[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 173 (Friday, September 8, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 42457-42473]
[FR Doc No: 2017-18768]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

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

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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

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

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

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

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Claudia Vaupel at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, wherever ``we'',
``us'' or ``our'' are used, it is intended to refer to the EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. Public Comments and the EPA's Responses
    A. Comments on Control Measures
    B. Comments on Enforcement
    C. Comments on Rules
    D. Other Comments
III. Final Action
IV. Incorporation by Reference
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

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

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

II. Public Comments and the EPA's Responses

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

A. Comments on Control Measures

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

B. Comments on Enforcement

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

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

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

C. Comments on Rules

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

D. Other Comments

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

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

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

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

III. Final Action

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

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

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

IV. Incorporation by Reference

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

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

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

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

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

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

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

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

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

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

Subpart C--Alaska

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

Sec.  52.70   Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

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

                                                  * * * * * * *
18 AAC 50.007...........  Local Government     2/28/15............  9/8/17, [Insert
                           Powers or                                 Federal Register
                           Obligations Under                         citation].
                           a Local Air
                           Quality Control
                           Program.
18 AAC 50.010...........  Ambient Air Quality  3/2/16.............  9/8/17, [Insert      except (7) and (8).
                           Standards.                                Federal Register
                                                                     citation].

                                                  * * * * * * *
18 AAC 50.025...........  Visibility and       11/26/16...........  9/8/17, [Insert
                           Other Special                             Federal Register
                           Protection Areas.                         citation].

                                                  * * * * * * *
18 AAC 50.065...........  Open Burning.......  3/2/16.............  9/8/17, [Insert
                                                                     Federal Register
                                                                     citation].

                                                  * * * * * * *
18 AAC 50.075...........  Solid Fuel-fired     11/26/16...........  9/8/17, [Insert
                           Heating Device                            Federal Register
                           Visible Emission                          citation].
                           Standards.
18 AAC 50.076...........  Solid Fuel-fired     11/26/16...........  9/8/17, [Insert      except (g)(11).
                           Heating Device                            Federal Register
                           Fuel Requirements;                        citation].
                           Registration of
                           Commercial Wood
                           Sellers.
18 AAC 50.077...........  Standards for Wood-  11/26/16...........  9/8/17, [Insert
                           fired Heating                             Federal Register
                           Devices.                                  citation].

                                                  * * * * * * *
18 AAC 50.245...........  Air Quality          2/28/15............  9/8/17, [Insert
                           Episodes and                              Federal Register
                           Advisories for Air                        citation].
                           Pollutants Other
                           Than PM-2.5.
18 AAC 50.246...........  Air Quality          2/28/15............  9/8/17, [Insert
                           Episodes and                              Federal Register
                           Advisories for PM-                        citation].
                           2.5.

                                                  * * * * * * *
18 AAC 50.990...........  Definitions........  3/2/16.............  9/8/17, [Insert
                                                                     Federal Register
                                                                     citation].

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Fairbanks North Star Borough Code
                                Chapter 21.28--PM2.5 Air Quality Control Program
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
21.28.010...............  Definitions........  3/2/15 (borough      9/8/17, [Insert
                                                effective date).     Federal Register
                                                                     citation].
21.28.020...............  Borough listed       1/15/16 (borough     9/8/17, [Insert
                           appliances.          effective date).     Federal Register
                                                                     citation].
21.28.030...............  Prohibited acts....  10/1/16 (borough     9/8/17, [Insert      except J.
                                                effective date).     Federal Register
                                                                     citation].
21.28.050...............  Forecasting          6/26/15 (borough     9/8/17, [Insert
                           exceedances and      effective date).     Federal Register
                           restrictions in                           citation].
                           the air quality
                           control zone
                           during an alert.
21.28.060...............  No other adequate    8/12/16 (borough     9/8/17, [Insert      .......................
                           source of heat       effective date).     Federal Register
                           determination.                            citation].
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

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

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

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