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

Pathogenic waste incinerator (EU 9a)--unit rated 533 lb per hour
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM2.5.............................   PM2.5 emissions from EU 9A
                                     shall be controlled with a multiple
                                     chamber design;
                                     Limit the operation of EU
                                     9A to no more than 109 tons of
                                     waste combusted per year;
                                     PM2.5 emissions from EU 9A
                                     shall not exceed 4.67 lb/ton;
                                     Maintain good combustion
                                     practices at all times of operation
                                     by following the manufacturer's
                                     operating and maintenance
                                     procedures; and
                                     Compliance with the
                                     proposed operational limit will be
                                     demonstrated by recording pounds of
                                     waste combusted for the pathogenic
                                     waste incinerator.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Material handling sources (EUs 105, 107, 109-111, 114, 128-130); coal
 prep and ash handling
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM2.5.............................   PM2.5 emissions from EUs
                                     105, 107, 109 through 111, 114, and
                                     128 through 130 will be controlled
                                     by enclosing each EU;
                                     PM2.5 emissions from the
                                     operation of the material handling
                                     units, except EU 111, will be
                                     controlled by installing,
                                     operating, and maintaining fabric
                                     filters and vents;
                                     Initial compliance with the
                                     emission rates for the material
                                     handling units, except EU 111, will
                                     be demonstrated with a performance
                                     test to obtain an emission rate;
                                     and
                                     Comply with the numerical
                                     emission limits (emission limit of
                                     0.003--0.050 gr/dscf and .00005 lb/
                                     ton (EU 111) varies by emission
                                     unit listed in State Air Quality
                                     Control Plan, Vol II, Chapter
                                     III.D.7.7, Table 7.7-18--note
                                     double citation)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol II, Chapter III.D.7.7, Table
  7.7-16 and Chapter III.D.<IP_ADDRESS>.

    The EPA proposed to disapprove Alaska's BACT provisions for
PM2.5 and SO2 controls for each of the emission
sources at the Fairbanks Campus Power Plant. Regarding PM2.5
controls for the dual fuel-fired boiler, backup diesel generator,
diesel-fired boilers, and material handling sources; the
PM2.5 and SO2 controls for the pathogenic waste
incinerator; and the SO2 controls for the diesel-fired
engines, we proposed to determine that Alaska's BACT determinations are
appropriate. However, Alaska did not submit as part of the Fairbanks
Serious Plan or Fairbanks 189(d) Plan the emission limits corresponding
to Alaska's SO2 or PM2.5 BACT determinations for
some emission units, Alaska also did not include the MRR requirements
necessary to make these BACT requirements enforceable as a practical
matter. Therefore, the EPA proposed to disapprove Alaska's
PM2.5 BACT requirements for these sources as not meeting the
CAA requirement that the SIP include enforceable emission limitations.
    The EPA noted that Alaska may rectify this issue by submitting the
enforceable emission limitation and monitoring, recordkeeping, and
reporting requirements necessary to ensure the BACT requirements are
enforceable as a practical matter.\158\ The EPA also noted that the
source-specific SIP requirement for the material handling unit, EU 111,
should include the operational requirement that the building doors
remain closed at all times that ash loading is occurring. Corresponding
MRR conditions should be included to ensure no visible emissions escape
the building.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \158\ Alaska did not submit source-specific permits or
regulations at part of the Fairbanks Serious Plan or Fairbanks
189(d) Plan. Rather these SIP submissions contain narrative
provisions reflecting Alaska's BACT determinations, which list
emission limits and summarize monitoring requirements. For certain
BACT findings, Alaska in the narrative directs the owner and
operator of the source to apply for a permit to implement the
State's BACT determinations. Alaska could potentially rectify the
enforceability issues with the current SIP submissions by submitting
the resulting permits or portions thereof.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regarding the EPA's proposed disapproval of Alaska's BACT
evaluation and determination for SO2 controls for the dual
fuel-fired boiler, the EPA based its proposed disapproval on several
grounds that are detailed in the Proposal and are not restated here.
The EPA proposed to approve Alaska's analysis that found no
NH3-specific emission controls for the sources at this
facility.
b. Final Rule
    The EPA is finalizing disapproval of Alaska's BACT determination
for PM2.5 controls for the Small Diesel-Fired Engines (EU
IDs 23, 26, and 27). The EPA is finalizing a partial approval and
partial disapproval of the Fairbanks Serious Plan BACT provisions for
PM2.5 controls for the remaining emission units. The EPA is
finalizing a partial approval because Alaska's BACT determinations
embodied in State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol. II, Chapter III.D.7.7,
Table 7.7-16 and Chapter III.D.<IP_ADDRESS> are consistent with CAA section
189(b) and 40 CFR 51.1010(a). The EPA is finalizing a partial
disapproval because the Fairbanks Serious Plan and Fairbanks 189(d)
Plan lack provisions necessary to ensure the BACT determinations are
enforceable as a practical matter as required by CAA sections
110(a)(2)(A) and 172(c)(7).\159\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \159\ See supra, note 158.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On September 25, 2023, Alaska withdrew its SO2 BACT
determinations for the Fairbanks Campus Power Plant. Therefore, the EPA
is finalizing partial disapproval of the Fairbanks Serious Plan and
Fairbanks 189(d) Plan because the plans do not identify, adopt, and
implement BACT for SO2 at the Fairbanks Campus Power Plant.
The EPA is finalizing approval of Alaska's analysis that found no
NH3-specific emission controls for the sources at this
facility.
c. Comments and Responses
    For a summary of relevant comments and the EPA's detailed
responses, see the Response to Comments document for this requirement,
included in the docket for this action.\160\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \160\ Response to Comments Regarding Best Available Control
Technology Requirements on the Air Plan Partial Approval and Partial
Disapproval; AK, Fairbanks North Star Borough; 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 Serious Area and 189(d) Plan, EPA-R10-OAR-2022-
0115.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

x. Zehnder Facility
a. Summary of Proposal
    The Zehnder Facility (Zehnder) is an electric generating facility
that combusts distillate fuel in combustion turbines to provide power
to the Golden Valley Electric Association (GVEA) grid. The power plant
contains two fuel oil-fired simple cycle gas combustion turbines and
two diesel-fired generators (electro-motive diesels) used for emergency

power and to serve as black start engines for the GVEA generation
system. The primary fuel is stored in two 50,000 gallon above ground
storage tanks. Turbine startup fuel and electro-motive diesel primary
fuel is stored in a 12,000 gallon above ground storage tank.
    Alaska's BACT analysis for Zehnder evaluated potential controls to
reduce NOX and PM2.5 emissions from its simple
cycle gas turbines, large diesel-fired engines, and diesel-fired
boilers.\161\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \161\ On September 25, 2023, Alaska withdrew its BACT
determination and analysis for SO2 controls and emission
limits at Zehnder. Alaska evaluated potential NOX
controls for each emission unit, but because the EPA is approving
Alaska's determination that NOX emissions are not
significant for PM2.5 formation in the Fairbanks
nonattainment area, Alaska is not required to identify, adopt, or
implement BACM or BACT for NOX on any sources in the
Fairbanks PM2.5 Nonattainment Area. See 40 CFR 51.1006,
51.1010(a)(2)(ii).

                 Table 8--Zehnder Facility BACT Summary
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Alaska's BACT determination, by
             Pollutant                         source category
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Zehnder facility, Golden Valley Electric Authority
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fuel oil-fired simple cycle gas turbine (EUs 1 and 2)--each unit rated
 268 MMBtu per hour
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM2.5.............................   Combust only low ash fuel;
                                     PM2.5 emissions from EUs 1
                                     & 2 shall not exceed 0.012 lb/MMBtu
                                     over a 3-hour averaging period;
                                     Initial compliance with the
                                     proposed PM2.5 emission limit will
                                     be demonstrated by conducting a
                                     performance test to obtain an
                                     emission rate; and
                                     Maintain good combustion
                                     practices by following the
                                     manufacturer's operating and
                                     maintenance procedures at all times
                                     of operation.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Diesel-fired emergency generators (EUs 3 and 4)--each unit rated 28
 MMBtu per hour
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM2.5.............................   Limit non-emergency
                                     operation of the large diesel-fired
                                     engines to no more than 100 hours
                                     per year each;
                                     PM2.5 emissions from EUs 3
                                     and 4 shall not exceed 0.32 g/hp-hr
                                     over a 3-hour averaging period;
                                     Demonstrate compliance with
                                     the numerical BACT emission limit
                                     by complying with 40 C.F.R 63
                                     Subpart ZZZZ; and
                                     Maintain good combustion
                                     practices by following the
                                     manufacturer's operating and
                                     maintenance procedures at all times
                                     of operation.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Diesel-fired boilers (EUs 10 and 11)--each unit rated 1.7 MMBtu per hour
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM2.5.............................   PM2.5 emissions shall not
                                     exceed 0.012 lb/MMBtu over a 3-hour
                                     averaging period;
                                     Demonstrate compliance with
                                     the numerical BACT emission limit
                                     by complying with 40 CFR part 63
                                     Subpart JJJJJJ; and
                                     Maintain good combustion
                                     practices by following the
                                     manufacturer's operating and
                                     maintenance procedures at all times
                                     of operation.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol II, Chapter III.D.7.7, Table
  7.7-14 and Chapter III.D.<IP_ADDRESS>.

    The EPA proposed to disapprove Alaska's BACT determination for
PM2.5 and SO2 controls for each of the emission
sources at the Zehnder facility. Regarding PM2.5 controls
for the two fuel oil-fired simple cycle gas combustion turbines, two
diesel-fired generators, and two diesel fired boilers, the EPA found
Alaska's BACT determinations were appropriate. However, Alaska did not
include the MRR requirements necessary to make these BACT requirements
enforceable as a practical matter. Therefore, the EPA proposed to
disapprove Alaska's PM2.5 BACT requirements for these
sources as not meeting the CAA requirement that the SIP include
enforceable emission limitations. The EPA noted that Alaska can rectify
this issue by submitting the emission limit, monitoring, recordkeeping,
and reporting requirements necessary to ensure the BACT requirements
are enforceable as a practical matter.\162\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \162\ See supra, note 158.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA proposed to disapprove Alaska's BACT determinations and
analysis for SO2 controls for each of the emissions units.
The basis for EPA's proposed disapproval is included in the Proposal
and is not restated here.
    The EPA proposed to approve Alaska's analysis that found no
NH3-specific emission controls for the sources at this
facility.
b. Final Rule
    The EPA is finalizing partial approval and partial disapproval of
the Fairbanks Serious Plan BACT provisions for PM2.5
controls for all emission units at Zehnder. The EPA is finalizing a
partial approval because Alaska's BACT determinations embodied in State
Air Quality Control Plan, Vol. II, Chapter III.D.7.7, Table 7.7-14 and
Chapter III.D.<IP_ADDRESS> are consistent with CAA section 189(b) and 40 CFR
51.1010(a). The EPA is finalizing a partial disapproval because the
Fairbanks Serious Plan and Fairbanks 189(d) Plan lack provisions
necessary to ensure the PM2.5 BACT determinations are
enforceable as a practical matter as required by CAA sections
110(a)(2)(A) and 172(c)(7).
    On September 25, 2023, Alaska withdrew its SO2 BACT
determinations for Zehnder. Therefore, the EPA is finalizing partial
disapproval of the Fairbanks Serious Plan and Fairbanks 189(d) Plan
because the plans do not identify, adopt, and implement BACT for
SO2 at Zehnder. The EPA is finalizing approval of Alaska's
analysis that found no NH3-specific emission controls for
the sources at this facility.
c. Comments and Responses
    For a summary of relevant comments and the EPA's detailed
responses, see the Response to Comments document for this requirement,
included in the docket for this action.\163\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \163\ Response to Comments Regarding Best Available Control
Technology Requirements on the Air Plan Partial Approval and Partial
Disapproval; AK, Fairbanks North Star Borough; 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 Serious Area and 189(d) Plan, EPA-R10-OAR-2022-
0115.

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

xi. North Pole Power Plant
a. Summary of Proposal
    The North Pole Power Plant is an electric generating facility that
combusts distillate fuel in combustion turbines to provide power to the
GVEA grid. The power plant contains two fuel oil-fired simple cycle gas
combustion turbines, two fuel oil-fired combined cycle gas combustion
turbines, one fuel oil-fired emergency generator, and two propane-fired
boilers. The State's BACT determination for the North Pole Power Plant
evaluated potential controls to reduce NOX and
PM2.5 emissions from its simple cycle gas turbines, combined
cycle gas turbines, large diesel-fired engines, and propane-fired
boilers.\164\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \164\ On September 25, 2023, Alaska withdrew its BACT findings
and analysis for SO2 controls and emission limits at the
North Pole Power Plant. Alaska evaluated potential NOX
controls for each emission unit, but because the EPA is approving
Alaska's determination that NOX emissions are not
significant for PM2.5 formation in the Fairbanks
nonattainment area, Alaska is not required to identify, adopt, or
implement BACM or BACT for NOX on any sources in the
Fairbanks PM2.5 Nonattainment Area. See 40 CFR 51.1006,
51.1010(a)(2)(ii).

              Table 9--North Pole Power Plant BACT Summary
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Alaska's BACT determination, by
             Pollutant                         source category
------------------------------------------------------------------------
        North Pole Power Plant, Golden Valley Electric Authority
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fuel oil-fired simple cycle gas turbine (EUs 1 and 2)--each unit rated
 672 MMBtu per hour PM2.5 potential to emit tons per year
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM2.5.............................   Combust only low ash fuel;
                                     Maintain good combustion
                                     practices at all times of operation
                                     by following the manufacturer's
                                     operating and maintenance
                                     procedures;
                                     PM2.5 emissions from EUs 1
                                     & 2 shall not exceed 0.012 lb/MMBtu
                                     over a 3-hour averaging period; and
                                     Initial compliance with the
                                     proposed PM2.5 emission limit will
                                     be demonstrated by conducting a
                                     performance test to obtain an
                                     emission rate.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fuel oil-fired combined cycle gas turbine (EUs 5 and 6)--each unit rated
 455 MMBtu per hour
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM2.5.............................   PM2.5 emissions from EUs 5
                                     and 6 shall be limited by complying
                                     with the combined annual NOX limit
                                     listed in Operating Permit
                                     AQ0110TVP03 Conditions 13 and 12,
                                     respectively;
                                     PM2.5 emissions from EUs 5
                                     & 6 shall not exceed 0.012 lb/MMBtu
                                     over a 3-hour averaging period;
                                     Initial compliance with the
                                     proposed PM2.5 emission limit will
                                     be demonstrated by conducting a
                                     performance test to obtain an
                                     emission rate; and
                                     Maintain good combustion
                                     practices at all times of operation
                                     by following the manufacturer's
                                     operating and maintenance
                                     procedures.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Large diesel-fired engine (EU 7)--unit rated 400 kW/619 horsepower
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM2.5.............................   PM2.5 emissions from EU 7
                                     shall be controlled by operating
                                     with positive crankcase
                                     ventilation;
                                     PM2.5 emissions from EU 7
                                     shall be controlled by limiting
                                     operation to no more than 52 hours
                                     per 12 month rolling period;
                                     PM2.5 emissions from EU 7
                                     shall not exceed 0.32 g/hp-hr over
                                     a 3-hour averaging period; and
                                     Maintain good combustion
                                     practices by following the
                                     manufacturer's operating and
                                     maintenance procedures at all times
                                     of operation.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Propane-fired boiler (EUs 11 and 12)--each unit rated 5 MMBtu per hour
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM2.5.............................   Burn only propane as fuel
                                     in EUs 11 and 12;
                                     PM2.5 emissions from EUs 11
                                     and 12 shall not exceed 0.008 lb/
                                     MMBtu over a 3-hour averaging
                                     period; and
                                     Compliance with the
                                     emission limit will be demonstrated
                                     with records of maintenance
                                     following original equipment
                                     manufacturer recommendations for
                                     operation and maintenance and
                                     periodic measurements of O2
                                     balance.
                                     Maintain good combustion
                                     practices by following the
                                     manufacturer's operating and
                                     maintenance procedures at all times
                                     of operation.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol II, Chapter III.D.7.7, Table
  7.7-14 and Chapter III.D.<IP_ADDRESS>.

    The EPA proposed to disapprove Alaska's Fairbanks Serious Plan and
Fairbanks 189(d) Plan BACT provisions for PM2.5 and
SO2 controls for each of the emission sources at the North
Pole Power Plant. Regarding PM2.5 controls for the two fuel
oil-fired simple cycle gas combustion turbines, two fuel oil-fired
combined cycle gas combustion turbines, and large diesel-fired engine
and PM2.5 the EPA proposed to find Alaska's BACT
determinations are appropriate. However, Alaska did not submit as part
of the Fairbanks Serious Plan or Fairbanks 189(d) Plan the enforceable
emission limits and associated MRR requirements needed for determining
compliance with all BACT limits or requirements and to make the limits
or requirements enforceable as a practical matter. Therefore, the EPA
proposed to disapprove Alaska's PM2.5 BACT requirements for
these sources as not meeting the CAA requirement that the SIP include
enforceable emission limitations. The EPA noted that Alaska can rectify
this issue by submitting the emission limits and monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements necessary to ensure the BACT
requirements are enforceable as a practical matter.\165\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \165\ See supra, note 158.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regarding SO2 controls, the EPA proposed to find
Alaska's BACT determination for SO2 controls at the two
propane-fired boilers embodied in State Air Quality were appropriate.
However, Alaska also did not submit the MRR requirements needed for
determining compliance with this BACT determination. The EPA proposed
to disapprove Alaska's SO2 BACT determinations for the
simple cycle gas turbines and combined-cycle on several

grounds included in the Proposal and not restated here.
    The EPA proposed to approve Alaska's analysis that found no
NH3-specific emission controls for the sources at this
facility.
b. Final Rule
    The EPA is finalizing partial approval and partial disapproval of
the Fairbanks Serious Plan BACT provisions for PM2.5
controls for all emission units at the North Pole Power Plant. The EPA
is finalizing a partial approval because Alaska's PM2.5 BACT
determinations embodied in State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol II,
Chapter III.D.7.7, Table 7.7-14 and Chapter III.D.<IP_ADDRESS> are
consistent with CAA section 189(b) and 40 CFR 51.1010(a). The EPA is
finalizing a partial disapproval because the Fairbanks Serious Plan and
Fairbanks 189(d) Plan lack provisions necessary to ensure the BACT
determinations are enforceable as a practical matter as required by CAA
sections 110(a)(2)(A) and 172(c)(7).
    On September 25, 2023, Alaska withdrew its SO2 BACT
determinations for the North Pole Power Plant. Therefore, the EPA is
finalizing partial disapproval of the Fairbanks Serious Plan and
Fairbanks 189(d) Plan because the plans do not identify, adopt, and
implement BACT for SO2 at the North Pole Power Plant.
    The EPA is finalizing approval of Alaska's analysis that found no
NH3-specific emission controls for the sources at this
facility.
c. Comments and Responses
    For a summary of relevant comments and the EPA's detailed
responses, see the Response to Comments document for this requirement,
included in the docket for this action.\166\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \166\ Response to Comments Regarding Best Available Control
Technology Requirements on the Air Plan Partial Approval and Partial
Disapproval; AK, Fairbanks North Star Borough; 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 Serious Area and 189(d) Plan, EPA-R10-OAR-2022-
0115.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

xii. Alaska's Identification and Adoption of Additional Measures and
Demonstration of 5% Reduction in Emissions Pursuant to CAA Section
189(d)
a. Summary of Proposal
    The Fairbanks 189(d) Plan included a reevaluation of previously
rejected control measures, as noted above. Alaska revised its control
strategy in two primary ways as an outgrowth of this reevaluation.
First, Alaska added a burn down period of 3 hours for solid fuel
heating devices that begins upon the effective date and time of a
curtailment announcement. Second, Alaska added specific requirements to
document economic hardship as part of a NOASH curtailment program
waiver for solid fuel devices.
    As part of its reevaluation of control measures, Alaska provided
additional information for a number of control measures considered in
the BACM analysis. The Fairbanks 189(d) Plan included additional
consideration of banning installation of solid fuel devices in new
construction, limiting heating oil to ultra-low sulfur diesel, dry wood
requirements, emissions controls for small area sources, mobile
sources, and most stringent measures.\167\ However, Alaska did not
reevaluate BACT-level controls for stationary sources. Specifically,
there were a number of SO2 control technologies that were
evaluated and dismissed under the Fairbanks Serious Plan that were not
reconsidered in the Fairbanks 189(d) Plan. Therefore, the EPA proposed
to find that Alaska had not sufficiently met the requirement under CAA
section 189(d) to reevaluate additional measures that could lead to
expeditious attainment.\168\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \167\ State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol. II, Chapter
III.D.7.7.12, adopted November 18, 2020.
    \168\ See 40 CFR 51.1010(c)(2)(ii). On September 25, 2023,
Alaska withdrew its BACT determinations and analysis for
SO2 controls and emission limits at all major stationary
sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regarding the requirement to demonstrate five percent annual
reductions, Alaska included in the Fairbanks 189(d) Plan a control
strategy analysis that demonstrates annual reductions of
PM2.5 are greater than five percent through 2024, Alaska's
projected attainment year. However, CAA section 189(d) and 40 CFR
51.1010(c)(4) and (5) require that the control strategy contain not
just measures required to achieve five percent annual reductions, but
all required BACM and additional measures that collectively achieve
attainment as expeditiously as practicable.
    The EPA stated in the Proposal that Alaska did not adopt and
implement all available and required control measures as part of the
control strategy for either the Fairbanks Serious Plan or Fairbanks
189(d) Plan. Therefore, Alaska did not necessarily adopt and implement
all control measures that collectively achieve attainment as
expeditiously as possible. Thus, the EPA proposed to disapprove the
control strategy included in the Fairbanks 189(d) Plan as not meeting
the full requirements of CAA section 189(d) and 40 CFR 51.1010(c).
b. Final Rule
    The EPA did not receive comments on these requirements and is
finalizing the disapproval as proposed.
4. Attainment Demonstration and Modeling
i. Summary of Proposal
    The EPA proposed to determine that Alaska's attainment
demonstration did not fully meet CAA requirements. The EPA noted that
correct identification of the most expeditious attainment date requires
an evaluation based upon expeditious implementation of the required
emission controls. The EPA proposed to disapprove in part the Fairbanks
Serious Plan and Fairbanks 189(d) Plan because Alaska did not adopt all
control measures necessary to satisfy the BACM and BACT requirements
and the requirement to adopt all measures necessary to achieve
attainment as expeditiously as practicable. Therefore, the EPA could
not assess whether Alaska identified the expeditious attainment date
for modeling purposes.
    Therefore, the EPA proposed to find that the attainment
demonstration in the Fairbanks 189(d) Plan does not meet the
requirements of 40 CFR 51.1011(b)(2). The EPA noted that Alaska is
currently engaged in a multi-year effort to develop a new Fairbanks
modeling platform, as outlined in State Air Quality Control Plan,
Appendix III.D.7.8 of the Fairbanks 189(d) Plan. The EPA made clear in
the Proposal that it continues to support Alaska's modeling efforts and
will review updated modeling and attainment analysis when submitted by
the State.
    The EPA proposed to approve of the design value Alaska calculated
for modeling purposes. For base year modeling purposes, the 64.7
[micro]g/m\3\ four-year average value is appropriate as measured
between 2016-2019 at the Hurst Road monitor in the North Pole portion
of the Fairbanks Nonattainment Area. The base year emissions inventory
Alaska used for its attainment demonstration in the Fairbanks 189(d)
Plan represented one of the three years that the EPA used to determine
that the area failed to attain by the Serious area attainment date. We
stated that this base year is consistent with the requirements of 40
CFR 51.1011(b)(3).
    Finally, the EPA proposed to partially disapprove Alaska's control
strategy as not meeting the requirements of CAA section 189(b) and 40
CFR 51.1010. Accordingly, the control strategies modeled as part of
Alaska's attainment demonstration are not consistent with the control
strategies required pursuant

to 40 CFR 51.1003 and 40 CFR 51.1010.\169\ For these reasons, the EPA
proposed to disapprove the attainment demonstration in the Fairbanks
189(d) Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \169\ 40 CFR 51.1011(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

ii. Final Rule
    The EPA is finalizing disapproval of the attainment demonstration
in the Fairbanks 189(d) Plan as not meeting the requirements of 40 CFR
51.1011(b).
iii. Comments and Responses
    Comment: Alaska commented that it has been working since 2017 to
gather the necessary data and update known modeling deficiencies to
satisfy the EPA's modeling requirements. Alaska stated that the
Community Multiscale Air Quality (CMAQ) model is an EPA product upon
which Alaska relies to satisfy its planning duties under the CAA.
Alaska has been coordinating with the EPA and an international
consortium of scientists to update the known deficiencies in the model.
Alaska stated that after more than three years of interdisciplinary
coordination, Alaska is now able to produce an air quality model that
will rectify these known deficiencies. However, Alaska asserted that
the EPA's intention to finalize this action guarantees that Alaska's
work with the air quality model will ``never see the light of day''
because the EPA's final action sets into motion irreversible events
including a sanction clock and a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP)
clock that will expire before Alaska can complete the necessary
modeling work, seek public comment, and formally submit the model as a
SIP update to the EPA. Alaska noted that the EPA has made it clear in
its proposed action to the Fairbanks 189(d) Plan that the model in its
current state is not sufficient to meet the attainment demonstration
requirements in the PM2.5 SIP Requirements Rule, and the
timing of this proposed Consent Decree guarantees the outcome of
sanctions and a FIP.
    Response: The EPA disagrees with Alaska that this final action
ensures the imposition of mandatory sanctions or promulgation of a FIP.
As discussed in the section IV of this preamble, the CAA provides time
for the State to rectify any SIP deficiency before sanctions are
triggered and before the EPA is required to promulgate a FIP. As
discussed in the Proposal and previously in this preamble, the primary
basis for the EPA's disapproval of the Fairbanks 189(d) Plan attainment
demonstration is that neither the Fairbanks Serious Plan nor the
Fairbanks 189(d) Plan fully meet the CAA control strategy requirements.
Alaska may rectify these issues by adopting the necessary control
requirements and incorporating the projected emissions reductions into
its modeled attainment demonstration.
    With respect to improving the modeling platform used to produce the
attainment demonstration, the EPA supports Alaska's efforts to develop
a new modeling platform that addresses the identified deficiencies and
has worked closely with the State to develop a new modeling platform
for use in future attainment demonstrations. As detailed in Alaska's
Technical Modeling Report \170\ and per discussions between EPA Region
10 and ADEC staff, Alaska will begin the next round of attainment
demonstration modeling in late summer or fall 2023 using the new
modeling platform. Based on the effective date of this final action,
sanctions will not be imposed until 2025, leaving ample time for Alaska
to develop and submit an updated SIP. The EPA approval of the SIP,
which is the event that would stop the sanctions from being
implemented, requires that the submitted corrects all identified
deficiencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \170\ Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC)
Division of Air Quality Technical Analysis Modeling Report for phase
1, 2, and 3 (Last Update February 10, 2023), available at https://dec.alaska.gov/media/25pfupho/121-technical-modeling-report-02-10-2023.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: Alaska acknowledged that the modeling platform the State
used for the Fairbanks 189(d) Plan is outdated in that it does not
reflect the current state of scientific knowledge about meteorological
and photochemical processes contributing to PM2.5 formation
in Fairbanks. Additionally, Alaska stated that there is no quantitative
performance evaluation for the North Pole (Hurst Road) monitor because
there were not speciated PM2.5 data for the time period of
the model performance evaluation. Alaska noted that the modeling is
based on 2008 meteorological episodes that have not been updated or
replaced since development of the Moderate Area SIP.
    Alaska noted that their Fairbanks modeling is now being updated to
include: the use of updated CMAQ and WRF configurations, updated
preprocessor modeling, model performance evaluation at both the Hurst
Road monitor in North Pole and NCORE monitor in Fairbanks based on
PM2.5 speciation data from those monitors, and updated
emission inventories. Alaska also stated that its updated model
performance evaluation is based on a new meteorological episode
representative of wintertime conditions in the nonattainment area.
Alaska further detailed the ongoing efforts to improve meteorological
model performance and update how atmospheric chemistry is coded into
the model, with the goal of enhancing the model's capability to
simulate secondary sulfate formation.
    Alaska stated that with most modeling deficiencies resolved, Alaska
can now conduct a major stationary source SO2 sensitivity-
based precursor demonstration. Alaska concluded that the EPA should
avail itself of the discretion granted by the CAA and carefully
consider compelling new information to remedy the problems created by
the CMAQ model and delays inherent in working with that model.
    Response: The EPA remains committed to working with Alaska on
improving the modeling platform used for attainment modeling in the
nonattainment area. The EPA agrees that model performance improvements
have likely resulted in a more robust modeling platform for SIP
modeling in the Fairbanks nonattainment area, and the EPA will review
the updated attainment demonstration when it submitted by the State as
part of a new SIP submission.
    The EPA disagrees, however, with Alaska's assertion that updates to
the model are or have been a prerequisite to meeting all CAA planning
requirements for Serious PM2.5 Nonattainment Areas or
Serious PM2.5 Areas that Fail to Attain. In particular,
Alaska was required to identify, adopt, and implement BACM and BACT on
all sources of direct PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors.
This requirement is generally independent of attainment needs. Per the
CAA and PM2.5 SIP Requirements Rule, Alaska was required to
adopt these controls before the Serious area attainment date of
December 31, 2019.\171\ After the Fairbanks PM2.5
Nonattainment Area failed to attain by December 31, 2019, Alaska was
required to adopt--by December 31, 2020--such additional measures as
necessary to achieve attainment as expeditiously as practicable.\172\
The updates to the modeling platform that Alaska is completing were not
necessary to adopting the controls required by the CAA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \171\ CAA section 189(b)(1)(B); 40 CFR 51.1010(a) and 40 CFR
51.1011(b)(5).
    \172\ CAA section 189(d); 40 CFR 51.1003(c)(2) and 40 CFR
51.1010(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similarly, to the extent Alaska is making these updates to support
a future SO2 precursor demonstration,

this is not a required element of either a Serious plan or plan meeting
the requirements of CAA section 189(d). Precursor demonstrations are
optional components of these plans.\173\ The EPA further notes that it
considers the State's overall control strategy and attainment
demonstration when determining the approvability of any
PM2.5 precursor demonstration for a nonattainment area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \173\ 40 CFR 51.1006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Source apportionment studies of the region \174\ have shown that
sulfate is a substantial contributor to measured PM2.5
concentrations in the nonattainment area. The EPA recognizes that
modeling deficiencies were the primary reason that Alaska chose not to
submit a major stationary source SO2 precursor demonstration
as part of the Fairbanks Serious Plan or Fairbanks 189(d) Plan.
However, without additional analysis, data, or information submitted as
a SIP revision, neither the Fairbanks Serious Plan nor the Fairbanks
189(d) Plan contain support for the hypothesis that major stationary
sources of SO2 do not significantly contribute to measured
sulfate concentrations in the nonattainment area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \174\ Kotchenruther (2016). Source apportionment of
PM2.5 at multiple Northwest U.S. sites: Assessing
regional winter wood smoke impacts from residential wood combustion.
Atmospheric Environment, 142, 210-219. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2016.07.048. Ward (2013). The Fairbanks,
Alaska PM2.5 Source Apportionment Research Study Winters
2005/2006-2012/2013, and Summer 2012. University of Montana-Missoula
Center for Environmental Health Sciences. Available at: https://dec.alaska.gov/air/anpms/communities/fbks-pm2-5-science/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As mentioned by the State, the ALPACA research study may result in
peer-reviewed journal articles that provide insights on sulfate sources
and chemistry in the nonattainment area. The EPA would weigh these
peer-reviewed studies along with model performance, precursor model
runs, and other available data and information when evaluating a major
stationary source SO2 precursor demonstration submitted as a
SIP revision.
5. Reasonable Further Progress
i. Summary of Proposal
    In the Proposal, the EPA explained that Alaska withdrew and
replaced the State Air Quality Control Plan, Chapter III.D.7.10, as
part of submission of the Fairbanks 189(d) Plan. The RFP provisions
included in the Fairbanks189(d) Plan are based on Alaska's proposed
control strategy designed to meet the requirements of CAA sections
189(b) and 189(d), and 40 CFR 51,1010(a) and (c), based on a projected
attainment date of 2024. Therefore, the approvability of the plan with
respect to RFP requirements is dependent, in part, on the approvability
of the control strategy and attainment demonstration. Specifically, to
meet the RFP requirement, the State must include a schedule describing
the implementation of control measures required by 40 CFR 51.1010.\175\
Moreover, the RFP projected emissions for each milestone year must be
based on the anticipated implementation schedule for control measures
required by 40 CFR 51.1010.\176\ Thus, if the control strategy does not
include all required control measures, then the RFP provisions will be
deficient.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \175\ 40 CFR 51.1012(a)(1).
    \176\ 40 CFR 51.1012(a)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similarly, in the Proposal, the EPA stated that the purpose of the
RFP requirement is to demonstrate that the attainment plan will achieve
annual incremental reductions in emissions between the base year and
the attainment date that is as expeditious as practicable.\177\
Accordingly, if the attainment year does not reflect the most
expeditious year practicable, then the State's evaluation of RFP will
not accurately project progress towards the most expeditious attainment
year. The EPA proposed to disapprove Alaska's attainment demonstration
and to partially disapprove Alaska's control strategy. Therefore, the
EPA proposed to disapprove the Fairbanks 189(d) Plan with respect to
RFP requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \177\ 40 CFR 51.1012(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

ii. Final Rule
    The EPA is finalizing disapproval of the RFP provisions of the
Fairbanks 189(d) Plan as proposed.
iii. Comments and Responses
    Comment: Alaska cross referenced its comments regarding precursor
demonstration and attainment demonstrations.
    Response: The EPA incorporates its responses to Alaska comments
regarding the optional SO2 precursor demonstration and
attainment demonstrations here. Given the inherent interrelationships
between the control strategy, modeled attainment demonstration, and
RFP, the deficiencies in the control strategy and attainment
demonstration discussed in the Proposal and previously in this preamble
render the RFP provisions of the Fairbanks 189(d) plan similarly
deficient.\178\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \178\ See 40 CFR 51.1012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: One commenter noted that the EPA only allows the State to
take credit for 50 percent compliance, but it should be 90 percent and
the State ought to be held to this number.
    Response: The EPA interprets the comment as referring to the RFP
provisions of the Fairbanks 189(d) Plan in which Alaska projected 50%
compliance with the solid fuel burning device curtailment program.\179\
Specifically, Alaska projected 50% compliance with the curtailment
program by 2026.\180\ First, the EPA did not impose this number.
Rather, Alaska projected this number based on its assessment of the
compliance rate and taking into consideration that curtailments do not
necessarily apply to all portions of the nonattainment area at the same
time.\181\ The EPA is not approving the RFP provisions as a whole and
expects Alaska to re-evaluate the compliance rate in a subsequent SIP-
submission. The EPA will evaluate the projection at that time. The EPA
takes no position at this time as to whether the RFP provisions must
assume a 90 percent compliance rate for the curtailment program. Any
compliance rate must be supported by facts, and reasonable assumptions
about future compliance. The EPA does note, however, that better
compliance with the curtailment program will translate into significant
reductions in direct PM2.5 emissions. The EPA, thus,
supports all efforts to fully implement and enforce this measure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \179\ State Air Quality Control Plan Volume II, Chapter
III.D.7.10, at p. 9, adopted November 18, 2020.
    \180\ Id.
    \181\ Id. at Vol. III, Appendix III.D.7.10 Fairbanks 5% Plan SIP
Control Measures Benefits Spreadsheet.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

6. Quantitative Milestones
i. Summary of Proposal
    The EPA noted in the Proposal that, similar to the RFP
requirements, Alaska withdrew and resubmitted State Air Quality Control
Plan, Vol II, Chapter III.D.7.10 as part of submission of the Fairbanks
189(d) Plan. The quantitative milestones (QMs) are based on Alaska's
proposed control strategy and attainment date of 2024. Therefore, the
approvability of the QMs is dependent, in part, on the approvability of
the control strategy and modeled attainment demonstration.
Specifically, if the control strategy does not include all required
control measures, then the QMs will necessarily be deficient. The EPA
noted that Alaska will need to submit a new attainment demonstration
with a new projected attainment date, and by extension, reevaluate
whether the QMs for each milestone year are appropriate. The control
strategy did not

contain all required control measures. Therefore, the QMs are, by
extension, deficient. Thus, the EPA proposed to disapprove the State
Air Quality Control Plan, Vol II, Chapter III.D.7.10, with respect to
QMs.
ii. Final Rule
    The EPA did not receive any comments on this requirement and is
finalizing disapproval of the quantitative milestone provisions in the
Fairbanks 189(d) Plan as proposed.
7. Contingency Measures
i. Summary of Proposal
    In the Proposal, the EPA explained that Alaska provided two
specific measures intended to address the contingency measures
requirement for purposes of the Fairbanks Serious Plan adopted in 18
AAC 50.077(n). Both of these measures pertain to removal of certain
wood fired heating devices upon the triggering of the contingency
measure as a result of one of the four regulatory triggering events as
required in 40 CFR 51.1014. The first of these measures requires owners
of older EPA-certified wood fired heating devices, i.e., those
manufactured at least 25 years prior to the triggering event, to remove
the device upon sale of the property or by December 31, 2024, whichever
is earlier. The second of these measures requires the owners of new
EPA-certified wood fired hearing devices, i.e., those manufactured less
than 25 years prior to the triggering event, to remove the device prior
to reaching 25 years from the date of manufacture.
    The EPA did not approve these measures as meeting contingency
measure requirements, but did approve them as SIP strengthening on
September 24, 2021 (86 FR 52997). By their terms, however, these
measures were triggered on October 2, 2020,\182\ the effective date of
the EPA's finding that the area failed to attain the standard by the
outermost serious area attainment date of December 31, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \182\ Determination of Failure To Attain by the Attainment Date
and Denial of Serious Area Attainment Date Extension Request; AK:
Fairbanks North Star Borough 2006 24-Hour Fine Particulate Matter
Serious Nonattainment Area, 85 FR 54509, September 2, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the Proposal, the EPA also explained that Alaska provided one
additional measure intended to meet the contingency measure
requirements for purposes of the Fairbanks 189(d) Plan. This new
provision in the Emergency Episode Plan, incorporates a requirement
that, if triggered, would lower the air quality woodstove curtailment
Stage 2 threshold from 30 [micro]g/m\3\ to 25 [micro]g/m\3\ within the
Fairbanks PM2.5 Area. The EPA proposed to approve the
revisions to the Fairbanks Emergency Episode Plan as SIP strengthening
because it would provide for emission reductions even though it would
not meet applicable requirements for a contingency measure. The EPA
proposed to disapprove the Fairbanks Serious Plan, and Fairbanks 189(d)
Plan submissions as not meeting the contingency measure requirements of
CAA section 172(c)(9) and 40 CFR 51.1014. The EPA proposed to
disapprove the Fairbanks Serious Plan for not meeting the contingency
measure requirements because (1) the measures were already triggered
and therefore were no longer conditional and prospective, (2) the
measures would only achieve 0.01 tons per day reductions in the first
year of implementation, and (3) the measures would not achieve emission
reductions approximately equal to one-year's-worth of RFP at any time
after being triggered.
    The EPA proposed to disapprove the contingency measure included in
the Fairbanks 189(d) Plan because (1) the measure would not achieve
emission reductions approximately equal to one-year's-worth of RFP (2)
the measure would not achieve emission reductions of all plan
precursors, including SO2 and NH3, and (3) Alaska
did not include an adequate reasoned justification for why any
additional potential contingency measures were infeasible.\183\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \183\ The EPA notes that it indicated in the Proposal that it
proposed to approve Volume II, Chapter II.D.7.11 Contingency
Measures in the Proposal. This chapter summarizes Alaska's
contingency measures and provides Alaska's explanation for why its
measures meet CAA requirements. However, the EPA made clear in the
Proposal that it proposed to disapprove the Fairbanks Serious Plan
and Fairbanks 189(d) Plan as not meeting the contingency measure
requirements. The EPA is finalizing the disapproval as proposed.
Given that the EPA is disapproving the Fairbanks Serious Plan and
Fairbanks 189(d) Plan as not meeting the contingency measure
requirements as proposed, the EPA is also disapproving State Air
Quality Control Plan Volume II, Chapter II.D.7.11 Contingency
Measures. Approving Volume II, Chapter II.D.7.11 Contingency
Measures would be inconsistent with the bases for disapproval of the
Fairbanks Serious Plan and Fairbanks 189(d) Plan and confusing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

ii. Final Rule
    We note that on February 10, 2022, the EPA approved and
incorporated 18 AAC 50.030(c) by reference into the SIP, State
effective November 7, 2020 (87 FR 7722). The EPA has determined that
this current, SIP-approved version of 18 AAC 50.030(c) correctly
provides for the four triggering events upon which continency measures
should go into effect. In addition, on September 24, 2021 (86 FR
52997), the EPA approved and incorporated by reference the two measures
from the Fairbanks Serious Plan related to replacement of wood-fired
heating devices in 18 AAC 50.077(n) as SIP strengthening. In this
action, the EPA has determined that these provisions do not meet
contingency measures requirements because they are already triggered
and implemented. In this action, the EPA is approving the new measure
from the Fairbanks 189(d) Plan lowering the curtailment Stage 2
threshold from 30 [micro]g/m\3\ to 25 [micro]g/m\3\ as SIP
strengthening, but the EPA has determined that this measure alone is
insufficient to meet contingency measures requirements. Thus, the EPA
is disapproving the Fairbanks Serious Plan and Fairbanks 189(d) Plan
with respect to the contingency measures element. The State did not
submit adequate control measures to meet the contingency measures
requirements of CAA section 172(c)(9) and 40 CFR 51.1014.
iii. Comments and Responses
    Comment: One comment from Citizens for Clean Air, Alaska Community
Action on Toxics, Sierra Club Alaska Chapter supported the EPA's
proposed disapproval. The commenter also identified a number of other
items that the commenter described as ``potential contingency
measures.''
    Response: The EPA agrees with the commenter that the Fairbanks
Serious Plan and Fairbanks 189(d) Plan do not satisfy the contingency
measures requirements of the CAA section 172(c)(9) and 40 CFR 51.1014.
The EPA agrees that the State should evaluate and adopt other measures
to meet the contingency measure requirements, but notes that many of
the specific suggestions from the commenter also may not meet
applicable statutory and regulatory requirements for contingency
measures.
    Comment: Alaska commented in support of the EPA's proposed approval
of revisions to 18 AAC 50.030(c) as meeting the trigger mechanism
requirements of 40 CFR 51.1014 and CAA section 172(c)(9).
    Response: The EPA agrees that 18 AAC 50.030(c) meets the trigger
mechanism requirements of 40 CFR 51.1014 and CAA section 172(c)(9)
because it provides for the implementation of contingency measures in
all four types of triggering events. Although this provision meets this
critical requirement for the triggering and implementation of
contingency measures for areas in general, and the EPA approved and
incorporated the provision by reference

into the SIP on February 10, 2022 (87 FR 7722), we have determined the
rule does not suffice to meet other important requirements with respect
to the Fairbanks PM2.5 Nonattainment Area, such as that the
measures actually achieve meaningful emission reductions in the event
of a triggering event. Accordingly, approval of the new provision that
correctly imposes the correct triggering events does not fully meet the
contingency measures element of either the Fairbanks Serious Plan or
the Fairbanks 189(d) Plan.
    Comment: Alaska opposed the EPA's proposed disapproval of its
contingency measures. Specifically, Alaska commented that failure of
the contingency measure in the Fairbanks 189(d) Plan to achieve
approximately one-year's-worth of RFP is not a valid basis for
disapproval. The State argued that neither CAA section 172(a)(9) nor
the EPA's regulations contain an explicit requirement that contingency
measures must achieve approximately one-year's-worth of RFP. Alaska
further asserted that the guidance upon which the EPA relied on for the
proposed disapproval was not subject to public notice and comment.
Alaska also claimed that the EPA's guidance concerning the amount of
emission reductions that contingency measures should achieve is
``inconsistent with the plain language'' of the CAA. In support of this
contention, the State cited and quoted from the EPA's recent Draft
Contingency Measures Guidance as evidence that the EPA's existing
guidance is flawed.\184\ Finally, Alaska asserted that it has adopted
all technically and economically feasible measures as BACM, and that
the CAA does not require additional measures as contingency
measures.\185\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \184\ https://www.epa.gov/air-quality-implementation-plans/draft-contingency-measures-guidance.
    \185\ Alaska also appears to conflate the BACM requirements with
the contingency measure requirements: ``interpreting the OYW
guidance as an additional requirement for BACM in Fairbanks is
severely detached from the facts on the ground and could not be
justified on review.'' Pursuant to CAA section 172(c)(9), 40 CFR
51.1003, and 40 CFR 51.1014 contingency measures are independent
from and in addition to all other measures required to be included
in the control strategy, including RACM/RACT, BACM/BACT, and MSM.
Even when as a state has adopted and implemented all BACM/BACT as
required, this is not a valid basis for not adopting contingency
measures that meet CAA requirements. To the contrary, section
172(c)(9) imposes the contingency measure requirement as a separate
obligation over and above BACM/BACT, RFP, the modeled attainment
demonstration and other nonattainment plan requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Response: The EPA disagrees with the commenter for a number of
reasons. As an initial matter, the EPA notes that Alaska did not
specifically address all the of the bases for the EPA's disapprovals
for the contingency measures Alaska submitted as part of the Fairbanks
Serious Plan and Fairbanks 189(d) Plan, respectively. The EPA disagrees
with Alaska that the contingency measures included in either the
Fairbanks Serious Plan or Fairbanks 189(d) Plan meet CAA requirements.
    With respect to the two contingency measures the State submitted as
part of the Fairbanks Serious Plan, the EPA noted several
deficiencies--any one of which independently serve as a basis for
disapproval. Most notably, the measures have already been triggered
because the Fairbanks area failed to attain the NAAQS by the Serious
area attainment date, thus are already implemented measures, and
therefore are no longer conditional and prospective. The plain language
of CAA section 172(c)(9) dictates that contingency measures must be
both conditional and prospective, such that emissions reductions will
occur only after a triggering event.\186\ Courts have already ruled
that the EPA may not approve measures that are already implemented, or
the emission reductions that result from such already implemented
measures, as contingency measures.\187\ In addition to this fatal flaw
in these two measures, the measures would only achieve 0.01 tons per
day reductions of direct PM2.5 in the first year of
implementation. Specifically, the State did not design the measures to
achieve meaningful emissions reductions if triggered prior to the
State's target 2024 attainment date, such as a failure to meet RFP.
This undercuts the purpose of contingency measures to ensure continued
emission reduction progress towards attainment should any of the
triggering events listed in 40 CFR 51.1014 occur. Finally, the EPA
noted that these two contingency measures at maximum would achieve far
less emissions reductions than one-year's-worth of RFP in any year of
implementation. Given these deficiencies, Alaska's two contingency
measures submitted as part of the Fairbanks Serious Plan (revisions to
18 AAC 50.077(n)) do not satisfy the CAA's contingency measure
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \186\ Id.
    \187\ Bahr v. EPA, 836 F.3d 1218, 1235-36 (9th Cir. 2016);
Sierra Club v. EPA, 21 F.4th 815, 827-826 (D.C. Cir. 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to the one additional contingency measure the State
submitted as part of the Fairbanks 189(d) Plan, the EPA also disagrees
with Alaska that this measure satisfies CAA contingency measure
requirements. Alaska implies that because the statute does not impose
an explicit requirement with respect to the amount of emission
reductions contingency measures must achieve, the EPA must approve them
even if they would result in little or no emission reductions. The
EPA's position remains that contingency measures must achieve
sufficient emission reductions of direct PM2.5 and plan
precursors following any of the triggering events. Accordingly, failure
to achieve sufficient emissions reductions in general, failure to
achieve sufficient emissions reductions of each plan precursor, or
failure to achieve emissions reductions following one or more
triggering events are valid bases to disapprove a contingency measure.
    The statutory purpose of contingency measures is to ensure
continued progress towards attainment following a plan failure, such as
failure to meet RFP or failure to attain by the attainment date.\188\
As the RFP requirement is the statutory basis to measure progress
towards attainment,\189\ RFP requirements are an appropriate and
reasonable barometer for measuring the sufficiency of emissions
reductions that the State estimates a contingency measure will achieve.
The EPA has historically used RFP for this purpose, and even in more
recent draft guidance continues to recommend use of RFP, albeit
measured against a different emissions inventory.\190\ Moreover,
contingency measures should achieve sufficient emission reductions of
both direct PM2.5 and plan precursors, even if it may be
appropriate under some circumstances to provide for inter-pollutant
trading for contingency measures purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \188\ 59 FR 41998, August 16, 1994, at p. 42015; Assoc. of
Irritated Residents v. EPA, 10 F.4th 937, at pp. 946-947 (9th Cir.
2021).
    \189\ CAA section 172(c)(2); 40 CFR 51.1012.
    \190\ U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards,
Air Quality Policy Division, DRAFT: Guidance on the Preparation of
State Implementation Plan Provisions that Address the Nonattainment
Area Contingency Measure Requirements for Ozone and Particulate
Matter, March 17, 2023, at pp. 20-22.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA first articulated these positions in the April 16, 1992
General Preamble \191\ and the August 16, 1994 Addendum.\192\ In the
context of

implementing the PM2.5 NAAQS, contrary to the commenter's
assertions, the EPA undertook notice and comment on this approach prior
to finalizing the PM2.5 SIP Requirements Rule.\193\ At that
time, commenters raised concerns about the challenges of identifying
contingency measures in certain nonattainment areas in which States
have already imposed aggressive control measures as part of the control
strategy.\194\ The EPA acknowledged these challenges, but reiterated
its interpretations of the statute that: (1) section 172(c)(9)
explicitly requires States to include contingency measures in Moderate
area plans, Serious area plans, and 189(d) plans; and that (2) such
contingency measures should provide emissions reductions approximately
equivalent to one year's-worth of reductions needed for RFP in the
area.\195\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \191\ 57 FR 13498, April 16, 1992, at pp. 13543-13544 (``The
contingency measures to be implemented if an area does not attain
the standards on schedule should be a portion of the actual
emissions reductions required by the SIP control strategy to bring
about attainment. Therefore, the contingency emissions reductions
should be approximately equal to the emissions reductions necessary
to demonstrate RFP for one year.'').
    \192\ 59 FR 41998, August 16, 1994, at p. 42015 (``In designing
its contingency measures, the State should also take into
consideration the potential nature and extent of any attainment
shortfall for the area. The magnitude of the effectiveness of the
measures should be calculated to achieve the appropriate percentage
of the actual emission reductions required by the SIP control
strategy to bring about attainment. The EPA has recommended that
contingency measures provide the emission reductions equivalent to
one year's average increment of RFP.'').
    \193\ Fine Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality
Standards: State Implementation Plan Requirements, Proposed Rule, 80
FR 15340, March 23, 2015, at pp. 15392, 15417, 15427.
    \194\ 81 FR 58010, August 24, 2016, at p. 58068.
    \195\ Id. at pp. 58068, 58093 and 58105.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Significantly, the EPA also indicated in the PM2.5 SIP
Requirements Rule that if a State is unable to identify contingency
measures that would result in emission reductions equivalent to
approximately one year's-worth of RFP, the State may provide a reasoned
justification why the smaller amount of emissions reductions is
appropriate.\196\ Although the EPA indicated that this would only be
appropriate in ``the rare event'' that a State is unable to identify
any additional measures, the EPA did provide for this possibility if
the State provides an adequate demonstration that no other measures are
feasible. The EPA reiterated this interpretation in its comment letters
on the Fairbanks Serious Plan and Fairbanks 189(d) Plan and recommended
that Alaska either adopt additional contingency measures that would
achieve more emission reductions or provide an adequate reasoned
justification to establish that no other measures were feasible.\197\
In the Fairbanks Serious Plan and the Fairbanks 189(d) Plan, the State
did not provide an analysis that would provide such an adequate
reasoned justification.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \196\ 81 FR 58010, August 24, 2016, at pp. 58067 and 58093.
    \197\ ``EPA Comments on 2019 DEC Proposed Regulations and SIP--
Fairbanks North Star Borough Fine Particulate Matter'' Letter from
Krishna Viswanathan, Director, EPA Region 10 Air and Radiation
Division to Alice Edwards, Director, ADEC Division of Air Quality,
July 19, 2019.at p. 11; ``EPA Comments on 2020 Department of
Environmental Conservation (DEC) Proposed Regulations and SIP
Amendments'' Letter from Krishna Viswanathan, Director, EPA Region
10 Air and Radiation Division to Alice Edwards, Director, ADEC
Division of Air Quality, October 29, 2020 at p. 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On March 17, 2023, the EPA made available ``Draft Guidance on the
Preparation of State Implementation Plan Provisions that Address the
Nonattainment Area Contingency Measure Requirements for Ozone and
Particulate Matter'' (``Draft Contingency Measure Guidance''). The
Draft Contingency Measure Guidance addresses three issues with respect
to the contingency measure requirements for ozone and PM2.5
nonattainment areas. First, the Draft Contingency Measure Guidance
addresses the method that air agencies should use to calculate the
amount of emission reductions contingency measures should provide.
Second, the Draft Contingency Measure Guidance provides air agencies
with specific recommendations about how to develop reasoned
justifications for why it cannot identify contingency measures that
result in emissions reductions approximately equivalent to RFP. Third,
the guidance addresses the time period within which reductions from
contingency measures should occur. On March 23, 2023, the EPA published
in the Federal Register a notice of availability and public comment
period on the draft guidance.\198\ The comment period closed on April
24, 2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \198\ Draft Guidance on the Preparation of State Implementation
Plan Provisions That Address the Nonattainment Area Contingency
Measure Requirements for Ozone and Particulate Matter, 88 FR 17571,
March 23, 2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Alaska incorrectly asserted that the EPA's issuance of Draft
Contingency Measure Guidance suggests that the Agency's longstanding
interpretation of CAA section 172(c)(9) with respect to the amount of
emission reductions that contingency measures should achieve is
inconsistent with the statute. First, the EPA has not yet finalized
this revised guidance. The EPA is currently evaluating comments on the
Draft Contingency Measure Guidance and determining whether any changes
are warranted. Until the EPA finalizes any revised guidance, the EPA
continues to evaluate contingency measures based on the approach
articulated above. Importantly, nowhere in the Draft Contingency
Measure Guidance does the EPA state that its existing approach to
contingency measures, including determining the sufficiency of emission
reductions, is inconsistent with the CAA. To the contrary, the existing
approach is reflective of recent court decisions acknowledging the
linkage between RFP and contingency measures.\199\ Rather, the draft
guidance proffers a different approach that the EPA believes may also
satisfy CAA requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \199\ Assoc. of Irritated Residents v. EPA, 10 F.4th 937, at pp.
946-947 (9th Cir. 2021); Draft Contingency Measure Guidance at pp.
17-19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Significantly, even in the new draft guidance the EPA continues to
recommend that States identify and adopt contingency measures that will
achieve approximately one year's worth of progress, but suggests that
it may be appropriate to base that calculation on what one year's worth
of progress would be in the attainment year, rather than one year based
on the base year emissions inventory. In the event a State cannot
identify sufficient measures to achieve this amount of emission
reductions, the EPA's draft guidance follows the Agency's existing
guidance with respect to the potential for States to provide a
``reasoned justification'' that no other measures are feasible to
achieve additional emission reductions to meet the contingency measures
requirement.
    Ultimately, the EPA finds the contingency measure Alaska submitted
as part of the Fairbanks 189(d) Plan lacking in several critical ways.
First, the contingency measure only provides emissions reductions for
direct PM2.5 and not all plan precursors. Alaska did not
provide any explanation in the SIP submission or the comments on the
Proposal for why additional contingency measures specific to plan
precursors are not feasible. Second, the contingency measure only
provides emission reductions if the triggering event is a failure of
the plan to obtain the NAAQS by the attainment date. If the contingency
measure is triggered earlier, such as in the event of a failure to meet
RFP, Alaska's SIP submission indicates that the contingency measures
will achieve substantially less emissions reductions--particularly
within the first year of implementation.\200\ Finally, the maximum
emissions reductions Alaska estimated the contingency measure would
achieve, 0.08 PM2.5 tons per day, is substantially less than
one year's worth of RFP, which is 0.24 PM2.5 tons per day.
As the EPA suggested in the PM2.5 SIP Requirements Rule,
Alaska could have attempted to provide a reasoned justification and
supporting information to establish that there are

no other feasible measures to achieve additional emission reductions as
contingency measures in the Fairbanks area but Alaska did not do so.
The EPA maintains that each of these deficiencies form an independent
basis to disapprove Alaska's plan as meeting the contingency measure
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \200\ State Air Quality Control Plan Vol. II, Chapter
III.D.7.10, at p. 13, adopted November 18, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regarding the scarcity of potential contingency measures as a
rationale for the low emission reductions, Alaska did not include in
its submissions or comments on the Proposal a thorough evaluation of
all potential contingency measures, including those measures the State
deemed infeasible for BACM/BACT purposes. Another potential source of
contingency measures are those measures qualifying as MSM. The EPA
previously denied Alaska's request to extend the Serious area
attainment date pursuant to CAA section 188(e) because the State failed
to adopt MSMs for all sources and source categories.\201\ Consideration
of control measures that are more stringent than BACM/BACT and MSM is a
logical starting point for identification of additional contingency
measures. In addition, robust contingency measures are particularly
important for the Fairbanks Nonattainment Area given the pervasiveness
of the air quality problem.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \201\ Determination of Failure To Attain by the Attainment Date
and Denial of Serious Area Attainment Date Extension Request; AK:
Fairbanks North Star Borough 2006 24-Hour Fine Particulate Matter
Serious Nonattainment Area--Final Rule, 85 FR 54509, September 2,
2020; Determination of Failure To Attain by the Attainment Date and
Denial of Serious Area Attainment Date Extension Request; AK:
Fairbanks North Star Borough 2006 24-Hour Fine Particulate Matter
Serious Nonattainment Area--Proposed Rule, 85 FR 29879, May 19,
2020, at p. 29881.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As part of a subsequent SIP submission to cure the deficiencies
with respect to the contingency measures requirements, the EPA
encourages Alaska to evaluate all control measures Alaska previously
rejected as either technologically or economically infeasible as BACM
or BACT or as additional measures necessary for Serious areas that fail
to attain and adopt those measures that can satisfy, in whole or in
part, the contingency measure requirements. By definition, contingency
measures are controls measures that are required over and above what a
State is required to adopt to meet other nonattainment plan
requirements such as BACM/BACT, RFP, and the modeled attainment
demonstration showing expeditious attainment of the NAAQS. Alaska may
also identify and adopt new measures it has not previously identified
and evaluated as part of prior SIP submissions to satisfy the
contingency measure requirements.
    Further, as noted in section II.E.(3).(ii) of this preamble and in
the EPA's Response to Comments document,\202\ the EPA notes the
tremendous emission reduction potential of adopting a ULSD control
measure for residential and commercial fuel oil combustion (Alaska
estimated emission reductions of 669 tons of SO2 per year
through ULSD adoption), in an area whose share of PM2.5 is
increasingly sulfate derived from SO2 sources. Therefore,
the EPA encourages Alaska to exercise its authority under CAA section
116 to adopt this measure as part of its control strategy or evaluate
this requirement as a contingency measure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \202\ Response to Comments Regarding Best Available Control
Measure Requirements for Residential and Commercial Fuel Oil
Combustion on the Air Plan Partial Approval and Partial Disapproval;
AK, Fairbanks North Star Borough; 2006 24-hour PM2.5
Serious Area and 189(d) Plan EPA-R10-OAR-2022-0115.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

8. Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets for Transportation Conformity
i. Summary of Proposal
    The EPA proposed to disapprove the motor vehicle emission budgets
submitted as part of the Fairbanks 189(d) Plan. The EPA explained in
the Proposal that the Agency evaluated the motor vehicle emissions
budgets against the adequacy criteria in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4) as part of
the EPA's review of the approvability of the budgets according to the
process in 40 CFR 93.118(f)(2). The EPA noted in the Proposal that the
budgets were clearly identified and precisely quantified using
MOVES2014b, with appropriate consultation among Federal, State, and
local agencies. However, the EPA stated in the Proposal that the
budgets must be considered with other emissions sources, consistent
with applicable RFP and attainment requirements, and be consistent with
and clearly related to the emissions inventory and the control measures
in the SIP.\203\ Since the budgets must account for other control
measures to determine the appropriate motor vehicle budgets, and the
control strategy does not include all required control measures, then
the budgets will necessarily be deficient. Therefore, the EPA proposed
to disapprove the budgets for the Fairbanks PM2.5
Nonattainment Area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \203\ See 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)(iv through v).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

ii. Final Rule
    The EPA is finalizing disapproval of the motor vehicle budgets for
transportation conformity as proposed. The EPA is finalizing its
disapproval without a protective finding for the motor vehicle
emissions budgets, consistent with 40 CFR 93.120. Specifically, we note
that in disapproving a control strategy implementation plan revision,
the EPA would give a protective finding where a submitted plan contains
adopted control measures or written commitments to adopt enforceable
control measures that fully satisfy the emissions reductions
requirements relevant to the statutory provision for which the
implementation plan revision was submitted, such as reasonable further
progress or attainment.\204\ Based on the discussion in section II.E of
this preamble, the Fairbanks Serious Plan and Fairbanks 189(d) Plan do
not meet this criteria.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \204\ 40 CFR 93.120(a)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

iii. Comments and Responses
    Comment: The EPA received two comments regarding its proposed
disapproval of the motor vehicle emission budgets. One comment from
Alaska stated, ``Alaska addressed each individual control measure and
provided either additional information to support dismissal or
described the actions that Alaska plans to take to resolve the
deficiency that the EPA identified.'' Another comment from FAST
Planning opposed the proposed disapproval. According to the commenter,
FAST Planning interpreted this finding to mean the budgets were
disapproved because the EPA proposed to disapprove Alaska's rejection
of certain mobile source and transportation control measures all of
which have been assessed by Alaska to have limited or no reductions to
PM2.5 levels. FAST Planning stated that factoring into the
budget calculations measures that have limited or no reduction to
PM2.5 should have little to no effect on the budgets, so
this does not seem like a logical reason to disapprove the budget. The
comment also includes a graph comparing the Fairbanks Moderate Plan
motor vehicle emission budgets to the Fairbanks Serious Plan motor
vehicle budgets. According to the comment, the proposed budgets in the
Serious Plan are lower than the budgets in the Moderate Plan and the
latest test results show actual emissions below the proposed budgets.
Furthermore, according to the comment, incorporating the rejected
transportation control measures into the analysis will have little to
no effect on the budgets.
    Response: The PM2.5 SIP Requirements Rule requires that
any attainment plan submitted to the EPA under this section shall
establish motor vehicle emissions budgets for the

projected attainment year for the area, if applicable. The State shall
develop such budgets according to the requirements of the
transportation conformity rule as they apply to PM2.5
nonattainment areas (40 CFR part 93, subpart A).\205\ In addition, the
transportation conformity regulation at 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4) establishes
the minimum criteria that a motor vehicle emission budget must meet in
order for the EPA to find the budget adequate. These minimum criteria
include: the motor vehicle emissions budget(s), when considered
together with all other emissions sources, is consistent with
applicable requirements for reasonable further progress, attainment, or
maintenance (whichever is relevant to the given implementation plan
submission); and the motor vehicle emissions budget(s) is consistent
with and clearly related to the emissions inventory and the control
measures in the submitted control strategy implementation plan revision
or maintenance plan. Consistent with the EPA's Transportation
Conformity Regulations, the EPA explained in the preamble to the
PM2.5 SIP Requirements Rule that a motor vehicle emissions
budget for the purposes of a Serious area PM2.5 attainment
plan is that portion of the total allowable emissions within the
nonattainment area allocated to on-road sources as defined in the
submitted attainment plan. Such motor vehicle emissions budgets would
be calculated using the latest planning assumptions and the latest
approved motor vehicle emissions model available at the time that the
attainment plan is developed.\206\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \205\ 40 CFR 51.1003(d).
    \206\ 81 FR 58010, August 24, 2016, at p. 58090.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA's disapproval of the motor vehicle emission budgets
submitted as part of the Fairbanks 189(d) Plan is not predicated on the
EPA's action on Alaska's BACM determinations for mobile sources
generally or rejection of certain transportation control measures as
BACM, specifically. While the EPA agrees with FAST Planning that the
motor vehicle budgets are reduced from the Fairbanks Moderate Plan to
the Fairbanks 189(d), the EPA is still unable to determine whether the
budgets are adequate because the EPA is finalizing the disapproval of
the attainment demonstration and RFP provisions in the Fairbanks 189(d)
Plan. Alaska will need to submit budgets as part of its next SIP
revision for the area that are consistent with the revised attainment
demonstration and RFP provisions. Additionally, Alaska has not adopted
all available BACM and BACT. As a result, the EPA is disapproving the
Fairbanks Serious Plan and Fairbanks 189(d) Plan attainment
demonstration and reasonable further progress provisions. Therefore,
the EPA is limited in determining the adequacy and approvability of the
motor vehicle budgets when the EPA cannot yet determine whether all
other available control measures are implemented that would lead to
expeditious attainment.
    Comment: One commenter stated that the EPA should issue a
transportation conformity protective finding for the regional
transportation plan.
    Response: The transportation conformity regulation at 40 CFR 93.101
defines a protective finding as ``a determination by EPA that a
submitted control strategy implementation plan revision contains
adopted control measures or written commitments to adopt enforceable
control measures that fully satisfy the emissions reductions
requirements relevant to the statutory provision for which the
implementation plan revision was submitted, such as reasonable further
progress or attainment.''
    Similarly, the regulation at 40 CFR 93.120(a)(3) states: ``In
disapproving a control strategy implementation plan revision, EPA would
give a protective finding where a submitted plan contains adopted
control measures or written commitments to adopt enforceable control
measures that fully satisfy the emissions reductions requirements
relevant to the statutory provision for which the implementation plan
revision was submitted, such as reasonable further progress or
attainment.''
    As noted in section II.E of this preamble, the EPA is finalizing
disapproval of portions of the control strategy in the Fairbanks
Serious Plan and Fairbanks 189(d) plan as not fully meeting CAA
requirements. Therefore, the submitted plans do not contain adopted
control measures or written commitments to adopt enforceable control
measures that fully satisfy the emissions reductions requirements in
CAA sections 189(b) and 189(d). Therefore, the EPA cannot issue a
protective finding under 40 CFR 93.120(a)(3).
    Comment: Several commenters expressed concern with the proposed
Manh Choh mine, particularly the increase in heavy-duty vehicle traffic
while hauling ore through the nonattainment area.
    Response: First, the CAA does not mandate a State include control
measures in a Serious area plan or 189(d) plan for a proposed mining
operation located outside of the Fairbanks nonattainment area or
associated ore hauling. Thus, the potential emissions from the Manh
Choh mine are outside the scope of this action and not a valid basis to
disapprove the Fairbanks Serious Plan or Fairbanks 189(d) Plan.
    Second, with respect to the impact of the traffic associated with
the mine and its impact on transportation conformity, the EPA has been
working with FAST Planning and ADEC to assess these potential impacts
and ensure that any increased emissions do not impede expeditious
attainment of the PM2.5 24-hour NAAQS. As part of the 2045
Metropolitan Transportation Plan Update, a report provided to FAST
Planning concluded that the area continued to meet transportation
conformity budgets even with the increased traffic and resulting
emissions from the heavy-duty diesel truck activity.\207\ We note that
as part of the environmental impact assessment of the mining project,
the EPA sent a letter to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers suggesting a
number of measures to reduce air quality impacts.\208\ Additionally, a
technical advisory committee formed by the Alaska Department of
Transportation and Public Facilities will analyze the impacts and
potential implications of the proposed ore haul operations to roadway
infrastructure and safety.\209\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \207\ Vallamsundar and Carlson, Conformity Analysis for the FAST
Planning 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan Update, Trinity
Consultants, section 5.2, March 13, 2023, available in the docket
for this action.
    \208\ Letter from Amy Jensen, EPA Region 10, Regional Wetland
Coordinator to Gregory Mazer, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Alaska
District, August 19, 2022, included in the docket for this action.
    \209\ Alaska Richardson Steese Highway Corridor Action Plan,
available at: https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/98f64a497c834ae18955d5d6b5994ff4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

9. Nonattainment New Source Review Requirements
i. Summary of Proposal
    A State with a designated nonattainment area is required to have a
NNSR permitting program for the construction and operation of new and
modified major stationary sources, in accordance with CAA sections
110(a)(2)(C) and 172(c)(5). For purposes of the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS, the State must also meet the additional
requirements of CAA sections 189(b)(3) concerning the definition of a
major stationary source, and 189(e) concerning regulated emissions.
    CAA section 189(b)(3) requires that in Serious particulate matter
nonattainment areas, the NNSR major source threshold is 70 tons per
year. The EPA previously approved a revision to

the Alaska SIP to meet this requirement (84 FR 45419, August 29, 2019).
CAA section 189(e) specifically requires that the control requirements
applicable to major stationary sources of direct PM2.5 also
apply to major stationary sources of PM2.5 precursors,
except where the Administrator determines that such sources of a
precursor or precursors do not contribute significantly to
PM2.5 levels that exceed the NAAQS in the area.\210\ The
default under CAA section 189(e) is that the State must control
emissions of direct PM2.5 emissions and the emissions of all
four PM2.5 precursors, i.e., NOx, VOCs, SO2, and
NH3, unless the State has submitted an optional precursor
demonstration, and the EPA has approved such demonstration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \210\ 57 FR 13498, April 16, 1992, at pp. 13539 and 13541-13542.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted in the Proposal and in section II.E.9.i of this preamble,
the EPA previously approved a revision to the Alaska SIP to meet this
requirement (84 FR 45419, August 29, 2019), thus satisfying the NNSR
program element for purposes of the Fairbanks Serious Plan. In that
action, the EPA stated that Alaska did not make an optional precursor
demonstration for NOX, SO2, VOC or NH3
for purposes of NNSR requirements. Instead, Alaska adopted by reference
the 40 tons per year significant emissions rates for NOX,
SO2, and VOC set by the EPA, and also established a
significant emissions rate of 40 tons per year for NH3 as a
precursor for PM2.5, consistent with the thresholds
established for the other PM2.5 precursors. In the Fairbanks
189(d) Plan submission, ADEC certified that the State's NNSR program
meets the CAA section 172(c)(5), 189(d), and 189(e) nonattainment area
planning requirements. The EPA proposed to approve the existing SIP-
approved NNSR program as applicable in the Fairbanks PM2.5
Nonattainment Area for purposes of meeting requirements Serious areas
that fail to attain under 40 CFR 51.1003(c)(1)(viii).
ii. Final Rule
    The EPA did not receive any comments on this plan element and is
finalizing approval of the Fairbanks Serious Plan and Fairbanks 189(d)
Plan as meeting the NNSR program requirements of CAA sections
172(c)(5), 189(b)(3), 189(d), and 189(e), and 40 CFR
51.1003(b)(1)(viii) and (c)(1)(viii).
10. Additional Comments
    Comment: One commenter questioned whether the EPA had complied with
the Regulatory Flexibility Act prior to proposing action on the
Fairbanks Serious Plan and Fairbanks 189(d) Plan. The commenter stated
that the RFA required Federal agencies to go through a due process and
if the standards that the Federal government have established cannot be
attained it allows agencies to adjust them. The commenter further
asserted that the EPA was required to address the RFA.
    Response: The EPA disagrees with the commenter that the EPA was
required to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis pursuant to the
RFA prior to proposing or finalizing this action on Alaska's SIP
submissions. The RFA, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, generally requires agencies to
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis for any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative
Procedure Act (APA) or any other statute unless an agency certifies
that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities (SISNOSE). In the notice of
proposed rulemaking, the EPA certified that this action will not have a
SISNOSE. In particular, the EPA stated that the proposed SIP action, if
finalized, will not in-and-of itself create any new requirements but
will simply disapprove certain State requirements for inclusion in the
SIP. The EPA's position with respect to its obligations under the RFA
remains unchanged.
    Comment: One commenter opposed the EPA's proposed determination
that the EPA's action on the Fairbanks Serious Plan and Fairbanks
189(d) Plan would not have Tribal implications under Executive Order
13175. The commenter argued that the EPA's action would significantly
impact Doyon, Limited and its shareholders. Doyon, Limited is the
regional Alaska Native corporation for Interior Alaska formed under the
Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA). According to the
commenter, Doyon, Limited has 20,400 shareholders, 5,000 of which
reside in the Fairbanks area. The commenter also opposed the EPA's
proposed disapproval of the BACT determinations for the Fort Wainwright
CHPP owned and operated by Doyon Utilities, LLC.
    Response: Consistent with Executive Order 13175, the EPA consulted
with Doyon, Limited on April 17, 2023. The EPA notes that under
Executive Order 13175, the EPA consults with Indian Tribes and ANCSA
Corporations on a regulatory action that has substantial direct effect
on the Indian Tribe or ANCSA corporation and imposes substantial direct
compliance costs. The EPA's action here approves in part and
disapproves in part the Fairbanks Serious Plan and Fairbanks 189(d)
Plan. Accordingly, the EPA's action has no direct effect on Doyon,
Limited nor any other Indian Tribe. Nor does the EPA's action impose
direct compliance costs. The EPA is not adopting or implementing as
part of this action any affirmative regulations applicable to entitles
or people in the Fairbanks PM2.5 Nonattainment Area. As a
result of this action, certain provisions of the Fairbanks Serious Plan
and Fairbanks 189(d) Plan are approved into Alaska's SIP. The EPA is
disapproving other provisions. In response to the EPA's disapprovals,
Alaska may adopt new regulations that may impact Doyon, Limited or its
shareholders. The EPA addressed Doyon Utilities, LLC's comments
regarding BACT in a Response to Comment document, included in the
docket for this action.\211\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \211\ Response to Comments Regarding Best Available Control
Technology Requirements on the Air Plan Partial Approval and Partial
Disapproval; AK, Fairbanks North Star Borough; 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 Serious Area and 189(d) Plan, EPA-R10-OAR-2022-
0115.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: One commenter opposed the proposed disapproval on the
basis that triggering the mandatory highway sanction is not relevant or
appropriate for the Fairbanks PM2.5 Nonattainment Area. The
Clean Air Act of 1970 was passed to protect public health and welfare
at a time when pollution from vehicles was a serious problem in urban
areas and included a correlated sanction for withholding Federal
highway funding, yet in present time the EPA touts major successes in
vehicle pollution control in the U.S. by stating vehicles today are 99
percent cleaner for most tailpipe pollutants than in 1960s and 1970s;
thus, the commenter asserts, making the 53-year old sanction no longer
relevant. The commenter stated that on-road mobile emissions in the
Fairbanks PM2.5 Nonattainment Area only comprise 6.8 percent
of the area emissions contribution, yet the EPA is threatening to use
the 53-year-old sanction to withhold Federal highway funding, which is
not correlated nor will contribute to solving the problem.
    Response: If the EPA finalizes full or partial disapproval of a
required SIP submission, such as an attainment plan submission, or a
portion thereof, CAA section 179(a) establishes the imposition of
mandatory sanctions. If the EPA has not affirmatively determined that
the State has corrected the identified deficiencies within 18 months
after the effective date of this action, then, pursuant to CAA section
179(a) and (b) and 40 CFR 52.31, the offset sanction identified in CAA
section 179(b)(2) will apply in the affected nonattainment

area. If the EPA has not affirmatively determined that the identified
deficiencies have been corrected within 6 months after the offset
sanction is imposed, then the highway funding sanction will apply in
the affected nonattainment area, in accordance with CAA section
179(b)(1) and 40 CFR 52.31. The sanctions will not take effect if,
within 18 months after the effective date of this finding, the EPA
affirmatively determines that the State has made a complete SIP
submittal correcting the deficiencies for which the finding was
made.\212\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \212\ The EPA may also defer or stay, as applicable, the
application of sanctions upon issuance of an interim final
determination that the revised plan corrects the deficiencies
prompting the disapproval. See 40 CFR 52.31(d)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In this final action, the EPA is disapproving in part the Fairbanks
Serious Plan and Fairbanks 189(d) Plan for not meeting the CAA
requirements for PM2.5 nonattainment areas, specifically
attainment projected emissions inventory, attainment demonstration,
control strategy (in part), RFP, QM, and contingency measures.\213\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \213\ 40 CFR 52.31(a); (d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Congress was clear in CAA section 179 that if the EPA made any of
the findings, disapprovals, or determinations referred to in CAA
section 179(a), sanctions must be imposed. Furthermore, CAA section
179(a)(2) makes clear that disapproval of a SIP submissions for failure
to meet one or more of the elements required by the CAA triggers
mandatory sanctions. Thus, the CAA imposes highway sanctions regardless
of whether mobile sources contribute to a particular nonattainment
problem and regardless of whether the State fails to control mobile
sources in a SIP submission.\214\ By extension, the EPA does not have
discretion to choose not to impose mandatory sanctions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \214\ See, e.g., Statements of Henry A. Waxman, Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1990, 136 Cong. Rec. E3699-01, 1990 WL 206989, October
27, 1990, at ES700 (``Cutting off Federal highway funds is an
effective, sanction that can-and should in the appropriate
situation-be used to ensure compliance with clean air requirements
that are unrelated to transportation issues.''). See also, CAA
section 502(d)(2), 42 U.S.C. 7661a(d)(2) (authorizing the
Administrator to apply any of the sanctions in CAA section 179(b) if
a state does not submit a Title V operating permit program or the
EPA disapproves a state Title V operating permit program). But see,
S. Rep. 101-228, 1990 USCCAN 3385, December 20, 1989, at 3413.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Final Action

A. Final Approval

    1. In this action, the EPA is finalizing approval of the submitted
revisions to the Alaska SIP as meeting the following Serious Plan and
CAA section 189(d) \215\ required elements for the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS Fairbanks Nonattainment Area:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \215\ 42 U.S.C. 7513a(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    i. The 2019 base year emissions inventory (CAA section 172(c)(3)
;\216\ 40 CFR 51.1008(c)(1)) for areas subject to CAA section 189(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \216\ 42 U.S.C. 7502(c)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ii. The State's PM2.5 precursor demonstrations for
NOX and VOC emissions (CAA section 189(e) ;\217\ 40 CFR
51.1006(a)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \217\ 42 U.S.C. 7513a(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    iii. Partial approval of the control strategy as meeting BACM and
BACT requirements under CAA section 189(b)(1)(B) \218\ and 40 CFR
51.1010(a) for the solid fuel home heating device source category and
residential and commercial fuel oil combustion source category.
Additionally, the EPA is finalizing approval as meeting BACM and BACT
requirements under CAA section 189(b)(1)(B) \219\ and 40 CFR 51.1010(a)
for the charbroiler, used oil burner, and mobile source categories
(except for rejection of vehicle anti-idling requirements), and
specific regulations under 18 AAC 50.075 through 077 (except the
requirements for dry wood sellers under 18 AAC 50.076(k)), and
Fairbanks Emergency Episode Plan (except the contingency measure
portion).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \218\ 42 U.S.C. 7513a(b)(1)(B).
    \219\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    iv. Approval of Nonattainment New Source Review Requirements under
CAA sections 172(c)(5), 189(b)(3), 189(d), and 189(e) \220\ and 40 CFR
51.165, 40 CFR 51.1003(b)(1)(viii), and 40 CFR 51.1003(c)(1)(viii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \220\ 42 U.S.C. 7502(c)(5), 7513a(b)(3), 7513a(d) and 7513a(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. The EPA is finalizing partial approval of the Fairbanks Serious
Plan and Fairbanks 189(d) plan SIP submissions as meeting applicable
control strategy BACM and BACT requirements (CAA section 189(b)(1)(B)
\221\ and 40 CFR 51.1010(a)) for the following emission sources: \222\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \221\ Id.
    \222\ Note that the EPA inadvertently indicated that it proposed
to disapprove the Fairbanks Serious Plan and Fairbanks 189(d) Plan
as not meeting BACT requirements for NH3 in Section V of
the Proposal. This was in error. The EPA made clear in the preamble
to the Proposal that it was proposing to approve Alaska's
determinations that no NH3 controls existed for each of
the stationary sources listed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    3. The EPA is finalizing approval of the submitted chapters of the
Alaska Air Quality Control Plan for the Fairbanks PM2.5
Nonattainment Area, State effective January 8, 2020:

i. Volume II, Chapter III.D.7.01 Executive Summary
ii. Volume II, Chapter III.D.7.02 and Volume III Chapter III.D.7.02
Background and Overview of PM2.5 Rule
iii. Volume II, Chapter III.D.7.03 and Volume III Chapter III.D.7.03
Nonattainment Area Boundary and Design Episode Selection
vii. Volume II, Chapter III.D.7.13 and Volume III Chapter III.D.7.13
Assurance of Adequacy
viii. Volume II, Chapter III.D.7.15 Acronyms and Abbreviations

    4. The EPA is finalizing approval of the submitted chapters of the
Alaska Air Quality Control Plan for the Fairbanks PM2.5
Nonattainment Area, State effective December 25, 2020:
i. Volume II, Chapter III.D.7.04 Ambient Air Quality and Trends
ii. Volume II, Chapter III.D.7.05 and Volume III Chapter III.D.7.05
PM2.5 Network and Monitoring Program
iii. Volume II, Chapter III.D.7.06 and Volume III Chapter III.D.7.06
Emissions Inventory for purposes of the 2019 base year emissions
inventory.
iv. Volume II, Chapter III.D.7.07 and Volume III Chapter III.D.7.07
Control Strategies for purposes of the following emission source
categories: solid fuel home heating device, residential and commercial
fuel oil combustion, charbroiler, used oil burner, incinerator,
NH3 BACT determination for the Aurora

Energy Chena Power Plant, PM2.5 and NH3 BACT
determination for the Doyon-Fort Wainwright Central Heating and Power
Plant; PM2.5 and NH3 BACT determination for the
University of Alaska Fairbanks Campus Power Plant except for the three
small diesel fired engines (EUs 23, 26, and 27); PM2.5 and
NH3 BACT determinations for Golden Valley Electric
Association Zehnder Power Plant; PM2.5 and NH3
BACT Determinations for the Golden Valley Electric Association North
Pole Power Plant; and Nonattainment New Source Review Requirements.
v. Volume II, Chapter III.D.7.08 Modeling, precursor demonstration for
the purposes of NOX and VOC emissions as it relates to BACM
and BACT requirements and control strategy requirements for
nonattainment areas subject to CAA section 189(d).
    5. The EPA is finalizing a partial approval of Volume II, Chapter
III.D.7.12 Emergency Episode Plan, except for the contingency measure
portion, as meeting the BACM and BACT requirements for the solid fuel
heating device source category.\223\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \223\ The EPA finalized a limited approval of the Volume II,
Chapter III.D.7.12 Emergency Episode Plan as SIP-strengthening on
September 24, 2021. 86 FR 52997, September 24, 2021, at pp. 52997,
53004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    6. The EPA is finalizing approval and incorporating by reference
submitted regulatory changes into the Alaska SIP. Upon this final
approval, the Alaska SIP will include:

i. 18 AAC 50.075, except (d)(2), State effective January 8, 2020,
(solid fuel-fired heating devices may not exceed 20 percent opacity for
more than six minutes in any one hour when an air quality advisory is
in effect).

B. Final Disapproval

    1. The EPA is finalizing disapproval of the submitted revisions to
the Alaska SIP as not meeting the following Serious plan and CAA
section 189(d) \224\ required elements for the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 Fairbanks Nonattainment Area:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \224\ 42 U.S.C. 7513a(d).

i. Attainment projected emissions inventory requirements of CAA section
172(c)(1) \225\ and 40 CFR 51.1008(c)(2);
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \225\ 42 U.S.C. 7502(c)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

ii. Additional measures (beyond those already adopted in previous
nonattainment plan SIP submissions for the area as RACM/RACT, BACM/
BACT, and MSM \226\ (if applicable)) under CAA section 189(d) and 40
CFR 51.1010(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \226\ MSM is applicable if the EPA has previously granted an
extension of the attainment date under CAA section 188(e) for the
nonattainment area and NAAQS at issue. The EPA denied Alaska's
request to extend the Serious area attainment date for the Fairbanks
Serious Nonattainment Area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

iii. Attainment demonstration and modeling requirements of CAA sections
188(c)(2) and 189(b)(1)(A) and 40 CFR 51.1003(c) and 51.1011.
iv. Reasonable further progress (RFP) requirements of CAA section
172(c)(2) \227\ and 40 CFR 51.1012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \227\ 42 U.S.C. 7502(c)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

v. Quantitative milestones requirements of CAA section 189(c) \228\ and
40 CFR 51.1013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \228\ 42 U.S.C. 7513a(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

vi. Contingency measures requirements of CAA section 172(c)(9) \229\
and 40 CFR 51.1014 applicable to Serious areas subject to CAA sections
189(b) and 189(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \229\ 42 U.S.C. 7502(c)(9).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

vii. Motor vehicle emission budgets requirements under 40 CFR
51.1003(d) and 93.118, without a protective finding under 40 CFR
93.120.
    2. The EPA is finalizing disapproval of the submitted chapters of
the Alaska Air Quality Control Plan for the Fairbanks PM2.5
Nonattainment Area, State effective December 25, 2020:

i. Volume II, Chapter III.D.7.06 and Volume III Chapter III.D.7.06
Emissions Inventory for purposes of the 2024 attainment year emissions
inventory.
ii. Volume II, Chapter III.D.7.07 and Volume III Chapter III.D.7.07
Control Strategies for purposes of the wood seller requirements, coal-
fired heating devices, coffee roasters, weatherization and energy
efficiency, light-duty vehicle anti-idling, PM2.5 BACT
determinations for the Aurora Chena Power Plant, PM2.5 BACT
determinations for the University of Alaska Fairbanks Campus Power
Plant emission units 23, 26, and 27,
iii. Volume II, Chapter III.D.7.08 Modeling
iv. Volume II, Chapter II.D.7.09 Attainment Demonstration
v. Volume II, Chapter II.D.7.10 Reasonable Further Progress and
Quantitative Milestones.
vi. Volume II, Chapter II.D.7.11 Contingency Measures.
vii. Volume II, Chapter II.D.7.14 Conformity and Motor Vehicle
Emissions Budgets.
    3. The EPA is finalizing limited disapproval of the submitted
chapters of the Alaska Air Quality Control Plan for the Fairbanks
PM2.5 Nonattainment Area, State effective December 25, 2020:

i. Volume II, Chapter II.D.7.12 Emergency Episode Plan. The EPA is
finalizing a limited disapproval because the contingency measure
components do not fully meet the contingency measure requirements of
CAA section 172(c)(9) and 40 CFR 51.1014.\230\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \230\ The EPA finalized a limited approval of the Volume II,
Chapter III.D.7.12 Emergency Episode Plan as SIP-strengthening on
September 24, 2021. 86 FR 52997, September 24, 2021, at pp. 52997,
53004. The EPA's final limited disapproval does not prevent the
State from enforcing the Emergency Episode Plan, including the
contingency measure provisions. Nor does the EPA's limited
disapproval remove the Emergency Episode Plan, or any portion
thereof, from the approved SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    4. The EPA is finalizing partial disapproval of the Fairbanks
Serious Plan and Fairbanks 189(d) plan SIP submissions as not meeting
applicable control strategy BACM and BACT requirements (CAA section
189(b)(1)(B) \231\ and 40 CFR 51.1010(a)) for the following emission
source categories:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \231\ 42 U.S.C. 7513a(b)(1)(B).

i. Requirements for wood sellers
ii. Coal-fired heating devices
iii. Coffee roasters
iv. Weatherization and energy efficiency measures
v. Mobile source category (disapproving for lack of vehicle anti-idling
requirements).
    5. The EPA is finalizing partial disapproval of the Fairbanks
Serious Plan and Fairbanks 189(d) plan SIP submissions as not meeting
applicable control strategy BACM and BACT requirements (CAA section
189(b)(1)(B) \232\ and 40 CFR 51.1010(a)) for the following emission
sources:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \232\ Id.

i. Chena Power Plant
    a. Coal-fired boilers (PM2.5; SO2)
ii. Fort Wainwright
    a. Coal-fired boilers (PM2.5; SO2)
    b. Diesel-fired boilers (PM2.5; SO2)
    c. Large diesel-fired engines (PM2.5; SO2)
    d. Small emergency engines (PM2.5; SO2)
    e. Materials handling (PM2.5)
iii. University of Alaska Fairbanks
    a. Dual fuel-fired boiler (PM2.5; SO2)
    b. Mid-sized diesel-fired boilers (PM2.5;
SO2)
    c. Small-sized diesel-fired boilers (PM2.5;
SO2)
    d. Large diesel-fired engine (PM2.5; SO2)
    e. Small diesel-fired engines (PM2.5; SO2)

    f. Pathogenic waste incinerator (PM2.5; SO2)
    g. Material handling (PM2.5)
iv. Zehnder
    a. Oil-fired simple cycle gas turbines (PM2.5;
SO2)
    b. Diesel-fired emergency generators (PM2.5;
SO2)
    c. Diesel-fired boilers (PM2.5; SO2)
v. North Pole Power Plant
    a. Oil-fired simple cycle gas turbines (PM2.5;
SO2)
    b. Oil-fired combined cycle gas turbines (PM2.5;
SO2)
    c. Large diesel-fired engine (PM2.5; SO2)
    d. Propane-fired boiler (PM2.5; SO2)

IV. Consequences of a Disapproval

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

A. The Act's Provisions for Mandatory Sanctions

    If the EPA finalizes disapproval of a required SIP submission, such
as an attainment plan submission, or a portion thereof, CAA section
179(a) establishes the imposition of mandatory sanctions. If the EPA
has not affirmatively determined that the State has corrected the
identified deficiencies within 18 months after the effective date of
this action, then, pursuant to CAA section 179(a) and (b) and 40 CFR
52.31, the offset sanction identified in CAA section 179(b)(2) will
apply in the affected nonattainment area. If the EPA has not
affirmatively determined that the identified deficiencies have been
corrected within 6 months after the offset sanction is imposed, then
the highway funding sanction will apply in the affected nonattainment
area, in accordance with CAA section 179(b)(1) and 40 CFR 52.31.\233\
The sanctions will not take effect if, within 18 months after the
effective date of this finding, the EPA affirmatively determines that
the State has made a complete SIP submittal correcting the deficiencies
for which the finding was made.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \233\ On April 1, 1996, the US Department of Transportation
published a document in the Federal Register describing the criteria
to be used to determine which highway projects can be funded or
approved during the time that the highway sanction is imposed in an
area. (See 61 FR 14363, April 1, 1996.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Additionally, if the EPA affirmatively determines that the State
has made a complete SIP submittal correcting the deficiencies for which
this finding was made and takes action to approve the submittal within
2 years of the effective date of this finding, EPA is not required to
promulgate a FIP for the affected nonattainment area.\234\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \234\ CAA section 110(c), 42 U.S.C. 7410(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Ramifications Regarding Transportation Conformity

    One consequence of the EPA action finalizing disapproval of a
control strategy SIP submission is a conformity freeze.\235\ Final
disapproval of the attainment demonstration SIP and the RFP plan
without a protective finding results in a conformity freeze beginning
on the effective date of the disapproval.\236\ The EPA is disapproving
in part the Fairbanks Serious Plan and Fairbanks 189(d) Plan, which are
attainment plans, because they do not include sufficient emissions
reductions to meet attainment and RFP requirements, as discussed above.
Therefore, the area is not eligible for a protective finding and a
freeze will begin on the effective date of the disapproval.\237\ The
area's Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), FAST Planning,
produces the long-range 20-year metropolitan transportation plan and
the short-range transportation improvement program. During a conformity
freeze, only projects in the first four years of the currently
conforming transportation plan and transportation improvement program
may be found to conform until another attainment demonstration SIP and
RFP plan are submitted and the motor vehicle emissions budgets are
found to be adequate or are approved and conformity to the revised
attainment demonstration and RFP provisions is determined.\238\ If the
SIP deficiency is not remedied after 24 months, when highway sanctions
are imposed under CAA 179(b)(1) and a conformity lapse occurs. No new
transportation plan, TIP, or project may be found to conform until
another control strategy implementation plan revision fulfilling the
same CAA requirements is submitted and conformity to this submission is
determined.\239\ However, we do note that exempt projects under 40 CFR
93.126 can proceed during a conformity lapse.\240\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \235\ Control strategy SIP revisions as defined in the
transportation conformity include reasonable further progress plans
and attainment demonstrations (40 CFR 93.101).
    \236\ 40 CFR 93.120(a)(2).
    \237\ 40 CFR 93.120(a)(3).
    \238\ 40 CFR 93.120(a)(2).
    \239\ 40 CFR 93.120(a)(1).
    \240\ These include certain types of projects, such as safety,
mass transit, air quality, and other projects that do not involve or
directly lead to construction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Incorporation by Reference

    In this document, the EPA is finalizing its proposal to include
regulatory text in an EPA final rule that includes incorporation by
reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is
incorporating by reference 18 AAC 50.075, except (d)(2), State
effective January 8, 2020 (requiring that solid fuel-fired heating
devices may not exceed 20 percent opacity for more than six minutes in
any one hour when an air quality advisory is in effect). The EPA has
made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available
through https://www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region 10 Office
(please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section of this document for more information).

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders
can be found at https://www2.epa.gov/lawsregulations/laws-and-executive-orders.

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

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

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.,
because the EPA is taking action on Alaska's SIP submissions under
section 110 and subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act will not in-
and-of itself create any new information collection burdens but simply
disapproves portions of certain State plans submitted for inclusion
into the SIP. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities. This action will not impose any
requirements on

small entities beyond those imposed by State law.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    This action contains no Federal mandates under the provisions of
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C.
1531-1538 for State, local, or Tribal governments or the private
sector. This action approves in part and disapproves in part portions
of certain pre-existing plans under State or local law and imposes no
new requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, or
Tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this action.

E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999), requires the EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.''
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.'' This action
does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial
direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the National
Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified
in Executive Order 13132, because it merely approves in part and
disapproves in part portions of certain State SIP submissions required
by the CAA and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of
power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. Thus,
Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this action.

F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

    This action does not have Tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP
submissions that the EPA is partially approving and partially
disapproving would not 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, and the EPA notes that it will not impose
substantial direct costs on Tribal governments or preempt Tribal law.
Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

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

    The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23,
1997) as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern health
or safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of
the Executive Order has the potential to influence the regulation. This
action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is not an
economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety
risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997).
This action on Alaska's SIP submissions under section 110 and
subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act will not in-and-of itself
create any new regulations but simply approves in part and disapproves
in part portions of the Fairbanks Serious Plan and Fairbanks 189(d)
Plan submitted for inclusion into the SIP.

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

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355,
May 22, 2001) because it is not a significant regulatory action under
Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note)
directs the EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory
activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling
procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by
voluntary consensus standards bodies. NTTAA directs the EPA to provide
Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use
available and applicable voluntary consensus standards. The EPA