that
implementing the programs would require more than minimal further
effort on the part of the state.\224\ Therefore, Alaska concluded that
these economic incentive programs would not meet the legal requirements
for contingency measures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\222\ Id. at section III.D.7.11.3.3.7.
\223\ Id.
\224\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
c. Alaska's Contingency Measures Included in the Fairbanks Revised
189(d) Plan
Based on the analysis discussed in the preceding paragraphs, Alaska
concluded that the only technologically feasible contingency measures
were enhancing the solid fuel burning device curtailment and removal
programs. Therefore, in the Fairbanks Revised 189(d) Plan, the State
includes three measures intended to meet the contingency measures
requirements: (1) lower alert levels under the Solid Fuel-Burning
Appliance Curtailment Program; (2) an enforceable commitment to
increase the staff hours dedicated to implementing the Solid Fuel-
Burning Appliance Curtailment Program; and (3) an enforceable
commitment to increase staff hours dedicated to compliance and
enforcement with the state regulations requiring replacement of older
wood stoves by December 31, 2024.\225\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\225\ 18 AAC 50.075(e); State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol. II,
section III.D.7.11.4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alaska's current EPA-approved Solid Fuel-Burning Appliance
Curtailment Program includes two stages. Alaska calls a Stage 1 burn
ban when Alaska projects ambient PM2.5 concentrations to be
at or above 20 [micro]g/m\3\. Under a Stage 1 burn ban, individuals may
only operate their solid fuel-burning device if the individual has an
Alaska-approved ``no other adequate source of heat'' (NOASH) waiver or
an Alaska-approved solid fuel-burning device that meets specific stage
1 waiver age and emission rate criteria.\226\ Under the current
curtailment program, Alaska calls a Stage 2 burn ban when the state
projects ambient PM2.5 concentrations to exceed 30 [micro]g/
m\3\. Under a Stage 2 burn ban, individuals may only operate their
solid fuel burning device if they have an Alaska-approved NOASH
waiver.\227\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\226\ Id.
\227\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As the first intended contingency measure, the State adopted
revisions to the Fairbanks Emergency Episode Plan that would reduce the
alert levels under the Solid Fuel-Burning Appliance Curtailment
Program.\228\ Upon a triggering event, such as failure to attain or
failure to meet a QM, the Stage 1 alert level will be lowered to 15
[micro]g/m\3\ and the Stage 2 alert level will be lowered to 20
[micro]g/m\3\.\229\ The State anticipates that lowering these alert
levels would result in Alaska calling burn bans more frequently and for
longer durations, thus lowering the emissions from the solid fuel
burning device source category.\230\ Alaska projected this first
contingency measure will result in emissions reductions of 0.086 tons
per day PM2.5 but increase SO2 emissions by 0.047
tons per day.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\228\ State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol. II, section
III.D.7.12.2.
\229\ Id. See also State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol. II,
section III.D.7.12, Table 7.12-1.
\230\ State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol. II, section
III.D.7.11.3.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As a second intended contingency measure in the Fairbanks Revised
189(d) Plan, the State submitted an enforceable commitment to increase
the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation staff hours
dedicated to the compliance and enforcement of the Solid Fuel-Burning
Appliance Curtailment Program to 2,800 hours per year, within 60 days
of any triggering event.\231\ This would be an increase from the
current 2,200 hours per year.\232\ Under the current allocation of
staff hours, Alaska achieved 38 percent compliance with the curtailment
program.\233\ Alaska projected that with the additional staff hours,
the compliance rate would increase to 65 percent.\234\ Alaska committed
to maintain the increased allocation of staff hours, unless or until
the state could later relax the measure through a SIP revision.\235\
Alaska further committed to publishing an annual report that includes
the staff hours dedicated to compliance and enforcement of the Solid
Fuel-Burning Appliance Curtailment Program and the results of the
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation's annual assessments of
the compliance rate.\236\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\231\ 18 AAC 50.075(e); State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol. II,
section III.D.7.12. See State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol. II,
section III.D.7.11.4.3.
\232\ State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol. II, section
III.D.7.11.4.1.
\233\ Id.; See also State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol. II,
section III.D.7.10.3.2.
\234\ Id. at section III.D.7.11.4.1.
\235\ Id. at section III.D.7.11.4.3.
\236\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As the third intended contingency measure, the State submitted a
second enforceable commitment to dedicate 300 staff hours to compliance
and enforcement with the SIP-approved rules requiring replacement of
older wood stoves (18 AAC 50.077(l-n)).\237\ Alaska projects this
staffing level would increase the compliance rate from 30 percent to 45
percent.\238\ Alaska committed to maintaining the allocation of
staffing hours unless or until the state can relax the measure through
a SIP revision.\239\ Alaska further committed to publishing an annual
report that includes the staff hours dedicated to compliance and
enforcement with the regulations mandating replacement of older wood
stoves.\240\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\237\ Id.
\238\ Id. at section III.D.7.11.4.2.
\239\ Id. at section III.D.7.11.4.3.
\240\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 1627]]
d. Emissions Reductions From Alaska's Contingency Measures
Alaska projected that these three contingency measures would
achieve emissions reductions of 0.151 tons per episode day of direct
PM2.5 emissions (0.142 tons per day when accounting for some
overlap) and increase SO2 emissions by 0.038 tons per
episode day. As stated in the preceding paragraphs, Alaska proposed to
use the one year's worth of progress metric for contingency measures.
According to the Fairbanks Revised 189(d) Plan, the one year's worth of
progress target is 0.102 tons per episode day for direct
PM2.5 and 0.115 tons per episode day for SO2.
Alaska purported to justify the increase in SO2
emissions with the surplus emissions reductions of direct
PM2.5 emissions through ``inter-pollutant trading.'' \241\
Alaska developed a 5:1 ratio to compare reductions of direct
PM2.5 emissions to reductions of SO2 emissions.
For the purposes of developing the ratio, Alaska conservatively
estimated that SO2 emissions contribute 20 percent of
ambient PM2.5 levels in the area.\242\ Thus, Alaska
calculated that achieving an additional 0.023 tons per episode day
(0.125 tons per episode day total) of direct PM2.5 emissions
would achieve the required one year's worth of attainment for both
direct PM2.5 and SO2 emissions.\243\ Because
Alaska's contingency measures would achieve 0.151 tons per episode day
of direct PM2.5 emissions, Alaska stated that its
contingency measures would achieve sufficient emissions
reductions.\244\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\241\ Id. at section III.D.7.11.2.1.
\242\ Id.
\243\ Id.
\244\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alaska also compared the projected emissions reductions from its
contingency measures to the one year's worth of RFP metric. Alaska
calculated that the one year's worth of RFP target for direct
PM2.5 and SO2 emissions as 0.172 tons per episode
day and 0.122 tons per episode day respectively.\245\ The State
acknowledged that its contingency measures would not achieve emissions
reductions equivalent to one year's worth of RFP even taking into
consideration inter-pollutant trading.\246\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\245\ Id. at section III.D.7.10, Table 7.10-8.
\246\ Id. at section III.D.7.10.3.4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. The EPA's Evaluation and Proposed Action
The EPA has reviewed the three measures that the State included in
the Fairbanks Revised 189(d) Plan to meet the contingency measures
requirement for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. For the
reasons explained in the following sections and the accompanying TSD,
the EPA: (i) proposes to approve one of the State's submitted measures
as a contingency measure; (ii) proposes to approve the other two
measures as SIP-strengthening; (iii) proposes to find that the State
has provided an adequate reasoned justification that no other
contingency measures are feasible; and (iv) proposes to approve the
Fairbanks Revised 189(d) Plan as meeting the contingency measure
requirements in CAA Section 179(c)(9) and 40 CFR 51.1014(a).
a. Alaska's Calculation of One Year's Worth of Progress
Alaska proposed to use the one year's worth of progress metric to
measure the sufficiency of its contingency measures. The EPA proposes
to determine this is an appropriate metric. As discussed above, CAA
section 172(c)(9) does not specify the amount of emissions reductions
contingency measures must achieve. The EPA's recent revised guidance
explains its view that one year's worth of progress approach is
consistent with the primary objective of attaining the NAAQS.
This approach takes into account the declining emissions
inventories between the base year and attainment year. The EPA expects
that Alaska's control strategy in the Fairbanks Revised 189(d) Plan
will achieve projected emissions reductions prior to any triggering
event. Specifically, public participation in the wood stove change out
program should continue given the mandatory change out requirements in
18 AAC 50.077(l)-(n), along with the EPA grant funding through the
Targeted Airshed Grant program. Moreover, the continued phase-in of
diesel no. 1 fuel oil in place of diesel no. 2 fuel oil will reduce
SO2 emissions.
b. Alaska's Identification and Evaluation of Contingency Measures
As summarized in section II.G.3 of this preamble, Alaska evaluated
several control measures that could serve as contingency measures to
reduce emissions of the relevant pollutants from the relevant sources.
The EPA has reviewed the State's identification and evaluation of
potential contingency measures. The EPA's detailed review is included
in a Technical Support Document included in the docket for this
action.\247\ For the reasons stated in the following paragraphs, as
well as in the Technical Support Document, the EPA is proposing to
determine that Alaska adequately identified and evaluated potential
contingency measures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\247\ Jentgen, Matthew. (December 4, 2024). Contingency Measure
assessment of available control measures in the Fairbanks Revised
189(d) Plan. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, Air
and Radiation Division, EPA-R10-OAR-2024-0595.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In a prior action, the EPA approved comprehensive NOX
and VOC precursor demonstrations submitted by Alaska. Therefore, these
are not regulatory pollutants for purposes of the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS in the Fairbanks PM2.5 Nonattainment
Area. Accordingly, the State is not required to evaluate and adopt
contingency measures for these pollutants.\248\ In this action, the EPA
is proposing to approve an SO2 precursor demonstration for
major stationary sources. If the EPA finalizes an approval of this
precursor demonstration, then stationary sources that emit
SO2 will not be subject to BACM/BACT. Accordingly, the State
would not be required to evaluate and adopt contingency measures for
SO2 emissions from such sources, but Alaska would still be
required to evaluate and adopt SO2 emissions controls from
other area and mobile sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\248\ 88 FR 84626, December 5, 2023, at p. 84635.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to NH3, the EPA has previously approved
Alaska's determination that there are no NH3 controls for
major stationary sources in the nonattainment area.\249\ The EPA also
previously approved as BACM for NH3 Alaska's suite of
controls for direct PM2.5 on area sources.\250\ The EPA
agrees with Alaska's determination that there are no additional
NH3 controls that could serve as potential contingency
measures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\249\ 88 FR 84626, December 5, 2023, at p. 84636.
\250\ Id. at pp. 84,638-49.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alaska focused its evaluation of potential contingency measures on
measures that could reduce direct PM2.5 emissions and
SO2 emissions from areas sources and mobile sources. The EPA
is proposing to approve the State's approach to identifying and
adopting potential contingency measures for these specific pollutants
and sources as part of its proposed approval of the contingency
measures element of the Fairbanks Revised 189(d) Plan.
With respect to contingency measures to reduce SO2
emissions, the EPA proposes to approve Alaska's determinations that (1)
mandating ULSD is not technologically feasible as a contingency measure
because it would not achieve emissions reductions within two years of
being triggered; (2) requiring residents to repair or replace their
fuel oil boilers would achieve
[[Page 1628]]
negligible emissions reductions; and (3) regulating aircraft emissions
is not viable as a contingency measure because of limitations on legal
authority.
Regarding mandating ULSD, the EPA agrees with the State that, if
implemented, such a contingency measure could reduce SO2
emissions from the residential home heating source category, which is
the dominant contributor to sulfate formation in the nonattainment
area. However, the EPA agrees with Alaska's determination that
mandating USLD would not achieve emissions reductions until at least
three years following the triggering event.\251\ This is due to the
need to improve storage and distribution infrastructure in the area,
the need to allow the distribution market to shift to new demands, and
the time needed to phase out higher-sulfur fuels from existing storage
vessels in the area.\252\ A contingency measure that required the use
of ULSD fuel factually could not be implemented quickly following a
triggering event, or achieve emissions reductions until several years
following the triggering event. Thus, mandating ULSD as a contingency
measure would not satisfy the key purpose of contingency measures of
continuing progress towards attainment between the triggering event and
submission of a revised plan. Based upon this analysis, the EPA agrees
that a measure mandating sale and use of ULSD fuel in the Fairbanks
PM2.5 Nonattainment Area is not viable as a contingency
measure because of the time it would take to achieve emissions
reductions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\251\ State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol. II, section
III.D.7.11.3.3.1.1.
\252\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, the EPA has reviewed Alaska's emissions reductions
calculations, including for the fuel oil boiler measures, and
determined Alaska's methodology is reasonable. Based on these
calculations, the fuel oil boiler measures would achieve negligible
emissions reductions. Regarding emissions from aircraft, states are
prohibited under CAA section 233 from adopting more stringent standards
than those set by the Federal Government.\253\ Therefore, the EPA
agrees that none of these potential measures are viable as contingency
measures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\253\ 42 U.S.C. 7573.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regarding potential contingency measures to control direct
PM2.5 emissions, the EPA proposes to approve Alaska's
determinations of: (1) measures that would only achieve negligible
emissions reductions; (2) measures that are technologically infeasible
as contingency measures because they would not achieve emissions
reductions within two years of being triggered; and (3) other measures
that are technologically infeasible due to infrastructure constraints
and local conditions. The EPA agrees that prohibiting operation and
sale of small pot burners, used oil burners, and restricting vehicle
idling would achieve negligible emissions reductions. The EPA also
agrees that granting citation authority to the Alaska Department of
Environmental Conservation and increasing state penalties for SIP
requirement violations would have negligible emissions benefits as a
contingency measure.
The EPA also reviewed Alaska's evaluation of a potential
requirement that all new solid fuel-burning devices meet a 1.0 gram per
hour PM2.5 emissions standard as a potential contingency
measure. The EPA agrees that, in practice, the only wood heaters that
can achieve this standard are pellet-fuel fired stoves and certain
highly controlled cordwood stoves. The EPA also notes that, this
measure has the potential to reduce direct PM2.5 emissions
from the solid fuel-burning source category. However, the EPA agrees
with Alaska's assessment that this requirement would necessarily be an
attrition-based measure that only achieves emissions reductions as
homeowners replace older stoves. In its prior action on the Fairbanks
Serious Plan, the EPA disapproved a similar Alaska contingency measure
mandating the removal of older certified wood stoves, in part because
the measure would have achieved virtually no emissions reductions in
the first year of implementation.\254\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\254\ 88 FR 84626, December 5, 2023, at p. 84664.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, the EPA agrees that this measure is technologically
infeasible as a contingency measure. In particular, as Alaska states in
the Fairbanks Revised 189(d) Plan, pellet stoves require electricity to
function, whereas cordwood stoves do not, and Fairbanks experiences
power outages during the winter months. The EPA agrees that given the
extremely cold temperatures residents experience, having a source of
heat that does not rely on electricity remains a necessity. Based upon
this analysis, the EPA agrees that a measure mandating that all new
solid fuel-burning devices meet a 1.0 gram per hour PM2.5
emissions standard in the Fairbanks area is not viable as a contingency
measure because emissions reductions could not be achieved within two
years and the measure is otherwise technologically infeasible.
Regarding reducing the required moisture content for dry cordwood,
the EPA notes that this measure has the potential to reduce emissions
of direct PM2.5. Alaska estimated that a measure requiring
all dry wood to meet a 10 percent moisture content would reduce
PM2.5 emissions by 0.022 tons per episode day, which equates
to 18 percent of one's years-worth of progress.\255\ However, the EPA
agrees with Alaska's assessment that mandating a reduction in moisture
content as a contingency measure would not be technologically feasible
given the constraint on the dry wood supply in Fairbanks. In order to
further reduce the moisture content of cordwood while satisfying
consumer demand for commercial dry wood, additional kilns would need to
be built in the Fairbanks area. This type of large capital project is
unlikely to be accomplished quickly such that dry wood at less than 10
percent moisture content could be reliably supplied to residents to
achieve emissions reductions within two years of a triggering event.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\255\ State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol. II, section
III.D.7.11.3.3.5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Therefore, the EPA proposes to determine that, to the extent the
contingency measures in the Fairbanks Revised 189(d) Plan fall short of
the emissions reductions necessary for one year's worth of attainment,
Alaska has provided an adequate reasoned justification for not adopting
additional measures as contingency measures.
c. Evaluation of Submitted Contingency Measures
i. Lowered Alert Levels
The submitted contingency measure lowering the alert levels for the
Solid Fuel-Burning Appliance Curtailment Program is subject to Alaska's
regulation at 18 AAC 50.030(c) that is consistent with the triggers in
40 CFR 51.1014(a). The measure is thus conditional and prospective, as
required by statute. This measure will take effect with minimal further
effort from the State or the EPA. Neither Alaska nor the EPA will need
to engage in any additional rulemaking or other significant action to
implement the measure. Alaska already issues alerts through its
preexisting program approved into the SIP. Thus, implementing the
contingency measure will be ministerial, in terms of adjusting the
curtailment alert thresholds.
At the time of adoption and submission to the EPA, these
contingency measure alert levels are not otherwise included in the
control strategy to meet any other attainment plan requirements. This
measure
[[Page 1629]]
addresses the largest source category of direct PM2.5
emissions in the nonattainment area and is not otherwise included in
the Fairbanks Revised 189(d) Plan control strategy. The EPA expects
this continency measure would 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.
This contingency measure would go into effect once triggered by an
EPA determination, as provided in 18 AAC 50.030(c). Alaska projected
this first contingency measure will result in emissions reductions of
0.086 tons per day PM2.5 but increase SO2
emissions by 0.047 tons per day.\256\ This contingency measure
represents 84 percent of one year's worth of progress for direct
PM2.5 reductions, but, the increase in SO2
emissions would not meet the one year's worth of progress metric for
SO2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\256\ Applying Alaska's interpollutant trading mechanism, the
combined emissions reductions for PM2.5 and
SO2 are estimated to be 0.077 tons per day, representing
62 percent of the one year's of interpollutant emissions reductions
for PM2.5 and SO2. See State Air Quality
Control Plan, Vol. II, section III.D.7.11.5.2; see also State Air
Quality Control Plan, Vol. II, section III.D.7.11, Table 7.11-6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the reasons provided in the preceding paragraphs, the EPA is
proposing to determine that this measure meets the requirements for
contingency measures in 40 CFR 51.1014 and CAA Section 172(c)(9). In
section II.G.4.d of this preamble, we address whether approval of this
contingency measure also supports approval of the overarching
attainment plan contingency measures element of the Fairbanks Revised
189(d) Plan for purposes of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in
the Fairbanks PM2.5 Nonattainment Area.
ii. Enforceable Commitments To Enhance Enforcement of the Solid Fuel-
Burning Appliance Curtailment Program and Removal of Wood Stoves
These submitted measures take the form of enforceable commitments.
According to Alaska, these measures would achieve surplus emissions
reductions by increasing the compliance rate with the curtailment
program from 38 percent to 65 percent and the wood stove removal
measure from 30 percent to 45 percent. For the reasons stated in the
following paragraphs, the EPA proposes to determine that these measures
meet the CAA requirements for enforceable commitments. The EPA is
further proposing to approve these commitments into the Alaska SIP as
SIP-strengthening but not as contingency measures.
First, Alaska's commitments meet the CAA's requirements for
enforceable commitments. Under the CAA, an enforceable commitment must
be: (1) a specific enforceable requirement, not merely an aspirational
goal; and (2) enforceable as a practical matter (i.e., the public will
have sufficient information to enforce the state's compliance with its
commitment).\257\ In the submitted measures, Alaska committed to
increase the allocation of annual staff hours by a specific number of
hours dedicated to implementing and enforcing specific SIP measures.
Thus, the commitment is sufficiently concrete and not merely an
aspirational goal. Moreover, Alaska committed to publish a report of
its compliance with these commitments. The report will not only include
the number of hours dedicated to implementing and enforcing the
specific measures, but also other compliance metrics such as number of
warning letters and the number of wood stoves removed. Thus, the
commitments are enforceable as a practical matter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\257\ See Comm. for a Better Arvin v. EPA, 786 F.3d 1169, 1181
(9th Cir. 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to the two criteria above, the EPA has assessed whether
to approve an enforceable commitment based on consideration of the
following three factors: (1) whether the commitment addresses a limited
portion of the CAA requirement; (2) whether the state is capable of
fulfilling its commitment; and (3) whether the commitment is for a
reasonable and appropriate period of time.\258\ Regarding the first
factor, in the past, states have relied on enforceable commitments as
part of their overall control strategy to achieve the NAAQS.\259\ Thus,
the EPA has typically assessed whether the emissions reductions
attributable to the state's enforceable commitments are a limited
portion of the emissions reductions necessary to achieve attainment or
RFP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\258\ See 75 FR 74518, November 30, 2010, at pp. 74535-56; see
also BCCA Appeal Grp. v. EPA, 355 F.3d 817, 840 (5th Cir. 2003).
\259\ See, e.g., Approval of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
California; South Coast; Attainment Plan for 1997 PM2.5
Standards, 76 FR 69928, November 9, 2011, at p. 69941; Approval and
Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Arizona--Maricopa County PM-10
Nonattainment Area; Serious Area Plan for Attainment of the Annual
PM-10 Standard, 65 FR 19964, April 13, 2000, at pp. 19983-19984.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA notes that Alaska structured its enforceable commitments as
contingency measures. Thus, in the Fairbanks Revised 189(d) Plan,
Alaska assessed the amount of emissions reductions that the commitments
could achieve with respect to the one year's worth of progress and one
year's worth of RFP metrics for contingency measures. Alaska determined
that the emissions reductions attributable to the commitments are a
small portion of the emissions reductions towards the recommended one
year's worth of progress and one year's worth of RFP metrics for
contingency measures, respectively.\260\ Alaska projected that
emissions reductions attributable to the commitments will yield 38
percent of the emissions reductions towards one-year's work of progress
target.\261\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\260\ The enhanced enforcement of the curtailment program is
expected to yield 0.090 tons per day in PM2.5 emissions
reductions and increase SO2 emissions by 0.038 tons per
day (the increase in SO2 caused by the shift from wood
burning to heating oil). See State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol.
II, section III.D.7.11.5.1.
\261\ State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol. II, section
III.D.7.11.5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA is proposing to determine that Alaska's enforceable
commitments included in State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol. II,
section III.D.7.11.2.1 address a limited portion of the CAA
requirement. The EPA is not proposing to approve these commitments as
contingency measures under CAA section 172(c)(9). If the EPA finalizes
approval, these commitments will become part of Alaska's overall
control strategy. Viewed in this light, Alaska would not rely on the
enforceable commitments to achieve attainment or RFP.
As to the second enforceable commitments factor, Alaska has
demonstrated that it can fulfill its commitments. According to Alaska,
the commitment to re-allocate staff hours is within the Alaska
Department of Environmental Conservation Air Quality Division's
existing budget and control. In the Fairbanks Revised 189(d) Plan,
Alaska stated that it has the capacity to implement the reallocation of
staffing hours it is making in the enforceable commitments and to
maintain them indefinitely.\262\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\262\ Id. at section III.D.7.11.6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, the commitments are for a reasonable and appropriate
period of time. For this factor, the EPA typically assesses the state's
schedule for promulgating specific control measures to achieve the
promised emissions reductions and whether the schedule comports with
the RFP and attainment deadlines.\263\ Here, Alaska is not relying on
the enforceable commitment to achieve RFP or attainment. Therefore, the
EPA proposes to determine that this factor is not determinative with
respect to Alaska's enforceable commitments.
[[Page 1630]]
Rather, Alaska structured the commitments as contingency measures
triggered upon any of the EPA findings in 40 CFR 51.1014. Once
triggered, Alaska committed to increasing staff hours within 60 days of
the triggering event and maintain the staff hours unless and until the
State could revise them through a SIP revision.\264\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\263\ See, e.g., Approval of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
California; South Coast; Attainment Plan for 1997 PM2.5
Standards, 76 FR 69928, November 9, 2011, at p. 69941.
\264\ State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol. II, section
III.D.7.11.4.3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA is proposing to approve the measures as SIP-strengthening
but not as contingency measures under CAA section 172(c)(9) for the
following reasons. The EPA acknowledges that the enforceable
commitments meet many of the regulatory requirements in 40 CFR 51.1014.
Specifically, the enforceable commitments are subject to Alaska's
regulation 18 AAC 50.030(c) that is consistent with the triggers in 40
CFR 51.1014(a). The Fairbanks Revised 189(d) Plan also includes a
description of the specific trigger mechanisms for the commitment. The
commitments also specify the timeframe within which they would become
effective. Finally, Alaska is not relying on the emissions reductions
that may occur as a result of increased compliance rates attributable
to the enforceable commitments as part of its control strategy, to meet
RFP requirements, or in its attainment demonstration.
However, outside of the SO2 nonattainment context, the
EPA has not considered increased enforcement of existing measures in
the control strategy as ``implementation of specific measures'' that
would ``take effect with minimal further action by the state of the
EPA'' following a triggering event.\265\ The EPA has approved enhanced
enforcement as satisfying the contingency measure requirement in the
context of SO2 NAAQS nonattainment areas.\266\ This is for
several reasons. First, the procedures and methods for quantifying and
predicting SO2 concentrations are less uncertain than for
other criteria pollutants, especially those that may result from
secondary formation from multiple precursors, such as
PM2.5.\267\ Second, the regulated sources in SO2
nonattainment areas are typically one or a few major stationary sources
that are the main cause of exceedances of the SO2
NAAQS.\268\ Third, the control efficiencies for SO2 control
measures are well understood and are less prone to uncertainty than for
other criteria pollutants.\269\ Thus, the EPA has reasoned in the
context of SO2 NAAQS nonattainment areas that if the
nonattainment area fails to meet RFP or achieve attainment, then that
failure is likely due to violations of the control strategy by the
major stationary source regulated in the attainment plan --rather than
an inadequacy of the control strategy.\270\ Hence, for purposes of the
SO2 NAAQS, contingency measures comprised of a comprehensive
enforcement program are sufficient.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\265\ 40 CFR 51.1014(a). See Clean Air Plans; 2008 8-Hour Ozone
Nonattainment Area Requirements; San Joaquin Valley, California, 84
FR 11198, March 25, 2019, at pp. 11200, 11203.
\266\ See Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality
Implementation Plans; Michigan; Federal Implementation Plan for the
Detroit Sulfur Dioxide Nonattainment Area, 87 FR 61514, Oct. 12,
2022, at p. 61522; see also SO2 Guideline Document, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, EPA-452/R-94-008,
February 1994 (1994 SO2 Guideline); Guidance for 1-Hour
SO2 Nonattainment Area SIP Submissions, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, Stephen D. Page, April 23, 2014.
\267\ Id.
\268\ Guidance for 1-Hour SO2 Nonattainment Area SIP
Submissions, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Stephen
D. Page, April 23, 2014, at p. 69.
\269\ 87 FR 61514, Oct. 12, 2022, at p. 61522.
\270\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
By contrast, PM2.5 NAAQS nonattainment areas typically
include hundreds or thousands of individual sources (including multiple
categories of major stationary, area, and mobile sources) of emissions
of direct PM2.5 and multiple PM2.5 precursors.
Thus, it is not appropriate for a state or the EPA to presume that a
failure to meet RFP or to attain is presumptively the result of a
single easily identified source to have violated the emissions
limitations in an attainment plan for the PM2.5 NAAQS.
Accordingly, the EPA has assessed whether the situation in the
Fairbanks PM2.5 Nonattainment Area is sufficiently analogous
to an SO2 nonattainment area to warrant extending the EPA's
approach to SO2 contingency measures to Alaska's enforceable
commitments. The EPA acknowledges that the emissions inventories and
RFP provisions of the Fairbanks Revised 189(d) Plan make clear that the
dominant contributor to elevated PM2.5 concentrations in the
nonattainment area is the solid fuel-burning device source category,
i.e., wood stoves. The EPA has approved Alaska's control strategy as
meeting BACM for this source category and is proposing to determine
that the Fairbanks Revised 189(d) Plan meets the CAA section 189(d)
requirements. Thus, a failure to achieve RFP or QM requirements, or to
achieve attainment could be attributable to widespread noncompliance
with preexisting measures limiting emissions from the solid fuel-
burning device source category. Although comprised of numerous
relatively small sources, widespread noncompliance could cumulatively
be comparable to that by a single major stationary source.
Therefore, if the State were to fail to meet an RFP or QM
requirement or fail to attain the NAAQS by the applicable attainment
date, then improving compliance with the Solid Fuel-Burning Appliance
Curtailment Program and date certain removal requirement could be
critical to ensuring the area achieves progress towards attainment. As
previously discussed, the EPA is proposing to approve the State's
determination that there are no other feasible measures that would meet
contingency measures requirements. The EPA also acknowledges that
Alaska's methods of assessing current and predicting future compliance
rates with its control strategy have improved over time. This is
evident by the results of Alaska's Fairbanks Winter Home Heating Energy
Model and Multiple Residential Heating Surveys.\271\ In these ways, the
situation in Fairbanks shares similarities to SO2
nonattainment areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\271\ State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol. II, section
III.D.7.6.9.3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, critical distinctions remain that suggest the Fairbanks
PM2.5 Nonattainment Area should not be treated the same as
an SO2 nonattainment area for the purposes of contingency
measures requirements. In particular, the major contributors to ambient
PM2.5 levels in Fairbanks are wood stoves, which emit direct
PM2.5, and oil furnaces, which emit SO2, a
PM2.5 precursor for area source purposes. There are tens of
thousands of these area sources throughout the nonattainment area.\272\
They vary in make, model, age, and emissions potential.\273\
Importantly, actual emissions are highly dependent on operator
behavior--particularly for wood stoves. This is different from the
single or handful of major stationary sources that a state typically
regulates in SO2 NAAQS nonattainment areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\272\ Id.
\273\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
By extension, measuring and predicting compliance with controls on
wood stoves and oil furnaces is less precise than SO2
emissions controls on major stationary sources. In addition, assuring
compliance by thousands of individual wood stove operators is
significantly more resource intensive than enforcement against an
SO2 source--particularly in detecting violations. Thus,
while a comprehensive enforcement program to assure compliance by major
stationary sources in SO2 nonattainment areas satisfies the
[[Page 1631]]
CAA requirement that contingency measures be comprised of ``specific
measures'' that would ``take effect with minimal further action by the
state or EPA'' following a triggering event, this is not the case for
PM2.5 nonattainment areas.\274\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\274\ The EPA solicits comments on this assessment and
conclusion. Given that Alaska's enforceable commitments meet all
other requirements in 40 CFR 51.1014, the EPA may approve these
commitments as contingency measures if commenters provide a
compelling basis to show that the EPA should treat the Fairbanks
PM2.5 Nonattainment Area as analogous to an
SO2 nonattainment area for the purposes of contingency
measures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thus, the EPA proposes to approve the enforceable commitments in
State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol. II, section III.D.7.2.1 as SIP-
strengthening that will enhance the State's overall approach to
attaining and maintaining the NAAQS in the Fairbanks PM2.5
Nonattainment Area.
d. Sufficiency of Emissions Reductions From Alaska's Contingency
Measures
Alaska's contingency measure, reducing the solid fuel-burning
device curtailment thresholds, would achieve approximately 0.086 tons
per day PM2.5 emissions reductions with an increase of 0.047
tons per day SO2 emissions.\275\ This falls short of the one
year's worth of progress metric for both pollutants, 0.102 tons per
episode day of direct PM2.5 emissions and 0.115 tons per day
of SO2 emissions. The estimates of emissions reductions from
the other two contingency measures related to enhanced enforcement are
not included in this calculation because the EPA is proposing to
approve them as SIP-strengthening measures. However, as discussed in
section II.G.3 of this preamble, the EPA proposes to determine that
Alaska has provided a reasoned justification for why the state cannot
adopt additional contingency measures to make up the shortfall.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\275\ Applying Alaska's interpollutant trading mechanism, the
combined emissions reductions for PM2.5 and
SO2 are estimated to be 0.077 tons per day, representing
62 percent of the one year's of interpollutant emissions reductions
for PM2.5 and SO2. See State Air Quality
Control Plan, Vol. II, section III.D.7.11.5.2; see also State Air
Quality Control Plan, Vol. II, section III.D.7.11, Table 7.11-6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on the reasons in the preceding paragraphs, the EPA is
proposing to approve the Fairbanks Revised 189(d) Plan as meeting the
contingency measures requirements in CAA section 172(c)(9) and 40 CFR
51.1014.
H. Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets for Transportation Conformity
1. Statutory and Regulatory Requirements Regarding the Motor Vehicle
Emission Budgets
CAA section 176(c) requires Federal activities in nonattainment and
maintenance areas to conform to the SIP's purpose of eliminating or
reducing the severity and number of violations of the NAAQS and
achieving expeditious attainment of the standards. Conformity to the
SIP means that such activities 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.
Transportation plans, transportation improvement programs (TIPs),
and transportation projects 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, the EPA, FHWA and FTA to
demonstrate that an area's transportation plan and TIP conform to the
applicable SIP. This demonstration typically includes a regional
emissions analysis that shows that estimated emissions from existing
and planned highway and transit systems are less than or equal to the
SIP's motor vehicle emissions budgets (``budgets'') that the EPA has
found adequate or approved. An attainment plan for the PM2.5
NAAQS should include budgets for the attainment year and each required
RFP year, as appropriate. Budgets are generally established for
specific years and specific pollutants or precursors and 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 would identify motor
vehicle emission budgets for the attainment year and each RFP year for
direct PM2.5 and typically for NOX (unless
certain criteria are met in the transportation conformity rule, 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)). Direct PM2.5 emission budgets would
include direct PM2.5 motor vehicle emissions from tailpipe,
brake wear, and tire wear. A state should 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, July 1, 2004, at pp. 40031-40036.\276\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\276\ For further information on transportation conformity
rulemakings, policy guidance and outreach materials, see the EPA's
website at https://www.epa.gov/state-and-local-transportation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Summary of the EPA's Prior Action Regarding the Motor Vehicle
Emission Budgets
The EPA disapproved the budgets for the Fairbanks PM2.5
Nonattainment Area in the December 5, 2023, final rule.\277\ The EPA
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 submitted SIP. The EPA found that the budgets were
clearly identified and precisely quantified using MOVES2014b, with
appropriate consultation among Federal, State, and local agencies.
However, the EPA found that the budgets did not meet other adequacy
criteria: the budgets, when considered together with all other
emissions sources, must be consistent with applicable RFP or attainment
requirements, and must 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). Because the control strategy in the Fairbanks
Serious Plan and Fairbanks 189(d) Plan did not include all required
control measures, the budgets did not reflect all the required control
measures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\277\ 88 FR 84626, December 5, 2023, at p. 84676.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Summary of the State's Submission Regarding the Motor Vehicle
Emission Budgets
The Fairbanks Revised 189(d) Plan includes budgets for direct
PM2.5 for each of the upcoming RFP years (2023, 2026, and
2029) and the 2027 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 PM2.5 Nonattainment Area, and the
EPA finalized approval of that precursor demonstration on December 5,
2023.\278\ For VOC, SO2 and NH3, in accordance
with 40 CFR 93.102(b)(2)(v), transportation-related emissions of these
[[Page 1632]]
precursors have not been found to be significant.\279\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\278\ See section II.B.2. Note that 40 CFR 93.102(b)(2)(iv)
indicates that NOX would apply in transportation
conformity unless the appropriate finding has been made or if the
SIP does not establish a budget for NOX.
\279\ Under 40 CFR 93.102(b)(2)(v), the requirements of the
transportation conformity rule apply for VOC, SO2, and/or
NH3 in a PM2.5 area if either (1) the EPA
Regional Administrator or the director of the state air agency makes
a finding that transportation-related emissions of any of these
precursors within the nonattainment area are a significant
contributor to the PM2.5 nonattainment problem and has so
notified the MPO and DOT, or (2) if the applicable implementation
plan or submission establishes an approved or adequate budget for
such emissions as part of the reasonable further progress,
attainment or maintenance strategy. Because neither criterion is met
for the Fairbanks area, budgets were not included for VOC,
SO2, and NH3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The direct PM2.5 budgets were calculated using the
MOVES3 vehicle emissions model, which was the latest on-road mobile
sources emissions model available at the time Alaska started developing
the attainment plan inventory. Although a major model update was
released in September 2023, MOVES4, the motor vehicle emission budgets
were developed using MOVES3.0.3 (released January 2022) as significant
work had already been completed on the SIP amendment prior to the
release of MOVES4. The use of MOVES3 was agreed upon following
consultation with applicable Federal, state, and local agencies.
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 MOVES3 with locally developed
inputs representative of wintertime 2019-2020 conditions. Table 6 of
this preamble summarizes the regional average winter day on-road
vehicle PM2.5 emission budgets and the related CAA milestone
for the nonattainment area.
Table 6--PM2.5 Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets by Milestone Year
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM2.5 on-road
Calendar year budgets (tons CAA-related milestone
per day)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2020...................... 0.074 Base year.
2023...................... 0.062 RFP.
2026...................... 0.054 RFP.
2027...................... 0.052 Attainment.
2029...................... 0.049 RFP.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol II, section III.D.7.14,
Table 7.14-2.
4. The EPA's Evaluation and Proposed Action Regarding the Motor Vehicle
Emission Budgets
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. Because the EPA believes the budgets meet the criteria in
the transportation conformity regulation at 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4), the
EPA proposes to approve them as part of this SIP submission that
addresses attainment and RFP.
The Fairbanks Revised 189(d) Plan was submitted by the Alaska
Governor's designee--the Commissioner of Alaska Department of
Environmental Conservations.\280\ Consultation among Federal, State,
and local agencies occurred prior to Alaska's submission of the
Fairbanks Revised 189(d) Plan.\281\ This consultation is documented in
the State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol. II, section III.D.7.14. The
budgets are clearly identified and precisely quantified (40 CFR
93.118(e)(4)(iii)).\282\ The EPA proposes to find that the budgets are
consistent with applicable RFP and attainment requirements (40 CFR
93.118(e)(4)(iv)), as well as the emissions inventory and control
measures in the Fairbanks Revised 189(d) Plan (40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)(v)).
The Fairbanks Revised 189(d) Plan also includes Alaska's explanations
and documentation for any revisions to the Fairbanks Serious Plan and
initial Fairbanks 189(d) Plan, including revisions to control measures,
previously submitted budgets, and prior attainment projections.\283\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\280\ 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)(i).
\281\ 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)(ii).
\282\ 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)(vi).
\283\ 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)(vi).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to proposing approval of the budgets, the EPA is also
initiating the adequacy review process for the budgets in this proposed
rulemaking. When reviewing submitted SIPs containing budgets, the EPA
reviews budgets for adequacy. Once the EPA affirmatively finds the
submitted budget is adequate for transportation conformity purposes,
that budget must be used by state and Federal agencies in determining
whether proposed transportation activities conform to the SIP as
required by section 176(c) of the CAA. See 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)(1).\284\
The EPA may find budgets adequate before the SIP is approved in a final
rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\284\ However, the budgets in submitted implementation plans do
not supersede the budgets in an approved SIP submission for the same
CAA requirement and the period of years addressed by the previously
approved SIP submission, unless the EPA specifies otherwise in its
approval of a SIP submission. 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The substantive criteria the EPA uses for determining adequacy of a
budget are set out in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4); these criteria were
discussed above as the basis for the EPA's proposed approval. The
process for determining adequacy is found in 40 CFR 93.118(f) and
consists of three basic steps: (1) public notification of a SIP
submission; (2) a public comment period; and (3) the EPA's adequacy
determination. The EPA can begin an adequacy review through a proposed
rulemaking in the Federal Register based on the transportation
conformity regulation at 40 CFR 93.118(f)(2). This proposed rulemaking
notifies the public that the EPA has received a SIP submission with
budgets that the EPA will review for adequacy and begins the public
comment period. The EPA invites the public to comment on the adequacy
of budgets as well as other actions the EPA is proposing in this
proposed rulemaking. Comments must be submitted by the close of the
comment period. See the DATES section of this document for details.
Interested members of the public can access the Fairbanks Revised
189(d) Plan and other relevant information at https://www.regulations.gov, under Docket ID No. EPA-R10-OAR-0595. Following
the EPA's public comment period, the EPA will consider any comments
received.
III. Summary of Proposed Action
A. Proposed Approval
In this action, the EPA is proposing to approve the submitted
revisions to the Alaska SIP as meeting the following Serious Plan and
CAA section 189(d) \285\ required elements for the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS Fairbanks Nonattainment Area:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\285\ 42 U.S.C. 7513a(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. The 2020 base year emissions inventory (CAA section 172(c)(3);
\286\ 40 CFR 51.1008(c)(1)) for areas subject to CAA section 189(d));
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\286\ 42 U.S.C. 7502(c)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 1633]]
2. The 2027 attainment projected emissions inventory (CAA section
172(c)(1); \287\ 40 CFR 51.1008(c)(2));
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\287\ 42 U.S.C. 7502(c)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. The State's PM2.5 major stationary source precursor
demonstration for SO2 emissions (CAA section 189(e); \288\
40 CFR 51.1006(a));
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\288\ 42 U.S.C. 7513a(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. The control strategy as meeting the BACM requirements under CAA
section 189(b)(1)(B) \289\ and 40 CFR 51.1010(a) for the following
emission source categories:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\289\ 42 U.S.C. 7513a(b)(1)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
a. Requirements for wood sellers;
b. Coal-fired heating devices;
c. Coffee roasters;
d. Weatherization and energy efficiency measures; and
e. Mobile source emissions;
5. Control strategy BACT requirements for direct PM2.5
emissions (CAA section 189(b)(1)(B) \290\ and 40 CFR 51.1010(a)) for
the following emission sources:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\290\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
a. Chena Power Plant;
b. Doyon-Fort Wainwright Central Heating and Power Plant;
c. University of Alaska Fairbanks Power Plant;
d. Zehnder Facility;
e. North Pole Power Plant;
6. 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) (if applicable) under CAA
section 189(d) \291\ and 40 CFR 51.1010(c);
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\291\ 42 U.S.C. 7513a(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Attainment demonstration and modeling meeting the requirements
of CAA sections 188(c)(2) and 189(b)(1)(A) \292\ and 40 CFR 51.1003(c)
and 51.1011;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\292\ 42 U.S.C. 7513(c)(2); 7513a(b)(1)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. Reasonable further progress provisions meeting the requirements
of CAA section 172(c)(2) \293\ and 40 CFR 51.1012;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\293\ 42 U.S.C. 7502(c)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. Motor vehicle emission budgets meeting the requirements under 40
CFR 93.118;
10. Quantitative milestones meeting the requirements of CAA section
189(c) \294\ and 40 CFR 51.1013;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\294\ 42 U.S.C. 7513a(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Contingency measures meeting the requirements of CAA section
172(c)(9) \295\ and 40 CFR 51.1014 applicable to Serious areas subject
to CAA section 189(b) and 189(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\295\ 42 U.S.C. 7502(c)(9).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA is proposing to approve the following submitted sections of
the State Air Quality Control Plan for the Fairbanks PM2.5
Nonattainment Area, State effective December 14, 2024:
1. Volume II, section III.D.7.06 Emissions Inventory;
2. Volume II, section III.D.7.07 Control Strategy;
3. Volume II, section III.D.7.08 Modeling;
4. Volume II, section III.D.7.09 Attainment Demonstration;
5. Volume II, section III.D.7.10 Reasonable Further Progress and
Quantitative Milestones;
6. Volume II, section III.D.7.11 Contingency Measures;
7. Volume II, section III.D.7.12 Emergency Episode Plan;
8. Volume II, section III.D.7.14 Conformity and Motor Vehicle
Emission Budgets;
9. Volume III, Appendix III.D.7.06 Emissions Inventory;
10. Volume III, Appendix III.D.7.07 Control Strategy; \296\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\296\ The EPA is not proposing to take action on Alaska's
SO2 BACT determinations in State Air Quality Control
Plan, Vol. III, Appendix III.D.7.7 at this time. If the EPA does not
finalize approval of the SO2 precursor demonstration,
then the EPA will propose action on Alaska's SO2 BACT
determinations separately.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Volume III, Appendix III.D.7.08 Modeling;
12. Volume III, Appendix III.D.7.09 Attainment Demonstration;
13. Volume III, Appendix III.D.7.10 Reasonable Further Progress and
Quantitative Milestones;
14. Volume III, Appendix III.D.7.14 Conformity and Motor Vehicle
Emission Budgets.
The EPA is also proposing to approve and incorporate by reference
submitted regulatory changes into the Alaska SIP. Upon final approval,
the Alaska SIP will include the following regulations, State effective
December 8, 2024:
1. 18 AAC 50.055 (industrial processes and fuel-burning equipment
requirements), except (d)(2)(B);
2. 18 AAC 50.076 (solid fuel-fired heating device fuel
requirements; registration of commercial wood sellers), except (g)(11);
3. 18 AAC 50.077 (standards for wood fired heating devices), except
(g);
4. 18 AAC 50.078 (additional control measures for a serious
PM2.5 nonattainment area), except (c);
5. 18 AAC 50.079 (provisions for coal-fired heating devices); and
6. 18 AAC 50.081 (Real estate transaction requirements;
weatherization and energy efficiency).
The EPA is also proposing to approve and incorporate by reference
submitted permits into the Alaska SIP. Upon final approval, the Alaska
SIP will include:
1. Minor Permit AQ1121MSS04 Rev. 1, Title Page, Table of Contents,
List of Abbreviations and Acronyms, Section 1, Section 3, Section 4,
and Section 6, only, State effective December 14, 2024 (Doyon
Utilities, LLC--Fort Wainwright (Privatized Emission Units);
2. Minor Permit AQ0236MSS03 Rev. 2, Title Page, Table of Contents,
List of Abbreviations and Acronyms, Section 1, Section 3, Section 4,
and Section 6, only State effective December 14, 2024 (U.S. Army
Garrison Fort Wainwright);
3. Minor Permit AQ0110MSS01 Rev. 1, Title Page, Table of Contents,
List of Abbreviations and Acronyms, Section 1, Section 3, Section 4,
and Section 6, only, State effective December 14, 2024 (Golden Valley
Electric Association, North Pole Power Plant);
4. Minor Permit AQ0109MSS01 Rev. 2, Title Page, Table of Contents,
List of Abbreviations and Acronyms, Section 1, Section 3, Section 4,
and Section 6, only, State effective December 14, 2024 (Golden Valley
Electric Association, Zehnder Facility);
5. Minor Permit AQ0315MSS02 Revision 1, Title Page, Table of
Contents, List of Abbreviations and Acronyms, Section 1, Section 3,
Section 4, and Section 6, only, State effective December 14, 2024
(Aurora Energy LLC, Chena Power Plant);
6. Minor Permit AQ0316MSS08 Revision 1, Title Page, Table of
Contents, List of Abbreviations and Acronyms, Section 1, Section 3,
Section 4, and Section 6, only, State effective December 14, 2024
(University of Alaska Fairbanks, University of Alaska Fairbanks
Campus).
B. Adequacy Process
In this action, the EPA is also initiating the adequacy process for
the PM2.5 budgets included in this SIP submission. For
further details, see section II.H.4.
IV. Interim Final Determination and Deferral of Sanctions
Please see the EPA's Interim Final Determination published in the
``Rules'' section of this Federal Register.
V. Incorporation by Reference
In this document, the 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, the EPA is proposing to
incorporate by reference the regulations described in section III. of
this document. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these
materials generally available through https://www.regulations.gov and
at the EPA Region 10 Office (please contact the person identified in
the FOR FURTHER
[[Page 1634]]
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for more information).
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders
can be found at https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review as Amended by
Executive Order 14094: Modernizing 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) (44 U.S.C. 3401 et. seq.)
This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the PRA, because this proposed SIP approval, if finalized, will not in-
and-of itself create any new information collection burdens, but will
simply approve certain State requirements for inclusion in the SIP.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et. seq.)
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 approval, if finalized, will not in-and-of itself create
any new requirements but will simply approve certain State requirements
for inclusion in the SIP.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) (Pub. L. 104-4)
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 approve 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 approve would not apply on any Indian reservation land or in any
other area where the EPA or an Indian Tribe has demonstrated that a
Tribe has jurisdiction, and will not impose substantial direct costs on
Tribal governments or preempt Tribal law. Thus, Executive Order 13175
does not apply to this action.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks
that the 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 approval, if finalized,
will not in-and-of itself create any new regulations, but will simply
approve 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 the EPA to use voluntary
consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would
be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. The 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 (Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629,
February 16, 1994) directs Federal agencies to identify and address
``disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects'' of their actions on communities with environmental justice
(EJ) concerns to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law.
Executive Order 14096 (Revitalizing Our Nation's Commitment to
Environmental Justice for All, 88 FR 25251, April 26, 2023) builds on
and supplements Executive Order 12898 and defines EJ as, among other
things, the just treatment and meaningful involvement of all people,
regardless of income, race, color, national origin, or Tribal
affiliation, or disability in agency decision-making and other Federal
activities that affect human health and the environment.''
The air agency did not evaluate EJ considerations as part of its
SIP submission; the CAA and applicable implementing regulations neither
prohibit nor require such an evaluation. The EPA did not perform an EJ
analysis and did not consider EJ in this action. Consideration of EJ is
not required as part of this action, and there is no information in the
record inconsistent with the stated goal of Executive Order 12898/14096
of achieving EJ for communities with EJ concerns.
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 17, 2024.
Casey Sixkiller,
Regional Administrator, Region 10.
[FR Doc. 2024-30648 Filed 1-7-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
