[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 21 (Thursday, February 2, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 9035-9054]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-02193]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R10-OAR-2015-0131: FRL-9959-01-Region 10]


Air Plan Approval; AK, Fairbanks North Star Borough; 2006 PM2.5 
Moderate Area Plan

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to 
approve state implementation plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the 
State of Alaska (Alaska) to address Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) 
requirements for the 2006 24-hour fine particulate matter 
(PM2.5) national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) in 
the Fairbanks North Star Borough Moderate PM2.5 
nonattainment area (FNSB NAA). Alaska submitted an attainment plan on 
December 31, 2014, and made additional submissions and provided 
clarifying information to supplement the attainment plan for the area 
in January 2015, March 2015, July 2015, November 2015, March 2016, 
November 2016, and January 2017 (hereafter, the initial submission and 
all supplemental and clarifying information will be collectively 
referred to as ``the FNSB Moderate Plan'').

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before March 6, 2017.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R10-
OAR-2015-0131, at http://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 whose disclosure 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 http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Claudia Vaupel, Air Planning Unit, 
Office of Air and Waste (OAW-150), Environmental Protection Agency, 
Region 10, 1200 Sixth Ave, Suite 900, Seattle, WA 98101; telephone 
number: 206-553-6121, email address: [email protected].

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

Table of Contents:

I. Background for the EPA's Proposed Action
    A. Regulatory Background
    B. FNSB NAA Background
II. The EPA's Evaluation of the FNSB Moderate Plan
    A. Emissions Inventories
    B. Pollutants Addressed
    C. Reasonably Available Control Measures/Reasonably Available 
Control Technology
    D. Air Quality Modeling
    E. Demonstration That Attainment by the Moderate Area Attainment 
Date Is Impracticable
    F. Reasonable Further Progress and Quantitative Milestones
    G. Contingency Measures
    H. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets
    I. FNSB NAA Exceptional Event Demonstrations and Concurrences
III. Proposed Action
IV. Incorporation by Reference
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background for the EPA's Proposed Action

A. Regulatory Background

    On October 17, 2006, the EPA strengthened the 24-hour 
PM2.5 NAAQS by lowering the level of the standards from 65 
[micro]g/m\3\ to 35 [micro]g/m\3\ in order to provide increased 
protection of public health (40 CFR 50.13).\1\ Epidemiological studies 
have shown statistically significant correlations between elevated 
PM2.5 levels and premature mortality. Other important 
adverse health effects associated with elevated PM2.5 
exposure include aggravation of respiratory and cardiovascular disease 
(as indicated by increased hospital admissions, emergency room visits, 
absences from school or work, and restricted activity days), changes in 
lung function and increased respiratory symptoms. Individuals 
particularly sensitive to PM2.5 exposure include older 
adults, people with heart and lung disease, and children (78 FR 3088, 
January 15, 2013). PM2.5 can be emitted directly into the 
atmosphere as a solid or liquid particle (``primary PM2.5'' 
or ``direct PM2.5'') or can be formed in the atmosphere as a 
result of various chemical reactions among precursor pollutants such as 
nitrogen oxides, sulfur oxides, volatile organic compounds, and ammonia 
(``secondary PM2.5'').\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See 71 FR 61224 (October 17, 2006). The EPA set the first 
NAAQS for PM2.5 on July 18, 1997 (62 FR 36852), including 
annual standards of 15.0 mg/m\3\ based on a 3-year average of annual 
mean PM2.5 concentrations and 24-hour (daily) standards 
of 65 mg/m\3\ based on a 3-year average of 98th percentile 24-hour 
concentrations (40 CFR 50.7). In 2012, the EPA revised the annual 
standard to lower its level to 12 mg/m\3\ (78 FR 3086, January 15, 
2013, codified at 40 CFR 50.18). Unless otherwise noted, all 
references to the PM2.5 standard in this notice are to 
the 2006 24-hour standard of 35 mg/m\3\ codified at 40 CFR 50.13.
    \2\ See EPA, Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Final Revisions 
to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter 
(EPA-452/R-12-005, December 2012), p. 2-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Following promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, the EPA is 
required by section 107(d)(1) of the CAA to designate areas throughout 
the United States as attainment, nonattainment, or unclassifiable for 
the NAAQS. Nonattainment areas include both areas that are violating 
the NAAQS, and nearby areas with emissions sources or activities that 
contribute to violations in those areas. States with areas designated 
nonattainment are required to prepare and submit a plan for attaining 
the NAAQS in the area as expeditiously as practicable.
    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 (subpart 
1) and the additional planning requirements specific to particulate 
matter in CAA sections 188 and 189 of title I, part D, subpart 4 
(subpart 4). The EPA has a longstanding general guidance document that 
interprets the 1990 amendments to the CAA,

[[Page 9036]]

commonly referred to as the ``General Preamble'' (57 FR 13498, April 
16, 1992). The General Preamble addresses the relationship between 
subpart 1 and subpart 4 requirements and provides recommendations to 
states for meeting statutory requirements for particulate matter 
nonattainment planning. Specifically, the General Preamble explains 
that requirements applicable to Moderate area nonattainment SIPs are 
set forth in subpart 4, but such SIPs must also meet the general 
nonattainment planning provisions in subpart 1, to the extent these 
provisions ``are not otherwise subsumed by, or integrally related to,'' 
the more specific subpart 4 requirements. 57 FR 13538. On August 16, 
1994, the EPA promulgated an addendum to the General Preamble providing 
additional guidance for particulate matter nonattainment areas. 59 FR 
41988. Additionally, on August 24, 2016, the EPA issued a final rule, 
Fine Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards: State 
Implementation Plan Requirements (PM2.5 Implementation Rule, 
81 FR 58009), to clarify our interpretations of the statutory 
requirements that apply to PM2.5 nonattainment areas.
    The requirements of subpart 1 for attainment plans include, among 
other things: (i) The section 172(c)(1) requirements to provide for the 
implementation of reasonably available control measures (RACM) and 
reasonably available control technology (RACT), and attainment of the 
NAAQS; (ii) the section 172(c)(2) requirement to demonstrate reasonable 
further progress (RFP); (iii) the section 172(c)(3) requirement for 
emissions inventories; and (iv) the section 172(c)(9) requirement for 
contingency measures.
    The subpart 4 requirements for Moderate areas are generally 
comparable with the subpart 1 requirements and include: (i) Section 
189(a)(1)(B) requirements to demonstrate attainment by the outermost 
statutory Moderate area attainment date (i.e., the end of the sixth 
calendar year following designation) or that attainment by such date is 
impracticable; (ii) section 189(a)(1)(C) requirements to ensure RACM 
will be implemented within four years of designation; (iii) section 
189(c) requirements for RFP and quantitative milestones (QMs); and (iv) 
section 189(e) control requirements for precursor emissions from major 
stationary sources. In the event that the EPA reclassifies a Moderate 
nonattainment area to Serious, subpart 4 imposes additional 
requirements. In this action, the EPA is evaluating Alaska's attainment 
plan for the FNSB NAA for compliance with the statutory and regulatory 
requirements applicable to Moderate PM2.5 nonattainment 
areas.

B. FNSB NAA Background

    The EPA designated a portion of the Fairbanks North Star Borough as 
nonattainment for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS upon 
evaluation of monitored air quality data for 2006-2008 (74 FR 58689, 
November 13, 2009). Based on the 43 [mu]g/m\3\ 2006-2008 design value 
at the State Office Building monitoring site, Alaska and the EPA 
determined that a portion of the Fairbanks North Star Borough was 
violating the NAAQS or contained sources contributing to a violation of 
the NAAQS. Alaska noted that exceedances of the standard occur during 
cold and stagnant weather patterns in the winter season and in the 
summer months as the result of wildfires which Alaska flagged as 
``exceptional events'' in accordance with the EPA's Exceptional Events 
Rule at 40 CFR 50.14. At the time of designation, and also when Alaska 
submitted the initial FNSB Moderate Plan, the regulatory monitor in the 
FNSB NAA used by Alaska and the EPA was the monitor located at the 
State Office Building in downtown Fairbanks. Accordingly, the analyses 
that formed the basis of the FNSB Moderate Plan were premised upon data 
from this monitor location. Unless otherwise noted, monitored data and 
future year projections discussed in this action refer to the State 
Office Building monitor location.
    As part of its attainment planning analysis, Alaska evaluated total 
PM2.5 and speciated PM2.5 data from the State 
Office Building monitor to help identify the appropriate emission 
control strategy for the FNSB NAA. Alaska chose the 2006-2010 period 
for the baseline representing conditions before emission controls and 
calculated a baseline design value of 44.7 [mu]g/m\3\. During the most 
polluted wintertime days from 2006-2010, Alaska found that ambient 
PM2.5 in the area was dominated by organic carbon, followed 
by sulfate. The results of Alaska's analysis of the average speciated 
PM2.5 mass for these days are presented by chemical species 
in table 1.\3\ Through its analysis of observed data and modeling 
sources in the FNSB NAA, Alaska concludes that throughout the winter 
months, residential wood heating is the major source of 
PM2.5 and accounts for 60-80 percent of the observed 
PM2.5. Sources of secondary sulfate account for 8-20 percent 
of the observed PM2.5, and diesel and gasoline engines 
account for 0-10 percent and 0-7 percent of the observed 
PM2.5, respectively (FNSB Moderate Plan section III.D.5.8 
and its associated appendix).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ In section II.D of this proposal, we provide a more detailed 
discussion of air quality modeling and the presentation of speciated 
PM2.5 in the area in the FNSB Moderate Plan.

   Table 1--FNSB NAA Speciated PM2.5 Mass at the State Office Building
                                 Monitor
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Observed
                                                           concentration
                                                            on polluted
                         Species                            winter days
                                                            ([micro]g/
                                                               m\3\)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM2.5 Total.............................................            44.7
Organic Carbon..........................................            24.9
Elemental Carbon........................................             2.9
Sulfate.................................................             8.2
Nitrate.................................................             1.9
Ammonium................................................             3.6
Particle-Bound Water....................................             2.7
Other PM2.5.............................................             0.5
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For planning and air quality modeling purposes, Alaska selected two 
multi-day episodes in 2008 (January 23-February 10 and November 2-17). 
Alaska explains that these episodes represent typical conditions in the 
area when PM2.5 concentrations exceed the NAAQS, as well as 
the conditions leading up to the high concentrations. The January-
February episode (19 days) represents a very cold episode. The average 
daily temperatures were below -30[emsp14][deg]F for 6 of the 19 days. 
As is typical of cold, stagnant episodes, the very cold days come in 
batches, with warmer and less stagnant periods occurring in between. 
The PM2.5 values for 10 of the days in this episode were 
above the 35 [mu]g/m\3\ standard and 4 of them were above 60 [mu]g/
m\3\. The November episode (16 days) represents a relatively warm 
episode. None of the days in this episode had an average daily 
temperature below -10[emsp14][deg]F. The PM2.5 values for 6 
of the days were above the 35 [mu]g/m\3\ standard and the highest days 
were in the vicinity of 50 [mu]g/m\3\. Alaska did not use episodes with 
violations during the summer months because those have historically 
been associated with exceptional events, such as wildfires. For 
purposes of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, the EPA's 
implementation regulations and guidance authorize states to focus their 
analysis on representative multi-day episodes to help to determine the 
most effective control strategy for a given nonattainment area.
    Alaska's control strategy in the FNSB NAA focuses on reducing 
emissions from the key category of residential

[[Page 9037]]

heating sources that contribute to nonattainment in the area. The EPA 
notes that Alaska's initial December 2014 submission cited a citizen's 
referendum as a basis for not adopting and implementing many of the 
control measures analyzed. The referendum, in place from 2010 to 2014, 
limited the authority of the Fairbanks North Star Borough local 
government (the Borough) to regulate sources related to residential 
heating in any manner. Despite the limit on the Borough's authority, 
the EPA notes that under section 110 of the CAA, the State of Alaska is 
ultimately responsible for development and implementation of an 
attainment plan to meet the NAAQS by the attainment date. The EPA does 
not view the referendum to be a valid basis for asserting that a 
control measure is unreasonable. In October 2014, the referendum 
expired and the Borough began the process to adopt more stringent 
control measures for emissions from this source category. However, it 
was not possible for the Borough to enact these measures and for Alaska 
to adopt them into the SIP by the December 31, 2014 submission 
deadline. In February 2015, the Borough revised and strengthened its 
curtailment program and enacted other control measures that Alaska 
adopted for inclusion in the FNSB Moderate Plan and submitted to the 
EPA for review in a November 22, 2016 supplementary submission.
    The EPA promulgated the nonattainment designation for the FNSB NAA 
based on data from the State Office Building monitor, which was the 
monitor that at the time had the requisite 3 years of complete, quality 
assured data for the regulatory purpose of calculating the design value 
for the area. Accordingly, Alaska has conducted its analyses and 
developed the FNSB Moderate Plan using the data from the regulatory 
monitor at the State Office Building. The EPA notes that an additional 
monitor located at the North Pole Fire Station became a regulatory 
monitor in 2015, subsequent to the initial submission of the FNSB 
Moderate Plan. The North Pole Fire Station monitor currently records 
the highest values in the FNSB NAA and had a 2013-2015 design value of 
124 [mu]g/m\3\.
    On December 16, 2016, the EPA proposed to find that the FNSB NAA 
did not attain by the latest permissible statutory Moderate area 
attainment date of December 31, 2015, and proposed to reclassify the 
area from Moderate to Serious pursuant to CAA section 188(b)(2). See 81 
FR 91088. If the FNSB NAA is reclassified to Serious, Alaska will be 
required to submit a Serious area attainment plan by December 31, 2017. 
Although not used for the nonattainment designation or as part of the 
FNSB Moderate Plan, the EPA expects that the data from the North Pole 
Fire Station monitor will be included in the analyses for the 
development of a Serious area attainment plan for the FNSB NAA.

II. The EPA's Evaluation of the FNSB Moderate Plan

    On December 31, 2014, Alaska submitted its initial Moderate area 
attainment plan for the FNSB NAA. Alaska made additional submissions 
and provided clarifying information to supplement the attainment plan 
in January 2015, March 2015, July 2015, November 2015, March 2016, 
November 2016, and January 2017 (as previously noted, the initial 
submission and all supplemental and clarifying information will be 
collectively referred to as ``the FNSB Moderate Plan'').
    The primary control strategy in the FNSB Moderate Plan is to reduce 
emissions from residential wood combustion. The FNSB Moderate Plan 
includes emissions inventories, an evaluation of precursors for control 
in the area, RACM/RACT demonstrations for direct PM2.5 and 
precursors, a demonstration that attainment by the December 31, 2015 
attainment date is impracticable, QM and RFP requirements, and 
contingency measures. Each of these elements is discussed below.

A. Emissions Inventories

1. Requirements for Emissions Inventories
    Section 172(c)(3) of the CAA requires a state with an area 
designated as nonattainment to submit a ``comprehensive, accurate, 
current inventory of actual emissions from all sources of the relevant 
pollutant'' for the nonattainment area. By requiring an accounting of 
actual emissions from all sources of the relevant pollutants in the 
area, this section provides for the base year inventory to include all 
emissions from sources in the nonattainment area that contribute to the 
formation of a particular NAAQS pollutant. For the 2006 24-hour 
PM2.5 NAAQS, this includes direct PM2.5 
(condensable and filterable) as well as the precursors to the formation 
of secondary PM2.5: Nitrogen oxides (NOX), sulfur 
dioxide (SO2), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and 
ammonia (NH3). 40 CFR 51.1008; 81 FR 58028. Inclusion of 
PM2.5 and all of the PM2.5 precursors in the 
emissions inventory is necessary in order to inform other aspects of 
the attainment plan development process, such as ascertaining which 
pollutants a state must control in order to attain the NAAQS in the 
area expeditiously.
    In addition to the base year inventory submitted to meet the 
requirements of CAA section 172(c)(3), the state must also submit 
future projected inventories for the projected attainment year and each 
QM year, and any other year of significance for meeting applicable CAA 
requirements. Projected emissions inventories for future years must 
account for, among other things, the ongoing effects of economic growth 
and adopted emissions control requirements, and are expected to be the 
best available representation of future emissions. The SIP submission 
should include documentation explaining how the state calculated the 
emissions data for the base year and projected inventories. The 
specific PM2.5 emissions inventory requirements are set 
forth in 40 CFR 51.1008. The EPA has provided additional guidance for 
developing PM2.5 emissions inventories in Emissions 
Inventory Guidance for Implementation of Ozone and Particulate Matter 
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and Regional Haze.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The EPA's Emissions Inventory Guidance for Implementation of 
Ozone and Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards 
(NAAQS) and Regional Haze is available at https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-inventories/emissions-inventory-guidance-documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Emissions Inventories in the FNSB Moderate Plan
    The emissions inventories for the FNSB NAA are discussed in the 
FNSB Moderate Plan section III.D.5.6 and appendix III.D.5.6. The FNSB 
Moderate Plan has three emissions inventories for the area: The 2008 
base year, the 2015 projected inventory for the Moderate area 
attainment date, and the projected inventory for the 2017 QM year. In 
addition, Alaska developed a projected emissions inventory for 2019 for 
informational purposes to facilitate development of the attainment 
plan. Each inventory lists direct PM2.5 emissions and 
emissions of all PM2.5 precursors (NOX, VOCs, 
NH3, and SO2). The 2008 and 2015 inventories for 
the FNSB NAA include separately reported filterable and condensable 
components of direct PM2.5 emissions. Alaska provided 
inventories from all sources in the FNSB NAA, including stationary 
point sources, stationary nonpoint (area sources), onroad mobile 
sources and nonroad mobile sources.
    The inventories are based on emissions estimated during the two

[[Page 9038]]

2008 episodes that represent weather conditions when exceedances of the 
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS typically occur. The inventory is 
an average of emissions across all days in the two episodes. It 
represents the average-season-day emissions, in which the emission 
inventory season is the wintertime episodes of cold and calm weather 
that coincide with exceedances of the standard.
    Alaska estimated winter episode average-season-day emissions for 
the FNSB NAA based on a gridded inventory of actual or projected 
emissions developed over an area larger than the FNSB NAA for air 
quality modeling. The emissions were calculated for the FNSB NAA by 
summing the emissions from grid cells within the area.
a. 2008 Base Year Emissions Inventory
    Alaska selected the year 2008 as the base year of the emissions 
inventory. The selection of 2008 as a base year is consistent with 
emissions inventory requirements because it is one of the three years 
that the EPA used for calculating the design value for the 2006 24-hour 
PM2.5 NAAQS designations. 40 CFR 51.1008(a)(1)(i); 81 FR 
58028. This inventory provides the basis for the control measure 
analysis, and for the RFP and impracticability demonstrations in the 
FNSB Moderate Plan. A summary of the 2008 base year winter episode 
average-season-day emissions inventory for the FNSB NAA is listed in 
table 2 in tons per day (tpd).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Alaska reported direct PM2.5 condensable and 
filterable emissions for point sources as 0.828 tpd and 0.686 tpd, 
respectively (see the November 3, 2016 clarification in the docket 
for this action). Alaska notes that, when accounting for the 
condensable component of direct PM2.5 emissions in its 
clarification, direct PM2.5 emissions from Stationary 
Point (actual) increased from 1.412 tpd to 1.515 tpd in the FNSB 
NAA. Alaska states that the increase has a small effect on 
PM2.5 concentrations, approximately 0.12 [mu]g/m\3\ due 
to the relatively small contribution to total PM2.5 
emissions from stationary point sources compared to area space-
heating sources.
    \6\ The 0.001 tpd discrepancy in the VOC and NH3 
totals is due to rounding.

             Table 2--2008 Base Year FNSB NAA Winter Episode Average-Season-Day Emissions Inventory
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Winter episode average-season-day (tpd)
      Source type/category       -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     PM2.5 \5\          SO2             NOX             VOC             NH3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stationary Point (actual).......           1.515           8.167          13.285           0.096          <0.001
Nonpoint/Area...................           2.817           3.865           2.184          11.627           0.136
Onroad..........................           0.676           0.046           4.625           5.725           0.071
Nonroad.........................           0.027           0.077           1.088           0.451           0.003
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total \6\...................           5.035          12.155          21.182          17.898           0.210
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Stationary Point Sources: Alaska included the actual emissions of 
six major stationary point sources in the emissions inventory. Actual 
emissions were based on historically recorded facility operating 
throughput or continuous emissions monitoring systems for the two 2008 
representative pollution episodes selected for planning purposes. 
Alaska defines the ``major source'' thresholds for reporting annual 
emissions as the potential to emit 100 tons annually for any relevant 
criteria air pollutant consistent with the EPA's Air Emissions 
Reporting Requirements, 40 CFR part 51, subpart A. Minor and synthetic 
minor sources (5 to 99 tons per year) were initially included in the 
stationary point sources category to ensure that smaller sources 
located within the nonattainment area just below the 100 ton per year 
major source threshold were also identified to determine if their 
emission levels might warrant inclusion in the inventory as stationary 
point sources. Those minor and synthetic minor sources that were not 
identified as stationary point sources were included in emissions 
inventory in the nonpoint/area sources category.
    Nonpoint/Area Sources: In the FNSB NAA, emissions from various 
sources used to heat residential and commercial buildings are 
cumulatively the largest source of primary PM2.5 emissions 
during PM2.5 episodes. This category, which Alaska refers to 
as ``space-heating'' sources in the FNSB Moderate Plan, includes 
sources such as hydronic heaters, wood stoves, pellet stoves, and 
residential oil heating. Alaska estimated emissions differently for 
space-heating sources than for other non-space heating area sources. 
For the non-space heating area sources, data was projected from a 2005 
emissions inventory with a population growth factor. The 2005 inventory 
combined seasonally-adjusted local activity estimates with EPA emission 
factors (see AP-42, Compilation of Air Pollution Emission Factors). 
Alaska also used data from the 2008 National Emissions Inventory to 
develop these estimates.
    For space-heating sources, Alaska used EPA emissions factors and 
locally collected data to estimate emissions by heating device and fuel 
type. Local activity data was gathered from a Fairbanks winter home 
heating energy model, multiple residential wood heating surveys, a 
Fairbanks wood species study, and emissions testing of Fairbanks 
heating devices. Table 3 provides the space heating winter episode 
average-season day emissions estimates by fuel type for the 2008 base 
year emissions inventory for the FNSB NAA.

Table 3--PM2.5 Space Heating Nonpoint/Area Sources Emissions for 2008 Base Year Emissions Inventory for the FNSB
                                                       NAA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Winter episode average-season-day (tpd)
 Space heating device/fuel type  -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       PM2.5            SO2             NOX             VOC             NH3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wood............................           2.656           0.084           0.373          10.914           0.098
Oil.............................           0.056           3.719           1.617           0.088           0.003
Other...........................           0.043           0.062           0.192           0.056           0.035
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 9039]]

 
    Total Space Heating \7\.....           2.756           3.865           2.182          11.058           0.136
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On-road Sources: The onroad emissions inventory consists of mobile 
sources such as automobiles, trucks, buses, and motorcycles. It was 
prepared using the EPA's Motor Vehicle Emissions Simulator 
(MOVES2010a), which was the latest onroad mobile sources emissions 
model available at the time Alaska started developing the attainment 
plan inventory. Alaska used local fleet and fuel inputs and the 
Fairbanks Metropolitan Area Transportation System travel demand model 
to generate local vehicle travel activity estimates. The use of engine 
block heaters to keep gasoline engines from freezing during winter 
months is common in the FNSB NAA. Alaska explains that having such a 
pre-warmed engine reduces the start emissions from these vehicles. The 
MOVES2010a model does not normally account for the impacts of engine 
block heaters on vehicle emissions. To account for the effects on 
starting exhaust PM2.5 emissions from wintertime plug-in 
block heater use in light-duty gasoline vehicles, Alaska made EPA-
approved modifications to the soak time distribution inputs contained 
in the MOVES2010a default database. Alaska executed MOVES2010a with 
locally developed inputs representative of wintertime conditions and 
assumed default MOVES2010a activity for heavy-duty trucks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The 0.001 tpd discrepancy in the PM2.5 total is 
due to rounding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Nonroad Sources: Alaska used the EPA's NONROAD2008a model to 
estimate emissions for the nonroad mobile sources. However, Alaska 
substituted local inputs for the EPA's default values in cases where 
locally derived data was available (e.g., snowmobiles and snow 
blowers). Alaska estimated aircraft emissions with the Federal Aviation 
Administration's Emission and Dispersion Modeling System and locomotive 
emissions were estimated based on the EPA's emission factors for 
locomotives.
b. Projected Year Emissions Inventory
    In addition to developing a 2008 base year inventory, Alaska 
developed a projected year inventory for the statutory Moderate area 
attainment year (2015), i.e., the sixth calendar year after designation 
as a nonattainment area. This inventory was relevant to the 
determination of whether it was impracticable for the FNSB NAA to 
attain by December 31, 2015. Alaska also developed an informational 
projected inventory for the anticipated Serious area attainment year 
(2019), i.e., the tenth calendar year after designation as a 
nonattainment area. Alaska used the same temporal period of emissions 
based on a winter episode average-season-day, the same level of detail, 
and separately reported the filterable and condensable fractions of 
direct PM2.5. Alaska developed the two projected year 
inventories by estimating the impact on emissions from anticipated 
demographic and economic trends and already adopted federal, state and 
local control measures. Alaska then incorporated incremental emissions 
reductions expected to be achieved from the control measures adopted in 
the FNSB Moderate Plan. The two projected year inventories forecasted 
emissions for 2015 and 2019 for the same source categories of emissions 
identified in the base year inventory and were developed to support air 
quality modeling, demonstrate reasonable progress on reducing 
emissions, and to establish emission reduction milestone targets for 
2017. A summary of the FNSB NAA 2015 projected winter episode average-
season-day emissions inventory is provided in table 4. Table 5 provides 
emissions estimates from space heating sources by fuel type for the 
FNSB NAA winter episode average-season day for the 2015 projected 
emissions inventory.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Alaska reported direct PM2.5 condensable and 
filterable emissions for point sources as 0.828 tpd and 0.686 tpd, 
respectively (see the November 3, 2016 clarification in the docket 
for this action). Alaska notes that, when accounting for the 
condensable component of direct PM2.5 emissions in its 
clarification, direct PM2.5 emissions from Stationary 
Point (actual) increased from 1.412 tons/day to 1.515 tons/day in 
the FNSB NAA. Alaska states that the increase has a small effect on 
PM2.5 emissions levels, approximately 0.12 [mu]g/m\3\ due 
to the relatively small contribution to total PM2.5 
emissions from stationary point sources compared to area space-
heating sources.

             Table 4--2015 Projected FNSB NAA Winter Episode Average-Season-Day Emissions Inventory
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Winter episode average-season-day (tpd)
      Source type/category       -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     PM2.5 \8\          SO2             NOX             VOC             NH3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stationary Point (actual).......           1.515           8.167          13.285           0.096          <0.001
Nonpoint/Area...................           2.505           4.268           2.379           9.070           0.125
Onroad..........................           0.461           0.017           2.503           3.405           0.051
Nonroad.........................           0.025           0.082           1.062           0.403           0.003
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................           4.506          12.534          19.229          12.974           0.179
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Table 5--PM2.5 Space Heating Nonpoint/Area Sources Emissions for 2015 Projected Emissions Inventory for the FNSB
                                                       NAA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Winter episode average-season-day (tpd)
 Space heating device/fuel type  -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       PM2.5            SO2             NOX             VOC             NH3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wood............................           2.330           0.084           0.373           8.308           0.085

[[Page 9040]]

 
Oil.............................           0.063           4.118           1.809           0.099           0.003
Other...........................           0.047           0.066           0.194           0.061           0.036
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total Space Heating \9\.....           2.440           4.268           2.376           8.467           0.125
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. The EPA's Evaluation and Proposed Action: Emission Inventories
    The EPA has reviewed the results, procedures, and methodologies for 
the FNSB NAA emissions inventories. The EPA has determined that the 
2008 base year inventory and the 2015 projected inventory are based on 
the most current and accurate information available to Alaska at the 
time the FNSB Moderate Plan and its inventories were being developed. 
The selection of 2008 for the base year inventory is also appropriate 
because it reflects one of the three years of data used by the EPA in 
the designation process for this area. The EPA finds the episodic 
approach that Alaska used for the emissions inventories to be 
consistent with the PM2.5 Implementation Rule in which the 
EPA stated that an episodic period developed in order to reflect 
periods of higher emissions during periods of high ambient 
PM2.5 can help, in some situations, to ensure the 
nonattainment area inventory reflects the emissions conditions that led 
to the nonattainment designation for the area. 81 FR 58030. 
Additionally, the 2008 and 2015 inventories sufficiently provide 
separately reported PM2.5 condensable and filterable 
emissions as required in 40 CFR 51.1008(a)(1)(iv) and (a)(2)(iv). The 
inventories comprehensively address all source categories in the FNSB 
NAA and Alaska used appropriate procedures to develop the inventories. 
In addition, Alaska developed the 2015 projected inventory based on the 
2008 base year inventory and accounted for projected growth and 
reductions in emissions. We are therefore proposing to approve the 2008 
base year emissions inventory for the FNSB NAA as meeting the 
requirements of CAA section 172(c)(3) and 40 CFR 51.1008(a)(1), and we 
are proposing to approve the 2015 projected year inventory as meeting 
the requirements of 40 CFR 51.1008(a)(2). We are also proposing to find 
that the 2008 base year inventory in the FNSB Moderate Plan provides an 
adequate basis for the control strategy analysis, the impracticability 
demonstration, and demonstrating RFP (discussed below in sections II.C, 
E and F, respectively).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The 0.001 tpd discrepancy in the VOC and NH3 
totals is due to rounding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Pollutants Addressed

1. Requirements for the Control of Direct PM2.5 and 
Precursors
    The composition of PM2.5 is complex and highly variable 
due in part to the large contribution of secondary PM2.5 to 
total fine particle mass in most locations, and to the complexity of 
secondary particle formation processes. A large number of possible 
chemical reactions, often non-linear in nature, can convert gaseous 
SO2, NOX, VOCs and NH3 to 
PM2.5, making them precursors to PM2.5.\10\ 
Formation of secondary PM2.5 may also depend on atmospheric 
conditions, including solar radiation, temperature, and relative 
humidity, and the interactions of precursors with preexisting particles 
and with water and ice cloud or fog droplets.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ EPA, Air Quality Criteria for Particulate Matter (EPA/600/
P-99/002aF, October 2004), Chapter 3.
    \11\ EPA, Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Final Revisions to 
the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter 
(EPA-452/R-12-005, December 2012), p. 2-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA interprets the CAA to require that a state must evaluate 
sources of all four PM2.5 precursors for regulation, and 
impose such regulations, unless it 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. See 81 FR 58017. 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 
particulate matter precursor. The definition of ``air pollutant'' in 
CAA section 302(g), 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.'' The 
EPA has identified SO2, NOX, VOCs, and 
NH3 as precursors to the formation of PM2.5. 40 
CFR 51.1000. Accordingly, the attainment plan requirements 
presumptively apply to emissions of direct PM2.5 and all 
four precursor pollutants from all types of stationary, area, and 
mobile sources, except as otherwise provided in the Act (i.e., CAA 
section 189(e)).
    Section 189(e) of the Act requires that the control requirements 
for major stationary sources of direct PM10 also apply to 
major stationary sources of PM10 precursors, except where 
the Administrator determines that such sources do not contribute 
significantly to PM10 levels that exceed the standard in the 
area. By definition, PM10 includes PM2.5. Section 
189(e) contains the only express exception to the control requirements 
under subpart 4 (e.g., requirements for RACM and RACT, best available 
control measures (BACM) and best available control technology (BACT), 
most stringent measures, and nonattainment new source review) for 
sources of direct PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursor 
emissions.
    Although section 189(e) explicitly addresses only major stationary 
sources, the EPA interprets the Act as authorizing it also to 
determine, under appropriate circumstances, that regulation of specific 
PM2.5 precursors from other source categories in a given 
nonattainment area is not necessary. See 81 FR 58018. For example, 
under the EPA's interpretation of the control requirements that apply 
to stationary, area, and mobile sources of PM2.5 precursors 
area-wide under CAA section 172(c)(1) and subpart 4, the EPA's recently 
promulgated PM2.5 Implementation Rule provides states the 
option of submitting a demonstration to show that emissions of a 
precursor do not contribute significantly to PM2.5 levels 
which exceed the NAAQS in a particular nonattainment area. 40 CFR 
51.1006. If the EPA were to approve a state's precursor demonstration, 
the state would not need to address the precursor in meeting certain 
plan

[[Page 9041]]

requirements, such as the imposition of RACM/RACT level control on 
sources of such precursor emissions.
    The state has the option of performing either (1) a comprehensive 
precursor demonstration to establish that the state does not need to 
address the precursor in the attainment plan for purposes of the 
control strategy, RFP, QMs and associated reports, contingency 
measures, motor vehicle emissions budget, or regional emissions 
analyses in transportation conformity determinations, or (2) a major 
stationary source precursor demonstration to justify the exclusion of 
existing major sources from control requirements for the applicable 
precursor. Both types of precursor demonstrations must include a 
concentration-based analysis, in which the state evaluates the impact 
of each precursor on ambient PM2.5 levels in the 
nonattainment area. A concentration-based analysis may be sufficient 
for the EPA to approve the demonstration, on a precursor-by-precursor 
basis. The state also has the option of providing an additional 
sensitivity-based analysis to show that changes in the emissions of a 
particular precursor would not result in significant changes in ambient 
PM2.5 in the area. 40 CFR 51.1006(a)(iii). The EPA's Draft 
PM2.5 Precursor Demonstration Guidance (Precursor 
Demonstration Guidance) recommends calculating the relative precursor 
impact in the context of the Software for the Modeled Attainment Test 
(SMAT) methodology so that the results are applicable to measured 
PM2.5 in the area.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ The Precursor Demonstration Guidance is available at 
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-11/documents/transmittal_memo_and_draft_pm25_precursor_demo_guidance_11_17_16.pdf.

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

2. Direct PM2.5 and Precursors in the FNSB Moderate Plan
    In the FNSB Moderate Plan, Alaska discusses the five pollutants 
that contribute to the mass of the ambient PM2.5 (i.e., 
NH3, NOX, SO2, VOCs, and direct 
PM2.5). Because Alaska developed the attainment plan before 
the EPA proposed a new implementation rule in 2015 (80 FR 15340, March 
23, 2015), and before the EPA issued the Precursor Demonstration 
Guidance in 2016, the FNSB Moderate Plan includes a variety of 
information on precursor impacts on PM2.5 concentrations in 
the FNSB NAA. Following the EPA's past approach to regulation of 
precursors for purposes of the PM10 NAAQS, Alaska submitted 
technical analyses to establish that regulation of specific precursors 
would not be an effective attainment strategy in the FNSB NAA. After 
the release of the PM2.5 Implementation Rule and the 
Precursor Demonstration Guidance, Alaska included information in its 
January 6, 2017 clarification document (2017 Clarification) to help the 
EPA interpret its FNSB Moderate Plan in light of the new rule and 
guidance (see FNSB Moderate Plan appendix III.D.5.7 and the 2017 
Clarification). Specifically, the FNSB Moderate Plan contains 
information necessary to evaluate a comprehensive precursor 
demonstration for all sources of VOCs and a major stationary source 
precursor demonstration for NOX. The FNSB Moderate Plan 
reports speciated PM2.5 data from the State Office Building 
monitor that can be compared to the recommended insignificance 
thresholds in the Precursor Demonstration Guidance. These data are the 
results of the SMAT methodology and are representative of precursor 
concentrations for the baseline design value of 44.7 [mu]g/m\3\.
    Alaska's VOC precursor demonstration examined both ambient and 
modeled PM2.5 species data to help evaluate the formation of 
secondary organic aerosols (SOA) from VOC emissions in this specific 
nonattainment area. Appendix III.D.5.8 of the FNSB Moderate Plan 
presents several analyses involving observed chemical data, tracers of 
source categories, source apportionment techniques, and independent 
modeling efforts. Under low sunlight conditions and cold temperatures, 
the photochemistry normally associated with SOA production is 
limited.\13\ Alaska explained that VOCs that are emitted likely either 
remain mostly unreacted in the gas phase or condense and are evaluated 
for emission control as the condensable part of direct 
PM2.5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Joyce, P. L., von Glasow, R., and Simpson, W. R.: The fate 
of NOX emissions due to nocturnal oxidation at high 
latitudes: 1-D simulations and sensitivity experiments, Atmos. Chem. 
Phys., 14, 7601-7616, doi:10.5194/acp-14-7601-2014, 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In appendix III.D.5.7 of the FNSB Moderate Plan and in the 2017 
Clarification, Alaska did not directly determine the impact of VOCs on 
PM2.5 from speciated monitoring data alone because it is 
difficult to distinguish organic carbon from direct PM2.5 
and secondary organic carbon formed from VOC chemistry. Instead, the 
precursor demonstration relies on the predicted concentrations of SOA 
compounds from the Community Multiscale Air Quality (CMAQ) model. 
Alaska summed the episode-averaged concentrations of all 19 secondary 
organic compounds produced from the CMAQ modeling results at the State 
Office Building monitor location. The sum of all modeled SOA species 
represents the impact from all VOC sources on PM2.5 at the 
monitor. Alaska reported the modeled PM2.5 concentration 
from VOC precursors was 0.0006 [mu]g/m\3\ and 0.007 [mu]g/m\3\ for the 
2008 base modeling year and 2015 modeling year cases, respectively.
    Alaska also submitted a precursor demonstration for NOX 
that modeled the PM2.5 impact from major stationary sources 
of NOX in the FNSB NAA (i.e., a major stationary source 
demonstration, rather than a comprehensive precursor demonstration with 
respect to all sources of NOX emissions in the area). Id. In 
support of the NOX major stationary source demonstration, 
Alaska performed a brute force CMAQ ``zero-out'' modeling analysis, as 
described in the FNSB Moderate Plan and 2017 Clarification, and as 
recommended by the Precursor Demonstration Guidance. The CMAQ modeling 
results are compared between one model run in which all emission 
sources are included and a second ``zero out'' model run in which all 
major stationary source NOX emissions in the NAA are assumed 
to be zero. The model results are processed through the SMAT 
methodology. The difference in PM2.5 mass projected at the 
State Office Building monitor location between the two model 
simulations represents the estimated impact of major stationary source 
NOX to ambient PM2.5 in the FNSB NAA. For the 
2015 model simulation, the impact from major stationary source 
NOX to PM2.5 at the State Office Building monitor 
location is 0.5 [mu]g/m\3\ averaged across all modeled episode days 
(all days within the episode produce PM2.5 less than 0.6 
[mu]g/m\3\).
3. The EPA's Evaluation and Proposed Action: Pollutants Addressed
    In Alaska's comprehensive precursor demonstration for VOCs using a 
concentration-based contribution analysis, the modeled PM2.5 
concentration from VOC precursors (0.0006 [mu]g/m\3\ and 0.007 [mu]g/
m\3\ for the 2008 base modeling year and 2015 modeling year cases, 
respectively) is well below 1.3 [mu]g/m\3\ on a 24-hour basis, the 
recommended contribution threshold for the 24-hour PM2.5 
NAAQS, for precursor demonstrations identified in the Precursor 
Demonstration Guidance. Even the day with the highest modeled 
PM2.5 production from VOCs produces only 1 percent of the 
insignificance threshold at the State Office Building. Alaska did not 
calculate the relative precursor impact in the context of the SMAT 
methodology because the VOC

[[Page 9042]]

precursor impact on PM2.5 was so far below the recommended 
insignificance threshold in the Precursor Demonstration Guidance that a 
SMAT adjustment was inconsequential. The modeling results are 
consistent with Alaska's full suite of ambient data analyses, source 
apportionment techniques, and modeling efforts, all of which indicate 
very limited photochemical pathways and inconsequential concentrations 
of SOA in the FNSB NAA in the winter (See FNSB Moderate Plan appendix 
III.D.5.8).
    The FNSB Moderate Plan does not provide for a NOX 
comprehensive precursor demonstration because the measured ammonium 
nitrate at the State Office Building monitor (2.5 [mu]g/m\3\) is above 
the recommended 24-hour PM2.5 contribution threshold for 
precursor demonstrations (1.3 [mu]g/m\3\). In Alaska's major stationary 
source precursor demonstration for NOX, the episode average 
contribution of major stationary source NOX to 
PM2.5 (0.5 [mu]g/m\3\) is less than one half of the 
recommended insignificance threshold (1.3 [mu]g/m\3\) for precursor 
demonstrations in the Precursor Demonstration Guidance. The low amount 
of PM2.5 from major stationary source NOX 
precursor emissions is consistent with other aspects of the FNSB 
Moderate Plan. As with VOCs, the photochemistry to produce large 
amounts of particle-bound nitrate is limited during wintertime 
pollution events in the FNSB NAA. Id. Furthermore, major stationary 
sources with elevated stacks emit most of their precursors into the 
extremely stable atmosphere present during wintertime pollution events. 
Only a fraction of the elevated plumes returns to ground level in the 
FNSB NAA where air quality monitors are located and much less than 
might be expected in most parts of the lower 48 states. Therefore, the 
analysis indicates that NOX emissions from these sources 
will have very little impact on ground level chemistry and thus on 
secondary PM2.5 formation in the FNSB NAA.
    Based on a review of the information provided by Alaska, we propose 
to approve Alaska's precursor demonstrations for major stationary 
source emissions of NOX and for all sources of VOCs within 
the FNSB NAA. We propose to approve Alaska's analysis and conclusion 
that it is not necessary to evaluate and impose controls on sources of 
VOCs or on major stationary sources of NOX in the control 
strategy for the FNSB Moderate Plan. Consistent with the requirements 
of subpart 4, Alaska must include all other PM2.5 precursors 
(NH3 and SO2) and NOX from sources 
other than major stationary sources in the evaluation of potential 
RACM/RACT control measures, RFP, QM, contingency measures, and in the 
impracticability demonstration. We discuss Alaska's evaluation of 
potential control measures for sources of NH3, 
SO2, and NOX, as well as direct PM2.5, 
in the following section.

C. Reasonably Available Control Measures/Reasonably Available Control 
Technology

1. Requirements for RACM/RACT
    The general SIP planning requirements for nonattainment areas under 
subpart 1 include CAA section 172(c)(1), which requires implementation 
of all RACM, including RACT. The terms RACM and RACT are not further 
defined within subpart 1, but past guidance has described ``reasonable 
available'' controls as those controls that are technologically and 
economically feasible, and necessary for attainment in a given area. 
See 57 FR 13560. The provision explicitly requires that such measures 
must provide for attainment of the NAAQS in the area covered by the 
attainment plan.
    The SIP planning requirements for particulate matter nonattainment 
areas in subpart 4 likewise impose upon states an obligation to develop 
attainment plans that implement RACM and RACT on appropriate sources 
within a nonattainment area. Section 189(a)(1)(C) requires that states 
with areas classified as Moderate nonattainment areas have SIP 
provisions to assure that RACM and RACT level controls are implemented 
by no later than four years after designation of the area. As with 
subpart 1, the terms RACM and RACT are not specifically defined within 
subpart 4, and the provisions of subpart 4 do not identify specific 
control measures that must be implemented to meet the RACM and RACT 
requirements. However, past policy has described RACM (including RACT) 
as those measures that are technologically and economically feasible 
and needed for expeditious attainment of the standard. 81 FR 58034. The 
EPA's recent PM2.5 Implementation Rule provides a process 
for developing an attainment plan control strategy for purposes of 
meeting the RACM and RACT requirements.\14\ See 40 CFR 51.1009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ The development of the RACM and RACT requirements in the 
PM2.5 Implementation Rule was informed by the EPA's 
longstanding guidance in the General Preamble providing 
recommendations for appropriate considerations for determining what 
control measures constitute RACM and RACT for purposes of meeting 
the statutory requirements of subpart 4. See 81 FR 58034.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To meet the Moderate area control strategy requirements, a state 
first needs to identify all sources of direct PM2.5 and 
precursor emissions in the nonattainment area, consistent with common 
emission inventory development practices and requirements. 40 CFR 
51.1009(a)(1). Next a state must identify existing and potential 
control measures for each identified source or source category of 
emissions. Id. at 51.1009(a)(2). The state's compilation of potential 
control measures must be sufficiently broad to provide a basis for 
identifying all technologically and economically feasible controls that 
may be RACM or RACT. The state must identify potential control measures 
for emissions of direct PM2.5 and each precursor from 
relevant sources unless the state has provided an adequate 
comprehensive demonstration for the nonattainment area at issue showing 
that control of a particular precursor is not required, or provided an 
adequate demonstration with respect to control of precursor emissions 
from existing major stationary sources. Id. at 51.1009(a)(4)(i). For 
any potential control measure identified, a state must evaluate the 
technological and economic feasibility of adopting and implementing 
such measure. Id. at 51.1009(a)(3). For purposes of evaluating 
technological feasibility, a state may consider factors including but 
not limited to operating processes and procedures, raw materials, 
physical plant layout, and potential environmental impacts from the 
adoption of controls. For purposes of evaluating economic feasibility, 
a state may consider factors including but not limited to capital, 
operating and maintenance costs and the cost effectiveness of a measure 
(typically expressed in cost per ton of reduction). Id. States should 
also evaluate control measures imposed in other nonattainment areas as 
RACM and RACT as part of this analysis. For Moderate area plans that 
demonstrate the area cannot attain by the Moderate area statutory 
attainment date, the state is required to adopt all technologically and 
economically feasible control measures. Id. at 51.1009(a)(4).
    CAA section 110(a)(2)(A) provides generally that each SIP ``shall 
include enforceable emission limitations and other control measures, 
means or techniques . . . as well as schedules and timetables for 
compliance, as may be necessary or appropriate to meet the applicable 
requirement of the Act.'' Section 172(c)(6) of the Act, which

[[Page 9043]]

applies specifically to nonattainment area plans, imposes comparable 
requirements.\15\ Measures necessary to meet RACM/RACT and the 
additional control measure requirements under section 172(c)(6) must be 
adopted by Alaska in an enforceable form (57 FR 13541) and submitted to 
the EPA for approval into the SIP under CAA section 110.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ The language in sections 110(a)(2)(A) and 172(c)(6) is 
quite broad, allowing a SIP to contain any enforceable ``means or 
techniques'' that the state and the EPA determine are ``necessary or 
appropriate'' to meet CAA requirements, such that the area will 
attain as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than the 
designated date. Furthermore, the express allowance for ``schedules 
and timetables'' demonstrates that Congress understood that all 
required controls might not be in force when the EPA approves a SIP 
submission, e.g., they could include measures to be implemented in a 
future year. The EPA notes, however, that all SIP provisions must 
meet applicable legal requirements, such as imposing emission 
limitations that apply continuously and being practically and 
legally enforceable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. RACM/RACT Analysis in the FNSB Moderate Plan
    In the FNSB Moderate Plan, Alaska explains the multi-step process 
it undertook, consistent with the process set forth at 40 CFR 51.1009, 
to evaluate and select control measures that would constitute RACM/RACT 
in the FNSB NAA. Based on emissions inventory information and other 
technical analyses, Alaska first identified source categories in the 
FNSB NAA and associated emissions of PM2.5 and its 
precursors. Alaska's approach to the RACM/RACT analysis targets 
emissions that occur during the wintertime when stagnant air episodes 
occur and concentrations of emissions build-up, leading to exceedances 
of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. Based on its assessment of 
estimated source category contributions to ambient PM2.5. 
Alaska proceeded to identify the following source categories for 
further analysis: Residential wood heating, open burning, residential 
fuel oil combustion, automobile and heavy-duty vehicle transportation, 
and stationary point sources.
    Alaska developed a list of potential control measures for relevant 
sources based on information compiled from various EPA guidance 
documents, information received during Alaska's public process, and 
information regarding controls that other states or the EPA have 
identified as RACM or RACT in attainment plans in other nonattainment 
areas. Alaska then evaluated control measures to determine if they are 
technologically and economically feasible, which included consideration 
of factors such as the emissions benefits and cost effectiveness of the 
measures. Alaska's RACM/RACT analysis and control strategy are 
presented in the FNSB Moderate Plan section III.D.5.7, appendix 
III.D.5.7, and the 2017 Clarification; sections III.D.5.6, III.D.5.8, 
and III.D.5.11 of the FNSB Moderate Plan also provide supporting 
information.
a. Non-Point/Area Sources RACM/RACT Analysis in the FNSB Moderate Plan
    Alaska ascertained that the key category of areas sources (non-
point sources) in the FNSB NAA that requires imposition of control 
measures to reach attainment of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS 
is wood burning. Accordingly, Alaska's RACM/RACT analysis for the FNSB 
NAA evaluated control measures for residential heating and open 
burning. Alaska also evaluated control measures for transportation 
sources.
    Residential Heating: Alaska identified and adopted a suite of 
control measures as RACM/RACT for residential heating sources in the 
FNSB NAA. The control measures include a changeout program that 
incentivizes the removal or replacement of inefficient wood-fired 
heating devices; a prohibition on certain fuels used in solid-fuel 
fired heaters, including a requirement that only dry wood, with a 
moisture content of 20 percent or less, can be used; curtailment of 
solid-fuel fired heaters during polluted conditions; a 20 percent 
opacity limit for solid-fuel fired heaters; the exclusion of owners of 
newly constructed buildings from obtaining a ``no other adequate source 
of heat'' determination; a wood seller wood-moisture disclosure 
program; setback requirements for new installations of hydronic 
heaters; and wood heating education and outreach programs to increase 
public understanding and compliance with regulations and to encourage 
efficient operation of wood heaters.
    The changeout program in the FNSB NAA provides subsidies up to 
$4,000 to replace wood stoves, and up to $10,000 to replace hydronic 
heaters, with cleaner burning certified devices (FNSB Moderate Plan 
section III.D.5.7-3, III.D.5.6-50, table 5.6-18). Higher subsidies are 
available for removal of a solid-fuel burning device and replacement 
with a heating source that burns oil or natural gas. The changeout 
program also provides incentives for removing (rather than replacing) 
older uncertified devices. Subsidies to retrofit hydronic heaters to 
reduce emissions were also offered. Between 2010 and 2014, Alaska 
estimates that 3,365 solid-fuel fired heating devices were replaced and 
888 devices were removed through the wood stove changeout program (FNSB 
Moderate Plan section III.D.5.6-51, table 5.6-19).
    Alaska estimates that in the absence of a dry wood program, the 
average moisture content of wood used in the FNSB NAA is 39.7 percent. 
The requirement to burn only dry wood (moisture content of 20 percent 
or less) will result in more efficient residential wood heating, 
decreased fuel use, and reduced emissions (FNSB Moderate Plan section 
III.D.5.6-45).
    The curtailment program in the FNSB NAA places restrictions on the 
operation of solid-fuel fired heaters during certain ambient and 
meteorological conditions (FNSB Moderate Plan section III.D.5.11 and 
2017 Clarification). The solid-fuel fired heater curtailment alerts are 
announced by local authorities based on forecasted PM2.5 
concentrations in the three different air quality zones: Fairbanks, 
North Pole, and Goldstream. The curtailment program includes one 
voluntary and two mandatory stages. When PM2.5 ambient 
levels are forecasted to reach or exceed 25 [micro]g/m\3\ or more in a 
particular zone, a stage one alert is issued for that zone. During a 
stage one alert, residents are asked to voluntarily curtail or stop 
using solid-fuel heating devices, pellet stoves, waste oil devices, and 
masonry heaters. When PM2.5 levels are forecasted to reach 
35 [micro]g/m\3\ or more in a particular zone, a stage 2 alert is 
issued for that zone. During a stage 2 alert, burning is only permitted 
in U.S. EPA certified devices, EPA Phase II hydronic heaters with 
PM2.5 annual average emissions ratings of 2.5 grams per hour 
or less, masonry heaters, pellet stoves, and fireplaces. A stage 3 
alert is issued when PM2.5 ambient levels are forecasted to 
reach 55 [micro]g/m\3\. During a stage 3 alert, the use of solid-fuel 
burning devices, masonry heaters, pellet-fueled appliances, cook 
stoves, fireplaces, and waste oil devices is prohibited. The mandatory 
restrictions imposed during stage 2 and 3 alerts do not apply during 
periods of power failure or to buildings that have ``no other adequate 
source of heat'' designations. During a stage 3 alert, the mandatory 
restrictions do not apply when the temperature is below -15 [deg]F (as 
recorded at the Fairbanks International Airport). Alaska included these 
limitations in the mandatory curtailment program due to the unique 
circumstances of the FNSB NAA, which experiences extreme winter 
temperatures and has limited availability of alternative fuel sources 
such as natural gas.

[[Page 9044]]

    The voluntary programs in the FNSB NAA are expected to increase 
compliance with regulations and encourage behaviors that reduce 
emissions. These programs include public awareness and education on 
wood storage, heating device operation and maintenance, and curtailment 
alert notifications (FNSB Moderate Plan section III.D.5.7-7 and 2017 
Clarification). Alaska relied on these measures for a small portion of 
the necessary emission reductions, consistent with EPA guidance for 
voluntary measures.
    The residential heating control measures that Alaska identified as 
RACM/RACT primarily reduce emissions of direct PM2.5. To 
evaluate potential measures to reduce SO2 emissions, Alaska 
conducted a RACM/RACT analysis for providing economic incentives to 
encourage FNSB NAA residents that use heating oil to switch to low-
sulfur heating oil. Alaska determined that this control measure was not 
cost effective at this time (FNSB Moderate Plan appendix III.D.5.7-57).
    Open Burning: Alaska identified and adopted prohibitions on open 
burning during the wintertime as RACM/RACT for the FNSB NAA. Open 
burning, including the use of burn barrels, is prohibited in the FNSB 
NAA from November 1 through March 31. (FNSB Moderate Plan section 
III.D.5.7-22).
    Transportation: Alaska identified and adopted a suite of 
transportation control measures as RACM/RACT for the FNSB NAA. These 
include measures providing for ``plug-in'' engine block heating, 
programs to encourage the use of mass transit, federal motor vehicle 
fuel economy standards, and federal and state diesel emissions 
reduction programs.
b. Stationary/Point Sources RACM/RACT Analysis in the FNSB Moderate 
Plan
    The FNSB NAA has six major stationary point sources. Alaska 
evaluated these sources for potential PM2.5 and 
SO2 control technologies. As discussed in section II.B.3 of 
this proposal, Alaska demonstrated that VOCs and NOX 
emissions from these major stationary sources do not contribute 
significantly to violations of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS 
in this area, consistent with the requirements of CAA section 189(e). 
Alaska also excluded from consideration control technologies to address 
NH3, which accounts for less than 0.001 tons per day of 
emissions in the FNSB NAA.
    The six major stationary sources in the FNSB NAA are: Fort 
Wainwright Central Heating Power Plant, Aurora Energy Chena Power 
Plant, University of Alaska Fairbanks Campus Power Plant, GVEA North 
Pole Power Plant, GVEA Zehnder Power Plant, and the Flint Hills North 
Pole Refinery. Alaska's RACM/RACT analysis addressed 12 coal-fired 
boilers, five gas turbines, and two dual-fuel fired boilers at these 
facilities (FNSB Moderate Plan appendix III.D.5.7-64). The following is 
a summary of the control measures that Alaska identified as RACM/RACT 
for the stationary sources.
    Coal-fired Boilers: Alaska provided a detailed description of the 
coal-fired units in the FNSB NAA including the existing controls and 
the 2011 direct PM2.5 and SO2 emissions. Six of 
the 12 coal-fired boilers are at the Fort Wainwright Central Heat and 
Power Plant. The direct PM2.5 emissions for each of these 
six units were less than 5 tons per year (tpy) and the SO2 
emissions were between 87 and 171 tpy. The Aurora Energy Chena Power 
Plant has four coal-fired boilers that share a common stack and exhaust 
control system. The direct PM2.5 emissions for the combined 
four units were 7.81 tpy and the SO2 emissions were 838.9 
tpy. The remaining two coal-fired boilers are at the University of 
Alaska Fairbanks Campus Power Plant. There are also two dual fuel-fired 
boilers at this power plant that use gas and liquid fuel. The direct 
PM2.5 emissions for each of these boilers were less than 5 
tpy and the SO2 emissions for all of the boilers combined 
were 281.7 tpy.
    Alaska identified fabric filters (baghouses) as RACM/RACT to 
control direct PM2.5 emissions. With respect to 
SO2, Alaska concluded that the use of low-sulfur fuels at 
these stationary sources constitutes RACM/RACT in the FNSB NAA for 
purposes of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS (FNSB Moderate Plan 
appendix III.D.5.7-72).
    Gas Turbines: For the five gas turbines in the FNSB NAA, Alaska 
analyzed the emissions of the individual units for potential RACM/RACT 
level emissions controls. The GVEA North Pole Power Plant has three gas 
turbines. Only one of these units runs at baseload throughout the year. 
In 2011, the direct PM2.5 emissions for the baseload unit 
were 16 tpy and the SO2 emissions were 1.9 tpy. The other 
two units at the GVEA North Pole Power Plant operate during peak hours. 
The direct PM2.5 emissions for each of these units were 16 
and 131 tpy and the SO2 emissions were 42 and 326 tpy. The 
remaining two gas turbines are at the GVEA Zehnder Power Plant and ran 
a combined total of about 53 days in 2011. The direct PM2.5 
emissions for these units were 11 and 16 tpy. The SO2 
emissions for these units were 26 and 40 tpy.
    Alaska identified the use of low sulfur naphtha and light straight-
run (LSR) fuel as RACM/RACT level controls for the unit that runs at 
baseload throughout the year. For the other four gas turbines, Alaska 
determined that, in the FNSB NAA, the continued use of heavy fuel oil 
constitutes RACM/RACT for these units. (FNSB Moderate Plan appendix 
III.D.5.7-88-91).
    Dual Fuel-fired Boilers: Alaska provided an analysis of potential 
control measures for the two dual-fired boilers at the University of 
Alaska Fairbanks Campus Power Plant. Alaska analyzed the individual 
units for RACM/RACT and provided the 2011 actual PM2.5 and 
SO2 emissions for these units. From the combustion of fuel 
oil, the SO2 emissions from these units were 17.7 and 11.2 
tpy. For PM2.5, emissions were less than 5 tons per year. 
Alaska concluded that, in the FNSB NAA, the use of No. 2 distillate 
fuel constitutes RACM/RACT for these boilers. (FNSB Moderate Plan 
appendix III.D.5.7-87).
c. Adopted Control Strategy in the FNSB Moderate Plan
    Alaska evaluated the different source categories in the FNSB NAA 
for potential controls. In the case of the point sources, Alaska 
determined that the existing level of control meets RACM/RACT 
requirements. With respect to mobile sources, Alaska determined that 
existing federal fuel and engine emission standards provide sufficient 
levels of emission reduction from these sources for purposes of the 
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. In addition, however, Alaska 
concluded that an existing local control measure to provide for plug-in 
engine block heating is an appropriate RACM/RACT control measure for 
vehicles in this area because it will provide needed reductions in 
emissions during the critical winter episodes when NAAQS exceedances 
occur in the FNSB NAA.
    Alaska's control strategy focuses primarily on imposing control 
measures on the key sources contributing to nonattainment during the 
winter season when exceedances of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 
NAAQS occur, i.e., residential wood heating. Alaska estimated that by 
2015, the emissions reductions from the adopted control strategy in the 
FNSB Moderate Plan would result in a 5.14 [mu]g/m\3\ reduction from the 
baseline design value of 44.7 [mu]g/m\3\ at the State Office Building 
monitor (FNSB Moderate Plan section III.D.5.8, table 5.8-12 and 2017 
Clarification). The emissions reductions estimated from the control 
strategy and the implementation

[[Page 9045]]

dates are summarized in the table below.

                                  Table 6--FNSB Moderate Plan Control Strategy
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        Emission reductions
                         Control measure                         -------------------------------- Implementation
                                                                        tpd         [mu]g/m\3\         dates
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Voluntary Measures:
    --Transportation............................................    PM2.5: 0.004            0.04       2001-2015
    --Residential Heating.......................................    PM2.5: 0.055            0.50
Wood Heating Device Incentives:
    --Changeout Program.........................................    PM2.5: 0.397            3.10       2010-2012
    --Hydronic Heater Retrofits.................................     SO2: -0.014
                                                                      NOX: 0.033
                                                                      NH3: 0.014
Energy Efficiency Measures......................................   PM2.5: <0.002           <0.02            2008
Opacity Limit...................................................   PM2.5: <0.001           <0.01            2015
Open Burning....................................................   PM2.5: <0.001           <0.01            2015
Vehicle/Device Turnover (SIP):
    --Federal Motor Vehicle Control Program (~95% of reductions)    PM2.5: 0.135            1.50
    --Uncertified Wood Device Turnover (~5% of reductions)......
        Totals..................................................    PM2.5: 0.591            5.14
                                                                     SO2: -0.014
                                                                      NOX: 0.033
                                                                      NH3: 0.014
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. The EPA's Evaluation and Proposed Action: RACM/RACT
    The EPA proposes to approve the control strategy in the FNSB 
Moderate Plan. In the FNSB Moderate Plan, Alaska appropriately followed 
a process to analyze and select RACM/RACT level controls for this 
specific nonattainment area consistent with the procedures for Moderate 
nonattainment areas identified at 40 CFR 51.1009. The result of this 
process was Alaska's adoption and implementation of a control strategy 
that includes the identified technologically and economically feasible 
control measures for sources in the FNSB NAA. The EPA proposes to find 
that the FNSB Moderate Plan provides for the implementation of RACM/
RACT as required by CAA sections 189(a)(1)(C) and 172(c)(1), and 
additional reasonable measures as required by CAA sections 172(c)(6) 
and 40 CFR 51.1009. The EPA's evaluation of the FNSB Moderate Plan 
indicates that the control strategy includes permanent and enforceable 
requirements on the appropriate sources at the relevant time of year 
(i.e. during wintertime stagnant air episodes) and takes appropriate 
credit for emissions reductions from the suite of control measures.
a. The EPA's Evaluation and Proposed Action: Non-Point/Area Sources--
RACM/RACT
    As explained previously, Alaska's initial SIP submission cited a 
citizen's referendum as a basis for not adopting and implementing many 
of the control measures analyzed. The referendum, in place from 2010 to 
2014, limited the Borough's authority to regulate home heating sources 
in any manner, thereby effectively preventing the local government from 
controlling emissions from the critical heating source category.\16\ 
The EPA does not consider social acceptability to be an appropriate 
basis for rejecting required emission control measures, but the 
capability of effective implementation and enforcement are relevant 
considerations. See 81 FR 58041. Therefore, the EPA does not view the 
referendum to be a valid basis for asserting that a control measure is 
unreasonable, whether for social, economic or technical reasons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ FNSB Code 8.21.025 ``The borough shall not, in any way, 
regulate, prohibit, curtail, nor issue fines or fees associated 
with, the sale, distribution, or operation of heating appliances or 
any type of combustible fuel.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    However, in October 2014, the referendum expired and Alaska began 
the process of adopting more stringent controls for the FNSB NAA, 
including control measures applicable to residential heating sources 
that are a major contributor to violations of the 2006 24-hour 
PM2.5 NAAQS in this nonattainment area. Due to the timing of 
the expiration of the referendum, it was not possible for the Borough 
to enact these measures, and for Alaska to submit the measures for 
inclusion into the attainment plan, by the December 31, 2014 deadline 
for Moderate area attainment plans. In February 2015, the Borough 
enacted its mandatory curtailment program and other measures and Alaska 
adopted the measures in the SIP and submitted them for EPA review in a 
November 22, 2016 supplementary submission. The EPA supports ongoing 
state efforts to improve attainment plan control strategies and 
therefore believes it is appropriate to consider the entirety of 
adopted control measures for the FNSB NAA submitted for the EPA's 
review, notwithstanding the timing of the submission.
    The control strategy in the FNSB Moderate Plan includes a number of 
control measures targeted at reducing residential wood heating 
emissions during the winter months when exceedances of the NAAQS 
typically occur. The control measures, including the wintertime open 
burning prohibition, dry wood requirement, visible emissions limit of 
20 percent opacity, prohibited fuel sources, and mandatory curtailment 
program are similar to approved control programs adopted in other 
nonattainment areas impacted by emissions from residential wood heating 
sources. In addition, the FNSB Moderate plan includes emissions 
standards for wood stoves and hydronic heaters that are more stringent 
than the current EPA emissions standards for these devices. See 40 CFR 
part 60, subparts AAA and QQQQ. For example, Alaska adopted an 
emissions standard of 2.5 grams per hour for wood stoves, which is more 
stringent than the emissions standard of 4.5 grams per hour for Step 1 
EPA-certified wood stoves. Also, the Borough's emissions standards 
apply to coal-fired heaters, which the EPA does not regulate. See 80 FR 
13676, March 16, 2015. The control strategy includes a provision that

[[Page 9046]]

excludes owners of newly constructed buildings from obtaining a ``no 
other adequate source of heat'' determination, which encourages 
installation of alternative heating sources in new buildings so that 
the building occupants may comply with curtailments. These control 
measures are beyond what is typically found in other nonattainment 
areas impacted by wood heating sources but were appropriate for 
inclusion as RACM/RACT in the FNSB Moderate Plan. Because of the 
specific facts and circumstances of FNSB NAA, and the severity of the 
nonattainment problem in this area, Alaska is appropriately focusing 
multiple control measures on this important source category.
    Alaska did not specifically analyze area source controls for 
NH3. The EPA agrees with Alaska's decision to exclude 
NH3 area source controls from its analysis. The EPA is 
unaware of any available technologies to control NH3 
emissions from combustion sources where ammonia is emitted as a product 
of combustion (other than improved combustion conditions such as those 
achieved via wood stove changeout). Although the control strategy 
primarily focuses on reducing direct PM2.5 emissions, it 
also provides for emissions reductions for some PM2.5 
precursors. For example, NH3 emissions from wood heating 
were estimated to be 13 percent lower in the 2015 inventory than in 
2008 base year inventory.
    As noted, the control strategy focuses on reducing emissions from 
residential wood heating sources and includes control measures such as 
a woodstove changeout program, a requirement to use only dry wood, a 
mandatory curtailment program, and an opacity limit for residential 
heating sources. The EPA agrees that these control measures 
appropriately target the emissions contributing to nonattainment and 
provide for reductions during winter stagnation events when 
concentrations of emissions build-up and lead to exceedances of the 
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.
    As discussed in section II.C.2.a of this proposal, the mandatory 
curtailment control program has two stages, with ambient 
PM2.5 trigger levels at 35 [mu]g/m\3\, referred to as a 
stage 2 alert, and 55 [mu]g/m\3\, referred to as a stage 3 alert. 
During a stage 2 alert, the only solid-fuel fired heaters that can be 
operated are U.S. EPA certified devices, EPA Phase II hydronic heaters 
with PM2.5 annual average emissions ratings of 2.5 grams per 
hour or less, masonry heaters, pellet stoves, and fireplaces. During a 
stage 3 alert, the use of solid-fuel heaters, masonry heaters, pellet-
fueled appliances, cook stoves, fireplaces, and waste oil devices is 
prohibited. The EPA believes that the two-stage alert system meets 
RACM/RACT level control requirements for this source category for the 
FNSB NAA. The EPA notes that the mandatory curtailment program includes 
applicability limitations during stage 3 alerts (no other adequate 
source of heat, power outage, and ambient temperatures below -15 
[deg]F). We have reviewed Alaska's mandatory curtailment program which 
operates in conjunction with the other control measures that apply to, 
and reduce emissions from, the same sources, including a 20 percent 
limit on opacity and a requirement that only dry wood (with a moisture 
content of 20 percent or less) be burned at all times. We believe the 
suite of control measures provides for continuous control of this 
source category, consistent with CAA requirements. We have also 
considered that many mandatory curtailment programs in other 
nonattainment areas contain limitations on applicability when there is 
no other adequate source of heat that are based on considerations of 
public welfare. The EPA concludes that in the FNSB NAA, where 
wintertime temperatures can be extreme and there is limited 
availability of fuel alternatives such as natural gas, the three 
limitations in Alaska's mandatory curtailment program similarly invoke 
public welfare considerations that are appropriate in the context of a 
Moderate area plan. Additionally, the FNSB NAA is relatively new to 
programs for reducing emissions from wood heating and, prior to 2015, 
the community had not experienced mandatory curtailments. The two-stage 
mandatory curtailment program is therefore appropriately suited for the 
FNSB NAA in that it provides for implementation of a curtailment 
program that will reduce emissions in a manner that can facilitate 
program adoption and implementation by the community. We also note that 
if the FNSB NAA is reclassified to Serious for failure to attain the 
2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, as proposed (81 FR 91088, December 16, 
2016), Alaska will need to reevaluate and strengthen its SIP control 
strategy to meet the more stringent Serious area requirement for BACM.
    We have reviewed Alaska's determination in the FNSB Moderate Plan 
that its area source control measures represent the adoption of 
reasonable control measures that meet RACM requirements and we believe 
that Alaska adequately justified its conclusions with respect to each 
of these measures. As noted, the EPA proposed to reclassify the FNSB 
NAA to Serious for failure to attain the PM2.5 NAAQS by the 
December 31, 2015 attainment date. Id. If the reclassification is 
finalized, Alaska will need to reevaluate and strengthen its attainment 
plan control strategy for the PM2.5 NAAQS as necessary to 
meet the more stringent Serious area requirement for BACM and BACT, 
among other requirements.
b. The EPA's Evaluation and Proposed Action: Stationary Point Sources--
RACM/RACT
    Alaska's RACM/RACT analysis for the six major stationary sources 
located in the FNSB NAA appropriately focused on PM2.5, 
SO2 and NH3. The EPA agrees with the selection of 
fabric filters (baghouses) as meeting RACM/RACT-level controls for 
direct PM2.5 emissions. This control technology is well 
established as meeting RACM/RACT for this application. In the FNSB NAA, 
NH3 accounts for less than 0.001 tons per day of emissions 
in the FNSB NAA. Alaska's RACM/RACT analysis did not identify any 
control technologies for NH3 and the EPA is unaware of any 
available technologies to control emissions of NH3 from 
combustion sources where the ammonia is solely a product of combustion. 
The EPA therefore agrees with Alaska's decision with respect to 
stationary source controls for NH3.
    With respect to SO2, Alaska identified a suite of 
controls that could potentially be implemented at the stationary 
sources in the FNSB NAA and conducted a cost analysis to determine the 
capital costs and cost effectiveness of the controls to conclude that 
SO2 controls were not economically feasible. The EPA 
understands that, due to the fact that the FNSB Moderate Plan 
demonstrated the impracticability of attaining the 2006 
PM2.5 NAAQS by the end of 2015 and the expectation that the 
area will be reclassified from Moderate to Serious, Alaska has started 
working on a BACM and BACT analysis for stationary sources to 
strengthen its SIP control strategy to meet the more stringent Serious 
area requirements. Alaska conducted its RACM/RACT analysis for 
stationary sources with the expectation that it would need to prepare a 
Serious area nonattainment plan and therefore presupposing that a BACM/
BACT analysis would also be required in the near future.\17\ 
Accordingly, Alaska's conclusion that additional SO2 
emissions controls for these stationary sources were not economically 
feasible for purposes of

[[Page 9047]]

meeting RACM/RACT requirements will be revisited in the context of 
Alaska's BACM/BACT analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ The EPA has acknowledged that it is appropriate for a state 
to consider implementing RACM/RACT in a way that supports addressing 
BACM/BACT. 81 FR 58045.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We have reviewed Alaska's determination in the FNSB Moderate Plan 
that its stationary source control measures represent the adoption of 
reasonable control measures that meet RACM/RACT requirements and we 
believe that Alaska adequately justified its conclusions with respect 
to each of these measures.
    As discussed previously, the EPA has proposed to reclassify the 
FNSB NAA to Serious for failure to attain the PM2.5 NAAQS by 
the December 31, 2015 attainment date (81 FR 91088). Alaska will need 
to reevaluate and strengthen its attainment plan control strategy for 
the PM2.5 NAAQS as necessary to meet the more stringent 
Serious area requirement for BACM and BACT, among other requirements.

D. Air Quality Modeling

1. Requirements for Air Quality Modeling
    CAA section 189(a)(1)(B) requires each state with a Moderate 
nonattainment area to submit a plan that includes, among other things, 
either (i) a demonstration (including air quality modeling) that the 
plan will provide for attainment by the applicable attainment date; or 
(ii) a demonstration that attainment by such date is impracticable. For 
model attainment demonstrations, the EPA's modeling requirements are in 
40 CFR part 51, appendix W (82 FR 5182, January 17, 2017). The EPA's 
guidance recommendations for model input preparation, model performance 
evaluation, use of the model output for the attainment demonstration, 
and modeling documentation are described in Draft Guidance for 
Demonstrating Attainment of Air Quality Goals for Ozone, 
PM2.5, and Regional Haze (Modeling Guidance).\18\ The EPA 
recommends that states prepare modeling protocols as part of their 
modeled attainment demonstrations. The Modeling Guidance describes the 
topics states should address in this modeling protocol. A modeling 
protocol should detail and formalize the procedures for conducting all 
phases of the modeling analysis, such as describing the background and 
objectives, creating a schedule and organizational structure, 
developing the input data, conducting model performance evaluations, 
interpreting modeling results, describing procedures for using the 
model to demonstrate whether proposed strategies are sufficient to 
attain the applicable standard, and producing documentation to be 
submitted for EPA Regional Office review and approval prior to actual 
modeling.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ The Modeling Guidance is available on the EPA's SCRAM Web 
site, Web page: http://www.epa.gov/scram001/guidance_sip.htm; direct 
link: https://www3.epa.gov/scram001/guidance/guide/Draft_O3-PM-RH_Modeling_Guidance-2014.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Air quality modeling is used to establish emissions targets, the 
combination of emissions of PM2.5 and PM2.5 
precursors that the area can accommodate and still attain the standard, 
and to assess whether the proposed control strategy is likely to result 
in attainment of the relevant NAAQS. Air quality modeling is performed 
for representative episodes in the past and compared to air quality 
monitoring data collected during those episodes in order to determine 
model performance. To project future design values, the model response 
to emission reductions, in the form of relative response factors, is 
applied on a chemical species-by-species basis to the baseline design 
value, as implemented in the SMAT methodology and described in the 
Modeling Guidance.
    In addition to a modeled attainment demonstration that focuses on 
locations with an air quality monitor, the 2016 PM2.5 
Implementation Rule recommends an unmonitored area analysis. This 
analysis is intended to ensure that a control strategy leads to 
reductions in PM2.5 at other locations that have no monitor 
but might have base year and/or projected future year ambient 
PM2.5 levels exceeding the standard. This is particularly 
critical where the state and/or the EPA has reason to believe that 
potential violations may be occurring in unmonitored areas. An 
unmonitored area analysis is of lesser value in the case of an 
impracticability demonstration that shows an area will not attain the 
standard at monitored locations. Finally, as discussed in the Modeling 
Guidance, the EPA recommends supplemental air quality analyses. These 
are used as part of a weight of evidence analysis, in which the 
likelihood of attainment is assessed by considering evidence other than 
the main air quality modeling attainment test.
    The EPA has not issued modeling guidance specific to 
impracticability demonstrations, but believes that a state seeking to 
make such a demonstration, generally, should provide air quality 
modeling similar to that required for an attainment demonstration. The 
main difference between an attainment demonstration and an 
impracticability demonstration is that despite the implementation of a 
control strategy including RACM/RACT and additional reasonable 
measures, an impracticability demonstration does not demonstrate 
attainment of the standard by the statutory Moderate area attainment 
date. Alternatively, a model projection could show that the 
implementation of the SIP control strategy results in attainment of the 
standard after the statutory Moderate area attainment date. However, 
there are cases where modeling may not be needed to demonstrate that it 
is impracticable to attain by the statutory Moderate area attainment 
date and the EPA has therefore determined that modeling is not a 
regulatory requirement to support an impracticability demonstration. 40 
CFR 51.1009(a)(4); 81 FR 58048. For an attainment demonstration, a 
thorough review of all modeling inputs and assumptions is especially 
important because the modeling must ultimately support a conclusion 
that the plan (including its control strategy) will provide for timely 
attainment of the applicable NAAQS.
    In contrast, for an impracticability demonstration, if the state 
and the EPA determine that the area cannot attain the NAAQS by the 
latest statutory Moderate area attainment date, the result is that the 
EPA will reclassify the area from a Moderate nonattainment area to a 
Serious nonattainment area. This reclassification obligates the state 
to submit a new attainment plan that meets more stringent regulatory 
requirements (e.g. BACM and BACT level emission controls on sources in 
the area) and the requirement for a Serious area attainment 
demonstration that will necessarily need to include air quality 
modeling that demonstrates attainment by the applicable attainment 
date. Thus, the Serious area planning process would provide an 
opportunity to refine the modeling analysis and/or correct any 
technical shortcomings in the impracticability demonstration.
2. Air Quality Modeling in the FNSB Moderate Plan and the EPA's 
Evaluation
    In FNSB Moderate Plan section III.D.5.8 and appendix III.D.5.8, 
Alaska provided air quality modeling to support its demonstration that 
it was impracticable for the FNSB NAA to attain the 2006 24-hour 
PM2.5 NAAQS by the statutory Moderate area attainment date 
of December 31, 2015. The modeling demonstration uses three-dimensional 
grid-based meteorological modeling and full photochemical grid 
modeling, combined with speciated monitoring data from 2006-2010 from

[[Page 9048]]

the State Office Building site in Fairbanks, to assess attainment. 
Alaska used the CMAQ photochemical model version 4.7.1, the most 
current version of the model at the time Alaska developed modeling for 
the FNSB Moderate Plan. Alaska examined subsequent versions of CMAQ but 
did not upgrade model versions because the newer versions did not 
include significant scientific improvements relevant for the FNSB NAA. 
The Weather Research Forecasting Model (model version 3.1) was used to 
prepare meteorological input for CMAQ. The Sparse Matrix Operator 
Kernal Emissions (SMOKE) processor was used to create photochemical 
transport model inputs. Emissions inventory estimates were combined 
with meteorological inputs developed for the two multiday air quality 
episodes of elevated PM2.5 concentrations (January 23-
February 10, 2008; and November 2-17, 2008) and with the available 
chemistry mechanisms in CMAQ to assess the ability of the FNSB NAA to 
demonstrate attainment in 2015.
    To calculate the projected 2015 PM2.5 design value, 
Alaska performed the SMAT methodology. Alaska used the ratio of future 
year (2015) to base year (2008) modeling results to derive relative 
response factors for each chemical species and these response factors 
were applied on a chemical species-by-species basis to the baseline 
design value. The concentrations of chemical species used in the 
baseline design value was an average of the monitoring data for the top 
25 percent most polluted wintertime days (in the first and fourth 
quarters) of the years 2006-2010. Only the top 25 percent was used 
because there are many cleaner days when the emission source mix and 
contributions of PM2.5 to the monitor are not relevant for 
air quality planning to meet the 24-hour PM2.5 standard. The 
top 25 percent most polluted wintertime days captured the days with 
weather conditions and emissions patterns that occur when the standard 
is exceeded. The average of the speciated concentrations on the top 25 
percent most polluted days were weighted to the observed 
PM2.5 concentrations from the official regulatory data at 
the State Office Building, such that the speciated PM2.5 
data used for air quality modeling (and for the precursor 
demonstration) are reflective of the baseline design value of 44.7 
[mu]g/m\3\. The technique was not used for the second and third 
quarters because an examination of the PM2.5 data from the 
baseline period 2006-2010 showed that the all high monitored values 
from those quarters had been flagged as exceptional events and 
submitted to the EPA for concurrence. Therefore, second and third 
quarter monitoring data has no influence on the FNSB 24-hour 
PM2.5 NAAQS design values.
    Alaska evaluated the results of their CMAQ modeling with observed 
PM2.5 mass and speciated PM2.5 mass from the 
monitor at the State Office Building. The base year modeling for the 
two multiday episodes of 2008 used hourly meteorology and emissions 
specific to those episodes and are Alaska's best attempt at reproducing 
air quality during the two wintertime pollution episodes. Alaska 
selected generally accepted techniques for assessing model performance, 
such as goal and criteria thresholds from academic literature and past 
attainment modeling done by other areas. Criteria are metrics for when 
the modeling can be considered generally acceptable, and goals are 
metrics for when the modeling can be considered to be performing well. 
After comparing model performance to the selected techniques, Alaska 
concluded that the model meets modeling goals for total 
PM2.5 and meets criteria for organic carbon, elemental 
carbon, and nitrate. In contrast, modeled estimates of the sulfate, 
ammonium, and other PM2.5 components of PM2.5 
mass were underpredicted. Alaska explained that the large 
underprediction of sulfate is likely due to the fact that the CMAQ 
existing sulfate chemistry mechanisms are intended for locations with 
liquid water clouds, warmer temperatures, and more sunlight. Alaska 
notes that the underprediction of ammonium is very likely a by-product 
of the sulfate underprediction. Thus, Alaska believes that 
NH3 controls or NOX controls would likely still 
be accurately reflected in the modeling results irrespective of the 
large underprediction of sulfate.
    In light of acceptable model performance for PM2.5 
overall and for certain chemical species, Alaska used CMAQ to test 
control strategies on primary PM2.5, NOX, and 
NH3. The sulfate component of PM2.5 was 
considered to stay constant in future years because, for the reasons 
explained above, the modeling system was not considered adequate to 
assess SO2 controls. As weight of evidence, Alaska presented 
a sensitivity study in which in which the changes in SO2 
emissions from the control strategy are used to estimate changes in 
sulfate. For the purposes of the sensitivity study, Alaska assumed that 
sources of SO2 are responsible for sulfate in proportion to 
their share of the SO2 inventory. Because the control 
strategy shifts home heating fuel from relatively sulfur-poor wood to 
relatively sulfur-rich oil, the 2015 PM2.5 design value in 
this analysis would increase by 0.5 [mu]g/m\3\. This is a relatively 
small increase in PM2.5 compared to the projected decrease 
in PM2.5 from the control strategy of 6.9 [mu]g/m\3\.
    The FNSB Moderate Plan section III.D.5.8 also contains an 
unmonitored area analysis and a weight of evidence analysis as 
additional support for the modeling demonstration. Alaska used various 
analytical techniques to inform modeling decisions and to assess model 
performance. Statistical evaluations with positive matrix factorization 
and chemical mass balance modeling were used to attribute and 
prioritize source significance. To understand the distribution of 
emissions from wood burning versus fossil fuels, a Carbon-14 analysis 
was used to determine the age distribution of carbon molecules found at 
each monitoring site. Levoglucosan, an organic compound that is 
considered to be a tracer of biomass burning, was analyzed to assess 
the significance of wood burning. A dispersion modeling study using the 
CALPUFF model was used to characterize PM2.5 contribution 
from permitted stationary sources to the State Office Building monitor.
    The weight of evidence analysis consistently attributed more than 
50 percent of the PM2.5 at the State Office Building monitor 
to wood smoke. Stationary sources are estimated to contribute 5 percent 
of the measured PM2.5 at the State Office Building monitor 
based on emissions of direct PM2.5 alone, and potentially 
another 15 percent if all of the sulfate at the monitor could be 
attributed to stationary sources rather than split with residential oil 
heat. In contrast, Alaska's emission inventory reports that stationary 
sources make up 29 percent of the emissions of direct PM2.5. 
The large difference between the proportion of direct PM2.5 
emissions from stationary sources and their modeled contribution at the 
State Office Building monitor is primarily due to the influence of the 
stable atmosphere near the surface, and secondarily because prevailing 
winds at the top of the stacks do not carry plumes of many of the 
stationary sources in the direction of the monitor. This shows the 
value of using modeling and source apportionment techniques, as 
compared to emissions inventory information alone, in assessing the 
source of PM2.5 air pollution in the nonattainment area.
    Based on the unmonitored area analysis, Alaska projects 2015 design 
values above the standard in several parts of the FNSB NAA, including 
the western part of downtown Fairbanks, to the southeast of downtown 
Fairbanks,

[[Page 9049]]

and in the North Pole area. This modeling suggests there are locations 
other than the State Office Building location where exceedances may be 
occurring. Alaska should design any Serious area plan in order to 
address such potential exceedances in the FNSB NAA.
3. The EPA's Conclusions on Air Quality Modeling
    The EPA is proposing to find that Alaska's model is adequate for 
assessing whether the FNSB NAA will attain the PM2.5 NAAQS 
by the statutory Moderate area attainment date, i.e., by December 31, 
2015, in the context of this SIP submission. The model inputs, episode 
selection, performance evaluation, extensive supplemental information, 
and attainment test methodology are well-described and conform with the 
state-of-the art for air quality modeling. Alaska found unacceptable 
model performance for some PM2.5 chemical species, but the 
control strategy did not rely on controls of those chemical components. 
The EPA therefore proposes to find that the modeling is also adequate 
for purposes of supporting the control strategy analysis, RFP, and 
impracticability demonstrations.
    As discussed previously, the EPA notes that because the FNSB NAA 
did not attain the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS by December 31, 
2015, Alaska will be required to submit a Serious area SIP by December 
31, 2017. In a separate action, the EPA has recently proposed to find 
that the area failed to attain and thus will be reclassified from 
Moderate to Serious if the Agency finalizes that proposal. The EPA 
expects Alaska to further analyze modeling gaps related to sulfate for 
the Serious area plan. In addition, the EPA believes that the 
heterogeneity of wood smoke emissions and lack of air movement during 
polluted episodes, will continue to make an unmonitored area analysis 
an important component in the Serious area plan.

E. Demonstration That Attainment by the Moderate Area Attainment Date 
Is Impracticable

1. Requirements for Attainment/Impracticability of Attainment 
Demonstrations
    CAA section 189(a)(1)(B) requires that each Moderate area 
attainment plan include a demonstration that the plan provides for 
attainment by the latest applicable Moderate area deadline or, 
alternatively, that attainment by the latest applicable attainment date 
is impracticable. A demonstration that the plan provides for attainment 
must be based on air quality modeling, and the EPA generally recommends 
that a demonstration of impracticability also be based on air quality 
modeling and be consistent with the EPA's modeling regulations and 
guidance (51.1011(a)(2); 51.1011(a)(4)(ii); and 81 FR 58049).
    CAA section 188(c) states, in relevant part, that the Moderate area 
attainment date ``shall be as expeditiously as practicable but no later 
than the end of the sixth calendar year after the area's designation as 
nonattainment.'' For the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, effective 
December 14, 2009, the applicable Moderate area attainment date under 
section 188(c) for the FNSB NAA is as expeditiously as practicable, but 
no later than December 31, 2015. In SIP submissions to demonstrate 
impracticability, the state should document that its required control 
strategy in the plan represents the application of RACM/RACT to 
existing sources. Moderate areas that do not demonstrate timely 
attainment should adopt all reasonable control measures (i.e., those 
measures that are technologically and economically feasible). 81 FR 
58035. The impracticability demonstration should be a showing that the 
area cannot attain by the applicable date, notwithstanding 
implementation of all reasonable controls in the Moderate area 
attainment plan. 81 FR 58045.
2. Impracticability Demonstration in the FNSB Moderate Plan
    The FNSB Moderate Plan includes a demonstration, based on air 
quality modeling and additional supporting analyses discussed in 
section II.D of this proposal, that attainment by the statutory 
Moderate area attainment date of December 31, 2015 was impracticable. 
Implementation of the selected control strategy resulted in a projected 
2015 design value of 39.6 [micro]mu;g/m\3\ at the State Office 
Building, and Alaska's unmonitored area analysis shows that several 
other parts of the FNSB NAA may also violate the NAAQS in 2015. On 
November 22, 2016, and January 6, 2017, Alaska submitted a SIP revision 
supported by additional clarifying information that included the 
adoption of control measures that have been implemented since the 
initial submission of the FNSB Moderate Plan in December 2014. The 
control measures include a mandatory curtailment program for solid-fuel 
fired heaters, a requirement to use dry wood in wood-fired heaters, an 
opacity limit applicable to solid-fuel fired heating devices, and other 
measures that strengthened the overall control strategy. In the 2017 
Clarification, Alaska provided a demonstration that included the 
additional emissions reductions from these control measures, which 
resulted in a projected 2015 future year design value of 37.8 
[micro]mu;g/m\3\. Accordingly, Alaska demonstrated that attainment by 
the statutory Moderate area attainment date would still have been 
impracticable even if all control measures had been adopted earlier.
3. The EPA's Evaluation and Proposed Action: Impracticability 
Demonstration
    We have evaluated the FNSB Moderate Plan's demonstration that it 
was impracticable for the area for attain by the December 31, 2015 
statutory Moderate area attainment date, supporting air quality 
modeling, and control strategy analyses addressing the adoption of all 
reasonable measures. We are proposing to approve Alaska's demonstration 
that it was not practicable for the area to attain the 2006 NAAQS 
standard by December 31, 2015.
    In addition to the information in the FNSB Moderate Plan and 
supplement, we have reviewed recent PM2.5 monitoring data 
from the FNSB NAA. The data show that the area did not attain the 
PM2.5 NAAQS by the December 31, 2015 attainment date. The 
State Office Building monitor, which is the original violating monitor 
in the FNSB NAA and was the basis of the FNSB Moderate Plan, had a 
2013-2015 design value of 43 [micro]mu;g/m\3\.\19\ In addition, the 
monitor at the North Pole Fire Station became a regulatory monitor in 
2015, after Alaska's development and submission of the initial FNSB 
Moderate Plan. The North Pole Fire Station monitor has a 2013-2015 
design value of 124 [micro]mu;g/m\3\. The EPA has therefore separately 
proposed to find that the FNSB NAA did not attain by the statutory 
Moderate area attainment date and reclassify the area from Moderate to 
Serious pursuant to CAA section 188(b)(2) (81 FR 91088, December 16, 
2016). If the EPA finalizes the reclassification of the FNSB NAA from 
Moderate to Serious, Alaska will be required to submit a Serious area 
attainment plan by December 31, 2017. Because the North Pole Fire 
Station monitor is now a regulatory monitor in the FNSB NAA, Alaska and 
the EPA will address it in the development of the Serious area plan for 
the FNSB NAA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ The 2013-2015 design value excludes exceedances during 
summer months that were identified as wildfire exceptional events 
and the EPA has approved excluding the data. (See section II.I of 
this proposal.)

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

[[Page 9050]]

F. Reasonable Further Progress and Quantitative Milestones

1. Requirements for RFP and QMs
    CAA section 172(c)(2) requires nonattainment area plans to provide 
for RFP. In addition, CAA section 189(c) requires PM2.5 
nonattainment area SIPs to include QMs to be achieved every 3 years 
until the area is redesignated to attainment and which demonstrate RFP. 
CAA section 171(1) defines RFP as ``such annual incremental reductions 
in emissions of the relevant air pollutant as are required by [Part D] 
or may reasonably be required by the Administrator for the purpose of 
ensuring attainment of the applicable [NAAQS] by the applicable date.'' 
Neither subpart 1 nor subpart 4 require that a set percentage of 
emissions reductions be achieved in any given year for purposes of 
satisfying the RFP requirement for PM2.5 NAAQS.
    The EPA has historically interpreted the requirement to be met by a 
state showing annual incremental emission reductions in its attainment 
plan sufficient to maintain generally linear progress toward attainment 
by the applicable deadline. 40 CFR 51.1012(a)(4); see also 59 FR 41998, 
42015 (August 10, 1994). In some circumstances, the EPA has 
acknowledged that RFP may be better represented as step-wise progress 
as controls are implemented and achieve significant reductions over a 
relatively short period. The EPA's recent implementation rule for the 
PM2.5 NAAQS has reiterated these requirements. An attainment 
plan for a PM2.5 nonattainment area must include an RFP 
analysis that demonstrates that sources 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 as expeditiously as practicable. 40 CFR 51.1012(a). The RFP 
analysis must include a schedule for implementation of the control 
measures and provide projected emissions from these measures for each 
applicable milestone year. Id. at 51.1012(a)(1)-(2). At the state's 
election, the RFP analysis may also identify ambient air quality 
targets for the milestone years at the design value monitor locations. 
Id. at 51.1012(a)(5).
    Section 189(c) provides that attainment plans must include QMs that 
will be used to measure RFP every 3 years until redesignation. Thus, 
the EPA determines an area's compliance with RFP in conjunction with 
determining its compliance with the QM requirement. 40 CFR 51.1013(a) 
(requiring attainment plans to include specific QMs that will 
demonstrate RFP toward attainment). Because RFP is an annual emission 
reduction requirement and the QMs are to be achieved every 3 years, 
when a state demonstrates compliance with the QM requirement, it 
provides an objective evaluation of RFP that has been achieved during 
each of the relevant 3 years. Id. at 51.1013(a)(1)(ii). The EPA has 
historically interpreted the CAA to authorize a broad variety of QMs, 
so long as they provide a way to verify compliance with the RFP 
requirement. QMs are not required to take any particular form but they 
should consist of elements that allow progress to be quantified or 
measured objectively. 81 FR 58064. However, at a minimum, QMs for a 
Moderate area attainment plan must track progress in implementing 
control measures by each milestone date. Therefore, timely 
implementation of control measures comprising the RFP plan provides a 
means for satisfying the QM requirement. Id. The Act requires states to 
include RFP and QMs in attainment plans for all Moderate areas, even 
for areas that cannot practicably attain by the attainment date.
    The CAA does not specify the starting point for counting the 3-year 
periods for QMs under CAA section 189(c). However, the EPA's 
longstanding interpretation of the CAA is that the first QM should fall 
3 years after the latest date on which the state should have submitted 
the attainment plan. For the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, the EPA set 
QMs to be achieved no later than the 3 years after December 31, 2014, 
and every 3 years thereafter until the QM date falls within 3 years 
after the applicable attainment date. 40 CFR 51.1013(a)(4). 
Accordingly, the first QM date for the FNSB NAA must be met no later 
than December 31, 2017 (3 years after December 31, 2014). Following 
reclassification of the FNSB NAA to Serious with a new applicable 
attainment date of December 31, 2019, the later QM of December 31, 2020 
will apply, with additional QMs every 3 years thereafter as may be 
necessary for the Serious area plan in light of any extension of the 
applicable attainment date.
    A state must submit a QM report to the EPA no later than 90 days 
after the QM date. 40 CFR 51.1013(b). The QM reports must contain: (1) 
A certification that the attainment plan control strategy is being 
implemented, (2) technical support to demonstrate that the QMs have 
been satisfied and how the emissions reductions achieved to date 
compare to those scheduled to meet RFP, (3) a discussion of whether the 
area will attain the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS by the projected 
attainment date.
2. RFP and QMs in the FNSB Moderate Plan
    The RFP demonstration in the FNSB Moderate Plan addresses emissions 
of direct PM2.5, NOX, SO2, and 
NH3 and includes a projected emissions inventory for the 
2017 QMs based on implementing the control strategy (see the FNSB 
Moderate Plan sections III.D.5.6 and III.D.5.8, the 2017 Clarification, 
and table 6 in section II.C, above). Alaska assessed the emissions 
reductions that would be achieved from the base year emissions 
inventory by 2017 from the control measures included in the control 
strategy. To determine whether the 2017 emissions projections were 
consistent with generally linear progress towards attainment, Alaska 
interpolated linearly between the 2015 projected emissions inventory 
for the FNSB NAA and the 2019 inventory that Alaska based on projected 
attainment for the FNSB NAA by that year, i.e., the tenth year 
following designation. The table below summarizes the 2017 QMs and RFP 
demonstration in the FNSB Moderate Plan.

                                   Table 7--FNSB NAA RFP Demonstration and QMs
                                                 [Tons per day]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Emissions projections                    PM2.5            NOX             SO2             NH3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2017 Linear Progress QMs........................            3.96           18.97           13.00           0.200
2017 Projected Emissions........................            3.91           18.95           12.41           0.188
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Alaska included an inventory for 2017 and motor vehicle emissions 
budgets, which are discussed in section II.H below. The RFP analysis is 
based on winter episode average-season-day emissions for the FNSB NAA 
and actual

[[Page 9051]]

emissions for stationary point sources. The RFP analysis projected that 
emissions of direct PM2.5 and NOX would decline 
from 2015 to 2017. The SO2 and NH3 emissions were 
projected to slightly increase, due in large part to implementation of 
the control strategy which places greater reliance on gas and oil 
heating in place of wood and other solid fuels to reduce overall 
emissions and concentrations of PM2.5 in the FNSB NAA. The 
EPA has acknowledged that in some circumstances a state could meet the 
RFP requirement even when emissions of one or more plan precursors are 
not decreasing, provided that the relative air quality impacts of the 
emissions reductions of direct PM2.5 and aggregate 
PM2.5 plan precursors have generally linear reductions 
towards what is needed for expeditious attainment in the area. In such 
a circumstance the state would demonstrate that even when one or more 
plan precursor is not decreasing, the emissions reductions of direct 
PM2.5 and remaining PM2.5 plan precursors are the 
dominant factors in reducing ambient PM2.5 concentrations 
and therefore adequate to demonstrate RFP. 81 FR 58057. Alaska's RFP 
analysis projected that implementation of the control strategy would 
decrease emissions of direct PM2.5 and NOX and 
slightly increase emissions of SO2 and NH3 
emissions, with aggregate emissions reductions of direct 
PM2.5 and all precursors lower than linear progress.
    As previously noted, on November 22, 2016, and January 6, 2017, 
Alaska provided a supplementary submission and clarifying information 
to the EPA that included implementation of control measures for area 
sources in 2015. The control measures include a mandatory curtailment 
program for solid-fuel heaters, a requirement to use only dry wood in 
wood heaters, an opacity limit for solid-fuel fired heating devices, 
and other measures that strengthened the control strategy. Alaska 
updated the RFP analysis to include the implementation of these new 
measures.
3. The EPA's Evaluation and Proposed Action: RFP and QMs
    The FNSB Moderate Plan, including the 2016 supplement and 2017 
Clarification, demonstrates that the control strategy, including all 
reasonable controls, has been implemented and identifies projected 
emissions levels, in a 2017 emissions inventory, that reflect full 
implementation of the control strategy for the area. In an area that 
cannot practicably attain the PM2.5 NAAQS by the applicable 
Moderate area attainment date, we believe it is reasonable to find that 
full implementation of a control strategy that satisfies the Moderate 
area control requirements (RACM/RACT and additional reasonable 
measures) represents RFP toward attainment. We propose, therefore, to 
approve the RFP demonstration for direct PM2.5, 
NOX, SO2, and NH3 as meeting the 
requirements of CAA section 172(c)(2).
    In evaluating whether the submitted attainment plan meets the RFP 
and related QM requirements, we are relying in part on the FNSB 
Moderate Plan's analysis of the implementation of control measures 
adopted before 2015 and more recently in 2016. As previously noted, if 
the FNSB NAA is reclassified from a Moderate to Serious nonattainment 
area, as proposed, the area will be subject to Serious area plan 
requirements and Alaska will need to reevaluate and strengthen its 
attainment plan control strategy, and provide a new attainment 
demonstration and revised RFP demonstration and QMs based on the 
Serious area control strategy.
    The EPA proposes to approve the FNSB Moderate Plan as meeting both 
the RFP and QM requirements. The FNSB Moderate Plan provides sufficient 
data and analyses that demonstrate emissions reductions that provide 
RFP toward attainment in 2017, and the QM for 2017 provides an 
objective way for the EPA to verify that Alaska has met the RFP 
requirements for the relevant 3 years of the attainment plan for this 
area.
    On January 6, 2017, Alaska submitted a QM report (2017 QM Report) 
to the EPA certifying that the 2017 QMs for the FNSB NAA have been 
achieved.\20\ The EPA has evaluated the 2017 QM Report and determines 
that, it adequately meets the requirements of 40 CFR 51.1013(b). The 
2017 QM Report includes a certification from the Governor's designee 
and an appropriate demonstration that the control strategy has been 
fully implemented and that the emissions reductions achieved are 
consistent with the 2017 QMs that demonstrate RFP at the State Office 
Building monitor. In the 2017 QM Report, Alaska acknowledges that, 
consistent with the impracticability demonstration in the FNSB Moderate 
Plan, the FNSB NAA did not attain the PM2.5 NAAQS by the 
moderate area attainment date of December 31, 2015. Based on our review 
of Alaska's 2017 QM Report, the EPA agrees that the FNSB NAA has 
achieved the RFP emissions goals and the 2017 QMs in the FNSB Moderate 
Plan for direct PM2.5, NOX, SO2, and 
NH3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ Alaska's 2017 quantitative milestone report is available in 
the docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

G. Contingency Measures

1. Requirements for Contingency Measures
    Under CAA section 172(c)(9), PM2.5 plans must include 
contingency measures to be implemented if an area fails to meet RFP or 
fails to attain the PM2.5 standards by the applicable 
attainment date. Under subpart 4, however, the EPA interprets section 
172(c)(9) in light of the specific requirements for particulate matter 
nonattainment areas. CAA section 189(b)(1)(A) differentiates between 
Moderate area attainment plans that provide for timely attainment by no 
later than the sixth calendar year after designation and those that 
demonstrate that attainment by that date is impracticable. Where the 
SIP submission includes a demonstration that attainment by the 
applicable attainment date is impracticable, the EPA interprets CAA 
section 172(c)(9) not to require contingency measures that would take 
effect upon failure to attain. 81 FR 58067. In an attainment plan 
submission that meets the impracticability demonstration requirement, 
the state need only submit contingency measures to be implemented if a 
state fails to meet any RFP requirement of the plan, any QM in the 
plan, or to submit a QM report, as provided in 40 CFR 51.1014(a)(1)-
(3).\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ The EPA does not interpret the requirement for failure-to-
attain contingency measures to apply to Moderate PM2.5 
nonattainment areas that cannot practicably attain the NAAQS by the 
statutory attainment date. Rather, the EPA believes it is 
appropriate for the state to identify and adopt attainment 
contingency measures as part of the Serious area attainment plan 
that it will develop once the EPA reclassifies the area. 81 FR 
58067.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The purpose of contingency measures is to continue progress in 
reducing emissions during the period while a state is revising its SIP 
to address a failure, such as a failure to meet a QM requirement or 
failure to attain. The principal considerations for evaluating 
contingency measures are:
     Contingency measures must be fully adopted rules or 
control measures that are ready to be implemented quickly upon failure 
to meet RFP or failure of the area to meet the NAAQS by its attainment 
date.
     The SIP must contain trigger mechanisms for the 
contingency measures, specify a schedule for implementation, and 
indicate that the measures will be implemented without further action 
by the state or by the EPA. In general, we expect all actions needed to 
affect full implementation of the

[[Page 9052]]

measures to occur within 60 days after the EPA notifies the state of a 
failure.
     The contingency measures shall consist of control measures 
that are not otherwise included in the control strategy or that achieve 
emissions reductions not otherwise relied upon in the control strategy 
for the area.
     The measures should provide for emissions reductions 
equivalent to approximately one year of reductions needed for RFP 
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. 81 FR 58066.
2. Contingency Measures in the FNSB Moderate Plan
    Alaska identified two contingency measures in the FNSB Moderate 
Plan in section III.D.5.10. In accordance with basic requirements for 
valid contingency measures, these two measures are not required to meet 
other attainment plan requirements and are not relied on in the control 
strategy. The first contingency measure requires the replacement of 
wood heating devices upon sale or lease of property if the existing 
devices do not meet specific emissions requirements. The second 
contingency measure is a mandatory enhanced dry wood compliance program 
that requires commercial wood sellers to register with the State and to 
disclose moisture content information to consumers at the time of wood 
sale and delivery.
    The FNSB Moderate Plan contingency measures have been fully adopted 
into Alaska State Code (18 AAC 50.076 and 50.077). In accordance with 
basic requirements for valid contingency measures, they will go into 
effect with minimal further action by the state or the EPA in response 
to a triggering event; in this case the measures adopted by Alaska will 
be implemented within 60 days of the EPA making a finding that the FNSB 
NAA failed to attain the NAAQS and reclassifying the area from a 
Moderate to a Serious nonattainment area.
3. The EPA's Evaluation and Proposed Action: Contingency Measures
    The EPA acknowledges that Alaska developed, adopted, and submitted 
the FNSB Moderate Plan prior to the EPA's publication of the proposed 
PM2.5 Implementation Rule and interpretation that the 
requirement for contingency measures for failure to attain does not 
apply to a Moderate area that a state demonstrates cannot practicably 
attain by the statutory attainment date, but rather contingency 
measures for failure to meet RFP or QMs apply to such areas. See CAA 
172(c)(9); 80 FR 15392, March 23, 2015; and 81 FR 58067. Hence, 
Alaska's FNSB Moderate Plan submission includes contingency measures 
that would take effect at the first possible triggering event--in this 
case the failure of the FNSB NAA to attain by the applicable Moderate 
area statutory attainment date, December 31, 2015. The EPA believes 
that had Alaska been aware of the interpretation provided in the 
proposed (and final) PM2.5 Implementation Rule at the time 
it developed and submitted the FNSB Moderate Plan, it would have 
provided contingency measures for failure to meet RFP, meet any QM, or 
submit a QM report on time. 40 CFR 51.1014.
    Although the FNSB Moderate Plan did not include contingency 
measures for failure to meet RFP, the EPA is in the unusual position of 
reviewing the contingency measure requirement at a later point in time 
than would normally occur (i.e., after the applicable attainment date 
and Alaska's submission of the 2017 QM Report), when it is possible to 
determine whether the area has, in fact, achieved RFP, up to and 
including the 2017 QM (see section II.F of this proposal for discussion 
of Alaska's 2017 QM Report). We are proposing to find that the FNSB 
Moderate Plan is approvable and that the RFP contingency measures for 
the 2017 milestone year is moot as applied to the FNSB NAA given the 
specific facts of the situation, including that the area achieved its 
2017 QM emission reductions.
    As noted, the EPA has proposed (consistent with the 
impracticability demonstration in the FNSB Moderate Plan) to reclassify 
the area to Serious. Upon reclassification of this area to Serious 
nonattainment, Alaska will be required to submit a Serious area plan 
for this area that must include contingency measures for purposes of 
both failure to meet RFP and failure to attain by the Serious area 
attainment date, consistent with the requirements of the CAA and the 
PM2.5 Implementation Rule.
    In addition, Alaska included in the FNSB Moderate Plan contingency 
measures that are triggered by failure to attain. Although not 
required, as discussed above, Alaska can elect to include these control 
measures pursuant to its authority under CAA section 116. Because 
contingency measures for failure to attain are not required in this 
type of attainment plan, the EPA is not proposing to approve these 
control measures as contingency measures. Instead, the EPA is proposing 
to approve them as SIP strengthening measures because they will achieve 
additional emission reductions needed in this area.
    Approving these control measures will help to assure that further 
reductions of emissions occur during the period in which Alaska is 
developing the Serious area attainment plan for this area. In 
developing the Serious area attainment plan for this area, Alaska will 
be required submit a SIP revision that will ensure the area achieves 
the next QM of December 31, 2020 (and additional QMs every three years 
thereafter as may be necessary). As discussed previously, the analyses 
in the Serious area attainment plan will be based on the highest 
violating regulatory monitor which is currently the monitor at the 
North Pole Fire Station. Thus, the 2020 QMs will be based on meeting 
RFP at the North Pole Fire Station monitor.
    The EPA is therefore proposing to approve, as SIP strengthening 
measures, the requirement to replace wood heating devices upon sale or 
lease of property when existing devices do not meet specific emissions 
requirements and the mandatory enhanced dry wood compliance program. As 
discussed previously, the EPA has proposed to reclassify the FNSB NAA 
to Serious and the control measures are set to take effect upon 
reclassification of the FNSB NAA from Moderate to Serious.

H. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets

1. Requirements for Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets
    CAA section 176(c) requires Federal actions in nonattainment and 
maintenance areas to conform to the goals of the SIP to eliminate or 
reduce the severity and number of violations of the NAAQS and achieve 
expeditious attainment of the standards. Conformity to the goals of the 
SIP means that such actions will not (1) cause or contribute to 
violations of a NAAQS, (2) worsen the severity of an existing 
violation, or (3) delay timely attainment of any NAAQS or interim 
milestones.
    Actions involving Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) or Federal 
Transit Administration (FTA) funding or approval are subject to the 
transportation conformity rule (40 CFR 51.390 and part 93, subpart A). 
Under this rule, metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) in 
nonattainment and maintenance areas coordinate with state air quality 
and transportation agencies, the EPA, FHWA and FTA to demonstrate that 
an area's long-range transportation plans (``transportation plans'') 
and transportation improvement program (TIP) conform to applicable 
SIPs. This demonstration is typically made by showing that estimated

[[Page 9053]]

emissions from existing and planned highway and transit systems are 
less than or equal to the motor vehicle emissions budgets (``budgets'') 
contained in all control strategy plans. An attainment plan for the 
PM2.5 NAAQS should include budgets for the attainment year 
and each required QM year, as appropriate. Budgets are generally 
established for specific years and specific pollutants or precursors 
and must reflect all of the motor vehicle control measures contained in 
the attainment and RFP demonstrations (40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)(v)).
    Attainment plans for PM2.5 NAAQS should identify motor 
vehicle emission budgets for each QM year and the attainment year for 
direct PM2.5 and NOX (See 40 CFR 
93.102(b)(2)(iv)), and for VOCs, SO2, and NH3, 
if, during the SIP development process, transportation-related 
emissions of these precursors have been found to contribute 
significantly to the PM2.5 nonattainment problem in the area 
at issue (40 CFR 93.102(b)(2)(v)). All direct PM2.5 emission 
budgets in an attainment plan should include direct PM2.5 
motor vehicle emissions from tailpipe, brake wear, and tire wear. A 
state must also consider whether re-entrained paved and unpaved road 
dust are significant contributors and should be included in the direct 
PM2.5 budget. See 40 CFR 93.102(b) and 93.122(f) and the 
conformity rule preamble at 69 FR 40004, 40031-40036 (July 1, 
2004).\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ For further information on transportation conformity 
rulemakings, policy guidance and outreach materials, see the EPA's 
Web site at http://www3.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/policy.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets in the FNSB Moderate Plan
    In section III.D.5.6, the FNSB Moderate Plan provides budgets for 
direct PM2.5 and NOX for 2017, the QM year for 
RFP. The budgets were calculated using the MOVES2010a vehicle emissions 
model, which was the latest onroad mobile sources emissions model 
available at the time Alaska started developing the attainment plan 
inventory. Alaska used local fleet and fuel inputs and the Fairbanks 
Metropolitan Area Transportation System travel demand model to generate 
local vehicle travel activity estimates over the six-month 
nonattainment season (October through March). The average winter day 
emissions, as detailed in section II.A of this proposal, were used by 
Alaska to set the motor vehicle emissions budgets. Exceedances of the 
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in the FNSB NAA occur almost 
exclusively during the winter months. Alaska executed MOVES2010a with 
locally developed inputs representative of wintertime calendar year 
2017 conditions. Table 8 summarizes the regional average winter day 
onroad vehicle PM2.5 and NOX emissions that 
represent the applicable motor vehicle emissions budgets for 2017 
including the plug-in block heater adjustments to starting exhaust 
emissions for light-duty gasoline vehicles. Alaska estimated that the 
contribution of onroad vehicles to total emissions from all sources 
comprises 8.7 percent of direct PM2.5 emissions and 16.7 
percent of NOX emissions.

            Table 8--Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets for FNSB
                             [Tons per day]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Calendar year                       PM2.5       NOX
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2017...............................................      0.33      2.13
------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. The EPA's Conclusion and Proposed Action: Motor Vehicle Emissions 
Budgets
    We have evaluated the budgets developed by Alaska against our 
adequacy criteria in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4) as part of our review of the 
approvability of the budgets. The EPA finds that they are consistent 
with meeting RFP requirements toward attainment of the 2006 24-hour 
PM2.5 NAAQS in this area and meet the criteria for adequacy 
and approval. The EPA proposes to approve Alaska's motor vehicle 
emissions budgets in table 8 for 2017 for direct PM2.5 and 
NOX for the FNSB NAA.

I. FNSB NAA Exceptional Event Demonstrations and Concurrences

    The CAA allows for the exclusion of air quality monitoring data 
from design value calculations when there are exceedances caused by 
events, such as wildfires, that meet the criteria for an exceptional 
event identified in the EPA's implementing regulations, the Exceptional 
Events Rule at 40 CFR 50.1, 50.14 and 51.930. Emissions from wildfires 
influenced PM2.5 concentrations recorded in the FNSB NAA in 
2009, 2010, and 2013. Alaska submitted three exceptional event 
demonstrations for wildfires for which the EPA concurred on as follows:

Table 9--EPA Concurred Exceptional Events Days That Affected Data in the
                                FNSB NAA
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Day(s) affected by wildfire
     exceptional events        Affected monitor(s)     EPA concurrence
------------------------------------------------------------------------
July 6-15-30, 2009..........  State Office          December 19, 2012.
                               Building.
August 2-5-8, 2009
July 13, 2010...............  State Office          March 11, 2014.
                               Building.
June 27, 2013...............  State Office          November 9, 2016.
                               Building, National
                               Core (NCore).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The 2009 and 2010 events had regulatory significance for purposes 
of the modeling and impracticability demonstration in the FNSB Moderate 
Plan. The 2013 event has regulatory significance for purposes of the 
Serious area plan submittal in development. Further details on Alaska's 
analyses and the EPA's concurrences can be found in the docket for this 
regulatory action. The EPA has concurred with the Alaska's request to 
exclude event-influenced data for the dates listed above.\23\ As such, 
the event-influenced data have been removed from the data set used for 
regulatory purposes and, for this proposed action, the EPA will rely on 
the calculated values that exclude the event-influenced data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ The EPA concurrence letters for exceptional events are 
included in the docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Proposed Action

    Under CAA section 110(k), the EPA is proposing to approve the FNSB 
Moderate Plan for the PM2.5 NAAQS. Specifically, the FNSB 
Moderate Plan meets the substantive statutory and regulatory 
requirements for base year and projected emissions inventories, 
precursor demonstrations, analysis and imposition of RACM/RACT level

[[Page 9054]]

emission controls, RFP, and QMs. In addition, the EPA is proposing to 
approve the 2017 motor vehicle emissions budgets as shown in table 8 
above because they are derived from an approvable RFP demonstration and 
meet the requirements of CAA section 176(c) and 40 CFR part 93, subpart 
A.
    Accordingly, the EPA is proposing to determine that the FNSB 
Moderate Plan, for the FNSB NAA for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 
NAAQS, meets applicable requirements for purposes of approval under 
section 110(k) of the CAA. The EPA also proposes to approve state and 
local rules submitted in the FNSB Moderate Plan and the exceptional 
event demonstrations as discussed in this action.

IV. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, the EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule 
regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance 
with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to incorporate by 
reference state and local regulations for solid-fuel fired heaters and 
open burning. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these 
materials generally available through www.regulations.gov and/or at the 
EPA Region 10 Office (please contact the person identified in the ``For 
Further Information Contact'' section of this preamble for more 
information).

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a 
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and 
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state 
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. 
Accordingly, this proposed action merely approves state law as meeting 
Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond 
those imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to 
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 
2011);
     does not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     is certified as not having a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     does not have Federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     is not an economically significant regulatory action based 
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997);
     is not a significant regulatory action subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the 
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent 
with the Clean Air Act; and
     does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority 
to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or 
environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible 
methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in 
any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a 
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does 
not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct 
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by 
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

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

    Dated: January 18, 2017.
Dennis J. McLerran,
Regional Administrator, EPA Region 10.
[FR Doc. 2017-02193 Filed 2-1-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P