-(
. ..Jl, , ...... (;**~**SARAH PALIN, GOVERNOR 410Willoughby Ave., Ste 303 Post Office Box 111800 

## DEPT. OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION Juneau, Alaska 99811-1800 Phone: 907-465-5065 

## OFFICE OFTHE COMMISSIONER Fax: 907-465-5070 www.dec.state.ak.us 

### February 7. 2008 

## FEd !
.. 

### >000 Elin D. Miller RegionalAdministrator U.S. EPA, Region 10 1200 SixthAvenue (RA-140) Seattle, WA 98101 Dear Ms. Miller: Today, we are pleased to transmit to you revisions toAlaska's State Air Quality Control Plan (SIP) to meet the requirements ofCleanAirAct Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) related to the interstate transport ofpollution. We are providing the amended section ofthe StateAir Quality Control Plan, 

### adopted by reference under 18MC 50.030, to your lead staff person, Donna Deneen, for EPA's review and approval. The supporting documents for the complete SIP submission include: 1. five copies ofthe SIP, incorporating amendments as initially adopted bythe department on July 31,2007 and re-adopted (without changes) following legal review on November 27,2007; 2. the signed adoption order and filing certification for the December 2007 regulation amendment to 18MC 50.030 (effective date ofDecember 30, 2007); 3. affidavits ofpublic notice and oral hearing; 4. the department's written response to public comments for the December 2007 amendments; 5. a copy ofthe public notice and markups distributed for public review. This SIP revision was noticed to the public along with other regulation revisions in 18 MC 50 pertaining to the BestAvailable RetrofitTechnology requirements for regional haze. DEC received comments on the regulation revisions, but none ofthose comments pertained to the revised SIP for interstate transport ofpollution. If

### you oryour staff have any questions or need further information regarding these amendments, please contactAlice Edwards, Program Manager, Air Non-Point & 

### Mobile Sources, at (907) 465-5109. Sincerely,

# ~ Larry 

### Hartig Commissioner

### February 7, 2008 Elin Miller 2



### cc: RickAlbright, EPA Region 10 (wi0 

### enclosures) Donna Deneen, EPA Region 10 (wi 

### enclosures) Tom Chapple, Air Quality Director, DEC (w/o 

### enclosures) Alice Edwards, Program Manager, DEC (w/o 

### enclosures)Amendments to State Air Quality Control Plan, Volume II, Section 

### III.D. Particulate Matter Subpart 

### D.l Overview, a new section to be inserted after section 

### D.l.V: VI. PROVISIONS PROHIBITING REGIONAL TRANSPORT OF AIR POLLUTANTS Pursuant to the requirements ofthe 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments, Section IIO(a)(2)(D)(i), Alaska's State implementation plan (SIP)must contain adequate provision prohibiting"
...any source or other type ofemissions activity within the State from emitting any air pollutant in amounts which will

### I. contribute significantly to nonattainment in, or interfere with maintenance by, any other State with respect to any such national primary or secondary ambient air quality standard, or 2. interfere with measures required to be included in the applicable implementation plan for any other State
... to prevent significant deterioration ofair quality or visibility
... " Alaska meets the requirements ofSection 110 as followsI. Does not contribute to other states NAAQS pollutants:

• Alaska is not subject to the "Rule to Reduce Interstate Transport ofFine Particulate Matter and Ozone (Interstate Air Quality Rule Preamble)," 69 FR 4566 (January 30, 2004) (CAIR);

• Alaska's southem most border is separated from the border ofthe lower 48 states by over 500 air miles;

• Alaska's aggregate manmade PM2.5 and ozone levels are minimal relative to national levels; 2. Prevention ofSignificant DeteriorationlNew Source Review (PSDlNRS) Program Requirements:

It Alaska has a fully approved PSD/NSR program most recently approved on February 16, 1995 (60 FR 8943);

• Alaska 15 working to incorporate Phase Ii ozone requirements for PSD/NSR into the SIP; 69 FR 23951 (April 30,2004); 70 FR 71612 (Nov. 29,2005); 3. Prevention ofVisibility deterioration:

• States have not yet submitted Regional Haze SIPs, so it is not possible for Alaska to assess its compatibility or interference with control measures in another state's Regional Haze (visibility) SIP; Alaska is working with the Westem Regional Air Partnership to prepare a SIP to address EPA's Regional Haze regulations; 64 FR 35714 (July 1, 1999); SIP submittals to EPA are due no later than December 17, 2007.
Adopted 7/3112007Register _,__ 2008 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION



### NOTE: The following regulations were signed and filed by Lt. Governor Parnell
on November 30,2007. They will become effective on December 30, 2007. The fonowing copy ofthe regulations is not an official copy ofthe regulations, as they have not yetbeen published in the State Register. The regulations are being provided for informational purposes only at this time.Register _,__ 2008 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVAnON The lead-in language of 18 AAC 50.030 is amended to read: 18 AAC 50.030. State air quality control plan. Volumes II and III ofthe 

### StateAir Quality Control Plan for implementing and enforcing the provisions ofAS 46.14 and this chapter, as amended through july 31, 2007 [SEPTEMBER 19,2006], arc adopted by reference. The plan includes the following documents which are also adopted by reference:

(Eff. 1118/97, Register 141; am 6121198, Register 146; a1119/4/98, Register 147; am 111/2000, Register 152; am 12/30/2000, Register 156; am 9/21/2001, Register 159; am 1/27/2002, Register 161; am 3/27/2002, Register 161; am 5/312002, Register 162; am 2/20/2004, Register 169; am 6/24/2004, Register 170; a111 10/1/2004, Register 171; am 12114/2006, Register 180; am _1_1

__, Register

__) Authority: AS 46.03.020 AS 46.14.030 Sec. 30, ch. 74, SLA 1993 AS 46.14.020 AS 46.14.140

18 AAC 50 is amended by adding a new section to Article 2 to read: 18 AAC 50.260. Guidelines for best available retrofit technology under the regional haze rule. (a) For purposes ofthis section, the following are adopted by reference: (1) 40 C.F.R. 51.301 (Definitions), as revised as ofJuly 1,2007, except that (A) "fugitive emissions" has the meaning given in AS 46.14.990; (B) "major stationary source" has the meaning given in AS 46.14.990 and 18 AAC 50.990; (C) "potential to emit" has the meaning given in AS 46.14.990; 2Register _,__ 2008 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION (D) "stationary source" has the meaning given in AS 46.14.990; (2) 40 C.F.R. Part 51, Appendix Y (guidelines for BART detenninations under the regional haze rule), as revised as ofJuly I, 2007. (b) Sources subject to a best available retrofit technology (BART) emission limitation will be identified consistent with Section III ofthe BART guidelines. No more than five days after 

### {effective date of regulations}, the department will notify the owner or operator ofeach
source subject to BART in writing and will identify the affected Class I areas. A written notice provided to the owner or operator before 

### {effective date of regulations} satisfies the notification requirement in this subsection. Unless the department exempts a source in accordance with Section III ofthe BART guidelines, each source subject to BART shall comply with (d)

- (h) and (1)

- (0) ofthis section. (c) An owner or operator notified under (b) ofthis section may request an exemption from BART. An exemption from BART approved by the department in writing before 

### {effective date ofregulations} has the same effect as an exemption approved under this subsection. An exemption from BART must be requested and will be processed as follows: (1) the owner or operator shall (A) notify the department, no more than 10 days after the later of 

### {effective date of the regulations} or the date ofthe department's notice under (b) ofthis section that the owner or operator intends to request exemption from BART through visibility impact analysis modeling; and (8) submit, no more than 30 days after the later of

### {effective date of regulations} or the date ofthe department's notice under (b) ofthis section, a visibility 3Register 2008 ENVIRONMEi'JTAL CONSERVATION impact analysis modeling protocol that will meet the requirements of(h)(3) ofthis section for refined visibility impact analysis modeling; (2) no more than 30 days after receiving a submission under (I)(B) ofthis subsection, the department will (A) approve the modeling protocol; or (B) disapprove the modeling protocol and notify the owner or operator of the reasons for the disapproval; (3) upon approval ofthe modeling protocol, the owner or operator shall (A) conduct a visibility impact analysis in accordance with (h)(3) ofthis section; and (B) submit the visibility impact analysis report, including all supporting documentation, to the department no more than 60 days after the date ofthe department's approval under (2)(A) ofthis subsection; ifa modeling protocol is submitted and approved before {effective date ofregulations/, the vlsibility impact analysis report required under this subparagraph shall be submitted no later than (90 days after effective date of regulations); (4) the department will approve an exemption ifthe owner or operator meets the requirements of(1) and (3) ofthis subsection and the information submitted adequately demonstrates that the BART-eligible source is not reasonably anticipated to cause or contribute to any impaim1ent ofvisibility in a Class I area identified in the department's notice under (b) of this section; (5) ifthe department disapproves an exemption, the owner or operator shall 4-- Register 2008 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION (A) submit a BART control analysis in accordance with (d)

- (0) ofthis section; or (B) submit an application under 18 AAC 50.225 for an owner requested limit (ORL); that application must be submitted no more than 30 days after the date ofthe disapproval; upon approval ofan owner requested limit under 18 AAC 50.225, the owner
or operator shall comply with the terms and conditions ofthat approval; ifthe owner requested limit is subsequently rescinded, the owner or operator shall conduct a BART control analysis in accordance with (d)

- 

### (0) ofthis section; (6) the department will notify each owner or operator, EPA, and each afTected federal land manager, in writing, ofa department approval or disapproval under this subsection; ifthe decision is to approve an exemption, either through visibility impact analysis or an owner requested limit, the department will explain what requirements ofthis section no longer apply to the BART-eligible source. (d) Ifan owner or operator does not submit a modeling protocol under (c)( 1) ofthis section, or ifthe department disapproves the exemption request under (c) ofthis section, the
owner or operator shall submit a BART assessment modeling protocol that meets the requirements of(h)(3) ofthis section for control technology visibility impact analysis modeling
no more than 30 days after the latest of

### reflective date of regulations}, the date ofthe department's notice under (b) ofthis section, or the date ofthe department's notice disapproving the exemption request under (c) ofthis section. No more than 30 days after submission ofa modeling protocol under this subsection, the department will 

### (1) approve the modeling protocol; or 5**Register~,** 2008 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION (2) disapprove the modeling protocol and notify the owner or operator ofthe
reasons for the disapproval. (e) For purposes ofanalyzing the visibility impact from potential control technologies, the owner or operator ofeach source subject to BART shall submit to the department an analysis ofcontrol options consistent with Section IV ofthe BART guidelines (1) no more than 210 days after the later of

### {effective dale of regulations} or the date ofthe department's notice under (b) ofthis section, ifthe owner or operator did not submit
an exemption modeling protocol under (c)(1) ofthis section; or (2) no more than 180 days after the date ofthe department's notice disapproving
an exemption request submitted under (c) ofthis section. 

### (f) The pollutants ofconcern for purposes ofBART are nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide. and PM-10. (g) Ifan owner or operator elects to apply, or has already applied, the most stringent controls available consistent with the analysis conducted under (e) ofthis section, the owner or operator is not required to conduct a visibility impact analysis for the emission units and pollutants to which the controls are to be or have been applied. (h) A visibility impact analysis must (I) use an identical modeling approach for comparing the pre-control and postcontrol impacts ofpotential BART controls; (2) determine the maximum change in visibility impacts. in daily deciviews, between the current or pre-control technology and each potential BART control option consistent with the approved modeling protocol compared to the annual average default natural visibility 

### 6Register 2008**ENVIRO~"'1ENTAL** CONSERVAnON condition as listed in EPA's 

### Guidance forEstimatingNatural Visibility Conditions Under the RegionalHaze Rule, EPA-454/B-03-005, dated September 2003 and adopted by reference, at each Class I area identified in the department's notice under (b) ofthis section; and (3) be conducted in a manner consistent with either (A) the Western Regional Air Partnership's 

### CALMETICALPUFF Protocol for BARTExemption ScreeningAnalysis for Class IAreas in the Western UnitedStates, dated August 15,2006 and adopted by reference, as amended by the Western Regional Air Partnership's 

### Summary ofWRAP RMCBARTModelingforAlaska, Draft #7, dated April 6, 2007 and adopted byreference; or (B) a modified protocol that was first submitted as a draft and made available for at least a 15-day review by EPA and each affected federal land manager, and subsequently approved in writing by the department. (i) The department will request from the owner or operator any additional information necessary to complete review ofthe analysis ofcontrol options for a source subject to BART. The department 

### will establish a reasonable deadline for submitting the information after consulting the owner or operator. The owner or operator shall provide such information no later than the deadline established by the department. 

## CD The department will review each analysis ofcontrol options and issue a preliminary BART determination for each emission unit at each source subject to BART. In the preliminary BART determination, the department will include (1) the pollutant-specific emission limits for each emission unit at each source subject to BART; and 7Register**~._, _~**  2008 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION (2) the monitoring, record-keeping, and reporting needed to demonstrate compliance with the emission limits, consistent with 40 CF.R. 71.6(a)(3), adopted by reference in 18 AAC 50.040(j). (k) No more than 120 days after receipt ofBART analysis under (e) ofthis section, the department will publish a notice ofits preillninary BART determination and provide at least 30 days for the public to comment in accordance with 40 CF.R. 7 L 11, adopted by reference in
J8 AAC 50.040(j), except as follows: (1) the department may distribute a public notice to a person by electronic mail; ifa person requests to be sent notice by postal mail instead ofelectronic mail, the department will send the notice bypostal mail; (2) the department will hold a public hearing only ifone is requested \vithin 15 days after publication ofthe notice. (I) Within 15 days after the deadline for receipt ofpublic comments, and after consideration ofcomments and testimony received, the department will make a final BART determination and provide written notice ofthe final detennination to each O\vner or operator, EPA, each affected federal land manager, and any person who commented on the preliminary BART determination. In the final BART determination, the department will include (1) the pollutant-specific emission limits for each emission unit at each source subject to BART; and (2) the monitoring, record-keeping, and reporting needed to demonstrate compliance with the emission limits, consistent with 40 CF.R. 71.6(a)(3), adopted by reference in 18 AAC 50.040(j). 8Register 2008 ENV1RONMENTAL CONSERVATION



## _

.._-­ (m) An informal review ofthe final BART detennination may be requested as prescribed in 18 AAC 15.185. An adjudicatory hearing ofthe final BART determination may be requested
as prescribed in 18 AAC 15.195

- 18 AAC 15.340. (n) As expeditiously as practicable, but in no case more than five years after the date of EPA approval ofthe regional haze state implementation plan required under 42 U.s.C. 7410 and 7491, the owner or operator ofa source that is subject to a final BART determination under this section shall comply with the requirements established in that determination. (0) The owner or operator ofa source required to install control equipment to comply with the BART determination shall (1) maintain the control equipment and establish procedures to ensure that the equipment is properly operated and maintained; and (2) conduct monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting in accordance with methods set out in the final BART determination. (p) Department services under this section are designated regulatory services for preapplication assistance and will be billed to the operating permit covering the source subject to BART as set out in 18 AAC 50.400(m). (q) In this section, (1) "BART" has the meaning given the term "Best Available Retrofit Technology" in 40 C.F.R. 51.301, adopted by reference in (a) ofthis section; (2) "BART-eligible source" has the meaning given in 40 C.F.R. 5] .301, adopted by reference in (a) ofthis section; (3) "BART guidelines" means 40 C.F.R. Part 51, Appendix Y (Guidelines for 9Register
_ ......' 2008 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION BART detenninations under the regional haze lUle), adopted by reference in (a) ofthis section; (4) "cause or contribute to impainnent ofvisibility" means to release emissions that produce a 0.5 or greater change in the daily deciview \vhen compared against natural conditions; for purposes ofthis paragraph, "natural conditions'! includes naturally occurring phenomena that reduce visibility as measured in tenns oflight extinction, visual range, contrast,
or coloration; (5) "deciview" has the meaning given in 40 CF.R. 51.301, adopted by reference in (a) ofthis section; (6) "existing stationalY facility" has the meaning given in 40 CF.R. 51.301, adopted by reference in (a) ofthis section; (7) "federal land manager" has the meaning gi'\ien in 40 CF.R. 51.301, adopted by reference in (a) ofthis section: (8) "maximum change" means the greatest relative change in visibility between pre-BART controls and post-BART controls for purposes ofthis section; (9) "source subject to BART" means a source identified by the department in accordance with Section 1lI ofthe BART guidelines; (10) "visibility impact analysis" means an air quality modeling analysis conducted for the purposes ofdetennining visibility impacts.**(Eff.~;** Register Authority: AS 46.03.710 AS 46.14.020 Sec. 30, ch. 74, SLA 1993 AS 46.14.010 AS 46.14.030 Editor's note: The Guidance for EstimatingNatural Visibility Conditions Under the RegionalHaze Rule, the CALMETICALPUFFProtocol forBARTE-r:emption ScreeningAnaZvsis 10

### Register _,__2008 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERV ATION 

### for Class IAreas in the Western UnitedStates, and the 

### Summary ofWRAP RMCBARTA10deling forAlaska, Draft #7, adopted by reference in 18 AAC 50.260(h), may be reviewed at the department's Anchorage, Fairbanks, orJuneau office. To obtain a copy ofthese or any other documents adopted by reference in this section, contact the Department ofEnvironmental Conservation, Division ofAir Quality at (907) 465-5100.

18 AAC 50.400(m)(3) is amended to read: (3) an adjudicatory hearing under 18 AAC 15.195

- 18 AAC 15.340, ifrequested under 

### 18 AAC 50.260(m), 18 AAC 50.306(e), 18 AAC 50.326(k), or 18 AAC 50.542(d) by the permit applicant; at the request ofthe permittee, and ifthe permittee is current on all other billings in the department, the department will hold in abeyance a fee charged under this paragraph during the course ofthe adjudicatory hearing;

18 AAC 50.400(m)(9) is amended to read: (9) pre-application assistance, 

### including services under 18 AAC 50.260; (Eff. 1118/97, 

### Register 141; am 6/21/98, Register 146; am 10/112004, 

### Register 171; am 12/1/2004, Register 172; am 1129/2005, Register 173; am / I 

### Register**_~)** 

### Authority: AS 37.10.050 AS 44.46.025 AS 46.14.140 AS 37.10.052 AS 46.03.020 AS 46.14.240 AS 37.10.058

11Register _. ....__ 

### 2008 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION 

### 18 AAC 

### 50.990(47) is amended to read: 

### (47) "impairment ofvisibility" means any [A] humanly perceptible change in visibility [SUCH AS VISUAL RANGE, CONTRAST, OR COLORATION,] from that which would have existed [EXIST] under natural conditions; in this paragraph, "change in visibility" includes light extinction, atmospheric discoloration, and anv other change in visual range. contrast, or coloration;



### 18 AAC 

### 50.990(88) is amended to read: 

### (88) "reconstruct" and "reconstruction" have the meaning given "reconstruction" in 

### 40 C.F.R. 

### 63.2, adopted by reference in 

### 18 AAC 

### 50.040, except that for purposes of18 AAC 50.260, "reconstruction" has the meaning given in 40 C.F.R. 51.301, adopted by reference in 18 AAC 50.260(a); (Eff. 

### 1/18/97, Register 

### 141: am 6/14/98, RegIster 

### 146; am 

### 6/21/98, Register 

### 146; am 

### 9/4/98, Register 

### 147; am 1114/99, Register 

### 152; am 

### 1/l/2000, Register 

### 152; am 21212002, Register 

### 161;
am 5/3/2002, Register 

### 162; am 1111512002, Register 

### 164; am 8/812003, Register 

### 167; am 

### 10/1/2004, Register 

### 171; am 12/3/2005, Register 

### 176; am 1 

## _J

__,Register

__

## J Authority: AS 

### 44.46.025 AS 

### 46.14.140 AS 

### 46.14.250 AS 

### 46.03.020 AS 

### 46.14.150 AS 

### 46.14.255 AS 

### 46.03.710 AS 

### 46.14.160 AS 

### 46.14.280 AS 

### 46.14.010 AS 

### 46.14.170 AS 

### 46.14.285 AS 

### 46.14.020 AS 

### 46.14.180 AS 

### 46.14.290 AS 

### 46.14.030 AS 

### 46.14.210 AS 

### 46.14.300 12Register 2008 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION AS 46.14.120 AS 46.14.230 AS 46.14.560 AS 46.14.130 AS 46.14.240 Sec. 30, ch. 74, SLA 1993

13

### Signed Adoption Order and Filing Certification (Filed 11/30/2007)UElTE,\A,\T G()\TR'\OR**41j~ 1~::(1** **46~** FlX 

### STATE OF ALASKA OFFICE OFTHE LIE. UTE:\,A:\T GOVERNOR 

# t Jll:\EAU
M E :VI 0 RAN D L M
To: Gary !'-.1endivil. AAC Contact Date: .November 30,2007 Department of**EnVironmenta~1 ,conservatio~**  From: Telephone: (907) 465-4082 Jason Hoole)

# ~'A 

# 1 / Special Assistant , 

# LJ\ Re: FIled Permanent Re atlOns Department ofEnvironmental Conservation Air Quality and Best Available Retrofit Technology tBART) for Control ofRegional Haze: J8 AAC 50.030; 18 AAC 50.260; 18 AAC 50.400(m): 18 AAC 50.990(47), (88)

Attorney General File 993-07-0101 Regulation Filed: 11.30;2007 Effective Date: J2/30:2007 Print: 184, January 2008

cc with enclosures: Linda Miller. Department ofLaw Eugene Harnett, Administrative Regulation Review Committee Judy Herndon, LexisNexis Tom Chapple. Department ofEnvironmental ConservationORDER ADOPTING CHA?'\GES TO REGUL-\TIONS OF THE DEPARTME?\T OF**E~'VIRON\lENTAL CO~SERVATI0:.J**  The attached 12 pages of regulations, dealing \vith Air Quality Control are hereby' adopted and certified to 

### be a correct copy of the regulation changes that the Department of Environmental Conservation adopts under the authonty of AS 46.03 and AS '+6.14 and after compliance v..;ith the Administrative Procedure Act (AS 44.62), specifical:y including notice under AS 44.62.190 and 44.62.200 and opportunity for public comment under AS 44.62.210. This action 

### is not expected to require an increased appropriation. 

### In considering public comments, the Department of Envirorunental Conservation paid special attention to the cost to private persons of the regulatory action being taken. The Department of Environmental Conservation also gave special attention to alternate practical methods in this regulatory action, as required by AS 46.03.024 The regulation changes adopted under this order take effect on the 30th day after they have been filed by the lieutenant governor as provided in AS 44.62.180.
DATE: November 27.2007 at Juneau, Alaska**~,.** r FILING CERTfFICATION**,Jo-s.~ hool~**  -'<'0('

### I,~ean Parnell, Lieutenant Governor for the State ofAlaska, certify that on

### N')'I!~W 

### 30 2007, at**~:L{o** ,,-.m., I filed the attached regulations according to the provisions ofAS 44.62.040­ 44.62.120. \

## ~~" _

## ~ 

# /Y\"J**A~**I / \.J / '\1 IV
. Effectin.:; Register:

### FOR DELIGAT10;\**UEUTE;\A~T** 

### GOVER!'\OR'S :-\CTHORJTY

1, SEA\[ PAR\'ELL,**LIEUTE\JA~\.JT** 

### GOVER.,\OR 

### OF THE 

### STA.T£ OF ALASKA, as , authorized 

### by designate the following 

### Special Assistant 

### to the Lieutenant G(lvernor to 

### perfoml the 

### Administrative Procedures Act filing functions ,lfthe 

### Lieutenant Governor:



### Ja50n Hooley, 

### Special Assistant, Office ofthe 

### Lieutenant Governor



### IN 

### TESTL'vfONY \\lIEREOF, I have signed and affixed the Seal of the State 

### of

### Alaska, at Anchorage, on 

### July 31, 2007.

# /~(P~e

../\J
.......................................**SEA~** PARNELL LIEUTENANT**GO\,Efu~OR**------ 

### ORDER ADOPTING CHANGES TO REGULATIONS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF EWIROKMENTAL CONSERVATION The attached 10 pages ofregulations, dealing with Air Quality Control are hereby adopted and certified to be a correct copy of the regulation changes that the Department of Environmental Conservation adopts under the authority ofAS 46.03 and AS 46.14 and after compliance with the Administrative Procedure Act (AS 44.62), specifically including notice under AS 44.62.190 and 44.62.200 and opportunity for public comment under AS 44.62.210. This action is not expected to require an increased appropriation. In 

### considering public comments, the Department of Environmental Conservation paid special attention to the cost to private persons ofthe regulatory action being taken. The Department of Environmental Conservation also gave special attention to alternate practical methods in this regulatory action, as required by AS 46.03.024 The regulation changes adopted under this order take effect on the 30th day after they have been filed bythe lieutenant governor as provided in AS 44.62.180.
DATE: July 31,2007 at Juneau, Alaska

# ~~' Larry Hartig, CommisslOner Department ofEnvironmental Conservation

FILING CERTIFICATION I, SeanParnell, Lieutenant Governor for the State ofAlaska, certify that on 2007, at .....m., I filed the attached regulations according to the provisions ofAS 44.62.040 44.62.120.

Sean Parnell, Lieutenant Governor Effective: Register:

### Affidavits 1. Affidavit ofAgency Record of Public Comment 2. Affidavit of Notice of Proposed Adoption of Regulations and Furnishing ofAdditional Information 3. NewspaperAffidavits of Publication for Public Notice

### STATE OF ALASKA ) ) ss. THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT ) AFFIDAVIT OF AGENCY RECORD OF P1JBLIC COM.MENT I, Tom Turner, Environmental Program Manager for the Department ofEnvironmental Conservation, being duly sworn, state the following: In compliance with AS 44.62.215, the Department ofEnvironmental Conservation has kept a record ofits use orrejection offactual or other substantive information that was submitted in writing as public comment and that was relevant to the accuracy, coverage, or other aspect ofthe Department ofEnvironmental Conservation regulations on Air Quality Control, Guidelines for Best Available Retrofit Technology under the Regional Haze Rule.
Date: Anchorage, Alaska
Tom Turner, Environmental Program Manager SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me this ----"''''-- day of 

# n u..l.iL ,dDO 

## r;t

# ~~

# ~Cllin 

# b

# n**~rn** i

# tb [NOTARY SEAL] Notary PUblicdandfor the State ofAlaska 'll I 

### My commission expires: WUJI)

### <:t:J~**~**STATE OF ALASKA ) ) 5S. FIRSTJUDICIAL DISTRICT ) AFFIDA

### YJI.OF NOTICE OFPROPOSED ADOPTION OF REGULATIONS AND FURNISHING OF ADDITIONAL INFORMATION I, Rebecca Tyson Smith, Environmental Program Specialist, ofthe Department ofEnvironmental Conservation, being sworn, state the following: As required by AS 44.62.190, notice ofthe proposed adoption ofchanges to 18 AAC 50, adding new section 260, Guidelines for Best Available RetrofitTechnology and updating section 30 to reflect adoption ofa new section ofthe State Air Quality Control Plan to address Clean AirAct requirements has been given by being (1) published in a newspaper ortrade publication; (2) furnished to interested persons as shown on the attached list; (3) furnished to appropriate state officials; (4) furnished to the Department ofLaw, along with a copy ofthe proposed regulations; (5) electronically transmitted to incumbent State ofAlaska legislators; (6) furnished to the Legislative Affairs Agency, Legislative Library; (7) posted on the Alaska Online Public Notice System as required by AS 44.62.175(a)(1) and (b) and 44.62.190(a)(1); (8) furnished electronically, along with a copy ofthe proposed regulations, to the Legislative Affairs Agency, the chair ofthe Resources Committeesofthe Alaska Senate and House ofRepresentatives, the Administrative Regulation Review Committee, and the legislative council. As required by AS 44.62.190(d), additional regulations notice information regarding the proposed adoption ofthe regulation changes described above has been furnished to interested persons as shown on the attached list and those in (5) and (6) ofthe list above. The additional regulations notice information also has been posted on the Alaska Online Public Notice System.
DATE: 

# 25'Y!1r€ iO;Z Juneau, Alaska

SUBSCRIBED ANDSWORN TObefore me this 

### t 

## 5' day of ..) ""'-""-L**,~--,.**

State ofAlaska Mycommission expires: (..;7

# u...**D~'-<.....**TbfAirSurvey**~~-.~---~ ~------~** **~~------ ~----~--~** **-~~"-----1r~' ~~-----~~** **--~"** --­**~--~----- .-~--,~,-**  ------­ ----­**------~ ~-** 

# ~--3~-~~~3~1~~~~~~;E~----~·-~**-------~ ---~~----**  -­**'-+~:::~~~=::::'--:---- ~--c:--=.~--** **-f-=-==-:=~----~--- ---.-----~**  

### IP.o. Sox 71249 6241 I'f'I< 23rd stree(suite 500 ------+.**::;90:-:8Js~ng S1re~,**  Suite 200 PO. Box 3S005 1836 O<ehard**Pl~** 10840 Glazanof Drive

Page 1___ =rSt!te [POstaICod8 Ema1iAddress

. . =, aminm@lICU.edu Anchorage AI< 99502·1935 ! PUerto Real 50ain 11519**'rdea~Izar,es** .-- AnchCHaae AI< 99501 Scott Ballev@dec.Slate.ak,U1I

--­ Excelsior M.N-=- Stephen

### aamartt@URS~~oom 5533..1.

.. ..____' Jim Bau ,state.ak.us Shellv 8e6elGldec.staI8.ak.us AK 99501·**Obevi~_.c:om** ___. .**CoIumbU$._~** ..._ 43.201

.ekb@battei.le.oral ._ j jboc:ze. tf-airbanks
..**~_** 99101 -,. 1. I 

## -1
..- Anchornge TAl< 99518- hmh-abohnCalaska.com Anchornge AI< 99503 sbolell@alaska.net IAnchor,lll! IAI<**9951~47 boundsi~.c:om**  .__._ Anchorage iAK 99501 IIbrenaCentrlx.com I AUKE BAY
.. iAK 99821**!~.!'@alaska.com---L** Juneau fAK 99601-8707 cdbrucetl'balask.a.net Homer !AI< 99603-
. I I 

# EMil**~arj(** __**~.AK_-l~75s.** - ca.9pel1 liIIY@ararnaflt.oom ·----·-·**Elmend~~** 99506-3240 I I



## '_'

____1--

- -. d'lVe,chaput@aicUc.coml Fori Collins**C()~18()52E)_ 'christophe~:c:om**  Elmendorf AK**~.Il?06** sean:c:ockre!!@Eilmendorf.af,mil Fairhanks AI< .•_. 99706**COQkD2@alyeska-pi~line.cc?.m** I Anchoraae AI< 99503**croc1<ett@a~OIJ!.**

### --l**Anchorag~_~_ ~5Q4-'**  I

### ~~rf AFB

### :~_ :=-2200

### deve~@elmendOrf.afmil**!** 

# _-=-=- GaSilia ,.-**~---** 99654 .'**r~** _· dalCher@dec.stale.ak.us_f

___ FOrIColiins CO 80525
.**t2i11mii1lna@e.nsr:~.com** ___ .__.... Fort Wai!1Wlight AI< 9!)7.1lL. eric.michaeLejick@us.army.mii

.. ,.__.__**~neau** ,.AK**._~1-009.J.~ donohu~l1(.stale.ak,us**  + Fort**wainwri~** AI<.. 99703**aldriScoll~ainwrigh!.al!!ly,mil**

# +-----1 Fort Collins

...**~_~26 md~el\1!l@!amar.coIO$taI~e(ju** **_._** .__**~negi1l** Bay AI<
___ '99574·
_**IChene~~aOl.com .** 

___ _ __ ,Albert Faure@d€iC state.ak.us Soldotna AK 199669**..J!..~~tate.ak** us"---_-+
__

### ~d~ Ii

### ~~**~~~~~ IllJk~tIu$teeS'Or9~+**  - 

# -t=-.-
..- Ninilchik AK - . 9963S- --- 

### ----r---­**l:..itlleI2.~**__ _ 80120-5639**thgll)bons~rs.oom** 

# +=_____**Anchorn~**__ AK 99516**~@99inet** .

### L . ' u**~!i!e.£!~~** 99sn--TshalVey@mtaonline,net Juneau
...__ :A_K__**99~coll)':hildenbral'l':!.@~::::co:::m ,-,-.......,:--**  __ IHealY --**:AK---,99743---·lbhoefler@rl'le~ Ancho~-'AK---,99502-1935L_**  

## r**'--r--+---~.** 

### __ Fairbanks 'AK__**199707'1267imaY'?r~falrbanksak.US** _ i
__ Anch0r!ge 1AK**_~7 howard~Cl.anchol1lge** **a~** 

# +=---_ --l

____

## t-

__ -----rChris Kent@dec stale**ak.~**

____ __**~ku1erhach@dec staI.e~**  __ Falrhanks AK------ts9707 I ! . 

### ._-+1

___ 'Ga.,1esville FL'=E2665

__**I(jla~.@~** C(j1Tl....
_ __

### L........**~exandna_** VA**??~L** '- 

## ,----1---­ tort Wainwri AI< 99703

___I mJynch@blm.gov

. I**~.** __**~nc~e~___** 99508· 1 --:-. . ._1

____.1 -An-C-ho-ra-e-**.~ 99s07--~~a~~)I@=m**  __

# -_+._--, TbIAirS urvey

Page 2

### ------ --------

-----

----- TblAirSUlvey

# ~~I:~~--.-**~--**

# _______ i-"---' -

_____

# ____ _

# ~ 

# ----===--**-------------=-~.-.--** _ ____-1 ;=="-==..:::::.:"------
.. --- ----­

--**---~ -------.--.--~---** 

---- ---1 

### -----_. ---'-'-'-'**----£::.~~~':=;.;;;-------- ~~9U3lity**  MeteoroIO.9ist_ ---.**~=_:-=-=--=** I
..**:::c:=-------+:~=--** ____**E,,~me~mpli~** ______

---------

---**~.~---~~-** 

### -----­**---------~-- -------~----** 

.**----~~--- ----~.~-** **-----~------**
--.---

-­

______ ­ 1601**Pro~a:rk\Y~** ________

___________________**+p~.~O~·7B70XI9.~66~5~O~ .~**  _____________________+610 University A..ve

_______..**~_..** ____.. __.. __ _ 1411 W. 4TH AVENUE., STe 2
.__

_______.._____.__ ______ _ 1410 Waloughby**Av~_30~** _______

--- - IP.O**8oxS7438::::,9:c---:--~;--;** +------

_____

### ~___**_~_=_-~~j~~:~~~~~~~~~~~111800=** 6425 N. E. 175th Street

---- ------ -----"------'+'510West**ca~na'"':Ic::CO~u":rt-:.**S""u""ite,,-:,-=oo:;co;;---­**--+~:';;:.::'=:'-=-:'::..:;:::::::.-----:-::----------.-.---+--------** ----- ----- -- .. -- '-- 354 CESICEV. 2258 Central Aile., Suttel00

___**--1~P.O.** aID: 196650----------­

----- --_.- 483iTaQiestreet

______

_______ _ 6228 Nielsen

### Wa.r 3401 Mirmesotl Dn·7"·ve-,"'S-u'::-'te-3()=O:----­

_____._____**t1~ Bellai~8~ule~**  ____ ;;:-;-;---------I-
......

### ;:='-;-~**=f§ri~~~~~~=======~·-~--·-===:l~::::::::::::--------** 

# ----------**--------=====------li~:~;:,,-:~;:,,:;~~__;._:_:,_-;::-.:::_:- -------~--~.,----** **----~-**

-------- --------- .---- ---.--- PO Box 787 --- '--- --­**"'---~-- ----~**  --- IpO.Box71249

Page 3TblAjr$urvey

____ ____ \;"'''-''_**L~elus,~!.... June~._**  .._**~K. _~ay.L** **maclcinnon@acsalaS)(a.net .**  --i-!
__

# ~.-'.'.'~.'.**;~:~~6~-OOOJ!..r~~.T ~S~i~~,cQm~_.~·**  Kenai
_ _

### ~K**~~- kmccullo@.!!.9...riutl** **\.:..r~~** Kenai._
.. , ..**_h~_.~.** kmccullo@agrium.£!='"'

_ __ '_

# ~:e'**~~t :~~-~~~=t~oom~-**  

# __ Sitka !AK 99835, i •

## :~~_!l'J

# __ 3AK'---.·99503_-.1;0.

## ot!~L-.sta-~-e.-akus~f---.**~_-_.** Redmon'!.. WA 9,8052

__!d0!:!!J@envirolawl"Ni.oom :.,_ Eielso.'1AFB**~** . ,.99702_
. fzachary.mothershed. .I@!ielsonaf.mil,_, Soldotna
__**~,---l99669-05~newbouk:l@aWII,rflOOnSUlti~~!_,** ___ .

# 2.'~.i""**}l.:.~1=.~i~lnl~~** Anchoralle AK.. '99503-20.35 Resource akr!:/c,Q

___j_ Delta**Juncti()n.~** __**~J)737** Ij)'l.vpalme!@poe-"'!icom '.

___

# ~e**~i~~_ ~~2~.~**  ..

# ~.,':rt~~~~.mt"-.1

_______ .' ,__**~~a** OV !

__, .___ Fort Collins. CO 80525

__..!
.mpoar1<ins@$ecor.C<>!".

### ~:!:ka_-:--=**~A--- ::~--=-:1~~!"~~Z-** 

# '. , __

# ==-' Ancl1orajJ.e
_ AK_
.. ,_ 99510-0360i**Rand~eet@oonooop'hillil's.:EOm** ___ Juneau, '_**~_,** 

## 1!2Q1 Jl.m**Pouod@I~,s1aIe'!'S.!I.s._l _.**  __**~irrt** Paul_ AK**!9~~ s!p"aulak@~~co.m** **~ ~**  ___**Rrichin~~r,com** '1 '

## ~~:ge=.,.**~-==+~~:~~~-=. 'de~-1i-t-I~-**  

## i::--=_.

# ~~~:-'f~

# -,**1:~~ts1.** 68.

# r~"""**+-I--'~-"** Anchora2!. AK__ 9950.1_
_ SavilleYV 9i:,anchon! e.ak.u$

___ Fort**~ollins ~Q.**  80524
.**~ensr.~I!'.-'-_-,---l** Anchota911
..**~K** _ .. 99519-6650

### ISchlapiaAM@.£ianchorage,a,l<·lls Fairbanks

__ iAK
__**99.L~-----1davld~~~~dec.stlI!e,a.lcus Anchon!g.!!..._l~**  99.so 1

__ !Betty Sehol!@decstat.e<l,l<.us**.Ju~_!AK** 99801 'alan_schu1er@dec.state.ak.us
. 

### I I .- 'fathima siddeek@dec.state,ak.U5**!y~silla** ____**~AK-_'** 99687-4389 I**--L_~_ ~~.**  __ .t\K**99811-18001.~e!>ecca** Smiltl@'oi"estate.ak.u5
__ EII,gle River,_**A~.** 19,9577-a114**1'Snod.ll.l!T.@.alp;ne-meadow** __**l5.enmo~,6._~028.** 

### ...L.:::::=r 1.

___ Littleton, ., ICO**~~ wd~@3e~~,**  __ : 

# I E.;el,sooAFB_._IAK 99702·**,$tep.henstri~. eielson!!!c!l'~**  AnchOtll911.
_ AK
_ 99519-6650 Ta loll@ci.anchora911.ak.u$ 1 Anchera e .AlL...
....**Sl9~. l'11Iei1zel~~org**  T="'--+
..-_.-=--=--_-_-1 '**,6.nchora~"** AK**9951L_~mh-klhieman!il9£j.r1e!.. ~r**  __ _ Anchorag!... AK
___**99~atrbovictl@hoeftemet.com** . ___ Houston
_ TX 77072 ;denise. halliburtqrl.C9_m..

.**~,_ ._--'.!!!~** **r@dec.state.ak .us**  L**~ka~.** ____ 99840 jmtwitchell@Skagwaytra.ditio.1131.0$. _'.­ a AK. !".hoe-".!.X

__**J~_** 85018rvo@lestlaw.co"! •• J
___ L

___

__ ail! Watker@tiec.state.ak.us

.. Kodiak AK**~9615 ijriChcreek~kodiak.cooP.**  Fairbanks AK 9970.­
Page 4--- ---

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

------



### ----- TblAirSurvey**----~~-- ----~-**  - . ------­

--- ..

### _--_.

-----_.**~---** -- ---**-~-** -. ---.-- --**--t':::-:~"~c"-"=- -~---.** **--~--~.----** ------­**--~---.**

---**-----~** ..­**------.---~---.** ------ ---_._---_.._--_.**-t:;..~~~::-~-:;-------·** ---------1


### ------.

----- --._-­**--------~- ~--.---** 

PageS -1TblAir$ul'\ley

Homer Fort Collins**Se~ Cod~WY** 

### ~~::f-i~~ 

## - m

Page 6

### Response to Public Comments

### Response to Public Comments Regulation Addition to Title 18, Chapter 50 ofthe Alaska Administrative Code Guidelines for Best Available Retrofit Technology under the Regional Haze Rule Prepared by: Rebecca Smith Tom Turner Rusty Gesin The Department proposed adding a section to the Air Quality Control regulations in 18 AAC 50 to address guidelines for Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) under the Regional Haze Rule on April 27, 2007. The proposed BART regulations were public noticed on May I, 

### 2007, and the Department accepted public comments from May I, 

### 2007, through June 5,2007. The Department held a public workshop on May 29, 2007, following a request from the BART Coalition. A public hearing was held on May 31, 2007; however, no comments were received atthe public hearing. This document responds to comments received during the comment period, including comments made at the public workshop held on May 29, 2007. The Department received written comments from the following: A) BART Coalition, by Marilyn Crockett, May 10,2007 B) BART Coalition, by Matthew Cohen, May 17,2007 C) Tesoro Alaska Co., Kenai Refinery (Tesoro), June 4,2007 D) Anchorage Municipal Light & Power (ML&P), June 4, 2007 E) Prince William Sound Regional Citizens' Advisory Council (PWSRCAC), June 4,2007 F) ConocoPhillips Alaska Inc., Kenai LNG Plant (Conoco), June 5, 2007 G) National Park Service, on behalfofNational Park Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and U.s. Forest Service (collectively the Federal Land Managers (FLMs», June 5, 2007 H) BART Coalition, by Marilyn Crockett, June 5, 2007 I) Alyeska Pipeline Service Company (Alyeska), June 5, 2007 J) Agrium Kenai Nitrogen Operations (Agrium), June 5, 2007 The Department received oral comments at the Public Workshop on May 29, 2007 from: A) Al Trbovich, Hoefler Consulting Group B) Bob Price, ML&P C) Brad Thomas, Alyeska D) Chris Drechsel, Tesoro E) Matt Cohen, Heller Ehrman F) Marilyn Crockett, Alaska Oil and Gas Association G) Michelle Grzybowksi, Tesoro H) Bud Rice, National Park Service (NPS) I) Ann Mebane, Forest Service (Wyoming)

Response to Comments BART Regulations 7-25-07 lof29J) Bruce Polko\vsky, NPS (Colorado) K) Tim Allen, Fish and Wildlife Service (Colorado) L) Andrea Blakesley, NPS (Denali) M) Ken Richmond, GeoMatrix (Bothel, Washington) N) John Vimont, NPS (Colorado) 0) John Notar, 1\PS (Colorado) P) Kristy McCullough, Agrium Q) Tom Gibbons, Steigers Corporation In addition the following state staffattended the May 29,2007, workshop: A) Tom Turner, Alaska Department ofEnvironmental Conservation (DEC) B) John Kuterbach, DEC C) Tom Chapple, DEC D) Rebecca Smith. DEC E) Lindsay Wolter, Office ofthe Attorney General Further clarification was requested and provided by: A) Steve Body, EPA Region 10 B) Tim Allen, NPS Structure ofResponse to Comments The public comments were received in various formats, in advance ofthe public workshop and at the close ofthe comment period. Most comments were similar in nature or \vere centered on common issues. The affected BART sources formed a coalition group to represent their common Issues. The members ofthe BART Coalition are Tesoro, Alyeska, Anchorage Municipal Light and Pmver, Agrium, and ConocoPhillips. The BART Coalition sent comments through a letter from Matt Cohen on May 17,2007, and later requested a public workshop to assist with clarification ofregulation interpretation, prior to the close ofthe comment period. Many ofthe proposed changes to the regulations presented in the BART Coalition's May 17,2007, letter by Matt Cohen were clarified through discussions at the May 29, 2007, public workshop. The BART Coalition also provided comments in a second letter on June 5, 2007. Their letter stated "This letter supplements and updates comments previously submitted by the Coalition via Matt Cohen's letter to John Kuterbach ofMay 17,2007, and the public workshops on April 3 and May 29, 2007." The June 5, 2007, BART Coalition letter provided a different redline version ofthe proposed regulations than was submitted with the May 17,2007, letter. All ofthe individual letters and comments from BART Coalition members referenced support for the June 5, 2007, letter from Marilyn Crockett representing the BART coalition. The department considered the proposed changes to the regulations presented by the BART Coalition, as well as comments received from other parties, both written

Response to Comments BART Regulations 7-25-07 20f29

### comments received as e-mails and letters and oral comments made during the public workshop. Numerous comments focused on the timetable to complete the BART determination process in order to meet federal deadlines for the State Implementation Plan (SIP) for Regional Haze. The Response to Comments will first address the general comments on the timetable and then address other common issues and redline regulations as presented in BART Coalition's June 5, 2007, letter and attachment. Finally, other comments and additional issues from the public, not included in the BART Coalition's letters, will be addressed as detailed below. The comments and proposed changes centered on the following issues: • Time-table to complete BART Process and meet Federal Deadlines; • Visibility Impacts AnalysislModeling: o Original WRAP modeling shortfalls; o Ability to use 98th 

### percentile; o Issues with the modeling results summary; • Owner requested limits; • Definitions; • Permit Mechanism to Implement BART; and • Other specific comments on individual issues. The department will make some revisions to the regulations to address comments and concerns from the BART Coalition. Other suggested changes were contrary to comments provided by the Federal Land Managers (FLMs). Since states are required under the Clean Air Act and the BART regulations to consult with the FLMs in developing Class I visibility programs, the department gave deference to the FLM recommendations unless there was a clear inconsistency with Federal andJor State rule. Responses to comments are found below.


### Comment A: Related to Timetable for the BART Element ofSIP Process The majority ofthe comments were related to the timetable ofthe BART SIP process. The BART Coalition and the sources commented that the timeframes proposed were not achievable. Sources will need more time to complete every step ofthe process. Comments requested that the department should provide adequate time to do each step. Anchorage Municipal Light and Power (ML&P) commented that they are particularly concerned about the schedule due to the need to incorporate BART determinations into their long-term generation plan. ML&P recommended that adequate time for BART analysis preparation include department review and determination. The BART Coalition letters included specific increases In 

### the timeline in suggested changes to the proposed regulations.

Response to Comments

- BART Regulations 7-25-07 30f29ResponseA: TimetableforBARTElement of 

### SIPProcess The department will revise the regulations to allow more timefor certain steps in the BART**ana~vsis**process, including adjusting timelines to reflect deadlines occurring after department approval of submittals. However, sorne of the timelines**~·t'ill** not be extendedasfar as requested in comments. To grant the entire timetable as requested woulddelay implementation of the BARTdeterminationprocess in a timely manner, contrary tofederal requirements. The BARTregulations are only oneportion of the State Implementation Plan (SIP)for RegionalHa:::e. Basedon even the most ambitious schedule for completion of the BART process, Alaska willfail to meet the EPA Regional Haze State Implementation Plan deadline of December 17, 2007. Therefore, it is necessary for the department to demonstrate to EPA that our regulations will result in continuedprogress on the BART anal,vsis anddeterminationprocess so that a complete RegionalHaze SIP may be submitted to EPA as expeditiously aspossible. Outlining a timetable that meetsfederal requirementsfor the BARTelement of the 51P andaccountsfor the m}'riadlogistical elements to complete the BART process from exemption modeling through BARTanalysis tofinal determination will be a challenge for allparties involved A BARTtimetahleprocess map has heen included for reference. (Seepage 21) (Please note: the BART process begins on the effective date of the regulations. It does not include the current time that is requiredforstate reviewprocedllresfollowing adoption by the department. The department does recognize andappreciate current ejJorts of BARTCoalition members tofacilitate theprocess though advancedmodeling protocolsubmission.) 

## If

all the timeline adjustments to the regulations that**~vere**proposedduring the commentperiodwere inc01porated, the time to complete the BART process before it could be included in the State Implementation Plan sllbmittal (SIP) is estimated to be 24 to 30 months after the ejJcLtive date of regulations. Thefinal RegionalHa-z.e SIP submittal 'rvill require at least an additional 9 months. A timeline of this length is unacceptable andcouldresult in the EnvironmentalProtectionAgency considering the promulgation of a Federal Implementation Plan (F1P). AllBARTSources indicatedthe SIP was thepreferredregulatoryprocess over a FIP. The BART process in other states was completed in similar timeframes to those proposed in the department regulations. Several otherstates**~vere**polledconcerning their BARTtimeframes. New Jersey, Colorado, North Dakota, andKansas responded, stating their rules and/orprocesses allow 

### 6 months for eligible sources to submitBART analyses. The State of AlaskaproposedBARTregulations andassociatedtimeframes are not unreasonable. The proposedAlaska BARTregulations wouldallow 180-210 daysfor submittal of a BARTanalysis. To balance the many challenges of the SIP requirements, the regulations have been revised to include deadlinesfor the various steps of theprocess. ADEC feels that it isfair andreasonable to make allparties accountable**~\'ithin** the BART process. This

Response to Comments

-- BART Regulations 7-25-07 40f29includes deadlinesfor delivel}' ofinformationFom the sources andfor approvalsFom the department. The regulations have been revised to set a deadlinefor having the BART process completedwithin 

### 18 months, assuming a source subject to the rule undertakes each step of theprocess leading to a BARTdetermination. Options areprovided jaran expeditedtime completion for BARTaffectedsources. It is important to recognize that in order to complete the BARTtimetable, the regulations requiredadjustment in some areas andclear deliverable times in otherareas. Additionally, in 

### 18AAC50.260(b), the deadline for the department to notify the sources that they are**su~ject** to BARThas been reduced from theproposed 10 days to 

### 5 days. The department has already notifiedall sources that are**su~ject** to BARTof the status; in order to expedite the BART process timeline, the department concluded that an additional 

### 5 days at that step in theprocess tvas not necessat}'. 

### Comments B thru J are from the BART Coalition letter, June 5, 2007. An attachment included with the letter provided a redline version ofsuggested changes to the BART regulations. Comment B: Timetable for Exemption Modeling "18 AAC 50.260(c) Subsection (c) outlines the procedure for a source to request an exemption from BART on grounds that its emissions do not cause or contribute to visibility impairment. We propose an edit to paragraph (c)(1)(C) to set the deadline for submittal ofan exemption modeling report 60 days after the Department approves a modeling protocol for the visibility impact analysis. At the May 29, 2007, workshop Coalition representatives explained that the Department appropriately demands the opportunity to review and approve a modeling protocol, and that there is no way to conduct the modeling until that approval is obtained. We incorporate by reference our comments on this issue during the May 29,2007, workshop." 

### Comment B: Attachment

- Redline Suggested Change: Timetable for Exemption Modeling "260(c)(1)(C) submit the visibility impact analysis report, including all supporting documentation, to the department no later than 60 days after the department approves a modeling protocol for the visibility impact analysis (effective date ojreg1:d£ltions) ;" 

### ResponseB: Timetable/or Exemption Modeling: The department agrees that having reports due afterapproval ofa modeling protocolprovides a deadline and providesfor the ability to complete the necessary ·work. It is reasonable that sources wouldbe hesitant to invest in conducting modeling runs H'ithout an approval from the department. A deadline will ensure that the BART process willstay on track to satisJY federal requirements. In the BARTprocess, it is reasonable to include deadlines for both the sources and the department in order to satisjj,federal time requirements as notedin commentA.

Response to Comments

- BART Regulations 7-25-07 50[29Sources may choose to avoid the expense and time to undertake exemption model in lieu of submitting a BARTanalJ'sis upon the effective date of regulations. A modeling protocol will be requiredfor theBARTana(I-'sis. J8 AAC50.260 (d) will be revisedto addclarif)' to thisprocess. ResponseB: RegulationsRevision: Timetablefor Exemption !lfodeling The regulations will be revisedat 

### 18AA

### C 50.260 (c) to reflect afinite schedule for exemption modeling. 18 AAC50.260(c)(J)(A) willshorten the notification requirement from sources who are/willperform exemption jarmodeling to 1() days. The majority of the sources have already startedwork on exemptions modeling. A simple notification lvill not require 30 days. 18AAC50.260(c){J

### HE) will be revised to reflect a deadline of 30daysfor submitting modelingprotocols, and260(c)(2) will be revisedtoprovide{ora department approval in 30 daysJollowing the submittal. The regulations at 260(c)(3)(B) }Fill be revised to reflect that the visibility impact analysis report 'will be due 60 days ajter the department approves a modelingprotocol submission. In addition, the regulations will al101vfor a 90da:}' submission 

## if the modelingprotocol is approvedprior to the effective date of the regulations. This change reflects the efforts that are current(v inprogressji-om Coalition members on modeling protocolandcomments requesting more time to run the modelingprogram. In addition, the regulations section 260(d) will addlanguage to clarify that sources can modelforBARTanalysis {fa source does not choose to undertake exemption modeling. Comment C: Owner Requested Limits (ORL) "We propose a new paragraph (c)(3) to enable a source seeking to avoid the BART requirement to request an owner-requested limit or limits to ensure that its emissions do not cause or contribute to visibility impaimlent in a Class I area. At the May 29, 2007, workshop John Kuterbach commented that an owner-requested limit under 18 AAC 50.225 could be used to achieve this goal. Paragraph (c) (3) implements that suggestion." Comment C: Attachment - Redline Suggested Change: Owner Requested Limits (ORL) "260(c)(3) request for exemption may include an application under 18 AAC 50.225 for owner-requested limits that reduce the visibility impact ofa BART eligible source to levels at which the BART-eligible source is not reasonably anticipated to cause or contribute to any visibility impaimlent in a Class I area identified in the notice provided under (b) ofthis section. The department's decision to approve an exemption may include a letter approving the owner-requested limit, per 18 AAC 50.225(£)."

Response to Comments

- BART Regulations 7-25-07 60f29

### Response C: 

### OwnerRequestedLimits (ORL) The department will addlanguage to theproposedregulations to clarify the use of

### 18AAC50.225 to allaw exemption to BARTeligible sources. Owner requestedlimits arepart of department regulations in 

### 18AAC50.225. These regulation options are available to an}' source that makes the choice to limit emissions. In addition to the BARTCoalition letter, comments receivedduring thepublic workshop indicatedthat the application of

### 18AAC50.225 to the BART process were not clear to all affected parties. A source may take an owner requested limit to avoidBARTanalysis andthen be exempt from the BARTdeterminationprocess. Additional regulations language has been includedto ensure that the source's obligation toperform aBARTanalysis will still apply should it choose to revise the ORL at some future date. Theproposed regulations will alsoprovide a deadline of 30 daysfor sources to request an ORL. (Please reference CommentA). The department approval within 30 daysfor an ORL exists in the cun"ent regulations under 

### 18AAC50.225. 

### Response C: 

### Regulations Revision: OwnerRequestedLimits (ORL) Section 260(c)(5) is revised to clarifY the applicability of

### 18AAC50.225 to BART sources. The ORL submittal is required in 30 days. Please note: the revision also 'will 

### allow an ORL submittal within 30 days after the effective date of regulationsfor those who choose to not undertake exemption modeling or 30 days after receiving DEC's determination that the results of the exemption modeling do not qualifY for an exemption of the BARTDetermination. Section 260(c)(6) shmvs the BARTobligation shouldthe ORL be rescindedor removed. Section 260(c)(8) adds language to allow exemptionfor either a visibility impact**ana~vsis** 

### or owner requested limit. Comment D: Timetable for BART Analysis "18 AAC 50.260(d) Subsection (d) sets a deadline for sources subject to BART to submit a BART control technology analysis. The Coalition's edits address three shortcomings in the proposed rule. First, subsection (d) ofthe proposed rule forces a source that applies for an exemption to develop a BART control technology analysis while the exemption application is pending. This schedule is inefficient and wasteful because the BART control technology analysis will not be needed ifthe Department grants the exemption application. Attachment A, subsection (d), solves this problem by starting the clock for submittal ofa BART control technology report upon receipt ofthe Department's decision denying an exemption. It

### provides no deferral for a source that does not apply for an exemption.

Response to Comments BART Regulations 7-25-07 70f29A second concern with proposed 18 AAC 50.260(d) is that it does not provide time for the Department to review and approve a visibility modeling protocol for a source analyzing alternative BART control strategies. A BART control technology analysis requires its own modeling exercise, different from the exemption modeling perfonned by WRAP or the source. Per EPA's BART Guideline, "Step 5" in a BART control technology analysis consists ofmodeling "to detennine the visibility improvement expected at a Class I area from the potential BART control technology applied to the source." The Guideline directs the State to develop a modeling protocol for this analysis, but acknowledges that "States have the authority to require source owners to assume part ofthe analytical burden
... " Given that the control technology modeling protocol includes detailed source-specific infonnation, including infonnation about what control scenarios to model, the Coalition recommends that the Department call on the sources to model visibility improvements as part oftheir BART control technology submittals, using a protocol approved by the Department. Ourproposed edits to subsection (d) add a requirement that each source subject to BART will submit a modeling protocol, and it directs the sources to submit completed control technology analyses within 180 days after the Department approves the modeling protocol. Finally, as we discussed at the May 29, 2007, workshop, 180 days is very little time to complete a BART control technology analysis. The contents ofthat analysis, per the EPA BART Guideline, include several challenging tasks. First, the source must conduct an engineering analysis to identify technically feasible control options for NOx, S02 and PM. Second, the source must prepare cost estimates for each ofthose control options. The estimates typically will require third party vendor support, because most control devices must be engineered to fit the configuration ofthe source, and an owner/operator cannot rely on back-of-the-envelope cost estimates to choose between controls that may be imposed as BART. Third, the source must model the visibility improvement attributable to different control strategies. For a source with many BARTeligible emission units, some internal review and consultation with the Department will be requiredjust to identify the set ofcontrol options to model. Finally, the source must obtain management approval for submittal ofa report to the Department that identifies a proposed set ofcontrols as BART. Where BART controls involve significant capital investments, the process ofobtaining corporate approval for a particular set of investments requires management briefing and approval. For all ofthese reasons, the Coalition believes that 180 days from approval ofa modeling protocol is a minimal time frame to develop a BART control technology analysis. We are including in our proposed edits a new subsection (p) to 18 AAC 50.260, authorizing the Department to extend submittal deadlines for good cause demonstrated." Comment D: Attachment - Redline Suggested Change: Timetable for BART Analysis "260(d) No later than -h:W-60 days after the later of reflective date of regulations) or the department's denial ofa request for exemption under (c) ofthis section, the owner or operator ofeach source subject to BART shall submit to the department a visibility impact modeling protocol, consistent with (g) ofthis section, to analyze the visibility

Response to Comments

- BART Regulations 7-25-07 80f29improvement expected at a Class Jarea from one or more potential BART control technologies. No later than 180 days after approval ofa modeling protocol the owner or operator shall submit an analysis ofcontrol options consistent with Section IV ofthe BART guideline." 

### Response D: TimetableforBART Analysis There are several timetable issues relatedto the BARTanalysis. Anydelays in the earlypart of theprocess can be compoundedb}' subsequent timetable issues. As notedin commentA, the department did review otherstates'BART**ana~l'sis** 

### time, which ranged from 90 to 180 days. Theproposedregulations allmv 180 daysfor BART analysis. 

### If

a sourceperforms exemption modeling but the exemption is denied, then it 

### is reasonable that the source has the advantage of base model runs with limited modification for the BARTanalysis. However,for the sources that have the advantage of 4 monthperiodfor exemption modeling, the BARTanalysis andthe modelingforsuch willneedto be completedwith the J 

### 80 days upon denial of the BARTexemption. It is reasonable that a source that does not extendthe timetable though exemption modeling andproceed, directly to BARTanalysis shouldbe allowedthe opportunity to provide a modelingprotocol andhave time for the department review. The regulations will be revisedtoprovide those sources the time to model for BARTAnalysis. The April 27, 

### 2007proposedregulations didnotprovide a deadlinefor the department to approve the BARTanalysis. The regulations will be revL)'ed to require the department to complete a draft BARTdeterminationforpublic notice within J 

### 20days. 

### Re$ponse D: Regulation Revision: TimetableforBARTAnalysis The April 27, 

### 2007, regulations have been revisedas follows: Section (k) has been revised to include language for the department to complete the BARTdetermination in 120 days. Section (e) has been revised to read: (e) Forpurposes o.fanalyzing the visibility impactFompotentialBARTcontrol technologies, the owner or operator of each source subject to BARTshallsubmit to the department an analysis of control options consistent with Section IVof the BARTguideline; (1) 

### no later than 210 days after the latter of {effective date of tile regulations} or notification under (b) of this section for an mvner oroperator who didnotsubmit an exemption modelingprotocol under (G)(1) 

### of this section: or (2) no later than J 

### 80 days after the denial of an exemption request submittedunder (c) of this section.

Response to Comments

- BART Regulations 7-25-07 90f29Comment E: Identical Modeling Approach "18 AAC 50.260(g) Subsection (g) describes the mandatory elements ofa visibility impaet analysis. This subsection applies to both exemption modeling and control technology improvement modeling. For that reason, the Coalition proposes to add a few words to paragraph (g)(l) to clarify that the requirement to "use an identical modeling approach for comparing the pre-control and post-control impacts" applies only to control technology improvement modeling. not to exemption modeling." Comment E: Attachment - Redline Suggested Change: Identical Modeling Approach "260(g)(1) use an identical modeling approach for comparing the pre-control and post-control impacts ofpotential BART control technologies;" ResponseE: IdenticalIl-fodelingApproach The department agrees 'rvith theproposedrevision. Clarification for exemption modeling andBARTanaZrsis modeling is required. ResponseE: Regulation Revision: IdenticalModelingApproach Section 260(h)(l) will be revisedwith the suggestedregulation language. Comment F: Use ofthe Word "Maximum" "Paragraph (2) provides guidanee on modeling the visibility impacts ofa source, and ofproposed controls applied to a source. The Coalition strongly urges the Department to delete the word "maximum" from this paragraph. The proposal to use the maximum daily visibility impact, as opposed to the 98th percentile impact, as the measure ofa source's impacts on visibility conflicts with the EPA BART Guideline, and would grossly exaggerate a source's contribution to visibility impairment. The Coalition incorporates by reference the comments we provided on this issue in our May 17,2007 letter and at the May 29,2007 workshop." Comment F: Attachment - Redline Suggested Change: Use ofthe Word "Maximum" "260(g)(2) determine the maximum change in visibility impacts (in daily deciviews) compared to the annual average default natural visibility condition as listed in Guidance for Estimating Natural Visibility Conditions Under the RegionalHaze Rule, EPA-454/B-03-005, September 2003, adopted by reference, at each Class I area identified in the notice under (b) ofthis section." Response F: Use of the Word "iMaximum" The use (lthe 'Yliord "maximum" in 

### 18AAC50.260(g)(2), which is nm1/ 18AAC 50.260(h)(2J, refers to the maximum change in visibility betweenpre- andpostBARTcontrol technologies, not to 'he cause andcontribute thresholdevaluatedaspart of the subject to BARTdeterminations. In the context, "maximum" is a relative measure of 'he effectiveness of the controls. not of the effect oflhe sources 011 the Class 1areas.

Response to Comments

- BART Regulations 7-25-07 100f29Due to the need for the regulations to indicate what degree of change be[}'v'een control options must be consideredaspart of the BARTanalysis, the u'ordmaximum will stay in the regulations, The department recognizes that the "vord "maximum" may create some confusing orperceivedoutcome. The revisedregulations will addclarification language in section (h)(2) anda definitionfor "maximum change" as it is referenced in the BARTregulations, 

### Response F: Regulations Revision: Use of the Word ",Maximum" To assist with clarification, section 260(h)(2) has been revisedanda definition of "maximum change" will be addedto 

### 18AAC50.990 to clarify the regulations. 

### Comment G: Reference to the "VRAP RMC BART Modeling For Alaska, Draft #7 "Paragraph (3) specifies guidelines for acceptable modeling protocols. In paragraph (3)(A) the Coalition does not object to adoption ofthe CALMET/CALPUFF Protocol for BART Exemption Screening Analysis for Class I Areas in the Western United States. We propose for three reasons to strike the reference to the WRAP RMC BART Modeling For Alaska, Draft #7. First, the WRAP document is not modeling guidance, nor does it contain any modeling guidance. 

### It simply reports the results ofan exemption modeling exercise performed by a WRAP contractor. Second, a source conducting its own modeling would have no occasion to apply the modeling guidelines used by WRAP. Ifthose guidelines produced an acceptable result the source would not be proposing to conduct its own exemption modeling. Third, the WRAP modeling exercise contains many prejudicial errors, outlined in detail in the Coalition's May 17, 2007 letter and Attachment D to that letter. The Department should not incorporate into its rules a modeling exercise that contains as many serious errors as WRAP Draft #7, especially when the only purpose for which the Department employed the WRAP study was to identify sources potentially subject to BART." 

### Comment G: Attachment

- Redline Suggested Change: Reference to the WRAP RMC BART Modeling For Alaska, Draft#7 "260(g)(3) be conducted in a manner consistent with either: (A) the August 15, 2006 CALMETICALPUFFProtocol for BARTExemption ScreeningAnalysisfor Class 1Areas in the Western UnitedStates, 

### adopted by reference, as amended 

### by the S7::UnmtH),ofWRAP RhfCBARTModelingfor 

### ,lJ.eska, Draft #7, April 6, 2007, adopted 

### by reference; or" 

### Response G: Reference to the WRAPRMCBARTModeling ForAlaska, Draft #7 The department 

### ,vil/keep the reference in the regulations, First, the WRAP "document" was the approvedreference at the time of the modeling. The WRAP modelingprotocol was approvedbyEPA andthe FederalLandManagers (FLMs) and was conductedwith the data available at the time of the modeling run. The changes made to the WRAPprotocol (as approvedfor all WRAP states) were necessary to account for only having only oneyear of meteorological data available forAlaska. WRAP reran the modeling to account for some of the errors notedearly in thepublic process, andthe Summary, Draft 

### #7 document reflects thm;e corrections. During the

Response to Comments

- BART Regulations 7-25-07 110[29public workshop, the FLMs confirmedandclar!fied thisprocess in response to comments andquestions. Second. regarding the statement that no source usingDraft 7, the BARTCoalition may be zmmvareA(veska has hada modelingprotocol discussion with the department that indicatedthat they may be able to exempt out of BARTrequirements by using the Draft 7protocols with updatedemission unit data. It is important that the department andthe regulations allow for as many options available to all sources. The Summary of WRAP RMCBARTModelingforAlaska, Draft #7, April 6, 2007, must be incorporated b}' reference along with the CALMETICALPUFFProtocolforBARTExemption ScreeningAna(vsis for Class IAreas in the Western UnitedStates, August 15, 2006, because any visibility impact analysis conducted using the WRAPprotocol must use exactly the modifications andsettings usedby WRAP as detailed in the summary in order to be approved by the department and the FLMs, with thepossible exception of using correctedemission rates. This is the case H·ith Alyeska. With regard to the errors in the Draft 7modeling, the department recognizes that new data may be available andthat errors in the original modelingprotocol may need to be corrected. The April 27, 2007, proposedregulations didprovide the ability to correct errors andprovide new data (such as MM5) though submittal of a modelingprotocol under (h)(3)(B). The revised regulationsfor modeling demonstration are now found at (h)(3)(B). The modelingprotocol is the appropriate mechanism to correct errors in Draft 7. The department is hesitant to be overlyprescriptive, but it need.) to allow for a modeling protocol that is approval b}' thefederallandmanagers andEPA while also allowing for correction of errors andnew data sets. The EPA BART Guidelines allow for states to consider all BART-eligible sources as subject to BARTwithout conducting impact modeling. DECaffirms that the WRAP modeling was conductedin an attempt to show that sources might not be subject to BART. However, the results of the modeling (as approvedand run) indicated that all the sources were determined by the modeling to be causing or contributing to impairment of visibility. Response G: RegulationsRevision: Reference to the WRAPRMCBARTModeling ForAlaska, Draft #7 The department will not remove the adoption by reference of the summary documentfrom the regulations. Comment H: Monitoring "18 AAC 50.260(n) Subsection (n) incorporates requirements from 40 CFR 51.308(e)(l)(v) to ensure that control equipment installed to comply with BART is maintained and operated. The Coalition urged the Department to strike paragraph (2): "conduct monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting that complies with 18 AAC 50.220 and that demonstrates compliance or noncompliance with the BART requirements under

Response to Comments

- BART Regulations 7-25-07 120[29all operational conditions." First, the requirement that monitoring demonstrate compliance "under all operational conditions" has no basis in 40 CFR 51.308 or the BART Guideline. The Guideline rejects the idea that the federal definition ofemission standard or the BART rules "necessarily require the use ofcontinuous emissions monitoring
... " Second, subsection (i) ofthe proposed rule addresses monitoring requirements in a manner consistent with the BART Guideline. Subsection (i) fully covers the monitoring requirements ofthe BART Guideline and paragraph (n)(i) says everything that the BART Guideline or40 CFR 51.308 require about operation and maintenance ofcontrol equipment." 

### Comment H: Attachment - Redline Suggested Change: Monitoring "260(n) The owner or operator ofa source required to install control equipment to comply with the BART detennination shall: (1) maintain the control equipment and establish procedures to ensure such equipment is properly operated and maintained; ttf1fl (2) conduct monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting that complies "'lith 18 AAC 50.220 and that demonstrates compliance or noncompliance with the BART requirements under all operational conditions." 

### ResponseH: ,Monitoring The department will revise the regulation. Per40 CFR 51.308(e), the department mustsubmit an implementationplan that contains emission limits representing BART for each BART-eligible source that may reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute to any impairment of**visibili~y** in any mandatory Class 1areas. Emission limits are meaningless 

### if there are no methods for**ver~fying** that the source can comply with those limits. IncOlporating a monitoring, recordkeeping, andreporting (A1R&R) requirement is therefore appropriate andconsiSTent with the department ',,; standardpractice of establishing MR&R requirements to verifj' emission limit compliance in all otherpermit mechanisms. Demonstrating compliance under all operating conditions does not necessarily require the use of continuous emissions monitoring. in many situations, sources can demonstrate compliance under a worst-case condition to show that they can also comply when operating under allother conditions. SurrogaTe measures can also be usedin some cases to demonstrate compliance with an emission limit. For example, the maximum fuel rate andmaximum fuel sulfurcontent couldbe used to demonstrate compliance with a sulfurdioxide (S02) emission limit. 

### ResponseH: Regulation Revision: Monitoring In review of these comments, the department notedThat thefinal BART determination includes a MR&Rfinding. Therefore, there vvas no needto establish the MR&Rparameters in 

### 18AAC50.260(0j(2)

- a simple reference to thefinal determination is all that is needed. (Please note that this section is now found at (0) in theproposedregulations). The department has revisedsubparagraph (2) to read: "conduct the monitoring, recordkeeping, andreporting methods containedin thefinal BARTdetermination. "

Response to Comments

- BART Regulations 7-25-07 13 of29Comment I: Timetable: Extension "For all ofthese reasons, the Coalition believes that 180 days from approval ofa modeling protocol is a minimal time frame to develop a BART control technology analysis. We are including in our proposed edits a new subsection (p) to 18 AAC 50.260, authorizing the Department to extend submittal deadlines for good cause demonstrated." Comment I: Attachment

- Redline Suggested Change: Extension "260(p) The department may extend the deadline for submittal ofany filing required by this section upon a satisfactory showing that an extension isjustified." 

### ResponseI: Timetable: Extension The Department understands that due to theperceivedlimited time to go through the BART process that this change rna}' be desirable. The addition of anotherstep for approval ordisapproval only opens the doorfor additional work effort on allparties directed**tm1;ard~** 

### extension approvals rather than accomplishment of the task. The revisedtimetable, including department delivel)' times, provides a reasonable assurance of communication with the BARTsources andtask completion. {f through thisprocess it is apparent, that despite the best efforts more time is required, the department can consider extension on case by 

### case basis. BARTdeterminations must be includedas Title V permit terms andconditions. Therefore, the adoption by reference of 40 CFR ParI 71 

### in 18

### AAC 

### 50.040(j) shouldcover any necessary extension of time limits under thepermit application requirementsfound in 40 CFR 71,5(aj{2) and40 CFR 71.5(b). 

### ResponseI: Regulation ReJ'is;on: Timetable: Extension The Department 

### 'will not revise the regulations by adding 260(p). Please see the timetable discussions in responseA. Comment 

### J: Definitions "18 AAC 50.990 The Coalition proposes edits to two definitions presently contained in 18 AAC 50.990 to reconcile differences bef\..veen the definitions in that section and in 40 CFR 51.301. We propose to update the state definition of"impairment ofvisibility" to match the current EPA definition for all purposes for which the term is used in 18 AAC ch. 50. We propose an edit to the existing state definition of "reconstruct"!"reconstruction" to clanfy that the definition used in the regional haze program differs slightly from the definitions used in the NSPS and MACT programs." Comment 

### J: Attachment

- Redline Suggested Change: Definitions "18 AAC 50,990(47) is amended to read as follows: (47) "impairment ofvisibility" or visibility impaimlent means any humanly perceptible change in visibility such as (light extinction, visual range, contrast or coloration), from that which would have existed under natural conditions." "18 AAC 50.990(88) is amended to read as follows: (88) "reconstruct" and "reconstruction" have the meaning given "reconstruction" in 440 C.F.R. 63.2, adopted by reference in 18 AAC 50.040, except that for purposes of 18 AAC 50.260 "reconstruction" has the meaning given in 40 C.F.R. 51.301."

Response to Comments BART Regulations 7-25-07 140f29

### Response J: 

### Definitions The department agrees. Definitions will needto be consistent with the EPA and clarify terms as they relate to the BARTregulations. 

### ResponseJ: 

### Regulation Revision: Definitions Definitions will be revised to reflect a more complete definition of impairment of visibility andto include a specific clarification of the definition of reconstructionfor purposes of18

### AAC50.260. Comments from BART Coalition and Public workshop not addressed above: Comment K: Comments related to Permit Mechanism to Implement BART The BART Coalition proposed in the May 17,2007, Matt Cohen letter that the BART detenninations should be enforced through a minor pennit, not the sources' operating, or Title Y, pennits. During the Public Workshop, questions were asked to clarify the pennit mechanism for BART. 

### ResponseK: Comments relatedto PermitMechanism to Implement BART The BARTdeterminations are applicable requirements of the CleanAirAct and therefore must be includedas Title V permit conditions. The BARTdeterminations must be incorporatedinto a source's Title V permit. Therefore, the department will not to use minorpermits to implementBART. of minorpermits is not laidout infederalBART rules orguidance. Comment L: Use of98th 

### Percentile in Modeling The BART Coalition and the sources commented during the public workshop and referenced in the May 17,2007. Matt Cohen letter that the regulations should follow the BART Guidelines exactly, including using the 98th 

### percentile for visibility impact analysis, including the exemption modeling. 

### ResponseL: Use of981h 

### Percentile inModeling This issue was clarifiedthough questions during thepublic workshop. The April 27, 2007, proposedregulations allow for the use of the 98th

### percentile in the submittal of modelingprotocol in 260(g){3)(B). (Please note the adoptedregulation section is (h)(3)(B) with no language change.) The meteorologicaldata that was available atthe timefor the WR4P modeling was insufficient to allow the use of the 98th

### percentile value. This was notedb.v thefederal landmanagers**(FL.M~)during** 

### thepublic workshop. The regulationsprovide for alternative modelingprotocols to 

### be submittedandapproved. The alternate modeling protocols wouldbe alloH'edto use the 98th

### percentile value [f

### there is sufficient meteorologicaldata that has been apprm'ed for use available at the time theprotocol is submitted. The regulations othenvise were written tofollmv the federalguidelines.

Response to Comments**~** BART Regulations 7-25-07 150f29

### In consultation Hith thefederal/andmanagers (FLiHs) andthe EPA, the decision has been made that sources submitting alternate modelingprotocols under 

### 18AA

### C 50.260(h)(3) may be a/lo),vedto use the 981h

### percentile value 

## if the FLMs, EPA, and department have approvedthe results of the MM5 data set andany alternate modeling protocols.
Comments from other interested parties: Comment M: f'ederal Land Managers: Timetable The National Park Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the U.S. Forest Service wrote a combined letter supporting the approach DEC is taking with BART regulations. They supported the department's April 27, 2007, proposed regulations. However, they also provided some suggested language changes to the regulations to clarifY timetable issues: 260(c)(1)(B): Add "upon ADEC approval ofmodeling protocols" after "
..visibility impact analysis" and before "in accordance with (g)(3)
..." 260(d): Add "or 120 days after ADEC makes a final determination that BART is required" after"
...effective date ofthe regulations" and before "the owner or operator... " 

### ResponseM: FederalLandllfanagers: Timetable The department acknmvledges the support of thefederal landmanagers in the proposedapproach to BARTregulations. The department has revised the regulations to include language similar to the suggestedchange.<; in order to clarify timing issues as notedin the department's responses to commentsA andB. Comment 

### l\': Comments to include other pollutants The department requested comments on whether Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) and ammonia (NH3) should be included into the BART regulations. They were not proposed in the April 27, 2007, regulations. Tesoro, Agrium, and Alyeska submitted comments that VOCs and ammonia should not be included as pollutants ofconcern for purposes ofBART. All sources commented that they are taking steps to control or capture the VOC and ammonia emissions. Sources reference modeling runs (provided by the source or sensitivity analysis run by WRAP) that show the VOC and ammonia emissions also have little impact on regional haze in Class 1 areas. 

### Re[}ponseN: Comments relatedto otherpollutants The department .viIl not be including VOCs andNH3 aspollutants ofconcernfbr purposes of BARTasproposed in the April 

### 27, 2007, regulations. WR4P conductedammonia sensitivity tests with concentrations ofNH 3 

### from 0.1 ppb to ]0ppb. The WRAP run includedupdateddatafromAgrium. The sensitivity test showedthat there .'vas not a signfficant difference in the effect on visibilitJ' impairment among the modeled levels ofNH3, which indicates that the Nfl} being releasedby the

Response to Comments BART Regulations 7-25-07 160f29

### Agriumplant also is not like!.v to 

### have a significant effect on visibility impairment at the Class Iareas. Therefore, Nfh 

### }'vill not be includedas apollutant of concernforpurposes of BART. It is notpossible to account for VOCs in CALPUFFmodeling, andAlyeska provideddata to show that the:v are currently controlling (orplan to control) their VOC emissions to a level considerably lower than theirpermitted potential to emit (PTE). Basedon those twofactors, DEChas decided to not include VOCs as apollutant of concernforpurposes of BART. 

### Comment 0: ConocoPhilJips BART Determinations ConocoPhillips submitted comments stating that they should not be included in this regulation process because the detennination that the Kenai LNG Plant is a BARTeligible source is unwarranted. They requested that DEC remove the Kenai LNG Plant from the list ofBART-eligible sources. 

### Response 0: 

### ConocoPhillips BARTDeterminations This comment does not address theproposedregulations directly. There is not a list of BART-eligible sources in the regulations at this time, as BART-eligible sources are beingdeterminedbasedon the EPA Guidelines andthen notifiedof their status as set out in the regulations. The department lvill 

### implement the BARTeligibility as outline in the federalguideline. 

### Comment P: BART-eligible Units Alyeska commented that backup power generation and firewater pumping engines should not be included as BART-eligible units. 

### ResponseP: BART-eligible Units The units can be removed 

### if an ana!.vsis demonstrates that the cost to control unreasonable. Department staff consulted l1'ith the EPA on the issue of inclusion of emergency units in BART-eligible emission units lists. The department andthe EPA have concurredthat emergencJ' units shouldbe includedas emission unitsfor which BART control technologies are ana!.vzed, unless their use is specifically limited in the Title V permitforemergency use on!.v. EPA didstate that given the size of the units, it's like!.v that the BARTcontrol technology analysis wouldshaH' that the cost benefit of controlling them is not reasonable, so they couldbe excludedfrom needingBARTcontrols basedon that factor. However. the analysis must be completedforthose units so the cost benefit of controls can be evaluatedaspart of the BARTdeterminationprocess. 

### Comment Q: 

### BART for State Parks and Tanker Units The Prince William Sound RCAC support the department's proposed BART regulations. They commented that a number ofAlaska State Parks are within 17 miles of VMT and that all ofthe Prince William Sound consists ofNational Park quality visual aesthetics that would be hanned by visible emissions. Additionally they recommend that emissions from tankers and other vessels be included in rulemaking while they're docked at Valdez Marine Terminal or any other tenninal in Alaska. They recommend the tanker

Response to Comments
..- BART Regulations 7-25-07 170f29control because visibility impacts from vessels at VMT have been a source ofcitizen concern. 

### Response Q: 

### BART for State Parks and Tanker Units 

### These regulations cannot address air qualityjmpactsfrom BARTsources to State Parks. Alaska State Parks are notpart of the Federal Class J

### areas that are of concern in the BARTRule. AdditionalZv, lankers do not meet the "in existence" timeframe requirement of the BARTRule to beBART-eligible sources, so they cannot be includedas apart of the emission units subject to the BARTregulations.

Response to Comments

- BART Regulations 7-25-07 18 of29Overall Summary of Comments: 

### BART Coalition Marilvn Crockett letter, 10 Mav 2007: This letter commented on sections ofproposed regulations that the BART Coalition wanted to discuss at third workshop. The letter set a goal ofbeing able to work though 260(g), 260(c), address inability to take owner-requested limits, 260(i)-(k), 260(d) and (g), and conflicting definitions in 990. BART Coalition Matt Cohen letter, 17 Mav 2007: This letter commented on issues of concern with the proposed regulations and suggested significant changes to the regulations. BART Public Workshop transcript, 29 May 2007: See additional documents. Tesoro Letter, 4 June 2007: This letter strongly supported the June 5 BART Coalition letter. The letter also provided additional comments on VOCs and requested that they not to be included in the BART regulations. Anchorage ML&P letter, 4 Jun 2007: This letter fully supported the 17 May/5 June Coalition letters. They continue to believe implementation schedule is not practical and should be revised as discussed in the BART Coalition letter. They are very sensitive to the timetable issues because ofneed to incorporate BART determination into their longterm generation plan. They noted that the impact ofthe BART determination must be fully evaluated before ML&P can submit their BART analysis. They also requested that ADEC provide adequate time for BART analysis and for ADEC review. Prince William Sound RCAC letter, 4 June 2007: This letter noted that a number of Alaska State Parks are within 17 miles ofVMT and that all ofPWS consists ofNational Park quality visual aesthetics that would be harmed by visible emissions. They support ADEC's proposed regulations. Additionally, they recommended that emissions from tankers and other vessels be included in rulemaking while they are docked at the Valdez Marine Terminal (VMT) or any other terminal in Alaska. They recommended this because the visibility impacts from vessels at the VMT have been a source ofcitizen concern. ConocoPhillips letter, 5 June 2007: This letter supported the 5 June Coalition letter. As stated in an attached letter and EPA info to Tom Turner and Nancy Helm, ADEC's detennination that the LNG plant is a BART-eligible source is not warranted. The letter requested that ADEC remove Kenai LNG plant from the list ofBART-eligible sources. National Park Service/FLM letter. 5 June 2007: This letter supported adoption ofthe federal language and guidance in drafting state BART regulations. Given the Regional Haze Rule and the impending SIP, they think ADEC is wise to embark on BARTrule 

### in a timely fashion. They supported use ofWRAP modeling as first analysis step. They also recognized that the proposed regulations provide ample opportunity for sources to conduct additional analyses to detennine ifBART analysis IS 

### required. They looked fonvard to working with ADEC and the sources to assure that appropriate procedures are
Response to Comments BART Regulations 7-25-07 190f29followed. Their letter also included specific language change suggestions to clarify schedule due dates. They hoped the proposed changes would avoid confusion on the part ofsources and assure the regulation's success. Suggested changes-260(c)(l)(B) add "upon ADEC approval ofmodeling protocols" 260(d) add "or 120 days after ADEC makes a final determination that BART is required" BART CoalitiQJ1 Marilyn Crockett letter, 5 June 2007: This letter was written on behalf ofthe BART Coalition and supplemented and updated comments previously submitted via the 17 May letter and via the workshops on 3 April and 29 May. They still believe that the proposed revisions to the regulations presented with the 17 May letter comprise a fair and efficient program to implement BART, and they hope that DEC will follow it. Their current comments offered more limited mark-up ofproposed regulations to assist DEC with solving the most serious problems of27 April proposed regulations ifDEC concluded it was not feasible to follow their 17 May proposal. They continued to support the 17 May version, but the current proposal was offered as a compromise. They also provided further descriptions oftheir proposed changes to each section. Alyeska Pipeline letter, 5 June 2007: In their letter, Alyseska noted that they fully expected to demonstrate using the WRAP protocol with refined inputs that VMT does not cause or contribute to visibility impacts at Denali, and they are currently working with DEC to carry this out. When this work is completed. they expect that VMT will be exempted from the BART regulations. In the meantime, they supported the 5 June BART Coalition letter and hope DEC carefully considers, acts on, and thoughtfully responds to each comment. They particularly supported the BART Coalition's urging to use 98th percentile visibility impact rather than maximum. They noted that this is the approach in the EPA guidelines and is a sensible approach in that it keeps the facility from being regulated on the basis ofextreme conditions. IfDEC adopts 98th percentile, the Valdez Marine Terminal (VMT) may assess the impacts at Denali using that approach. The VMT believes DEC properly handled the VOCs in regulations by excluding them. They attached modeling output to their letter that shows that VOC impacts at Denali barely registered. They also noted that VOC emissions will be much lower starting in 2008. Alyeska also believes that diesel engines used for backup power generation and firewater pumping shouldbe excluded from being BART units. They also attached the assessment ofpotential impacts report to theIr letter. Agrium letter, 5 June 2007: This letter supported the 5 June BART Coalition letter and suggested regulation language revisions and urged ADEC to take them into thoughtful consideration. In addition, they recommended that ADEC not include ammonia in the BART analysis, due to the facts that the results ofsensitivity analysis showed that at various background levels the affect was still the same, that Agrium has undertaken numerous projects to reduce or capture ammonia, and that due to most impairnlent in Alaska being due to forest fires, inclusion ofammonia would be an undue financial burden on Agrium resulting in no visibility improvement. Also, their letter implored DEC to set aside concerns about implementation deadlines to concentrate on a full and objective review ofthe final public comments.

Response to Comments BART Regulations 7-25-07 200f29

### BART Timetable Process Map

L BART Anatysis // Submit Modeling 90 Days ,c,,<,,",

### ~~ " '\

_ '" Aypproval**~~** yes.....{BART with ORL) ',}O Oays \,-
. nil·
_**~--------------NOI------------~** Submit BART Analysis I DEC RevteW ays**~** Oraft
_,__ Determlnalion ISubmit**~--~~** MRT

---­ I Analysis 

### L

_________________

# ====

______-J1 180 Days I {:DEC Response**~** COIllm,ents and

Response to Comments BART Regulations 7-25-07 210f29The May 17, 2007, letter offered the following significant changes to the proposed rule:


### BART COALITION 4127/07 

### DRAFT OF BART REGULATION: 18 AAC 50 is amended by adding a new**~ectioD** to read: 18 AAC 50.260 (a) Guidelines for best available retrofit technology (BART) uetcnllinations under the regional haze rule. 40 C. F. R., Part 51, Appendix y,**a~** published in Federal Register ofJuly 6,2005, is adopted by reference into this chapter. (b) Within 5 days ofthe effective date ofthis regulation, the department shall, by cerl1ficd mail, notify the owner/operator ofeach BART-eligible source ofthe emission units that comprise the BART-eligible source In making BARTeligibility dererminations the department shall apply the criteria set forth in 40 C.F.R., Part 51, Appendix y, Section II ("How To IdentifyBA.RT

Eligible Sources"). (c) Within 35 days ofn;celpt ofthe department's final BART eligibility detemlmation the owner/operator ofa BART-eligible source may submit one oCThe following: (I} An application for a mlllor permit under 18 AAC 50508(5), establishing owner-requested limits on emissions by the BART-eligible source ofPM I(},**~OX** and SO:. set cqual to one ofthe: !Ollowlllg thresholds: (AJ 250 tons per year ofeach pollutant; IH) 500 tons per year of**ea~h** pollutant fur a BART-eligible soarer**l(l~ated** at kast <0 km from both the Denali and Tuxedm Class I areas; (C) 1000 tons per year ofeach pollutant for a BART-dig-ib!c ,ourec locakxl ;n Iellst 100 km from both the Denali and Tuxedni Class I areas; i (2) A modeling protocol for a visibility impact analYSIS. designed In accordance with (d) ofthis sectioH, to evaluate whether the HART-eligible source causes or

'See BART Guidelines, 71) Fed. Reg. 34119 (JlIly 6. 2005).
Attachment B

Response to Comments BART Regulations 7-25-07 220f29contributes to visIbility impairment In a Class I Area identified in 18 AAC 50.0 15(c)(2) located within 300 kilometers ofthe source. (d) A visibility impact al1<llysis must: (I) determine the 98'h percentile change III visibility impacts (in daily deci\'iewsJ compared (0 the annual average defaul! natural visibility condition as listed in GlIi.iann! for Esrimaling i'l'atura! Visibility Conditions Under the Regional Ha=c Rille, EPt\-454/B· 03-005, September 2003, adopted by reference, at each Class I area located \\ithin 30() kIlometers orthe BART-eligible source: (2) be conducted in a manner consistent with either: (A) the August 15,2006 CALMETICALPUFFProtocoljor BART**£~cmption** ScreeningA/la(vsis for Class J Areas 111 the Western UnitedSlates. adopted by reference; or (B) a modified prolocol approved by the department, after a IS-day review by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the applicable federal Land :\1anager(s). (e) The departmcllI shall designate as a source subject to BART each BART-eligible
source idem Itied by the department under (b) ofthis section, unless the owner oroperator either applies for an owner-rtquesteci limn as provicied (c)( I ) ofthis section, or submits oncofthe tollowing within 60 days after approval by the department ofa modeling protocol under (d(2) of this section: (I) A visibility impact analysis, conducted in accordance with the approvcd modeling protocol. that demonS1rates that the BART-eligible &Ol:rce does not cause or

2

Response to Comments BART Regulations 7-25-07 23 of29contrihute 10 visibili:y impainncnt in a Cia';> J r'rca illcntilicl\**iJ~** 1 RAAC 5(),1)15(c)(2) and located within 300 kilometers ofthe source;" (2) An application lor a minor permit umler 18 AAC 50,508(5), supported by a yisibtlity impact analysis conducted m accoruallte wilh tile approved modeh1Jl:; protocol, proposing owner-requested limits at which emissions from the BART-eliglble source wi II not cause or contribute to v'isibi!ity impaimlcilt in a Class I Area identified ill 18 AAC 50,OI5(c)(2) and lo..:ated within 31)0 kilometers ofthe source;' (f) The department will notify an owner or operator, the Environmental Protection Agency, and tne affected federal land manager ofaction taken under Ie) ofthis subsection. (g)No latcrthan 180 days after receipt ofa detennination under (e) ofthlS scction that a BART-eligible source is SUbject to BART the owner or operator shall submillo the dcpantncnl an anal;sis ofcontrol options consIstent wllh 40 CF,R, Pan 51, Appendix Y, Section IV C'The BART Determination: Analysis ofBART Options"), (hl The pollutants ofconcern for purposes ofBART arc SO" NO" and P:-'I ((I, (i) Ifan owner or operator dects to apply OT has already applied (he most stringent cOlltrols available. consistent with the analysis conductoo under (g) ofthis section, the owner oroperator neerinot conduct an air quality modding analysis for the purposes ofdClcmlining the visibility impacts ofthe stationary source. ti) The department shall reqlle.st from the owner or operator allY additional infonllatiol1 necessary to comp!.:!.:: rC\'ICW ofthe an:Jiysis ofcontrol options for a sOllrce subject to BART. The department shall establish a reasonable deadline for submitting the infomlatilln alier consulting

.**s<~** BAR"l GUidelmes. 70 fed, R"l!. 39161 (Jtlly 6,20(15) Se< EPA. Additionat ReglOnal Haze Questiom (Septemher**~7.** 20061 al21 ":Aj SraI< may al!()w a BASRT'eilglbk s.oun.:C' to reduce its**emj~s:ions** such Ihat indh·idual source di.'Spcf5.!on modehng shows the source's Impact f::.JlJs bek·w the <olllJibmivn !br<,boldcsiablistwd by tbe SW,t," 3

Response to Comments

- BART Regulations 7-25-07 240f29the owner or op<:rator. The owneror operator sh:J1I provide such infoml<lllol1 no later than the deadline establishc:d by the department. (k) The depanment shall review each analysis nfcontrol options and lSSllt! for public comment a proposed minor permit. incorporating a proposed BART detemlinalion ror each BART-eligible emission unit at each source subject to BART. The minor permit will include: (1) the pollutant-specific emission limits for each BART-eJigJble emission unit at each source subject to BART, and (2) the monitoring, record-keeping, and reporting needed 10 demonstrate compliance with the emission limits; (3) a compliance schedule providing that the owner or operator oflhe source shall comply with the requirements described in (!) and (2) atlove as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than 5 years after the date ofEPA approval ofthe stale implementation plan for regional haze; (I) The dcparlmcm wll! (aHow the prow:lnrcs in 18 AAC 50.542(d) to soheitpublic
eommem on the proposed permit. (m) After the puhlic notice period and consideration ofcomn1t:nts received, the department \'. iII issue a tinal pcrmlltha! Illcludes emission limits and monitoring, record alld reporting requirements to**~nsure** continuous compliance with the BART limn for each BARTeligible source; In) An intormal fCview ofthe minorpermit may be requested as in IS AAC 15.185. AIl adJudkatory hearing ofthe minor permit may be requested as prescribed In 18 AAC 15.195 18 AAC 15.340. (0) The 0',\ncr or operator ofa stationary source required to tnstalJ control cquipmellt in order to comply with BART emissionlimits is required 10 maintain the control c:quiprm:nt .md to ,,<;wbli:,h procedures 10 en,;ure such equipment is properly opcrar::1l and maintained.

Response to Comments BART Regulations 7-25-07 250[29[pI The llepartment may extenJ the deadline for suhl11lt!al ofany filing**requir~ll** by this section upvn a**satisf~ctory** showlIlg that an cxtensivJl IS Justified. (q) Department services under this scction are designated regulatory services anll shall he Diilcll as set out in 18 AAC 50.400(m) and shall he allocated to the emission control pcrmJt receipts account unller AS 46.14.265. (Eff. _I**~2007.** Register**_~)** Authority: AS 46.0).710 AS 46.141)10 S(Oc. 30, eh. 74. SLA 1'>93

J 8 AAC S0.400(m) is amended**b~'** adding a new paragraph to read: (m) Unless the designated regul:uory service is suhjcct to a fixed fce set out in (a)

- (1) of this section, or to the terms ofa negotiated sen-ice agreement under AS 37.10/iS2(hi and 18 AAC 50.405. the permitte(O, ownt'T, or operator shall pay an hourly permit administration fce for a designated regulatory service. Designatell regulatory sen'ices subject to this subsection include regulatory services for (14) Development and issll9!lCf9Ll!IlJiJ.lQ[1l.crmil under 18 AAC 50,504

18 AAC 50is amended**b~'** adding a nt'\'\' section to read: 18 AAC 50.504 !\linor permits to implement BART TIle owneror operator ofa source subject to BART musl ohlilin il minor rCllllit as required under 1 S AA(' SO.2(.().

18 AA(' 50.990 is amended hy adding nt'w paragraphs to read: (126) For purposes of 18 At>"C 50.2bO, "natural conditions" includes nalur.llly occurring phenomena that reduce visibility as measured in terms oflight**~:\tll1cliOlJ.** visual range. c\11llrasL or coloration; (127) "BesI Available Retrofit Tec1ulology (BART)" means an emission iimitallon hased
on the degree ofreduc1ion nchlo:.blc through the application ofthe best system ofcontinuous 5

Response to Comments

- BART Regulations 7-25-07 260f29emission reductIOn for each pollutant which is emitted by an eXIsting stationary tacility. The emission limitation must be**cst~blished,** on a ease-bycasc basis, taking into consideration the wduwlogy available, the costs ofcompliance, the energr and non-au quality environmental impacts ofcompliance, any pollution control equipment in use or in existence at the source, the remaining useful life oflhe source, amllhe degree ofimprovcmellt In visibility which rnay reasonably be anticipated to result from the use ofsuch technology; (128) "BART-eligible source" means the collection ofemission units identified umier 40 C.F.R. Part 51, Appendill Y, Section II, at an existing stationary facility defined in (IJ() ofthis section; (129) "dccivicw" is a measurement ofvisibility impaimlcnL A declyiew is a haze index deriVed from calculated light extinction. such that uniform changes in haziness correspond to ulIltoml incremental changes In perception across the entire range ofconditions, from pristine to highly impaired. The deciview haze mdex is calculated based on the following equalion (for the purposed ofcalculating deciview. the atmospheric light extinction coefficient must be calculated from aerosol measurcme!l1sj: Deciview Haze Index 10 In< (hc>dOMm ) where be" the atmospheric hght extinction cocfilcient, expressed in inverse mcganlctcrs (Mm .); (130) "Existing stationary facility" means any ofthe 26 categories ofstationary sources of air pollutants listed in 40 C.F.R. Part 51, Appendix y, including any rcconstructtd soun;e, which \"
..s nol in**(lp~ration** prior to August 7, 1962, and was in existence on August 7, 1')77, and bas the potcntial to emit 250 lOllS per year or more

### orany air pollutant. In udenlllning rott:ntial to emit, fugitive emissions, w the extent quantifiable, must be cOWltcd; (IJ I) "source.: subject to BART" means a BART-<:ligible source that can reasonablybe anticipated to cause or contribute to visibility impaimlcnt in nearby Class 1 areas. A single source that 15 n:sponsihlc for a 1.0dcciview change in vlsibility in a Class I area is considered to cause

(.

Response to Comments BART Regulations 7-25-07 27 of29\lsibility impaimlent. A single source that I;; responsible for**~** 0.5 decivit:w change in "isibll;ty m
a Class I area is considered to contribute to visibility impaim1ent. (132) "In existence" means that the owner or operator has obtained all necessary preconstruction approvals or permits rcquircu by Federal, State or local air pollution emissions and air quality laws or regulations and either has (I) begun, or caused to begin, a continuous progmm ofphysical on-site construction ofthe facilityor (2) entered into bmding agreements or contractual obligations, which cannot be cancelled or modi.lied without substantial loss to the
owner or operator, to undertake aprogramofconstruction ofthe facility to be completed in a reasonable time. [133) "In operation" means engaged in activity rdated to the primary design funcllon of the source. 18 AAC SO.99O(47) is amended to read as follows: (47) "lmpainnenl ofvisibility" or visibilitv impairmen( means allY humanly perceptible chal1ge in visihility !.light extinfll.QIh..visual range, contrast, or coloration}. from that which would have**exist~** under natural condJlions. 18 AAC 50.990(88) is amended to read as follows: (88) "reconstruct" and "reconstruction" have the meaning given "reconstruction" Jll 40 C.F.R. 63.2, adopted by rcfererlce in 18 AAC**50.040,-~~lJ.hillJ2IJIl!!I!9S.£S** of 1SAAC 50.160 "reconstruction" has the mcanillg
.. !?Lvcn in 40 eFR 51.311.L
(EfI'. 1.'18/97_ RegIster 141; aI1l6!14i98. Register 146; am**6i21!~8,** Register 146; am 'l/4i')8, Register 147; am lli4199, Register 152; am Ifl/2000, Rcgis:er 152; am 2/2/2002, Reglster 161;
am 5/3,2002, Register 162; am 11/1512002, Register 164; am g;8f2003, Register 167; am 10!1120\)4, Register 171; am 12/);2005, Register \76; am I 12007, Register

7

Response to Comments BART Regulations 7-25
..07 280f29Alltbority: AS 44.46.m5 AS 46.14.140 AS 46.14.250 AS 46.03.0:20 AS 46.14.150 AS 46.14.255 AS 4603.710 AS 46.14.160 AS 46.14.280 AS 46.14.010 AS 46.14.170 AS 46.14.285 AS 46.14.020 AS 46.14.180 AS46.14290 AS 46.14.030 A54614.210 A546.14.300 AS 46.14.120 AS 46.14.230 A546 14.560 AS 46.14.130 AS 46.14.240 Sec. 30. eh. 7.:t. 5LA 1993**221~2oH ,,~** **5,'l7;mq,~q A~1**  (lO]N,I)((,.,lj

8

Response to Comments BART Regulations 7-25-07 290[29

### Affidavit of Oral Hearing

### STATE OF ALASKA ) ) ss. 

### THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT ) AFFIDAVIT OF ORAL HEARrNG I, Rebecca Tyson Smith, Environmental Program Specialist, ofthe Department ofEnvironmental Conservation, Division ofAir Quality, being sworn, state the following: On May 31, 2007, at 1900 to 2030, in the Alaska Department ofEnvironmental Conservation Building, First Floor Large Conference Room, 555 Cordova St., Anchorage, Alaska 99501, Ipresided over a public hearingheld in accordance with AS 44.62.210 for the purpose oftaking testimony

### in connection with the adoption ofchanges to 18 AAC 50, Air Quality Control, pertaining to Guidelines for Best Available Retrofit Technology and adoption ofa new section ofthe State Air Quality Control Plan.
DATE:

# /~lIe 

# t27­ Anchorage, Alaska

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me this

# L day of

## ~

# ~~~ [NOTARY SEAL] No ary PublIc m and for the State ofAlaska My commission expires: 

# 'ltvIt> /.

### Public Notice 

## and Public Review Mark Ups

### NOTICE OF PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD ON PROPOSED CHANGES TO ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION REGULATIONS 

### The Department ofEnvironmental Conservation (DEC), proposes to adopt regulation changes in Title 18, Chapter 50 ofthe Alaska Administrative Code dealing with Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) and adopt an addition to the State Air Quality Control Plan. DEC is proposing to amend 18 AAC 50, Article 2 Program Administration, to add a section adopting the federal rule on BART and establishing regulations to address BART requirements for stationary sources with emission units that are subject to BART. The Department has found that the following facilities may be subject to BART: (1) 

### Anchorage Municipal Light and Power, George Sullivan Plant Two; (2) Golden Valley Electric Association, Healy Power Plant; (3) Agrium, Kenai Nitrogen Operations Plant; (4) Alyeska Valdez Marine Terminal; (5) Chugach Electric Association, Beluga River Power Plant: (6) ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., Kenai LNG; and (7) Tesoro Kenai Refinery. DEC is also proposing to add a section to the State Air Quality Control Plan, adopted by reference in 18 AAC 50.030, to address Clean Air Act requirements for prohibitions on regional transport ofair pollutants. The Department is particularly soliciting comments in the public record in regards to BART eligible emission units, whether the state should require units that emit volatile organic compounds (VOCs) or ammonia to be subject to the federal BART requirements ifthe units meet the other eligibility requirements, and the length oftime required for BART analysis. Please refer to the BART Public Notice Discussion document onthe Air Quality webpage at http://www.dec.state.ak.us/air/ap/regulati.htm for additional information. You may comment on the proposed regulation changes, and the analysis ofalternatives, including the potential costs to private persons ofcomplying and alternative practical methods of complying with the proposed changes, by submitting written comments to Rebecca Smith, Environmental Specialist, Air Permit Program, Alaska Department ofEnvironmental Conservation, 410 Willoughby Avenue Suite 303, Juneau, Alaska 99801, by facsimile at: (907) 465-5129, orby E-mail atRebecca_Smith@dec.state.ak.us. Comments must be received by 5:00 p.m., on June 5, 2007. Comments received after this date will not be considered in final action on these rules. The Department will hold a public hearing on this proposal on May 31,2007, from 7:00

- 8:30 pm at the DEC First Floor Conference Room, 555 Cordova Street, Anchorage. Oral or written comment may be submitted at the hearing. The hearing will be extended ifnecessary to accommodate those present before 7:30 pm who did not have an opportunity to comment. Ifyou will not be able to attend the public hearing in person, please contact Rebecca Smith at (907) 465-5121 by May 25,2007, to make arrangements to participate by phone. The State ofAlaska, Department ofEnvironmental Conservation complies with Title II ofthe Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. Ifyou are a person with a disability who may need a special accommodation in order to participate in this public process, please contact Deborah Pock at (907) 269-0291 or TDD Relay Service 1-800-770-8973/TTY or dial 711 within 30 days of publication ofthis notice to ensure that any necessary accommodations can beprovided.

### For a copy ofthe proposed regulation changes and a discussion ofthe rationale for the changes, contact Rebecca Smith, Air Permit Program, Alaska Department ofEnvironmental Conservation, 410 Willoughby Avenue Suite 303, Juneau, Alaska, 99801; by phone at (907) 465-5121; by facsimile at (907) 465-5129; or you can go to the department's webpage at: http://www.dec.state.ak.us/air/ap/regulati.htm After the public commentperiod ends on June 5, 2007, DEC will either adopt these or other provisions dealing with the same subject, without further notice, or decide to take no action on them. DEC may process the BART regulations separately from the State Air Quality Control Plan revision. The language ofthe final regulations may be different from that ofthe proposed regulations. YOU SHOULD COMMENT DURING THE TIME ALLOWED IF YOUR INTERESTS COULD BE AFFECTED. Written comments received are public records and are subject to public inspection. Statutory Authority: AS 44.03.710, AS 46.14.010, AS 46.14.020, AS 46.14.030 Statutes Being Implemented, Interpreted, or Made Specific: AS 46.14 Fiscal Information: The proposed regulation changes are not expected to require an increased appropriation.

Dated: April 27, 2007 Larry Hartig, Commissioner Juneau, Alaska

### Ad# 178671 AO-33-5021-07 

# AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA } STATE OF ALASKA SS. FOURTH DISTRICT Before me,the undersigned, a notary public, this day personally appeared Bonn

### i e 

### Keenan , who, being first duly sworn, according to law, says that he/she is an Advertising Clerk of the Fairbanks Daily News-Miner, a newspaper iii published in newspaper format, (ii) distributed daily more than 50 weeks per year, (iii) with a total circulation of more than 500 and more than 10% of the population of the Fourth Judicial District, (jv) holding a second class mailing permit from the United States Postal Service, Iv) not published primarily to distribute advertising, and (vi) not intended for a particular professional or occupational group. The advertisement which is attached is a true copy of the advertisement published in said paper on the following day(s): 

### Hay I, 2007 Hay 2, 2007

and that the rate charged thereon is not excess of the rate charged private individuals, with the usual discounts.

Subscribed and sworn to before me on this day of 

### June

r the StateAlaska. My commission exPires

_____

## ---'?"--!l_it'--'"t-"'Jt>-?:_-+-,

_ 

## ........STOF0600 

# lY$c #206741

# ~/VJ $836.64 

# At4r**~D** 

# & 10 

# AFFIDAVIT OF**PUBLICATIOl~~C** 20 0; 

# -4Q
STATE OF ALASKA THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICf Christine Clark being first duly sworn on oath deposes and says that helshe is an representative ofthe Anchorage Daily News, a daily newspaper. That said newspaper has been approved by the Third Judicial Court, Anchorage, Alaska, and it now and has been published in the English language continually as a daily newspaper in Anchorage, Alaska, and it is now and during all said time was printed in an office maintained at the aforesaid place ofpublication ofsaid newspaper. That the annexed is a copy ofan advertisement as it was published in regular issues (and not in supplemental form) of said newspaper on May I & 2, 2007 and that such newspaper was regularly distributed to ils subscribers during all ofsaid period. That the full amount of the fee charged for the foregoing publication gFd p v s. 

### j

___**~~~-7~~~~~~~** i ot in ex ess of the rale ch individu**Signe~** Subscribed and sworn to before
me this -'L
__day of

### ~**~"'-'-"""";'~#~** NOla

# ;I7~i(rl({r(11 fl itLY A 

### M/

.... .-:**~** ••• , : ,'11'.6'l.



### . --* .**-~'"** lie ina**dfor~** .....'·**('\TAR~,:;l.-;'** The State ofAlaska, Ji: ,\'>l. •**~,.~ ~**  r" ::.

Third Division ::: '
..... __ 

### -.. '**Il'~** 

### •...• '.... • -­ Anchorage. Alaska....,
..... ·'.:u. ,1:;:::­ MY COMMISSION EXPIlgi.**"t.P~** __.. /'.:**~.::::**



# 0

# 7 )

J 

### fA )

# firxrtJ~~~**.~~ ~~**  //.1 r.rl**L::;<pil~'** )'\' / ))JJJ)J1I\1

### The Department ofEnvironmental Conservation (DEC), proposes to adopt regulation cha... Page 1 of 1

SUPPLEMENTAL NOTICE OF PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD ON PROPOSED CHANGES TO ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION REGULATIONS 

### The Department ofEnvironmental Conservation (DEC), proposes to adopt regulation changes in Title 18, Chapter 50 ofthe Alaska Administrative Code dealing with Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) and adopt an addition to the State Air Quality Control Plan. DEC is proposing to amend 18 AAC 50, Article 2 Program Administration, to add a section adopting the federal rule on BART and establishing regulations to address BART requirements for stationary sources with emission units that are subject to BART. The Department has found that the following facilities may be subject to BART: (1) 

### Anchorage Municipal Light and Power, George Sullivan Plant Two; (2) Golden Valley Electric Association, Healy Power Plant; (3) Agrium, Kenai Nitrogen Operations Plant; (4) Alyeska Valdez Marine Terminal; (5) ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., Kenai LNG; and (6) Tesoro Kenai Refinery. DEC is also proposing to add a section to the State Air Quality Control Plan, adopted by reference in 18 AAC 50.030, to address Clean Air Act requirements for prohibitions on regional transport ofair pollutants. This is a SUPPLEMENTAL NOTICE adding to the NOTICE OF PROPOSED CHANGES that was issued on May 1,2007, concerning the proposed regulation revisions contained in the Department of Law file number 993-07-0101. This SUPPLEMENTAL NOTICE is being issued because the Department ofEnvironmental Conservation is having a public workshop on the proposed regulations on May 29,2007, from 1:00

- 4:30 pm at the DEC First Floor Conference Room, 555 Cordova Street, Anchorage. This public workshop is an additional meeting; the public hearing which was previously public noticed will still occur on May 31, 2007. Ifyou will not be able to attend the public workshop in person, please contact Rebecca Smith at (907) 465-5121 by May 23, 2007, to make arrangements to participate by phone. You may comment on the proposed regulation changes, and the analysis ofalternatives, including the potential costs to private persons ofcomplying and alternative practical methods ofcomplying with the proposed changes, by submitting written comments to Rebecca Smith, Environmental Specialist, Air Permit Program, Alaska Department ofEnvironmental Conservation, 410 Willoughby Avenue Suite 303, Juneau, Alaska 99801, by facsimile at: (907) 465-5129, orby E-mail at Rebecca_Smith@dec.state.ak.us
. Comments must be received by 5:00 p.m., on June 5, 2007. Comments received after this date will not be considered in final action on these rules. The State ofAlaska, Department ofEnvironmental Conservation complies with Title II ofthe Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. Ifyou are a person with a disability who may need a special accommodation in order to participate in this public process, please contact Deborah Pock at (907) 269­ 0291 or TDD Relay Service 1-800-770-8973/TTY or dial 711 within 30 days ofpublication ofthis notice to ensure that any necessary accommodations can be provided.

__/s/,----

_____ 

### Dated: May 9, 2007 Larry Hartig, Commissioner Juneau, Alaska

### AMI 181464 

### AO-33-502S-07 

# AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA } STATE OF ALASKA 55. FOLIRTH DISTRICT Before me,the undersigned, a notary public, this day personally appeared 

### Bonnie Keenan , who, being first duly sworn, according to law, says that he/she is an Advertising Clerk of the Fairbanks Daily News·Miner, 

### a newspaper (i) published in newspaper format. (ii) distributed daily more than 50 weeks per year, (iii) with a total circulation of more than 500 and more than 10% of the population of the Fourth Judicial District. (iv) holding a second class mailing permit from the United States Postal Service, (v) not published primarily to distribute advertising, and {vi) not intended for 

### a particular professional or occupational group. The advertisement which is attached is a true copy of the advertisement published in said paper on the following dayls):



### May 11, 2007 May 12,2007

and that the rate charged thereon is not excess of the rate charged private individuals, with the usual discounts.

Subscribed and sworn to before me on this 

## 1Lday of

### June

for the State Alaska. My commission expires

____

# ~t:'_j;l....._/_~_Jt:..JAJ::;.·**..Jo.00l10::~7~·**__. ,.; I'

,**~,** ­

. 

### ,5/14/2007 

### Anchorage Daily News Affidavit ofPublication 1001 Nortnway Drive, Anchorage, AK 99508

PRICE QI!:IR. AD I! DATE PO ACCOUNT E.IiR RAY**CHABG!I~** 217010 05/11/2007 05/12/2007 STOF06OQ STOFD600 $275,56 $275.56 $551.12 $0,00

STATE OF ALASKA THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT Christine Clark, being first duly sworn onoath deposes and says that she is an advertising representative ofthe Anchorage Daily News, IIdaily newspaper. That said newspaperhas been approved by theTIUrd Judicial Court, Anchorage, Alaska, and itnow and has been published in the English language continually as a daily newspaper in Anchorage,Alaska, and itis now and during all said time was printed in anoffice maintained atthe aforesaid place of publication ofsaidnewspaper. That the annexed is a copy ofan advertisement as itwaspublished in regular issues (and notin supplemental form) ofsaid newspaperon the above dates and that such newspaper was regularly distributed to its subscribers during all ofsaid period. That the full amountofthe fee charged for the foregoing publicationisnot in excess oftherate charged private individuals.

Subscribed and sworn to me before this date: QI!!&E. OTHER OTHER OTHER GRAND**CHARG~** CHARGE,',#3 CHARGES!14 CHARGES !:i IQIA1

$0.00 $0.00 SO.OO SO.OO $551.12

.Dated:

### May 9,**2~7** . Juneau, AlOska .,': . '
..', 1$1; Larry liartlg, CommltslO/1el' AoI, ' . Pub"$h: Moy 11, 12, 2!lO7,

### Amendments to Volume II, Section III.D. Particulate Matter Subpart D.l Overview, a new section to be inserted after section D.1.V: 

### VI. PROVISIOl\S PROHIBITING REGIOl\AL TRANSPORT OF AIR POLLUTANTS Pursuant to the requirements ofthe 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments, Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), Alaska's State implementation plan (SIP)must contain adequate provision prohibiting "
...any source or other type ofemissions activity within the State from emitting any air pollutant in amounts which will1. contribute significantly to nonattainment in, or interfere with maintenance by, any other State with respect to any such national primary or secondary ambient air quality standard, or 2. interfere with measures required to be included in the applicable implementation plan for any other State
... to prevent significant deterioration ofair quality or visibility
... " Alaska meets the requirements ofSection 110 as fo11ows1. Does not contribute to other states NAAQS pollutants:
• Alaska is not subject to the "Rule to Reduce Interstate Transport ofFine Particulate Matter and Ozone (Interstate Air Quality Rule Preamble)," 69 FR 4566 (January 30, 20(4) (CAIR);
• Alaska's southern most border is separated from the border ofthe lower 48 states by over 500 air miles;
• Alaska's aggregate manmade PM25 

### and ozone levels are minimal relative to national levels: 2. Prevention ofSignificant Deteriorationl1\ew Source Review (PSD/NRS) 

### Program Requirements:
• Alaska has a fully approved PSDfNSR program most recently approved on February 16, 1995 (60 FR 8943);
• Alaska is working to incorporate Phase II ozone requirements for PSDlNSR into the SIP; 69 FR 23951 (April 30, 2004); 70 FR 71612 (Nov. 29, 2005); 3. Prevention ofVisibility deterioration:
• States have not yet submitted Regional Haze SIPs, so it is not possible for Alaska to assess its compatibility or interference with control measures in another state's Regional Haze (visibility) SIP; Alaska is working with the Western Regional Air Partnership to prepare a SIP to address EPA's Regional Haze regulations; 64 FR 35714 (July 1,1999); SIP submittals to EPA are due no later than December 17, 2007.Register _,**_~** 2007 ENVIRO;-.'.!\lENTAL CONSERVATION 

# DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION

18 AAC 50 AIR QUALITY COI\"TROL Public CommentDraft April 27, 2007 CommentPeriod Ends June 5, 2007, 5:00 p.m.
Sarah Palin Governor Larry Hartig CommissionerRegister ENVIRONl\JENTAL CONSERVATION DRAFT 

### 18 AAC 50.030 is amended to read: 

### 18 AAC 50.030. State air quality control plan. Volumes II and III ofthe 

### State Air Qualizv Control Plan for implementing and enforcing the provisions ofAS 46.14 and this chapter, as amended through {effective date oftheseregulationsl [SEPTEMBER 19, 2006], are adopted byreference. The plan includes the following documents which are also adopted byreference: (Eff. 1118/97, Register 141; am 6/21/98, Register 146; am 9/4/98, 

### Register 147; am 111/2000, Register 152; am 12/30/2000, Register 156; am 9/2112001, 

### Register 159; am 1127/2002, Register 161; am 3/2/2002, 

### Register 161; am 5/3/2002, Register 162; am 2/20/2004, 

### Register 169; am 6/24/2004, 

### Register 170; am 1011 12004, 

### Register 171; am 1211412006, 

### Register 180; am 12007, 

### Register**~** 

### Authority: AS 46.03.020 AS 46.14.030 Sec. 30, ch. 74, SLA 1993 AS 46.14.020 AS 46.14.140 18 AAC 50 is amended by adding a new section to read: 

### 18 AAC 50.260 Guidelines for Best Available Retrofit Technology under the Regional Haze Rule (a) For the purposes ofthis section, the following are adopted by reference: (1) Guidelines for BART Determinations under the Regional Haze Rule. 40 C.F.R., Part 51, Appendix Y, as amended through July 6,2005; and (2) 40 C.F.R. 51.301, as amended through July 1,2006. (b) Sources subject to BART shall be identified consistent with Section III ofthe BART guideline. No later than 10 days after 

### {effective date of regulations}, the Department shall notify the owner or operator ofeach source subject to BART in writingRegister
___2007 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION DRAFT 

### and shall identify the affected Class I areas. A notice provided to the owner or operator prior to 

### {effective date of regulations} shall satisfy this obligation. Unless the department exempts a source in accordance with Section III ofthe BART guideline, each
source subject to BART shall comply with (d) through (h), and 

### (1) through (0) 

### ofthis section.(c) An owner or operator notified under (b) ofthis section may request an exemption from BART. Exemptions from BART approved bythe department in writing prior to 

### {effective date of regulations} shall have the same effect as those approved under this subsection. An exemption from BART mustbe requested and processed as follows: (I) the owner or operator shall: (A) notify the department no later than 30 days after 

### {effective date of the regulations} that they intend to request exemption from BART; (B) conduct a visibility impact analysis in accordance with (g) of this section; and (C) 

### submit the visibility impact analysis report, including all supporting documentation, to the department no later than 60 days after 

### {effective date of regulations}; (2) The department will approve an exemption ifthe owner or operator met the requirements of

### (l) ofthis subsection and the information submitted adequately demonstrates that the BART-eligible source is not reasonably anticipated to cause or contribute to any visibility impairment in a Class I Area identified in the notice provided under (b) ofthis section; (3) The department will notify the owner or operator, the Environmental-
.. -
..**-~~--------** -- Register

__,**~_~** 2007 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION**DR~FT** 

### Protection Agency, and the affected federal land manager, in writing, ofthe department's decision under (2) ofthis subsection; ifthe decision is to approve an exemption, the department will explain what requirements ofthis section no longer apply to the BARTeligible source. (d) No later than 120 days after 

### {effective date o/regulations} the owner or operator ofeach source subject to BART shall submit to the department an analysis of control options consistent with Section IV ofthe BART !,'Uideline. (e) The pollutants ofconcern for purposes ofBART are S02, NOx, 

### and PM IO• 

### (f) Ifan owner or operator elects to apply, or has already applied, the most stringent controls available consistent with the analysis conducted under (d) ofthis section, they are not required to conduct a visibility impact analysis for the emission units and pollutants so controlled. (g) A visibility impact analysis must: (1) 

### use an identical modeling approach for comparing the pre-control and post-control impacts; (2) determine the maximum change in visibility impacts (in daily deciviews) compared to the annual average default natural visibility condition as listed in 

### Guidance/orEstimatingNatural Visibility Conditions Under the RegionalHaze Rule, EPA-454/B-03-005, September 2003, adopted by reference, at each Class I area identified in the notice under (b) ofthis section. (3) be conducted in a manner consistent with either: (A) the August 15,2006 

### C4LMET/CALPUFFProtocol/orBART Exemption ScreeningAnalysis for Class IAreas in the Western United States,Register**E~VIRONMENT** AL CONSERVAnON DRAFT 

### adopted byreference, as amended by the Summary ofWRAP RJvICBARTA10dcling forAlaska, Draft 

### #7, April 6, 2007, adopted byreference; or (B) a modified protocol that was first submitted as a draft and made available for at least a IS-day review bythe U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the applicable Federal Land Manager(s), and subsequently approved in writing by the department.

(h) The department shall request from the owner or operator any additional information necessary to complete review ofthe analysis ofcontrol options for a source subject to BART. The department shall establish a reasonable deadline for submitting the information after consulting the owner or operator. The owner or operator shall provide such information no later than the deadline established by the department. 

### 0) The department shall review each analysis ofcontrol options and issue a preliminary BART determination for each emission unit at each source subject to BART. The preliminary BART determination will include: (l) 

### the pollutant-specific emission limits for each emission unit at each
source subject to BART, and (2) the monitoring, record-keeping, and reporting needed to demonstrate compliance with the emission limits, consistent with 40 C.F.R. 71.6(a)(3) adopted by reference in 18 AAC 50.040: (j) 

### The department will publish a notice ofits preliminary BART determination and provide at least 30 days for the public to comment. (k) After consideration ofcomments and testimony received, the department will make a final BART determination and provide written notice to each owner or operator,Register

___, _____ 2007 ENVIRONMEl\TTAL CONSERVAnON DRAFT 

### the Environmental Protection Agency, and the affected federal land manager ofthe final BART determination within 15 days ofmaking the final determination. The final BART determination will include: (1) 

### the pollutant-specific emission limits for each emission unit at each
source subject to BART; and (2) the monitoring, record-keeping, and reporting needed to demonstrate compliance with the emission limits, consistent with 40 C.F.R. 71.6(a)(3) adopted by reference in 18 AAC 50.040. (f) 

### An informal review ofthe final BART determination may be requested as prescribed in 18 AAC 15.185. An adjudicatory hearing ofthe final BART determination may be requested as prescribed in 18 AAC 15.195

- 18 AAC 15.340. (m) Upon EPA approval ofthe regional haze SIP, the owner or operator ofa
source that is subject to a final BART determination under this section shall comply with the requirements established in that determination as expeditiously as practicable, but in
no case later than 5 years after the date ofEPA approval ofthe regional haze SIP. (n) The owner or operator ofa source required to install control equipment to comply with the BART determination shall: (1) 

### maintain the control equipment and establish procedures to ensure such equipment is properly operated and maintained; and (2) conduet monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting that complies with 18 AAC 50.220 and that demonstrates eompliance or noncompliance with the BART requirements under all operational conditions. (0) 

### Department services under this section are designated regulatory services forENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION DRAFT 

### preapplication assistance and (1) 

### shall be billed to the operating permit covering the source subject to BART as set out in 18 AAC 50AOO(m); 

### and (2) receipts shall be allocated to the clean air protection fund under AS 46.14.260. (Eff. / 12007, 

### Register Authority: AS 46.03.710 AS 46.14.010 Sec. 30, ch. 74, SLA 1993 AS 46.14.020 AS 46.14.030

Editor's note: The BART-Eligible Sources Table 

### and the other documents adopted by reference in 18 AAC 50.260 can be reviewed at the department's Anchorage, Fairbanks,
or Juneau office. To obtain a copy ofthese or any other documents adopted by reference in this section, contact the Department ofEnvironmental Conservation, Air Quality Division at (907) 465-5100.

18 AAC 50.990 is amended by adding new paragraphs to read: (126) "BART" has the meaning given to Best Available Retrofit Technology in 40 C.F.R. 51.301, adopted by reference in 18 AAC 50.260; (127) "BART-eligible source" has the meaning given in 40 C.F.R. 51.301, adopted by reference in 18 AAC 50.260; (128) "BART guideline" means 40 C.F.R., Part 51, Appendix Y, adopted by reference in 18 AAC 50.260;Register
____,__ __**~** 2007 E;-';VIRONMENTAL CO;-';SERVATION DRAFT 

### (129) "cause or contribute to visibility impailment" means to release emissions that produce a 0.5 or greater change in the daily deciview when compared against natural conditions. For purposes of 18 AAC 50.260, "natural conditions" includes naturally occurring phenomena that reduce visibility as measured in terms oflight extinction, visual range, contrast, or coloration; (130) "deciviews" has the meaning given in 40 C.F.R. 51.301, adopted by reference in 18 AAC 50.260; (131) "Existing stationary facility" has the meaning given in 40 C.F.R. 51.301, adopted by reference in 18 AAC 50.260; (132) "Federal land manager" has the meaning given in 40 C.F.R. 51.301, adopted byreference in 18 AAC 50.260; (133) "regional haze SIP" means Alaska's state implementation plan for regional haze required by40 C.F.R. 51.308, as amended through July 6,2005. (134) "source subject to BART" means a source identified by the department in accordance with Section III of40 C.F.R. Part 51, Appendix Y, adopted byreference in 18 AAC 50.260. 

### (135) "visibility impact analysis" means an air quality modeling analysis conducted for the purposes ofdetermining visibility impacts. (Eff. 1118/97, 

### Register 141; am 6114/98, 

### Register 146; am 6/21/98, 

### Register 146; am 9/4198, 

### Register 147; am 11/4/99, 

### Register 152; am 11112000, 

### Register 152; am 2/2/2002, 

### Register 161; am 5/3/2002, 

### Register 162; am 11115/2002, 

### Register 164; am 8/812003, 

### Register 167; am 101112004, 

### Register 171; am 12/3/2005, 

### Register 176;
am**_~2007,** 

### Register

__)

### Authority: 

### AS 44.46.025 AS 46.03.020 AS 46.03.710 AS 46.14.010 AS 46.14.020 AS 46.14.030 AS 46.14.120 AS 46.14.130 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION DRAFT



### AS 46.14.140 AS 46.14.250 AS 46.14.150 AS 46.14.255 AS 46.14.160 AS 46.14.280 AS 46.l4.170 AS 46.14.285 AS 46.l4.180 AS 46.14.290 AS 46.14.210 AS 46.14.300 AS 46.14.230 AS 46.14.560 AS 46.14.240 Sec. 30, ch. 74, SLA 1993