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

record and will be publicly accessible open for comment and published in the submitting public comment for 14 on the Internet. It is the commenter’s Federal Register. Please identify all additional days. responsibility to safeguard his or her comments submitted in electronic form Dated: February 16, 2012. by the RIN docket number (1235– information. Because we continue to Nancy J. Leppink, experience delays in receiving mail in AA05). Because of delays in receiving mail in the Washington, DC area, Deputy Administrator, Wage and Hour the Washington, DC area, commenters Division. are strongly encouraged to transmit their commenters should transmit their comments electronically via the Federal comments electronically via the Federal [FR Doc. 2012–4147 Filed 2–23–12; 8:45 am] eRulemaking Portal at http:// eRulemaking Portal at http:// BILLING CODE 4510–27–P www.regulations.gov or to submit them www.regulations.gov, or submit them by by mail early. For additional mail early to ensure timely receipt prior information on submitting comments to the close of the comment period. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION and the rulemaking process, see the Submit one copy of your comments by AGENCY ‘‘Public Participation’’ heading of the only one method. 40 CFR Part 52 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of II. Request for Comment this document. [EPA–R10–OAR–2011–0367, FRL–9636–9] Docket: For access to the docket to The Department is proposing to revise read background documents or the Fair Labor Standards Act minimum Approval and Promulgation of comments received, go to the Federal wage, overtime and recordkeeping Implementation Plans; State of Alaska; eRulemaking Portal at http:// regulations pertaining to the exemptions Regional Haze State Implementation www.regulations.gov. for companionship services and live-in Plan domestic services. The Department FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: proposes to amend the regulations to AGENCY: Environmental Protection Mary Ziegler, Director, Division of revise the definitions of ‘‘domestic Agency (EPA). Regulations, Legislation, and service employment’’ and ACTION: Proposed rule. Interpretation, Wage and Hour Division, ‘‘companionship services.’’ The SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve U.S. Department of Labor, Room S– Department also proposes to more a State Implementation Plan (SIP) 3510, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., specifically describe the type of revision, submitted by the State of Washington, DC 20210; telephone: (202) activities and duties that may be Alaska on April 4, 2011, as meeting the 693–0406 (this is not a toll free number). considered ‘‘incidental’’ to the provision requirements of Clean Air Act (CAA) Copies of this notice of proposed of companionship services. In addition, sections169A and 169B, and Federal rulemaking may be obtained in the Department proposes to amend the Regulations 40 CFR 51.308, to alternative formats (Large Print, Braille, recordkeeping requirements for live-in implement a regional haze program in Audio Tape, or Disc), upon request, by domestic workers. Finally, the the State of Alaska for the first planning calling (202) 693–0023. TTY/TDD Department proposes to amend the period through July 31, 2018. This callers may dial toll-free (877) 889–5627 regulation pertaining to employment by to obtain information or request a third party of companions and live-in revision addresses the requirements of materials in alternative formats. domestic workers. This change would the Clean Air Act (CAA) and EPA’s Questions of interpretation and/or continue to allow the individual, family, rules that require states to prevent any enforcement of regulations issued by or household employing the worker’s future and remedy any existing this agency or referenced in this notice services to apply the companionship anthropogenic impairment of visibility may be directed to the nearest Wage and and live-in exemptions and would deny in mandatory Class I areas caused by Hour Division District Office. Locate the all third party employers the use of such emissions of air pollutants from nearest office by calling the Wage and exemptions. numerous sources located over a wide Hour Division’s toll-free help line at On December 15, 2011, President geographic area (also referred to as the (866) 4US–WAGE ((866) 487–9243) Obama announced that the Department ‘‘regional haze program’’). Additionally, between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. in your local of Labor was proposing the rule EPA proposes to approve the Alaska time zone, or log onto the Wage and changes. The Department posted a Department of Environmental Hour Division’s Web site for a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Conservation Best Available Retrofit nationwide listing of Wage and Hour (NPRM), complete with background Technology regulations at 18 AAC District and Area Offices at: http:// information, economic impact analyses 50.260. www.dol.gov/whd/america2.htm. and proposed regulatory text, on its Web DATES: Written comments must be SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: site that day. The Department published received at the address below on or the NPRM in the Federal Register on before March 26, 2012. I. Electronic Access and Filing December 27, 2011 (76 FR 81190), Comments ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, requesting public comments on the identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R10– Public Participation: This notice of proposed revisions to the regulations OAR–2011–0367, by one of the proposed rulemaking is available pertaining to the exemption for following methods: through the Federal Register and the companionship services and live-in • www.regulations.gov: Follow the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. domestic services. Interested parties on-line instructions for submitting You may also access this document via were requested to submit comments on comments. the Department’s Web site at http:// or before February 27, 2012. • Email: R10- www.dol.gov/federalregister. To The Department has received requests [email protected]. comment electronically on federal to extend the period for filing public • Mail: Keith Rose, EPA Region 10, rulemakings, go to the Federal comments from members of Congress Office of Air, Waste and Toxics, AWT– eRulemaking Portal at http:// and various business organizations. 107, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, www.regulations.gov, which will allow Because of the interest that has been Seattle, WA 98101. you to find, review, and submit expressed in this matter, the Department • Hand Delivery/Courier: EPA Region comments on federal documents that are has decided to extend the period for 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900,

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:54 Feb 23, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\24FEP1.SGM 24FEP1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 37 / Friday, February 24, 2012 / Proposed Rules 11023

Seattle, WA 98101. Attention: Keith listed below to view the hard copy of ensure reasonable progress toward Rose, Office of Air, Waste and Toxics, the docket. improving visibility in mandatory Class AWT–107. Such deliveries are only FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. I Federal areas 1 (Class I areas). 64 FR accepted during normal hours of Keith Rose at telephone number (206) 35714 (July 1, 1999); see also 70 FR operation, and special arrangements 553–1949, [email protected] or the 39104 (July 6, 2005) and 71 FR 60612 should be made for deliveries of boxed above EPA, Region 10 address. (October 13, 2006). information. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Alaska Department of Instructions: Direct your comments to Throughout this document whenever Environmental Conservation (ADEC) Docket ID No. EPA–R10–OAR–2011– ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean adopted and transmitted its ‘‘Alaska 0367. EPA’s policy is that all comments the EPA. Information is organized as Regional Haze State Implementation received will be included in the public follows: Plan’’ (Alaska Regional Haze SIP) to docket without change and may be EPA Region 10 in a letter dated March made available online at http:// Table of Contents 29, 2011. EPA determined the plan complete by operation of law on www.regulations.gov, including any I. Background for EPA’s Proposed Action personal information provided, unless September 4, 2011. As a result of the A. Definition of Regional Haze Alaska’s participation with 13 other the comment includes information B. Regional Haze Rules and Regulations claimed to be Confidential Business C. Roles of Agencies in Addressing states, tribal nations and Federal Information (CBI) or other information Regional Haze agencies in the Western Regional Air whose disclosure is restricted by statute. II. Requirements for Regional Haze SIPs Partnership (WRAP), Alaska’s Regional Do not submit information that you A. The CAA and the Regional Haze Rule Haze SIP reflects a consistent approach consider to be CBI or otherwise B. Baseline, Natural Conditions, and toward addressing regional visibility protected through http:// Visibility Improvement impairment at 116 Class I areas in the C. Best Available Retrofit Technology www.regulations.gov or email. The West. D. Reasonable Progress Goals In this action, EPA is proposing to http://www.regulations.gov Web site is E. Long Term Strategy an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which approve all provisions of Alaska’s F. Coordinating Regional Haze and Regional Haze SIP submission, means EPA will not know your identity Reasonably Attributable Visibility or contact information unless you Impairment (RAVI) including the requirements for the provide it in the body of your comment. G. Monitoring Strategy and Other calculation of baseline and natural If you send an email comment directly Implementation Plan Requirements visibility conditions, statewide to EPA, without going through http:// H. SIP Revisions and Five Year Progress inventory of visibility-impairing Reports www.regulations.gov, your email pollutants, best available retrofit I. Consultation With States and Federal technology (BART), Reasonable Progress address will be automatically captured Land Managers and included as part of the comment Goals (RPGs), and Long-Term Strategy III. EPA’s Analysis of Alaska’s Regional Haze (LTS). EPA is also proposing to approve that is placed in the public docket and SIP made available on the Internet. If you A. Affected Class I Areas the Alaska Department of submit an electronic comment, EPA B. Baseline, Natural Conditions, and Environmental Conservation (ADEC) recommends that you include your Visibility Improvement BART regulations at 18 AAC 50.260. name and other contact information in C. Alaska Emissions Inventories A. Definition of Regional Haze D. Sources of Visibility Impairment in the body of your comment and with any Class I Areas in Alaska Regional haze is impairment of visual disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA E. Best Available Retrofit Technology range, clarity or colorization caused by cannot read your comment due to F. Determination of Reasonable Progress emission of air pollution produced by technical difficulties and cannot contact Goals numerous sources and activities, located you for clarification, EPA may not be G. Long Term Strategy across a broad regional area. The H. Monitoring Strategy and Other able to consider your comment. sources include but are not limited to, Electronic files should avoid the use of Implementation Plan Requirements I. Consultation With States and Federal major and minor stationary sources, special characters, any form of mobile sources, and area sources encryption, and be free of any defects or Land Managers J. SIP Revisions and Five Year Progress including non-anthropogenic sources. viruses. For additional information Reports These sources and activities may emit about EPA’s public docket visit the EPA IV. Amendment to Air Quality Control Plan fine particles (PM2.5) (e.g., sulfates, Docket Center homepage at http:// Regarding Open Burning and Regional www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. Haze 1 Areas designated as mandatory Class I Federal Docket: All documents in the docket V. What action is EPA proposing? areas consist of national parks exceeding 6000 are listed in the http:// VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews acres, wilderness areas and national memorial parks www.regulations.gov index. Although exceeding 5000 acres, and all international parks I. Background for EPA’s Proposed that were in existence on August 7, 1977. 42 U.S.C. listed in the index, some information is 7472(a). In accordance with section 169A of the not publicly available (e.g., CBI or other Action CAA, EPA, in consultation with the Department of information whose disclosure is In the CAA Amendments of 1977, Interior, promulgated a list of 156 areas where visibility is identified as an important value. 44 FR restricted by statute). Certain other Congress established a program to 69122 (November 30, 1979). The extent of a material, such as copyrighted material, protect and improve visibility in the mandatory Class I area includes subsequent changes will be publicly available only in hard national parks and wilderness areas. See in boundaries, such as park expansions. 42 U.S.C. copy form. Publicly available docket CAA section 169A. Congress amended 7472(a). Although states and tribes may designate as Class I additional areas which they consider to materials are available either the visibility provisions in the CAA in have visibility as an important value, the electronically at http:// 1990 to focus attention on the problem requirements of the visibility program set forth in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at of regional haze. See CAA section 169B. section 169A of the CAA apply only to ‘‘mandatory the Office of Air, Waste and Toxics, EPA EPA promulgated regulations in 1999 to Class I Federal areas.’’ Each mandatory Class I Federal area is the responsibility of a ‘‘Federal Land Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, implement sections 169A and 169B of Manager.’’ 42 U.S.C. 7602(i). When we use the term WA 98101. EPA requests that if at all the Act. These regulations require states ‘‘Class I area’’ in this action, we mean a ‘‘mandatory possible, you contact the individual to develop and implement plans to Class I Federal area.’’

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:54 Feb 23, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\24FEP1.SGM 24FEP1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 11024 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 37 / Friday, February 24, 2012 / Proposed Rules

nitrates, organic carbon, elemental visibility regulations to integrate into Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, carbon, and soil dust), and their the regulation provisions addressing Idaho, Montana, New Mexico, North precursors (e.g., SO2, NOX, and in some regional haze impairment and Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, cases, ammonia (NH3) and volatile established a comprehensive visibility Washington, and Wyoming. WRAP organic compounds (VOC)). protection program for Class I areas. The Tribal members include Campo Band of Atmospheric fine particulate reduces requirements for regional haze, found at Kumeyaay Indians, Confederated Salish clarity, color, and visual range of visual 40 CFR 51.308 and 51.309, are included and Kootenai Tribes, Cortina Indian scenes. Visibility-reducing fine in EPA’s visibility protection Rancheria, Hopi Tribe, Hualapai Nation particulates are primarily composed of regulations at 40 CFR 51.300–309. Some of the Grand Canyon, Native Village of sulfate, nitrate, organic carbon of the main elements of the regional Shungnka, Nez Perce Tribe, Northern compounds, elemental carbon, and soil haze requirements are summarized in Cheyenne Tribe, Pueblo of Acoma, dust, and impair visibility by scattering section II of this proposed rulemaking. Pueblo of San Felipe, and Shoshone- and absorbing light. Fine particulate can The requirement to submit a regional Bannock Tribes of Fort Hall. haze SIP applies to all 50 states, the also cause serious health effects and As a result of the regional planning mortality in humans, and contributes to District of Columbia and the Virgin efforts in the West, all states in the environmental effects such as acid Islands.2 40 CFR 51.308(b) requires WRAP region contributed information deposition and eutrophication. See 64 states to submit the first implementation to a Technical Support System (TSS) FR at 35715. plan addressing regional haze visibility which provides an analysis of the Data from the existing visibility impairment no later than December 17, causes of haze, and the levels of monitoring network, the ‘‘Interagency 2007. Monitoring of Protected Visual contribution from all sources within Environments’’ (IMPROVE) monitoring C. Roles of Agencies in Addressing each state to the visibility degradation of network, show that visibility Regional Haze each Class I area. The WRAP States impairment caused by air pollution Successful implementation of the consulted in the development of occurs virtually all the time at most regional haze program will require long- reasonable progress goals, using the national parks and wilderness areas. term regional coordination among products of this technical consultation The average visual range in many Class states, tribal governments, and various process to co-develop their reasonable I areas in the Western United States is Federal agencies. As noted above, progress goals for the Western Class I 100–150 kilometers, or about one-half to pollution affecting the air quality in areas. The modeling done by the WRAP two-thirds the visual range that would Class I areas can be transported over relied on assumptions regarding exist without anthropogenic air long distances, even hundreds of emissions over the relevant planning pollution. Id. Visibility impairment also kilometers. Therefore, to effectively period and embedded in these varies day-to-day and by season address the problem of visibility assumptions were anticipated emissions depending on variation in meteorology impairment in Class I areas, States need reductions in each of the States in the and emission rates. to develop strategies in coordination WRAP, including reductions from with one another, taking into account BART and other measures to be adopted B. Regional Haze Rules and Regulations the effect of emissions from one as part of the State’s long term strategy In section 169A of the 1977 CAA jurisdiction on the air quality in for addressing regional haze. The Amendments, Congress created a another. reasonable progress goals in the draft program for protecting visibility in the Because the pollutants that lead to and final regional haze SIPs that have nation’s national parks and wilderness regional haze impairment can originate now been prepared by States in the areas. This section of the CAA from across state lines, EPA has West accordingly are based, in part, on establishes as a national goal the encouraged the States and Tribes to the emissions reductions from nearby ‘‘prevention of any future, and the address visibility impairment from a States that were agreed on through the remedying of any existing, impairment regional perspective. Five regional WRAP process. of visibility in Class I areas which planning organizations 3 (RPOs) were impairment results from manmade air created nationally to address regional II. Requirements for Regional Haze pollution.’’ CAA section 169A(a)(1). On haze and related issues. One of the main SIPs December 2, 1980, EPA promulgated objectives of the RPOs is to develop and A. The CAA and the Regional Haze Rule regulations to address visibility analyze data and conduct pollutant impairment in Class I areas that is transport modeling to assist the States or Regional haze SIPs must assure ‘‘reasonably attributable’’ to a single Tribes in developing their regional haze reasonable progress towards the source or small group of sources, i.e., plans. national goal of achieving natural ‘‘reasonably attributable visibility The Western Regional Air Partnership visibility conditions in Class I areas. impairment’’. See 45 FR 80084. These (WRAP) 4, one of the five RPOs Section 169A of the CAA and EPA’s regulations represented the first phase nationally, is a voluntary partnership of implementing regulations require states in addressing visibility impairment. State, Tribal, Federal, and local air to establish long-term strategies for EPA deferred action on regional haze agencies dealing with air quality in the making reasonable progress toward that emanates from a variety of sources West. WRAP member States include: meeting this goal. Implementation plans until monitoring, modeling, and must also give specific attention to scientific knowledge about the 2 Albuquerque/Bernalillo County in New Mexico certain stationary sources that were in must also submit a regional haze SIP to completely existence on August 7, 1977, but were relationships between pollutants and satisfy the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D) of visibility impairment were improved. the CAA for the entire State of New Mexico under not in operation before August 7, 1962, Congress added section 169B to the the New Mexico Air Quality Control Act (section and require these sources, where CAA in 1990 to address regional haze 74–2–4). appropriate, to install BART controls for issues. EPA promulgated a rule to 3 See http://www.epa.gov/air/visibility/ the purpose of eliminating or reducing regional.html for description of the regional address regional haze on July 1, 1999 planning organizations. visibility impairment. The specific (64 FR 35713), the regional haze rule or 4 The WRAP Web site can be found at http:// regional haze SIP requirements are RHR. The RHR revised the existing www.wrapair.org. discussed in further detail below.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:54 Feb 23, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\24FEP1.SGM 24FEP1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 37 / Friday, February 24, 2012 / Proposed Rules 11025

B. Determination of Baseline, Natural based on those estimates. EPA has or contribute to any visibility Conditions, and Visibility Improvement provided guidance to states regarding impairment in a Class I area. Rather The RHR establishes the deciview how to calculate baseline, natural and than requiring source-specific BART (dv) as the principal metric for current visibility conditions in controls, States also have the flexibility measuring visibility. This visibility documents titled, EPA’s Guidance for to adopt an emissions trading program metric expresses uniform changes in Estimating Natural Visibility Conditions or other alternative program as long as haziness in terms of common Under the Regional Haze Rule, the alternative provides greater increments across the entire range of September 2003, (EPA–454/B–03–005 reasonable progress towards improving located at http://www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/ visibility than BART. visibility conditions, from pristine to _ _ extremely hazy conditions. Visibility is t1/memoranda/rh envcurhr gd.pdf), On July 6, 2005, EPA published the determined by measuring the visual (hereinafter referred to as ‘‘EPA’s 2003 Guidelines for BART Determinations range (or deciview), which is the Natural Visibility Guidance’’), and Under the Regional Haze Rule at greatest distance, in kilometers or miles, Guidance for Tracking Progress Under appendix Y to 40 CFR part 51 at which a dark object can be viewed the Regional Haze Rule (EPA–454/B– (hereinafter referred to as the ‘‘BART against the sky. The deciview is a useful 03–004 September 2003 located at Guidelines’’) to assist States in http://www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/t1/ determining which of their sources measure for tracking progress in _ _ improving visibility, because each memoranda/rh tpurhr gd.pdf)), should be subject to the BART deciview change is an equal incremental (hereinafter referred to as ‘‘EPA’s 2003 requirements and in determining change in visibility perceived by the Tracking Progress Guidance’’). appropriate emission limits for each human eye. Most people can detect a For the first regional haze SIPs that applicable source. In making a BART change in visibility at one deciview.5 were due by December 17, 2007, applicability determination for a fossil The deciview is used in expressing ‘‘baseline visibility conditions’’ were the fuel-fired electric generating plant with reasonable progress goals (which are starting points for assessing ‘‘current’’ a total generating capacity in excess of interim visibility goals towards meeting visibility impairment. Baseline visibility 750 megawatts, a State must use the the national visibility goal), defining conditions represent the degree of approach set forth in the BART baseline, current, and natural visibility impairment for the 20% least Guidelines. A State is encouraged, but conditions, and tracking changes in impaired days and 20% most impaired not required, to follow the BART visibility. The regional haze SIPs must days for each calendar year from 2000 Guidelines in making BART contain measures that ensure to 2004. Using monitoring data for 2000 determinations for other types of ‘‘reasonable progress’’ toward the through 2004, States are required to sources. national goal of preventing and calculate the average degree of visibility States must address all visibility- remedying visibility impairment in impairment for each Class I area, based impairing pollutants emitted by a source Class I areas caused by manmade air on the average of annual values over the in the BART determination process. The pollution by reducing anthropogenic five-year period. The comparison of most significant visibility-impairing emissions that cause regional haze. The initial baseline visibility conditions to pollutants are sulfur dioxide, nitrogen national goal is a return to natural natural visibility conditions indicates oxides, and fine particulate matter. EPA conditions, i.e., anthropogenic sources the amount of improvement necessary has indicated that states should use of air pollution would no longer impair to attain natural visibility, while the their best judgment in determining visibility in Class I areas. future comparison of baseline whether volatile organic compounds or To track changes in visibility over conditions to the then-current ammonia compounds impair visibility time at each of the 156 Class I areas conditions will indicate the amount of in Class I areas. covered by the visibility program (40 progress made. In general, the 2000– Under the BART Guidelines, States CFR 81.401–437), and as part of the 2004 baseline time period is considered may select an exemption threshold process for determining reasonable the time from which improvement in value for their BART modeling, below progress, States must calculate the visibility is measured. which a BART-eligible source would not be expected to cause or contribute degree of existing visibility impairment C. Best Available Retrofit Technology at each Class I area at the time of each to visibility impairment in any Class I regional haze SIP submittal and Section 169A of the CAA directs area. The State must document this periodically review progress every five States to evaluate the use of retrofit exemption threshold value in the SIP years midway through each 10-year controls at certain larger, often and must state the basis for its selection implementation period. To do this, the uncontrolled, older stationary sources in of that value. Any source with RHR requires states to determine the order to address visibility impacts from emissions that model above the degree of impairment (in deciviews) for these sources. Specifically, section threshold value would be subject to a the average of the 20% least impaired 169A(b)(2)(A) of the CAA requires BART determination. The BART (‘‘best’’) and 20% most impaired States to revise their SIPs to contain Guidelines acknowledge varying (‘‘worst’’) visibility days over a specified such measures as may be necessary to circumstances affecting different Class I time period at each of their Class I areas. make reasonable progress towards the areas. States should consider the In addition, states must also develop an natural visibility goal, including a number of emission sources affecting estimate of natural visibility conditions requirement that certain categories of the Class I areas at issue and the for the purpose of comparing progress existing major stationary sources 6 built magnitude of the individual sources’ toward the national goal. Natural between 1962 and 1977 procure, install, impacts. Generally, an exemption visibility is determined by estimating and operate the ‘‘Best Available Retrofit threshold set by the State should not be the natural concentrations of pollutants Technology’’ (‘‘BART’’) as determined higher than 0.5 deciviews (dv). In their SIPs, States must identify that cause visibility impairment, and by the state. States are directed to potential BART sources and BART- then calculating total light extinction conduct BART determinations for such sources that may be anticipated to cause eligible sources that have a visibility 5 The preamble to the RHR provides additional impact in any Class I area above the details about the deciview. 64 FR 35714, 35725 6 The set of ‘‘major stationary sources’’ potentially ‘‘BART subject’’ threshold established (July 1, 1999). subject to BART is listed in CAA section 169A(g)(7). by the State and thus, are ‘‘subject’’ to

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:54 Feb 23, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\24FEP1.SGM 24FEP1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 11026 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 37 / Friday, February 24, 2012 / Proposed Rules

BART. States must document their and in EPA’s RHR at 40 CFR coordinate with contributing states to BART control analysis and 51.308(d)(1)(i)(A): (1) The costs of develop coordinated emissions determination for all sources subject to compliance; (2) the time necessary for management strategies. 40 CFR BART. compliance; (3) the energy and non-air 51.308(d)(3)(i). In such cases, the The term ‘‘BART-eligible’’ source quality environmental impacts of contributing state must demonstrate that used in the BART Guidelines means the compliance; and (4) the remaining it has included in its SIP all measures collection of individual emission units useful life of any potentially affected necessary to obtain its share of the at a facility that together comprises the sources. States must demonstrate in emission reductions needed to meet the BART-eligible source. In making BART their SIPs how these factors are RPGs for the Class I area. The RPOs determinations, section 169A(g)(2) of considered when selecting the RPGs for have provided forums for significant the CAA requires that States consider the best and worst days for each interstate consultation, but additional the following factors: (1) The costs of applicable Class I area. States have consultation between states may be compliance, (2) the energy and non-air considerable flexibility in how they take required to sufficiently address quality environmental impacts of these factors into consideration, as interstate visibility issues (e.g., where compliance, (3) any existing pollution noted in EPA’s Guidance for Setting two states belong to different RPOs). control technology in use at the source, Reasonable Progress Goals under the States should consider all types of (4) the remaining useful life of the Regional Haze Program, July 1, 2007, anthropogenic sources of visibility source, and (5) the degree of Memorandum from William L. Wehrum, impairment in developing their LTS, improvement in visibility which may Acting Assistant Administrator for Air including stationary, minor, mobile, and reasonably be anticipated to result from and Radiation, to EPA Regional area sources. At a minimum, states must the use of such technology. States are Administrators, EPA Regions 1–10 (pp. describe how each of the following generally free to determine the weight 4–2, 5–1) (‘‘EPA’s Reasonable Progress seven factors listed below are taken into and significance to be assigned to each Guidance’’). In setting the RPGs, States account in developing their LTS: (1) factor. must also consider the rate of progress Emission reductions due to ongoing air The regional haze SIP must include needed to reach natural visibility pollution control programs, including source-specific BART emission limits conditions by 2064 (referred to as the measures to address RAVI; (2) measures and compliance schedules for each ‘‘uniform rate of progress’’ (URP) or the to mitigate the impacts of construction source subject to BART. Once a State ‘‘glide path’’) and the emission activities; (3) emissions limitations and has made its BART determination, the reduction measures needed to achieve schedules for compliance to achieve the BART controls must be installed and in that rate of progress over the ten-year RPG; (4) source retirement and operation as expeditiously as period of the SIP. Uniform rate of replacement schedules; (5) smoke practicable, but no later than five years progress represents a rate of progress management techniques for agricultural after the date EPA approves the regional that states are to use for comparison to and forestry management purposes haze SIP. See CAA section 169A(g)(4); the amount of progress they expect to including plans as currently exist 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(iv). In addition to achieve over the ten-year period. In within the state for these purposes; (6) what is required by the RHR, general setting RPGs, each State with one or enforceability of emissions limitations SIP requirements mandate that the SIP more Class I areas (‘‘Class I state’’) must and control measures; and, (7) the must also include all regulatory also consult with potentially anticipated net effect on visibility due to requirements related to monitoring, ‘‘contributing States,’’ i.e., other nearby projected changes in point, area, and recordkeeping, and reporting for the States with emission sources that may mobile source emissions over the period BART controls on the source. be affecting visibility impairment at the addressed by the LTS. 40 CFR D. Reasonable Progress Goals Class I State’s areas. See 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v). 51.308(d)(1)(iv). The vehicle for ensuring continuing F. Coordinating Regional Haze and progress towards achieving the natural E. Long-Term Strategy Reasonably Attributable Visibility visibility goal is the submission of a Consistent with the requirement in Impairment (RAVI) series of regional haze SIPs that section 169A(b) of the CAA that States As part of the RHR, EPA revised 40 establish two Reasonable Progress Goals include in their regional haze SIP a ten CFR 51.306(c) regarding the LTS for (RPGs) (i.e., two distinct goals, one for to fifteen-year strategy for making RAVI to require that the RAVI plan must the ‘‘best’’ and one for the ‘‘worst’’ days) reasonable progress, section 51.308(d)(3) provide for a periodic review and SIP for every Class I area for each of the RHR requires that States include revision not less frequently than every (approximately) ten-year a long-term strategy (LTS) in their three years until the date of submission implementation period. The RHR does regional haze SIPs. The LTS is the of the state’s first plan addressing not mandate specific milestones or rates compilation of all control measures a regional haze visibility impairment, of progress, but instead calls for states State will use during the which was due December 17, 2007, in to establish goals that provide for implementation period of the specific accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(b) and ‘‘reasonable progress’’ toward achieving SIP submittal to meet applicable RPGs. (c). On or before this date, the state must natural visibility conditions. In setting The LTS must include ‘‘enforceable revise its plan to provide for review and reasonable progress goals (RPGs), States emissions limitations, compliance revision of a coordinated LTS for must provide for an improvement in schedules, and other measures needed addressing RAVI and regional haze, and visibility for the most impaired days to achieve the reasonable progress the state must submit the first such over the (approximately) ten-year period goals’’ for all Class I areas within and coordinated LTS with its first regional of the SIP, and ensure no degradation in affected by emissions from the State. 40 haze SIP. Future coordinated LTSs, and visibility for the least impaired days CFR 51.308(d)(3). periodic progress reports evaluating over the same period. When a state’s emissions are progress towards RPGs, must be States have significant discretion in reasonably anticipated to cause or submitted consistent with the schedule establishing RPGs, but are required to contribute to visibility impairment in a for SIP submission and periodic consider the following factors Class I area located in another state, the progress reports set forth in 40 CFR established in section 169A of the CAA RHR requires the impacted state to 51.308(f) and 51.308(g), respectively.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:54 Feb 23, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\24FEP1.SGM 24FEP1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 37 / Friday, February 24, 2012 / Proposed Rules 11027

The periodic review of a state’s LTS through 2018, with a comprehensive Wildlife Refuge, and Bering Sea must provide the status of both regional reassessment and revision of those Wilderness Area. ADEC has not haze and RAVI impairment, and must strategies, as appropriate, every ten identified any other state that is be submitted to EPA as a SIP revision. years thereafter. Periodic SIP revisions impacting the Class I areas in Alaska, must meet the core requirements of 40 and Alaska has not been identified as a G. Monitoring Strategy and Other CFR 51.308(d) with the exception of contributor to impacts in other state’s Implementation Plan Requirements BART. The requirement to evaluate Class I areas. However, in accordance Section 51.308(d)(4) of the RHR sources for BART applies only to the with 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(iv) and requires a monitoring strategy for first regional haze SIP. Facilities subject 51.308(d)(3)(i), ADEC commits to measuring, characterizing, and reporting to BART must continue to comply with continue consultation with states which on regional haze visibility impairment the BART provisions of 40 CFR may reasonably be anticipated to cause that is representative of all mandatory 51.308(e), as noted above. Periodic SIP or contribute to visibility impairment in Class I areas within the state. The revisions will assure that the statutory Federal Class I areas located within strategy must be coordinated with the requirement of reasonable progress will Alaska. ADEC will also continue monitoring strategy required in 40 CFR continue to be met. consultation with any state for which 51.305 for RAVI. Compliance with this Each state also is required to submit Alaska’s emissions may reasonably be requirement may be met through a report to EPA every five years that anticipated to cause or contribute to ‘‘participation’’ in the Interagency evaluates progress toward achieving the visibility impairment in that state’s Monitoring of Protected Visual RPG for each Class I area within the Federal Class I areas. Environments (IMPROVE) network, i.e., state and outside the state if affected by B. Baseline, Natural Conditions and review and use of monitoring data from emissions from within the state. 40 CFR Visibility Improvement the network. The monitoring strategy is 51.308(g). The first progress report is due with the first regional haze SIP, and due five years from submittal of the Alaska, using data from the IMPROVE it must be reviewed every five years. initial regional haze SIP revision. At the monitoring network and analyzed by The monitoring strategy must also same time a 5-year progress report is WRAP, calculated current baseline and provide for additional monitoring sites submitted, a state must determine the natural visibility conditions, and the if the IMPROVE network is not adequacy of its existing SIP to achieve uniform rate of progress (URP) 7 for sufficient to determine whether RPGs the established goals for visibility Denali National Park, Simeonof will be met. The SIP must also provide improvement. See 40 CFR 51.308(h). Wilderness Area and Tuxedni Wildlife for the following: Refuge. Baseline visibility for the most- • Procedures for using monitoring I. Consultation With States and Federal impaired (20% worst) days and the data and other information in a state Land Managers least-impaired (20% best) days was with mandatory Class I areas to The RHR requires that states consult calculated from monitoring data determine the contribution of emissions with Federal Land Managers (FLMs) collected by IMPROVE monitors. The from within the state to regional haze before adopting and submitting their IMPROVE monitoring sites for each visibility impairment at Class I areas SIPs. See 40 CFR 51.308(i). States must Class I area are: both within and outside the state; provide FLMs an opportunity for • Denali National Park—Denali • Procedures for using monitoring consultation, in person and at least 60 National Park has two visibility data and other information in a state days prior to holding any public hearing monitors. One site is located at the with no mandatory Class I areas to on the SIP. This consultation must Denali National Park Headquarters determine the contribution of emissions include the opportunity for the FLMs to (DENA1), which has operated since from within the state to regional haze discuss their assessment of visibility 1988, and the second is the Trapper visibility impairment at Class I areas in impairment in any Class I area and to Creek monitoring site (TRCR1) located other states; offer recommendations on the • 100 yards east of the Trapper Creek Reporting of all visibility development of the reasonable progress Elementary School, west of the Town of monitoring data to the Administrator at goals and on the development and Trapper Creek. The monitor located at least annually for each Class I area in implementation of strategies to address Trapper Creek is the official IMPROVE the state, and where possible, in visibility impairment. Further, a state site for Denali National Park and was electronic format; • must include in its SIP a description of established in September 2001 to Developing a statewide inventory of how it addressed any comments evaluate the long-range transport of emissions of pollutants that are provided by the FLMs. Finally, a SIP pollution into the Park from the south. reasonably anticipated to cause or must provide procedures for continuing • Simeonof Wilderness Area—The contribute to visibility impairment in consultation between the state and Simeonof Wilderness Area is located on any Class I area. The inventory must FLMs regarding the state’s visibility a remote, isolated island in the Aleutian include emissions for a baseline year, protection program, including chain approximately 58 miles from emissions for the most recent year for development and review of SIP mainland Alaska. The Fish and Wildlife which data are available, and estimates revisions, 5-year progress reports, and Service has placed an IMPROVE air of future projected emissions. A state the implementation of other programs monitor in the community of Sand must also make a commitment to update having the potential to contribute to Point, Alaska to represent this the inventory periodically; and, impairment of visibility in Class I areas. wilderness area. The community is on a • Other elements, including more accessible island approximately 60 reporting, recordkeeping, and other III. EPA’s Analysis of Alaska’s Regional miles north west of the Simeonof measures necessary to assess and report Haze SIP Wilderness Area. The monitor has been on visibility. A. Affected Class I Areas operating since September 2001. H. SIP Revisions and Five-Year Progress Alaska has four Class I areas within 7 Reports the state. These four Class I areas are The URP is also referred to as the visibility ‘‘glidepath’’, which is the linear rate of progress The RHR requires control strategies to Denali National Park, Simeonof needed to achieve natural visibility conditions by cover an initial implementation period Wilderness Area, Tuxedni National 2064.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:54 Feb 23, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\24FEP1.SGM 24FEP1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 11028 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 37 / Friday, February 24, 2012 / Proposed Rules

• Tuxedni National Wildlife Refuge— surrounded on all sides by the Bering EPA default approach. These Tuxedni National Wildlife Refuge is Sea. There is essentially no electricity or refinements include the use of an located on a relatively remote pair of other infrastructure to support a updated IMPROVE algorithm which islands in Tuxedni Bay off of Cook Inlet monitor. Additionally, the area is uses a higher ratio of organic mass in Southcentral Alaska. The Fish and hundreds of miles away from concentration to organic carbon mass, Wildlife Service has installed an population centers or major stationary which better accounts for haze from IMPROVE monitor near Lake Clark sources. This area had a DELTA–DRUM organic mass, and includes a term for National Park to represent conditions at sampler (a mobile sampler) installed sea salt, which causes a significant Tuxedni Wilderness Area. This site is during a field visit in 2002. However, amount of haze in the Tuxedni and located on the west side of Cook Inlet, difficulties were encountered with the Simeonof Class I areas. See WRAP approximately 5 miles from the Tuxedni power supply and no viable data are Technical Support Document, February National Wildlife Refuge. The site was available, therefore ADEC is not able to 28, 2011 (WRAP TSD) section 2.D and operational as of December 18, 2001, determine baseline visibility conditions 2.E, supporting this action. and represents regional haze conditions for this site. Due to its inaccessibility, for the wilderness area. remoteness, and harsh environment, no Table 1 below shows visibility • Bering Sea Wilderness Area—This IMPROVE monitoring is available or is conditions in Denali National Park, wilderness area encompasses St. currently planned for the Bering Sea Simeonof Wilderness Area and Tuxedni Matthew Island, Hall Island, and Wilderness Area. National Wildlife Refuge for the 20% Pinnacle Island and is part of the larger In general, WRAP based their worst natural visibility days, the 20% Bering Sea unit of the Alaska Maritime estimates of natural conditions on EPA’s worst baseline days, the 2018 URP, and National Wildlife Refuge. The Bering 2003 Natural Visibility Guidance, but the visibility improvement needed Sea Wilderness area is extremely remote incorporated refinements which EPA between 2002 and 2018 to achieve the and located approximately 350 miles believes provides results more URP. Table 2 shows visibility southwest of Nome, Alaska and is appropriate for Alaska than the general conditions on the 20% best days.

TABLE 1—20% WORST DAY VISIBILITY CONDITIONS

Visibility 20% Worst 20% Worst 2018 Uniform improvement Site Class I area natural baseline rate of needed by conditions conditions progress 2018 (dv) (dv) (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 baseline values for this Class I area. The evaluate the possibility for portable the Class I areas in Alaska during the area is located a considerable distance sampling in remote locations as baseline period (2000–2004), the major off shore in the Bering Sea and is resources allow. Alaska Regional Haze pollutants that contribute to light hundreds of miles from any other SIP submittal III.K.3–17. EPA extinction on the 20% worst days at the monitoring location. Alaska evaluated acknowledges the provision in the RHR Simeonof site are: sea salt (47%), and discussed the origins and influence which provides that for Class I areas sulfates (29%), and organic mass of aerosols to this Class I area, and without monitoring data for 2000–2004 concentration (OMC) (9%); at the Denali concluded that significant impacts from the state should establish baseline DENA1 site are: OMC (54%), sulfates local industrial, commercial or values using the most representative (25%), elemental carbon (8%); at the community developments are unlikely. available monitoring data for 2000–2004 Denali TRCR1 site are: OMC (43%), Future impacts from potential offshore in consultation with the Administrator. sulfates (35%), coarse matter (7%); and oil and gas development is a remote 40 CFR 51.308 (d)(2)(i). However, as at the Tuxedni site are: OMC (28%), sea possibility, but is also unlikely as there explained above and more fully salt (26%), sulfate (28%). are no offshore oil and gas described the SIP submission, As noted previously, due to the developments currently planned for the representative data is not available for remote location of the Class I area in the St. Matthew-Hall area, or the adjoining the Bering Sea Wilderness Area. Bering Sea, no monitoring site exists in Aleutian Basin, Bowers Basin, and Additionally, given the location of this this Class I area and insufficient data are Aleutian Arc areas. Finally Alaska Wilderness Area in the middle of the available to accurately calculate indicates that it will continue to Bering Sea hundreds of miles off the

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:54 Feb 23, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\24FEP1.SGM 24FEP1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 37 / Friday, February 24, 2012 / Proposed Rules 11029

coast of Alaska, it is likely that any emissions. Chapter 5 of the Alaska source categories, with a couple of sources impacting visibility in the area Regional Haze SIP submittal discusses exceptions. would be beyond Alaska’s jurisdiction how emission estimates were In developing its 2018 emission or ability to control. Also EPA expects determined for statewide emission inventory, Alaska first determined that the state to update any available inventories by pollutant and source emission estimates for wildfires should monitoring or visibility impact analyses category. be held constant between 2002 and in its 5-year progress reports. Therefore, Key factors that were considered in 2018. However, as explained later, given the unique, extremely remote and the development of these regional haze modest reductions in prescribed burn isolated location and the associated emission inventories were: emissions were assumed, consistent difficulties with monitoring at the area Pollutants—Inventories were with WRAP 2018b Phase III Fire EPA proposes to accept Alaska’s developed for the following pollutants: Inventory forecast. Second, activity from approach to the Bering Sea Wilderness hydrocarbons (HC), carbon monoxide small port commercial marine vessel Area. (CO), oxides of nitrogen (NOX), sulfur activity in 2002 was assumed to be Based on our evaluation of the State’s oxides (SOX), ammonia (NH3), volatile identical to that obtained for calendar baseline and natural conditions organic compounds (VOC), and coarse year 2005. analysis, EPA is proposing to find that Alaska also developed emission and fine particulate matter (PM10 and Alaska has appropriately determined factors specific to calendar year 2018 for PM2.5, respectively). baseline visibility for the average 20% Areal Extent and Spatial Resolution— sources affected by regulatory control worst and 20% best days, and natural The inventories represent sources programs and technology visibility conditions for the average 20% within the entire state of Alaska, improvements. These source sectors included on-road and non-road mobile worst days, and the visibility glidepath encompassing a total of 27 boroughs/ sources (except commercial marine from the baseline conditions to natural counties. Emissions were allocated to vessels and aviation) and stationary conditions in the three Class I areas. See individual grid cells, of 45 square point sources. Alaska explained that the sections 2.D and 2.E of the WRAP TSD kilometers each, in a rectangular grid emissions forecast for 2018 does not supporting this action. We also believe domain covering all of Alaska. This grid include emissions from new or the State’s analysis accurately domain was based on domain permitted sources that are not currently determined the individual aerosol developed under an earlier WRAP study operating but which may be in species causing impairment in the three for which a modeling protocol was Class I areas. operation in 2018. However, where the developed. See Figure III.K.5–2 of the status of these facilities is known, C. Alaska Emissions Inventories SIP submittal. Alaska further discussed the sources’ There are three main categories of Included Sources—Emission sources influence on predicted emissions or visibility-impairing air pollution included known stationary point and visibility impact on a particular Class I sources: point sources, area sources, and area sources including fugitive dust and area. mobile sources. Point sources are larger both anthropogenic and natural fires, The SIP submittal identifies total stationary sources that emit air and on-road and non-road mobile annual emission estimates for visibility- pollutants. Area sources are large sources. As discussed later in this impairing pollutants including SOx, numbers of small sources that are section, biogenic (trees and vegetation) NOX, VOC HC, CO, PM2.5, PM10 and widely distributed across an area, such and geogenic sources (gas/oil seeps, NH3 for 2002 and 2018. These emission as residential heating units, re-entrained wind erosion, and geothermal and estimates were partitioned into eight dust from unpaved roads or windblown volcanic activity) were not included. emission source categories: point dust from agricultural fields. Mobile Temporal Resolution—The sources, stationary area sources sources are sources such as motor inventories were expressed in the form (excluding fires), on-road mobile, non- vehicles, including agricultural and of annual emissions for 2002 and 2018. road mobile, commercial marine construction equipment, locomotives, For all source categories, except the fire vessels, aviation, anthropogenic fire and aircraft. sector, the baseline inventory was (human caused), and natural wildfires. EPA’s Regional Haze Rule requires a represented using calendar year 2002 Biogenic emissions were not included statewide emission inventory of annual emission estimates. The fire in these regional haze inventories pollutants that are reasonably sector of the baseline inventory was because no biogenic inventories have anticipated to cause or contribute to developed using 2000–2004 average been developed for Alaska. Alaska visibility impairment in any mandatory data obtained from the WRAP Fire indicates that given its northerly Class I area. 40 CFR 51.308(d)(4)(v). Inventory efforts. These data reflect fire location, preponderance of snow and ice ADEC compiled emission inventories activity (from wildfires, wildland fires, cover, and short growing season, it for all visibility impairing source and prescribed burns) averaged over this would be problematic to extrapolate categories in Alaska for the 2002 five-year period and are less likely to be ‘‘lower 48’’ biogenic emission factors baseline year, and projected future biased by fire emissions from any and activity to it. Similarly, geogenic emission inventories for these source individual year. See Alaska Regional emissions were also excluded due to categories in 2018. See Appendix III.K.5 Haze submittal III.K.5–3. lack of available data. Additionally, of the SIP submittal. The fire sector of The 2018 inventory was developed to Alaska did not include internationally the baseline inventory was developed reflect emission levels projected to transported emissions but cites to a using 2000–2004 average data obtained calendar year 2018, accounting for number of studies that have attributed from the WRAP Fire Inventory efforts. forecasted changes in source activity atmospheric aerosols measured in Emission estimates for 2018 were and emission factors. Population Alaska to contributions from upwind generated from anticipated population projections compiled by the Alaska regions as far away as portions of Asia growth, growth in industrial activity, Department of Labor and Workforce and Russia based on back trajectory and emission reductions from Development at five-year intervals analysis and identification of unique implementation of control measures, through 2030 by individual borough and chemical source signatures. Alaska e.g., implementation of BART census area were used to grow 2002 explains that robust emission estimates limitations and motor vehicle tailpipe baseline activity to 2018 for most of the from these source areas are not available

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:54 Feb 23, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\24FEP1.SGM 24FEP1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 11030 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 37 / Friday, February 24, 2012 / Proposed Rules

and thus there is no accounting of these TSD Chapter 3. Tables 2 and 3 below emission fractions (defined as all sectors international, long-range transported show total statewide emissions (in tons/ except natural fires divided by total sources. See Alaska Regional Haze SIP year), by source sector and pollutant, for emissions) are also shown at the bottom submittal III.K.5 for additional the calendar years 2002 and 2018, of each table. discussion of Alaska’s emission respectively. In addition to the totals estimates and inventory. See also WRAP across all source sectors, anthropogenic

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, Anthropo- genic ...... 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 5. Point: NOX (¥12.4%), PM10 D. Sources of Visibility Impairment in sector emission inventories of the (¥69.9%), PM2.5 (¥71.1%), and SOX Class I Areas in Alaska primary visibility impairing pollutants, (+26.0%). Each pollutant species has its own NOX, PM10, PM2.5, and SOX, between 6. Anthropogenic Fires: NOX 2002 and 2018 are summarized below: ¥ ¥ visibility impairing property; for ( 43.8%), PM10 ( 46.2%), PM2.5 m 3 ¥ ¥ ¥ example, 1 g/m of sulfate at high 1. Non-road: NOX ( 18.9%), PM10 ( 46.0%), and SOX ( 43.8%). humidity is more effective in scattering ¥ ¥ ( 19.1%), and PM2.5 ( 20.2%). The overall changes in the above light than 1 mg/m3 of organic carbon, 2. On-road: NOX (¥59.3%), PM10 pollutants between 2002 and 2018, and therefore impairs visibility more (¥32.3%), PM2.5 (¥53.2%), and SOX across all source sectors, are NOX than organic carbon. Following the (¥87.9%). (¥3.3%), PM10 (+0.9%), PM2.5 (+0.4%), approach recommended by the WRAP, ¥ 3. Commercial Marine Vessels: NOX and SOX ( 4.4%). EPA is proposing to and as explained more fully below, (+43.9%), PM10 (+55.5%), PM2.5 find that Alaska has appropriately Alaska used a two-step process to (+85.3%), and SOX (¥77.3%). determined the emissions for visibility identify the contribution of each source impairing pollutants in Alaska for 2002 or source category to existing visibility 4. Aviation: NO (+16.7%), PM X 10 and 2018. impairment. First, ambient pollutant

(+13.6%), PM2.5 (+13.5%), and SOX concentration by species (such as (15.5%). sulfate, nitrate, organic carbon, and

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:54 Feb 23, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\24FEP1.SGM 24FEP1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 37 / Friday, February 24, 2012 / Proposed Rules 11031

elemental carbon) was determined from The results of the WEP analysis, on the Kenai Peninsula and 16% came the IMPROVE data collected for each conducted by WRAP for Alaska, from on-road mobile sources in the Class I area. These concentrations were identified the following source areas Matanuska-Susitna borough. The then converted into deciview values to and source categories impacting contribution of NOX from on-road distribute existing impairment among visibility at the Denali National Park mobile sources is expected to drop to the measured pollutant species. The (measured at both the Denali and about half this value by 2018 due to the deciview value for each pollutant Trapper Creek IMPROVE sites), benefits of fleet turnover and species was calculated by using the Simeonof Wilderness Area, and increasingly stringent Federal motor ‘‘revised IMPROVE equation’’ (See Tuxedni National Wildlife Refuge: vehicle emissions standards. For SOX, WRAP TSD, Section 2.C) to calculate 57% of the contributions for 2002 came 1. Denali National Park extinction from each pollutant species from natural fires in the Yukon- concentration. Second, two regional Table III.K.7–1 of the SIP submittal Koyukuk borough, while 19% of the visibility models, a back-trajectory summarizes the WEP values for Denali, SOX came from stationary sources in the model and a Weighted Emissions based on data collected at the DENAL1 Matanuska-Susitna borough. Alaska has Potential (WEP) model, were used to IMPROVE site, for the top three determined that natural fires are the determine which source categories boroughs (Yukon-Koyukuk, Southeast dominant source for all of the visibility contributed to the ambient Fairbanks, and Fairbanks North Star) for impairing pollutants at the Trapper concentration of each pollutant species. each pollutant on the 20% worst days. Creek monitor in Denali National Park, As further explained in the SIP WEP predicts that 95% of the total PM2.5 but there is also a significant submittal, due to a number of for 2002 came from these boroughs, and contribution from point sources on the constraints in developing a of that amount, 95% came from natural Kenai Peninsula, and from on-road and comprehensive Alaska emission fires in Yukon-Koyukuk and Southeast stationary sources in the Matanuska- inventory, rather than conducting Fairbanks boroughs. For VOCs, natural Susitna borough. photochemical modeling to determine wildfires in Yukon-Koyukuk and current and future visibility conditions Southeast Fairbanks boroughs are the 2. Simeonof Wilderness Area in Class I areas in Alaska, the WRAP largest source, and stationary area A summary of the WEP values for the selected alternate meteorological sources in Denali Borough are the boroughs impacting Simeonof is modeling techniques to determine second largest source. For NOX presented in Table III.K.7–2 of the SIP current and future visibility conditions. contributions in 2002, 77% came from submittal. The WEP analysis for this site WRAP used the two modeling wildfires in Yukon-Koyukuk and shows that natural fires in the Yukon- techniques described below to Southeast Fairbanks boroughs, and Koyukuk borough are the dominant determine visibility conditions in the about 13% came from point sources in source of all pollutants impairing Denali, Tuxedni, and Simeonof Class I the Fairbank North Star borough. For visibility. The WEP analysis concluded areas: SOX contributions in 2002, 64% came that 96% of the PM2.5, 87% of the VOCs, Back-trajectory modeling was from natural fires in Yukon-Koyukuk 76% of the NOX, 91% of the SOX, and conducted to determine the path of air and Southeast Fairbanks boroughs, and 95% of the ammonia impacting parcels impacting each Class I area. 29% came from point sources in Simeonof during 2000–2004 was from Back-trajectory analyses use Fairbanks North Star borough. For natural fires in the Yukon-Koyukuk interpolated measured or modeled ammonia contributions in 2002, 97% borough. Alaska indicated that the meteorological fields to estimate the came from natural fires in Yukon- forecast for emissions from natural fires most likely central path over Koyukuk and Southeast Fairbanks in 2018 impacting the Simeonof Class I geographical areas that provided air to boroughs. The State noted that natural area are the same as for the baseline, a receptor at any given time. The fires are the dominant source for all of which means that the visibility impacts method essentially follows a parcel of the pollutants identified at this from anthropogenic sources is expected air backward in hourly steps for a monitoring site, and there are no other to remain relatively small compared to specified period of time. Back significant sources of PM2.5 other than contributions from natural fires through trajectories account for the impact of natural fires. Overall, the information 2018 at this site. wind direction and wind speed on presented in Table III.K.7–1of the SIP 3. Tuxedni National Wildlife Refuge delivery of emissions to the receptor, submittal demonstrates that the only Area but do not account for chemical significant anthropogenic sources of transformation, dispersion, and concern impacting Denali are Fairbanks The information presented in Table deposition of samples during transport. SO2 point sources. III.K.7–4 of the SIP submittal shows a Weighted Emissions Potential (WEP) Table III.K.7–3 of the SIP submittal complex mixture of anthropogenic and analysis was used to determine how shows the WEP values for Denali based natural source contributions that impact much each emission source area on data collected at the Trapper Creek visibility at the Tuxedni National (sources within each gridded emission site. This table shows that natural fires Wildlife Refuge. While natural fires are area) contributes to visibility are the largest source of emissions still the most significant source for impairment in the Denali, Simeonof, impacting this site, although there is many of the pollutants, (including 78% and Tuxedni Class I areas, based on also significant contribution from of the PM2.5, 41% of the VOCs, 44% of both the baseline 2002 and the 2018 several anthropogenic source categories. the SOX, and 54% of the ammonia), Alaska emissions inventories. This In summary, 82% of the PM2.5 in 2002 64% of the NOX that impacts Tuxedni method does not account for chemistry came from natural fires in Yukon- comes from point sources on the Kenai and removal processes. Instead, the Koyukuk and Southeast Fairbanks Peninsula. Anthropogenic sources WEP analysis relies on an integration of boroughs, and 11% of the PM2.5 came projected to significantly impact gridded emissions data, meteorological from point sources in the Matanuska- Tuxedni in 2018 are: (1) point and back trajectory residence time data, a Susitna borough. For NOX, 32% of the stationary sources on the Kenai one-over-distance factor to approximate contributions for 2002 came from Peninsula, which will contribute 44% of deposition and dispersion, and a natural fires in Yukon-Koyukuk the VOCs impacting Tuxedni, and (2) normalization of the final results. borough, 20% came from point sources stationary areas sources on the Kenai

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:54 Feb 23, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\24FEP1.SGM 24FEP1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 11032 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 37 / Friday, February 24, 2012 / Proposed Rules

Peninsula, which will contribute 37% of 18 AAC 50.260(n) establishes the states to consider exempting some the SOX impacting Tuxedni. deadline by which a source must BART-eligible sources from further EPA is proposing to find that Alaska implement a final BART determination. BART review because they may not has used appropriate air quality models 18 AAC 50.260(o) requires the owner reasonably be anticipated to cause or to identify the primary pollutants, and or operator of a source required to contribute to any visibility impairment source areas for these pollutants, install control technology to maintain in a Class I area. Consistent with the impacting the Denali, Simeonof, and the equipment and conduct monitoring, BART Guidelines and Alaska’s regional Tuxedni Class I areas. EPA is also recordkeeping, and reporting in haze regulations, ADEC provided BART proposing to find that the SIP submittal accordance with the final BART source emission rates to WRAP, which contains an appropriate analysis of the determination. conducted modeling to determine impact of these pollutants on visibility 18 AAC 50.260(p) explains the billing which BART-eligible sources could be in each of the Class I areas in Alaska. process for ADEC services under this reasonable anticipated to cause or See WRAP TSD Chapter 6.B (EPA’s section. contribute to visibility impairment in 18 AAC 50.260(q) includes the analysis of the WRAP’s WEP analysis two Class I areas, Denali National Park definitions related to regional haze in 8 for Alaska). and Tuxedni National Wildlife Refuge. the rules that are not in 18 AAC 50.990. In WRAP’s analyses, a 0.5 dv threshold E. Best Available Retrofit Technology These new regulations are consistent was used to determine if a source was (BART) with the definitions and requirements causing or contributing to visibility for BART under the RHR. EPA proposes 1. Alaska BART Regulations impairment in either of these two Class to approve these regulations. I areas. Alaska has adopted new regulations at 2. BART–Eligible Sources in Alaska Alaska also established a 0.5 dv 18 AAC 50.260 (a)–(q) which provide threshold to determine if a BART- the State with the authority to regulate In order to identify sources that could eligible source was subject to BART (see BART sources in Alaska. In April 2007, potentially be eligible for BART, ADEC p. III.K.6–4 of the SIP submittal). This ADEC proposed regulations to adopt the conducted a preliminary review of its threshold was based on the following Federal BART rules into 18 AAC 50.260 Title V permits. ADEC then worked in reasons: to establish the process and specific conjunction with WRAP’s contractor, (1) Baseline visibilities at all Alaska steps for the BART eligible sources to Eastern Research Group, Inc. (ERG), to IMPROVE sites are within 0.5 dv of the follow to provide the analysis necessary identify BART-eligible sources from this 2018 goal (See Table III.K.4–3 of the SIP for ADEC to make BART preliminary source list. ERG’s report of submittal), and calculations conducted determinations. ADEC’s regulations April 2005, found that the following by ADEC demonstrate that the 2018 goal adopting the Federal BART rules were seven sources were BART-eligible will be achieved in all Alaska Class I sources: areas (see Alaska Regional Haze SIP promulgated on December 30, 2007 and • submitted to EPA for inclusion in the Chugach Electric, Beluga River submittal, III.K.9–33 through 9–40), SIP on February 7, 2008. The essential Power Plant (Chugach Electric); except the Bering Sea Wilderness Area, • Alyeska Pipeline Service Company, elements of these regulations are for which there is no baseline data. Valdez Marine Terminal (Alyeska); (2) Insight into selecting a threshold summarized below. • Tesoro, Kenai Refinery (Tesoro); was also gained from a review of the • In 18 AAC 50.260(a), ADEC adopts Anchorage Municipal Light and uncertainty observed in historical the Federal BART guidelines at 40 CFR Power, George Sullivan Plant 2 visibility measurements at each of the part 51 Appendix Y and the definitions (Anchorage Municipal); • Class I area monitoring sites. at 40 CFR 51.301 with specified ConocoPhillips Alaska Inc., Kenai Uncertainty values computed for each exceptions where the definition at AS LNG Plant (CPAI); • site (i.e., standard deviation) vary from 46.14.990 is used. 18 AAC 50.260(b) Agrium, Chemical-Urea Plant 0.5 dv for Denali, to 0.8 dv at Simeonof, specifies that sources subject to BART (Agrium); and • to 0.6 dv at Trapper Creek, to 1.0 dv at be identified in accordance with Section Golden Valley Electric Association, Tuxedni. A BART threshold of 0.5 dv III of the BART guideline and sets the Healy Power Plant (GVEA). would either be less than or equal to Chugach Electric was determined to date by which ADEC will notify subject each of these visibility uncertainty not be BART-eligible due to the sources of their status. values, thus visibility impacts of sources replacement of the BART-eligible 18 AAC 50.260(c) establishes the meeting this significance threshold emission units with ones that were not procedures by which a source can would not be distinguished from BART-eligible. In April 2007, ADEC request an exemption from BART by historical variations observed at each of sent a letter to Chugach officials submitting a visibility impact analysis the monitoring sites. showing that the source is not regarding the status of its BART-eligible Based on these reasons, Alaska reasonably anticipated to cause or emission units. Chugach responded selected the 0.5 dv threshold to contribute to any impairment of with information that the BART-eligible determine which sources are subject to visibility in a Class I area. emission units had been replaced and BART. Any source with an impact of the plant had become a ‘‘steam electric 18 AAC 50.260(d)–(l) establish the greater than 0.5 dv in any Class I area, plant’’ after the BART timeframe. EPA would be subject to a BART analysis process that sources that did not request concurs with ADEC that Chugach or receive an exemption or an Owner and BART emission limitations. In the Electric is not a BART-eligible source. BART Guidelines, EPA recommended Requested Limit (ORL) must undertake After identifying the BART-eligible that States ‘‘consider the number of to conduct a BART analysis, including sources, the second phase of the BART BART sources affecting the Class I areas visibility impact analysis modeling, to evaluation is to identify those BART- at issue and the magnitude of the determine BART emission limits for eligible sources that may reasonably be individual sources’ impacts. In general, sources that are subject to BART. anticipated to cause or contribute to visibility impairment at any Class I area, 18 AAC 50.260(m) establishes how a 8 Visibility impacts at Simeonof and the Bering final BART determination may be i.e., those sources that are ‘subject’ to Sea Wilderness Areas are expected to be below 0.5 appealed. BART. The BART Guidelines allow dv.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:54 Feb 23, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\24FEP1.SGM 24FEP1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 37 / Friday, February 24, 2012 / Proposed Rules 11033

a larger number of BART sources analysis was not available. Agrium BART-eligible units consist of one causing impacts in a Class I area may notified ADEC that it would be primary coal-fired boiler, a 25-MW warrant a lower contribution requesting the suspension of the Foster-Wheeler boiler, referred to as threshold.’’ 70 FR 39104, 39161 July 6, renewal of its Title V permit as well as ‘‘Healy Unit #1’’, and one auxiliary 2005. the termination of its current Title V boiler (Auxiliary Boiler #1). GVEA EPA reviewed the modeled impacts of permit for this facility. Given these undertook a full assessment of control the BART-eligible sources that Alaska conditions, ADEC issued a BART options for Healy Unit # 1 under 18 decided were BART-exempt. These determination for Agrium which stated AAC 50.260(d)–(e) and used the WRAP sources, Alyeska, Tesoro, Anchorage that Agrium has a zero emission limit modeling protocol and submitted its Municipal, Conoco-Phillips, and for its BART eligible units, and must initial BART control analysis report on Agrium, were modeled to have a pursue a new air permit if and when it July 28, 2008. In this revised BART cumulative visibility impact of just over plans to restart this facility. Therefore, report, GVEA concluded that the 1 dv on Tuxedni, and a 0.98 dv impact Agrium currently has a zero emission existing NOX, SO2, and PM limits were at Denali. See Table III.K.6–2 in SIP limit for its BART eligible units and that BART for Healy Unit #1. submittal. Given the number and if this facility restarts operation, a new Subsequently, ADEC through its location of sources and the cumulative PSD air permit would be required that contractor Enviroplan, conducted a impact from these sources, it is includes all units (including the BART thorough BART analysis following the reasonable for Alaska to conclude that a units) at the facility. As a result, if this steps outlined in the BART Guidelines. 0.5 dv threshold was appropriate for facility restarts operation, all BART- Followings ADEC’s consultation with capturing those BART-eligible sources eligible units at the facility would be the FLM and receipt and review of with significant impacts on visibility in reclassified as PSD units and therefore public comments, Enviroplan Class I areas. For these reasons and in would be subject to PSD emission completed a final BART determination consideration of the facts specific to limits. Therefore, ADEC has determined report for GVEA on January 19, 2010, Alaska, EPA is proposing to approve the that this source is not subject to BART. and revised this report on June 1, 2010. 0.5 dv threshold adopted by Alaska for Alaska’s review of the more refined See Alaska Regional Haze SIP submittal, determining which sources in Alaska CALPUFF modeling of the Conoco Appendix III.6–62 through 6–179. (Final are subject to BART. Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CPAI), Kenai LNG Enviroplan BART Determination Report To initially identify sources subject to Plant found that its impact on the for GVEA, revised June 1, 2010 BART, based on a 0.5 dv threshold, Tuxedni Class I area was greater than (‘‘Enviroplan GVEA Healy BART Alaska used the CALPUFF dispersion 0.5 dv. Subsequently, ADEC issued a Report’’)). This report, based on updated model results generated by WRAP. Compliance Order by Consent (COBC) site-specific cost information on control CALPUFF was used to assess the impact to the facility providing that after technologies, and on the assumption of emissions from BART-eligible sources December 31, 2013, the emissions from that the useful life of installed control on visibility at Denali and Tuxedni. the identified BART eligible units at the technologies would be 8 years (based on CALPUFF used meteorological data CPAI Kenai LNG Plant will be limited installation by 2016 and plant shutdown forecast data, surface meteorological to a level that will not cause or in 2024), concluded that the following measurements, and major source contribute to visibility impairment in control technologies are BART for Healy specific emission estimates to calculate any Class I area at equal to or greater Unit #1: (1) Selective Non Catalytic visibility impacts due to emissions of than 0.5 dv. The specific operating Reduction (SNCR) added to the existing SO2, NOX and primary PM emissions. conditions, and allowable maximum Low NOX Burners (LNB) with Over See Alaska Regional Haze SIP submittal daily NOX emission limits, required to Fired Air (OFA) for NOX, (2) the existing Section III.K.6 for a summary of source remain below a 0.5 dv impact, are dry sodium bicarbonate dry sorbent specific modeling results and deciview specified in Exhibit B of the COBC. injection (DSI) system for SO2, and (3) impacts. ADEC has determined that this source is the existing reverse-gas baghouse system ADEC subsequently refined the not subject to BART. EPA proposes to for PM10 CALPUFF modeling results by using a approve this determination. The Enviroplan GVEA Healy BART more accurate three-year meteorological EPA proposes to approve ADEC’s Report concluded that SNCR was BART data set, Additionally, the sources, determination that Alyeska Pipeline for NOX because it would be cost ADEC, EPA, and the FLMs worked Service Company Valdez Marine effective at $4,208/ton (based on a 2024 together to develop a more detailed Terminal; Tesoro, Kenai Refinery; closure of Healy Unit #1), and because CALMET modeling protocol along with Anchorage Municipal Light & Power, SNCR would provide an 0.62 deciview the additional meteorological data. The Sullivan Plant; the Agrium, Chem-Urea improvement in visibility at the Denali results of this second dispersion Plant, and the CPAI Kenai LNG Plant Class I area for 51 days per year (a modeling were compared to the 0.5 dv are not subject to BART. reduction from 3.36 dv impact to a 2.74 threshold to determine which sources dv impact). The State determined that were subject to BART. The modeling 3. BART-Subject Sources in Alaska Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) was result for three of the six remaining Modeling for the remaining BART not cost effective at $15,762/ton and BART-eligible sources (Alyeska Pipeline eligible source, the GVEA Healy Power was therefore was rejected as BART for Service Company, Valdez Marine Plant Unit #1, demonstrated baseline NOX control for this unit. Enviroplan Terminal, Tesoro, Kenai Refinery and visibility impacts of greater than 3.4 dv, also concluded that Rotating Over Fire Anchorage Municipal Light & Power, and therefore is subject to BART. A Air (ROFA®), even though cost effective, Sullivan Plant) demonstrated that their summary of the modeling results and would not be incrementally cost visibility impacts were less than 0.5 dv. proposed actions to control emissions effective over SNCR because the cost per Therefore, Alaska determined that these from this facility is summarized below. deciview improvement for the ROFA® three sources are not subject to BART. ADEC determined that the Golden equivalent emission limit would be 50 The Agrium, Chem-Urea Plant is not Valley Electric Association (GVEA), percent higher than the cost for the currently operating and it is not known Healy coal fired power plant is a BART- SNCR limit (for a visibility when it might reopen, and operating eligible source located approximately 5 improvement of only 0.05 dv), and the data necessary to conduct a BART miles from Denali National Park. The capital cost of installing ROFA® would

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:54 Feb 23, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\24FEP1.SGM 24FEP1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 11034 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 37 / Friday, February 24, 2012 / Proposed Rules

be 180 percent higher than installing estimated remaining useful lifetime for to grant GVEA’s request to allow for SNCR. the particular control technologies some operational variability in the NOX For SO2 controls, Enviroplan under consideration for NOX or SO2 emission rate for Healy Unit #1. GVEA indicated that increased sorbent control technologies for Healy Unit #1. conducted an analysis of 2003–2008 (5 injection, with a potential visibility Based on a 15-year lifetime, EPA years) 30-day rolling NOX and SO2 improvement of 0.25 dv, was the only found that SCR was not cost effective for emissions from Healy Unit #1, applied cost-effective option that could improve controlling NOX emissions at $10,170/ three standard deviations to the mean of visibility in Denali National Park. ton. This cost effectiveness value does these values, and requested that their However, after evaluating this not include the cost to replace lost BART emission limits reflect the alternative according to the required electricity generation during installation resultant rates at three standard BART criteria, Enviroplan concluded of SCR because there is insufficient deviations. In response, ADEC that this option was cost prohibitive evidence that the cost is a necessary determined that an additional allowance because it would cost $3,578 for each consequence of SCR installation. When of 5% higher than the emission rate ton of SO2 removed and would result in this element is removed from the cost identified in the findings report (0.19 lb/ a visibility improvement of only 0.25 estimate, the overall cost effectiveness mmBtu) would sufficiently allow for dv. Enviroplan also noted that over a 15-year lifetime for SCR operating variability. Specifically, ADEC increasing the sorbent injection rate, decreases from $11,765/ton to $10,170/ determined that the flexibility provided could potentially cause a visibility ton (see EPA’s Healy BART Report- by a 0.20 lbs/mmBtu NOX emission impairing ‘‘brown plume’’ effect (due to addendum). EPA finds that SCR is still limit instead of a 0.19 lb/mmBtu NOX the oxidation of nitrogen oxide (NO) to not cost effective at this lower rate. emission limit would require GVEA to nitrogen dioxide (NO2) prior to However, the following NOX control stay within the specified emission limit, discharge from the stack), which would technologies were considered cost while allowing for a reasonable amount adversely impact visibility in Denali effective: SNCR at $3,125/ton, ROFA at of operational variability. See Appendix National Park. $3,476/ton, and ROFA® with Rotamix® III.K.6–114 of the SIP submittal. EPA Based on the results of Enviroplan’s at $4,325/ton. believes that this minor NOX emission evaluation, and in response to public EPA next considered the allowance would not significantly comments received on the proposed environmental impacts of each of these change the visibility impairment at BART for Healy Unit #1, ADEC cost effective technologies. ROFA® with Denali National Park due to emissions determined that the BART emission Rotamix® when operated to achieve the from Healy Unit #1. Therefore, EPA limits for GVEA Healy Unit #1, based on quoted NOX emission rate of 0.11 lb/ proposes to approve the State’s a 2024 shutdown, are 0.20 lb/mmBtu for MMbtu, reportedly carries some risk of determination that an emission limit of NOX, the current limit of 0.30 lb/mmBtu increased emissions of carbon monoxide 0.20 lbs/mmBtu for NOX is BART for for SO2, and the current limit of 0.015 (CO), carbon dioxide (CO2), and ‘‘loss- Healy Unit #1. lb/mmBtu for PM. on-ignition’’ (un-burnt carbon For SO2, EPA found that optimizing The BART Guidelines provide that a particulate matter). Increased particulate the existing Dry Sorbent Injection (DSI) source’s remaining useful life may be matter emissions could result in system to achieve an emission limit of considered as an element of the cost additional visibility impairment at the 0.18 lb/mmBtu, by increasing the analysis in a BART determination for a Denali Class I area. However, EPA found sorbent injection rate, is cost effective at particular source and recognizes that if that data quantifying this risk is not $3,578/ton. However, increased sorbent the remaining useful life represents a readily available, since facilities injection rate carries the risk of a relatively short time frame it may affect employing ROFA® with Rotamix® are ‘‘brown plume’’ effect. Brown plume the annualized costs of the retrofit typically allowed slightly higher NOX refers to the oxidation of nitrogen oxide controls. BART Guidelines IV.D.4.k.1. emission limits than those quoted by the (NO) to nitrogen dioxide (NO2) prior to As explained in the BART Guidelines, vendors of these technologies. EPA’s discharge from the stack. NO2 is brown where the facility will be shut down review did not identify a facility in color, while NO is colorless; the two ® ® earlier than its normal expected life, the utilizing ROFA with Rotamix that together form NOX. Combustion remaining useful life is the difference was subject to an emission limit near emissions are initially NO, and oxidize between the date the controls are put in 0.11 lb/mmBTU, the level quoted by the in the atmosphere to NO2. High sorbent place and the date the facility vendor for ROFA® with Rotamix® for injection rates can increase the potential permanently ceases operations. The Healy Unit #1. Installation of the for this oxidation to occur prior to BART Guidelines further provide that ROFA® technology alone (without discharge, potentially resulting in a ‘‘Where this date affects the BART Rotamix®) is cost effective, and could visible brown plume from the exhaust determination this date should be achieve an emission rate of 0.15 lb/ stack. Due to the proximity of Healy assured by a federally, or State- mmBtu according to the vendor quote, Unit #1 to Denali National Park, a enforceable restriction preventing but would only result in a visibility brown plume may result in increased further operation.’’ BART Guidelines, improvement of approximately 0.05 dv visibility impairment in the sections of IV.D.4.k.2.(2). In the case of the Healy beyond the improvement achievable the Park closest to Healy Unit #1, even Unit #1, EPA recognizes that the 2024 using SNCR. ADEC considered this though overall visibility impairment shutdown date relied on in the cost incremental visibility improvement not would be reduced. Two other SO2 effectiveness calculation described significant enough to warrant the control options, a spray dryer, and wet above is not enforceable. However, the increased cost for ROFA®, and EPA limestone flue gas desulfurization, were BART Guidelines provide that the agrees with this decision. considered not to be cost effective at methods specified in EPA’s Control Cost ADEC selected the BART NOX $7,198/ton and $7,763/ton, respectively. Manual used to calculate annualized emission limit for Healy Unit #1 based Therefore, EPA proposes to approve the costs should reflect the specified time on a consideration of the BART five-step SO2 emission limit achievable by the period for amortization that varies control review process, information current DSI control technology, 0.30 lb/ depending on the type of control. provided by GVEA in their BART mmBtu, as BART for Healy Unit #1. Therefore, based on our review, EPA analyses, the Enviroplan GVEA Healy ADEC determined that the existing considers 15 years to be a reasonable BART Report, and a decision by ADEC reverse-gas baghouse system is the state-

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:54 Feb 23, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\24FEP1.SGM 24FEP1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 37 / Friday, February 24, 2012 / Proposed Rules 11035

of-the-art particulate emissions (PM) impaired (20% best) days in 2018. RPGs remaining useful life of any potentially control technology for utility boiler are estimates of the progress to be affected sources. 40 CFR applications, and therefore, the existing achieved by 2018 through 51.308(d)(1)(i)(A). This is referred to as high-efficiency reverse-gas baghouse implementation of the Long Term the Four Factor Analysis. As reflected in installed on the Healy Unit #1 is BART Strategy (LTS), which includes the information presented in Table for PM. EPA proposes to approve the anticipated emission reductions from all III.K.9–2 of the SIP submittal, the WEP PM emission limit achievable by the State and Federal regulatory analysis indicates that three categories current reverse-gas baghouse control requirements implemented between the of point sources may be significant technology, 0.015 lb/mmBtu, as BART baseline and 2018, including but not contributors to regional haze and for Healy Unit #1. limited to BART and any additional warrant further analysis under the four Regarding the Auxiliary Boiler #1, the controls for non-BART sources or factors. These three categories are: State indicated that this unit is just used emission activities including any industrial boilers, petroleum refineries, during shutdown periods or emergency Federal requirements that reduce and reciprocating engines and turbines. repairs to Healy Unit #1 to supply heat visibility impairing pollutants. Based on the four-factor analyses of to the Healy 1 building or to provide As explained above, ADEC relied on these three source categories, ADEC steam and potable hot water to Healy the WEP analysis conducted by the concluded that it is not reasonable to Unit #2, if needed, when Healy Unit #1 WRAP to project visibility conditions at require additional controls for these is not operating and that it is fired Denali National Park, Simeonof source categories at this time. Alaska monthly for maintenance checks. Wilderness Area, and Tuxedni National explained its reasons to support this Additionally, refined modeling for the Wildlife Area in 2018. The visibility decision include: (1) The Class I areas State also indicated that that the projections were based on estimates of in Alaska do not need large visibility predicted visibility impacts attributable emissions reductions from all existing improvements to reach natural to the boiler were less than .067 dv. The and known controls resulting from conditions in 2064, (2) the Class I areas State determined that the existing Federal and state CAA programs as of are predicted to attain the URP in 2018, uncontrolled configuration and current December 2010. (3) emissions from natural sources Title 5 permit limits for the Auxilliary In setting the RPGs for its Class I (primarily wildfires) contribute the most Boiler #1 were BART, and that no areas, ADEC considered a number of significant visibility impacts, and (4) it additional controls were required. See different factors. These factors included: is uncertain, at this time, how much Enviroplan GVEA Healy BART Report (1) Attainment of the URP in each Class visibility improvements could be Table E–1 for BART emission limits I area by 2018, (2) results of the Four attained by controlling individual point specific to the Auxiliary Boiler #1. EPA Factor Analysis, (3) additional sources, since each contributing point agrees that given the low annual improvements in visibility due to BART source has not been individually emissions for the boiler, add-on controls, (4) evidence that there is modeled for visibility impact to the pollution controls equipment for NOX significant contribution to visibility nearest Class I area. and PM are not cost effective. EPA impairment from international sources (3) Additional Improvements not found that the only viable method to (such as Asian Dust, and Arctic Haze) included in the WEP Analysis— control SO2 emission from the Auxiliary and substantial contributions from Additional improvements at several Boiler #1 would be to switch to ultra- natural sources (such as wildfires and sources that were not factored into low sulfur diesel. However, due to the sea salt), and (5) additional ADEC’s WEP analysis reduce visibility cost differential between high sulfur improvements in visibility in Alaskan impairing pollutants impacting Denali, diesel and ultra-low sulfur diesel in the Class I areas due to new maritime and Tuxedni, within the next 5 years. Fairbanks area, it would cost emission regulations that will achieve GVEA’s Healy Power Plant Unit #1 will approximately $28,000/t on to reduce substantial reductions by 2015 in SO2 install SNCR as BART for NOX, which SO2 emission from the Auxiliary Boiler and NOX emissions from commercial will reduce NOX impacts at Denali by #1 by switching fuels. Based on this marine vessels. These five factors are 0.62 dv. The Conoco Philips Kenai LNG cost, EPA has determined that this further described in the following plant will also reduce its emissions to approach would not be cost effective. paragraphs. below 0.5 dv under the conditions of a EPA proposes to approve the State’s (1) Attainment of the 2018 URPs— consent order. Finally, the Agrium, BART determination for the Auxiliary ADEC conducted a statistical analysis of Chem-Urea Plant in the Kenai has Boiler #1. historical visibility data from the Denali, stopped operating and therefore has Tuxedni, and Simeonof Class I areas to dramatically reduced NH , NO and F. Determination of Reasonable Progress 3 X demonstrate that the visibility in the PM emissions impacting Tuxedni (by Goals 2.5 Class I areas in Alaska in 2018 projected 98%, 18%, and 93%, respectively). The RHR requires States to show by the WEP analysis falls within the These reductions in emissions from ‘‘reasonable progress’’ toward natural bounds of the 2018 URP glide path, with sources on the Kenai Peninsula indicate visibility conditions over the time a 95% degree of confidence. This that visibility at Tuxedni should period of the SIP, with 2018 as the first indicates that there is no difference improve even more rapidly than milestone year. The RHR at 40 CFR between the WEP forecast of visibility predicted by the WEP analysis. 51.308(d)(1) requires states to establish impairment in the Class I areas, and the (4) Contribution from International a goal, expressed in deciviews, for each URP determined for each Class I area in Sources and Natural Sources— Class I area within the state that 2018. Significant contributions to haze in the provides for reasonable progress toward (2) Results of the Four Factor Class I areas is Alaska include natural achieving natural visibility conditions Analysis—As described in section II.D. sources (biogenic aerosols, sea salt, by 2064. As such, the State must above, when establishing RPGs the RHR volcanic emissions) and international establish a Reasonable Progress Goal requires the states to consider (1) The sources. See generally, Alaska Regional (RPG) for each Class I area that provides costs of compliance; (2) the time Haze SIP submittal, III.K.3–4 to 3–8. for visibility improvement for the most- necessary for compliance; (3) the energy There is also evidence that natural impaired (20% worst) days and ensures and non-air quality environmental wildfire is a substantial contributor to no degradation in visibility for the least- impacts of compliance; and (4) the visibility impairment in the three

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:54 Feb 23, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\24FEP1.SGM 24FEP1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 11036 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 37 / Friday, February 24, 2012 / Proposed Rules

modeled Class I areas, but particularly operated for a number of years, is not Unit #1, emission limits on the Conoco in the Denali Class I area. The currently operating and that the Phillips Kenai LNG Plant specified in speciation analysis, clearly demonstrate available information to analyze the the consent order between Alaska and that natural fires are the dominant potential visibility impact of the Healy Conoco Philips, and the shutdown of source of pollutants impacting all Class Unit #2 emissions on Denali is the Agrium, Chem-Urea Plant. Based on I areas within Alaska on the 20% worst inconclusive. The State does recognize the above reasons, EPA is proposing to days. In Denali, natural fires contribute however that if the unit is brought on approve ADEC’s demonstration that its 97% of the PM2.5, 68% of the VOCs, line, the point source NOX and SOx RPGs provide for reasonable progress in 79% of the NOX, and 65% of the SO2 emissions emitted from within the all its Class I areas for the first planning that cause visibility impairment in that Denali Borough would increase by a period, as required in CFR Class I area. At Trapper Creek (also in factor of 4.0 and 2.8 respectively. Alaska 51.308(d)(1)(i), (ii) and (vi). Denali), natural fires contribute 86% of Regional Haze SIP submittal III.K.9–32, G. Long Term Strategy (LTS) the PM2.5, 65% of the VOCs, 34% of the 9–37. EPA is aware that on February 3, NOX, and 62% of the SO2 that cause 2012, ADEC issued a revised Title 5 Alaska relied on monitoring, emission visibility impairment. In Simeonof, permit to GVEA allowing Healy 2 to inventories and modeling information natural fires contribute 99% of the resume operations, and that emissions from the WRAP as the technical basis PM2.5, 89% of the VOCs, 76% of the from Healy 2 could have an impact on for its LTS. Coordination and NOX, and 92% of the SO2 that cause visibility in Denali. Final Air Quality consultation occurred with other states visibility impairment on the worst 20% Operating Permit No. AQ0173TVP02 through the WRAP, in which all western days. In Tuxedni, natural fires (Feb. 3, 2012). However, since the states participated in developing the contribute 78% of the PM2.5, 41% of the visibility impacts of these future technical analysis upon which their VOCs, 15% of the NOX, and 44% of the emissions have not yet been modeled, SIPs are based. This included SO2 that cause visibility impairment on the exact amount of impact cannot be identifying all anthropogenic sources of the worst days. See generally Alaska determined at this time. Therefore, for visibility impairment including major Regional Haze SIP submittal, Section reasonable progress purposes, it is not and minor stationary sources, mobile III.K.4, and WEP analyses shown in reasonable to require additional controls sources, and area sources. The Tables III.K.7–1 through III.K.7–4. on the facility at this time. If or when anticipated net effect on visibility over (5) Additional Improvements due to the unit begins operating again, ADEC the first planning period due to changes New Maritime Emission Regulations— commits to assessing the impact of these in point, area, and mobile source Alaska also found that new emission additional emissions on visibility in emissions is a significant reduction in control requirements on commercial Denali and will evaluate control options regional haze in the Denali, Tuxedni, marine vessels, which will be fully in for the facility as part of its 5 year and Simeonof Class I areas. In effect by 2015, will reduce SO2, NOX, progress report. In light of the particular, ADEC considered the and PM2.5 emission contributions to uncertainty regarding the facility at this following factors in developing its long- visibility impairment in Simeonof time, we propose to approve the State’s term strategy. Wilderness Area and Tuxedni National consideration of the Healy Unit #2 in its Wildlife Refuge. In October 2008, the 1. Ongoing Air Pollution Control reasonable progress evaluation. EPA Programs International Maritime Organization will consider additional relevant (IMO) adopted Annex VI amendments information it receives during public Alaska has a number of ongoing which specify (1) New fuel quality comment period regarding the programs and regulations that directly requirements for commercial marine emissions or visibility impact of this protect visibility or provide for vessels beginning from July 2010, (2) source as it relates to Alaska’s improved visibility by generally Tier II and III NO emission standards X reasonable progress goals. reducing emissions. for new commercial marine engines, EPA is proposing to agree with the a. Prevention of Significant and (3) Tier I NOX requirements for existing pre-2000 commercial marine State’s analysis and conclusion that it is Deterioration/New Source Review engines. The Annex VI amendments not reasonable to seek additional Regulations designate waters within 200 miles of the controls on other emission sources The two primary regulatory programs North American coast (including within the State at this time to achieve for addressing visibility impairment Alaska) as an emission control area further reasonable progress. from industrial sources are the BART (ECA). The requirements of Annex VI Importantly, the RPGs for the Class I and Prevention of Significant ensure large reductions in particulate areas in Alaska are projected to meet the Deterioration/New Source Review (PSD/ matter, NOX, and SO2 emission from URP in 2018. Alaska has demonstrated NSR) rules. The PSD/NSR rules require commercial marine vessels operating in that the RPGs provide for visibility that emissions from new industrial the ECA. These reductions were not improvement on the worst days, and no sources and major changes to existing factored into the Alaska 2018 emissions degradation of visibility on the best days sources protect visibility in Class I areas inventory projections or the WEP compared to the baseline average. EPA through attainment of air quality related analysis, but are expected to further finds that the State’s decision not to values, including visibility, in Class I improve visibility at Tuxedni, and to a seek additional control measures is areas. lesser extent Simeonof, which are both supported by the fact that there is b. Regional Haze BART Controls significantly impacted by emissions significant contribution to haze in the from commercial marine vessels. Class I areas due to international Section 51.308(e) of the RHR includes Alaska acknowledged that its sources and some natural sources the requirements for states to implement emission inventory and 2018 reasonable (biogenic aerosols, sea salt, and volcanic Best Available Retrofit Technology for progress forecasts and emission emissions), as well as substantial eligible sources within the State that inventory do not include emissions contributions to haze from wildfires. In may reasonably cause or contribute to from the 50 MW coal-fired unit at the addition, the State expects reductions in any impairment of visibility in any GVEA facility in Healy (Healy Unit #2) statewide emissions of SO2 and NOX mandatory Class I area. Alaska’s BART The State explained, the unit has not due to BART emission limits on Healy regulations (18 AAC 50.260) specify

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:54 Feb 23, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\24FEP1.SGM 24FEP1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 37 / Friday, February 24, 2012 / Proposed Rules 11037

how to determine if a source is subject motor vehicles in Alaska’s two largest 3. Emission Limitations and Schedules to BART, and identify the process for communities. for Compliance determining BART emission limits for f. The Federal Motor Vehicle Control Emission limits and compliance BART-subject sources. As discussed in Program and Federal Diesel Emission schedules for affected sources are section II.E. above, ADEC has completed Standards specified under Alaska and Federal analysis of identified BART-eligible regulations in accordance with the sources in Alaska and has determined The Federal Motor Vehicle Control Clean Air Act. Additionally, as BART emission limits for all BART- Program (FMVCP) is a Federal discussed above, Alaska has established subject sources. Each source subject to certification program that requires all specific emission limits and compliance BART is required to install and operate new cars sold in all states except schedules for sources subject to BART. BART as expeditiously as practicable, California to meet more stringent The state anticipates future SIP updates but in no case more than five year after emission standards. As a result, motor may identify additional emission EPA approval of the regional haze SIP. vehicle emissions will be reduced as the older vehicle fleet is replaced with controls that could be implemented at c. Operating Permit Program and Minor newer cleaner vehicles. Additionally, a that time and commits to include limits Source Permit Program variety of Federal rules establishing and compliance schedules as needed in ADEC implements a Title V operating emission standards and fuel future plan updates. permit program as well as a minor requirements for diesel on-road and 4. Source Retirement and Replacement source permit program for stationary non-road equipment will significantly Schedules sources of air pollution. The Title V reduce emissions of particulate matter, permits are consistent with the nitrogen oxides, and sulfur oxides from Alaska’s continued implementation of requirements of 40 CFR part 71 and emission sources over the first planning NSR and PSD requirements, with the requirements are found in 18 AAC 50 period in Alaska. Alaska reports that as FLMs reviewing impacts to Class I areas, Article 3, Major Stationary Source of 2010, all on-road and non-road diesel will assure that there is no degradation Permits. The requirements for minor engines in Alaska have meet EPA’s of visibility in Alaska Class I areas on source permits are found in 18 AAC 50 national requirements for 15 ppm sulfur the least impaired days from expansion Article 5, Minor Permits. These permit diesel fuel. In addition to these or growth of stationary sources in the programs, coupled with PSD/NSR regulatory programs, ADEC is also state. ADEC will continue to track requirements, serve to ensure that promoting voluntary projects to reduce source retirement and replacement and stationary industrial sources in Alaska diesel emission reductions throughout include known schedules in periodic are controlled, monitored, and tracked the state. revisions to its Air Quality Control to prevent deleterious effects of air (ACC) Plan and Regional Haze SIP. g. Implementation of Programs To Meet pollution. PM10 NAAQS 5. Smoke Management Techniques for Agricultural and Forestry Burning d. Alaska Open Burning Regulations The community of Eagle River and the Alaska has previously established Mendenhall Valley in Juneau are either Smoke from wildland fires is a major open burning regulations in 18 AAC currently or formerly nonattainment contributor to visibility impairment 50.065. These regulations are intended areas with respect to the NAAQS for Class I areas in Alaska. Alaska found to prevent particulate matter emitted coarse particulate matter (PM10). These that implementation of effective smoke from open burning from adversely areas exceeded the standards due management techniques through impacting visibility in Class I areas. For primarily to wood burning and road regulation and an Enhanced Smoke example,18 AAC 50.065 (b)–(f) provide dust sources, and now have strict Management Plan (ESMP) will mitigate ADEC the authority to require pre- controls in place that regulate wood impacts of planned burning on visibility approvals for controlled burning to burning and control road dust, the two in its Class I areas. Additionally, ADEC manage forest land, vegetative cover, major sources of PM10 in these has developed and implemented an fisheries, or wildlife habitat if the area communities. ESMP, and includes this plan as part of to be burned exceeds 40 acres yearly. this long-term strategy. Specifically, the 2. Measures To Mitigate Impacts of The open burning regulations, working ESMP, which will be revised at least Construction Activities in conjunction with the state’s every 5 years or sooner if needed, Enhanced Smoke Management Plan, In developing its LTS, ADEC has outlines the process, practices and control visibility impairing pollutants considered the impact of construction procedures to manage smoke from resulting from planned open burning activities on visibility in the Class I prescribed and other open burning to activities. areas. ADEC regulations at 18 AAC help ensure that prescribed fire (e.g. 50.045(d) require that entities who controlled burn) activities minimize e. Local, State and Federal Mobile cause or permit bulk materials to be smoke and air quality problems. Source Control Programs handled, transported, or stored or who Mobile source emissions show engage in industrial activities or 6. Enforceability of Emission Limitations and Control Measures decreases in NOX, SO2, and VOCs in construction projects shall take Alaska during the period 2002–2018. reasonable precautions to prevent BART emission limits and control These declines in emissions are due to particulate matter from being emitted measures will enforceable as a matter of numerous rules already in place, most into the ambient air. This regulation State law by virtue of Alaska’s BART of which are Federal regulations. The allows the state to take action on regulations at 18 AAC 50.260 and State of Alaska has established fugitive dust emissions from federally enforceable once approved as regulations related to mobile sources construction activities. Based on the part of its State Implementation Plan. that primarily impact the Fairbanks and general knowledge of growth and ADEC has adopted this Regional Haze Anchorage CO maintenance areas, construction activity in Alaska, ADEC Plan into the Alaska Air Quality Control Alaska’s two largest cities. These believes that current state and Federal Plan (Alaska’s State Implementation programs have resulted in NOX and regulations adequately address this Plan) at 18 AAC 50.030, which ensures hydrocarbon emission reductions from emission source category. that all elements in the plan are

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:54 Feb 23, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\24FEP1.SGM 24FEP1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 11038 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 37 / Friday, February 24, 2012 / Proposed Rules

federally enforceable once approved by toward the reasonable progress goal for applies to prescribed burning and for EPA. each Class I area. As required by 40 CFR land clearing approvals. Additionally, EPA is proposing to find that ADEC 51.308(i)(4), ADEC will continue to Volume II, Section III. K: Area Wide adequately addressed the RHR coordinate and consult with the FLMs Pollution Control Program for Regional requirements in its long-term strategy during the development of these future Haze is a new section and, as discussed (LTS). EPA believes that this LTS progress reports and plan revisions, as above, is intended to meet the RHR provides sufficient measures to ensure well as during the implementation of requirements, and Volume II: that Alaska will meet its emission programs having the potential to Appendices to Volume II is amended to reduction obligations to achieve contribute to visibility impairment in include the Appendices for Alaska’s adequate visibility protection for the mandatory Class I areas. This Areawide Pollutant Control Program for Class I areas in the State. consultation process shall provide on- Regional Haze. H. Monitoring Strategy and Other going and timely opportunities to EPA proposes to approve the Implementation Plan Requirements address the status of the control amendments at 18 AAC 50.30. programs identified in this SIP, the The primary monitoring network for development of future assessments of V. What action is EPA proposing? regional haze in Alaska is the IMPROVE sources and impacts, and the EPA is proposing to approve the network. As discussed in section III.B. development of additional control Alaska Regional Haze plan, submitted of this notice, there are currently two programs. on April 4, 2011, as meeting the IMPROVE monitoring sites at Denali requirements set forth in section 169A National Park, one at Simeonof, and one J. SIP Revisions and Five-Year Progress of the Act and in 40 CFR 51.308 at Tuxedni. There is no IMPROVE site Reports regarding Regional Haze. EPA is also for the Bering Sea Wilderness Area. As Section 51.308(f) of the Regional Haze proposing to approve ADEC’s BART previously explained, one of the Rule requires that regional haze plans be regulations in 18 AAC 50.260. monitoring challenges in Alaska is the revised and submitted to EPA by July Additionally, EPA is proposing to logistical difficulty of monitoring at 31, 2018, and every ten years thereafter. approve the amendments to 18 AAC remote locations in the harsh arctic In accordance with those requirements, 50.30 to adopt by reference Volume II., environment. The challenges for ADEC commits to revising and Section III. F. Open Burning; Volume II, ongoing air and visibility monitoring in submitting this Plan by July 31, 2018, Section III. K. Area Wide Pollution Alaska include transportation and site and every ten years thereafter. See Control Program for Regional Haze; and maintenance in isolated and remote Alaska Regional Haze SIP submittal Volume II, Appendices to Volume II. areas where access may be section III.K.10. intermittently available only by air or 40 CFR 51.308(g) requires states to VI. Statutory and Executive Order water, and electrical power may be submit a progress report to EPA every Reviews lacking. Alaska is working with EPA five years evaluating progress towards Under the Clean Air Act, the and the FLMs to ensure that the the reasonable progress goal(s). The first Administrator is required to approve a monitoring network in Alaska provides progress report is due five years from SIP submission that complies with the data that are representative of visibility the submittal of the initial provisions of the Act and applicable conditions in each affected Class I area implementation plan and must be in the Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); within the State. In the SIP submittal, form of an implementation plan revision 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP Alaska commits to rely on the IMPROVE that complies with 40 CFR 51.102 and submissions, EPA’s role is to approve network for complying with the regional 51.103. ADEC commits to submitting a state choices, provided that they meet haze monitoring requirement in EPA’s report on reasonable progress to EPA the criteria of the Clean Air Act. RHR for the current and future regional every five years following the initial Accordingly, this proposed action haze implementation periods. See submittal of the SIP. The reasonable merely approves state law as meeting Alaska Regional Haze SIP submittal progress report will evaluate the Federal requirements and does not III.K.3.C.2. progress made towards the reasonable impose additional requirements beyond progress goal for each mandatory Class I. Consultation With States and FLMs those imposed by state law. For that I area located within Alaska and in each reason, this proposed action: Through the WRAP, member states mandatory Class I area located outside • Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory and Tribes worked extensively with the Alaska, which may be affected by action’’ subject to review by the Office FLMs from the U.S. Departments of the emissions from Alaska. of Management and Budget under Interior and Agriculture to develop Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, technical analyses that support the IV. Amendment to Air Quality Control Plan Regarding Open Burning and October 4, 1993); regional haze SIPs for the WRAP states. • Does not impose an information Regional Haze The State of Alaska provided an collection burden under the provisions opportunity for FLM consultation, at The Alaska Regional Haze SIP of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 least 60 days prior to holding any public submittal included amendments to the U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); hearing on the SIP. This SIP was Air Quality Control Plan at 18 AAC • Is certified as not having a submitted to the FLMs on June 24, 2010, 50.30. More specifically, Volume II., significant economic impact on a for review and comment. Comments Section III. F: Open Burning is revised substantial number of small entities were received from the FLMs on August to include the ‘‘In Situ Burning under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 23, 2010. As required by 40 CFR Guidelines for Alaska, Revision 1’’ (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 51.308(i)(3), the FLM comments and (August 2008) and to update the open • Does not contain any unfunded State responses are included the SIP burn application requirements in mandate or significantly or uniquely submittal. Alaska’s Enhanced Smoke Management affect small governments, as described 40 CFR 51.308(f–h) establish Plan. ADEC’s ‘‘In Situ Burning in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act requirements and timeframes for states Guidelines’’ apply to specified of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); to submit periodic SIP revisions and situations involving oil spills. Alaska’s • Does not have Federalism progress reports that evaluate progress Enhanced Smoke Management Plan implications as specified in Executive

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:54 Feb 23, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\24FEP1.SGM 24FEP1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 37 / Friday, February 24, 2012 / Proposed Rules 11039

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, category, of the Mandatory Reporting of information whose disclosure is 1999); Greenhouse Gases Rule. On July 7, 2010, restricted by statute. • Is not an economically significant the EPA proposed confidentiality Do not submit information that you regulatory action based on health or determinations for then-proposed consider to be CBI or otherwise safety risks subject to Executive Order subpart W data elements and is now protected through http:// 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); issuing this re-proposal due to www.regulations.gov or email. Send or • Is not a significant regulatory action significant changes to certain data deliver information identified as CBI to subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR elements in the final subpart W only the mail or hand/courier delivery 28355, May 22, 2001); reporting requirements. The EPA is also address listed above, attention: Docket • Is not subject to requirements of proposing to assign 10 recently added ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0028. The Section 12(d) of the National reporting elements as ‘‘Inputs to http://www.regulations.gov Web site is Technology Transfer and Advancement Emission Equations’’ and to defer their an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because reporting deadline to March 31, 2015, means the EPA will not know your application of those requirements would consistent with the agency’s approach identity or contact information unless be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; in the August 25, 2011 rule which you provide it in the body of your and finalized the deferral of some reporting comment. If you send an email • Does not provide EPA with the data elements that are inputs to comment directly to the EPA without discretionary authority to address, as emissions equations. going through http:// appropriate, disproportionate human DATES: Comments. Comments must be www.regulations.gov, your email health or environmental effects, using received on or before March 26, 2012 address will be automatically captured practicable and legally permissible unless a public hearing is held, in and included as part of the comment methods, under Executive Order 12898 which case comments must be received that is placed in the public docket and (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). on or before April 9, 2012. made available on the Internet. If you In addition, this rule does not have Public Hearing. To request a hearing, submit an electronic comment, then the tribal implications as specified by please contact the person listed in the EPA recommends that you include your Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT name and other contact information in November 9, 2000), because the SIP is section by March 2, 2012. Upon such the body of your comment and with any not approved to apply in Indian country request, the EPA will hold the hearing disk or CD–ROM you submit. If the EPA located in the state, and EPA notes that on March 12, 2012 in the Washington, cannot read your comment due to it will not impose substantial direct DC area. The EPA will publish further technical difficulties and cannot contact costs on tribal governments or preempt information about the hearing in the you for clarification, the EPA may not tribal law. Federal Register if a hearing is be able to consider your comment. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 requested. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of ADDRESSES: You may submit your Environmental protection, Air encryption, and be free of any defects or comments, identified by Docket ID No. pollution control, Intergovernmental viruses. EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0028, by one of relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate Docket: All documents in the docket matter, Reporting and recordkeeping the following methods: • Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// are listed in the http:// requirements, Sulfur oxides, Visibility, www.regulations.gov index. Although and Volatile organic compounds. www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. listed in the index, some information is Dated: February 14, 2012. • Email: [email protected]. not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other Dennis J. McLerran, • Fax: (202) 566–1741. information whose disclosure is Regional Administrator Region 10. • Mail: Environmental Protection restricted by statute. Certain other [FR Doc. 2012–4326 Filed 2–23–12; 8:45 am] Agency, EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard BILLING CODE 6560–50–P Mailcode 6102T, Attention Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0028, 1200 copy. Publicly available docket Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, materials are available either ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DC 20460. electronically in http:// AGENCY • Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center, www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at Public Reading Room, EPA West the Air Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West, 40 CFR Part 98 Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. This Docket [EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0028; FRL–9637–2] Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20004. Such deliveries are only accepted Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 RIN 2060–AQ70 during the Docket’s normal hours of p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number Proposed Confidentiality operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed for the Public Reading Room is (202) Determinations for the Petroleum and 566–1744, and the telephone number for Natural Gas Systems Source Category, information. Instructions: Direct your comments to the Air Docket is (202) 566–1742. and Amendments to Table A–7, of the Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2011– FOR FURTHER GENERAL INFORMATION Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule 0028. The EPA’s policy is that all CONTACT: Carole Cook, Climate Change AGENCY: Environmental Protection comments received will be included in Division, Office of Atmospheric Agency (EPA). the public docket without change and Programs (MC–6207J), Environmental ACTION: Proposed rule. may be made available online at Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania http://www.regulations.gov, including Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; SUMMARY: This action re-proposes any personal information provided, telephone number: (202) 343–9263; fax confidentiality determinations for the unless the comment includes number: (202) 343–2342; email address: data elements in subpart W, the information claimed to be confidential [email protected]. For petroleum and natural gas systems business information (CBI) or other technical information and

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:54 Feb 23, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\24FEP1.SGM 24FEP1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS