10546 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 31 / Thursday, February 14, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

1Areas designated as mandatory Class I Federal 

areas consist of national parks exceeding 6000 

acres, wilderness areas and national memorial parks 

exceeding 5000 acres, and all international parks 

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

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

Clean Air Act, 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 Clean Air 

Act 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.’’ 

study was conducted) or impaired their 

informed consent. If EPA discovers that 

the submitter of the proposal materially 

misrepresented or knowingly omitted 

information that would have altered the 

outcome of EPA’s evaluation of the 

proposal under § 26.1603(c), EPA must 

not rely on that data. 

(2) A proposal that would have been 

found to be acceptable under 

§ 26.1603(c), if it had been subject to 

review under that section, and no 

amendments to or deviations from that 

proposal placed participants at 

increased risk of harm (based on 

knowledge available at the time the 

study was conducted) or impaired their 

informed consent. 

(d) The prohibition in this section is 

in addition to the prohibitions in 

§ 26.1703. 

§ 26.1706 [Amended] 

■ 21. In § 26.1706, remove in paragraph 

(d) the word ‘‘publishes’’ and add in its 

place the phrase ‘‘has published.’’ 

[FR Doc. 2013–03456 Filed 2–13–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R10–OAR–2011–0367; FRL–9756–8] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; State of Alaska; 

Regional Haze State Implementation 

Plan 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is approving a State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) submittal 

from the State of Alaska as meeting the 

requirements of Clean Air Act (CAA) 

sections169A and 169B and federal 

regional haze regulations. The SIP 

implements a regional haze program in 

the State of Alaska for the first regional 

haze planning period, through July 31, 

2018. This submittal addresses the 

requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) 

and EPA’s rules that require states to 

prevent any future and remedy any 

existing manmade 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’’). In this 

action, EPA is approving 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). Additionally, EPA is approving 

the Alaska Department of 

Environmental Conservation Best 

Available Retrofit Technology 

regulations, and amendments to 

Alaska’s Area Wide Pollution Control 

Program for Regional Haze. 

DATES: This final rule is effective March 

18, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–R10–OAR–2011–0367. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

the www.regulations.gov Web site. 

Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

e.g., Confidential Business Information 

(CBI) or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the Internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically through 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the State and Tribal Air Programs Unit, 

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 in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section to view the hard copy 

of the docket. You may view the hard 

copy of the docket Monday through 

Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., excluding 

Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Keith Rose, EPA Region 10, Suite 900, 

Office of Air, Waste and Toxics, 1200 

Sixth Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101, (206) 

553–1949. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Definitions 

For the purpose of this document, we 

are giving meaning to certain words or 

initials as follows: 

(i) The words or initials Act, CAA, or 

Clean Air Act mean or refer to the Clean 

Air Act, unless the context indicates 

otherwise. 

(ii) The words EPA, we, us or our 

mean or refer to the United States 

Environmental Protection Agency. 

(iii) The initials SIP mean or refer to 

State Implementation Plan. 

(iv) The words Alaska and State mean 

the State of Alaska. 

Table of Contents 

I. Background Information 

II. Response to Comments 

III. Final Action 

IV. Statutory and Executive Orders Review 

I. Background Information 

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). 

On February 24, 2012, EPA published 

a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR) 

for the State of Alaska. See 77 FR 11022. 

In the NPR, EPA proposed approval of 

the Alaska SIP submittal that addresses 

regional haze for the planning period 

2008 through 2018. The Regional Haze 

Plan was submitted to EPA on April 4, 

2011. Specifically, EPA proposed to 

approve all provisions of Alaska’s April 

4, 2011 Regional Haze SIP submission. 

In this action, EPA is approving 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), LongTerm Strategy (LTS), ADEC’s BART 

regulations in 18 AAC 50.260, and the 

amendments to 18 AAC 50.030 which 

adopts 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. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 31 / Thursday, February 14, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 10547 

2Unit 2 previously went through Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration (PSD) review and received 

an Air Quality Control Permit issued in 1993 and 

amended in 1994. On February 3, 2011, ADEC 

issued Final Air Quality Control Permit No. 

AQ0173TVPO2 to GVEA. 

3United States v. Golden Valley Electric 

Association, Inc. and Alaska Industrial 

Development and Export Authority, Civ. No. 4:12- 

cv-00025–RRB (D. Alaska). The United States filed 

an Unopposed Motion to Enter the Consent Decree 

on November 14, 2012. 

A detailed explanation of the 

requirements for regional haze SIPs as 

well as EPA’s analysis of Alaska’s SIP 

submittal was provided in the NPR and 

will not be repeated in detail here. 

Most of the comments received on the 

NPR addressed the Healy coal-fired 

power plant (Healy Power Plant) located 

in Healy, Alaska just five miles from 

Denali National Park. The Healy Power 

Plant consists of 2 power generating 

units. Unit 1 is subject to BART as a 

nominal 25 megawatt (MW) coal-fired 

electric generating unit that was initially 

constructed in 1967. Unit 2, also 

referred to as the Healy Clean Coal 

Project (HCCP), is a nominal 50 MW 

coal-fired electric generating unit, was 

constructed in 1997, is not subject to 

BART, and has not operated since 1999. 

Golden Valley Electric Association, Inc. 

(GVEA) owns and operates Unit 1. 

GVEA and the Alaska Industrial 

Development and Export Authority 

(AIDEA) currently own Unit 2. GVEA 

and AIDEA intend to reactivate and/or 

restart Unit 2.2

Subsequent to the publication of the 

NPR, the United States entered into 

negotiations with GVEA and the AIDEA 

regarding their future work plans and 

intent to operate Unit 2 at the Healy 

Power Plant. These negotiations 

resulted in the United States, on behalf 

of EPA, filing a civil complaint for 

injunctive relief concurrently with a 

consent decree in the United States 

District Court for the District of Alaska.3

The consent decree recognizes that 

GVEA and AIDEA intend to reactivate 

and/or restart Unit 2 and that, as alleged 

in the complaint accompanying the 

consent decree, the United States 

believes that GVEA’s and AIDEA’s 

project at Unit 2 at the Healy Power 

Plant would result in the operation of a 

new source or, in the alternative, a 

major modification of an existing source 

without obtaining the necessary permits 

under the Act and without the 

installation and operation of the stateof-the-art controls necessary under the 

Act to reduce air pollutants, particularly 

oxides of nitrogen (NOx) emissions from 

Unit 2. While not admitting liability, 

GVEA and AIDEA agreed to comply 

with specified pollution control 

requirements and emissions limits for 

Unit 1 and Unit 2 at the Healy Power 

Plant. 

The consent decree requires GVEA to 

install Selective Non-Catalytic 

Reduction (SNCR) on Unit 1 on or 

before September 30, 2015 or 18 months 

after Unit 2 first fires coal, whichever is 

later. Additionally, by December 31, 

2022, GVEA must elect to either 

permanently retire Unit 1 by December 

23, 2024 or install Selective Catalytic 

Reduction (SCR). If GVEA elects to 

operate Unit 1 after December 31, 2024 

it must continuously operate the SCR 

and comply with specified emission 

limits. The consent decree also requires 

GVEA and AIDEA to install SCR on Unit 

2 on or before September 30, 2015 or 24 

months after it first fires coal and to 

comply with specified emission limits. 

The consent decree also 

acknowledges that EPA is currently 

reviewing the Regional Haze SIP 

submittal from Alaska and that EPA 

may consider the enforceable conditions 

in the consent decree when it takes final 

action on that SIP submission. 

Additionally the consent decree 

provides that nothing in the consent 

decree relieves GVEA or AIDEA of their 

obligation to comply with all applicable 

state or federal, state and local laws and 

regulations, specifically including the 

BART requirements in the Alaska SIP or 

emission limits or deadlines for the 

installation of pollution controls set 

forth in the regulations. 

II. Response to Comments 

EPA received a number of comments 

on the proposed action to approve the 

Alaska Regional Haze SIP submittal. 

These comments were received from the 

Alaska Department of Environmental 

Conservation (ADEC), Sierra Club, the 

National Park Service, Denali Citizens’ 

Council, National Parks and 

Conservation Association (NPCA), and 

Golden Valley Electric Association 

(GVEA) and a number of individual 

commenters or members of 

organizations. The individual comments 

included many identical or nearly 

identical comment letters that were part 

of a public comment campaign 

sponsored by Sierra Club, NPCA and 

CREDO. Additionally, on June 29, 2012, 

Earth Justice submitted a letter to EPA 

on behalf of the NPCA commenting on 

a number of Regional Haze SIPs, 

including Alaska, that were pending 

review before the agency. Even though 

the letter was submitted after the close 

of the comment period for this action, 

we have taken these comments into 

account and are responding to those 

comments relevant to this action in this 

notice. 

The EPA’s responses to the comments 

are grouped into three categories: (1) 

Comments on BART for Healy Unit 1; 

(2) Comments on Reasonable Progress 

and Healy Unit 2; and (3) General 

Comments. 

A. Comments Related to BART for Healy 

Unit I 

As noted above, the majority of the 

comments received related to the Healy 

Power Plant. Numerous comments were 

received regarding the selection of 

Selective Non-Catalytic Reduction 

(SNCR) rather than Selective Catalytic 

Reduction (SCR) as BART for Healy 

Unit 1. Many of the comments focused 

on the cost of controls, cost 

effectiveness calculations, and the lack 

of an enforceable shut down date for the 

unit. 

After reviewing the public comments, 

we performed additional analyses of the 

cost effectiveness associated with the 

various NOX control technologies 

considered by ADEC in determining 

BART for Unit 1 at the Healy Power 

Plant. While evaluating the public 

comments received on the proposed 

approval of the Alaska Regional Haze 

SIP submission, we considered the 

enforceable conditions in the consent 

decree and the resulting controls, limits 

and emission reductions. We also 

considered our additional technical and 

cost effectiveness analyses. The specific 

comments and responses are described 

below. 

Comment: A number of commenters 

asserted that BART should be SCR for 

Healy Unit I. More specifically, a 

comment concluded that BART for 

Healy Unit 1 should require the 

installation and operation of SCR at a 

0.035 lb/mmBtu emission limit and 

stated that SCR technology is the 

industry standard for NOX removal. 

Other commenters asserted that SCR 

could achieve a limit between 0.05 and 

0.07 lbs/mmBtu. In the commenters’ 

view, the State’s analysis overestimated 

the SCR costs and underestimated its 

benefits. One comment pointed to EPA’s 

finding in other determinations that 

BART for NOX is 0.05 lbs/mmBtu. For 

the San Juan coal-fired generating 

station in New Mexico, EPA imposed a 

0.05 lbs/mmBtu BART limit, and the 

final permit for the Desert Rock coalfired generating plant imposed a limit of 

0.035 lbs/mmBtu. 

Response: EPA agrees that a more 

stringent emission rate is achievable 

with SCR than with SNCR. A BART 

determination is based on consideration 

of multiple factors. As explained in the 

NPR, the State found that SCR is not 

cost effective at this facility for an 8 year 

equipment lifetime. Although EPA does 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

10548 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 31 / Thursday, February 14, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

not agree with the State’s use of an 8 

year equipment life, we are approving 

the BART limit for NOX of 0.20 lbs/ 

mmBtu based on the installation of 

SNCR. After considering the comments 

received, EPA calculated the cost of SCR 

using a 30 year lifetime for the controls 

in addition to the 20 year lifetime cost 

calculation that EPA had undertaken 

prior to the proposed action. Based on 

the vendor’s quote for SCR and having 

eliminated costs that were not 

consistent with EPA’s Control Cost 

Manual, EPA found that the cost 

effectiveness of SCR at Healy Unit 1 is 

about $5,900/ton for a 20 year 

equipment lifetime, and about $5,300/ 

ton for a 30 year lifetime. See 

‘‘Revisions to Healy Unit 1 Cost 

Effectiveness Calculations’’, memo from 

Zach Hedgpeth to Keith Rose, October 

15, 2012. Based on modeled results of 

visibility impacts at different emission 

rates, the State also found that the 

incremental visibility improvement at 

Denali National Park associated with an 

emission rate of 0.07 lbs/mmBtu 

(achievable with SCR) versus the 

improvement expected with an 

emission rate of 0.19 lb/mmBtu 

(achievable with SNCR) to be relatively 

small (about 0.17 dv). 

In this case, as explained in more 

detail in the proposal, ADEC selected 

the BART NOX emission limit for Healy 

Unit 1 based on their consideration of 

the BART five-step review process, 

information provided in GVEA’s BART 

analyses, the Enviroplan GVEA Healy 

BART Report, and a decision by ADEC 

to grant GVEA’s request to allow for 

some operational variability in the NOX

emission rate for Healy Unit 1. 77 FR 

11034, February 24, 2012. The Regional 

Haze rule grants States the authority to 

make the initial determination of what 

constitutes BART. EPA reviews that 

determination to ensure that the 

appropriate factors were considered and 

that the determination by the State is a 

reasonable one. 

BART is a source by source 

determination based on consideration, 

among other things, of the cost of 

controls at the source and the visibility 

improvement expected to result from 

the installation of controls at the source. 

In other words, each BART 

determination is made based on a sitespecific, fact-specific evaluation of the 

particular BART source. Here, to name 

but one difference between Healy and 

the San Juan Generating Station as an 

example, the BART unit at Healy is only 

rated at 25 MW, whereas the four units 

at the San Juan facility are rated at a 

total of 1,800 MW. The size of the unit 

can affect both the cost effectiveness of 

controls as well as the associated air 

quality or visibility impacts. As a result, 

the conclusion that SCR is BART for one 

facility is not determinative in another 

BART determination. The decision as to 

appropriate controls for the Desert Rock 

facility to meet the requirements of 

another CAA program, the prevention of 

significant deterioration or PSD 

program, is of even less relevance to the 

determination of BART for Healy Unit 2. 

EPA also notes that pursuant to the 

consent decree described above, no later 

than December 31, 2022, GVEA must 

decide whether it will continue to 

operate Unit 1 past December 31, 2024 

(the date upon which ADEC based its 

cost effectiveness calculations) or 

whether it will permanently retire the 

Unit by December 31, 2024. If GVEA 

elects to continue operation after 

December 31, 2024, it must install SCR 

control technology (or alternate control 

technology approved by EPA). 

Taking all this into consideration, 

EPA is approving the State’s NOX BART 

determination for Healy Unit 1 as 

meeting the requirements of the CAA. 

Comment: A number of comments 

state that the SIP fails to adequately 

address the shutdown date required as 

part of the BART determination for 

Healy Unit 1. The commenter references 

the BART guidelines statements that ‘‘if 

a shutdown date affects the BART 

determination, this date should be 

assured by a federally or state 

enforceable restriction preventing 

further operation.’’ The commenters 

assert that this requirement is not 

addressed in the SIP submittal and that 

the SIP should make clear that a 

shutdown date of 2024 is a requirement 

for Unit 1. 

Response: As noted in the proposal, 

the BART Guidelines explain that the 

source’s remaining useful life may be 

considered as an element of the cost 

analysis in a BART determination for a 

particular source and, as the comment 

points out, where the retirement date 

affects the BART determination, the 

date should be enforceable. BART 

Guidelines IV.D.4.k. 70 FR 39169, July 

6, 2005. In our proposed rulemaking, we 

recognized that the 2024 shutdown date 

relied on in the State’s cost effectiveness 

calculation is not enforceable. Because 

of this, EPA conducted additional 

analyses of the cost effectiveness of the 

particular control technologies under 

consideration for Healy Unit 1 based on 

the estimated useful lifetime for the 

controls. 77 FR 11034, February 24, 

2012. For that analysis we used 

lifetimes of 20 years for NOX control 

technologies, and 15 years for SO2 and 

PM control technologies. Based on 

additional information received during 

the public comment period, we 

subsequently evaluated the cost 

effectiveness of the NOX control 

technologies for Healy Unit 1 based on 

a 8, 15, 20 and 30 year lifetime. This 

analysis calculated the cost 

effectiveness of SNCR, SCR, Rotating 

Over Fire Air (ROFA), ROFA with 

Rotamix, and optimization of the low 

NOX burners with a modified over-fire 

air system. Thus, EPA’s revised cost 

analysis specifically examined the cost 

effectiveness of SCR over both 20 and 30 

year lifetimes. The revised cost analysis 

calculates SCR costs of about $5,900/ton 

of NOX reduced for a 20 year equipment 

lifetime, and $5,300/ton of NOX reduced 

for a 30 year equipment lifetime. After 

reviewing new information submitted 

from the commenters, and adjusting the 

assumptions in our cost effectiveness 

calculations, EPA continues to find that 

it was reasonable for the State to 

conclude that the additional cost for 

SCR over SNCR, even when based on 20 

year or 30 year lifetimes, is not justified. 

Our analysis confirmed that the 

reduced period for the remaining useful 

life used by the State in its BART 

analysis did not change the level of 

control that would reasonably be 

required as BART at this facility. As 

explained above, based on consideration 

of all the BART factors, including cost 

effectiveness, the remaining life, and 

visibility improvement estimated to 

result with emission limits associated 

with the different controls, the State’s 

decision to reject SCR is not 

unreasonable. 

Comment: EPA failed to conduct an 

adequate review of Alaska’s cost 

projections for SCR technology on Healy 

Unit 1. EPA relied on Alaska’s 

submission of a single vendor’s quote 

(Fuel Tech) for the cost of SCR. The cost 

of an SCR can vary significantly 

depending on the vendor and its 

specifications, and EPA did not even 

review the details in this vendor’s 

estimate. Both the Fuel Tech report and 

the GVEA report use cost assumptions 

that are contrary to the Cost Control 

Manual. EPA cannot reject SCR on cost 

effectiveness grounds without more 

sufficient factual support. 

Response: EPA disagrees with the 

comment regarding Fuel Tech’s cost 

quotes. It is appropriate for our cost 

analysis to rely, at least in part, on the 

vendor’s quote which is based on site 

specific information and specifications. 

In conducting our analysis described 

above, we reduced the vendor’s cost 

estimates for a number of components, 

including annual operating and 

maintenance (O&M) costs, NOX

emission rates for SCR, expected 

equipment lifetime, and costs for a new 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 31 / Thursday, February 14, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 10549 

induced draft fan, consistent with the 

EPA Control Cost Manual methodology. 

Comment: One commenter asserted 

that the NOX control options evaluated 

for Healy Unit 1 could be implemented 

sooner that the five years assumed by 

Alaska, in which case a 2024 shut down 

date may affect the cost effectiveness of 

feasible emission control technologies 

considered for Healy Unit 1. 

Response: EPA recognizes that the 

time it takes to implement controls and 

the length of time the controls may 

operate affect the cost effectiveness 

calculation and thus the ultimate BART 

determination. EPA acknowledges that 

SNCR installations may typically 

require 8 to 12 months, however, the 

amount of time necessary for 

installation at a particular facility may 

vary significantly depending on the site 

specific circumstances, such as weather 

conditions, and the frequency and 

duration of maintenance periods for a 

particular power plant. Additionally, as 

noted above, the shut down date does 

not affect the BART determination here 

and thus the State’s estimate of the time 

it may take to install SNCR does not 

significantly affect the cost effectiveness 

calculations of that technology. 

Comment: A commenter asserts that 

EPA’s proposal does not require 

meaningful emission reductions from 

this outdated coal plant. Further the 

comment states that limits proposed for 

SO2 and NOX at Healy do not represent 

the ‘‘degree of reduction achievable 

through the application of the best 

system of continuous emission 

reduction’’ and that EPA must impose 

lower BART emission limits for SO2 and 

NOX at Healy Unit 1 that are consistent 

with modern pollution control 

technology. 

Response: The State’s BART 

determination found that 0.20 lbs/ 

mmBtu is the appropriate NOX limit 

based on continued use of the current 

low NOX burners (LNB) and over fired 

air (OFA) systems, and the new 

installation of SNCR. This limit 

represents a reduction of 29% from 

baseline emissions of NOX from Healy 1. 

The BART limit for SO2 is 0.30 lb/ 

mmBtu based on the current Dry 

Sorbent Injection (DSI) system. As 

explained above, based on comments 

received on the proposed rulemaking, 

EPA reevaluated the cost effectiveness 

of SCR on Healy Unit 1 based on 20 and 

30 year lifetimes, and evaluated the cost 

effectiveness of SNCR, ROFA, ROFA 

with Rotamix, and optimization of the 

low NOX burners with overfire air 

system for 30 year lifetimes. Though 

some of the more stringent control 

technologies for NOX (such as ROFA 

with Rotamix) and for SO2 (such as DSI 

optimization), are reasonable in terms of 

cost effectiveness, the incremental 

visibility improvement achievable with 

these technologies, over the BART 

limits determined by ADEC for Healy 

Unit 1, are relatively small. For 

example, ROFA with Rotamix is 

estimated to result in just 0.166 dv more 

visibility improvement than that which 

is expected to result from SNCR, and 

DSI optimization may possibly improve 

visibility by just 0.25 dv. The 

incremental visibility improvement at 

Denali National Park for SCR over SNCR 

is only about 0.17 dv. EPA agrees with 

the State that the additional cost of SCR 

over SNCR is not justified at this facility 

by the relatively small incremental 

improvement in visibility. 

Comment: A commenter asserts that 

even though a NOX emissions limit of 

0.19 lb/mmBtu is far too high to be 

BART for Healy Unit 1, EPA did not 

provide adequate justification for using 

a 0.20 lb/mmBtu emissions limit instead 

of 0.19 lb/mmBtu. The commenter states 

that Alaska found that SNCR could 

achieve a 0.19 lb/mmBtu emission limit 

at Healy, but then allowed a 5% higher 

emission rate for ‘‘operating variability’’ 

and that EPA accepted this 

determination without further analysis. 

There is no data showing that this need 

for variability necessarily exists, and 

furthermore, neither Alaska nor EPA 

conducted a visibility analysis based on 

the 0.20 lb/mmBtu emission limit. 

Response: In the proposal, EPA 

explained that the State’s basis for 

setting the NOX limit at 0.20 lb/mmBtu 

rather than 0.19 lb/mmBtu was GVEA’s 

analysis of 5 years of 30 day rolling 

average NOX and SO2 emissions from 

Unit 1. Based on this data, the State 

determined that the small increase 

would appropriately allow for 

operational flexibility. 77 FR 11034, 

February 24, 2012. EPA found that a 5% 

increase in NOX emissions over the 0.19 

lb/mmBtu achievable with SNCR, to 

allow for operational variability of 

Healy Unit 1, is reasonable and EPA has 

decided that the State’s determination to 

set the NOX limit at 0.20 lb/mmBtu is 

approvable. 

Comment: The comment states that 

ROFA would achieve a 0.66 dv 

incremental visibility improvement over 

the improvement associated with SNCR 

at Healy 1. EPA cannot dismiss a costeffective improvement greater than the 

improvement it proposes to accept. 

Also, EPA improperly rejected ROFA 

with Rotamix as BART based on an 

unclear relationship between NOX and 

CO, CO2 and PM emissions. 

Response: EPA disagrees with the 

comment regarding the incremental 

visibility improvement between SNCR 

and ROFA. The SIP submittal indicates 

that the incremental visibility 

improvement expected to result from 

ROFA compared to SNCR would only 

be 0.049 dv, and ROFA with Rotamix 

compared to SNCR to be just 0.116 dv. 

See Table 8–1 of Appendix III.K.6 of the 

SIP submittal. EPA regards the small 

incremental visibility improvements 

from ROFA or ROFA with Rotamix as 

insufficient to justify the increased cost 

of either technology, regardless of the 

risk of additional collateral pollutant 

(CO, CO2, and PM) emission increases. 

Comment: GVEA agrees with Alaska 

and EPA that the BART process results 

in an emissions limit for NOX based on 

the limit that can be achieved with 

SNCR, and that SCR would not be cost 

effective. 

Response: As explained above, the 

State’s conclusion regarding the BART 

limit for Healy Unit 1 is reasonable. In 

this action EPA is approving Alaska’s 

determination that the NOX BART 

emission limit for Healy Unit 1 is 0.20 

lb/mmBtu. 

Comment: EPA proposed that the 

current sulfur dioxide emissions limit of 

0.30 lb/mmBtu is BART. EPA 

erroneously rejected optimization of the 

DSI system, which could achieve a 0.18 

lb/mmBtu emission limit. This lower 

emissions limit would result in 

significant reduction in sulfur dioxide 

emissions and greatly improve visibility 

at Denali. EPA found that DSI 

optimization is cost-effective; however, 

it rejected this more stringent limit 

based on its concerns about a ‘‘brown 

plume’’ effect. The commenter further 

asserts there is no demonstration that 

the rapid conversion to NO2 nearer the 

source will make any difference to the 

visibility in Denali. It is improper for 

EPA to dismiss this control possibility 

based on anecdotal evidence, which is 

not even linked to plant-specific 

characteristics present at Healy. The 

comment suggests that a short term pilot 

study be made part of the SIP to test the 

relationship between mercury emissions 

and sorbent injection rates. 

Response: For the reasons explained 

in the SIP submittal and summarized in 

the proposal, after considering all the 

BART factors, the State’s BART analysis 

for SO2 at Healy Unit 1 found that the 

current DSI control technology with a 

limit of 0.30 lb/mmBtu is BART for SO2. 

The State’s analysis found that 

increased sorbent injection, at a cost of 

$3578/ton of SO2 removed would result 

in a potential visibility improvement of 

0.25 dv but could also cause a visibility 

impairing brown plume which would 

interfere with rather than improve 

visibility in the nearby Denali National 

Park. EPA does not consider this 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

10550 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 31 / Thursday, February 14, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

amount of potential improvement in 

visibility achievable by optimizing the 

existing DSI system when coupled with 

the potential for brown plume to 

provide sufficient basis to disapprove 

the State’s SO2 BART determination for 

Healy Unit 1. 

The State retains the ability to 

consider requiring a pilot study in the 

future. The results of such a study, 

along with available information to 

better evaluate the potential for brown 

plume, could be used to further evaluate 

optimizing DSI as potential control 

technology when the State evaluates 

reasonable progress in the next planning 

period for regional haze. The other SO2

control options analyzed, a spray dryer 

and wet limestone flue gas 

desulfurization, were considered not 

cost effective. See 77 FR 11034, 

February 24, 2012. Given these 

considerations, EPA has decided that 

the State’s SO2 BART determination for 

Healy Unit 1 is reasonable. 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

that the effectiveness of a Lime Spray 

Dryer (LSD) was underestimated and 

recommended that EPA require GVEA 

to evaluate the LSD SO2 treatment 

technology with plume reheat to see if 

the efficiency of the existing DSI system 

can be increased. 

Response: EPA does not believe this 

further analysis is required. Plume 

reheat would require additional fuel 

combustion. This would increase CO2 

emissions and add to the costs of a wet 

scrubbing control system. 

B. Comments Related to the State’s 

Reasonable Progress Demonstration and 

Healy Unit 2 

A number of comments were received 

regarding the State’s analysis of future 

sources that may impact visibility in 

Denali National Park. The commenters 

were particularly concerned with the 

emissions associated with Healy Unit 2 

and contend its emissions should have 

been included in the State’s reasonable 

progress and long term strategy analysis 

and determinations. 

Comment: Commenters claim that, in 

general, the SIP does little to address 

additional emissions that are reasonably 

foreseeable. A number of industrial 

developments are currently moving 

forward in the Denali region, and are 

not even mentioned in Alaska’s SIP. At 

a minimum, the SIP should address how 

it will deal with future emissions and 

construction activities occurring prior to 

the SIP’s next review phase that would 

affect Denali’s Class I Airshed. The 

commenters state that it is not prudent 

to delay this planning to the future. 

Response: Contrary to the comments, 

the State in its SIP did account for 

future growth in emissions from 

industrial sources through 2018 by 

considering and evaluating population 

growth factors. The State used 

population projections compiled by the 

Alaska Department of Labor and 

Workforce Development (DOLWD) at 

five-year intervals through 2030 by 

individual borough and census areas to 

grow 2002 baseline activity to 2018 for 

most of the source categories. In 

addition, emission factors specific to 

calendar year 2018 were also developed 

for stationary point sources affected by 

regulatory control programs and 

technology improvements. The SIP 

submittal does not consider emissions 

from specific industrial projects that are 

planned for the future, or permitted 

point sources that are not currently 

operating but which may be in 

operation in 2018. Emissions from any 

such point sources will be considered 

and evaluated in future updates to the 

Alaska Regional Haze plan as they come 

into operation. A full description of the 

emission sources included in the 2018 

projected inventory can be found in 

section III.K.5 of the SIP submittal. 

Comment: Multiple commenters 

claim that the failure to account for 

emissions from Healy Unit 2 results in 

an inaccurate conclusion that the State 

is on the ‘‘glide path’’ to achieving its 

reasonable progress goals. Alaska failed 

to include Healy Unit 2 in its reasonable 

progress analysis, a facility which is 

projected to come on line in the near 

term, and that because Unit 2 is in the 

same footprint as Healy Unit 1 its 

emissions may prevent reasonable 

progress at Denali. The commenters 

assert that EPA must issue adequate 

emission limits for Healy Unit 2 to 

ensure reasonable progress not be 

thwarted by anticipated haze causing 

emissions. 

Response: EPA recognizes that the 

Alaska Regional Haze SIP submittal 

does not address future emissions from 

Healy Unit 2 and that if, or when, it 

begins operating its emissions could 

influence Alaska’s ability to achieve 

their reasonable progress goals. As 

explained above, Healy Unit 2, was 

originally permitted in 1994, operated 

briefly for testing in the late 1990’s and 

has not operated at all since December 

1999. It is a 50 MW non-BART unit. 

Unit 2 was not operating during the 

baseline period and its emissions were 

not included in the State’s baseline 

emissions inventory. Recently, as 

further explained in the proposal, ADEC 

issued a renewed Title 5 permit to 

GVEA allowing future operation at Unit 

2. However its future emissions have 

not been modeled and its potential 

visibility impact have not been 

determined at this time. 77 FR 11036, 

February 24, 2012. The Unit is still not 

operating. In the proposal, EPA 

indicated that it would 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. We 

did not receive additional specific 

information regarding Healy Unit 2 

emissions or its future visibility 

impacts. The potential emissions for 

Healy Unit 2 have not been modeled 

therefore we cannot accurately assess 

the Unit’s potential future visibility 

impacts. 

In its SIP submittal, should Unit 2 be 

restarted, Alaska has committed to 

reassess the need for further control on 

the source during the five-year review to 

determine whether additional emission 

reductions would improve visibility in 

Class I areas in the next planning 

period. Thus, more specifically, in order 

to determine the affect of any such 

emissions from Healy Unit 2 on the 

glide path, the State will need to assess 

its emissions in future reasonable 

progress evaluations conducted 

pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(g). 

Additionally, EPA notes that the U.S. 

v. GVEA and AIDEA consent decree 

acknowledges that the anticipated 

operation of Unit 2 could be viewed as 

the operation of a new source and 

imposes additional enforceable 

requirements on Unit 2 that go beyond 

the Regional Haze SIP requirements. As 

described more fully above, pursuant to 

the consent decree, GVEA is subject to 

SCR installation requirements, strict 

NOX emission limits and associated 

monitoring recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements. Additionally, the consent 

decree establishes declining NOX

emission limitations for both Unit 1 and 

Unit 2. Its emissions will be well 

controlled. It is unlikely that even if the 

State were to include the future 

emissions from Healy Unit 2 in its 

reasonable progress analysis that 

controls beyond those required under 

the consent decree would be necessary 

under the reasonable progress 

provisions in the regional haze rule. 

In consideration of a number of 

factors including the current nonoperational status of Healy Unit 2, the 

uncertainty of its future emissions, the 

State’s commitment to assess its 

emissions during the 5-year review and 

the enforceable terms and conditions in 

the U.S. v. GVEA and AIDEA consent 

decree, EPA approves Alaska’s 

treatment of Healy Unit 2 in its 

reasonable progress determination as 

proposed. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 31 / Thursday, February 14, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 10551 

Comment: GVEA agrees with Alaska 

and EPA that the exact amount of 

impact from any operation of Healy Unit 

2 cannot be determined at this time and 

that it is not reasonable to require 

additional controls on Healy Unit 2. 

However, GVEA does not agree with the 

State’s assumption that it will 

necessarily have to ‘‘consider’’ Healy 

Unit 2 in its reasonable progress 

evaluation. 

Response: As explained above, Alaska 

has committed to assess emissions from 

Healy Unit 2 in the reasonable progress 

evaluation in its 5-year assessment and 

in its 2018 Regional Haze SIP submittal. 

Given the location of Healy Unit 2, EPA 

believes that Alaska’s commitment is 

not only appropriate but is necessary to 

ensure reasonable progress. EPA is 

approving Alaska’s treatment of Healy 

Unit 2 in its reasonable progress 

determination as proposed. 

Comment: Alaska’s LTS fails to satisfy 

obligations under the Regional Haze 

Rule toward achieving natural visibility 

conditions at Denali. The Clean Air Act 

requires states to submit 

implementation plans that ‘‘contain 

such emission limits, schedules of 

compliance and other measures as may 

be necessary to make reasonable 

progress toward meeting the national 

goal’’ of achieving natural visibility 

conditions at all Class I Areas. 

Response: In developing a LTS, the 

Regional Haze Rule requires that states 

address six topics: (1) Ongoing Air 

Pollution Control Programs, (2) 

Measures to Mitigate Impacts of 

Construction Activities, (3) Emission 

Limitations and Schedules for 

Compliance, (4) Source Retirement and 

Replacement Schedules, (5) Smoke 

Management Techniques for 

Agricultural and Forestry Burning, and 

(6) Enforceability of Emission 

Limitations and Control Measures. In its 

proposed rulemaking, EPA found that 

the Alaska Regional Haze SIP submittal 

adequately addressed all six topics, and 

proposed to find that the LTS as a whole 

provided sufficient measures to ensure 

that Alaska will meet its emission 

reduction obligations. 

According to ADEC’s reasonable 

progress analysis, there is no 

statistically significant difference 

between the visibility improvement 

predicted by the Weighted Emission 

Potential (WEP) analysis for 2018 and 

the 2018 visibility target needed to 

achieve the uniform rate of progress 

(URP) to meet natural visibility 

conditions by 2064 for each Alaska 

Class I area. ADEC reached this 

conclusion by showing that the WEP 

results for 2018 fall within the 95 

percent confidence limits of the 2018 

visibility goal for each Class I area. See 

Section 9.E of the SIP submission. EPA 

believes that the reasonable progress 

goals established by Alaska for its Class 

I areas are reasonable. EPA finds that 

controls identified in the submittal, 

including the elements identified in the 

LTS portion of the Alaska Regional Haze 

SIP, along with additional controls on 

Healy Unit 2 required as a result of the 

consent decree, will provide reasonable 

progress towards attaining the goal of 

achieving natural visibility conditions 

in Alaska’s Class I areas by 2064. 

C. General Comments Regarding 

Visibility and Air Quality in Alaska 

EPA also received a number of general 

comments on a range of topics including 

the purpose of the Clean Air Act, the 

need to protect the visibility in Denali 

National Park, the impact of pollution 

on public health, the importance of 

visibility to tourism in Alaska, motoring 

techniques and coal combustion and 

other generalized concerns or 

comments. 

Comment: EPA received numerous 

comments asking EPA to ensure clean 

air in Denali National Park, Fairbanks, 

Anchorage, and throughout the region, 

and asking EPA to strengthen Alaska’s 

regional haze plan. 

Response: EPA’s final action in this 

rulemaking to approve Alaska’s 

Regional Haze SIP will result in cleaner 

air in Denali National Park and 

throughout the region by placing stricter 

emission limits on sources that 

contribute to regional haze. The 

objective of the regional haze program is 

to improve and protect visibility in 

national parks and wilderness areas 

through successive 10-year regional 

haze plans developed by the states. The 

Alaska Regional Haze plan, as approved 

in this action, establishes emission 

limits, through BART. For instance, 

Healy Unit 1 will have new NOx 

emission limits that are expected to 

result in a significant improvement in 

visibility in Denali National Park. The 

combined effect of all of the elements in 

the State’s long term strategy that were 

described in the NPR, including the 

emission limits established for Healy, 

will result in improved visibility in 

Denali National Park, and cleaner air 

throughout the region. 

Comment: EPA received numerous 

comments on the health effects, 

primarily asthma, that are associated 

with air pollution, and urged EPA to 

place tighter controls on sources of air 

pollution in Alaska. 

Response: We appreciate the 

commenters’ concerns regarding the 

potential adverse health effects of air 

pollution. We agree that the same 

emissions that cause visibility 

impairment can also cause respiratory 

problems, such as decreased lung 

function, aggravated asthma, and 

bronchitis. Although our action 

addresses visibility impairment, we note 

that there is the potential for 

improvements in human health through 

reductions in regional concentrations of 

visibility impairing pollutants. 

Comment: We received a few 

comments saying that the purpose of the 

Clean Air Act is to protect our nation’s 

air quality, especially at special places 

like Denali, the only national park in 

Alaska classified as a Class 1 area. These 

comments urged EPA not to allow air 

quality to degrade in the Denali 

National Park Class I area. We also 

received comments urging EPA to 

preserve the views at Denali National 

Park, and to ensure that tourism to 

pristine areas in Alaska is not adversely 

impacted by regional haze. Additional 

comments were submitted stating that 

Healy Units 1 and 2 are less than five 

miles from Denali, and are not being 

required to reduce emission enough to 

significantly decrease their visibility 

impacts on the park. These comments 

stated that modern and effective 

controls should be required to stem the 

haze pollution from Healy Unit 1 and 

Unit 2. 

Response: EPA agrees that it is 

important to reduce the visibility and 

health impacts from man-made 

pollution at the Federal Class I Areas, 

such as Denali National Park. EPA’s 

approval of Alaska’s Regional Haze SIP 

will result in significant reductions in 

emissions and improvement in visibility 

in the State. This represents only the 

first step towards meeting the national 

goal of natural conditions in federal 

Class I Areas. The State’s actions being 

approved in this rulemaking are the first 

in a series of actions that will be taken 

over the next several decades to 

improve visibility in Alaska Class I 

areas. 

EPA also recognizes the role that 

protecting visibility in national parks 

and wilderness areas in Alaska has to 

tourism throughout the state. Reducing 

regional haze will help ensure that 

views in these parks and wilderness 

areas are preserved, and will continue to 

support tourism. We also appreciate the 

concern regarding Healy’s proximity to 

Denali National Park. With approval of 

the State’s BART determination for 

Healy, and as a result of the enforceable 

terms and conditions in the U.S. v. 

GVEA and AIDEA consent decree, the 

facility will be subject to modern and 

effective pollution control requirements 

and its emissions will be reduced. 

Additionally, the State will continue to 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

10552 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 31 / Thursday, February 14, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

assess its control strategies and visibility 

goals in future regional haze reviews. 

Additional more detailed responses to 

comments regarding controls on the 

Healy Power Plant are addressed above. 

Comment: We received a comment 

regarding the Denali IMPROVE 

monitoring site. The commenter stated 

that while it appears that the Alaska 

Regional Haze SIP submittal equally 

considers data from both the Denali 

Headquarters and Trapper Creek 

monitoring sites, it does not explicitly 

state that this is the case. The SIP 

submittal describes the Denali 

Headquarters IMPROVE site as now a 

‘‘protocol site’’ but does not define the 

difference between a protocol and 

primary site, or whether data from a 

primary site would be given preference 

over a protocol site. Monitoring 

pollutants affecting visibility in Denali 

should not only consider pollutant 

information south of the Alaska Range, 

but pollutants from nearby major 

sources such as the Healy Power Plant, 

and sources in the Fairbanks area and 

both sites should be given equal 

consideration in the future. 

Response: According to the 

information on the national IMPROVE 

Web site (http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/ 

improve/Overview/IMPROVENetwork

Exp.htm), the Denali Headquarters site 

was designated as the ‘‘IMPROVE’’ site, 

and the Trapper Creek site was 

designated as a ‘‘protocol’’ site when the 

IMPROVE network was expanded in 

2002. EPA agrees with these 

designations, and also agrees that data 

from both the Denali Headquarters site 

and the Trapper Creek site should be 

used by Alaska to determine future 

progress toward visibility improvement 

goals in Denali National Park. 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended that a more refined, 

receptor-by-receptor modeling analysis 

be conducted throughout Denali 

National Park to determine if visibility 

improvements greater than those 

predicted by GVEA for the Healy Unit 

1 would be found. 

Response: GVEA used the CALPUFF 

model to estimate the visibility impacts 

of Healy Unit 1 on Denali National Park. 

Alaska found that the CALPUFF 

modeling methods and related model 

input options used by GVEA were 

consistent with the WRAP CALPUFF 

modeling protocol and related BART 

guidance. The receptors used in the 

CALPUFF modeling were placed at 

uniform receptor spacing along the 

boundary and in the interior of Denali 

National Park, and were based on the 

National Park Service database for Class 

I area modeling receptors, found at: 

(http://www2.nature.nps.gov/air/maps/ 

Receptors/index.cfm). 

EPA believes that the modeling 

approach taken to determine visibility 

impacts from Healy Unit 1 is consistent 

with the BART modeling guidance and 

does not believe that including 

additional receptors in the CALPUFF 

modeling runs would have identified 

any greater visibility improvements for 

any given emission limits than those 

identified in the GVEA modeling 

results. 

Comment: GVEA commented 

regarding the contributions from 

wildfires and out of State sources and 

supported the finding that natural 

wildfires inside Alaska are the primary 

contributors to regional haze at Denali 

National Park. GVEA also submits that 

the sources outside and upwind of 

Alaska are significant contributors to 

visibility impairment, and if visibility is 

not improving as planned, the 

monitoring data should be evaluated to 

quantify not only the impacts from 

natural wildfires, but from the out-ofstate, upwind air pollution as well. 

Response: The Alaska Regional Haze 

SIP submittal identifies organic carbon 

emissions from natural wildfires as the 

primary contributor to visibility 

impairment on the 20% worst days in 

Denali National Park. More specifically, 

the WEP analysis used by Alaska found 

that approximately 97% of the fine 

particulates causing visibility 

impairment on the 20% worst days in 

Denali National Park were composed of 

organic carbon from natural fires. 

Alaska will also review monitoring data 

prior to the five-year SIP update to 

determine progress towards the 2018 

visibility goals in each Class I area. 

Alaska may decide at that time if 

additional source controls are necessary 

to achieve the 2018 goals. In addition, 

Alaska will undertake a comprehensive 

review of control strategies and 

visibility goals every 10 years. These 

subsequent reviews will evaluate 

whether this assessment of the 

dominance of fire continues to be the 

case. 

Comment: EPA received numerous 

comments that emissions from coal 

combustion have impacts on visibility, 

human health, salmon, and climate 

change through emissions of carbon 

dioxide. The comments urged EPA to 

hold Alaska coal combustion sources, 

particularly utilities, to the highest 

emission standards with the most 

modern pollution control technology. 

Response: The primary emission 

control action pertaining to coal-fired 

power plants taken in this final action 

is to establish BART emission limits on 

Healy Unit 1. The emission reductions 

achieved through BART for Healy Unit 

1 will result in a decrease of nitrogen 

oxides emissions from 0.28 lb/mmBtu to 

0.20 lb/mmBtu. Additionally it is 

noteworthy that, additional reductions 

in NOx, SO2 and PM emissions will be 

achieved through the emission limits on 

Healy Unit 1 and Unit 2 set forth in the 

US v. GVEA and AIDEA consent decree 

discussed above. 

Comment: A comment contends that 

it is unclear whether this SIP fully 

reviews and addresses all options for 

control of anthropogenic pollutants that 

impair visibility in Denali’s Class I 

airshed. For example, while the SIP 

references coal combustion as a source 

of Organic Matter Carbon (OMC) and 

Elemental Carbon (EC), it attributes all 

OMC and EC in the Denali region to 

wildfires. Considering that OMC and EC 

are present year-round, it’s unclear why 

the state has avoided mention of OMC 

and EC’s relationship to the Healy 

Power Plant and combustion related to 

power generation and home heating in 

and near the Denali Borough. This SIP 

should acknowledge the presence of 

OMC and EC from anthropogenic 

sources in and near the Denali Borough 

(and within the state), and should 

consider methods to control OMC and 

EC pollutants related to anthropogenic 

sources. 

Response: As explained in the SIP 

submittal Chapter III.K.4 of the SIP, the 

major sources of OMC in Alaska are 

wildland fires (forest, wetland, and 

tundra) and biogenic aerosols produced 

by natural vegetation, and that wildfires 

in Alaska occur mostly during the MayAugust fire season. The SIP submittal 

also states that in Alaska, severe 

wildfires create a significant amount of 

EC, and that there is significant amount 

of elemental carbon aerosols reaching 

the state from Asia and Europe. Chapter 

III.K.4 of the SIP submittal also explains 

that wildfire-related OMC is the largest 

contributor of fine particulates on the 

20% worst days at the Denali IMPROVE 

sites, particularly during the spring and 

summer months. Table III.K.7–1 of the 

SIP summarizes the Weighted Emission 

Potential (WEP) analysis results from 

the top three boroughs for each 

pollutant on the 20% worst days in 

Denali. This table shows that 

approximately 97% of the fine 

particulates (which includes 

particulates composed of OMC and EC) 

on the 20% worst visibility days at 

Denali National Park are due to natural 

fires in the Yukon Koyukuk, Southeast 

Fairbanks, and the Fairbanks North Star 

boroughs. The WEP analysis used by 

Alaska was developed by the WRAP as 

a screening tool for states to decide 

which source regions have the potential 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 31 / Thursday, February 14, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 10553 

to contribute to haze formation at 

specific Class I areas. This method does 

not account for chemistry and removal 

processes in the atmosphere. 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 gridded emission data used by 

Alaska was consolidated into the 

following sources categories: 

Commercial marine vessels, natural 

fires, non-road mobile, on-road mobile, 

point, and stationary area sources. 

Therefore, the WEP analysis identified 

the OMC and EC contribution from the 

above man-made source categories, but 

was not able to determine the 

contribution of any single point source, 

such as the Healy Power Plant, or a 

subcategory of an area source, such as 

home heating sources. So while the SIP 

submission does not specifically 

identify the contribution of coalcombustion sources to visibility 

impairment in Denali National Park, it 

does demonstrate that wildfires are the 

major source of PM2.5 in the State, that 

wildfires have the greatest potential to 

impact visibility in Denali, and that 

wildfires are the major source of OMC 

on the worst visibility days in Denali 

National Park. Alaska may choose to use 

a more sophisticated chemicalspeciation tracer analysis, such as the 

PM Source Apportionment Technology 

(PSAT) analysis developed by the 

WRAP (see the WRAP TSD, Chapter 

6A), in the future to determine the 

contributions from specific point 

sources or subcategories of sources. 

Comment: There were a few 

comments on topics not related to the 

proposal. These included comments 

regarding the regulation of mining 

activities in Alaska and mercury 

monitoring in Alaska. 

Response: These comments may be 

important topics for discussion but they 

are not related to the proposed action. 

Comment: We also received a 

comment urging the use of alternative 

forms of energy, such as reducing 

emissions from motor vehicles by 

shifting to alcohol fuels. 

Response: The State has the option of 

pursuing cleaner forms of alternative 

energy to reduce emissions that cause 

regional haze in its Class I areas. Alaska 

decided not to implement the use of 

renewable energy in this Regional Haze 

SIP but may chose to do so in future 

SIPs. 

Comment: ADEC commented that it 

appreciates EPA’s thorough review of 

the Regional Haze SIP submittal and 

supports EPA’s action to approve the 

plan and encouraged EPA to finalize its 

approval of the Alaska Regional Haze 

SIP as meeting the requirements of the 

Clean Air Act, Sections 169A and 169B, 

and the federal Regulations at 40 CFR 

51.308. 

Response: EPA appreciates this 

comment supporting our proposed 

action. 

III. Final Action 

EPA is approving the Alaska Regional 

Haze plan, submitted on April 4, 2011, 

as meeting the requirements set forth in 

sections 169A and 169B of the Act and 

in 40 CFR 51.308 regarding Regional 

Haze. In this action, EPA is approving 

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). Additionally, 

EPA is approving the Alaska 

Department of Environmental 

Conservation Best Available Retrofit 

Technology regulations at 18 AAC 

50.260, and amendments to 18 AAC 

50.030 which adopts by reference 

Volume II, Section III.F. Open Burning; 

and Volume II, Section III.K. Area Wide 

Pollution Control Program for Regional 

Haze. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Orders 

Review 

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993), this action is 

not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ and 

therefore is not subject to review by the 

Office of Management and Budget. For 

this reason, this action is also not 

subject to Executive Order 13211, 

‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May 

22, 2001). This action merely approves 

state law as meeting Federal 

requirements and imposes no additional 

requirements beyond those imposed by 

state law. Accordingly, the 

Administrator certifies that this rule 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities under the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this 

rule approves pre-existing requirements 

under state law and does not impose 

any additional enforceable duty beyond 

that required by state law, it 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). 

In addition, this rule does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the rule 

neither imposes substantial direct 

compliance costs on tribal governments, 

nor preempts tribal law. Therefore, the 

requirements of section 5(b) and 5(c) of 

the Executive Order do not apply to this 

rule. Consistent with EPA policy, EPA 

nonetheless provided a consultation 

opportunity to Tribes in Alaska located 

near the affected Class I areas in letters 

dated December 30, 2011. EPA received 

no requests for consultation in response 

to these letters. 

This action also does not have 

Federalism implications because it does 

not have substantial direct effects on the 

States, on the relationship between the 

national government and the States, or 

on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, 

August 10, 1999). This action merely 

approves a state rule implementing a 

Federal standard, and does not alter the 

relationship or the distribution of power 

and responsibilities established in the 

CAA. This rule also is not subject to 

Executive Order 13045 ‘‘Protection of 

Children from Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, 

April 23, 1997), because it approves a 

state rule implementing a Federal 

standard. 

In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s 

role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. In this context, in the absence 

of a prior existing requirement for the 

State to use voluntary consensus 

standards (VCS), EPA has no authority 

to disapprove a SIP submission for 

failure to use VCS. It would thus be 

inconsistent with applicable law for 

EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, 

to use VCS in place of a SIP submission 

that otherwise satisfies the provisions of 

the CAA. Thus, the requirements of 

section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not 

apply. This rule does not impose an 

information collection burden under the 

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction 

Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. section 801 et seq., as added by 

the Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, 

generally provides that before a rule 

may take effect, the agency 

promulgating the rule must submit a 

rule report, which includes a copy of 

the rule, to each House of the Congress 

and to the Comptroller General of the 

United States. EPA will submit a report 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

10554 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 31 / Thursday, February 14, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

containing this rule and other required 

information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. 

House of Representatives, and the 

Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. section 804(2). 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, 

petitions for judicial review of this 

action must be filed in the United States 

Court of Appeals for the appropriate 

circuit by April 15, 2013. Filing a 

petition for reconsideration by the 

Administrator of this final rule does not 

affect the finality of this rule for the 

purposes of judicial review nor does it 

extend the time within which a petition 

for judicial review may be filed, and 

shall not postpone the effectiveness of 

such rule or action. This action may not 

be challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements. (See section 

307(b)(2)) 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Visibility, 

and Volatile organic compounds. 

Dated: November 15, 2012. 

Dennis J. McLerran, 

Regional Administrator, Region 10. 

Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code 

of Federal Regulations is amended as 

follows: 

PART 52—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for Part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart C—Alaska 

■ 2. Section 52.70 is amended by adding 

paragraph (c)(41) to read as follows: 

§ 52.70 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(41) On April 4, 2011, the Alaska 

Department of Environmental 

Conservation submitted a SIP revision 

to meet the regional haze requirements 

of Clean Air Act sections 169A 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. 

(i) Incorporation by reference. 

(A) The following revised section of 

the Alaska Administrative Rules: Alaska 

Department of Environmental 

Conservation, 18 AAC 50.260, 

‘‘Guidelines for Best Available Retrofit 

Technology under the Regional Haze 

Rule’’, state effective date December 30, 

2007. 

(ii) Additional material. 

(A) The following section of ADEC’s 

air quality control regulations: 18 AAC 

50.030 State Air Quality Control Plan; 

state effective date February 11, 2011; 

Volume II, Section III. F. Open Burning; 

and Volume II, Section III. K. Area Wide 

Pollution Control Program for Regional 

Haze. 

■ 3. Section 52.73 is amended by adding 

paragraph (g) to read as follows: 

§ 52.73 Approval of plans. 

* * * * * 

(g) Visibility protection. (1) EPA 

approves the Regional Haze SIP revision 

submitted by the Alaska Department of 

Environmental Conservation on April 4, 

2011, as meeting the requirements of 

Clean Air Act sections 169A 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. 

(2) [Reserved] 

[FR Doc. 2013–03329 Filed 2–13–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2013–0064; FRL–9777–8] 

Interim Final Determination To Stay 

and Defer Sanctions, Sacramento 

Metropolitan Air Quality Management 

District 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Interim final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is making an interim 

final determination to stay the 

imposition of offset sanctions and to 

defer the imposition of highway 

sanctions based on a proposed approval 

of a revision to the Sacramento 

Metropolitan Air Quality Management 

District (SMAQMD or District) portion 

of the California State Implementation 

Plan (SIP) published elsewhere in this 

Federal Register. The SIP revision 

concerns two permitting rules submitted 

by the SMAQMD: Rule 214, Federal 

New Source Review, and Rule 217, 

Public Notice Requirements for Permits. 

DATES: This interim final determination 

is effective on February 14, 2013. 

However, comments will be accepted 

until March 18, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, 

identified by docket number EPA–R09– 

OAR–2013–0064, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

on-line instructions. 

2. Email: R9airpermits@epa.gov. 

3. Mail or deliver: Gerardo Rios (Air3), U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, 

San Francisco, CA 94105–3901. 

Instructions: All comments 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 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Information that 

you consider CBI or otherwise protected 

should be clearly identified as such and 

should not be submitted through http: 

//www.regulations.gov or email. http:// 

www.regulations.gov is an ‘‘anonymous 

access’’ system, and EPA will not know 

your identity or contact information 

unless you provide it in the body of 

your comment. If you send email 

directly to EPA, your email address will 

be automatically captured and included 

as part of the public comment. 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. 

Docket: Generally, documents in the 

docket for this action are available 

electronically at http:// 

www.regulations.gov and in hard copy 

at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, 

San Francisco, California. While all 

documents in the docket are listed at 

http://www.regulations.gov, some 

information may be publicly available 

only at the hard copy location (e.g., 

copyrighted material, large maps), and 

some may not be publicly available in 

either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the 

hard copy materials, please schedule an 

appointment during normal business 

hours with the contact listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Laura Yannayon, EPA Region IX, (415) 

972–3534, yannayon.laura@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us’’ 

and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. 

I. Background 

On July 20, 2011 (76 FR 43183), we 

published a limited approval and 

limited disapproval of SMAQMD Rule 

214 as adopted locally on October 28, 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES