[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 173 (Friday, September 8, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 42457-42473]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-18768]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R10-OAR-2015-0131: FRL-9967-21-Region 10]


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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

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

DATES: This action is effective on October 10, 2017.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under 
Docket ID No. EPA-R10-OAR-2015-0131. All documents in the docket are 
listed on the https://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in 
the index, some

[[Page 42458]]

information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information 
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such 
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be 
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket 
materials are available through https://www.regulations.gov, or please 
contact the person identified in the For Further Information Contact 
section for additional availability information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Claudia Vaupel at 206-553-6121, or 
[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
II. Public Comments and the EPA's Responses
    A. Comments on Control Measures
    B. Comments on Enforcement
    C. Comments on Rules
    D. Other Comments
III. Final Action
IV. Incorporation by Reference
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

    On February 2, 2017, the EPA published its proposal to approve the 
FNSB Moderate Plan submitted by Alaska to address CAA requirements for 
the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in the FNSB NAA. 82 FR 9035. 
Specifically, we proposed to find that the FNSB Moderate Plan meets the 
substantive statutory and regulatory requirements for base-year and 
projected emissions inventories, precursor demonstrations, analysis and 
imposition of reasonably available control measures/technologies (RACM/
RACT), reasonable further progress (RFP), quantitative milestones (QMs) 
and a demonstration that attainment by the December 31, 2015 attainment 
date was impracticable. We also proposed to approve the 2017 motor 
vehicle emissions budgets, state and local rules that were included in 
the FNSB Moderate Plan, and exceptional event demonstrations submitted 
by Alaska to address unrepresentative monitoring data that occurred 
during certain events. On July 26, 2017, Alaska withdrew from the EPA's 
consideration four provisions from its SIP submissions.\1\ The removal 
of these provisions does not affect this final action fully approving 
the FNSB Moderate Plan. For a description of Alaska's submissions, and 
our evaluation and rationale for the proposed action, please see the 
proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register at 82 FR 9035, February 2, 
2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation letter, 
Withdrawal of items from the State Implementation Plan submittal for 
the Fairbanks North Star Borough nonattainment area, July 26, 2017, 
available in the docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Public Comments and the EPA's Responses

    The EPA provided a 30-day period for the public to comment on our 
proposed action on the FNSB Moderate Plan which ended on March 3, 2017. 
During this comment period, we received five public comment letters. 
The public comments can be found in the docket for this action. Two 
commenters were supportive of efforts to improve air quality in 
general. One commenter expressed appreciation for the ``strong 
standards implemented in 2006 that strengthened the 24-hour 
PM2.5 NAAQS.'' The other commenter stated that ``Alaska has 
certainly done their research and taken seriously their drafting of the 
proposed plan.'' Three commenters opposed the EPA's proposed approval 
action. In general, these adverse comments questioned the approvability 
of Alaska's RACM/RACT analysis, Alaska's authority to enforce the 
requirements of the attainment plan, the stringency of the submitted 
regulations compared to existing state regulations, and expressed 
concerns about the high PM2.5 concentrations in the area and 
the resulting impacts on public health. We summarize the adverse 
comments and provide our responses in the following paragraphs.

A. Comments on Control Measures

    Comment 1: Two commenters opposed the EPA's proposed approval of 
the FNSB Moderate Plan on the basis that it did not consider all 
potential measures that Alaska could have imposed to meet the RACM/RACT 
requirement for a Moderate area attainment plan. One commenter stated 
that ``there are many available control measures for residential wood 
combustion that the State has neglected to consider'' and provided as 
examples requirements for low-sulfur heating fuel, control measures 
based on housing density, programs to improve wood-burning device 
operation and maintenance, and training and certification programs for 
installers of wood stoves. The commenter then asserted that the ``State 
was required to analyze these control measures to determine whether 
they are reasonable for Fairbanks.'' The other commenter stated that 
``Alaska's consideration of technologically and economically feasible 
controls was impermissibly narrow'' and provided as examples limiting 
the hours of operation for wood-heating facilities, and wood 
gasification and carbon capture and storage that Alaska did not 
evaluate or impose as part of the FNSB Moderate Plan.
    Response 1: The EPA disagrees with these comments because Alaska 
adequately evaluated appropriate measures for the FNSB NAA for purposes 
of the FNSB Moderate Plan. Section 107(a) of the CAA provides states 
with both authority and primary responsibility for developing SIPs that 
meet applicable statutory and regulatory requirements for attaining, 
maintaining, and enforcing the NAAQS. States have discretion in 
formulating their attainment plans so long as they meet the applicable 
requirements of the Act.\2\ Additionally, the EPA has explained that 
the control measure evaluation process ``generally allows states to 
apply reasoned judgment as they identify potential control measures for 
sources of direct PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors in 
their respective nonattainment areas.'' 81 FR 58037, August 24, 2016. 
For the reasons provided in our proposed rule and further in the 
following paragraphs, we conclude that the FNSB Moderate Plan provides 
for the implementation of all RACM/RACT that could reasonably be 
implemented in the FNSB NAA as required by CAA sections 172(c) and 
189(a)(1)(C). We respond in the following paragraphs to the specific 
comments pertaining to the six potential control measures highlighted 
by the commenters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ CAA section 110(k)(3), 42 U.S.C. 7410(k)(3) and 40 CFR 
52.02(a); see also Union Elec. Co. v. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 250 (1976); 
Train v. Natural Res. Def. Council, 421 U.S. 60, 79 (1975).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Response 1.a. Low-sulfur heating fuel requirement as opposed to 
economic incentives. One commenter asserted that Alaska failed to 
evaluate, as part of the analysis for potential RACM/RACT control 
measures for residential wood combustion, a requirement for the use of 
low sulfur fuel ``as opposed to merely providing incentives for its 
use.'' The EPA reevaluated Alaska's analysis on low sulfur residential 
fuel oil in light of the comment. Alaska assessed the technological and 
economic feasibility of switching from the current residential heating 
oil used in the area to a low-sulfur fuel (FNSB Moderate Plan appendix 
III.D.5.7-41 and 5.7-57). Specifically, Alaska determined that the 
incremental cost of users switching to low sulfur fuel oil was not 
economically feasible for purposes of the FNSB Moderate Plan.

[[Page 42459]]

    The EPA notes that the commenter may have believed that Alaska did 
not adequately evaluate the use of low sulfur fuel because Alaska did 
not separately consider both mandatory requirements to use such fuel 
and incentive programs to encourage the voluntary use of such fuel. 
Upon reviewing Alaska's analysis, however, we believe that the economic 
feasibility analysis for this control measure applies to both a 
mandatory requirement, as well as to incentives to use low-sulfur fuel. 
We note that while the subheading in the economic incentives section 
refers to ``incentives,'' the analysis is not limited to only providing 
incentives and more broadly analyzes the costs of low-sulfur fuel, 
whether implemented through a requirement or with incentives. The EPA 
acknowledges that the ``incentives'' subheading is somewhat confusing 
given the broader analysis that follows it, but we do not agree that 
Alaska failed to consider requirements to use low-sulfur fuel 
adequately for purposes of the FNSB Moderate Plan.
    Alaska concluded that switching to low sulfur fuels would not be 
economically feasible; this conclusion would apply to both incentive-
based and mandatory measures. We note that the FNSB NAA has been 
reclassified from Moderate to Serious, and Alaska will be required to 
prepare and submit for EPA review a Serious area attainment plan. 82 FR 
21711, May 10, 2017. We anticipate that Alaska will thoroughly evaluate 
such control measures again, with updated economic data and in light of 
the longer Serious area attainment deadline, in developing the Serious 
area attainment plan for this area which requires analysis and 
implementation of Best Available Control Measures/Technologies (BACM/
BACT).
    Response 1.b. Control measures based on housing density. One 
commenter asserted that Alaska failed to consider restrictions on the 
use of certain residential heating devices based on population density, 
i.e., restricting the use of such devices in more densely populated 
areas. The commenter referenced San Joaquin Valley Air District Rule 
4901 (SJV Rule 4901) as an example of a housing density-based control 
measure that Alaska did not consider. SJV Rule 4901 limits or prohibits 
new installations of heating devices based on the number of dwellings 
per acre. Although we agree that such control measures can be 
appropriate based on the facts and circumstances of a given area, we 
disagree with the commenter's assertion that Alaska did not consider 
all RACM/RACT in the FNSB Moderate Plan because it did not specifically 
evaluate a housing density-based control measure, like the one in SJV 
Rule 4901, for purposes of the FNSB Moderate Plan. In its January 6, 
2017 clarification document (2017 Clarification), Alaska evaluated a 
general prohibition on new wood-heating device installations in the 
FNSB NAA and determined that it was not feasible because in extreme 
cold temperatures alternative sources of heat that do not rely on 
electricity and are not at risk of damage from freezing are a critical 
source of heating and must be an available option to the public. See 
2017 Clarification, pp. 2 and 5. We note that the effect of limiting 
new wood-heating device installations based on housing density 
functionally results in prohibiting their installation for some homes. 
The rationale provided by Alaska for the infeasibility of a general 
prohibition on wood-heating device installations would also apply to 
prohibiting wood-heating device installations based on housing density. 
Thus, the EPA believes that it was not necessary for Alaska also to 
consider a housing density criterion (e.g., number of dwellings per 
acre) in evaluating a potential prohibition on new wood heating-device 
installations because it would not change the conclusion that 
prohibiting new wood-heating device installations is not feasible in 
the FNSB NAA.
    In addition, we note that for a specific category of wood-heating 
devices, hydronic heaters, Alaska evaluated and implemented a setback 
requirement that prohibits new installations that are less than 330 
feet from the property line. One purpose of this requirement is to 
restrict these sources, which typically emit larger amounts of 
pollutants, to less densely populated areas. In the 2017 Clarification, 
Alaska describes the effect of this control measure as limiting ``the 
installation of hydronic heaters to large lots which are unlikely to 
exist in more densely populated areas.'' 2017 Clarification, p. 7. The 
hydronic heater setback requirement is thus a density-based requirement 
that is tailored to address a specific type of heating device.
    Response 1.c. Programs to improve wood-burning device operation and 
maintenance. One commenter asserted that Alaska neglected to consider 
programs to improve operation and maintenance of wood-burning stoves 
and fireplaces as a means of reducing emissions from residential wood 
combustion. We disagree that Alaska did not adequately evaluate and 
adopt programs to improve the use of residential wood heating devices. 
As we discussed in our proposal, Alaska evaluated and implemented 
public awareness and education programs on wood storage and heating 
device operation and maintenance. 82 FR 9044, February 2, 2017. We 
refer the commenter to the Alaska Department of Environmental 
Conservation's wood heating media Web page (http://dec.alaska.gov/air/anpms/pm/wshome.htm) and the Fairbanks North Star Borough local 
government's (Borough) air quality Web site (http://www.aqfairbanks.com) that contain brochures, television public service 
announcements, and videos about efficient wood-burning device operation 
and maintenance. The Borough's Web site also has an air quality pledge 
that residents can make that includes efficient wood-heating device 
operation and maintenance. If there are additional means to improve the 
operation and maintenance of wood stoves, we anticipate that Alaska 
will evaluate them during the development of the Serious area plan for 
the FNSB NAA.
    Response 1.d. Installer training and certification programs for 
wood stove installers. One commenter stated that the EPA should not 
approve the FNSB Moderate Plan because Alaska did not consider 
implementing a training and certification program for residential wood 
combustion (RWC) device installers that was described in a 1989 EPA 
guidance document (1989 RWC Guidance).\3\ The 1989 RWC Guidance 
describes a state or local installer certification program that would 
offer a course in proper RWC device installation and design as a means 
of minimizing emissions from wood stoves.\4\ 1989 RWC Guidance, p. 3-
11. The EPA acknowledges that the 1989 RWC Guidance document remains in 
effect. However, since the publication of the 1989 RWC Guidance, 
national installer training and certification programs, such as the 
National Fireplace Institute (NFI) and the Chimney Safety Institute of 
America (CSIA), have come into existence. The EPA has confirmed that 
these national certifications are available to installers in the FNSB 
NAA and that there are currently seven certified installers in the 
area. See ``NFI CSIA FNSB Certification

[[Page 42460]]

List'' in the docket for this action. We believe that the guidance 
recommendation for states to consider a state or local training and 
certification program for wood stove installers is adequately addressed 
in the FNSB NAA by the existence of national certification programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Guidance Document for Residential Wood Combustion Emission 
Control Measures. EPA-450/2-89-015. September 1989. Available at 
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/documents/epa-450-2-89-015.pdf.
    \4\ The 1989 RWC Guidance explains that, other than the New 
Source Performance Standards, the measures discussed in the document 
are not ``national measures.'' 1989 RWC Guidance, p. 1-1. We 
therefore, interpret the installer certification program described 
in the 1989 RWC Guidance to be a state or local program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed in the 1989 RWC Guidance, the effectiveness of an 
installer certification program depends in part on the extent to which 
installers and consumers participate in the programs. 1989 RWC Guidance 
p. 3-12. During development of the FNSB Moderate Plan, Alaska 
considered and responded to public comments about installation and 
certification programs by explaining that it had added to its outreach 
materials for users of wood stoves the EPA's recommendation for 
consumers to use certified installers. See FNSB Moderate Plan, appendix 
III.D.5.13-151. Additionally, although not a control measure in the 
FNSB Moderate Plan, we note that the EPA has awarded Alaska funding for 
a changeout program for the FNSB NAA that will provide funds to 
encourage users to replace old wood and pellet appliances and 
fireplaces with new EPA certified appliances or with oil or natural gas 
appliances that will help reduce emissions. The EPA grant providing 
these funds requires that participants in the program have the 
replacement appliances installed by a certified installer, a contracted 
hearth retailer, or a contractor under the approval and supervision of 
a contracted hearth retailer. This program is funded by the EPA's 
Targeted Airshed Grant and was awarded to Alaska on July 18, 2017.\5\ 
Finally, we anticipate that Alaska will further evaluate how to 
regulate emissions from wood stoves for purposes of meeting the BACM/
BACT requirement in the Serious SIP, and this should include 
consideration of additional ways to encourage correct wood stove 
installations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See U.S. EPA Grant Agreement 01J30601 to the Alaska 
Department of Environmental Conservation, August 8, 2017, available 
in the docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Response 1.e. Operating limitations on wood-heating facilities. One 
commenter stated that Alaska failed to consider operating limitations 
for sources such as requirements in site plans ``that wood-heating 
facilities operate during limited hours per year.'' We interpret the 
commenter's concern to refer to the type of operating plans typical for 
major stationary sources, in which a source might be subject to 
restricted hours of operation as one means of reducing emissions. 
Although the FNSB Moderate Plan identified wood heating as a primary 
source of PM2.5 in the area, major stationary wood-heating 
facilities, for which a site operating plan might be appropriate, were 
not identified as a source category in the emissions inventory and 
therefore no analysis of control measures was required. See 40 CFR 
51.1009(a)(1). Accordingly, we do not believe it was necessary for 
Alaska to evaluate and impose this type of measure, given the absence 
of relevant sources. The EPA notes, however, that the FNSB Moderate 
Plan includes a more broadly applicable mandatory curtailment program 
that has limitations on the operation of wood-heating devices when 
PM2.5 ambient levels are forecasted to reach high values. 
See 82 FR 9043, February 2, 2017.
    Response 1.f. Wood gasification and partial carbon capture and 
storage. One commenter suggested that Alaska's RACM/RACT analysis 
should have considered wood gasification and partial carbon capture and 
storage as an energy efficiency measure. The EPA disagrees that an 
analysis of these technologies is appropriate for a PM2.5 
nonattainment area plan. These technologies are generally designed to 
reduce carbon dioxide emissions and are not considered viable control 
measures for reducing PM2.5.
    Comment 2: Partial implementation was not considered. One commenter 
stated that the EPA should not approve the FNSB Moderate Plan because 
Alaska failed to consider the feasibility of implementing control 
measures in part, even if it concluded that full implementation of the 
measures was infeasible. The commenter suggested that the following 
control measures ``might be implemented in stages or by employing a 
more targeted approach'' (i) a ban on green wood sales; (ii) a 
requirement that all hydronic heaters be certified or have retrofits; 
(iii) a requirement that uncertified stoves in rental units be 
replaced; (iv) a requirement that rental units have alternate sources 
of heat; and (v) a requirement that new constructions have alternate 
sources of heat.
    Response 2: We disagree with the claim that the EPA must disapprove 
the FNSB Moderate Plan because Alaska failed to assess partial 
implementation of the five control measures identified by the 
commenter. As discussed in the following paragraphs, Alaska either 
fully or partially implemented the control measures, or adequately 
addressed emissions in other ways that obviated the need to control the 
emissions through partial implementation of the control measures.
    Response 2.a. Ban on green wood sales. Alaska rejected banning 
green wood sales (i.e., wood that has a moisture content greater than 
20%) based on technological infeasibility. However, Alaska adopted 
other control measures that address the moisture content of wood to 
reduce emissions. First, wood sellers in the FNSB NAA are required to 
register with the State and they must disclose the moisture content of 
wood they sell to consumers. This will serve to assure that users of 
purchased wood will be on notice of the moisture content. Second, 
burning green wood in wood-fired heaters is prohibited in the FNSB NAA. 
This, in conjunction with the requirement on sellers to disclose 
moisture content, will serve to assure that purchasers will not burn 
green wood. The EPA considers the requirement to disclose the moisture 
content of wood for sale in conjunction with the prohibition on burning 
wet wood to be an adequate approach to reducing emissions from green 
wood for purposes of the FNSB Moderate Plan. It is unclear how the 
commenter's recommended partial implementation of a ban on green wood 
sales would accomplish additional emission reductions beyond the 
approaches already adopted by Alaska.
    Response 2.b. Require all hydronic heaters to be certified or have 
retrofits. Alaska concluded that it was not feasible to require that 
all existing hydronic heaters in the FNSB NAA be replaced with 
specified certified models or to require retrofits for such heaters. 
However, the FNSB Moderate Plan includes a Borough code requirement 
that an owner of an existing uncertified hydronic heater that has had 
two or more violations of certain Borough code emissions provisions 
must remove the device, unless certain conditions are met. 
Additionally, Alaska required that all hydronic heaters installed after 
February 28, 2015 be qualified under the EPA's Phase 2 program or meet 
certain emission standards. We also note that owners of existing 
hydronic heaters are eligible to receive incentives for removal or 
replacement of the devices through the Borough's changeout program. 
Furthermore, all hydronic heaters are subject to a 20 percent opacity 
limit, a requirement to use dry wood, and must comply with wood heating 
curtailments. Also, hydronic heaters that do not meet certain emission 
standards must be removed upon conveyance of property. Through this 
suite of overlapping requirements, we believe that Alaska has 
adequately addressed emissions from uncertified hydronic heaters for

[[Page 42461]]

purposes of the FNSB Moderate Plan. The EPA expects that Alaska will 
evaluate the need for further controls, such as expanded changeout 
incentives or retrofits to existing uncertified hydronic heaters, as 
part of the BACM/BACT analysis for the Serious area attainment plan for 
this area.
    Response 2.c. Replace uncertified stoves in rental units. The FNSB 
Moderate Plan includes a requirement that uncertified wood-fired 
heating devices must be removed when a property is leased. The 
requirement became effective on June 9, 2017. Because this control 
measure has been fully implemented, consideration of partial 
implementation is unnecessary. We note that the wood heating device 
emission standards in the FNSB Moderate Plan do not allow the 
installation of uncertified devices. Therefore, once an uncertified 
wood stove has been removed from a rental unit, it cannot be replaced 
with an uncertified device.
    Response 2.d. Require rental units to have alternate sources of 
heat. In the FNSB Moderate Plan, Alaska explained that surveys from 
2011-2015 indicated that only 5.6% of households surveyed had wood as a 
sole source of heat. See 2017 Clarification, p. 12. This number 
included both rental and owner occupied homes, so presumably the number 
of rental units without alternative sources of heat would be smaller. 
We note, however, that the FNSB Moderate plan does not allow owners of 
newly constructed buildings, including rental properties, to obtain a 
``no other adequate source of heat'' (NOASH) determination. A NOASH 
determination allows a person to use a solid fuel or waste oil burning 
appliance during a stage 2 or stage 3 curtailment. To qualify for a 
NOASH determination, a building owner or manager must file an 
application with the Borough confirming that the building has no 
adequate heating source other than a solid fuel or waste oil burning 
appliance, that economic hardships require the use of a solid fuel 
waste oil burning appliance, or that complying with a curtailment would 
result in damage to property. Prohibiting newly constructed buildings, 
including rental properties, from obtaining a NOASH determination 
functionally requires the installation of alternate sources of heat so 
that the building occupants can comply with wood heating curtailments. 
We anticipate that Alaska will revisit further controls for rental 
units in developing its Serious area attainment plan.
    Response 2.e. Require new construction to have alternate sources of 
heat. As discussed previously, a provision that addresses this control 
measure was included in the FNSB Moderate plan. The provision excludes 
owners of newly constructed buildings from obtaining a NOASH 
determination which functionally requires the installation of alternate 
sources of heat in new buildings so that the building occupants can 
comply with wood heating curtailments.
    Comment 3: One commenter stated that the technological feasibility 
analysis in the FNSB Moderate Plan is inadequate because Alaska took 
the position that it was impeded from implementing certain control 
measures due to local opposition evidenced by a citizen's referendum 
prohibiting regulation of home heating sources, and that when the 
referendum was lifted, Alaska continued to dismiss the control measures 
due to insufficient time to revise the Moderate area attainment plan. 
This commenter also stated that not enough has been done to render the 
2014 submission compliant with the CAA.
    Response 3: We acknowledge that Alaska's initial December 2014 
submission cited a citizen's referendum as a basis for not adopting 
many potential control measures. As we explained in our proposal, the 
EPA does not view social acceptability, including the citizen's 
referendum prohibiting regulation of home heating sources in any 
manner, to be an appropriate basis for rejecting required emission 
control measures. See 82 FR 9045, February 2, 2017.
    Significantly, however, the situation about which the commenter was 
concerned has changed because the referendum no longer applies and 
Alaska has evaluated additional control measures for inclusion in the 
FNSB Moderate Plan. Alaska provided supplemental SIP submissions, 
supported by clarifying information, that analyzed the control measures 
that it previously considered infeasible due to the citizen's 
referendum, including the control measures identified by the commenter. 
Based on this revised analysis, Alaska adopted some additional control 
measures, such as the mandatory solid-fuel heating device curtailment 
program, but continued to find some control measures infeasible for 
reasons unrelated to the expired referendum, such as the ban on green 
wood sales.
    Alaska's supplemental submissions provided additional control 
measures and an updated and revised analysis for certain components of 
the FNSB Moderate Plan to ensure that the EPA could evaluate and act on 
the current plan. As a result, and as the commenter notes, there is 
some information in the original submission that is outdated and that 
was made extraneous by the supplemental submissions. However, the 
supplemental submissions clearly identify the portions of the original 
submission that were updated and revised and we do not believe that the 
extraneous material that remains in the original submission is a basis 
for disapproving the FNSB Moderate Plan. As explained in response to 
comments concerning specific potential control measures, we have 
concluded that Alaska's evaluation of the measures is adequate for 
purposes of the FNSB Moderate Plan.
    Comment 4: One commenter argued that the EPA cannot approve the 
FNSB Moderate Plan because Alaska made errors in reasoning. The 
commenter provided as an example, Alaska's assessment of a ban on new 
installations of hydronic heaters and the assumption that such a ban 
could have the negative effect of prolonging the use of older devices 
because new installations would be prohibited. The other example the 
commenter provided was Alaska's assumption that the benefits would be 
small for a requirement that rental units in the FNSB NAA have 
alternative heating sources.
    Response 4: We do not agree that the specific Alaska assumptions 
the commenter referenced are inappropriate, given the facts and 
circumstances in the FNSB NAA. In evaluating a potential ban on new 
installations of hydronic heaters, Alaska's primary explanation for why 
such a control was not appropriate was that ``due to arctic conditions, 
alternative sources of heat must be an available option to the public 
to protect health, life, and property.'' 2017 Clarification, p. 2. The 
assumption referenced by the commenter, that implementing such a ban 
may discourage replacement of older and higher emitting hydronic 
heaters, was an additional consideration for not banning new hydronic 
heaters installations. We believe that it was reasonable for Alaska to 
take into consideration the potential impacts that a ban on new 
hydronic heaters might have on Alaska and the Borough's ongoing efforts 
to encourage replacement of older and higher emitting devices with 
newer, cleaner burning devices. Alaska developed the FNSB Moderate Plan 
through an extensive public process and adopted a suite of controls for 
reducing the emissions from hydronic heaters that are intended to help 
bring the area into attainment. The decision not to impose

[[Page 42462]]

a ban because it might unintentionally undercut other related measures 
is not unreasonable. We anticipate that Alaska will further evaluate 
this emissions source as part of its development of the Serious area 
plan for the FNSB NAA.
    Regarding Alaska's statement that the benefits are assumed to be 
small for requiring alternate sources of heat in rental units, we 
believe that Alaska made reasonable assumptions based on the latest 
information available at the time. For example, Alaska explained that 
surveys from 2011-2015 indicated that only 5.6% of households surveyed 
had wood as a sole source of heat. See 2017 Clarification, p. 12. This 
number included both rental and owner-occupied homes, so presumably the 
number of rental units without alternative sources of heat would be 
smaller. We anticipate that Alaska will revisit the analysis of rental 
units with updated information in developing its Serious area 
attainment plan.
    Comment 5: One commenter argued that the wood-fuel cost assessment 
in the FNSB Moderate Plan is incomplete because it does not accurately 
reflect the full cost of burning wood as a fuel, such as the value of a 
homeowner's time and the cost of ash disposal, and the fact that more 
fuel is needed to heat a building in Fairbanks than in the rest of the 
country.
    Response 5: We agree with the commenter that an economic 
feasibility analysis should include a range of costs associated with 
potential control measures for a given type of emissions source. 
Considerations of economic infeasibility are used to exclude control 
measures during the RACT/RACM analysis. The EPA notes, however, that 
Alaska did not reject any control measures based on the costs 
associated with use of wood as a fuel. The cost assessment referenced 
by the commenter provided background information on mandatory 
curtailment programs as a potential control measure. See FNSB Moderate 
Plan appendix III.D.5.7-16. In the initial FNSB Moderate Plan, Alaska 
considered the mandatory curtailment program to be technologically 
infeasible. See FNSB Moderate Plan appendix III.D.5.7-27, 32, 39. 
Alaska did not conduct an economic feasibility analysis on any wood 
heating control measure found to be technologically infeasible. As 
discussed in our proposal, Alaska provided a supplemental submission 
supported by clarifying information that reevaluated the technological 
feasibility of various control measures and adopted and implemented the 
mandatory curtailment program that was the subject of the earlier cost 
analysis referenced by the commenter. See 82 FR 9045, February 2, 2017.
    Comment 6: One commenter alleged that Alaska's RACT conclusion ``is 
flawed, at least with respect to the control of sulfur dioxide 
(SO2) at local power plants,'' and that Alaska 
``unjustifiably concluded that the current level of controls meets 
RACT.'' The commenter referred to dispersion modeling and the 
speciation analysis in the FNSB Moderate Plan to show that 
SO2 precursor emissions from major stationary sources 
contribute to exceedances of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.
    Response 6: The EPA agrees that SO2 emissions from major 
stationary sources contribute to the PM2.5 concentrations in 
the FNSB NAA, as does Alaska. We did not propose to approve, nor did 
Alaska provide, a demonstration that SO2 emissions from 
stationary sources were insignificant in the formation of ambient 
PM2.5 concentrations in the FNSB NAA. Accordingly, 
SO2 is a precursor that Alaska evaluated for emission 
controls in this area for purposes of attaining the 2006 24-hour 
PM2.5 NAAQS.
    As explained in our proposed approval of the FNSB Moderate Plan 
with respect to this issue, Alaska conducted a technical and economic 
feasibility analysis of RACT-level SO2 controls for major 
stationary sources in the FNSB NAA and concluded that additional 
controls beyond those already in place were not feasible. 82 FR 9044, 
February 2, 2017. The EPA has explained that a state could demonstrate 
that an existing source in an area should not be subject to a specific 
control technology especially where such technology is unreasonable in 
light of the area's attainment needs, or where such technology is 
infeasible. In such a case, a state could conclude that no control 
technology is ``reasonably available,'' and thus RACT for the source 
could be the existing emission controls rather than additional 
controls. See 81 FR 58034, August 24, 2016.
    Additionally, the commenter did not identify any specific 
deficiencies with respect to Alaska's RACT analysis for SO2 
emissions from major stationary sources for the EPA to evaluate the 
claim that Alaska's conclusion is unjustified. The EPA finds that 
Alaska adequately justified its conclusions that its stationary source 
control measures represent the adoption of reasonable control measures 
that meet RACM/RACT requirements for purposes of the Moderate FNSB Plan 
for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. We note that the FNSB NAA 
has been reclassified from Moderate to Serious, and thus Alaska will be 
required to conduct a BACM/BACT analysis for potential control measures 
for the Serious area attainment plan. 82 FR 21711, May 10, 2017. 
Accordingly, Alaska's conclusion that additional SO2 
emissions controls for these stationary sources were not feasible for 
purposes of meeting RACM/RACT requirements must be revisited in the 
context of the more stringent BACM/BACT analysis for the Serious area 
attainment plan.
    Comment 7: We received two comments that expressed concern 
regarding the availability of natural gas as an alternative fuel in the 
FNSB NAA. One commenter stated that Alaska has failed to supply the 
area with natural gas, that the infrastructure is not in place, and 
that the area is years away from having natural gas. Another commenter 
identified language in the FNSB Moderate Plan in which Alaska discussed 
the possibility of a public-private partnership for bringing additional 
natural gas to the community that has not yet occurred. This commenter 
stated that ``to the extent the SIP relies upon these references, it 
cannot be approved.''
    Response 7: The commenters are correct that Alaska has been 
exploring the expanded use of natural gas as an alternative fuel in the 
FNSB NAA as a potential means of helping to reduce emissions and to 
attain the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, but thus far natural 
gas is not widely available in the area. To provide natural gas at 
scale, significant investments of time and money are needed to 
construct the infrastructure to deliver natural gas to Fairbanks and to 
distribute it to consumers. Thus, in the FNSB Moderate Plan, Alaska 
described plans to seek to expand the availability of natural gas in 
the future. Because natural gas is currently not available at a 
meaningful scale it was not included as part of Alaska's control 
strategy analysis and Alaska did not take credit for emissions 
reductions related to natural gas in the FNSB Moderate Plan.\6\ 
Alaska's discussion of potential expansion of natural gas in the FNSB 
Moderate Plan is not a basis for disapproval of the FNSB Moderate Plan. 
Because of the potential emission reduction benefits, the EPA supports 
efforts by Alaska to

[[Page 42463]]

expand the availability of natural gas in the FNSB NAA in the future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ As we discussed in our proposed rule, Alaska provided a 2019 
inventory for informational purposes. See 82 FR 9037, February 2, 
2017. Although the 2019 inventory included emissions reductions 
estimated from potential future expansion of reliance on natural 
gas, this informational inventory was not relied on in the SIP nor 
was it a required element for the FNSB Moderate plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment 8: One commenter objected to the EPA's statement in the 
proposal that Fairbanks was relatively new to programs for reducing 
emissions from wood heating and, prior to 2015, the community had not 
experienced mandatory curtailments on solid-fuel heating devices. The 
commenter claimed that this statement was used to justify limitations 
on the applicability of the curtailment requirements for solid fuel 
heating devices in the FNSB Moderate Plan.
    Response 8: We disagree with the commenter's characterization of 
the statement in the proposal as the EPA's justification for approval 
of Alaska's curtailment requirements, including certain limitations on 
those requirements. In the sentence preceding the one cited by the 
commenter, we provided the reasons for our conclusion that the 
limitations on the applicability of the curtailment requirements are 
appropriate: ``The EPA concludes that in the FNSB NAA, where wintertime 
temperatures can be extreme and there is limited availability of fuel 
alternatives such as natural gas, the three limitations in Alaska's 
mandatory solid-fuel heating device curtailment program similarly 
invoke public welfare considerations that are appropriate in the 
context of a Moderate area plan.'' See 82 FR 9046, February 2, 2017. In 
short, given the facts and circumstances of this area, Alaska concluded 
that it was not reasonable to prohibit the use of solid fuel heating 
devices during periods of extreme cold weather. Our conclusion 
regarding the appropriateness of the limitations that Alaska included 
in the curtailment requirements remains unchanged. The reference to the 
newness of the curtailment program questioned by the commenter was 
merely an EPA acknowledgment that a two-stage program could help to 
facilitate effective implementation of the program in the community. 
This statement is based on the EPA's experience in other nonattainment 
areas where adoption and implementation of a curtailment program has 
required efforts to increase community awareness and comprehension of 
the curtailment program in order to achieve the anticipated emissions 
reductions.
    Comment 9: One commenter objected to our proposal to approve, as 
SIP strengthening, the control measures that Alaska submitted as 
contingency measures in the FNSB Moderate Plan. The commenter explained 
that Alaska did not provide a justification for not implementing these 
control measures immediately and that they must be included in the RACM 
analysis and adopted immediately. In other words, the commenter 
asserted that Alaska could not set aside these control measures to meet 
the CAA section 172(c)(9) requirement for contingency measures because 
Alaska was required to impose these measures to meet the RACM/RACT 
requirement instead.
    Response 9: The control measures the EPA proposed to approve as 
SIP-strengthening measures are: (1) A requirement that uncertified 
wood-fired heating devices be removed when a property is sold, leased, 
or conveyed, and (2) a mandatory wood seller registration and wood 
moisture disclosure program. See 82 FR 9052, February 2, 2017. 
Specifically, we are approving 18 AAC 50.076(d)-(i) and 18 AAC 
50.077(a)(2)(B). These provisions will become federally enforceable 
upon the effective date of this action. However, we disagree with the 
commenter's assertion that Alaska did not evaluate these control 
measures as potential RACM/RACT measures. Alaska evaluated both of 
these control measures and they have been implemented. See 2017 
Clarification pp. 3-5. The requirement that uncertified wood-fired 
heating devices be removed when a property is sold, leased, or conveyed 
became effective on June 9, 2017 and the mandatory wood seller 
registration and wood moisture disclosure program became effective on 
August 15, 2017.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See the following Alaska Department of Environmental 
Conservation documents in the docket for this action: (1) Commercial 
Wood Seller Registration Requirement Fairbanks North Star Borough PM 
2.5 Nonattainment Area Questions and Answers and (2) 
Wood-Fired Heating Device Requirement--Remove or Replace Non 
Compliant Devices Upon Property Sale, Lease or Conveyance--Effective 
Date: June 9, 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Comments on Enforcement

    Comment 10: One commenter opposed the EPA's proposed approval of 
the FNSB Moderate Plan because of concerns that the control measures in 
the plan are not enforceable. One commenter took issue with Alaska's 
enforcement authority claiming that ``outside of seeking voluntary 
compliance, the State claims that its only real enforcement mechanism 
is civil litigation.'' Another commenter stated that ``Alaska has made 
no good faith effort to secure `enforcement authority' from the Alaska 
legislature.'' This commenter also contends that ``[t]he state 
legislature granted $350 Million dollars to privately owned refineries 
and a shuttered Agrium Fertilizer plant, yet claims they lack resources 
to implement regulations and enforce them.''
    Response 10: We agree that states must have authority to enforce 
the requirements of their SIPs to meet various CAA requirements, 
including CAA section 110(a)(1), 110(a)(2)(C), and 110(a)(2)(E). We 
disagree with the commenter, however, that Alaska lacks the required 
enforcement authority. States are required to have a SIP that provides 
for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the NAAQS. 
Whenever the EPA promulgates a new or revised NAAQS, the CAA requires 
states to make a SIP submission, commonly known as an ``infrastructure 
SIP'' to establish that they meet a host of requirements including 
those pertaining to general enforcement authority.
    In November 2014, the EPA approved Alaska's infrastructure SIP for 
the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. 79 FR 66651, November 10, 
2014. The EPA found that the infrastructure SIP addressed the basic 
program elements in accordance with CAA section 110(a)(1) and (2), 
including, but not limited to regulatory structure, monitoring, 
modeling, legal authority, and adequate resources necessary to 
implement, maintain, and enforce the standards. Relevant to this 
comment, the EPA found that Alaska's SIP met the CAA section 
110(a)(2)(C) requirement to include a program to provide for the 
enforcement of emission limits and other control measures in the SIP 
and also met the CAA section 110(a)(2)(E) requirement that a state 
provide necessary assurances that it has adequate authority under state 
law to carry out the SIP. Alaska's infrastructure SIP submission for 
the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS referred to Alaska Statute (AS) 
46.14.030 State Air Quality Control Plan which provides the Alaska 
Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) statutory authority to 
act for the State and adopt regulations necessary to implement the 
State Air Quality Control Plan. It also references 18 AAC 50.030 State 
Air Quality Control Plan which provides regulatory authority to 
implement and enforce the SIP. See 79 FR 66651, November 10, 2014 and 
79 FR 41502, July 16, 2014. Furthermore, ADEC has statutory authority 
to enforce violations of air quality regulations by seeking the 
assessment of civil penalties (AS 46.030.760) and criminal penalties 
(AS 46.030.790). The EPA's analysis of the adequacy of enforcement 
authority is premised on whether a state has legal authority to enforce 
the SIP. The commenter's concern that ADEC may opt to seek voluntary 
compliance does not negate the fact that it has the

[[Page 42464]]

necessary enforcement authority to require compliance with the SIP. A 
state's election to seek voluntary compliance rather than proceeding to 
judicial enforcement is an exercise of enforcement discretion. The EPA 
notes that a state's exercise of enforcement discretion does not affect 
the ability of the EPA to pursue enforcement under CAA section 113 or 
others pursuant to the citizen's suit provision in CAA section 304.
    We also disagree with the comment suggesting that ADEC must justify 
the absence of administrative enforcement authorities. The commenter 
argues that AS 46.14.030 generally grants authority to ADEC to adopt 
regulations to implement the SIP which could be read to include 
administrative enforcement authority. As noted previously, ADEC has 
authority to pursue civil and criminal judicial actions to enforce 
violations of the SIP and the EPA has already determined that ADEC has 
adequate authority to enforce the SIP, including the FNSB Moderate 
Plan. If the commenter believes ADEC should have additional enforcement 
authority, the appropriate venue to pursue such a concern is with ADEC 
and the Alaska State Legislature. Furthermore, as noted by the 
commenter, the Borough has authority to issue warnings and citations to 
enforce key control measures adopted at the local level, such as the 
solid-fuel heating device curtailment program. The Borough control 
measures are included in Alaska's FNSB Moderate Plan submission and 
will become a part of the federally-approved SIP.
    Another commenter contended that Alaska claimed it lacks the 
resources to implement and enforce regulations. The EPA is unaware of 
any such statement attributable to Alaska submitted as part of the FNSB 
Moderate Plan, and the commenter provided no reference or citation for 
the EPA to evaluate this claim. Accordingly, the EPA has no information 
suggesting that Alaska has stopped funding, or lacks resources to make 
progress in improving air quality in the FNSB NAA. In fact, ADEC 
currently is devoting resources to the development of a Serious area 
attainment plan and the Borough is implementing local control measures 
incorporated into the SIP. In addition, as indicated previously, the 
EPA found that in its infrastructure SIP for the 2006 24-hour 
PM2.5 NAAQS, Alaska demonstrated that it had ``adequate 
resources to implement, maintain, and enforce the standards'' and thus 
met the 110(a)(2)(E)(i) requirement for adequate resources. 79 FR 
66651, November 10, 2014.
    Comment 11: One commenter noted that control measures in SIPs must 
apply continuously and ``cannot operate as a `suite' of controls that 
only collectively apply continuous controls.'' The commenter 
specifically pointed to the -15 [deg]Fahrenheit (F) temperature 
limitation on the mandatory solid-fuel heating device curtailment 
requirement as an example of ``perhaps a defensible exception for the 
needs of the community, but one that results in the waiver of controls 
during peak periods of emissions.'' The commenter also observed that 
the EPA and citizens must have the ability to bring enforcement actions 
to assure compliance and that state and local control measures that 
shield pollution sources from enforcement are not enforceable as 
required under CAA section 110(a)(2)(A).
    Response 11: First, the EPA disagrees with the commenter's general 
contention that a suite of control measures that operate together to 
provide for continuous regulation of emissions from a source is 
inconsistent with CAA requirements. The EPA agrees that SIP emission 
limitations must limit emissions from sources on a continuous basis. 
However, it may be infeasible for a single numerical emission 
limitation or control technology to apply continuously at all times to 
some sources. In such circumstances, a state may elect to impose 
alternative emission limitations that apply to specific modes of source 
operation in order to assure that emissions from the source are, in 
fact, continuously controlled. The EPA recently restated and updated 
its policy with respect to continuous emission limitations in SIP 
provisions, noting that emission limitations as a whole must be 
continuous but that such limitations could be a combination of 
different numerical limits, control requirements or work practice 
requirements. See 80 FR 33889, June 12, 2015. Accordingly, a SIP that 
includes a combination of numerical limits or controls that are 
sufficiently stringent, and are legally and practically enforceable, 
can effectively operate together to limit emissions from a source on a 
continuous basis.
    Second, the EPA disagrees with the commenter's view that the low 
temperature limitation on the applicability of the mandatory solid-fuel 
heating device curtailment requirement necessarily constitutes an 
impermissible exemption in the emissions limitation, because the 
curtailment requirement works in conjunction with other specific 
control measures in the SIP that continue to apply and limit emissions 
from this source category even during those low temperature events. It 
is important to clarify how Alaska is combining control measures in 
order to assure that the SIP imposes continuous emission limits on 
solid fuel heating devices, even when the curtailment requirement is 
suspended during extreme cold events.
    Alaska is aware of the public health concerns associated with 
ambient PM2.5 caused by the use of solid fuel heating 
devices and devised a way to balance competing concerns about high 
PM2.5 concentrations with concerns about the need to provide 
adequate heat during extreme low temperature events for purposes of the 
FNSB Moderate Plan. When temperatures are below -15[emsp14][deg]F, the 
Borough continues to issue alerts based on the forecasted 
concentrations of PM2.5. Stage 2 alerts are called when 
PM2.5 levels are forecasted to reach 35 micrograms per cubic 
meter ([micro]g/m\3\) or more. Stage 3 alerts are called when 
PM2.5 levels are forecasted to reach 55[micro]g/m\3\ or 
more. The temperature limitation on the applicability of stage 3 alert 
requirements was included to address the public welfare concerns 
associated with precluding the use of solid-fuel heating devices during 
periods of extreme cold. Alaska explained that ``. . . the temperature 
threshold is a feature of the episode program recognizing the unique 
challenges faced by residents during periods of extreme cold. Residents 
use wood heating as a form of supplemental heat to maintain livable 
conditions and mitigate economic hardships associated with high heating 
costs.'' 2017 Clarification, p. 18.
    To address these competing concerns, Alaska and the Borough 
structured the stage 3 alert requirements to allow the continued use of 
certain devices during periods of extreme cold. When temperatures are 
below -15[emsp14][deg]F during stage 3 alerts, the prohibition on the 
use of all solid-fuel heating devices, masonry heaters, pellet fuel 
burning appliances, cook stoves, fireplaces, or waste oil burning 
appliances does not apply. However, the stage 2 prohibition on the use 
of uncertified solid-fuel heating devices and hydronic heaters that are 
not EPA Phase II qualified continues to apply. In addition, even when 
the temperature limitation on the applicability of stage 3 alerts 
applies, the users of solid-fuel heating devices must continue to meet 
the applicable opacity emission limitation and continue to comply with 
the requirement to burn only dry, properly seasoned wood (with a 
moisture content of 20% or less). Thus, the EPA believes that the 
opacity limit and dry wood

[[Page 42465]]

requirement work in conjunction with the mandatory curtailment program 
to limit emissions from solid-fuel heating devices on a continuous 
basis, even for stage 3 alerts that occur during periods of extreme 
cold.
    The EPA notes that Alaska is currently in the process of developing 
the Serious area plan for the FNSB NAA, and is reevaluating the need 
for additional emission reductions to attain the 2006 24-hour 
PM2.5 NAAQS. In particular, Alaska is considering the need 
for emissions reductions during periods of extremely low temperatures, 
which can often coincide with meteorological conditions most likely to 
result in inversions and exceedances of the 2006 24-hour 
PM2.5 NAAQS. Specifically, on July 18, 2017, Alaska proposed 
regulatory revisions to eliminate the current temperature threshold 
limitation as part of its efforts to develop a Serious area plan. The 
EPA supports the further efforts of Alaska and the Borough to address 
the difficult, but necessary issue of controlling emissions during 
periods of extreme low temperatures.
    Finally, the EPA agrees with the commenter that state and local 
control measures in the SIP need to be legally and practically 
enforceable. A core principal of the CAA is that the EPA's approval of 
a control measure into a SIP makes the measure a federally-enforceable 
component of the SIP that the State, the EPA or citizens can enforce in 
the event of violations. In this final action, the EPA is approving 
into the Alaska SIP, among other control measures, the mandatory solid-
fuel heating device curtailment program, the 20% opacity emission 
limitation, and the dry wood requirement, and these measures will 
become federally-enforceable elements of the SIP for the FNSB NAA.

C. Comments on Rules

    Comment 12: One commenter claimed that the EPA must disapprove the 
FNSB Moderate Plan because it ``includes undesirable and unlawful 
relaxations of existing SIP measures, in violation of CAA Section 
110(l).'' For this reason, the commenter objected to six specific State 
regulations that Alaska included in the FNSB Moderate Plan.
    Response 12: In light of this comment, the EPA reanalyzed the six 
regulations identified by the commenter. A comparison of the State 
regulations submitted to the EPA for review and approval into the SIP 
against existing SIP provisions is provided in the docket for this 
action. We respond in the following paragraphs to the concerns 
identified by the commenter with respect to these specific regulations. 
For the reasons stated in the following paragraphs, we disagree that 
the submitted regulations constitute relaxations, and thus the 
inclusion of these measures into the SIP as part of the FNSB Moderate 
Plan does not raise concerns related to CAA section 110(l).
    Comment 12.a. 18 AAC 50.065(f). Wood Smoke Control and PM 
2.5 Nonattainment Areas. The commenter objected to our 
approval of a provision that prohibits open burning from November 1 to 
March 31 because Alaska did ``not adequately explain how the dates for 
the open burning ban were chosen.'' The commenter expressed concern 
that exceedances of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS may occur 
outside the November 1 to March 31 open burning prohibition season. The 
commenter also objected to language in the FNSB Moderate Plan that 
would allow a local open burn permit program to replace the current 
open burning prohibition at some point in the future because it is 
``worded so vaguely without any limits'' and does not specify ``a 
process for State approval'' or ``minimum program requirements, 
including record-keeping, public reporting, and adequate enforcement 
authority.'' Additionally, the commenter stated that ``[i]f it is 
necessary to authorize some variances to the seasonal open burn ban--
for example, for legitimate ceremonial or limited recreational 
purposes--the State should have adopted detailed regulatory language 
identifying the types of activities that might be eligible for a local 
variance and necessary conditions for any such variance.''
    Response 12.a. We disagree with the comment that Alaska did not 
adequately explain the dates of the open burning prohibition, November 
1 to March 31, in the FNSB Moderate Plan. We believe that the 
discussion of the open burning prohibition is adequate, including 
Alaska's explicit consideration of lengthening the open burning 
prohibition to include October and April. See FNSB Moderate Plan 
III.D.5.7-22. As noted by the commenter, Alaska explained that it 
analyzed air quality data for October and April and did not identify 
``significant air quality deterioration in those months as a result of 
normal open burning'' and therefore, did not lengthen the open burning 
prohibition to include those two months. Regarding the commenter's 
concern that exceedances of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS may 
occur outside the open burning prohibition season, we note that under 
18 AAC 50.065(e), ADEC can also prohibit open burning during air 
quality advisories, which are not restricted to the open burning 
season. As provided in 18 AAC 50.065(e), the air quality advisory 
pertaining to open burning is based on a determination that there is or 
will likely be inadequate ventilation to maintain ambient air quality 
standards, including PM2.5.
    We also disagree with the commenter's assertion that the amendments 
to 18 AAC 50.065(f) are a relaxation of existing SIP measures. The 
dates of the open burning prohibition remain the same as when the EPA 
last approved 18 AAC 50.065(f) into the Alaska SIP in 1998. 63 FR 
63983, November 18, 1998. More importantly, the amendments to 18 AAC 
50.065(f) make the open burning prohibition applicable to 
PM2.5 nonattainment areas, whereas previously the 
prohibition applied only to PM10 wood smoke control areas. 
Therefore, the amendments to 18 AAC 50.065(f) that extend the 
regulation to PM2.5 nonattainment areas in fact strengthen 
the existing SIP.
    Similarly, we disagree with the commenter's view that inclusion of 
the language contemplating a potential future open burn permit program 
to replace the current open burning prohibition is a relaxation of the 
existing Alaska SIP. First, as stated previously, the current SIP-
approved regulation applies only to PM10 wood smoke control 
areas and Alaska has now extended it to PM2.5 nonattainment 
areas as well. Second, as required by 18 AAC 50.065(f)(1) and (2), if a 
local area elects to develop an open burn permit program instead of the 
current open burn prohibition, it may only do so if the program (i) 
does not cause or contribute to violations of the PM2.5 
NAAQS and (ii) is approved into the State Air Quality Control Plan as 
adopted in 18 AAC 50.030. We have determined that Alaska's amendment of 
18 AAC 50.065 to extend the open burning prohibition to 
PM2.5 nonattainment areas while simultaneously allowing the 
future option of a local air quality open burn permit program is 
therefore not a relaxation, but a strengthening of the current SIP.
    Regarding the commenter's concern that the amendment is vague and 
does not provide limits or specify a process for state approval of a 
local open burn permit program, we note that the provision does not 
itself constitute an approval of any such local open burn permit 
program. The provision merely contemplates such a permitting program in 
the future, and one that would have to meet certain requirements. For 
example, the condition in 18 AAC

[[Page 42466]]

50.065(f)(1) that a local open burn permit program cannot cause or 
contribute to violations of the PM2.5 NAAQS provides one 
appropriate limitation on potential open burn permit programs. 
Additionally, Alaska has an established process for approving plans and 
adopting them into 18 AAC 50.030. The condition in 18 AAC 50.065(f)(2) 
that the local open burn permit program must be included in the State 
Air Quality Control Plan adopted by reference in 18 AAC 50.030 provides 
an appropriate state process for evaluation and approval of any such 
potential program in the future. We also note that if Alaska seeks to 
create such an open burn permit program in the FNSB NAA in the future, 
that will require a SIP revision subject to EPA review and approval, 
including an analysis that the SIP revision would not be less stringent 
than the current SIP in accordance with the requirements of CAA 110(l). 
Alaska has confirmed that the approval of any open burn permit program 
in the future must be submitted to the EPA as a SIP revision. Alaska's 
interpretation letter is included in the docket for this action.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See ADEC letter, Clarification regarding Open Burning 
regulation 18 AAC 50.065(f), July 13, 2017, in the docket for this 
action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to the commenter's concern that the language in the 
FNSB Moderate Plan that contemplates potential future open burn permit 
programs in lieu of the prohibition on open burning is vaguely worded 
and provides no indication of ``what constitutes a lawful local air 
quality open burn permit program and no limit to the range of 
activities that might be authorized . . .'' the EPA agrees that the 
amendment leaves unaddressed many aspects of a local open burn permit 
program that would need further development and clarification. Also, as 
noted previously, any future local open burn permit program that is 
developed to operate in lieu of the open burning prohibition must be 
submitted to Alaska for incorporation into the State Air Quality 
Control Plan and then submitted to the EPA for review and approval. 
Accordingly, assuming a local open burn permit program is developed in 
the future, the appropriate time to consider the issues the commenter 
raises, e.g., the range of activities authorized by the program, 
recordkeeping and reporting requirements, adequate enforcement 
authority, and other aspects that pertain to the lawfulness of the 
program, including whether the program adequately assures that 
permitted open burning will not cause or contribute to a violation of 
the PM2.5 standard, would be when a locality develops and 
then submits such a permit program to Alaska and the EPA for review. At 
present, 18 AAC 50.065(f) merely clarifies that localities can chose to 
pursue a permit program in lieu of an outright seasonal prohibition on 
open burning. To the extent the commenter is concerned about reliance 
on a local, rather than state permitting program, we previously 
determined that Alaska provided necessary assurances that ``where the 
State has relied on a local or regional government, agency, or 
instrumentality for the implementation of any SIP provision, the State 
has responsibility for ensuring adequate implementation of the SIP'' 
with respect to the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS as required by 
CAA section 110(a)(2)(E)(iii). 79 FR 66651, November 10, 2014.
    Finally, we disagree with the commenter's suggestion that a future 
open burn permit program would have to address the process for 
variances related to ceremonial and recreational fires. We note that 
ceremonial and recreational fires are specifically excluded from 
Alaska's amended definition of open burning in 18 AAC 50.990(65)(B). 
Because these activities are not subject to the open burning 
prohibition, there would not be a need for future variances related to 
such fires. We agree, however, that to the extent a future permitting 
program may include a process for seeking variances for activities 
subject to the burn ban, provisions related to such variances should 
provide adequate definitions and specifications to allow for necessary 
implementation and enforcement, as well as evaluation by Alaska and the 
EPA before approval as a revision to the current SIP.
    Comment 12.b. 18 AAC 50.075(d). Solid Fuel-fired Heating Device 
Visible Emission Standards. The commenter objected to the addition of 
18 AAC 50.075(d) which limits solid fuel-fired heating device operation 
during PM2.5 air quality episodes. The commenter claimed 
that the provisions weaken another part of the existing SIP-approved 
portion of the regulation, paragraph (b), by providing conditions for 
lifting a prohibition on the use of wood-fired heating devices during 
an air quality episode. The commenter also objected to the provisions 
that allow for a temporary waiver from the requirement because they are 
``too broad and too discretionary.'' However, the commenter 
acknowledged that due to the ``extremely cold winter and high price of 
fuel in Fairbanks, exemptions from curtailment for a sole source of 
heat and financial hardship are an absolute necessity.'' Additionally, 
the commenter stated that Alaska should adopt a curtailment program 
similar to one in Sacramento, California. The commenter also suggested 
that ``to ease the impact of a mandatory, episodic wood-burning 
curtailment program on community members,'' Alaska should adopt a 
``fuel oil subsidy program that would help offset the additional 
expense of fuel oil use.''
    Response 12.b. The EPA disagrees that the addition of new 18 AAC 
50.075(d) creates a relaxation of existing 18 AAC 50.075(b) as 
contemplated by CAA section 110(l). We note that paragraph (b) only 
prohibits operation of a wood-fired heating device in an area for which 
Alaska has declared an air quality episode with respect to 
SO2, carbon monoxide (CO), or PM10, in accordance 
with 18 AAC 50.245. Neither 18 AAC 50.075(b) nor 18 AAC 50.245 
explicitly applied to PM2.5. Alaska has specifically added 
the new 18 AAC 50.075(d), and the related new 18 AAC 50.246, to impose 
a comparable prohibition on wood-fired heating devices in areas for 
which Alaska has declared an air quality episode specifically for 
purposes of the PM2.5 NAAQS. The existing prohibition on 
operation of wood-fired heating devices in 18 AAC 50.075(b) is thus 
unaffected by the addition of 18 AAC 50.075(d), which applies only to 
PM2.5. Furthermore, the addition of paragraph (d) provides 
limitations on solid-fuel heating device operation in PM2.5 
nonattainment areas that previously did not exist in the Alaska SIP. 
Therefore, we consider the addition of paragraph (d) to be a necessary 
strengthening of the existing SIP, not a relaxation.
    However, we believe the commenter raised valid concerns with the 
waiver provisions in 18 AAC 50.075(d)(2). The EPA is not taking final 
action on these waiver provisions because they are no longer part of 
the submitted FNSB Moderate Plan. On July 26, 2017, Alaska withdrew 18 
AAC 50.075(d)(2) from its SIP submission. The withdrawal letter is 
included in the docket for this action.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See ADEC letter, Withdrawal of items from the State 
Implementation Plan submittal for the Fairbanks North Star Borough 
nonattainment area, July 26, 2017, in the docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to the comments about the type of curtailment program 
and the suggestion that state and local officials provide a fuel oil 
subsidy, we note that states have discretion in formulating their 
attainment plans, so long as they meet the applicable requirements of 
the Act. In the FNSB NAA, Alaska has adopted a number of control 
measures

[[Page 42467]]

to address emissions from solid fuel heating devices that are designed 
to help the area attain the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS given 
the facts and circumstances of this particular area. As we stated in 
our proposed rule, we believe the mandatory solid-fuel heating device 
curtailment program in the FNSB Moderate Plan is appropriately suited 
for the FNSB NAA in that it provides for implementation of a 
curtailment program that will reduce emissions in a manner that can 
facilitate program adoption and implementation by the community. 82 FR 
9046, February 2, 2017. Again, we anticipate that Alaska will be 
reexamining its approach to controlling emissions from this source as 
part of the development of the Serious area attainment plan for the 
FNSB NAA, in order to identify and adopt BACM/BACT level controls, as 
appropriate. At that time, Alaska may reevaluate approaches that have 
been successfully adopted and implemented in other nonattainment areas 
and new approaches suggested by the public.
    Comment 12.c. 18 AAC 50.076. Solid Fuel-fired Heating Device Fuel 
Requirements; Registration of Commercial Wood Sellers. The commenter 
generally supported this regulation, which sets forth requirements for 
fuels that can be used in solid fuel-fired heating devices. However, 
the commenter expressed concern that it does not require year-round use 
of ``dry'' or ``seasoned'' wood like the Borough ordinance does and 
stated that the EPA must explicitly approve the Borough ordinance as an 
enforceable part of the SIP. In addition, the commenter stated that the 
mandatory component of Alaska's wood seller registration program should 
apply immediately, not when the area is reclassified to Serious and 
suggested that Alaska use ``a simple'' wood moisture content labeling 
program that identifies the wood as ``dry'' or ``wet.''
    Response 12.c. The EPA notes that Alaska included the provision 
identified by the commenter, Borough code 21.28.030.F, in the FNSB 
Moderate Plan in its November 23, 2016 supplemental submission. Borough 
code 21.28.030.F lists the types of fuels that cannot be burned in a 
solid-fuel heating device. This provision applies at all times and 
prohibits the burning of wood that has a moisture content greater than 
20 percent. The local rules that Alaska included in the FNSB Moderate 
Plan will become a part of the federally-approved SIP. Accordingly, 
upon the effective date of this action, Borough code 21.28.030.F will 
thus become a federally-enforceable component of the SIP applicable in 
the FNSB NAA.
    Regarding the commenter's suggestion that Alaska use a more 
simplified wood moisture labeling system for this program, such as 
``dry'' or ``wet,'' we note that states have discretion in formulating 
their attainment plans, so long as they meet the applicable 
requirements of the Act. In this instance, we believe that the method 
of labeling moisture content adopted by Alaska adequately conveys the 
necessary information to wood users to facilitate the related 
requirement to burn only dry wood, and thus the alternative form of 
labelling suggested by the commenter is not required. We are therefore 
approving Alaska's regulations, including the requirement that wood 
sellers document three moisture content measurements on the moisture 
content disclosure. The EPA notes that the mandatory component of 
Alaska's wood seller registration program was implemented on August 15, 
2017.
    Comment 12.d. 18 AAC 50.077. Standards for Wood-fired Heating 
Devices. The commenter supported Alaska's emissions standard for new 
installations of wood-fired heating devices in 18 AAC 50.077 as a 
critical step toward improving air quality in the FNSB NAA, but 
objected to the ``scaling of the standard'' and asserted that there 
``should be no exception for small or large devices'' and that 
``devices larger than 350,000 BTUs should be required to meet the same 
emissions standard.'' The commenter also stated that Alaska failed to 
give a reasonable justification for not strengthening 18 AAC 50.077 by 
establishing an emission standard for coal burning devices. 
Additionally, the commenter expressed concern that wood-fired heating 
devices that do not meet the 18 AAC 50.077 emission standards can be 
sold if they are to be installed outside the FNSB NAA and that only a 
written confirmation is required from the buyer stating that the device 
will be installed and used in an area other than the FNSB NAA. The 
commenter requested that the address where the non-conforming device 
will be installed should be included in the confirmation, that the 
confirmation be notarized, and that sellers be required to keep the 
confirmation for 5 years. Although not directly related to 18 AAC 
50.077, the commenter also stated that the requirement for replacing 
uncertified wood stoves at time of home sale should be adopted and 
implemented immediately, rather than set aside for future 
implementation as a contingency measure in the FNSB Moderate Plan.
    Response 12.d. The EPA agrees with the commenter that it is 
important that solid-fuel heating devices that are to be installed in 
the FNSB NAA meet stringent emissions standards. Alaska's emissions 
standards for wood-fired heating devices in 18 AAC 50.077 are similar 
to, or more stringent than, the EPA's current New Source Performance 
Standards for new residential wood heaters and hydronic heaters (wood 
heater NSPS). 80 FR 13672, March 16, 2015. However, we believe the 
commenter is incorrect in claiming that 18 AAC 50.077 contains 
exemptions based on device size because all devices are addressed, 
whether they are rated under 350,000 Btu per hour or greater than 
350,000 Btu per hour. The provisions in 18 AAC 50.077(b) and (c) 
provide emissions standards for devices ``rated under 350,000 Btu per 
hour'' for hydronic heaters and wood stoves, respectively, whereas 18 
AAC 50.077(d) provides emissions standards for wood-fired heating 
devices that have a ``rated size of 350,000 Btu or greater per hour.'' 
Thus, 18 AAC 50.077 does not contain the exemptions described by the 
commenter. Additionally, 18 AAC 50.077(b), (c), and (d) each require 
devices to meet EPA standards or meet the same ``particulate matter 
annual average emission limit of 2.5 grams per hour.''
    We disagree with the comment that Alaska did not establish emission 
standards for new coal-burning device installations in the FNSB 
Moderate Plan. Although the commenter is correct that 18 AAC 50.077 
does not establish such emission standards, the emission standards for 
``Borough listed appliances'' in section 020 of Borough code chapter 
21.28 apply to coal heating devices. Additionally, section 030.A 
prohibits the installation of a solid fuel burning appliance in the 
FNSB NAA if the appliance is not listed by the Borough. We note that 
``solid fuel burning appliance'' is defined in section 010 to include 
coal stoves, coal-fired hydronic heaters, and coal-fired furnaces. 
Alaska adopted Borough code chapter 21.28 sections 010, 020, and 030 
into the FNSB Moderate Plan that was submitted to the EPA on November 
23, 2016. Upon the effective date of this action, these Borough 
provisions will be adopted into the federally-approved SIP. Thus, 
Alaska has imposed emission controls on coal fired stoves in the FNSB 
NAA sufficient for purposes of the FNSB Moderate Plan. Alaska 
acknowledged the public health concerns associated with emissions from 
coal fired stoves in the FNSB Moderate Plan and the EPA anticipates 
that Alaska will further evaluate potential controls for these sources 
in

[[Page 42468]]

the development of the Serious area plan.
    We also disagree with the commenter regarding the need to revise 
the written confirmation requirements in 18 AAC 50.077(f) for sales of 
wood-fired heating devices to be installed outside of the FNSB NAA to 
include additional requirements such as notarization and retention of 
forms. The requirements of 18 AAC 50.077(f) specify that all new wood-
fired heating devices to be installed or used in the FNSB NAA must meet 
certain emission standards and provides that a person who intends to 
sell or otherwise convey a wood-fired heating device that does not meet 
those standards must receive written confirmation from the buyer or 
operator that the device will not be installed or used in the FNSB NAA. 
The EPA believes that this provision provides sufficient notice (in 
addition to the regulatory text of 18 AAC 50.077 and other education 
and outreach efforts conducted by ADEC and the Borough) to potential 
buyers of the prohibition on such installations in the FNSB NAA and 
adequately documents their awareness and agreement to comply. Although 
the additional requirements suggested by the commenter may be helpful, 
we believe the current requirements devised by Alaska are sufficient.
    With respect to the comment that Alaska should implement 
immediately the requirement for replacing uncertified wood stoves at 
the time of home sale, rather than implement it as a future contingency 
measure, the EPA notes that the measure has been implemented. The 
requirement became effective on June 9, 2017, the effective date of 
reclassification of the area to Serious. 82 FR 21711, May 10, 2017.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See ADEC letter Wood-Fired Heating Device Requirement--
Remove or Replace Non Compliant Devices Upon Property Sale, Lease or 
Conveyance--Effective Date: June 9, 2017, in the docket for this 
action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment 12.e. 18 AAC 50.246. Air Quality Episodes and Advisories 
for PM2.5. The commenter expressed concerns that compliance with 
curtailments remain voluntary under the 18 AAC 50.246 provisions for 
PM2.5 air quality episodes and advisories and that the 
provisions ``do not protect public health in Fairbanks or promote 
attainment of the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.'' The commenter also 
objected to the lack of a definition for the word ``curtailment.''
    Response 12.e. First, we disagree with the commenter's concern 
about the absence of a specific definition of the term curtailment. In 
Alaska's current SIP-approved regulations and the regulations submitted 
with the FNSB Moderate Plan, the word ``curtailment'' is used in a 
general sense and does not apply to a particular category of sources. 
Therefore, we do not take issue with the use of the word 
``curtailment'' in 18 AAC 50.246 or the fact that it lacks a specific 
regulatory definition.
    Second, we acknowledge that under 18 AAC 50.246(c)(1), curtailments 
are voluntary ``from any person issued a permit under this chapter 
whose stationary source's emissions might impact the area subject to 
the advisory.'' Thus, the commenter is correct that compliance with the 
curtailment contemplated in this provision is voluntary for the 
affected stationary sources (Alaska defines ``stationary source'' in AS 
46.14.990 as ``any building, structure, facility, or installation which 
emits or may emit a regulated NSR pollutant''). However, we note that 
18 AAC 50.246(c)(1) applies only to permitted stationary sources and it 
applies statewide.
    By contrast, Alaska has adopted a mandatory curtailment program for 
the FNSB NAA that applies to all solid-fuel heating devices in the 
event that Alaska or the Borough issues an alert based on high ambient 
PM2.5 levels. Compliance with the solid-fuel heating device 
curtailment is mandatory, not voluntary. We believe that the provision 
at 18 AAC 50.075(e), in conjunction with 18 AAC 50.246, provides Alaska 
authority to prohibit the operation of solid-fuel heating devices in 
the FNSB NAA. The prohibition on the operation of solid-fuel heating 
devices issued under 18 AAC 50.075(e) and Borough code 21.28.050 
provide Alaska the ability to implement advisories and prescribe 
actions as a backstop to the Borough's existing solid-fuel heating 
device curtailment program, which is incorporated in the State Air 
Quality Control Plan, adopted by reference in 18 AAC 50.030, and is 
also being adopted into the federally-approved SIP in this action. 
Specifically, Borough code 21.28.050 requires the issuance of 
advisories or alerts when PM2.5 concentrations are expected 
to reach certain levels (defined as Stage 1, Stage 2 and Stage 3). 
These alerts impose mandatory restrictions on the operation of solid-
fuel heating devices in the FNSB NAA, or specified Air Quality Control 
Zone. Accordingly, both Alaska and the Borough have authority to impose 
a mandatory curtailment on the operation of solid-fuel heating devices 
during PM2.5 air quality episodes. See FNSB Moderate Plan 
III.D.5.11-3.
    Comment 12.f. 18 AAC 50.245(b) and (c). Air Quality Episodes and 
Advisories for Air Pollutants other than PM2.5. The commenter noted 
that the current version of 18 AAC 50.245 approved into the Alaska SIP 
provides that ADEC will declare air quality advisories. In the FNSB 
Moderate Plan, Alaska has revised the rule to provide that either ADEC 
``or a local air quality control program'' will declare the advisories. 
The commenter objected to these revisions because ``they do not specify 
a single authority responsible for air alerts'' and ``there is 
potential for confusion and inaction.'' The commenter also stated that 
Alaska ``should not delegate authority to a local air quality control 
program that is unwilling or unable to fully implement regulatory 
requirements.''
    Response 12.f. The EPA disagrees that authorizing the relevant 
local air quality control program (i.e., here the Borough) to declare 
advisories, as well as ADEC, is an inappropriate revision of the 
existing SIP. Under 18 AAC 50.245, ADEC or a local air quality control 
program may declare air quality episodes and advisories for 
SO2, PM10, and CO.\11\ The commenter's concern 
about potential confusion in areas that have a local air quality 
program, such as the FNSB NAA, is addressed by the requirements of AS 
46.14.400, which provides authority for ADEC to authorize local air 
quality control programs to operate in lieu of ADEC's air quality 
program. Under AS 46.14.400(d), a cooperative agreement between ADEC 
and the local air quality district must specify, among other things, 
the respective duties and enforcement responsibilities of the local air 
quality district and ADEC. Thus, where a local air quality district has 
been authorized to administer a local air quality control program and 
declare alerts, the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) specifies that 
responsibility. The MOU between ADEC and the Borough (ADEC-FNSB MOU) 
was submitted with the FNSB Moderate Plan. FNSB Moderate Plan appendix 
III.D.5.12-54. It specifies that the Borough will ``continue to 
implement, as needed, the Borough's emergency episode prevention and 
response plan for CO.'' The ADEC-FNSB MOU does not identify the Borough 
as the authority for declaring alerts for SO2 and 
PM10, thus ADEC would declare those air alerts. The EPA 
believes that although 18 AAC 50.245 does not specify one authority for 
calling SO2, PM10, and CO alerts, the MOU 
required by Alaska statute adequately specifies the entity responsible 
for calling alerts when it is not ADEC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ The EPA notes that Alaska addresses PM2.5 air 
quality episodes and advisories in 18 AAC 50.246.

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

[[Page 42469]]

    We also believe that the requirements of AS 46.14.400(d) address 
the commenter's concern that Alaska should not delegate authority to a 
local air quality control program that is unwilling or unable to fully 
implement regulatory requirements. The cooperative agreement must 
specify the respective enforcement responsibilities of the local air 
quality district and ADEC. According to the ADEC-FNSB MOU, ADEC has 
enforcement responsibility for all currently permitted facilities that 
are under ADEC authority. ADEC and the Borough have joint 
responsibility for responding to public complaints about air pollution 
within the Borough. The ADEC-FNSB MOU provides a flow chart for 
identifying appropriate enforcement actions for the Borough to take, 
for ADEC to take, or for joint enforcement actions. See FNSB Moderate 
Plan appendix III.D.5.12-57. Additionally, as we stated earlier, Alaska 
has provided necessary assurances that ``where the State has relied on 
a local or regional government, agency, or instrumentality for the 
implementation of any SIP provision, the State has responsibility for 
ensuring adequate implementation of the SIP'' with respect to the 2006 
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS as required by CAA section 
110(a)(2)(E)(iii). 79 FR 66651, November 10, 2014. In the event that a 
local air quality control program is not meeting its responsibilities, 
the EPA anticipates that Alaska will take appropriate steps to assure 
that the SIP is properly implemented and enforced within all areas of 
the state, as required by the CAA.

D. Other Comments

    Comment 13: Two commenters expressed concern about the high 
PM2.5 values recorded by ambient air quality monitors in the 
FNSB NAA. One commenter noted that ``the North Pole Fire Station 
monitor currently records the highest values in the non-attainment 
area'' and ``[t]he most recent design value was 124 [mu]g/m\3\, that 
is, 354 percent of the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.'' The commenter 
further asserted that the ``EPA and the State have a legal and a moral 
obligation to develop a plan to clean up the Borough's polluted air.'' 
This commenter stated that ``improved regulations to address wood smoke 
and other sources of PM2.5 pollution are necessary to 
protect the health and welfare of Fairbanks residents, especially 
children in the community.'' In addition to expressing concerns about 
public health, the other commenter described personal experiences with 
health issues ``because of chronically poor air quality'' and stated 
that ``[a]nother study of premature mortality in our area is needed.'' 
This commenter also expressed concerns about air quality monitoring, 
claiming that the ``air quality is getting worse,'' that Alaska has 
tried ``to disprove monitoring data from a Neighborhood site in North 
Pole by claiming it is a microliter,'' and that Alaska removed a 
special purpose monitor ``known as the Watershed Monitor from an area 
in Fairbanks where levels were recorded for many months (months in 
three consecutive years) often higher than the North Pole Monitor.'' 
The commenter also noted that a ``MetOne Neighborhood Monitor in the 
area continues to show dangerously high levels.''
    Response 13: We agree with the concerns about high ambient 
PM2.5 levels in the FNSB NAA. We acknowledge that control 
measures have been adopted into the FNSB Moderate Plan to improve air 
quality and although the PM2.5 values generally have 
decreased, they remain high. However, we note that the high monitored 
PM2.5 values are not a basis for disapproval of the FNSB 
Moderate Plan. The EPA has already reclassified the FNSB NAA from 
Moderate to Serious because these high monitored values indicated 
continued nonattainment, which under CAA sections 188 and 189, imposes 
additional and more stringent attainment plan requirements. 82 FR 
21711, May 10, 2017. This reclassification obligates Alaska to 
reevaluate and strengthen its attainment plan control strategy as 
necessary to meet the more stringent Serious area requirements and to 
provide for attainment of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS by 
the applicable Serious area attainment date. Regarding the comment that 
another study on premature mortality is needed, although such a study 
may be a valuable source of information to the community, it is not a 
requirement under the CAA as part of an attainment plan and is 
therefore beyond the scope of this action.
    In response to the comments about air quality monitors, we affirm 
that the North Pole Fire Station monitor continues to operate as a 
regulatory monitor and that it is a neighborhood scale monitor. As 
discussed in our proposal, the EPA expects that Alaska will include the 
data from the North Pole Fire Station monitor in the analyses for the 
development of a Serious area attainment plan for the FNSB NAA. 82 FR 
9037, February 2, 2017. Regarding the comment about the removal of the 
special purpose monitor, the EPA is aware that high concentrations of 
PM2.5 commonly exist in parts of the nonattainment area that 
are not routinely and continuously monitored by the Borough or the 
State. Special purpose monitors supplement the monitoring network used 
for meeting the EPA's minimum monitoring requirements found in appendix 
D of 40 CFR part 58. Monitors used for satisfying the EPA's minimum 
monitoring requirements remain at a fixed location for an extended 
period (longer than 24 months) so that air quality measurements can be 
used for regulatory decision making purposes. Special purpose 
monitoring data augment the data collected from the minimum required 
network and are used to ensure that this minimum monitoring network is 
appropriately sited and adequately represents the air quality of the 
community. As such, it is not uncommon for special purpose monitors to 
be operated for only a short duration at any given location. In its 
monitoring network plan, Alaska explained that special purpose monitors 
are moved to better understand the air quality impacts experienced in 
various neighborhoods and that the special purpose monitoring sites 
usually remain in one location for two to six weeks.\12\ In addition, 
the EPA appreciates the community's willingness to assist in citizen 
monitoring and recognizes that achieving air quality goals in the FNSB 
NAA is a collaborative effort.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ The EPA approved the 2015 Alaska annual monitoring network 
plan on October 28, 2015. See 2015 Alaska Monitoring Network 
Approval Letter in the docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment 14: One commenter stated that the FNSB Moderate Plan 
included ``mitigation efforts from state legislative grants obtained by 
Rep. Tammie Wilson that were not scientifically or practically carried 
out and for which no report, data, or proper accounting is available.''
    Response 14: We reviewed the FNSB Moderate Plan and did not 
identify mitigation efforts as suggested by the commenter. 
Additionally, the commenter did not provide specific information for 
the EPA to evaluate the claim that the FNSB Moderate Plan relied on 
such efforts. The EPA therefore does not find this comment to provide a 
basis for disapproval of the FNSB Moderate Plan.
    Comment 15: One commenter stated that Alaska ``claimed they can't 
meet CAA requirements without making any reasonable effort to do so.'' 
This commenter also stated that the FNSB Moderate Plan ``does not 
appear to meet the Federal requirements or especially the spirit of the 
CAA,'' and asked that ``[i]f Alaska's Moderate SIP is being accepted 
because the Administrator of

[[Page 42470]]

the EPA failed to respond within the established timeline to Alaska's 
SIP submission, then that should be made clear.''
    Response 15: The commenter did not provide specific information 
about the claims made by Alaska that they cannot meet CAA requirements. 
We have reviewed the FNSB Moderate Plan and did not identify any such 
claims. As discussed in our proposal, the EPA is approving the FNSB 
Moderate Plan because we found that it meets the substantive statutory 
and regulatory requirements for base-year and projected emissions 
inventories, precursor demonstrations, analysis and imposition of RACM/
RACT, RFP, QMs, and a demonstration that attainment by the December 31, 
2015 attainment date was impracticable. See 82 FR 9053, February 2, 
2017.
    With respect to the commenter's question concerning whether this 
approval was influenced by the timing of the action, the EPA 
acknowledges that our final action is outside of the timeline 
prescribed by the CAA. The EPA's inability to take timely action was 
the result of a number of factors including our ongoing work with 
Alaska to supplement the FNSB Moderate Plan. However, as noted 
previously, the EPA's decision to approve the FNSB Moderate Plan in 
this action is based on the content of the plan and its consistency 
with applicable statutory and regulatory requirements, and was not 
influenced by the timing of our final action.
    Comment 16: One commenter stated that because the RACM/RACT 
analysis is flawed, the impracticability and RFP demonstrations are 
inadequate. This commenter also stated that reclassification to Serious 
and the requirement that Alaska will ``have to submit amendments to its 
plan applying stricter control measures to bring the area into 
compliance, do not diminish the importance of EPA's decision on the 
State's current plan . . .'' and ``does not relax the Clean Air Act's 
requirements for the current submission.''
    Response 16: As discussed in section II.A of this preamble, we 
disagree with the comment that the RACM/RACT analysis is flawed and we 
therefore disagree with the comment that the impracticability and RFP 
demonstrations are not approvable. We agree with the comment that 
reclassification to Serious does not relax the Moderate area 
requirements. Where we discussed reclassifying the FNSB NAA to Serious 
in our proposal, our intention was to explain that although Alaska and 
the EPA considered certain control measures infeasible in the context 
of the FNSB Moderate Plan, the reclassification to Serious obligates 
Alaska to reevaluate potential control measures and strengthen its 
attainment plan control strategy as necessary to meet the more 
stringent Serious area requirements.

III. Final Action

    Under CAA section 110(k), the EPA is approving the FNSB Moderate 
Plan for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. Specifically, the EPA 
finds that the FNSB Moderate Plan meets the substantive statutory and 
regulatory requirements for base-year and projected emissions 
inventories, precursor demonstrations, analysis and imposition of RACM/
RACT level emission controls, RFP, QMs, and a demonstration that 
attainment by the December 31, 2015 attainment date was impracticable. 
In addition, the EPA is approving the 2017 motor vehicle emissions 
budgets because they are derived from an approvable RFP demonstration 
and meet the requirements of CAA section 176(c) and 40 CFR part 93, 
subpart A. The EPA is also approving the exceptional events 
demonstrations. Accordingly, the EPA finds that the FNSB Moderate Plan, 
for the FNSB NAA for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, meets 
applicable CAA title I, part D requirements for purposes of approval 
under section 110(k) of the CAA.
    The EPA is approving the State Air Quality Control Plan and state 
and local rules that were submitted as part of the FNSB Moderate Plan 
on December 31, 2014; January 29, 2015; March 11, 2016; \13\ and 
November 23, 2016. The EPA is not acting on provisions that Alaska 
withdrew from the SIP submissions.\14\ Specifically, we are approving, 
but not incorporating by reference, the following two sections of the 
State Air Quality Control Plan: Volume II, section III.D.5 and Volume 
III, appendices, section III.D.5. We are incorporating by reference the 
submitted revisions to title 18 of Alaska Administrative Code (AAC), 
chapter 50 (18 AAC 50) sections 007, 010, 025, 065, 075, 076 (except 
(g)(11), 077, 245, 246, and 990. We are approving, but not 
incorporating by reference 18 AAC 50.076(g)(11) because it relates to 
enforcement provisions that if incorporated by reference may conflict 
with the EPA's independent authorities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ We are not acting on the portions of the March 11, 2016 
submission that are unrelated to the FNSB Moderate Plan. We address 
those portions of the March 11, 2016 submission in separate actions.
    \14\ See Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation letter, 
Withdrawal of items from the State Implementation Plan submittal for 
the Fairbanks North Star Borough nonattainment area, July 26, 2017, 
available in the docket for this action
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to local rules, we are incorporating by reference 
Fairbanks North Star Borough Code chapter 21.28 sections 010, 020, 030 
(except J), 050, and 060. We are approving, but not incorporating by 
reference, Fairbanks North Star Borough Code chapter 21.28 section 
030.J because it relates to penalty provisions that if incorporated by 
reference may conflict with the EPA's independent authorities. We are 
also approving, but not incorporating by reference Fairbanks North Star 
Borough Code chapter 21.28 sections 040 and 070 because they relate to 
funding for voluntary initiatives being undertaken by the Borough to 
reduce emissions of PM2.5.

IV. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes 
incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 
51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of state and 
local regulations for solid-fuel heaters and open burning, as set forth 
in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52. The EPA has made, and will 
continue to make, these materials generally available through http://www.regulations.gov and/or at the EPA Region 10 Office (please contact 
the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of 
this preamble for more information).
    Therefore, these materials have been approved by the EPA for 
inclusion in the State implementation plan, have been incorporated by 
reference by the EPA into that plan, are fully federally-enforceable 
under sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of the effective date of the 
final rulemaking of the EPA's approval, and will be incorporated by 
reference by the Director of the Federal Register in the next update to 
the SIP compilation.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 62 FR 27968, May 22, 1997.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP 
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable 
federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in 
reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices, 
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this 
action merely approves state law as meeting federal requirements and 
does not impose additional requirements beyond

[[Page 42471]]

those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to 
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 
2011);
     does not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     is certified as not having a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     does not have Federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     is not an economically significant regulatory action based 
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997);
     is not a significant regulatory action subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the 
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent 
with the Clean Air Act; and
     does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority 
to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or 
environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible 
methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or 
in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated 
that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the 
rule does not have tribal implications and it will not impose 
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as 
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally 
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating 
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, 
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the 
United States. The EPA will submit a report containing this action and 
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior 
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot 
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal 
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for 
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court 
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by November 7, 2017. Filing a 
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule 
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of 
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for 
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness 
of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in 
proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2)).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

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

    Dated: August 21, 2017.
Michelle L. Pirzadeh,
Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region 10.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 40 CFR part 52 is 
amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart C--Alaska

0
2. In Sec.  52.70:
0
a. The table in paragraph (c) is amended by:
0
i. Adding the entry ``18 AAC 50.007'', in numerical order;
0
ii. Revising the entries ``18 AAC 50.010'', ``18 AAC 50.025'', ``18 AAC 
50.065'', and ``18 AAC 50.075'';
0
iii. Adding the entries ``18 AAC 50.076'' and ``18 AAC 50.077'', in 
numerical order;
0
iv. Revising the entry ``18 AAC 50.245'';
0
v. Adding the entry ``18 AAC 50.246'', in numerical order;
0
vi. Revising the entry ``18 AAC 50.990''; and
0
vii. Adding at the end of the table the heading ``Fairbanks North Star 
Borough Code Chapter 21.28 PM2.5 Air Quality Control 
Program'' and entries for ``21.28.010'', ``21.28.020'', ``21.28.030'', 
``21.28.050'', and ``21.28.060'', in numerical order; and
0
b. The table in paragraph (e) is amended by:
0
i. Adding at the end of the table the heading ``Regulations Approved 
but not Incorporated by Reference'' and entries for ``18 AAC 
50.076(g)(11)'', ``21.28.030.J'', ``21.28.040'', and ``21.28.070''; and
0
ii. Adding at the end of the table an undesignated heading entitled 
``Recently-Approved Plans'' and entries for ``Volume II. Section 
III.D.5.'' and ``Volume III. Appendices Section III.D.5.''.
    The additions and revisions read as follows:


Sec.  52.70   Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

                                  EPA-Approved Alaska Regulations and Statutes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 State effective
     State citation          Title/subject             date          EPA approval date         Explanations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        Alaska Administrative Code, Title 18--Environmental Conservation
                                   Chapter 50--Air Quality Control (18 AAC 50)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
18 AAC 50.007...........  Local Government     2/28/15............  9/8/17, [Insert
                           Powers or                                 Federal Register
                           Obligations Under                         citation].
                           a Local Air
                           Quality Control
                           Program.
18 AAC 50.010...........  Ambient Air Quality  3/2/16.............  9/8/17, [Insert      except (7) and (8).
                           Standards.                                Federal Register
                                                                     citation].

[[Page 42472]]

 
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
18 AAC 50.025...........  Visibility and       11/26/16...........  9/8/17, [Insert
                           Other Special                             Federal Register
                           Protection Areas.                         citation].
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
18 AAC 50.065...........  Open Burning.......  3/2/16.............  9/8/17, [Insert
                                                                     Federal Register
                                                                     citation].
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
18 AAC 50.075...........  Solid Fuel-fired     11/26/16...........  9/8/17, [Insert
                           Heating Device                            Federal Register
                           Visible Emission                          citation].
                           Standards.
18 AAC 50.076...........  Solid Fuel-fired     11/26/16...........  9/8/17, [Insert      except (g)(11).
                           Heating Device                            Federal Register
                           Fuel Requirements;                        citation].
                           Registration of
                           Commercial Wood
                           Sellers.
18 AAC 50.077...........  Standards for Wood-  11/26/16...........  9/8/17, [Insert
                           fired Heating                             Federal Register
                           Devices.                                  citation].
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
18 AAC 50.245...........  Air Quality          2/28/15............  9/8/17, [Insert
                           Episodes and                              Federal Register
                           Advisories for Air                        citation].
                           Pollutants Other
                           Than PM-2.5.
18 AAC 50.246...........  Air Quality          2/28/15............  9/8/17, [Insert
                           Episodes and                              Federal Register
                           Advisories for PM-                        citation].
                           2.5.
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
18 AAC 50.990...........  Definitions........  3/2/16.............  9/8/17, [Insert
                                                                     Federal Register
                                                                     citation].
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Fairbanks North Star Borough Code
                                Chapter 21.28--PM2.5 Air Quality Control Program
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
21.28.010...............  Definitions........  3/2/15 (borough      9/8/17, [Insert
                                                effective date).     Federal Register
                                                                     citation].
21.28.020...............  Borough listed       1/15/16 (borough     9/8/17, [Insert
                           appliances.          effective date).     Federal Register
                                                                     citation].
21.28.030...............  Prohibited acts....  10/1/16 (borough     9/8/17, [Insert      except J.
                                                effective date).     Federal Register
                                                                     citation].
21.28.050...............  Forecasting          6/26/15 (borough     9/8/17, [Insert
                           exceedances and      effective date).     Federal Register
                           restrictions in                           citation].
                           the air quality
                           control zone
                           during an alert.
21.28.060...............  No other adequate    8/12/16 (borough     9/8/17, [Insert      .......................
                           source of heat       effective date).     Federal Register
                           determination.                            citation].
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

                   EPA-Approved Alaska Nonregulatory Provisions and Quasi-Regulatory Measures
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Applicable
     Name of SIP provision         geographic or       State submittal     EPA approval date       Comments
                                 nonattainment area          date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                             Regulations Approved but not Incorporated by Reference
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
18 AAC 50.076(g)(11)..........  Solid Fuel-fired     11/26/16...........  9/8/17, [Insert
                                 Heating Device                            Federal Register
                                 Fuel Requirements;                        citation].
                                 Registration of
                                 Commercial Wood
                                 Sellers.
21.28.030.J...................  Prohibited Acts.     10/1/16 (borough     9/8/17, [Insert     Fairbanks North
                                 Penalties.           effective date).     Federal Register    Star Borough Code
                                                                           citation].          Chapter 21.28
                                                                                               PM2.5 Air Quality
                                                                                               Control Program.
21.28.040.....................  Enhanced voluntary   1/15/16 (borough     9/8/17, [Insert     Fairbanks North
                                 removal,             effective date).     Federal Register    Star Borough Code
                                 replacement and                           citation].          Chapter 21.28
                                 repair program.                                               PM2.5 Air Quality
                                                                                               Control Program.
21.28.070.....................  Voluntary burn       4/24/15 (borough     9/8/17, [Insert     Fairbanks North
                                 cessation program.   effective date).     Federal Register    Star Borough Code
                                                                           citation].          Chapter 21.28
                                                                                               PM2.5 Air Quality
                                                                                               Control Program.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Recently-Approved Plans
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Volume II. Section III.D.5....  Fairbanks North      11/23/16...........  9/8/17, [Insert     Fairbanks North
                                 Star Borough.                             Federal Register    Star Borough
                                                                           citation].          PM2.5 Moderate
                                                                                               Area Plan.
Volume III. Appendices Section  Fairbanks North      11/23/16...........  9/8/17, [Insert     Only with respect
 III.D.5.                        Star Borough.                             Federal Register    to the Fairbanks
                                                                           citation].          North Star
                                                                                               Borough PM2.5
                                                                                               Moderate Area
                                                                                               Plan.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 42473]]

[FR Doc. 2017-18768 Filed 9-7-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P