11022 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 37 / Friday, February 24, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

record and will be publicly accessible 

on the Internet. It is the commenter’s 

responsibility to safeguard his or her 

information. Because we continue to 

experience delays in receiving mail in 

the Washington, DC area, commenters 

are strongly encouraged to transmit their 

comments electronically via the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal at http:// 

www.regulations.gov or to submit them 

by mail early. For additional 

information on submitting comments 

and the rulemaking process, see the 

‘‘Public Participation’’ heading of the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this document. 

Docket: For access to the docket to 

read background documents or 

comments received, go to the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal at http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mary Ziegler, Director, Division of 

Regulations, Legislation, and 

Interpretation, Wage and Hour Division, 

U.S. Department of Labor, Room S– 

3510, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., 

Washington, DC 20210; telephone: (202) 

693–0406 (this is not a toll free number). 

Copies of this notice of proposed 

rulemaking may be obtained in 

alternative formats (Large Print, Braille, 

Audio Tape, or Disc), upon request, by 

calling (202) 693–0023. TTY/TDD 

callers may dial toll-free (877) 889–5627 

to obtain information or request 

materials in alternative formats. 

Questions of interpretation and/or 

enforcement of regulations issued by 

this agency or referenced in this notice 

may be directed to the nearest Wage and 

Hour Division District Office. Locate the 

nearest office by calling the Wage and 

Hour Division’s toll-free help line at 

(866) 4US–WAGE ((866) 487–9243) 

between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. in your local 

time zone, or log onto the Wage and 

Hour Division’s Web site for a 

nationwide listing of Wage and Hour 

District and Area Offices at: http:// 

www.dol.gov/whd/america2.htm. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Electronic Access and Filing 

Comments 

Public Participation: This notice of 

proposed rulemaking is available 

through the Federal Register and the 

http://www.regulations.gov Web site. 

You may also access this document via 

the Department’s Web site at http:// 

www.dol.gov/federalregister. To 

comment electronically on federal 

rulemakings, go to the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, which will allow 

you to find, review, and submit 

comments on federal documents that are 

open for comment and published in the 

Federal Register. Please identify all 

comments submitted in electronic form 

by the RIN docket number (1235– 

AA05). Because of delays in receiving 

mail in the Washington, DC area, 

commenters should transmit their 

comments electronically via the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, or submit them by 

mail early to ensure timely receipt prior 

to the close of the comment period. 

Submit one copy of your comments by 

only one method. 

II. Request for Comment 

The Department is proposing to revise 

the Fair Labor Standards Act minimum 

wage, overtime and recordkeeping 

regulations pertaining to the exemptions 

for companionship services and live-in 

domestic services. The Department 

proposes to amend the regulations to 

revise the definitions of ‘‘domestic 

service employment’’ and 

‘‘companionship services.’’ The 

Department also proposes to more 

specifically describe the type of 

activities and duties that may be 

considered ‘‘incidental’’ to the provision 

of companionship services. In addition, 

the Department proposes to amend the 

recordkeeping requirements for live-in 

domestic workers. Finally, the 

Department proposes to amend the 

regulation pertaining to employment by 

a third party of companions and live-in 

domestic workers. This change would 

continue to allow the individual, family, 

or household employing the worker’s 

services to apply the companionship 

and live-in exemptions and would deny 

all third party employers the use of such 

exemptions. 

On December 15, 2011, President 

Obama announced that the Department 

of Labor was proposing the rule 

changes. The Department posted a 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

(NPRM), complete with background 

information, economic impact analyses 

and proposed regulatory text, on its Web 

site that day. The Department published 

the NPRM in the Federal Register on 

December 27, 2011 (76 FR 81190), 

requesting public comments on the 

proposed revisions to the regulations 

pertaining to the exemption for 

companionship services and live-in 

domestic services. Interested parties 

were requested to submit comments on 

or before February 27, 2012. 

The Department has received requests 

to extend the period for filing public 

comments from members of Congress 

and various business organizations. 

Because of the interest that has been 

expressed in this matter, the Department 

has decided to extend the period for 

submitting public comment for 14 

additional days. 

Dated: February 16, 2012. 

Nancy J. Leppink, 

Deputy Administrator, Wage and Hour 

Division. 

[FR Doc. 2012–4147 Filed 2–23–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–27–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R10–OAR–2011–0367, FRL–9636–9] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; State of Alaska; 

Regional Haze State Implementation 

Plan 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

a State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

revision, submitted by the State of 

Alaska on April 4, 2011, as meeting the 

requirements of Clean Air Act (CAA) 

sections169A and 169B, and Federal 

Regulations 40 CFR 51.308, to 

implement a regional haze program in 

the State of Alaska for the first planning 

period through July 31, 2018. This 

revision addresses the requirements of 

the Clean Air Act (CAA) and EPA’s 

rules that require states to prevent any 

future and remedy any existing 

anthropogenic impairment of visibility 

in mandatory Class I areas caused by 

emissions of air pollutants from 

numerous sources located over a wide 

geographic area (also referred to as the 

‘‘regional haze program’’). Additionally, 

EPA proposes to approve the Alaska 

Department of Environmental 

Conservation Best Available Retrofit 

Technology regulations at 18 AAC 

50.260. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received at the address below on or 

before March 26, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R10– 

OAR–2011–0367, by one of the 

following methods: 

• www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Email: R10- 

Public_Comments@epa.gov. 

• Mail: Keith Rose, EPA Region 10, 

Office of Air, Waste and Toxics, AWT– 

107, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, 

Seattle, WA 98101. 

• Hand Delivery/Courier: EPA Region 

10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 37 / Friday, February 24, 2012 / Proposed Rules 11023 

1Areas designated as mandatory Class I Federal 

areas consist of national parks exceeding 6000 

acres, wilderness areas and national memorial parks 

exceeding 5000 acres, and all international parks 

that were in existence on August 7, 1977. 42 U.S.C. 

7472(a). In accordance with section 169A of the 

CAA, EPA, in consultation with the Department of 

Interior, promulgated a list of 156 areas where 

visibility is identified as an important value. 44 FR 

69122 (November 30, 1979). The extent of a 

mandatory Class I area includes subsequent changes 

in boundaries, such as park expansions. 42 U.S.C. 

7472(a). Although states and tribes may designate 

as Class I additional areas which they consider to 

have visibility as an important value, the 

requirements of the visibility program set forth in 

section 169A of the CAA apply only to ‘‘mandatory 

Class I Federal areas.’’ Each mandatory Class I 

Federal area is the responsibility of a ‘‘Federal Land 

Manager.’’ 42 U.S.C. 7602(i). When we use the term 

‘‘Class I area’’ in this action, we mean a ‘‘mandatory 

Class I Federal area.’’ 

Seattle, WA 98101. Attention: Keith 

Rose, Office of Air, Waste and Toxics, 

AWT–107. Such deliveries are only 

accepted during normal hours of 

operation, and special arrangements 

should be made for deliveries of boxed 

information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R10–OAR–2011– 

0367. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through http:// 

www.regulations.gov or email. The 

http://www.regulations.gov Web site is 

an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an email comment directly 

to EPA, without going through http:// 

www.regulations.gov, your email 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. For additional information 

about EPA’s public docket visit the EPA 

Docket Center homepage at http:// 

www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the http:// 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available (e.g., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute). Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

will be publicly available only in hard 

copy form. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically at http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Office of Air, Waste and Toxics, EPA 

Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, 

WA 98101. EPA requests that if at all 

possible, you contact the individual 

listed below to view the hard copy of 

the docket. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Keith Rose at telephone number (206) 

553–1949, rose.keith@epa.gov or the 

above EPA, Region 10 address. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document whenever 

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean 

the EPA. Information is organized as 

follows: 

Table of Contents 

I. Background for EPA’s Proposed Action 

A. Definition of Regional Haze 

B. Regional Haze Rules and Regulations 

C. Roles of Agencies in Addressing 

Regional Haze 

II. Requirements for Regional Haze SIPs 

A. The CAA and the Regional Haze Rule 

B. Baseline, Natural Conditions, and 

Visibility Improvement 

C. Best Available Retrofit Technology 

D. Reasonable Progress Goals 

E. Long Term Strategy 

F. Coordinating Regional Haze and 

Reasonably Attributable Visibility 

Impairment (RAVI) 

G. Monitoring Strategy and Other 

Implementation Plan Requirements 

H. SIP Revisions and Five Year Progress 

Reports 

I. Consultation With States and Federal 

Land Managers 

III. EPA’s Analysis of Alaska’s Regional Haze 

SIP 

A. Affected Class I Areas 

B. Baseline, Natural Conditions, and 

Visibility Improvement 

C. Alaska Emissions Inventories 

D. Sources of Visibility Impairment in 

Class I Areas in Alaska 

E. Best Available Retrofit Technology 

F. Determination of Reasonable Progress 

Goals 

G. Long Term Strategy 

H. Monitoring Strategy and Other 

Implementation Plan Requirements 

I. Consultation With States and Federal 

Land Managers 

J. SIP Revisions and Five Year Progress 

Reports 

IV. Amendment to Air Quality Control Plan 

Regarding Open Burning and Regional 

Haze 

V. What action is EPA proposing? 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background for EPA’s Proposed 

Action 

In the CAA Amendments of 1977, 

Congress established a program to 

protect and improve visibility in the 

national parks and wilderness areas. See 

CAA section 169A. Congress amended 

the visibility provisions in the CAA in 

1990 to focus attention on the problem 

of regional haze. See CAA section 169B. 

EPA promulgated regulations in 1999 to 

implement sections 169A and 169B of 

the Act. These regulations require states 

to develop and implement plans to 

ensure reasonable progress toward 

improving visibility in mandatory Class 

I Federal areas 1 (Class I areas). 64 FR 

35714 (July 1, 1999); see also 70 FR 

39104 (July 6, 2005) and 71 FR 60612 

(October 13, 2006). 

The Alaska Department of 

Environmental Conservation (ADEC) 

adopted and transmitted its ‘‘Alaska 

Regional Haze State Implementation 

Plan’’ (Alaska Regional Haze SIP) to 

EPA Region 10 in a letter dated March 

29, 2011. EPA determined the plan 

complete by operation of law on 

September 4, 2011. As a result of the 

Alaska’s participation with 13 other 

states, tribal nations and Federal 

agencies in the Western Regional Air 

Partnership (WRAP), Alaska’s Regional 

Haze SIP reflects a consistent approach 

toward addressing regional visibility 

impairment at 116 Class I areas in the 

West. 

In this action, EPA is proposing to 

approve all provisions of Alaska’s 

Regional Haze SIP submission, 

including the requirements for the 

calculation of baseline and natural 

visibility conditions, statewide 

inventory of visibility-impairing 

pollutants, best available retrofit 

technology (BART), Reasonable Progress 

Goals (RPGs), and Long-Term Strategy 

(LTS). EPA is also proposing to approve 

the Alaska Department of 

Environmental Conservation (ADEC) 

BART regulations at 18 AAC 50.260. 

A. Definition of Regional Haze 

Regional haze is impairment of visual 

range, clarity or colorization caused by 

emission of air pollution produced by 

numerous sources and activities, located 

across a broad regional area. The 

sources include but are not limited to, 

major and minor stationary sources, 

mobile sources, and area sources 

including non-anthropogenic sources. 

These sources and activities may emit 

fine particles (PM2.5) (e.g., sulfates, 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

11024 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 37 / Friday, February 24, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

2Albuquerque/Bernalillo County in New Mexico 

must also submit a regional haze SIP to completely 

satisfy the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D) of 

the CAA for the entire State of New Mexico under 

the New Mexico Air Quality Control Act (section 

74–2–4). 

3See http://www.epa.gov/air/visibility/ 

regional.html for description of the regional 

planning organizations. 

4The WRAP Web site can be found at http:// 

www.wrapair.org. 

nitrates, organic carbon, elemental 

carbon, and soil dust), and their 

precursors (e.g., SO2, NOX, and in some 

cases, ammonia (NH3) and volatile 

organic compounds (VOC)). 

Atmospheric fine particulate reduces 

clarity, color, and visual range of visual 

scenes. Visibility-reducing fine 

particulates are primarily composed of 

sulfate, nitrate, organic carbon 

compounds, elemental carbon, and soil 

dust, and impair visibility by scattering 

and absorbing light. Fine particulate can 

also cause serious health effects and 

mortality in humans, and contributes to 

environmental effects such as acid 

deposition and eutrophication. See 64 

FR at 35715. 

Data from the existing visibility 

monitoring network, the ‘‘Interagency 

Monitoring of Protected Visual 

Environments’’ (IMPROVE) monitoring 

network, show that visibility 

impairment caused by air pollution 

occurs virtually all the time at most 

national parks and wilderness areas. 

The average visual range in many Class 

I areas in the Western United States is 

100–150 kilometers, or about one-half to 

two-thirds the visual range that would 

exist without anthropogenic air 

pollution. Id. Visibility impairment also 

varies day-to-day and by season 

depending on variation in meteorology 

and emission rates. 

B. Regional Haze Rules and Regulations 

In section 169A of the 1977 CAA 

Amendments, Congress created a 

program for protecting visibility in the 

nation’s national parks and wilderness 

areas. This section of the CAA 

establishes as a national goal the 

‘‘prevention of any future, and the 

remedying of any existing, impairment 

of visibility in Class I areas which 

impairment results from manmade air 

pollution.’’ CAA section 169A(a)(1). On 

December 2, 1980, EPA promulgated 

regulations to address visibility 

impairment in Class I areas that is 

‘‘reasonably attributable’’ to a single 

source or small group of sources, i.e., 

‘‘reasonably attributable visibility 

impairment’’. See 45 FR 80084. These 

regulations represented the first phase 

in addressing visibility impairment. 

EPA deferred action on regional haze 

that emanates from a variety of sources 

until monitoring, modeling, and 

scientific knowledge about the 

relationships between pollutants and 

visibility impairment were improved. 

Congress added section 169B to the 

CAA in 1990 to address regional haze 

issues. EPA promulgated a rule to 

address regional haze on July 1, 1999 

(64 FR 35713), the regional haze rule or 

RHR. The RHR revised the existing 

visibility regulations to integrate into 

the regulation provisions addressing 

regional haze impairment and 

established a comprehensive visibility 

protection program for Class I areas. The 

requirements for regional haze, found at 

40 CFR 51.308 and 51.309, are included 

in EPA’s visibility protection 

regulations at 40 CFR 51.300–309. Some 

of the main elements of the regional 

haze requirements are summarized in 

section II of this proposed rulemaking. 

The requirement to submit a regional 

haze SIP applies to all 50 states, the 

District of Columbia and the Virgin 

Islands.2 40 CFR 51.308(b) requires 

states to submit the first implementation 

plan addressing regional haze visibility 

impairment no later than December 17, 

2007. 

C. Roles of Agencies in Addressing 

Regional Haze 

Successful implementation of the 

regional haze program will require longterm regional coordination among 

states, tribal governments, and various 

Federal agencies. As noted above, 

pollution affecting the air quality in 

Class I areas can be transported over 

long distances, even hundreds of 

kilometers. Therefore, to effectively 

address the problem of visibility 

impairment in Class I areas, States need 

to develop strategies in coordination 

with one another, taking into account 

the effect of emissions from one 

jurisdiction on the air quality in 

another. 

Because the pollutants that lead to 

regional haze impairment can originate 

from across state lines, EPA has 

encouraged the States and Tribes to 

address visibility impairment from a 

regional perspective. Five regional 

planning organizations 3 (RPOs) were 

created nationally to address regional 

haze and related issues. One of the main 

objectives of the RPOs is to develop and 

analyze data and conduct pollutant 

transport modeling to assist the States or 

Tribes in developing their regional haze 

plans. 

The Western Regional Air Partnership 

(WRAP) 4, one of the five RPOs 

nationally, is a voluntary partnership of 

State, Tribal, Federal, and local air 

agencies dealing with air quality in the 

West. WRAP member States include: 

Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, 

Idaho, Montana, New Mexico, North 

Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, 

Washington, and Wyoming. WRAP 

Tribal members include Campo Band of 

Kumeyaay Indians, Confederated Salish 

and Kootenai Tribes, Cortina Indian 

Rancheria, Hopi Tribe, Hualapai Nation 

of the Grand Canyon, Native Village of 

Shungnka, Nez Perce Tribe, Northern 

Cheyenne Tribe, Pueblo of Acoma, 

Pueblo of San Felipe, and ShoshoneBannock Tribes of Fort Hall. 

As a result of the regional planning 

efforts in the West, all states in the 

WRAP region contributed information 

to a Technical Support System (TSS) 

which provides an analysis of the 

causes of haze, and the levels of 

contribution from all sources within 

each state to the visibility degradation of 

each Class I area. The WRAP States 

consulted in the development of 

reasonable progress goals, using the 

products of this technical consultation 

process to co-develop their reasonable 

progress goals for the Western Class I 

areas. The modeling done by the WRAP 

relied on assumptions regarding 

emissions over the relevant planning 

period and embedded in these 

assumptions were anticipated emissions 

reductions in each of the States in the 

WRAP, including reductions from 

BART and other measures to be adopted 

as part of the State’s long term strategy 

for addressing regional haze. The 

reasonable progress goals in the draft 

and final regional haze SIPs that have 

now been prepared by States in the 

West accordingly are based, in part, on 

the emissions reductions from nearby 

States that were agreed on through the 

WRAP process. 

II. Requirements for Regional Haze 

SIPs 

A. The CAA and the Regional Haze Rule 

Regional haze SIPs must assure 

reasonable progress towards the 

national goal of achieving natural 

visibility conditions in Class I areas. 

Section 169A of the CAA and EPA’s 

implementing regulations require states 

to establish long-term strategies for 

making reasonable progress toward 

meeting this goal. Implementation plans 

must also give specific attention to 

certain stationary sources that were in 

existence on August 7, 1977, but were 

not in operation before August 7, 1962, 

and require these sources, where 

appropriate, to install BART controls for 

the purpose of eliminating or reducing 

visibility impairment. The specific 

regional haze SIP requirements are 

discussed in further detail below. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 37 / Friday, February 24, 2012 / Proposed Rules 11025 

5The preamble to the RHR provides additional 

details about the deciview. 64 FR 35714, 35725 

(July 1, 1999). 

6The set of ‘‘major stationary sources’’ potentially 

subject to BART is listed in CAA section 169A(g)(7). 

B. Determination of Baseline, Natural 

Conditions, and Visibility Improvement 

The RHR establishes the deciview 

(dv) as the principal metric for 

measuring visibility. This visibility 

metric expresses uniform changes in 

haziness in terms of common 

increments across the entire range of 

visibility conditions, from pristine to 

extremely hazy conditions. Visibility is 

determined by measuring the visual 

range (or deciview), which is the 

greatest distance, in kilometers or miles, 

at which a dark object can be viewed 

against the sky. The deciview is a useful 

measure for tracking progress in 

improving visibility, because each 

deciview change is an equal incremental 

change in visibility perceived by the 

human eye. Most people can detect a 

change in visibility at one deciview.5

The deciview is used in expressing 

reasonable progress goals (which are 

interim visibility goals towards meeting 

the national visibility goal), defining 

baseline, current, and natural 

conditions, and tracking changes in 

visibility. The regional haze SIPs must 

contain measures that ensure 

‘‘reasonable progress’’ toward the 

national goal of preventing and 

remedying visibility impairment in 

Class I areas caused by manmade air 

pollution by reducing anthropogenic 

emissions that cause regional haze. The 

national goal is a return to natural 

conditions, i.e., anthropogenic sources 

of air pollution would no longer impair 

visibility in Class I areas. 

To track changes in visibility over 

time at each of the 156 Class I areas 

covered by the visibility program (40 

CFR 81.401–437), and as part of the 

process for determining reasonable 

progress, States must calculate the 

degree of existing visibility impairment 

at each Class I area at the time of each 

regional haze SIP submittal and 

periodically review progress every five 

years midway through each 10-year 

implementation period. To do this, the 

RHR requires states to determine the 

degree of impairment (in deciviews) for 

the average of the 20% least impaired 

(‘‘best’’) and 20% most impaired 

(‘‘worst’’) visibility days over a specified 

time period at each of their Class I areas. 

In addition, states must also develop an 

estimate of natural visibility conditions 

for the purpose of comparing progress 

toward the national goal. Natural 

visibility is determined by estimating 

the natural concentrations of pollutants 

that cause visibility impairment, and 

then calculating total light extinction 

based on those estimates. EPA has 

provided guidance to states regarding 

how to calculate baseline, natural and 

current visibility conditions in 

documents titled, EPA’s Guidance for 

Estimating Natural Visibility Conditions 

Under the Regional Haze Rule, 

September 2003, (EPA–454/B–03–005 

located at http://www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/ 

t1/memoranda/rh_envcurhr_gd.pdf), 

(hereinafter referred to as ‘‘EPA’s 2003 

Natural Visibility Guidance’’), and 

Guidance for Tracking Progress Under 

the Regional Haze Rule (EPA–454/B– 

03–004 September 2003 located at 

http://www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/t1/ 

memoranda/rh_tpurhr_gd.pdf)), 

(hereinafter referred to as ‘‘EPA’s 2003 

Tracking Progress Guidance’’). 

For the first regional haze SIPs that 

were due by December 17, 2007, 

‘‘baseline visibility conditions’’ were the 

starting points for assessing ‘‘current’’ 

visibility impairment. Baseline visibility 

conditions represent the degree of 

visibility impairment for the 20% least 

impaired days and 20% most impaired 

days for each calendar year from 2000 

to 2004. Using monitoring data for 2000 

through 2004, States are required to 

calculate the average degree of visibility 

impairment for each Class I area, based 

on the average of annual values over the 

five-year period. The comparison of 

initial baseline visibility conditions to 

natural visibility conditions indicates 

the amount of improvement necessary 

to attain natural visibility, while the 

future comparison of baseline 

conditions to the then-current 

conditions will indicate the amount of 

progress made. In general, the 2000– 

2004 baseline time period is considered 

the time from which improvement in 

visibility is measured. 

C. Best Available Retrofit Technology 

Section 169A of the CAA directs 

States to evaluate the use of retrofit 

controls at certain larger, often 

uncontrolled, older stationary sources in 

order to address visibility impacts from 

these sources. Specifically, section 

169A(b)(2)(A) of the CAA requires 

States to revise their SIPs to contain 

such measures as may be necessary to 

make reasonable progress towards the 

natural visibility goal, including a 

requirement that certain categories of 

existing major stationary sources 6 built 

between 1962 and 1977 procure, install, 

and operate the ‘‘Best Available Retrofit 

Technology’’ (‘‘BART’’) as determined 

by the state. States are directed to 

conduct BART determinations for such 

sources that may be anticipated to cause 

or contribute to any visibility 

impairment in a Class I area. Rather 

than requiring source-specific BART 

controls, States also have the flexibility 

to adopt an emissions trading program 

or other alternative program as long as 

the alternative provides greater 

reasonable progress towards improving 

visibility than BART. 

On July 6, 2005, EPA published the 

Guidelines for BART Determinations 

Under the Regional Haze Rule at 

appendix Y to 40 CFR part 51 

(hereinafter referred to as the ‘‘BART 

Guidelines’’) to assist States in 

determining which of their sources 

should be subject to the BART 

requirements and in determining 

appropriate emission limits for each 

applicable source. In making a BART 

applicability determination for a fossil 

fuel-fired electric generating plant with 

a total generating capacity in excess of 

750 megawatts, a State must use the 

approach set forth in the BART 

Guidelines. A State is encouraged, but 

not required, to follow the BART 

Guidelines in making BART 

determinations for other types of 

sources. 

States must address all visibilityimpairing pollutants emitted by a source 

in the BART determination process. The 

most significant visibility-impairing 

pollutants are sulfur dioxide, nitrogen 

oxides, and fine particulate matter. EPA 

has indicated that states should use 

their best judgment in determining 

whether volatile organic compounds or 

ammonia compounds impair visibility 

in Class I areas. 

Under the BART Guidelines, States 

may select an exemption threshold 

value for their BART modeling, below 

which a BART-eligible source would 

not be expected to cause or contribute 

to visibility impairment in any Class I 

area. The State must document this 

exemption threshold value in the SIP 

and must state the basis for its selection 

of that value. Any source with 

emissions that model above the 

threshold value would be subject to a 

BART determination. The BART 

Guidelines acknowledge varying 

circumstances affecting different Class I 

areas. States should consider the 

number of emission sources affecting 

the Class I areas at issue and the 

magnitude of the individual sources’ 

impacts. Generally, an exemption 

threshold set by the State should not be 

higher than 0.5 deciviews (dv). 

In their SIPs, States must identify 

potential BART sources and BARTeligible sources that have a visibility 

impact in any Class I area above the 

‘‘BART subject’’ threshold established 

by the State and thus, are ‘‘subject’’ to 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

11026 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 37 / Friday, February 24, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

BART. States must document their 

BART control analysis and 

determination for all sources subject to 

BART. 

The term ‘‘BART-eligible’’ source 

used in the BART Guidelines means the 

collection of individual emission units 

at a facility that together comprises the 

BART-eligible source. In making BART 

determinations, section 169A(g)(2) of 

the CAA requires that States consider 

the following factors: (1) The costs of 

compliance, (2) the energy and non-air 

quality environmental impacts of 

compliance, (3) any existing pollution 

control technology in use at the source, 

(4) the remaining useful life of the 

source, and (5) the degree of 

improvement in visibility which may 

reasonably be anticipated to result from 

the use of such technology. States are 

generally free to determine the weight 

and significance to be assigned to each 

factor. 

The regional haze SIP must include 

source-specific BART emission limits 

and compliance schedules for each 

source subject to BART. Once a State 

has made its BART determination, the 

BART controls must be installed and in 

operation as expeditiously as 

practicable, but no later than five years 

after the date EPA approves the regional 

haze SIP. See CAA section 169A(g)(4); 

40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(iv). In addition to 

what is required by the RHR, general 

SIP requirements mandate that the SIP 

must also include all regulatory 

requirements related to monitoring, 

recordkeeping, and reporting for the 

BART controls on the source. 

D. Reasonable Progress Goals 

The vehicle for ensuring continuing 

progress towards achieving the natural 

visibility goal is the submission of a 

series of regional haze SIPs that 

establish two Reasonable Progress Goals 

(RPGs) (i.e., two distinct goals, one for 

the ‘‘best’’ and one for the ‘‘worst’’ days) 

for every Class I area for each 

(approximately) ten-year 

implementation period. The RHR does 

not mandate specific milestones or rates 

of progress, but instead calls for states 

to establish goals that provide for 

‘‘reasonable progress’’ toward achieving 

natural visibility conditions. In setting 

reasonable progress goals (RPGs), States 

must provide for an improvement in 

visibility for the most impaired days 

over the (approximately) ten-year period 

of the SIP, and ensure no degradation in 

visibility for the least impaired days 

over the same period. 

States have significant discretion in 

establishing RPGs, but are required to 

consider the following factors 

established in section 169A of the CAA 

and in EPA’s RHR at 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(1)(i)(A): (1) The costs of 

compliance; (2) the time necessary for 

compliance; (3) the energy and non-air 

quality environmental impacts of 

compliance; and (4) the remaining 

useful life of any potentially affected 

sources. States must demonstrate in 

their SIPs how these factors are 

considered when selecting the RPGs for 

the best and worst days for each 

applicable Class I area. States have 

considerable flexibility in how they take 

these factors into consideration, as 

noted in EPA’s Guidance for Setting 

Reasonable Progress Goals under the 

Regional Haze Program, July 1, 2007, 

Memorandum from William L. Wehrum, 

Acting Assistant Administrator for Air 

and Radiation, to EPA Regional 

Administrators, EPA Regions 1–10 (pp. 

4–2, 5–1) (‘‘EPA’s Reasonable Progress 

Guidance’’). In setting the RPGs, States 

must also consider the rate of progress 

needed to reach natural visibility 

conditions by 2064 (referred to as the 

‘‘uniform rate of progress’’ (URP) or the 

‘‘glide path’’) and the emission 

reduction measures needed to achieve 

that rate of progress over the ten-year 

period of the SIP. Uniform rate of 

progress represents a rate of progress 

that states are to use for comparison to 

the amount of progress they expect to 

achieve over the ten-year period. In 

setting RPGs, each State with one or 

more Class I areas (‘‘Class I state’’) must 

also consult with potentially 

‘‘contributing States,’’ i.e., other nearby 

States with emission sources that may 

be affecting visibility impairment at the 

Class I State’s areas. See 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(1)(iv). 

E. Long-Term Strategy 

Consistent with the requirement in 

section 169A(b) of the CAA that States 

include in their regional haze SIP a ten 

to fifteen-year strategy for making 

reasonable progress, section 51.308(d)(3) 

of the RHR requires that States include 

a long-term strategy (LTS) in their 

regional haze SIPs. The LTS is the 

compilation of all control measures a 

State will use during the 

implementation period of the specific 

SIP submittal to meet applicable RPGs. 

The LTS must include ‘‘enforceable 

emissions limitations, compliance 

schedules, and other measures needed 

to achieve the reasonable progress 

goals’’ for all Class I areas within and 

affected by emissions from the State. 40 

CFR 51.308(d)(3). 

When a state’s emissions are 

reasonably anticipated to cause or 

contribute to visibility impairment in a 

Class I area located in another state, the 

RHR requires the impacted state to 

coordinate with contributing states to 

develop coordinated emissions 

management strategies. 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(3)(i). In such cases, the 

contributing state must demonstrate that 

it has included in its SIP all measures 

necessary to obtain its share of the 

emission reductions needed to meet the 

RPGs for the Class I area. The RPOs 

have provided forums for significant 

interstate consultation, but additional 

consultation between states may be 

required to sufficiently address 

interstate visibility issues (e.g., where 

two states belong to different RPOs). 

States should consider all types of 

anthropogenic sources of visibility 

impairment in developing their LTS, 

including stationary, minor, mobile, and 

area sources. At a minimum, states must 

describe how each of the following 

seven factors listed below are taken into 

account in developing their LTS: (1) 

Emission reductions due to ongoing air 

pollution control programs, including 

measures to address RAVI; (2) measures 

to mitigate the impacts of construction 

activities; (3) emissions limitations and 

schedules for compliance to achieve the 

RPG; (4) source retirement and 

replacement schedules; (5) smoke 

management techniques for agricultural 

and forestry management purposes 

including plans as currently exist 

within the state for these purposes; (6) 

enforceability of emissions limitations 

and control measures; and, (7) the 

anticipated net effect on visibility due to 

projected changes in point, area, and 

mobile source emissions over the period 

addressed by the LTS. 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(3)(v). 

F. Coordinating Regional Haze and 

Reasonably Attributable Visibility 

Impairment (RAVI) 

As part of the RHR, EPA revised 40 

CFR 51.306(c) regarding the LTS for 

RAVI to require that the RAVI plan must 

provide for a periodic review and SIP 

revision not less frequently than every 

three years until the date of submission 

of the state’s first plan addressing 

regional haze visibility impairment, 

which was due December 17, 2007, in 

accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(b) and 

(c). On or before this date, the state must 

revise its plan to provide for review and 

revision of a coordinated LTS for 

addressing RAVI and regional haze, and 

the state must submit the first such 

coordinated LTS with its first regional 

haze SIP. Future coordinated LTSs, and 

periodic progress reports evaluating 

progress towards RPGs, must be 

submitted consistent with the schedule 

for SIP submission and periodic 

progress reports set forth in 40 CFR 

51.308(f) and 51.308(g), respectively. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 37 / Friday, February 24, 2012 / Proposed Rules 11027 

7The URP is also referred to as the visibility 

‘‘glidepath’’, which is the linear rate of progress 

needed to achieve natural visibility conditions by 

2064. 

The periodic review of a state’s LTS 

must provide the status of both regional 

haze and RAVI impairment, and must 

be submitted to EPA as a SIP revision. 

G. Monitoring Strategy and Other 

Implementation Plan Requirements 

Section 51.308(d)(4) of the RHR 

requires a monitoring strategy for 

measuring, characterizing, and reporting 

on regional haze visibility impairment 

that is representative of all mandatory 

Class I areas within the state. The 

strategy must be coordinated with the 

monitoring strategy required in 40 CFR 

51.305 for RAVI. Compliance with this 

requirement may be met through 

‘‘participation’’ in the Interagency 

Monitoring of Protected Visual 

Environments (IMPROVE) network, i.e., 

review and use of monitoring data from 

the network. The monitoring strategy is 

due with the first regional haze SIP, and 

it must be reviewed every five years. 

The monitoring strategy must also 

provide for additional monitoring sites 

if the IMPROVE network is not 

sufficient to determine whether RPGs 

will be met. The SIP must also provide 

for the following: 

• Procedures for using monitoring 

data and other information in a state 

with mandatory Class I areas to 

determine the contribution of emissions 

from within the state to regional haze 

visibility impairment at Class I areas 

both within and outside the state; 

• Procedures for using monitoring 

data and other information in a state 

with no mandatory Class I areas to 

determine the contribution of emissions 

from within the state to regional haze 

visibility impairment at Class I areas in 

other states; 

• Reporting of all visibility 

monitoring data to the Administrator at 

least annually for each Class I area in 

the state, and where possible, in 

electronic format; 

• Developing a statewide inventory of 

emissions of pollutants that are 

reasonably anticipated to cause or 

contribute to visibility impairment in 

any Class I area. The inventory must 

include emissions for a baseline year, 

emissions for the most recent year for 

which data are available, and estimates 

of future projected emissions. A state 

must also make a commitment to update 

the inventory periodically; and, 

• Other elements, including 

reporting, recordkeeping, and other 

measures necessary to assess and report 

on visibility. 

H. SIP Revisions and Five-Year Progress 

Reports 

The RHR requires control strategies to 

cover an initial implementation period 

through 2018, with a comprehensive 

reassessment and revision of those 

strategies, as appropriate, every ten 

years thereafter. Periodic SIP revisions 

must meet the core requirements of 40 

CFR 51.308(d) with the exception of 

BART. The requirement to evaluate 

sources for BART applies only to the 

first regional haze SIP. Facilities subject 

to BART must continue to comply with 

the BART provisions of 40 CFR 

51.308(e), as noted above. Periodic SIP 

revisions will assure that the statutory 

requirement of reasonable progress will 

continue to be met. 

Each state also is required to submit 

a report to EPA every five years that 

evaluates progress toward achieving the 

RPG for each Class I area within the 

state and outside the state if affected by 

emissions from within the state. 40 CFR 

51.308(g). The first progress report is 

due five years from submittal of the 

initial regional haze SIP revision. At the 

same time a 5-year progress report is 

submitted, a state must determine the 

adequacy of its existing SIP to achieve 

the established goals for visibility 

improvement. See 40 CFR 51.308(h). 

I. Consultation With States and Federal 

Land Managers 

The RHR requires that states consult 

with Federal Land Managers (FLMs) 

before adopting and submitting their 

SIPs. See 40 CFR 51.308(i). States must 

provide FLMs an opportunity for 

consultation, in person and at least 60 

days prior to holding any public hearing 

on the SIP. This consultation must 

include the opportunity for the FLMs to 

discuss their assessment of visibility 

impairment in any Class I area and to 

offer recommendations on the 

development of the reasonable progress 

goals and on the development and 

implementation of strategies to address 

visibility impairment. Further, a state 

must include in its SIP a description of 

how it addressed any comments 

provided by the FLMs. Finally, a SIP 

must provide procedures for continuing 

consultation between the state and 

FLMs regarding the state’s visibility 

protection program, including 

development and review of SIP 

revisions, 5-year progress reports, and 

the implementation of other programs 

having the potential to contribute to 

impairment of visibility in Class I areas. 

III. EPA’s Analysis of Alaska’s Regional 

Haze SIP 

A. Affected Class I Areas 

Alaska has four Class I areas within 

the state. These four Class I areas are 

Denali National Park, Simeonof 

Wilderness Area, Tuxedni National 

Wildlife Refuge, and Bering Sea 

Wilderness Area. ADEC has not 

identified any other state that is 

impacting the Class I areas in Alaska, 

and Alaska has not been identified as a 

contributor to impacts in other state’s 

Class I areas. However, in accordance 

with 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(iv) and 

51.308(d)(3)(i), ADEC commits to 

continue consultation with states which 

may reasonably be anticipated to cause 

or contribute to visibility impairment in 

Federal Class I areas located within 

Alaska. ADEC will also continue 

consultation with any state for which 

Alaska’s emissions may reasonably be 

anticipated to cause or contribute to 

visibility impairment in that state’s 

Federal Class I areas. 

B. Baseline, Natural Conditions and 

Visibility Improvement 

Alaska, using data from the IMPROVE 

monitoring network and analyzed by 

WRAP, calculated current baseline and 

natural visibility conditions, and the 

uniform rate of progress (URP) 7 for 

Denali National Park, Simeonof 

Wilderness Area and Tuxedni Wildlife 

Refuge. Baseline visibility for the mostimpaired (20% worst) days and the 

least-impaired (20% best) days was 

calculated from monitoring data 

collected by IMPROVE monitors. The 

IMPROVE monitoring sites for each 

Class I area are: 

• Denali National Park—Denali 

National Park has two visibility 

monitors. One site is located at the 

Denali National Park Headquarters 

(DENA1), which has operated since 

1988, and the second is the Trapper 

Creek monitoring site (TRCR1) located 

100 yards east of the Trapper Creek 

Elementary School, west of the Town of 

Trapper Creek. The monitor located at 

Trapper Creek is the official IMPROVE 

site for Denali National Park and was 

established in September 2001 to 

evaluate the long-range transport of 

pollution into the Park from the south. 

• Simeonof Wilderness Area—The 

Simeonof Wilderness Area is located on 

a remote, isolated island in the Aleutian 

chain approximately 58 miles from 

mainland Alaska. The Fish and Wildlife 

Service has placed an IMPROVE air 

monitor in the community of Sand 

Point, Alaska to represent this 

wilderness area. The community is on a 

more accessible island approximately 60 

miles north west of the Simeonof 

Wilderness Area. The monitor has been 

operating since September 2001. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

11028 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 37 / Friday, February 24, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

• Tuxedni National Wildlife Refuge— 

Tuxedni National Wildlife Refuge is 

located on a relatively remote pair of 

islands in Tuxedni Bay off of Cook Inlet 

in Southcentral Alaska. The Fish and 

Wildlife Service has installed an 

IMPROVE monitor near Lake Clark 

National Park to represent conditions at 

Tuxedni Wilderness Area. This site is 

located on the west side of Cook Inlet, 

approximately 5 miles from the Tuxedni 

National Wildlife Refuge. The site was 

operational as of December 18, 2001, 

and represents regional haze conditions 

for the wilderness area. 

• Bering Sea Wilderness Area—This 

wilderness area encompasses St. 

Matthew Island, Hall Island, and 

Pinnacle Island and is part of the larger 

Bering Sea unit of the Alaska Maritime 

National Wildlife Refuge. The Bering 

Sea Wilderness area is extremely remote 

and located approximately 350 miles 

southwest of Nome, Alaska and is 

surrounded on all sides by the Bering 

Sea. There is essentially no electricity or 

other infrastructure to support a 

monitor. Additionally, the area is 

hundreds of miles away from 

population centers or major stationary 

sources. This area had a DELTA–DRUM 

sampler (a mobile sampler) installed 

during a field visit in 2002. However, 

difficulties were encountered with the 

power supply and no viable data are 

available, therefore ADEC is not able to 

determine baseline visibility conditions 

for this site. Due to its inaccessibility, 

remoteness, and harsh environment, no 

IMPROVE monitoring is available or is 

currently planned for the Bering Sea 

Wilderness Area. 

In general, WRAP based their 

estimates of natural conditions on EPA’s 

2003 Natural Visibility Guidance, but 

incorporated refinements which EPA 

believes provides results more 

appropriate for Alaska than the general 

EPA default approach. These 

refinements include the use of an 

updated IMPROVE algorithm which 

uses a higher ratio of organic mass 

concentration to organic carbon mass, 

which better accounts for haze from 

organic mass, and includes a term for 

sea salt, which causes a significant 

amount of haze in the Tuxedni and 

Simeonof Class I areas. See WRAP 

Technical Support Document, February 

28, 2011 (WRAP TSD) section 2.D and 

2.E, supporting this action. 

Table 1 below shows visibility 

conditions in Denali National Park, 

Simeonof Wilderness Area and Tuxedni 

National Wildlife Refuge for the 20% 

worst natural visibility days, the 20% 

worst baseline days, the 2018 URP, and 

the visibility improvement needed 

between 2002 and 2018 to achieve the 

URP. Table 2 shows visibility 

conditions on the 20% best days. 

TABLE 1—20% WORST DAY VISIBILITY CONDITIONS

Site Class I area 

20% Worst 

natural 

conditions 

(dv) 

20% Worst 

baseline 

conditions 

(dv) 

2018 Uniform 

rate of 

progress 

(dv) 

Visibility 

improvement 

needed by 

2018 

(dv) 

DENA1 ............................... Denali .............................................................. 7.3 9.9 9.5 0.4 

TRCR1 ............................... Denali .............................................................. 8.4 11.6 11.1 0.5 

SIME1 ................................. Simeonof ......................................................... 15.6 18.6 18.1 0.5 

TUXE1 ................................ Tuxedni ........................................................... 11.3 14.1 13.6 0.5 

TABLE 2—20% BEST DAY VISIBILITY CONDITIONS

Site Class I area 

20% Best 

baseline 

conditions 

(dv) 

20% Best 

natural 

conditions 

(dv) 

DENA1 .................................................... Denali ................................................................................................. 2.4 1.8 

TRCR1 .................................................... Denali ................................................................................................. 3.5 2.7 

SIME1 ..................................................... Simeonof ............................................................................................ 7.6 5.3 

TUXE1 ..................................................... Tuxedni ............................................................................................... 4.0 3.2 

Based on IMPROVE data collected in 

the Class I areas in Alaska during the 

baseline period (2000–2004), the major 

pollutants that contribute to light 

extinction on the 20% worst days at the 

Simeonof site are: sea salt (47%), 

sulfates (29%), and organic mass 

concentration (OMC) (9%); at the Denali 

DENA1 site are: OMC (54%), sulfates 

(25%), elemental carbon (8%); at the 

Denali TRCR1 site are: OMC (43%), 

sulfates (35%), coarse matter (7%); and 

at the Tuxedni site are: OMC (28%), sea 

salt (26%), sulfate (28%). 

As noted previously, due to the 

remote location of the Class I area in the 

Bering Sea, no monitoring site exists in 

this Class I area and insufficient data are 

available to accurately calculate 

baseline values for this Class I area. The 

area is located a considerable distance 

off shore in the Bering Sea and is 

hundreds of miles from any other 

monitoring location. Alaska evaluated 

and discussed the origins and influence 

of aerosols to this Class I area, and 

concluded that significant impacts from 

local industrial, commercial or 

community developments are unlikely. 

Future impacts from potential offshore 

oil and gas development is a remote 

possibility, but is also unlikely as there 

are no offshore oil and gas 

developments currently planned for the 

St. Matthew-Hall area, or the adjoining 

Aleutian Basin, Bowers Basin, and 

Aleutian Arc areas. Finally Alaska 

indicates that it will continue to 

evaluate the possibility for portable 

sampling in remote locations as 

resources allow. Alaska Regional Haze 

SIP submittal III.K.3–17. EPA 

acknowledges the provision in the RHR 

which provides that for Class I areas 

without monitoring data for 2000–2004 

the state should establish baseline 

values using the most representative 

available monitoring data for 2000–2004 

in consultation with the Administrator. 

40 CFR 51.308 (d)(2)(i). However, as 

explained above and more fully 

described the SIP submission, 

representative data is not available for 

the Bering Sea Wilderness Area. 

Additionally, given the location of this 

Wilderness Area in the middle of the 

Bering Sea hundreds of miles off the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 37 / Friday, February 24, 2012 / Proposed Rules 11029 

coast of Alaska, it is likely that any 

sources impacting visibility in the area 

would be beyond Alaska’s jurisdiction 

or ability to control. Also EPA expects 

the state to update any available 

monitoring or visibility impact analyses 

in its 5-year progress reports. Therefore, 

given the unique, extremely remote and 

isolated location and the associated 

difficulties with monitoring at the area 

EPA proposes to accept Alaska’s 

approach to the Bering Sea Wilderness 

Area. 

Based on our evaluation of the State’s 

baseline and natural conditions 

analysis, EPA is proposing to find that 

Alaska has appropriately determined 

baseline visibility for the average 20% 

worst and 20% best days, and natural 

visibility conditions for the average 20% 

worst days, and the visibility glidepath 

from the baseline conditions to natural 

conditions in the three Class I areas. See 

sections 2.D and 2.E of the WRAP TSD 

supporting this action. We also believe 

the State’s analysis accurately 

determined the individual aerosol 

species causing impairment in the three 

Class I areas. 

C. Alaska Emissions Inventories 

There are three main categories of 

visibility-impairing air pollution 

sources: point sources, area sources, and 

mobile sources. Point sources are larger 

stationary sources that emit air 

pollutants. Area sources are large 

numbers of small sources that are 

widely distributed across an area, such 

as residential heating units, re-entrained 

dust from unpaved roads or windblown 

dust from agricultural fields. Mobile 

sources are sources such as motor 

vehicles, including agricultural and 

construction equipment, locomotives, 

and aircraft. 

EPA’s Regional Haze Rule requires a 

statewide emission inventory of 

pollutants that are reasonably 

anticipated to cause or contribute to 

visibility impairment in any mandatory 

Class I area. 40 CFR 51.308(d)(4)(v). 

ADEC compiled emission inventories 

for all visibility impairing source 

categories in Alaska for the 2002 

baseline year, and projected future 

emission inventories for these source 

categories in 2018. See Appendix III.K.5 

of the SIP submittal. The fire sector of 

the baseline inventory was developed 

using 2000–2004 average data obtained 

from the WRAP Fire Inventory efforts. 

Emission estimates for 2018 were 

generated from anticipated population 

growth, growth in industrial activity, 

and emission reductions from 

implementation of control measures, 

e.g., implementation of BART 

limitations and motor vehicle tailpipe 

emissions. Chapter 5 of the Alaska 

Regional Haze SIP submittal discusses 

how emission estimates were 

determined for statewide emission 

inventories by pollutant and source 

category. 

Key factors that were considered in 

the development of these regional haze 

emission inventories were: 

Pollutants—Inventories were 

developed for the following pollutants: 

hydrocarbons (HC), carbon monoxide 

(CO), oxides of nitrogen (NOX), sulfur 

oxides (SOX), ammonia (NH3), volatile 

organic compounds (VOC), and coarse 

and fine particulate matter (PM10 and 

PM2.5, respectively). 

Areal Extent and Spatial Resolution— 

The inventories represent sources 

within the entire state of Alaska, 

encompassing a total of 27 boroughs/ 

counties. Emissions were allocated to 

individual grid cells, of 45 square 

kilometers each, in a rectangular grid 

domain covering all of Alaska. This grid 

domain was based on domain 

developed under an earlier WRAP study 

for which a modeling protocol was 

developed. See Figure III.K.5–2 of the 

SIP submittal. 

Included Sources—Emission sources 

included known stationary point and 

area sources including fugitive dust and 

both anthropogenic and natural fires, 

and on-road and non-road mobile 

sources. As discussed later in this 

section, biogenic (trees and vegetation) 

and geogenic sources (gas/oil seeps, 

wind erosion, and geothermal and 

volcanic activity) were not included. 

Temporal Resolution—The 

inventories were expressed in the form 

of annual emissions for 2002 and 2018. 

For all source categories, except the fire 

sector, the baseline inventory was 

represented using calendar year 2002 

annual emission estimates. The fire 

sector of the baseline inventory was 

developed using 2000–2004 average 

data obtained from the WRAP Fire 

Inventory efforts. These data reflect fire 

activity (from wildfires, wildland fires, 

and prescribed burns) averaged over this 

five-year period and are less likely to be 

biased by fire emissions from any 

individual year. See Alaska Regional 

Haze submittal III.K.5–3. 

The 2018 inventory was developed to 

reflect emission levels projected to 

calendar year 2018, accounting for 

forecasted changes in source activity 

and emission factors. Population 

projections compiled by the Alaska 

Department of Labor and Workforce 

Development at five-year intervals 

through 2030 by individual borough and 

census area were used to grow 2002 

baseline activity to 2018 for most of the 

source categories, with a couple of 

exceptions. 

In developing its 2018 emission 

inventory, Alaska first determined that 

emission estimates for wildfires should 

be held constant between 2002 and 

2018. However, as explained later, 

modest reductions in prescribed burn 

emissions were assumed, consistent 

with WRAP 2018b Phase III Fire 

Inventory forecast. Second, activity from 

small port commercial marine vessel 

activity in 2002 was assumed to be 

identical to that obtained for calendar 

year 2005. 

Alaska also developed emission 

factors specific to calendar year 2018 for 

sources affected by regulatory control 

programs and technology 

improvements. These source sectors 

included on-road and non-road mobile 

sources (except commercial marine 

vessels and aviation) and stationary 

point sources. Alaska explained that the 

emissions forecast for 2018 does not 

include emissions from new or 

permitted sources that are not currently 

operating but which may be in 

operation in 2018. However, where the 

status of these facilities is known, 

Alaska further discussed the sources’ 

influence on predicted emissions or 

visibility impact on a particular Class I 

area. 

The SIP submittal identifies total 

annual emission estimates for visibilityimpairing pollutants including SOx, 

NOX, VOC HC, CO, PM2.5, PM10 and 

NH3 for 2002 and 2018. These emission 

estimates were partitioned into eight 

emission source categories: point 

sources, stationary area sources 

(excluding fires), on-road mobile, nonroad mobile, commercial marine 

vessels, aviation, anthropogenic fire 

(human caused), and natural wildfires. 

Biogenic emissions were not included 

in these regional haze inventories 

because no biogenic inventories have 

been developed for Alaska. Alaska 

indicates that given its northerly 

location, preponderance of snow and ice 

cover, and short growing season, it 

would be problematic to extrapolate 

‘‘lower 48’’ biogenic emission factors 

and activity to it. Similarly, geogenic 

emissions were also excluded due to 

lack of available data. Additionally, 

Alaska did not include internationally 

transported emissions but cites to a 

number of studies that have attributed 

atmospheric aerosols measured in 

Alaska to contributions from upwind 

regions as far away as portions of Asia 

and Russia based on back trajectory 

analysis and identification of unique 

chemical source signatures. Alaska 

explains that robust emission estimates 

from these source areas are not available 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

11030 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 37 / Friday, February 24, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

and thus there is no accounting of these 

international, long-range transported 

sources. See Alaska Regional Haze SIP 

submittal III.K.5 for additional 

discussion of Alaska’s emission 

estimates and inventory. See also WRAP 

TSD Chapter 3. Tables 2 and 3 below 

show total statewide emissions (in tons/ 

year), by source sector and pollutant, for 

the calendar years 2002 and 2018, 

respectively. In addition to the totals 

across all source sectors, anthropogenic 

emission fractions (defined as all sectors 

except natural fires divided by total 

emissions) are also shown at the bottom 

of each table. 

TABLE 3—2002 ALASKA STATEWIDE REGIONAL HAZE INVENTORY SUMMARY

Source sector 

Annual emissions (tons/year) 

HC CO NOX PM10 PM2.5 SOX NH3

Area, Excluding 

Wildfires .................... 128,271 81,978 14,742 106,985 30,636 1,872 0 

Non-Road ..................... 7,585 52,223 4,111 416 392 49 8 

On-Road ....................... 7,173 80,400 7,077 204 158 324 307 

Commercial Marine 

Vessels ..................... 356 2,880 11,258 663 643 4,979 5 

Aviation (Aircraft) ......... 1,566 21,440 3,265 699 667 335 6 

Point ............................. 5,697 27,910 74,471 5,933 1,237 6,813 580 

Wildfires, Anthropogenic ......................... 98 2,048 46 200 172 13 9 

Wildfires, Natural .......... 274,436 5,831,755 125,110 557,403 478,057 34,304 26,233 

TOTAL—All 

Sources ............. 425,181 6,100,633 240,080 672,502 511,962 48,689 27,149 

Anthropogenic Fraction 35.5% 4.4% 47.9% 17.1% 6.6% 29.5% 3.4% 

Alaska Regional Haze SIP submittal Table III.K.5–4. 

TABLE 4—2018 ALASKA STATEWIDE REGIONAL HAZE INVENTORY SUMMARY

Source sector 

Annual emissions (tons/year) 

HC CO NOX PM10 PM2.5 SOX NH3

Area, Excluding 

Wildfires .................... 137,696 88,030 15,683 116,629 33,329 2,068 0 

Non-Road ..................... 7,766 65,900 3,332 337 313 47 9 

On-Road ....................... 2,946 44,881 2,881 138 74 39 340 

Commercial Marine 

Vessels ..................... 616 4,751 16,205 1,031 1,192 1,129 9 

Aviation (Aircraft & 

GSE) ......................... 1,799 24,387 3,810 794 757 386 7 

Point ............................. 6,612 24,406 65,230 1,783 358 8,587 1,106 

Fires, Anthropogenic .... 53 1,100 26 107 93 7 5 

Fires, Natural ............... 274,436 5,831,755 125,110 557,403 478,057 34,304 26,233 

TOTAL—All 

Sources ............. 431,925 6,085,210 232,277 678,223 514,173 46,568 27,709 

Anthropogenic Fraction 36.5% 4.2% 46.1% 17.8% 7.0% 26.3% 5.3% 

Alaska Regional Haze SIP submittal Table III.K.5–5. 

Significant changes in anthropogenic 

sector emission inventories of the 

primary visibility impairing pollutants, 

NOX, PM10, PM2.5, and SOX, between 

2002 and 2018 are summarized below: 

1. Non-road: NOX (¥18.9%), PM10

(¥19.1%), and PM2.5 (¥20.2%). 

2. On-road: NOX (¥59.3%), PM10

(¥32.3%), PM2.5 (¥53.2%), and SOX

(¥87.9%). 

3. Commercial Marine Vessels: NOX

(+43.9%), PM10 (+55.5%), PM2.5

(+85.3%), and SOX (¥77.3%). 

4. Aviation: NOX (+16.7%), PM10

(+13.6%), PM2.5 (+13.5%), and SOX

(15.5%). 

5. Point: NOX (¥12.4%), PM10

(¥69.9%), PM2.5 (¥71.1%), and SOX

(+26.0%). 

6. Anthropogenic Fires: NOX

(¥43.8%), PM10 (¥46.2%), PM2.5

(¥46.0%), and SOX (¥43.8%). 

The overall changes in the above 

pollutants between 2002 and 2018, 

across all source sectors, are NOX

(¥3.3%), PM10 (+0.9%), PM2.5 (+0.4%), 

and SOX (¥4.4%). EPA is proposing to 

find that Alaska has appropriately 

determined the emissions for visibility 

impairing pollutants in Alaska for 2002 

and 2018. 

D. Sources of Visibility Impairment in 

Class I Areas in Alaska 

Each pollutant species has its own 

visibility impairing property; for 

example, 1 mg/m3 of sulfate at high 

humidity is more effective in scattering 

light than 1 mg/m3 of organic carbon, 

and therefore impairs visibility more 

than organic carbon. Following the 

approach recommended by the WRAP, 

and as explained more fully below, 

Alaska used a two-step process to 

identify the contribution of each source 

or source category to existing visibility 

impairment. First, ambient pollutant 

concentration by species (such as 

sulfate, nitrate, organic carbon, and 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 37 / Friday, February 24, 2012 / Proposed Rules 11031 

elemental carbon) was determined from 

the IMPROVE data collected for each 

Class I area. These concentrations were 

then converted into deciview values to 

distribute existing impairment among 

the measured pollutant species. The 

deciview value for each pollutant 

species was calculated by using the 

‘‘revised IMPROVE equation’’ (See 

WRAP TSD, Section 2.C) to calculate 

extinction from each pollutant species 

concentration. Second, two regional 

visibility models, a back-trajectory 

model and a Weighted Emissions 

Potential (WEP) model, were used to 

determine which source categories 

contributed to the ambient 

concentration of each pollutant species. 

As further explained in the SIP 

submittal, due to a number of 

constraints in developing a 

comprehensive Alaska emission 

inventory, rather than conducting 

photochemical modeling to determine 

current and future visibility conditions 

in Class I areas in Alaska, the WRAP 

selected alternate meteorological 

modeling techniques to determine 

current and future visibility conditions. 

WRAP used the two modeling 

techniques described below to 

determine visibility conditions in the 

Denali, Tuxedni, and Simeonof Class I 

areas: 

Back-trajectory modeling was 

conducted to determine the path of air 

parcels impacting each Class I area. 

Back-trajectory analyses use 

interpolated measured or modeled 

meteorological fields to estimate the 

most likely central path over 

geographical areas that provided air to 

a receptor at any given time. The 

method essentially follows a parcel of 

air backward in hourly steps for a 

specified period of time. Back 

trajectories account for the impact of 

wind direction and wind speed on 

delivery of emissions to the receptor, 

but do not account for chemical 

transformation, dispersion, and 

deposition of samples during transport. 

Weighted Emissions Potential (WEP) 

analysis was used to determine how 

much each emission source area 

(sources within each gridded emission 

area) contributes to visibility 

impairment in the Denali, Simeonof, 

and Tuxedni Class I areas, based on 

both the baseline 2002 and the 2018 

Alaska emissions inventories. This 

method does not account for chemistry 

and removal processes. Instead, the 

WEP analysis relies on an integration of 

gridded emissions data, meteorological 

back trajectory residence time data, a 

one-over-distance factor to approximate 

deposition and dispersion, and a 

normalization of the final results. 

The results of the WEP analysis, 

conducted by WRAP for Alaska, 

identified the following source areas 

and source categories impacting 

visibility at the Denali National Park 

(measured at both the Denali and 

Trapper Creek IMPROVE sites), 

Simeonof Wilderness Area, and 

Tuxedni National Wildlife Refuge: 

1. Denali National Park 

Table III.K.7–1 of the SIP submittal 

summarizes the WEP values for Denali, 

based on data collected at the DENAL1 

IMPROVE site, for the top three 

boroughs (Yukon-Koyukuk, Southeast 

Fairbanks, and Fairbanks North Star) for 

each pollutant on the 20% worst days. 

WEP predicts that 95% of the total PM2.5

for 2002 came from these boroughs, and 

of that amount, 95% came from natural 

fires in Yukon-Koyukuk and Southeast 

Fairbanks boroughs. For VOCs, natural 

wildfires in Yukon-Koyukuk and 

Southeast Fairbanks boroughs are the 

largest source, and stationary area 

sources in Denali Borough are the 

second largest source. For NOX

contributions in 2002, 77% came from 

wildfires in Yukon-Koyukuk and 

Southeast Fairbanks boroughs, and 

about 13% came from point sources in 

the Fairbank North Star borough. For 

SOX contributions in 2002, 64% came 

from natural fires in Yukon-Koyukuk 

and Southeast Fairbanks boroughs, and 

29% came from point sources in 

Fairbanks North Star borough. For 

ammonia contributions in 2002, 97% 

came from natural fires in YukonKoyukuk and Southeast Fairbanks 

boroughs. The State noted that natural 

fires are the dominant source for all of 

the pollutants identified at this 

monitoring site, and there are no other 

significant sources of PM2.5 other than 

natural fires. Overall, the information 

presented in Table III.K.7–1of the SIP 

submittal demonstrates that the only 

significant anthropogenic sources of 

concern impacting Denali are Fairbanks 

SO2 point sources. 

Table III.K.7–3 of the SIP submittal 

shows the WEP values for Denali based 

on data collected at the Trapper Creek 

site. This table shows that natural fires 

are the largest source of emissions 

impacting this site, although there is 

also significant contribution from 

several anthropogenic source categories. 

In summary, 82% of the PM2.5 in 2002 

came from natural fires in YukonKoyukuk and Southeast Fairbanks 

boroughs, and 11% of the PM2.5 came 

from point sources in the MatanuskaSusitna borough. For NOX, 32% of the 

contributions for 2002 came from 

natural fires in Yukon-Koyukuk 

borough, 20% came from point sources 

on the Kenai Peninsula and 16% came 

from on-road mobile sources in the 

Matanuska-Susitna borough. The 

contribution of NOX from on-road 

mobile sources is expected to drop to 

about half this value by 2018 due to the 

benefits of fleet turnover and 

increasingly stringent Federal motor 

vehicle emissions standards. For SOX, 

57% of the contributions for 2002 came 

from natural fires in the YukonKoyukuk borough, while 19% of the 

SOX came from stationary sources in the 

Matanuska-Susitna borough. Alaska has 

determined that natural fires are the 

dominant source for all of the visibility 

impairing pollutants at the Trapper 

Creek monitor in Denali National Park, 

but there is also a significant 

contribution from point sources on the 

Kenai Peninsula, and from on-road and 

stationary sources in the MatanuskaSusitna borough. 

2. Simeonof Wilderness Area 

A summary of the WEP values for the 

boroughs impacting Simeonof is 

presented in Table III.K.7–2 of the SIP 

submittal. The WEP analysis for this site 

shows that natural fires in the YukonKoyukuk borough are the dominant 

source of all pollutants impairing 

visibility. The WEP analysis concluded 

that 96% of the PM2.5, 87% of the VOCs, 

76% of the NOX, 91% of the SOX, and 

95% of the ammonia impacting 

Simeonof during 2000–2004 was from 

natural fires in the Yukon-Koyukuk 

borough. Alaska indicated that the 

forecast for emissions from natural fires 

in 2018 impacting the Simeonof Class I 

area are the same as for the baseline, 

which means that the visibility impacts 

from anthropogenic sources is expected 

to remain relatively small compared to 

contributions from natural fires through 

2018 at this site. 

3. Tuxedni National Wildlife Refuge 

Area 

The information presented in Table 

III.K.7–4 of the SIP submittal shows a 

complex mixture of anthropogenic and 

natural source contributions that impact 

visibility at the Tuxedni National 

Wildlife Refuge. While natural fires are 

still the most significant source for 

many of the pollutants, (including 78% 

of the PM2.5, 41% of the VOCs, 44% of 

the SOX, and 54% of the ammonia), 

64% of the NOX that impacts Tuxedni 

comes from point sources on the Kenai 

Peninsula. Anthropogenic sources 

projected to significantly impact 

Tuxedni in 2018 are: (1) point and 

stationary sources on the Kenai 

Peninsula, which will contribute 44% of 

the VOCs impacting Tuxedni, and (2) 

stationary areas sources on the Kenai 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

11032 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 37 / Friday, February 24, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

8 Visibility impacts at Simeonof and the Bering 

Sea Wilderness Areas are expected to be below 0.5 

dv. 

Peninsula, which will contribute 37% of 

the SOX impacting Tuxedni. 

EPA is proposing to find that Alaska 

has used appropriate air quality models 

to identify the primary pollutants, and 

source areas for these pollutants, 

impacting the Denali, Simeonof, and 

Tuxedni Class I areas. EPA is also 

proposing to find that the SIP submittal 

contains an appropriate analysis of the 

impact of these pollutants on visibility 

in each of the Class I areas in Alaska. 

See WRAP TSD Chapter 6.B (EPA’s 

analysis of the WRAP’s WEP analysis 

for Alaska). 

E. Best Available Retrofit Technology 

(BART) 

1. Alaska BART Regulations 

Alaska has adopted new regulations at 

18 AAC 50.260 (a)–(q) which provide 

the State with the authority to regulate 

BART sources in Alaska. In April 2007, 

ADEC proposed regulations to adopt the 

Federal BART rules into 18 AAC 50.260 

to establish the process and specific 

steps for the BART eligible sources to 

follow to provide the analysis necessary 

for ADEC to make BART 

determinations. ADEC’s regulations 

adopting the Federal BART rules were 

promulgated on December 30, 2007 and 

submitted to EPA for inclusion in the 

SIP on February 7, 2008. The essential 

elements of these regulations are 

summarized below. 

In 18 AAC 50.260(a), ADEC adopts 

the Federal BART guidelines at 40 CFR 

part 51 Appendix Y and the definitions 

at 40 CFR 51.301 with specified 

exceptions where the definition at AS 

46.14.990 is used. 18 AAC 50.260(b) 

specifies that sources subject to BART 

be identified in accordance with Section 

III of the BART guideline and sets the 

date by which ADEC will notify subject 

sources of their status. 

18 AAC 50.260(c) establishes the 

procedures by which a source can 

request an exemption from BART by 

submitting a visibility impact analysis 

showing that the source is not 

reasonably anticipated to cause or 

contribute to any impairment of 

visibility in a Class I area. 

18 AAC 50.260(d)–(l) establish the 

process that sources that did not request 

or receive an exemption or an Owner 

Requested Limit (ORL) must undertake 

to conduct a BART analysis, including 

visibility impact analysis modeling, to 

determine BART emission limits for 

sources that are subject to BART. 

18 AAC 50.260(m) establishes how a 

final BART determination may be 

appealed. 

18 AAC 50.260(n) establishes the 

deadline by which a source must 

implement a final BART determination. 

18 AAC 50.260(o) requires the owner 

or operator of a source required to 

install control technology to maintain 

the equipment and conduct monitoring, 

recordkeeping, and reporting in 

accordance with the final BART 

determination. 

18 AAC 50.260(p) explains the billing 

process for ADEC services under this 

section. 

18 AAC 50.260(q) includes the 

definitions related to regional haze in 

the rules that are not in 18 AAC 50.990. 

These new regulations are consistent 

with the definitions and requirements 

for BART under the RHR. EPA proposes 

to approve these regulations. 

2. BART–Eligible Sources in Alaska 

In order to identify sources that could 

potentially be eligible for BART, ADEC 

conducted a preliminary review of its 

Title V permits. ADEC then worked in 

conjunction with WRAP’s contractor, 

Eastern Research Group, Inc. (ERG), to 

identify BART-eligible sources from this 

preliminary source list. ERG’s report of 

April 2005, found that the following 

seven sources were BART-eligible 

sources: 

• Chugach Electric, Beluga River 

Power Plant (Chugach Electric); 

• Alyeska Pipeline Service Company, 

Valdez Marine Terminal (Alyeska); 

• Tesoro, Kenai Refinery (Tesoro); 

• Anchorage Municipal Light and 

Power, George Sullivan Plant 2 

(Anchorage Municipal); 

• ConocoPhillips Alaska Inc., Kenai 

LNG Plant (CPAI); 

• Agrium, Chemical-Urea Plant 

(Agrium); and 

• Golden Valley Electric Association, 

Healy Power Plant (GVEA). 

Chugach Electric was determined to 

not be BART-eligible due to the 

replacement of the BART-eligible 

emission units with ones that were not 

BART-eligible. In April 2007, ADEC 

sent a letter to Chugach officials 

regarding the status of its BART-eligible 

emission units. Chugach responded 

with information that the BART-eligible 

emission units had been replaced and 

the plant had become a ‘‘steam electric 

plant’’ after the BART timeframe. EPA 

concurs with ADEC that Chugach 

Electric is not a BART-eligible source. 

After identifying the BART-eligible 

sources, the second phase of the BART 

evaluation is to identify those BARTeligible sources that may reasonably be 

anticipated to cause or contribute to 

visibility impairment at any Class I area, 

i.e., those sources that are ‘subject’ to 

BART. The BART Guidelines allow 

states to consider exempting some 

BART-eligible sources from further 

BART review because they may not 

reasonably be anticipated to cause or 

contribute to any visibility impairment 

in a Class I area. Consistent with the 

BART Guidelines and Alaska’s regional 

haze regulations, ADEC provided BART 

source emission rates to WRAP, which 

conducted modeling to determine 

which BART-eligible sources could be 

reasonable anticipated to cause or 

contribute to visibility impairment in 

two Class I areas, Denali National Park 

and Tuxedni National Wildlife Refuge.8

In WRAP’s analyses, a 0.5 dv threshold 

was used to determine if a source was 

causing or contributing to visibility 

impairment in either of these two Class 

I areas. 

Alaska also established a 0.5 dv 

threshold to determine if a BARTeligible source was subject to BART (see 

p. III.K.6–4 of the SIP submittal). This 

threshold was based on the following 

reasons: 

(1) Baseline visibilities at all Alaska 

IMPROVE sites are within 0.5 dv of the 

2018 goal (See Table III.K.4–3 of the SIP 

submittal), and calculations conducted 

by ADEC demonstrate that the 2018 goal 

will be achieved in all Alaska Class I 

areas (see Alaska Regional Haze SIP 

submittal, III.K.9–33 through 9–40), 

except the Bering Sea Wilderness Area, 

for which there is no baseline data. 

(2) Insight into selecting a threshold 

was also gained from a review of the 

uncertainty observed in historical 

visibility measurements at each of the 

Class I area monitoring sites. 

Uncertainty values computed for each 

site (i.e., standard deviation) vary from 

0.5 dv for Denali, to 0.8 dv at Simeonof, 

to 0.6 dv at Trapper Creek, to 1.0 dv at 

Tuxedni. A BART threshold of 0.5 dv 

would either be less than or equal to 

each of these visibility uncertainty 

values, thus visibility impacts of sources 

meeting this significance threshold 

would not be distinguished from 

historical variations observed at each of 

the monitoring sites. 

Based on these reasons, Alaska 

selected the 0.5 dv threshold to 

determine which sources are subject to 

BART. Any source with an impact of 

greater than 0.5 dv in any Class I area, 

would be subject to a BART analysis 

and BART emission limitations. In the 

BART Guidelines, EPA recommended 

that States ‘‘consider the number of 

BART sources affecting the Class I areas 

at issue and the magnitude of the 

individual sources’ impacts. In general, 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 37 / Friday, February 24, 2012 / Proposed Rules 11033 

a larger number of BART sources 

causing impacts in a Class I area may 

warrant a lower contribution 

threshold.’’ 70 FR 39104, 39161 July 6, 

2005. 

EPA reviewed the modeled impacts of 

the BART-eligible sources that Alaska 

decided were BART-exempt. These 

sources, Alyeska, Tesoro, Anchorage 

Municipal, Conoco-Phillips, and 

Agrium, were modeled to have a 

cumulative visibility impact of just over 

1 dv on Tuxedni, and a 0.98 dv impact 

at Denali. See Table III.K.6–2 in SIP 

submittal. Given the number and 

location of sources and the cumulative 

impact from these sources, it is 

reasonable for Alaska to conclude that a 

0.5 dv threshold was appropriate for 

capturing those BART-eligible sources 

with significant impacts on visibility in 

Class I areas. For these reasons and in 

consideration of the facts specific to 

Alaska, EPA is proposing to approve the 

0.5 dv threshold adopted by Alaska for 

determining which sources in Alaska 

are subject to BART. 

To initially identify sources subject to 

BART, based on a 0.5 dv threshold, 

Alaska used the CALPUFF dispersion 

model results generated by WRAP. 

CALPUFF was used to assess the impact 

of emissions from BART-eligible sources 

on visibility at Denali and Tuxedni. 

CALPUFF used meteorological data 

forecast data, surface meteorological 

measurements, and major source 

specific emission estimates to calculate 

visibility impacts due to emissions of 

SO2, NOX and primary PM emissions. 

See Alaska Regional Haze SIP submittal 

Section III.K.6 for a summary of source 

specific modeling results and deciview 

impacts. 

ADEC subsequently refined the 

CALPUFF modeling results by using a 

more accurate three-year meteorological 

data set, Additionally, the sources, 

ADEC, EPA, and the FLMs worked 

together to develop a more detailed 

CALMET modeling protocol along with 

the additional meteorological data. The 

results of this second dispersion 

modeling were compared to the 0.5 dv 

threshold to determine which sources 

were subject to BART. The modeling 

result for three of the six remaining 

BART-eligible sources (Alyeska Pipeline 

Service Company, Valdez Marine 

Terminal, Tesoro, Kenai Refinery and 

Anchorage Municipal Light & Power, 

Sullivan Plant) demonstrated that their 

visibility impacts were less than 0.5 dv. 

Therefore, Alaska determined that these 

three sources are not subject to BART. 

The Agrium, Chem-Urea Plant is not 

currently operating and it is not known 

when it might reopen, and operating 

data necessary to conduct a BART 

analysis was not available. Agrium 

notified ADEC that it would be 

requesting the suspension of the 

renewal of its Title V permit as well as 

the termination of its current Title V 

permit for this facility. Given these 

conditions, ADEC issued a BART 

determination for Agrium which stated 

that Agrium has a zero emission limit 

for its BART eligible units, and must 

pursue a new air permit if and when it 

plans to restart this facility. Therefore, 

Agrium currently has a zero emission 

limit for its BART eligible units and that 

if this facility restarts operation, a new 

PSD air permit would be required that 

includes all units (including the BART 

units) at the facility. As a result, if this 

facility restarts operation, all BARTeligible units at the facility would be 

reclassified as PSD units and therefore 

would be subject to PSD emission 

limits. Therefore, ADEC has determined 

that this source is not subject to BART. 

Alaska’s review of the more refined 

CALPUFF modeling of the Conoco 

Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CPAI), Kenai LNG 

Plant found that its impact on the 

Tuxedni Class I area was greater than 

0.5 dv. Subsequently, ADEC issued a 

Compliance Order by Consent (COBC) 

to the facility providing that after 

December 31, 2013, the emissions from 

the identified BART eligible units at the 

CPAI Kenai LNG Plant will be limited 

to a level that will not cause or 

contribute to visibility impairment in 

any Class I area at equal to or greater 

than 0.5 dv. The specific operating 

conditions, and allowable maximum 

daily NOX emission limits, required to 

remain below a 0.5 dv impact, are 

specified in Exhibit B of the COBC. 

ADEC has determined that this source is 

not subject to BART. EPA proposes to 

approve this determination. 

EPA proposes to approve ADEC’s 

determination that Alyeska Pipeline 

Service Company Valdez Marine 

Terminal; Tesoro, Kenai Refinery; 

Anchorage Municipal Light & Power, 

Sullivan Plant; the Agrium, Chem-Urea 

Plant, and the CPAI Kenai LNG Plant 

are not subject to BART. 

3. BART-Subject Sources in Alaska 

Modeling for the remaining BART 

eligible source, the GVEA Healy Power 

Plant Unit #1, demonstrated baseline 

visibility impacts of greater than 3.4 dv, 

and therefore is subject to BART. A 

summary of the modeling results and 

proposed actions to control emissions 

from this facility is summarized below. 

ADEC determined that the Golden 

Valley Electric Association (GVEA), 

Healy coal fired power plant is a BARTeligible source located approximately 5 

miles from Denali National Park. The 

BART-eligible units consist of one 

primary coal-fired boiler, a 25-MW 

Foster-Wheeler boiler, referred to as 

‘‘Healy Unit #1’’, and one auxiliary 

boiler (Auxiliary Boiler #1). GVEA 

undertook a full assessment of control 

options for Healy Unit # 1 under 18 

AAC 50.260(d)–(e) and used the WRAP 

modeling protocol and submitted its 

initial BART control analysis report on 

July 28, 2008. In this revised BART 

report, GVEA concluded that the 

existing NOX, SO2, and PM limits were 

BART for Healy Unit #1. 

Subsequently, ADEC through its 

contractor Enviroplan, conducted a 

thorough BART analysis following the 

steps outlined in the BART Guidelines. 

Followings ADEC’s consultation with 

the FLM and receipt and review of 

public comments, Enviroplan 

completed a final BART determination 

report for GVEA on January 19, 2010, 

and revised this report on June 1, 2010. 

See Alaska Regional Haze SIP submittal, 

Appendix III.6–62 through 6–179. (Final 

Enviroplan BART Determination Report 

for GVEA, revised June 1, 2010 

(‘‘Enviroplan GVEA Healy BART 

Report’’)). This report, based on updated 

site-specific cost information on control 

technologies, and on the assumption 

that the useful life of installed control 

technologies would be 8 years (based on 

installation by 2016 and plant shutdown 

in 2024), concluded that the following 

control technologies are BART for Healy 

Unit #1: (1) Selective Non Catalytic 

Reduction (SNCR) added to the existing 

Low NOX Burners (LNB) with Over 

Fired Air (OFA) for NOX, (2) the existing 

dry sodium bicarbonate dry sorbent 

injection (DSI) system for SO2, and (3) 

the existing reverse-gas baghouse system 

for PM10

The Enviroplan GVEA Healy BART 

Report concluded that SNCR was BART 

for NOX because it would be cost 

effective at $4,208/ton (based on a 2024 

closure of Healy Unit #1), and because 

SNCR would provide an 0.62 deciview 

improvement in visibility at the Denali 

Class I area for 51 days per year (a 

reduction from 3.36 dv impact to a 2.74 

dv impact). The State determined that 

Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) was 

not cost effective at $15,762/ton and 

was therefore was rejected as BART for 

NOX control for this unit. Enviroplan 

also concluded that Rotating Over Fire 

Air (ROFA®), even though cost effective, 

would not be incrementally cost 

effective over SNCR because the cost per 

deciview improvement for the ROFA®

equivalent emission limit would be 50 

percent higher than the cost for the 

SNCR limit (for a visibility 

improvement of only 0.05 dv), and the 

capital cost of installing ROFA® would 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

11034 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 37 / Friday, February 24, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

be 180 percent higher than installing 

SNCR. 

For SO2 controls, Enviroplan 

indicated that increased sorbent 

injection, with a potential visibility 

improvement of 0.25 dv, was the only 

cost-effective option that could improve 

visibility in Denali National Park. 

However, after evaluating this 

alternative according to the required 

BART criteria, Enviroplan concluded 

that this option was cost prohibitive 

because it would cost $3,578 for each 

ton of SO2 removed and would result in 

a visibility improvement of only 0.25 

dv. Enviroplan also noted that 

increasing the sorbent injection rate, 

could potentially cause a visibility 

impairing ‘‘brown plume’’ effect (due to 

the oxidation of nitrogen oxide (NO) to 

nitrogen dioxide (NO2) prior to 

discharge from the stack), which would 

adversely impact visibility in Denali 

National Park. 

Based on the results of Enviroplan’s 

evaluation, and in response to public 

comments received on the proposed 

BART for Healy Unit #1, ADEC 

determined that the BART emission 

limits for GVEA Healy Unit #1, based on 

a 2024 shutdown, are 0.20 lb/mmBtu for 

NOX, the current limit of 0.30 lb/mmBtu 

for SO2, and the current limit of 0.015 

lb/mmBtu for PM. 

The BART Guidelines provide that a 

source’s remaining useful life may be 

considered as an element of the cost 

analysis in a BART determination for a 

particular source and recognizes that if 

the remaining useful life represents a 

relatively short time frame it may affect 

the annualized costs of the retrofit 

controls. BART Guidelines IV.D.4.k.1. 

As explained in the BART Guidelines, 

where the facility will be shut down 

earlier than its normal expected life, the 

remaining useful life is the difference 

between the date the controls are put in 

place and the date the facility 

permanently ceases operations. The 

BART Guidelines further provide that 

‘‘Where this date affects the BART 

determination this date should be 

assured by a federally, or Stateenforceable restriction preventing 

further operation.’’ BART Guidelines, 

IV.D.4.k.2.(2). In the case of the Healy 

Unit #1, EPA recognizes that the 2024 

shutdown date relied on in the cost 

effectiveness calculation described 

above is not enforceable. However, the 

BART Guidelines provide that the 

methods specified in EPA’s Control Cost 

Manual used to calculate annualized 

costs should reflect the specified time 

period for amortization that varies 

depending on the type of control. 

Therefore, based on our review, EPA 

considers 15 years to be a reasonable 

estimated remaining useful lifetime for 

the particular control technologies 

under consideration for NOX or SO2

control technologies for Healy Unit #1. 

Based on a 15-year lifetime, EPA 

found that SCR was not cost effective for 

controlling NOX emissions at $10,170/ 

ton. This cost effectiveness value does 

not include the cost to replace lost 

electricity generation during installation 

of SCR because there is insufficient 

evidence that the cost is a necessary 

consequence of SCR installation. When 

this element is removed from the cost 

estimate, the overall cost effectiveness 

over a 15-year lifetime for SCR 

decreases from $11,765/ton to $10,170/ 

ton (see EPA’s Healy BART Reportaddendum). EPA finds that SCR is still 

not cost effective at this lower rate. 

However, the following NOX control 

technologies were considered cost 

effective: SNCR at $3,125/ton, ROFA at 

$3,476/ton, and ROFA® with Rotamix®

at $4,325/ton. 

EPA next considered the 

environmental impacts of each of these 

cost effective technologies. ROFA® with 

Rotamix® when operated to achieve the 

quoted NOX emission rate of 0.11 lb/ 

MMbtu, reportedly carries some risk of 

increased emissions of carbon monoxide 

(CO), carbon dioxide (CO2), and ‘‘losson-ignition’’ (un-burnt carbon 

particulate matter). Increased particulate 

matter emissions could result in 

additional visibility impairment at the 

Denali Class I area. However, EPA found 

that data quantifying this risk is not 

readily available, since facilities 

employing ROFA® with Rotamix® are 

typically allowed slightly higher NOX

emission limits than those quoted by the 

vendors of these technologies. EPA’s 

review did not identify a facility 

utilizing ROFA® with Rotamix® that 

was subject to an emission limit near 

0.11 lb/mmBTU, the level quoted by the 

vendor for ROFA® with Rotamix® for 

Healy Unit #1. Installation of the 

ROFA® technology alone (without 

Rotamix®) is cost effective, and could 

achieve an emission rate of 0.15 lb/ 

mmBtu according to the vendor quote, 

but would only result in a visibility 

improvement of approximately 0.05 dv 

beyond the improvement achievable 

using SNCR. ADEC considered this 

incremental visibility improvement not 

significant enough to warrant the 

increased cost for ROFA®, and EPA 

agrees with this decision. 

ADEC selected the BART NOX

emission limit for Healy Unit #1 based 

on a consideration of the BART five-step 

control review process, information 

provided by GVEA in their BART 

analyses, the Enviroplan GVEA Healy 

BART Report, and a decision by ADEC 

to grant GVEA’s request to allow for 

some operational variability in the NOX

emission rate for Healy Unit #1. GVEA 

conducted an analysis of 2003–2008 (5 

years) 30-day rolling NOX and SO2

emissions from Healy Unit #1, applied 

three standard deviations to the mean of 

these values, and requested that their 

BART emission limits reflect the 

resultant rates at three standard 

deviations. In response, ADEC 

determined that an additional allowance 

of 5% higher than the emission rate 

identified in the findings report (0.19 lb/ 

mmBtu) would sufficiently allow for 

operating variability. Specifically, ADEC 

determined that the flexibility provided 

by a 0.20 lbs/mmBtu NOX emission 

limit instead of a 0.19 lb/mmBtu NOX

emission limit would require GVEA to 

stay within the specified emission limit, 

while allowing for a reasonable amount 

of operational variability. See Appendix 

III.K.6–114 of the SIP submittal. EPA 

believes that this minor NOX emission 

allowance would not significantly 

change the visibility impairment at 

Denali National Park due to emissions 

from Healy Unit #1. Therefore, EPA 

proposes to approve the State’s 

determination that an emission limit of 

0.20 lbs/mmBtu for NOX is BART for 

Healy Unit #1. 

For SO2, EPA found that optimizing 

the existing Dry Sorbent Injection (DSI) 

system to achieve an emission limit of 

0.18 lb/mmBtu, by increasing the 

sorbent injection rate, is cost effective at 

$3,578/ton. However, increased sorbent 

injection rate carries the risk of a 

‘‘brown plume’’ effect. Brown plume 

refers to the oxidation of nitrogen oxide 

(NO) to nitrogen dioxide (NO2) prior to 

discharge from the stack. NO2 is brown 

in color, while NO is colorless; the two 

together form NOX. Combustion 

emissions are initially NO, and oxidize 

in the atmosphere to NO2. High sorbent 

injection rates can increase the potential 

for this oxidation to occur prior to 

discharge, potentially resulting in a 

visible brown plume from the exhaust 

stack. Due to the proximity of Healy 

Unit #1 to Denali National Park, a 

brown plume may result in increased 

visibility impairment in the sections of 

the Park closest to Healy Unit #1, even 

though overall visibility impairment 

would be reduced. Two other SO2

control options, a spray dryer, and wet 

limestone flue gas desulfurization, were 

considered not to be cost effective at 

$7,198/ton and $7,763/ton, respectively. 

Therefore, EPA proposes to approve the 

SO2 emission limit achievable by the 

current DSI control technology, 0.30 lb/ 

mmBtu, as BART for Healy Unit #1. 

ADEC determined that the existing 

reverse-gas baghouse system is the statemstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 37 / Friday, February 24, 2012 / Proposed Rules 11035 

of-the-art particulate emissions (PM) 

control technology for utility boiler 

applications, and therefore, the existing 

high-efficiency reverse-gas baghouse 

installed on the Healy Unit #1 is BART 

for PM. EPA proposes to approve the 

PM emission limit achievable by the 

current reverse-gas baghouse control 

technology, 0.015 lb/mmBtu, as BART 

for Healy Unit #1. 

Regarding the Auxiliary Boiler #1, the 

State indicated that this unit is just used 

during shutdown periods or emergency 

repairs to Healy Unit #1 to supply heat 

to the Healy 1 building or to provide 

steam and potable hot water to Healy 

Unit #2, if needed, when Healy Unit #1 

is not operating and that it is fired 

monthly for maintenance checks. 

Additionally, refined modeling for the 

State also indicated that that the 

predicted visibility impacts attributable 

to the boiler were less than .067 dv. The 

State determined that the existing 

uncontrolled configuration and current 

Title 5 permit limits for the Auxilliary 

Boiler #1 were BART, and that no 

additional controls were required. See 

Enviroplan GVEA Healy BART Report 

Table E–1 for BART emission limits 

specific to the Auxiliary Boiler #1. EPA 

agrees that given the low annual 

emissions for the boiler, add-on 

pollution controls equipment for NOX

and PM are not cost effective. EPA 

found that the only viable method to 

control SO2 emission from the Auxiliary 

Boiler #1 would be to switch to ultralow sulfur diesel. However, due to the 

cost differential between high sulfur 

diesel and ultra-low sulfur diesel in the 

Fairbanks area, it would cost 

approximately $28,000/t on to reduce 

SO2 emission from the Auxiliary Boiler 

#1 by switching fuels. Based on this 

cost, EPA has determined that this 

approach would not be cost effective. 

EPA proposes to approve the State’s 

BART determination for the Auxiliary 

Boiler #1. 

F. Determination of Reasonable Progress 

Goals 

The RHR requires States to show 

‘‘reasonable progress’’ toward natural 

visibility conditions over the time 

period of the SIP, with 2018 as the first 

milestone year. The RHR at 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(1) requires states to establish 

a goal, expressed in deciviews, for each 

Class I area within the state that 

provides for reasonable progress toward 

achieving natural visibility conditions 

by 2064. As such, the State must 

establish a Reasonable Progress Goal 

(RPG) for each Class I area that provides 

for visibility improvement for the mostimpaired (20% worst) days and ensures 

no degradation in visibility for the leastimpaired (20% best) days in 2018. RPGs 

are estimates of the progress to be 

achieved by 2018 through 

implementation of the Long Term 

Strategy (LTS), which includes 

anticipated emission reductions from all 

State and Federal regulatory 

requirements implemented between the 

baseline and 2018, including but not 

limited to BART and any additional 

controls for non-BART sources or 

emission activities including any 

Federal requirements that reduce 

visibility impairing pollutants. 

As explained above, ADEC relied on 

the WEP analysis conducted by the 

WRAP to project visibility conditions at 

Denali National Park, Simeonof 

Wilderness Area, and Tuxedni National 

Wildlife Area in 2018. The visibility 

projections were based on estimates of 

emissions reductions from all existing 

and known controls resulting from 

Federal and state CAA programs as of 

December 2010. 

In setting the RPGs for its Class I 

areas, ADEC considered a number of 

different factors. These factors included: 

(1) Attainment of the URP in each Class 

I area by 2018, (2) results of the Four 

Factor Analysis, (3) additional 

improvements in visibility due to BART 

controls, (4) evidence that there is 

significant contribution to visibility 

impairment from international sources 

(such as Asian Dust, and Arctic Haze) 

and substantial contributions from 

natural sources (such as wildfires and 

sea salt), and (5) additional 

improvements in visibility in Alaskan 

Class I areas due to new maritime 

emission regulations that will achieve 

substantial reductions by 2015 in SO2

and NOX emissions from commercial 

marine vessels. These five factors are 

further described in the following 

paragraphs. 

(1) Attainment of the 2018 URPs— 

ADEC conducted a statistical analysis of 

historical visibility data from the Denali, 

Tuxedni, and Simeonof Class I areas to 

demonstrate that the visibility in the 

Class I areas in Alaska in 2018 projected 

by the WEP analysis falls within the 

bounds of the 2018 URP glide path, with 

a 95% degree of confidence. This 

indicates that there is no difference 

between the WEP forecast of visibility 

impairment in the Class I areas, and the 

URP determined for each Class I area in 

2018. 

(2) Results of the Four Factor 

Analysis—As described in section II.D. 

above, when establishing RPGs the RHR 

requires the states to consider (1) The 

costs of compliance; (2) the time 

necessary for compliance; (3) the energy 

and non-air quality environmental 

impacts of compliance; and (4) the 

remaining useful life of any potentially 

affected sources. 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(1)(i)(A). This is referred to as 

the Four Factor Analysis. As reflected in 

the information presented in Table 

III.K.9–2 of the SIP submittal, the WEP 

analysis indicates that three categories 

of point sources may be significant 

contributors to regional haze and 

warrant further analysis under the four 

factors. These three categories are: 

industrial boilers, petroleum refineries, 

and reciprocating engines and turbines. 

Based on the four-factor analyses of 

these three source categories, ADEC 

concluded that it is not reasonable to 

require additional controls for these 

source categories at this time. Alaska 

explained its reasons to support this 

decision include: (1) The Class I areas 

in Alaska do not need large visibility 

improvements to reach natural 

conditions in 2064, (2) the Class I areas 

are predicted to attain the URP in 2018, 

(3) emissions from natural sources 

(primarily wildfires) contribute the most 

significant visibility impacts, and (4) it 

is uncertain, at this time, how much 

visibility improvements could be 

attained by controlling individual point 

sources, since each contributing point 

source has not been individually 

modeled for visibility impact to the 

nearest Class I area. 

(3) Additional Improvements not 

included in the WEP Analysis— 

Additional improvements at several 

sources that were not factored into 

ADEC’s WEP analysis reduce visibility 

impairing pollutants impacting Denali, 

and Tuxedni, within the next 5 years. 

GVEA’s Healy Power Plant Unit #1 will 

install SNCR as BART for NOX, which 

will reduce NOX impacts at Denali by 

0.62 dv. The Conoco Philips Kenai LNG 

plant will also reduce its emissions to 

below 0.5 dv under the conditions of a 

consent order. Finally, the Agrium, 

Chem-Urea Plant in the Kenai has 

stopped operating and therefore has 

dramatically reduced NH3, NOX and 

PM2.5 emissions impacting Tuxedni (by 

98%, 18%, and 93%, respectively). 

These reductions in emissions from 

sources on the Kenai Peninsula indicate 

that visibility at Tuxedni should 

improve even more rapidly than 

predicted by the WEP analysis. 

(4) Contribution from International 

Sources and Natural Sources— 

Significant contributions to haze in the 

Class I areas is Alaska include natural 

sources (biogenic aerosols, sea salt, 

volcanic emissions) and international 

sources. See generally, Alaska Regional 

Haze SIP submittal, III.K.3–4 to 3–8. 

There is also evidence that natural 

wildfire is a substantial contributor to 

visibility impairment in the three 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

11036 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 37 / Friday, February 24, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

modeled Class I areas, but particularly 

in the Denali Class I area. The 

speciation analysis, clearly demonstrate 

that natural fires are the dominant 

source of pollutants impacting all Class 

I areas within Alaska on the 20% worst 

days. In Denali, natural fires contribute 

97% of the PM2.5, 68% of the VOCs, 

79% of the NOX, and 65% of the SO2

that cause visibility impairment in that 

Class I area. At Trapper Creek (also in 

Denali), natural fires contribute 86% of 

the PM2.5, 65% of the VOCs, 34% of the 

NOX, and 62% of the SO2 that cause 

visibility impairment. In Simeonof, 

natural fires contribute 99% of the 

PM2.5, 89% of the VOCs, 76% of the 

NOX, and 92% of the SO2 that cause 

visibility impairment on the worst 20% 

days. In Tuxedni, natural fires 

contribute 78% of the PM2.5, 41% of the 

VOCs, 15% of the NOX, and 44% of the 

SO2 that cause visibility impairment on 

the worst days. See generally Alaska 

Regional Haze SIP submittal, Section 

III.K.4, and WEP analyses shown in 

Tables III.K.7–1 through III.K.7–4. 

(5) Additional Improvements due to 

New Maritime Emission Regulations— 

Alaska also found that new emission 

control requirements on commercial 

marine vessels, which will be fully in 

effect by 2015, will reduce SO2, NOX, 

and PM2.5 emission contributions to 

visibility impairment in Simeonof 

Wilderness Area and Tuxedni National 

Wildlife Refuge. In October 2008, the 

International Maritime Organization 

(IMO) adopted Annex VI amendments 

which specify (1) New fuel quality 

requirements for commercial marine 

vessels beginning from July 2010, (2) 

Tier II and III NOX emission standards 

for new commercial marine engines, 

and (3) Tier I NOX requirements for 

existing pre-2000 commercial marine 

engines. The Annex VI amendments 

designate waters within 200 miles of the 

North American coast (including 

Alaska) as an emission control area 

(ECA). The requirements of Annex VI 

ensure large reductions in particulate 

matter, NOX, and SO2 emission from 

commercial marine vessels operating in 

the ECA. These reductions were not 

factored into the Alaska 2018 emissions 

inventory projections or the WEP 

analysis, but are expected to further 

improve visibility at Tuxedni, and to a 

lesser extent Simeonof, which are both 

significantly impacted by emissions 

from commercial marine vessels. 

Alaska acknowledged that its 

emission inventory and 2018 reasonable 

progress forecasts and emission 

inventory do not include emissions 

from the 50 MW coal-fired unit at the 

GVEA facility in Healy (Healy Unit #2) 

The State explained, the unit has not 

operated for a number of years, is not 

currently operating and that the 

available information to analyze the 

potential visibility impact of the Healy 

Unit #2 emissions on Denali is 

inconclusive. The State does recognize 

however that if the unit is brought on 

line, the point source NOX and SOx 

emissions emitted from within the 

Denali Borough would increase by a 

factor of 4.0 and 2.8 respectively. Alaska 

Regional Haze SIP submittal III.K.9–32, 

9–37. EPA is aware that on February 3, 

2012, ADEC issued a revised Title 5 

permit to GVEA allowing Healy 2 to 

resume operations, and that emissions 

from Healy 2 could have an impact on 

visibility in Denali. Final Air Quality 

Operating Permit No. AQ0173TVP02 

(Feb. 3, 2012). However, since the 

visibility impacts of these future 

emissions have not yet been modeled, 

the exact amount of impact cannot be 

determined at this time. Therefore, for 

reasonable progress purposes, it is not 

reasonable to require additional controls 

on the facility at this time. If or when 

the unit begins operating again, ADEC 

commits to assessing the impact of these 

additional emissions on visibility in 

Denali and will evaluate control options 

for the facility as part of its 5 year 

progress report. In light of the 

uncertainty regarding the facility at this 

time, we propose to approve the State’s 

consideration of the Healy Unit #2 in its 

reasonable progress evaluation. EPA 

will consider additional relevant 

information it receives during public 

comment period regarding the 

emissions or visibility impact of this 

source as it relates to Alaska’s 

reasonable progress goals. 

EPA is proposing to agree with the 

State’s analysis and conclusion that it is 

not reasonable to seek additional 

controls on other emission sources 

within the State at this time to achieve 

further reasonable progress. 

Importantly, the RPGs for the Class I 

areas in Alaska are projected to meet the 

URP in 2018. Alaska has demonstrated 

that the RPGs provide for visibility 

improvement on the worst days, and no 

degradation of visibility on the best days 

compared to the baseline average. EPA 

finds that the State’s decision not to 

seek additional control measures is 

supported by the fact that there is 

significant contribution to haze in the 

Class I areas due to international 

sources and some natural sources 

(biogenic aerosols, sea salt, and volcanic 

emissions), as well as substantial 

contributions to haze from wildfires. In 

addition, the State expects reductions in 

statewide emissions of SO2 and NOX

due to BART emission limits on Healy 

Unit #1, emission limits on the Conoco 

Phillips Kenai LNG Plant specified in 

the consent order between Alaska and 

Conoco Philips, and the shutdown of 

the Agrium, Chem-Urea Plant. Based on 

the above reasons, EPA is proposing to 

approve ADEC’s demonstration that its 

RPGs provide for reasonable progress in 

all its Class I areas for the first planning 

period, as required in CFR 

51.308(d)(1)(i), (ii) and (vi). 

G. Long Term Strategy (LTS) 

Alaska relied on monitoring, emission 

inventories and modeling information 

from the WRAP as the technical basis 

for its LTS. Coordination and 

consultation occurred with other states 

through the WRAP, in which all western 

states participated in developing the 

technical analysis upon which their 

SIPs are based. This included 

identifying all anthropogenic sources of 

visibility impairment including major 

and minor stationary sources, mobile 

sources, and area sources. The 

anticipated net effect on visibility over 

the first planning period due to changes 

in point, area, and mobile source 

emissions is a significant reduction in 

regional haze in the Denali, Tuxedni, 

and Simeonof Class I areas. In 

particular, ADEC considered the 

following factors in developing its longterm strategy. 

1. Ongoing Air Pollution Control 

Programs 

Alaska has a number of ongoing 

programs and regulations that directly 

protect visibility or provide for 

improved visibility by generally 

reducing emissions. 

a. Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration/New Source Review 

Regulations 

The two primary regulatory programs 

for addressing visibility impairment 

from industrial sources are the BART 

and Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration/New Source Review (PSD/ 

NSR) rules. The PSD/NSR rules require 

that emissions from new industrial 

sources and major changes to existing 

sources protect visibility in Class I areas 

through attainment of air quality related 

values, including visibility, in Class I 

areas. 

b. Regional Haze BART Controls 

Section 51.308(e) of the RHR includes 

the requirements for states to implement 

Best Available Retrofit Technology for 

eligible sources within the State that 

may reasonably cause or contribute to 

any impairment of visibility in any 

mandatory Class I area. Alaska’s BART 

regulations (18 AAC 50.260) specify 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 37 / Friday, February 24, 2012 / Proposed Rules 11037 

how to determine if a source is subject 

to BART, and identify the process for 

determining BART emission limits for 

BART-subject sources. As discussed in 

section II.E. above, ADEC has completed 

analysis of identified BART-eligible 

sources in Alaska and has determined 

BART emission limits for all BARTsubject sources. Each source subject to 

BART is required to install and operate 

BART as expeditiously as practicable, 

but in no case more than five year after 

EPA approval of the regional haze SIP. 

c. Operating Permit Program and Minor 

Source Permit Program 

ADEC implements a Title V operating 

permit program as well as a minor 

source permit program for stationary 

sources of air pollution. The Title V 

permits are consistent with the 

requirements of 40 CFR part 71 and 

requirements are found in 18 AAC 50 

Article 3, Major Stationary Source 

Permits. The requirements for minor 

source permits are found in 18 AAC 50 

Article 5, Minor Permits. These permit 

programs, coupled with PSD/NSR 

requirements, serve to ensure that 

stationary industrial sources in Alaska 

are controlled, monitored, and tracked 

to prevent deleterious effects of air 

pollution. 

d. Alaska Open Burning Regulations 

Alaska has previously established 

open burning regulations in 18 AAC 

50.065. These regulations are intended 

to prevent particulate matter emitted 

from open burning from adversely 

impacting visibility in Class I areas. For 

example,18 AAC 50.065 (b)–(f) provide 

ADEC the authority to require preapprovals for controlled burning to 

manage forest land, vegetative cover, 

fisheries, or wildlife habitat if the area 

to be burned exceeds 40 acres yearly. 

The open burning regulations, working 

in conjunction with the state’s 

Enhanced Smoke Management Plan, 

control visibility impairing pollutants 

resulting from planned open burning 

activities. 

e. Local, State and Federal Mobile 

Source Control Programs 

Mobile source emissions show 

decreases in NOX, SO2, and VOCs in 

Alaska during the period 2002–2018. 

These declines in emissions are due to 

numerous rules already in place, most 

of which are Federal regulations. The 

State of Alaska has established 

regulations related to mobile sources 

that primarily impact the Fairbanks and 

Anchorage CO maintenance areas, 

Alaska’s two largest cities. These 

programs have resulted in NOX and 

hydrocarbon emission reductions from 

motor vehicles in Alaska’s two largest 

communities. 

f. The Federal Motor Vehicle Control 

Program and Federal Diesel Emission 

Standards 

The Federal Motor Vehicle Control 

Program (FMVCP) is a Federal 

certification program that requires all 

new cars sold in all states except 

California to meet more stringent 

emission standards. As a result, motor 

vehicle emissions will be reduced as the 

older vehicle fleet is replaced with 

newer cleaner vehicles. Additionally, a 

variety of Federal rules establishing 

emission standards and fuel 

requirements for diesel on-road and 

non-road equipment will significantly 

reduce emissions of particulate matter, 

nitrogen oxides, and sulfur oxides from 

emission sources over the first planning 

period in Alaska. Alaska reports that as 

of 2010, all on-road and non-road diesel 

engines in Alaska have meet EPA’s 

national requirements for 15 ppm sulfur 

diesel fuel. In addition to these 

regulatory programs, ADEC is also 

promoting voluntary projects to reduce 

diesel emission reductions throughout 

the state. 

g. Implementation of Programs To Meet 

PM10 NAAQS 

The community of Eagle River and the 

Mendenhall Valley in Juneau are either 

currently or formerly nonattainment 

areas with respect to the NAAQS for 

coarse particulate matter (PM10). These 

areas exceeded the standards due 

primarily to wood burning and road 

dust sources, and now have strict 

controls in place that regulate wood 

burning and control road dust, the two 

major sources of PM10 in these 

communities. 

2. Measures To Mitigate Impacts of 

Construction Activities 

In developing its LTS, ADEC has 

considered the impact of construction 

activities on visibility in the Class I 

areas. ADEC regulations at 18 AAC 

50.045(d) require that entities who 

cause or permit bulk materials to be 

handled, transported, or stored or who 

engage in industrial activities or 

construction projects shall take 

reasonable precautions to prevent 

particulate matter from being emitted 

into the ambient air. This regulation 

allows the state to take action on 

fugitive dust emissions from 

construction activities. Based on the 

general knowledge of growth and 

construction activity in Alaska, ADEC 

believes that current state and Federal 

regulations adequately address this 

emission source category. 

3. Emission Limitations and Schedules 

for Compliance 

Emission limits and compliance 

schedules for affected sources are 

specified under Alaska and Federal 

regulations in accordance with the 

Clean Air Act. Additionally, as 

discussed above, Alaska has established 

specific emission limits and compliance 

schedules for sources subject to BART. 

The state anticipates future SIP updates 

may identify additional emission 

controls that could be implemented at 

that time and commits to include limits 

and compliance schedules as needed in 

future plan updates. 

4. Source Retirement and Replacement 

Schedules 

Alaska’s continued implementation of 

NSR and PSD requirements, with the 

FLMs reviewing impacts to Class I areas, 

will assure that there is no degradation 

of visibility in Alaska Class I areas on 

the least impaired days from expansion 

or growth of stationary sources in the 

state. ADEC will continue to track 

source retirement and replacement and 

include known schedules in periodic 

revisions to its Air Quality Control 

(ACC) Plan and Regional Haze SIP. 

5. Smoke Management Techniques for 

Agricultural and Forestry Burning 

Smoke from wildland fires is a major 

contributor to visibility impairment 

Class I areas in Alaska. Alaska found 

that implementation of effective smoke 

management techniques through 

regulation and an Enhanced Smoke 

Management Plan (ESMP) will mitigate 

impacts of planned burning on visibility 

in its Class I areas. Additionally, ADEC 

has developed and implemented an 

ESMP, and includes this plan as part of 

this long-term strategy. Specifically, the 

ESMP, which will be revised at least 

every 5 years or sooner if needed, 

outlines the process, practices and 

procedures to manage smoke from 

prescribed and other open burning to 

help ensure that prescribed fire (e.g. 

controlled burn) activities minimize 

smoke and air quality problems. 

6. Enforceability of Emission 

Limitations and Control Measures 

BART emission limits and control 

measures will enforceable as a matter of 

State law by virtue of Alaska’s BART 

regulations at 18 AAC 50.260 and 

federally enforceable once approved as 

part of its State Implementation Plan. 

ADEC has adopted this Regional Haze 

Plan into the Alaska Air Quality Control 

Plan (Alaska’s State Implementation 

Plan) at 18 AAC 50.030, which ensures 

that all elements in the plan are 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

11038 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 37 / Friday, February 24, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

federally enforceable once approved by 

EPA. 

EPA is proposing to find that ADEC 

adequately addressed the RHR 

requirements in its long-term strategy 

(LTS). EPA believes that this LTS 

provides sufficient measures to ensure 

that Alaska will meet its emission 

reduction obligations to achieve 

adequate visibility protection for the 

Class I areas in the State. 

H. Monitoring Strategy and Other 

Implementation Plan Requirements 

The primary monitoring network for 

regional haze in Alaska is the IMPROVE 

network. As discussed in section III.B. 

of this notice, there are currently two 

IMPROVE monitoring sites at Denali 

National Park, one at Simeonof, and one 

at Tuxedni. There is no IMPROVE site 

for the Bering Sea Wilderness Area. As 

previously explained, one of the 

monitoring challenges in Alaska is the 

logistical difficulty of monitoring at 

remote locations in the harsh arctic 

environment. The challenges for 

ongoing air and visibility monitoring in 

Alaska include transportation and site 

maintenance in isolated and remote 

areas where access may be 

intermittently available only by air or 

water, and electrical power may be 

lacking. Alaska is working with EPA 

and the FLMs to ensure that the 

monitoring network in Alaska provides 

data that are representative of visibility 

conditions in each affected Class I area 

within the State. In the SIP submittal, 

Alaska commits to rely on the IMPROVE 

network for complying with the regional 

haze monitoring requirement in EPA’s 

RHR for the current and future regional 

haze implementation periods. See 

Alaska Regional Haze SIP submittal 

III.K.3.C.2. 

I. Consultation With States and FLMs 

Through the WRAP, member states 

and Tribes worked extensively with the 

FLMs from the U.S. Departments of the 

Interior and Agriculture to develop 

technical analyses that support the 

regional haze SIPs for the WRAP states. 

The State of Alaska provided an 

opportunity for FLM consultation, at 

least 60 days prior to holding any public 

hearing on the SIP. This SIP was 

submitted to the FLMs on June 24, 2010, 

for review and comment. Comments 

were received from the FLMs on August 

23, 2010. As required by 40 CFR 

51.308(i)(3), the FLM comments and 

State responses are included the SIP 

submittal. 

40 CFR 51.308(f–h) establish 

requirements and timeframes for states 

to submit periodic SIP revisions and 

progress reports that evaluate progress 

toward the reasonable progress goal for 

each Class I area. As required by 40 CFR 

51.308(i)(4), ADEC will continue to 

coordinate and consult with the FLMs 

during the development of these future 

progress reports and plan revisions, as 

well as during the implementation of 

programs having the potential to 

contribute to visibility impairment in 

mandatory Class I areas. This 

consultation process shall provide ongoing and timely opportunities to 

address the status of the control 

programs identified in this SIP, the 

development of future assessments of 

sources and impacts, and the 

development of additional control 

programs. 

J. SIP Revisions and Five-Year Progress 

Reports 

Section 51.308(f) of the Regional Haze 

Rule requires that regional haze plans be 

revised and submitted to EPA by July 

31, 2018, and every ten years thereafter. 

In accordance with those requirements, 

ADEC commits to revising and 

submitting this Plan by July 31, 2018, 

and every ten years thereafter. See 

Alaska Regional Haze SIP submittal 

section III.K.10. 

40 CFR 51.308(g) requires states to 

submit a progress report to EPA every 

five years evaluating progress towards 

the reasonable progress goal(s). The first 

progress report is due five years from 

the submittal of the initial 

implementation plan and must be in the 

form of an implementation plan revision 

that complies with 40 CFR 51.102 and 

51.103. ADEC commits to submitting a 

report on reasonable progress to EPA 

every five years following the initial 

submittal of the SIP. The reasonable 

progress report will evaluate the 

progress made towards the reasonable 

progress goal for each mandatory Class 

I area located within Alaska and in each 

mandatory Class I area located outside 

Alaska, which may be affected by 

emissions from Alaska. 

IV. Amendment to Air Quality Control 

Plan Regarding Open Burning and 

Regional Haze 

The Alaska Regional Haze SIP 

submittal included amendments to the 

Air Quality Control Plan at 18 AAC 

50.30. More specifically, Volume II., 

Section III. F: Open Burning is revised 

to include the ‘‘In Situ Burning 

Guidelines for Alaska, Revision 1’’ 

(August 2008) and to update the open 

burn application requirements in 

Alaska’s Enhanced Smoke Management 

Plan. ADEC’s ‘‘In Situ Burning 

Guidelines’’ apply to specified 

situations involving oil spills. Alaska’s 

Enhanced Smoke Management Plan 

applies to prescribed burning and for 

land clearing approvals. Additionally, 

Volume II, Section III. K: Area Wide 

Pollution Control Program for Regional 

Haze is a new section and, as discussed 

above, is intended to meet the RHR 

requirements, and Volume II: 

Appendices to Volume II is amended to 

include the Appendices for Alaska’s 

Areawide Pollutant Control Program for 

Regional Haze. 

EPA proposes to approve the 

amendments at 18 AAC 50.30. 

V. What action is EPA proposing? 

EPA is proposing to approve the 

Alaska Regional Haze plan, submitted 

on April 4, 2011, as meeting the 

requirements set forth in section 169A 

of the Act and in 40 CFR 51.308 

regarding Regional Haze. EPA is also 

proposing to approve ADEC’s BART 

regulations in 18 AAC 50.260. 

Additionally, EPA is proposing to 

approve the amendments to 18 AAC 

50.30 to adopt by reference Volume II., 

Section III. F. Open Burning; Volume II, 

Section III. K. Area Wide Pollution 

Control Program for Regional Haze; and 

Volume II, Appendices to Volume II. 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the Clean Air Act, the 

Administrator is required to approve a 

SIP submission that complies with the 

provisions of the Act and applicable 

Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 

40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP 

submissions, EPA’s role is to approve 

state choices, provided that they meet 

the criteria of the Clean Air Act. 

Accordingly, this proposed action 

merely approves state law as meeting 

Federal requirements and does not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by state law. For that 

reason, this proposed action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 37 / Friday, February 24, 2012 / Proposed Rules 11039 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; 

and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this rule does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the state, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Intergovernmental 

relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Visibility, 

and Volatile organic compounds. 

Dated: February 14, 2012. 

Dennis J. McLerran, 

Regional Administrator Region 10. 

[FR Doc. 2012–4326 Filed 2–23–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 98 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0028; FRL–9637–2] 

RIN 2060–AQ70 

Proposed Confidentiality 

Determinations for the Petroleum and 

Natural Gas Systems Source Category, 

and Amendments to Table A–7, of the 

Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: This action re-proposes 

confidentiality determinations for the 

data elements in subpart W, the 

petroleum and natural gas systems 

category, of the Mandatory Reporting of 

Greenhouse Gases Rule. On July 7, 2010, 

the EPA proposed confidentiality 

determinations for then-proposed 

subpart W data elements and is now 

issuing this re-proposal due to 

significant changes to certain data 

elements in the final subpart W 

reporting requirements. The EPA is also 

proposing to assign 10 recently added 

reporting elements as ‘‘Inputs to 

Emission Equations’’ and to defer their 

reporting deadline to March 31, 2015, 

consistent with the agency’s approach 

in the August 25, 2011 rule which 

finalized the deferral of some reporting 

data elements that are inputs to 

emissions equations. 

DATES: Comments. Comments must be 

received on or before March 26, 2012 

unless a public hearing is held, in 

which case comments must be received 

on or before April 9, 2012. 

Public Hearing. To request a hearing, 

please contact the person listed in the 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

section by March 2, 2012. Upon such 

request, the EPA will hold the hearing 

on March 12, 2012 in the Washington, 

DC area. The EPA will publish further 

information about the hearing in the 

Federal Register if a hearing is 

requested. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit your 

comments, identified by Docket ID No. 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0028, by one of 

the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Email: GHGReportingCBI@epa.gov. 

• Fax: (202) 566–1741. 

• Mail: Environmental Protection 

Agency, EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), 

Mailcode 6102T, Attention Docket ID 

No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0028, 1200 

Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, 

DC 20460. 

• Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center, 

Public Reading Room, EPA West 

Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution 

Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20004. 

Such deliveries are only accepted 

during the Docket’s normal hours of 

operation, and special arrangements 

should be made for deliveries of boxed 

information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2011– 

0028. The EPA’s policy is that all 

comments received will be included in 

the public docket without change and 

may be made available online at 

http://www.regulations.gov, including 

any personal information provided, 

unless the comment includes 

information claimed to be confidential 

business information (CBI) or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through http:// 

www.regulations.gov or email. Send or 

deliver information identified as CBI to 

only the mail or hand/courier delivery 

address listed above, attention: Docket 

ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0028. The 

http://www.regulations.gov Web site is 

an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means the EPA will not know your 

identity or contact information unless 

you provide it in the body of your 

comment. If you send an email 

comment directly to the EPA without 

going through http:// 

www.regulations.gov, your email 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, then the 

EPA recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If the EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, the EPA may not 

be able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the http:// 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

will be publicly available only in hard 

copy. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Air Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West, 

Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave. 

NW., Washington, DC. This Docket 

Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 

p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding 

legal holidays. The telephone number 

for the Public Reading Room is (202) 

566–1744, and the telephone number for 

the Air Docket is (202) 566–1742. 

FOR FURTHER GENERAL INFORMATION

CONTACT: Carole Cook, Climate Change 

Division, Office of Atmospheric 

Programs (MC–6207J), Environmental 

Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania 

Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; 

telephone number: (202) 343–9263; fax 

number: (202) 343–2342; email address: 

GHGReportingRule@epa.gov. For 

technical information and 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS