[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 37 (Friday, February 24, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 11022-11039]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-4326]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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:
    <bullet> www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for 
submitting comments.
    <bullet> Email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#8ad8bbbaa7daffe8e6e3e9d5c9e5e7e7efe4fef9caeffaeba4ede5fc"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="702241405d2005121c19132f331f1d1d151e0403301500115e171f06">[email protected]</span></a>.
    <bullet> Mail: Keith Rose, EPA Region 10, Office of Air, Waste and 
Toxics, AWT-107, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, Seattle, WA 98101.
    <bullet> Hand Delivery/Courier: EPA Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, 
Suite 900,

[[Page 11023]]

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, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#10627f63753e7b75796478507560713e777f66"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="a0d2cfd3c58ecbc5c9d4c8e0c5d0c18ec7cfd6">[email protected]</span></a> 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Areas 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.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 
(PM<INF>2.5</INF>) (e.g., sulfates,

[[Page 11024]]

nitrates, organic carbon, elemental carbon, and soil dust), and their 
precursors (e.g., SO<INF>2</INF>, NO<INF>X</INF>, and in some cases, 
ammonia (NH<INF>3</INF>) 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Albuquerque/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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Roles of Agencies in Addressing Regional Haze

    Successful implementation of the regional haze program will require 
long-term 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See http://www.epa.gov/air/visibility/regional.html for 
description of the regional planning organizations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 Shoshone-Bannock Tribes of 
Fort Hall.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The WRAP Web site can be found at http://www.wrapair.org.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.

[[Page 11025]]

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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The preamble to the RHR provides additional details about 
the deciview. 64 FR 35714, 35725 (July 1, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The set of ``major stationary sources'' potentially subject 
to BART is listed in CAA section 169A(g)(7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 visibility-impairing 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 
BART-eligible 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

[[Page 11026]]

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.

[[Page 11027]]

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:
    <bullet> 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;
    <bullet> 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;
    <bullet> 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;
    <bullet> 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,
    <bullet> 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 most-impaired (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:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The URP is also referred to as the visibility ``glidepath'', 
which is the linear rate of progress needed to achieve natural 
visibility conditions by 2064.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    <bullet> 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.
    <bullet> 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.

[[Page 11028]]

    <bullet> 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.
    <bullet> 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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     20% Worst       20% Worst                      Visibility
                                                      natural        baseline      2018 Uniform     improvement
             Site                 Class I area      conditions      conditions        rate of     needed by 2018
                                                       (dv)            (dv)       progress  (dv)        (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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                     20% Best        20% Best
                                                                                     baseline         natural
                     Site                                 Class I area              conditions      conditions
                                                                                       (dv)            (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

[[Page 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 
(NO<INF>X</INF>), sulfur oxides (SO<INF>X</INF>), ammonia 
(NH<INF>3</INF>), volatile organic compounds (VOC), and coarse and fine 
particulate matter (PM<INF>10</INF> and PM<INF>2.5</INF>, 
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 
visibility-impairing pollutants including SOx, NO<INF>X</INF>, VOC HC, 
CO, PM<INF>2.5</INF>, PM<INF>10</INF> and NH<INF>3</INF> for 2002 and 
2018. These emission estimates were partitioned into eight emission 
source categories: point sources, stationary area sources (excluding 
fires), on-road mobile, non-road 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

[[Page 11030]]

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
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                   Annual emissions (tons/year)
              Source sector              ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                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
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                   Annual emissions (tons/year)
              Source sector              ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                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, NO<INF>X</INF>, 
PM<INF>10</INF>, PM<INF>2.5</INF>, and SO<INF>X</INF>, between 2002 and 
2018 are summarized below:
    1. Non-road: NO<INF>X</INF> (-18.9%), PM<INF>10</INF> (-19.1%), and 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> (-20.2%).
    2. On-road: NO<INF>X</INF> (-59.3%), PM<INF>10</INF> (-32.3%), 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> (-53.2%), and SO<INF>X</INF> (-87.9%).
    3. Commercial Marine Vessels: NO<INF>X</INF> (+43.9%), 
PM<INF>10</INF> (+55.5%), PM<INF>2.5</INF> (+85.3%), and SO<INF>X</INF> 
(-77.3%).
    4. Aviation: NO<INF>X</INF> (+16.7%), PM<INF>10</INF> (+13.6%), 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> (+13.5%), and SO<INF>X</INF> (15.5%).
    5. Point: NO<INF>X</INF> (-12.4%), PM<INF>10</INF> (-69.9%), 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> (-71.1%), and SO<INF>X</INF> (+26.0%).
    6. Anthropogenic Fires: NO<INF>X</INF> (-43.8%), PM<INF>10</INF> (-
46.2%), PM<INF>2.5</INF> (-46.0%), and SO<INF>X</INF> (-43.8%).
    The overall changes in the above pollutants between 2002 and 2018, 
across all source sectors, are NO<INF>X</INF> (-3.3%), PM<INF>10</INF> 
(+0.9%), PM<INF>2.5</INF> (+0.4%), and SO<INF>X</INF> (-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 [mu]g/m\3\ of sulfate at high humidity is more effective 
in scattering light than 1 [mu]g/m\3\ 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

[[Page 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 
NO<INF>X</INF> 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 SO<INF>X</INF> 
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 Yukon-Koyukuk 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 SO<INF>2</INF> 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 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> in 2002 came from natural fires in Yukon-Koyukuk and 
Southeast Fairbanks boroughs, and 11% of the PM<INF>2.5</INF> came from 
point sources in the Matanuska-Susitna borough. For NO<INF>X</INF>, 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 NO<INF>X</INF> 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 SO<INF>X</INF>, 57% of the contributions for 2002 came 
from natural fires in the Yukon-Koyukuk borough, while 19% of the 
SO<INF>X</INF> 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 Matanuska-Susitna 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 Yukon-Koyukuk borough are the 
dominant source of all pollutants impairing visibility. The WEP 
analysis concluded that 96% of the PM<INF>2.5</INF>, 87% of the VOCs, 
76% of the NO<INF>X</INF>, 91% of the SO<INF>X</INF>, 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF>, 41% of 
the VOCs, 44% of the SO<INF>X</INF>, and 54% of the ammonia), 64% of 
the NO<INF>X</INF> 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

[[Page 11032]]

Peninsula, which will contribute 37% of the SO<INF>X</INF> 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:
    <bullet> Chugach Electric, Beluga River Power Plant (Chugach 
Electric);
    <bullet> Alyeska Pipeline Service Company, Valdez Marine Terminal 
(Alyeska);
    <bullet> Tesoro, Kenai Refinery (Tesoro);
    <bullet> Anchorage Municipal Light and Power, George Sullivan Plant 
2 (Anchorage Municipal);
    <bullet> ConocoPhillips Alaska Inc., Kenai LNG Plant (CPAI);
    <bullet> Agrium, Chemical-Urea Plant (Agrium); and
    <bullet> 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 BART-eligible 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Visibility impacts at Simeonof and the Bering Sea Wilderness 
Areas are expected to be below 0.5 dv.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Alaska also established a 0.5 dv threshold to determine if a BART-
eligible 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,

[[Page 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 SO<INF>2</INF>, NO<INF>X</INF> 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 BART-eligible 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 NO<INF>X</INF> 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 <greek-i>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 BART-eligible 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 <greek-i>1'', and one auxiliary 
boiler (Auxiliary Boiler <greek-i>1). GVEA undertook a full assessment 
of control options for Healy Unit <greek-i> 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 NO<INF>X</INF>, SO<INF>2</INF>, and PM 
limits were BART for Healy Unit <greek-i>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 <greek-i>1: (1) 
Selective Non Catalytic Reduction (SNCR) added to the existing Low 
NO<INF>X</INF> Burners (LNB) with Over Fired Air (OFA) for 
NO<INF>X</INF>, (2) the existing dry sodium bicarbonate dry sorbent 
injection (DSI) system for SO<INF>2</INF>, and (3) the existing 
reverse-gas baghouse system for PM<INF>10</INF>
    The Enviroplan GVEA Healy BART Report concluded that SNCR was BART 
for NO<INF>X</INF> because it would be cost effective at $4,208/ton 
(based on a 2024 closure of Healy Unit <greek-i>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 NO<INF>X</INF> control for this unit. 
Enviroplan also concluded that Rotating Over Fire Air (ROFA[supreg]), 
even though cost effective, would not be incrementally cost effective 
over SNCR because the cost per deciview improvement for the 
ROFA[supreg] 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[supreg] would

[[Page 11034]]

be 180 percent higher than installing SNCR.
    For SO<INF>2</INF> 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 SO<INF>2</INF> 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 (NO<INF>2</INF>) 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 
<greek-i>1, ADEC determined that the BART emission limits for GVEA 
Healy Unit <greek-i>1, based on a 2024 shutdown, are 0.20 lb/mmBtu for 
NO<INF>X</INF>, the current limit of 0.30 lb/mmBtu for SO<INF>2</INF>, 
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 State-
enforceable restriction preventing further operation.'' BART 
Guidelines, IV.D.4.k.2.(2). In the case of the Healy Unit <greek-i>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 NO<INF>X</INF> 
or SO<INF>2</INF> control technologies for Healy Unit <greek-i>1.
    Based on a 15-year lifetime, EPA found that SCR was not cost 
effective for controlling NO<INF>X</INF> 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 Report-addendum). 
EPA finds that SCR is still not cost effective at this lower rate. 
However, the following NO<INF>X</INF> control technologies were 
considered cost effective: SNCR at $3,125/ton, ROFA at $3,476/ton, and 
ROFA[supreg] with Rotamix[supreg] at $4,325/ton.
    EPA next considered the environmental impacts of each of these cost 
effective technologies. ROFA[supreg] with Rotamix[supreg] when operated 
to achieve the quoted NO<INF>X</INF> emission rate of 0.11 lb/MMbtu, 
reportedly carries some risk of increased emissions of carbon monoxide 
(CO), carbon dioxide (CO<INF>2</INF>), and ``loss-on-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[supreg] with 
Rotamix[supreg] are typically allowed slightly higher NO<INF>X</INF> 
emission limits than those quoted by the vendors of these technologies. 
EPA's review did not identify a facility utilizing ROFA[supreg] with 
Rotamix[supreg] that was subject to an emission limit near 0.11 lb/
mmBTU, the level quoted by the vendor for ROFA[supreg] with 
Rotamix[supreg] for Healy Unit <greek-i>1. Installation of the 
ROFA[supreg] technology alone (without Rotamix[supreg]) 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[supreg], and 
EPA agrees with this decision.
    ADEC selected the BART NO<INF>X</INF> emission limit for Healy Unit 
<greek-i>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 
NO<INF>X</INF> emission rate for Healy Unit <greek-i>1. GVEA conducted 
an analysis of 2003-2008 (5 years) 30-day rolling NO<INF>X</INF> and 
SO<INF>2</INF> emissions from Healy Unit <greek-i>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 NO<INF>X</INF> emission limit instead of a 
0.19 lb/mmBtu NO<INF>X</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF> emission 
allowance would not significantly change the visibility impairment at 
Denali National Park due to emissions from Healy Unit <greek-i>1. 
Therefore, EPA proposes to approve the State's determination that an 
emission limit of 0.20 lbs/mmBtu for NO<INF>X</INF> is BART for Healy 
Unit <greek-i>1.
    For SO<INF>2</INF>, 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 (NO<INF>2</INF>) prior to 
discharge from the stack. NO<INF>2</INF> is brown in color, while NO is 
colorless; the two together form NO<INF>X</INF>. Combustion emissions 
are initially NO, and oxidize in the atmosphere to NO<INF>2</INF>. 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 
<greek-i>1 to Denali National Park, a brown plume may result in 
increased visibility impairment in the sections of the Park closest to 
Healy Unit <greek-i>1, even though overall visibility impairment would 
be reduced. Two other SO<INF>2</INF> 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 SO<INF>2</INF> emission limit achievable by 
the current DSI control technology, 0.30 lb/mmBtu, as BART for Healy 
Unit <greek-i>1.
    ADEC determined that the existing reverse-gas baghouse system is 
the state-

[[Page 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 <greek-i>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 <greek-i>1.
    Regarding the Auxiliary Boiler <greek-i>1, the State indicated that 
this unit is just used during shutdown periods or emergency repairs to 
Healy Unit <greek-i>1 to supply heat to the Healy 1 building or to 
provide steam and potable hot water to Healy Unit <greek-i>2, if 
needed, when Healy Unit <greek-i>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 <greek-i>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 <greek-i>1. EPA agrees that given the low annual emissions for 
the boiler, add-on pollution controls equipment for NO<INF>X</INF> and 
PM are not cost effective. EPA found that the only viable method to 
control SO<INF>2</INF> emission from the Auxiliary Boiler <greek-i>1 
would be to switch to ultra-low 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 
SO<INF>2</INF> emission from the Auxiliary Boiler <greek-i>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 <greek-i>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 most-impaired 
(20% worst) days and ensures no degradation in visibility for the 
least-impaired (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 SO<INF>2</INF> and 
NO<INF>X</INF> 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 <greek-i>1 will install SNCR as BART for NO<INF>X</INF>, which 
will reduce NO<INF>X</INF> 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 NH<INF>3</INF>, NO<INF>X</INF> and PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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

[[Page 11036]]

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 
PM<INF>2.5</INF>, 68% of the VOCs, 79% of the NO<INF>X</INF>, and 65% 
of the SO<INF>2</INF> that cause visibility impairment in that Class I 
area. At Trapper Creek (also in Denali), natural fires contribute 86% 
of the PM<INF>2.5</INF>, 65% of the VOCs, 34% of the NO<INF>X</INF>, 
and 62% of the SO<INF>2</INF> that cause visibility impairment. In 
Simeonof, natural fires contribute 99% of the PM<INF>2.5</INF>, 89% of 
the VOCs, 76% of the NO<INF>X</INF>, and 92% of the SO<INF>2</INF> that 
cause visibility impairment on the worst 20% days. In Tuxedni, natural 
fires contribute 78% of the PM<INF>2.5</INF>, 41% of the VOCs, 15% of 
the NO<INF>X</INF>, and 44% of the SO<INF>2</INF> 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 SO<INF>2</INF>, NO<INF>X</INF>, and PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
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 NO<INF>X</INF> 
emission standards for new commercial marine engines, and (3) Tier I 
NO<INF>X</INF> 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, NO<INF>X</INF>, and SO<INF>2</INF> 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 
<greek-i>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 <greek-i>2 
emissions on Denali is inconclusive. The State does recognize however 
that if the unit is brought on line, the point source NO<INF>X</INF> 
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 <greek-i>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 SO<INF>2</INF> and NO<INF>X</INF> due to BART emission 
limits on Healy Unit <greek-i>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 long-term 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

[[Page 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 BART-subject 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 pre-approvals 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 NO<INF>X</INF>, 
SO<INF>2</INF>, 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 NO<INF>X</INF> 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 PM<INF>10</INF> 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 (PM<INF>10</INF>). 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 PM<INF>10</INF> 
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

[[Page 11038]]

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 on-
going 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:
    <bullet> 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);
    <bullet> Does not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
    <bullet> 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.);
    <bullet> 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);
    <bullet> Does not have Federalism implications as specified in 
Executive

[[Page 11039]]

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
    <bullet> Is not an economically significant regulatory action based 
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997);
    <bullet> Is not a significant regulatory action subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
    <bullet> 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
    <bullet> 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


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>