Large diesel-fired engine (EU   PM: Existing       PM: Alaska's BACT
 8).                             emissions and      determination is
                                 operating limits.  appropriate, but MRR
                                SO: ULSD fuel       requirements not
                                 requirement.       provided.
                                                   SO: Alaska's BACT
                                                    determination is
                                                    appropriate, but MRR
                                                    requirements not
                                                    provided.
Small diesel-fired engines      PM: Existing       PM: Alaska's BACT
 (EUs 23-24, 26-29).             emissions and      determination is not
                                 operating limits.  sufficient in part,
                                SO: ULSD fuel       EUs 23 and 26 lack
                                 requirement.       operating limits,
                                                    and a control device
                                                    at EU 27 is cost
                                                    effective.
                                                    Otherwise, Alaska's
                                                    BACT determination
                                                    is appropriate, but
                                                    MRR requirements are
                                                    not provided.
                                                   SO: Alaska's BACT
                                                    determination is
                                                    appropriate, but MRR
                                                    requirements not
                                                    provided.
Pathogenic waste incinerator    PM: Existing       PM: Alaska's BACT
 (EU 9a).                        emissions and      determination is
                                 operating limits.  appropriate, but MRR
                                SO: ULSD fuel       requirements not
                                 requirement.       provided.
                                                   SO: Alaska's BACT
                                                    determination is
                                                    appropriate, but MRR
                                                    requirements not
                                                    provided.
Material handling sources (EUs  PM: Existing       PM: Alaska's BACT
 105, 107, 109-111, 114, 128-    emissions and      determination is
 130).                           operating limits.  appropriate, but
                                SO: n/a..........   specific MRR
                                                    requirements are
                                                    required and were
                                                    not provided.
                                                   SO: n/a.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

D. Attainment Demonstration and Modeling

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

E. Reasonable Further Progress

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

F. Quantitative Milestones

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

G. Contingency Measures

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

H. Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets for Transportation Conformity

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IV. Consequences of a Disapproval

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

A. The Act's Provisions for Sanctions

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

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

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

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

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

C. Ramifications Regarding Transportation Conformity

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

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

V. Summary of Proposed Action

A. Proposed Approval

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

B. Proposed Disapproval

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    \209\ Id.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    EPA is soliciting public comments on these proposed actions.

VI. Incorporation by Reference

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

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

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

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

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

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

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

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

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

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

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

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

F. Executive Order 13175: Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

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

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

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

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

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

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

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

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

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

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

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

    Dated: December 30, 2022.
Casey Sixkiller,
Regional Administrator, Region 10.
[FR Doc. 2022-28666 Filed 1-9-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P