[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 183 (Friday, September 24, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 52997-53004]
[FR Doc No: 2021-20396]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R10-OAR-2021-0060; FRL-8909-02-R10]

Air Plan Approval; AK, Fairbanks North Star Borough; 2006 24-Hour
PM2.5 NAAQS Serious Area Plan

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving parts
of state implementation plan (SIP) submissions, submitted by the State
of Alaska (Alaska or the State) to address Clean Air Act (CAA or Act)
requirements for the 2006 24-hour fine particulate matter
(PM2.5) national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) in
the Fairbanks North Star Borough PM2.5 nonattainment area
(Fairbanks PM2.5 Nonattainment Area). The EPA is also
approving rule revisions and an associated air quality control plan
chapter submitted by Alaska into the federally-approved SIP. Alaska
made these submissions on October 25, 2018, November 28, 2018, December
13, 2019, (Fairbanks Serious Plan) and December 15, 2020.

DATES: This action is effective on October 25, 2021.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-R10-OAR-2021-0060. All documents in the docket are
listed on the https://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in
the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g.,
confidential business information (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: Matthew Jentgen, EPA Region 10, 1200
Sixth Avenue--Suite 155, Seattle, WA, 98101,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document wherever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, it is intended to refer to EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. Public Comments and EPA Responses
III. Final Action
IV. Incorporation by Reference
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

    On February 22, 2021, the EPA published its proposal to approve
parts of the Fairbanks Serious Plan and associated SIP revisions (86 FR
10511). Specifically, we proposed to approve the submitted revisions to
the Alaska SIP as meeting the base year emissions inventory and
precursor demonstration requirements triggered for the Fairbanks
PM2.5 Nonattainment Area upon reclassification of the area
to Serious on May 10, 2017 (82 FR 21711). The EPA also proposed to
approve as SIP-strengthening the submitted sections of the Alaska Air
Quality Control Plan for the Fairbanks PM2.5 Nonattainment
Area, state effective January 8, 2020, related to the Emergency Episode
Plan. The EPA also proposed to approve and incorporate by reference as
SIP-strengthening the submitted regulatory changes to Alaska
Administrative Code Title 18, Environmental Conservation, Chapter 50,
Air Quality Control (18 AAC 50). The reasons for our proposed approval
are described in the EPA's February 22, 2021, proposal and will not be
restated here (86 FR 10511).

II. Public Comments and EPA Responses

    The EPA provided a 30-day period for the public to comment on the
proposed action that ended on March 24, 2021. We received 19 public
comments. The public comments can be found in the docket for this
action. Each of the 19 comments raise concerns about a suite of
measures Alaska included under 18 AAC 50.077 that prohibit the
installation, reinstallation, sale, lease, distribution, or conveyance
of wood-fired heating devices in the Fairbanks PM2.5
Nonattainment Area.
    Comment 1: The Hearth, Patio & Barbecue Association (HPBA), Blaze
King Industries, Inc., Hearth & Home Technologies, Inc., Jotul, Kozy
Heat Fireplaces, Kuma Stoves, Inc., Woodstock Soapstone Company, Myren
Consulting, Inc., Rais, Fireplace Products International Ltd. (FPI),
Travis Industries, United States Stove Company, and two anonymous
commenters raise concerns about the State's submitted revisions to
heating device requirements established in regulation at 18 AAC 50.077.
The current SIP-approved heating device requirements in this rule place
restrictions on wood-fired hydronic heaters and wood-fired heating
devices with a manufacturer-rated heat output capacity of less than
350,000 British Thermal Units (BTUs) per hour and prohibit the
installation, reinstallation, sale, lease, distribution, or conveyance
of a woodstove in the area, unless:
     The EPA has certified the device under 40 CFR 60.533; and
     an EPA-accredited lab has tested the woodstove and
determined it meets an emissions limit of 2.5 grams per hour, and
    [cir] the test results were obtained using EPA New Source
Performance Standard (NSPS) for new residential wood heaters test
procedures (40 CFR part 60, appendix A, Methods 28, 28A, and 28R), or
alternative cordwood methods that have been approved by the EPA, and
     the test results were obtained using EPA NSPS emissions
concentration measurement procedures (40 CFR part 60, appendix A,
Methods 5G and 5H).
    The submitted SIP revisions tighten the applicable woodstove
emissions limit from 2.5 grams/hour to 2.0 grams/hour, require that
alternative methods used to test a woodstove be approved by both the
EPA and the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC), and
specify that during testing, a woodstove must not emit more than 4
grams/hour or 6 grams/hour depending on the test methods and
measurement procedures used. Specifically, the submissions revise the
regulation at 18 AAC 50.077 to prohibit the installation,
reinstallation, sale, lease, distribution, or conveyance of a woodstove
in the area, unless: \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Other components of 18 AAC 50.077 were largely retained,
such as the requirements for woodstoves and pellet stoves under 18
AAC 50.077(c) applying to devices with a manufacturer-rated heat
output capacity of less than 350,000 Btu per hour, and that the EPA
certification should be calculated in grams per hour and approved by
the department with supporting data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The EPA has certified the device under 40 CFR 60.533, and
     an EPA-accredited lab has tested the woodstove and
determined it meets an emission limit of 2.0 grams per hour, and
    [cir] the test results were obtained using EPA NSPS test procedures
(Methods 28, 28A, or 28R), or alternative test methods, including
broadly applicable test methods, if approved by both EPA and the Alaska
Department of Environmental Conservation; and
    [cir] the test results were obtained using EPA NSPS emission
concentration measurement procedures (Methods 5G and 5H); and
    [cir] After September 1, 2020, the test results must demonstrate:
(1) No rolling

60-minute period exceeds 4 grams per hour using a tapered element
oscillating microbalance (TEOM) following procedures set out in the
Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM) Standard
Operating Procedures; or (2) no reported valid test run measurement
(one-hour filter data) exceeds 6 grams per hour from the EPA
certification report for the device. See 18 AAC 50.077(c)(b)(ii).
    The commenters assert that the new test requirements at 18 AAC
50.077(c)(b)(ii) are not reliable indicators of device performance, and
that there is insufficient information to approve the use of these test
requirements. One commenter, Jotul, states that the one-hour emissions
limit established by ADEC is completely arbitrary, and Jotul considers
it of utmost importance that any new regulations be developed and
promulgated based on sound scientific principles combined with robust
data to support the conclusions for establishing new emissions limits
and testing protocol.
    Hearth & Home Technologies, Inc., Jotul, Kozy Heat Fireplaces,
Woodstock Soapstone Company, Myren Consulting, Inc., FPI, Travis
Industries, and United States Stove Company do not support relying on
the TEOM method. According to these commenters, TEOM is a new test that
has not undergone significant testing and research and relies on
NESCAUM guidance documents that have not undergone peer review.
    Blaze King Industries, Inc. and Woodstone Soapstone Company also
note the difficulty working with the TEOM device, which might
jeopardize the potential for a qualified sample catch and invalidate an
otherwise valid test run. Woodstone Soapstone Company notes that there
is no definitive method that correlates results captured from a TEOM to
results from Method 28 (EPA-approved woodstove device test method).
Kozy Heat Fireplaces states that the TEOM equipment has not been tested
or incorporated into the Federal certification process and has shown
significant variances in testing. An anonymous commenter notes that
different stoves burn differently and the total amount of emissions
over a burn cycle should be the relevant metric, rather than a one-hour
measurement. Myren Consulting states that the 6 grams per hour limit is
arbitrary and capricious because it does not differentiate between the
two applicable test methods, EPA M28/28R and American Society for
Testing and Materials (ASTM) E3053, which have drastically different
operating and fueling protocols. Myren Consulting also notes that the 6
gram per hour limit is being applied in an ex post facto manner and
that, had manufacturers known about this limit in advance, they would
have had the opportunity to change their woodstove designs and bring
their stoves into compliance.
    Further, HPBA, Innovative Hearth Products (IHP), Kozy Heat
Fireplaces, Woodstock Soapstone Company, Myren Consulting, Inc., New
Buck Corporation, Rais, FPI, Travis Industries, United States Stove
Company, and four anonymous commenters assert that the additional
device requirements for new woodstoves and pellet stoves, included in
18 AAC 50.077(c)(b)(ii), are inconsistent with the Federal NSPS
requirements and that the hourly measurements depart from the weighted
average emissions limit methodology relied on by the EPA's NSPS. IHP
states that individual test runs are conducted as part of a calculation
that establishes an overall weighted emissions average that is then
compared to standards that have been developed as per ASTM methods. The
commenters state that individual test runs cannot in and of themselves
establish a weighted average and therefore cannot determine the overall
usage expectancy of any multi-rate appliance and that any such
conjectures by the State of Alaska are erroneous and without merit.
    Blaze King Industries, Inc. asserts that the one-hour filter pull
requirement for all test runs has eliminated one of the cleanest
burning woodstoves (30.2 series by Blaze King), based on an EPA
weighted average. Blaze King Industries, Inc. provides data to support
the contention that, during one woodstove device test, the wood did not
collapse uniformly, with one piece shifting slightly forward, which
resulted in a one-hour filter pull of 8 grams per hour. Blaze King
Industries, Inc. states other stoves that are approved for sale in the
Fairbanks PM2.5 Nonattainment Area have weighted emissions
averages more than twice that of the particular Blaze King device.
Woodstock Soapstone Company and Rais also provide an example each of a
woodstove that has one of the lowest weighted average emissions of all
EPA-certified woodstoves, but due to one test run exceeding 6 grams per
hour, would not be approved for sale in the Fairbanks PM2.5
Nonattainment Area.
    Another anonymous commenter states that non-catalytic stoves are
more user-friendly and require less maintenance, but they are more
likely to be rejected under this one-hour requirement because non-
catalytic stoves require more heat to burn cleanly, and they take time
to heat up and start burning cleanly. Hearth & Home Technologies, Inc.
asserts that the clearest path to cleaner air in the Fairbanks
PM2.5 Nonattainment Area is by removing older, pre-1988
wood-burning devices, not by prohibiting certain EPA-certified devices
that do not meet Alaska's revised requirements in 18 AAC 50.077.
    Response 1: For the ensuing reasons, the comments do not
demonstrate that approval of Alaska's revisions to 18 AAC 50.077 is
inconsistent with the CAA; therefore, the EPA is finalizing its
approval as proposed. Regarding Alaska's rule revisions for wood-fired
heating device emission standards under 18 AAC 50.077, the EPA proposed
to find that the revisions submitted by ADEC are more stringent than
the current EPA-approved rules. For the reasons stated in our proposal
and in this response, we find that Alaska was not unreasonable in
requiring additional testing requirements as a method of regulating the
installation and operation of woodstoves. As stated in a prior EPA
action on November 27, 2018 (83 FR 60769), approving the Alaska SIP as
meeting specific infrastructure requirements for the 1997, 2006, and
2012 PM2.5 NAAQS, the EPA disagrees with the premise that
states cannot regulate a source category more stringently than may be
required in a Federal regulation. The EPA's role is to review and
approve state choices if they meet the CAA requirements. There is
nothing in the CAA that prevents SIP provisions from being more
stringent than Federal NSPS standards. To the contrary, CAA section 116
explicitly authorizes states to regulate sources more stringently than
the EPA does through Federal regulations. Thus, the fact that 18 AAC
50.077 is more stringent than the NSPS for new residential wood heaters
does not impact the approvability of these control measures as SIP-
strengthening.
    In addition, ADEC addressed similar comments during the State's
public comment period on the SIP revisions. In the Alaska Department of
Environmental Conservation's Response to Comments on the proposed
regulations (ADEC Response to Comments),\2\ ADEC asserted that the
purpose of these additional testing requirements is to better reflect
actual emissions of wood heaters in the Fairbanks PM2.5
Nonattainment Area.

ADEC asserted that the current test method for woodstoves that results
in the certification value (grams of PM2.5 per hour)
averages emissions over four steady-state runs. The values from each of
these runs is an average emission rate over the time it takes to burn
100% of the full load of wood used for each run. This approach
translates into a certification value that is an average of an average.
ADEC stated that averaging results multiple times minimizes emission
rates, which results in certification values that may vastly under
predict actual in-use emission rates and does not reflect the fuel
loading events that in field use may occur multiple times per day.
Further, ADEC stated that real-time PM2.5 measurements
collected from EPA certification tests have shown that the maximum
emission rate occurs within two hours of the test period, and
typically, on average, appliances spend approximately 50% of the
certification testing time in the period known as the charcoal tail,
where virtually no emissions occur, and in some cases filters may
experience particulate loss due to warm dry air blowing through the
filter. While this test method approach differs from the NSPS for new
residential wood heaters, EPA finds ADEC's rationale for the revisions
to 18 AAC 50.077 is reasonable and a rational attempt to strengthen
rules for the residential space heating source category.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, Response to
Comments on May 14, 2019, Proposed Regulations, November 19, 2019.
Pages 37-38, 51-53.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to the inclusion of the TEOM measurement requirement,
ADEC states that the goal was to achieve a 1.0 grams per hour emission
limit in practice, taking into consideration the variability of
emissions when burning cordwood. After reviewing public comments
submitted during the State's public comment period, ADEC amended the
final regulation to provide an alternative to the TEOM test method
while still providing what it considered to be an equivalent, if not
better, air quality result than a 1.0 grams per hour average emission
limit. The final regulation stipulates that manufacturers may provide
the TEOM data as ADEC originally proposed, with the additional
specificity that no rolling 60-minute period may exceed 4.0 grams per
hour, or alternatively, by utilizing existing EPA certification test
data showing that no valid one-hour filter measurement from the
certifying report to EPA is greater than 6.0 grams per hour.
    ADEC asserted that, while this limit is three times the final ADEC
standard (certification value of 2.0 grams per hour or less), the limit
will apply to all woodstoves being installed, reinstalled, sold,
leased, distributed, or conveyed in the nonattainment area (not just
non-catalytic devices). Due to a number of devices expected to exceed
this limit based on the revised test method, the result will be fewer
devices available for installation, sale, lease, distribution, or
conveyance in the area. ADEC noted this approach is designed to ensure
that performance of the devices under more real-world operations will
be more consistent because the emissions limit value is not an average.
As an example, ADEC found devices that meet the 1.0 grams per hour
emissions limit (adopted in Missoula County, Montana), but that exceed
the one-hour filter measurement of 6.0 grams per hour.
    Further, ADEC noted that, while the TEOM is a new approach for wood
heater device certification testing, it has been incorporated into a
standard test method (ASTM D6831-11) for stack gas testing. ADEC
believes the TEOM test is a valuable tool that should be used in future
device certification test requirements and has maintained it as one
option for meeting testing requirements in the final regulation. ADEC
stated that it is specifying use of the TEOM and its alternative one-
hour filter measurement is based on the ADEC's analysis of over 60 EPA
approved certification reports, the vast majority of the tests reviewed
were for EPA Step 2 certification.
    Thus, Alaska developed and implemented additional requirements for
wood-fired heating devices, a 2.0 grams per hour limit for all wood-
fired devices and hourly requirements measured by a TEOM device or
during the EPA certification process, with the intention to reduce the
emissions from the home heating source category, the source category
with the highest PM2.5 emissions in the Fairbanks
PM2.5 Nonattainment Area. EPA has determined that Alaska's
revisions to 18 AAC 50.077 are reasonable and strengthen the SIP with
respect to the regulation of emissions from the residential space
heating source category.
    Comment 2: HPBA, Kozy Heat Fireplaces, and Travis Industries assert
that the one-hour filter alternative is not compatible with woodstove
emissions and the Federal air quality standard that the EPA based on
data averaged over 24 hours, noting that the Federal air quality
standard is not a ``peaking'' standard that is violated by a single
episodic, one-hour reading. Thus, the commenters assert that the EPA
was proposing to approve this metric without any explanation in the
record of its relevance to the nonattainment issues experienced in the
Fairbanks PM2.5 Nonattainment Area.
    Response 2: The EPA disagrees with the commenters. First, the EPA
disagrees with the commenters' assertion that device requirements must
be directly tied to the Federal air quality standard. Overall, the EPA
notes that PM2.5 is a complex and highly variable mixture of
particles and gases. The EPA's PM2.5 Implementation Rule (81
FR 58010, August 24, 2016) recommends that states should base potential
control measures in part on an analysis of emissions inventory data
summaries, fine particle speciation monitoring data, and source
apportionment air quality modeling data. Emissions standards can have
different averaging periods based on the type of source, rate of
emissions, and control measure. Irrespective of the particular NAAQS,
our basis for approval here is that Alaska's revisions to 18 AAC 50.077
render the SIP more stringent than the prior approved rule in terms of
regulating emissions from woodstoves. The EPA finds that ADEC's
rationale for why the revised 18 AAC 50.077 will reduce emissions from
the residential home heating source category is reasonable.
    Second, the record contains ample information showing that ADEC's
revised rule will reduce emissions of direct PM2.5 from the
residential home heating source category. The EPA evaluated ADEC's SIP
submission, including the responses to similar comments in the
development of the State's regulation. In ADEC's Response to Comments,
ADEC noted that, under the 2015 NSPS for new residential wood heaters,
the EPA required reporting of emission rates for the first hour of the
test period. This data reflects the timing and emission rates typically
associated with the 60-minute test requirements for particulate matter
testing at all other sources (EPA Method 5). ADEC asserted that the
assessment of one-hour data allows agencies to gauge performance and
determine which appliances are low emitting from the start of the
certification test versus those that have been able to design for long
charcoal tails to minimize the peak emissions. ADEC additionally stated
that one of the reasons for requiring the use of TEOM measurement data
is to provide a more meaningful equivalency to a 1.0 grams per hour
average emission limit (as adopted by Missoula County, Montana), taking
into consideration the variability of emissions when burning cordwood,
while still allowing a range of devices to be sold and used in the
Fairbanks PM2.5 Nonattainment Area. Thus, the record does
contain information

explaining the reason for the one-hour filter alternative.
    Finally, as stated in a prior EPA action on November 27, 2018 (83
FR 60769), approving the Alaska SIP as meeting specific
PM2.5 infrastructure requirements, states have the
obligation to regulate sources as necessary to meet nonattainment area
plan stringency requirements, such as reasonably and best available
control measures, and the obligation to regulate sources as necessary
to attain the NAAQS in a given nonattainment area. ADEC determined it
was necessary to revise 18 AAC 50.077 and submitted the revisions to
address Serious area planning requirements for best available control
measures in the Fairbanks PM2.5 Nonattainment Area. While
this action does not address whether the submitted revisions to 18 AAC
50.077 and other rules are sufficient to meet best available control
measure requirements, we explained in our proposed action how the
revisions strengthen the SIP. The comments do not demonstrate that
Alaska's revisions to 18 AAC 50.077 or rationale for these revisions
are unreasonable, and EPA is thus finalizing approval of 18 AAC 50.077
as proposed.
    Comment 3: HPBA, Blaze King Industries, Inc., Hearth & Home
Technologies, Inc., Travis Industries, and United States Stove Company
note that Fairbanks has a unique winter environment where woodstoves
are only ``started'' once during winter and left running during entire
cold season. Thus, the commenters assert that establishing a
particulate emissions standard based only on the first hour of
operation inaccurately represents the emissions of wood-fired heating
devices in the Fairbanks PM2.5 Nonattainment Area. In
addition, Blaze King Industries, Inc. states that woodstove users in
the Fairbanks North Star Borough are unique in their use of stoves to
address sub-zero climate conditions in the region. Myren Consulting
states that, no matter the test method, testing of certified stoves in
the test environment will not reflect conditions in the field because
of differences in static pressure, that the commenter asserts will
significantly affect performance in areas with colder temperatures such
as in Fairbanks.
    Response 3: As noted in Responses 1 and 2, ADEC revised 18 AAC
50.077 to reduce emissions from wood-fired heating devices while
allowing for sale and use of a range of devices in the Fairbanks
PM2.5 Nonattainment Area. In ADEC's Response to Comments,
ADEC stated that the TEOM measurement and the one-hour filter pull data
reflect more real-time particulate matter measurements and that other
test methods, based on an average of multiple test runs, may vastly
under predict actual in-use emission rates and do not reflect the
actual fuel loading events that may occur multiple times per day.
Moreover, ADEC developed this control measure as part of its control
measure analysis that incorporates the emissions inventory, speciation,
and source apportionment data for the nonattainment area. Based on
ADEC's SIP submission, including the responses to comments in ADEC's
rulemaking process, the EPA finds that ADEC's rationale for
incorporating the TEOM measurement and the one-hour filter pull data is
credible and based on a robust understanding of the emissions from
woodstoves. Therefore, the EPA is approving this rule revision as SIP-
strengthening because the revised rule imposes requirements for
woodstoves in the Fairbanks PM2.5 Nonattainment Area that
are more stringent than the woodstove requirements in the current SIP.
    Comment 4: Travis Industries asserts that the EPA must expressly
state that the standards ADEC is imposing in 18 AAC 50.077 are
inappropriate in other settings that do not share the Fairbanks
PM2.5 Nonattainment Area's extreme climatic conditions.
    Response 4: As specified in 18 AAC 50.077, this regulation only
applies to qualifying wood-fired heating devices in areas in Alaska
that are designated nonattainment for PM2.5, under 18 AAC
50.015(b)(3). Currently the Fairbanks and North Pole urban area (i.e.,
Fairbanks PM2.5 Nonattainment Area) is listed as the only
nonattainment area in Alaska where this regulation applies. However,
other state and local governments have the authority to adopt similar
measures.
    Comment 5: Comments by HPBA, Blaze King Industries, Inc., Kuma
Stoves, Inc., IHP, Woodstock Soapstone Company, Myren Consulting, and
FPI object to Alaska's authority to validate the EPA's wood-fired
heating device certifications for applicability in the Fairbanks
PM2.5 Nonattainment Area and limit the EPA-approved
applicable testing methods. HPBA asserts that, under 18 AAC
50.077(c)(3)(A), ADEC can effectively veto an EPA device certification
on the grounds that ADEC had not approved the same alternative test
method. As an example, HPBA notes that while the EPA approved ASTM 3053
(cordwood test method), Alaska has not. These commenters state that
Alaska's failure to recognize this approved test method undermines the
EPA's authority. In addition, Kuma Stoves, Inc. states that the EPA
should not now, after benefitting from valuable data generated by the
ASTM 3053 test method, support language that declares ASTM 3053 to be a
nonrepresentative test. One anonymous commenter contends that, based on
experience as a manufacturer of EPA-certified woodstoves, the ASTM 3053
test method is credible and produces consistent and reliable emissions
values, and therefore rejecting this test method results in less
informative testing data.
    Generally, IHP states that it is onerous for a state to regulate an
industry to meet any requirements that are not previously set and known
before development, certification, and manufacturing of those industry
products. Kozy Heat Fireplaces, Inc. states these device requirements
impose new and greater costs for certification and that these costs
have not been quantified by either ADEC or the EPA. IHP recommends that
the EPA reject ADEC's revised requirements for woodstoves in the Alaska
SIP submission as a ``de facto federal standard,'' and in the comment
encourages the State of Alaska to work with the industry to find a more
complete solution. FPI also notes that, not only does ADEC not
recognize the alternate test method, but it does not recognize the 2.5
grams per hour emissions limit associated with this test method. FPI
asserts that dismissing this limit by setting a 2.0 grams per hour
limit for cordwood without a scientific process and peer review is
arbitrary.
    An anonymous commenter notes that the same entities are involved in
woodstove device testing certifications and accreditations as product
safety testing. The commenter states that laboratories need an
International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 17025
accreditation that can be renewed every two years following an official
audit from the accreditor. The commenter states that proficiency
testing has been put in place by the EPA as part of the ISO-17025
accreditation and all accredited laboratories should comply with the
proficiency testing every two years.
    Response 5: The EPA disagrees with the commenters' assertion that
Alaska lacks authority to promulgate rules that are more stringent than
EPA's NSPS or that otherwise limit the range of devices allowed in the
area. The EPA also disagrees with the assertion that Alaska, by
promulgating these rules, establishes a ``de facto federal standard''
and as such undermines the EPA's independent authorities to establish
Federal new source performance standards. Congress gave the EPA

authority in CAA section 111 to establish performance standards for
categories of new sources. Distinct from CAA section 111, Congress
required in CAA section 110 that states have an overarching SIP to
implement, maintain, and enforce the NAAQS. If states have designated
nonattainment areas, then they must make a nonattainment plan SIP
submission meeting additional specific requirements. State regulation
of sources more stringently for purposes of meeting SIP requirements
does not interfere or undermine the EPA's authority to regulate new
sources under the CAA. With few exceptions, states are not preempted
from regulating source categories more stringently and have explicit
authority in CAA section 116 to do so.
    The EPA disagrees with the commenters' assertion that ADEC did not
consider compliance costs. In ADEC's Response to Comments, Alaska
acknowledged the potential increased costs to certification testing.
ADEC stated that the intention is to provide a meaningful equivalent
control measure to a 1.0 grams per hour average emissions limit, while
also allowing a range of devices to be sold and used in the Fairbanks
PM2.5 Nonattainment Area. As discussed in Response 1 in this
preamble, states have explicit authority to regulate a source category
more stringently than may be required in a Federal regulation. The
EPA's role is to review and approve state choices if they meet
applicable CAA requirements. See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k) and 40 CFR 52.02(a);
see also Union Elec. Co. v. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 256-266 (1976) (holding
that the EPA may not disapprove a state implementation plan that meets
the requirements of CAA Section 110(a)(2) on the basis of technological
or economic infeasibility). There is nothing in the CAA that prevents
states from imposing SIP requirements that are more stringent than
Federal NSPS standards.
    Regarding woodstove device testing certifications and ISO-17025
accreditations, the 2015 NSPS stipulates that for new residential wood
heaters, new residential hydronic heaters, and forced-air furnaces (80
FR 13672), a test laboratory must agree to participate biennially in an
independently operated proficiency testing program with no direct ties
to the participating laboratories. Further, the EPA Administrator may
revoke a test laboratory approval if a test laboratory has failed to
participate in a proficiency testing program, in accordance with 40 CFR
60.535.
    Comment 6: Central Boiler/Woodmaster objects to the provision under
18 AAC 50.077(a) that prohibits the sale and installation of cordwood-
fueled outdoor hydronic heaters in the Fairbanks PM2.5
Nonattainment Area. Central Boiler/Woodmaster states that these devices
are not given consideration by the state based on emissions or
performance like other wood heating appliances.
    Response 6: Consistent with CAA requirements and the EPA's
PM2.5 Implementation Rule, Alaska has authority to prohibit
the sale and installation of devices that contribute to
PM2.5 concentrations in the Fairbanks PM2.5
Nonattainment Area, such as cordwood-fueled outdoor hydronic heaters,
to bring the area into attainment. We note that, under 18 AAC
50.077(b), Alaska does permit pellet-fueled wood-fired hydronic heaters
for use in the Fairbanks PM2.5 Nonattainment Area, if
specific device performance criteria meet Alaska regulations.
Therefore, the EPA is finalizing the approval of 18 AAC 50.077(b) as
proposed.
    Comment 7: HPBA notes that while point sources (electric power
plants) constitute the largest source of SO2 emissions in
the Fairbanks PM2.5 Nonattainment Area, ADEC, in many
instances, did not require additional source-level controls on several
large facilities. HPBA states that ADEC did not require installation of
new control technologies for SO2 even though the average
daily emissions from these point sources are nearly three times larger
than sources of directly-emitted PM2.5 from woodstoves.
    Response 7: The EPA agrees with the commenter that the largest
source category of SO2 emissions is point sources, including
electric power plants, and that SO2 is a significant
contributor to PM2.5 concentrations in the Fairbanks
PM2.5 Nonattainment Area. On December 13, 2019, Alaska
submitted a best available control technology (BACT) control analysis
for specific point sources located in the area, including several
electric power plants, as part of the Fairbanks Serious Plan. However,
we consider this comment to be outside the scope of this action. In
this action, the EPA is evaluating rule revisions that ADEC has adopted
to address direct PM2.5 emissions from wood-fired heating
devices. We did not propose action on the BACT Serious area planning
requirements, including the issue of appropriate regulation of
SO2 emissions from point sources, as part of this action. We
intend to address Alaska's best available control measures (BACM)/BACT
control analysis, and any supplemental BACT control analysis
submissions, in a separate action. We encourage the commenter to
resubmit the comment during the public comment period of our future
action on the BACT control analysis.

Conclusion

    The EPA finds that the comments do not change our proposed
determination that the regulations submitted by Alaska are consistent
with CAA requirements and strengthen the SIP. Therefore, we are
finalizing our action as proposed.

III. Final Action

    In this action, the EPA is approving a portion of the submitted
revisions to the Alaska SIP as meeting the following Serious Plan
required elements for the Fairbanks PM2.5 Nonattainment
Area:
     The 2013 base year emissions inventory (CAA section
172(c)(3); 40 CFR 51.1008(b)(1)); and
     The State's PM2.5 precursor demonstration for
NOX and volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions (CAA
section 189(e); 40 CFR 51.1006(a)).
    We reiterate that Alaska's precursor analysis did not address
nonattainment New Source Review (NSR) requirements. The State made the
prior determination to regulate all four EPA identified legal
precursors to PM2.5 in the nonattainment NSR regulations
applicable to the Fairbanks PM2.5 Nonattainment Area. The
EPA approved Alaska's October 25, 2018, SIP revision as meeting the
nonattainment NSR requirements triggered upon reclassification of the
area to Serious (August 29, 2019, 84 FR 45419).
    Specifically, the EPA is approving the submitted sections of the
Alaska Air Quality Control Plan for the Fairbanks PM2.5
Nonattainment Area, State effective January 8, 2020:
     Volume II Section III.D.7.06 and Volume III Section
III.D.7.06 Emissions Inventory, for purposes of the 2013 base year
emissions inventory;
     Volume II Section III.D.7.08 Precursor Demonstration, for
the purposes of NOX and VOC emissions as it relates to BACM/
BACT control measure requirements; and
    Further, the EPA is approving the submitted section of the Alaska
Air Quality Control Plan for the Fairbanks PM2.5
Nonattainment Area, State effective December 25, 2020:
     Volume II Section III.D.7.12, Emergency Episode Plan.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Submitted on December 15, 2020 and included in the docket.
The EPA is not at this time determining whether this updated
planning chapter, in conjunction with the associated regulatory
changes, meets other Serious area nonattainment plan requirements
for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in the Fairbanks
PM2.5 Nonattainment Area.

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

    In addition, the EPA is approving and incorporating by reference
the submitted regulatory changes listed below into the Alaska SIP. As
stated in our proposal, the EPA is not at this time determining whether
these provisions also meet other Serious area nonattainment plan
requirements for the Fairbanks PM2.5 Nonattainment Area.
Upon the effective date of this action, the Alaska SIP will include:
     18 AAC 50.030, except (a), State effective January 12,
2018;
     18 AAC 50.075, except (d)(2) and (f), State effective
January 8, 2020;
     18 AAC 50.076, except (g)(11), State effective January 8,
2020;
     18 AAC 50.077, except (g) and (q), State effective January
8, 2020;
     18 AAC 50.078, except (c) and (d), State effective January
8, 2020;
     18 AAC 50.079, except (e), State effective January 8,
2020; and
     18 AAC 50.990(71), (138), (149), (150), (151), (152),
(153), (154), and (155), State effective January 8, 2020.

IV. Incorporation by Reference

    In this document, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text in an EPA
final rule that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with
requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by
reference the regulations described in Section III of this preamble.
The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally
available through https://www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region 10
Office (please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER
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.

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 CAA 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 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 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 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. 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 23, 2021. 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, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: September 15, 2021.
Michelle L. Pirzadeh,
Acting Regional Administrator, 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 50.030'' in numerical order;
0
ii. Revising the entries ``18 AAC 50.075'', ``18 AAC 50.076'', and ``18
AAC 50.077'';
0
iii. Adding the entries ``18 AAC 50.078'' and ``18 AAC 50.079'' in
numerical order; and
0
iv. Revising the entry ``18 AAC 50.990''.

0
b. The table in paragraph (e) is amended by adding the entries
``II.III.D.7.06 Fairbanks Emissions Inventory Data'', ``III.III.D.7.06
Appendix to Fairbanks Emissions Inventory Data'', ``II.III.D.7.08
Fairbanks Modeling'', and ``II.III.D.7.12 Fairbanks Emergency Episode
Plan'' to the end of the table.
    The additions and revisions read as follows:

Sec.  52.70  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

                                  EPA-Approved Alaska Regulations and Statutes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          State
        State citation              Title/subject       effective     EPA approval date         Explanations
                                                           date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Alaska Administrative Code Title 18 Environmental Conservation, Chapter 50--Air Quality Control (18 AAC 50)
                              18 AAC 50--Article 1. Ambient Air Quality Management

                                                  * * * * * * *
18 AAC 50.030.................  State Air Quality        1/12/2018  9/24/2021, [Insert     Except (a).
                                 Control Plan.                       Federal Register
                                                                     citation].

                                                  * * * * * * *
18 AAC 50.075.................  Solid Fuel-Fired          1/8/2020  9/24/2021, [Insert     Except (d)(2) and
                                 Heating Device                      Federal Register       (f).
                                 Visible Emission                    citation].
                                 Standards.
18 AAC 50.076.................  Solid Fuel-Fired          1/8/2020  9/24/2021, [Insert     Except (g)(11).
                                 Heating Device Fuel                 Federal Register
                                 Requirements;                       citation].
                                 Requirements for
                                 Wood Sellers.
18 AAC 50.077.................  Standards for Wood-       1/8/2020  9/24/2021, [Insert     Except (g) and (q).
                                 Fired Heating                       Federal Register
                                 Devices.                            citation].
18 AAC 50.078.................  Additional Control        1/8/2020  9/24/2021, [Insert     Except (c) and (d).
                                 Measures for a                      Federal Register
                                 Serious PM2.5                       citation].
                                 Nonattainment Area.
18 AAC 50.079.................  Provisions for Coal-      1/8/2020  9/24/2021, [Insert     Except (e).
                                 Fired Heating                       Federal Register
                                 Devices.                            citation].

                                                  * * * * * * *
                                    18 AAC 50--Article 9. General Provisions

                                                  * * * * * * *
18 AAC 50.990.................  Definitions..........     1/8/2020  9/24/2021, [Insert
                                                                     Federal Register
                                                                     citation].

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

                   EPA-Approved Alaska Nonregulatory Provisions and Quasi-Regulatory Measures
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      State
  Name of SIP provision    Applicable geographic    submittal      EPA approval date           Explanations
                           or nonattainment area       date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
                                            Recently--Approved Plans

                                                  * * * * * * *
II.III.D.7.06 Fairbanks   Fairbanks North Star      12/13/2019  9/24/2021, [Insert       Approved for purposes
 Emissions Inventory       Borough.                              Federal Register         of the Fairbanks
 Data.                                                           citation].               Serious Plan 2013 base
                                                                                year emissions
                                                                                inventory.
III.III.D.7.06 Appendix   Fairbanks North Star      12/13/2019  9/24/2021, [Insert       Approved for purposes
 to Fairbanks Emissions    Borough.                              Federal Register         of the Fairbanks
 Inventory Data.                                                 citation].               Serious Plan 2013 base
                                                                                year emissions
                                                                                inventory.
II.III.D.7.08 Fairbanks   Fairbanks North Star      12/13/2019  9/24/2021, [Insert       Approved for purposes
 Modeling.                 Borough.                              Federal Register         of the Fairbanks
                                                                 citation].               Serious Plan PM2.5
                                                                                precursor
                                                                                demonstration for NOX
                                                                                and VOC emissions as
                                                                                it relates to BACM/
                                                                                BACT control measure
                                                                                requirements.

II.III.D.7.12 Fairbanks   Fairbanks North Star      12/15/2020  9/24/2021, [Insert
 Emergency Episode Plan.   Borough.                              Federal Register
                                                                 citation].
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2021-20396 Filed 9-23-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: September 8, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 172)]
[Notices]
[Page 46189-46190]
[DOCID:fr08se09-58]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2067-040]

Tri-Dam Project; Notice of Application for Amendment of License
and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests

September 1, 2009.
    Take notice that the following application has been filed with the
Commission and is available for public inspection:
    a. Application Type: Shoreline Management Plan (SMP).
    b. Project No: 2067-040.
    c. Date Filed: June 23, 2008.
    d. Applicant: Tri-Dam Project.
    e. Name of Project: Tulloch Project.
    f. Location: The project is located on the main stem of the
Stanislaus River in Calaveras and Tuolumne Counties, California.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 USC 791(a)-825(r).
    h. Applicant Contact: Steve Felte, Tri-Dam Project, P.O. Box 1158,
Pinecrest, CA 95364-0158,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. FERC Contact: Any questions on this notice should be addressed
to Shana High at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Deadline for filing comments and/or motions: October 01, 2009.
    All documents (original and eight copies) should be filed with:
Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426.
    The Commission's Rules of Practice require all interveners filing
documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each
person on the official service list for the project. Further, if an
intervener files comments or documents with the Commission relating to
the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a
particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document
on that resource agency. A copy of any motion to intervene must also be
served upon each representative of the Applicant specified in the
particular application.
    k. Description of Proposal: Tri-Dam Project filed, for Commission
approval, an SMP for the Tulloch Project to provide for: (1) An
inventory of sensitive environmental resources within the project
boundary; (2) maps of sensitive shoreline zones that should be afforded
extra protection; (3) strategies to protect sensitive areas from
inappropriate encroachment; (4) provisions for future updates to the
SMP, as new information becomes available; and (5) provisions for
informing shoreline private landowners about the importance of
protecting the zones identified as having sensitive environmental
resources.
    l. Locations of the Application: A copy of the application is
available for inspection and reproduction at the Commission's Public
Reference Room, located at 888 First Street, NE., Room 2A, Washington,
DC 20426, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>. This filing may also be viewed
on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the
``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. You may also
register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to
be notified via e-mail of new filings and issuances related to this or
other pending projects. For assistance, call 1-866-208-3372 or e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>for TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. A copy is
also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in item
(h) above.
    m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing
list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
    n. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene: Anyone may submit
comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the

requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211,
.214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission
will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who
file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules
may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or
motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified
comment date for the particular application.
    o. Any filings must bear in all capital letters the title
``COMMENTS'', ``PROTEST'', or ``MOTION TO INTERVENE'', as applicable,
and the Project Number of the particular application to which the
filing refers.
    p. Agency Comments: Federal, state, and local agencies are invited
to file comments on the described application. A copy of the
application may be obtained by agencies directly from the Applicant. If
an agency does not file comments within the time specified for filing
comments, it will be presumed to have no comments. One copy of an
agency's comments must also be sent to the Applicant's representatives.
    q. Comments, protests and interventions may be filed electronically
via the Internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and
the instructions on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov
under the ``e-Filing'' link.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-21627 Filed 9-4-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P