[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 31 (Thursday, February 14, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 10546-10554]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-03329]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R10-OAR-2011-0367; FRL-9756-8]


Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of 
Alaska; Regional Haze State Implementation Plan

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is approving a State Implementation Plan (SIP) submittal 
from the State of Alaska as meeting the requirements of Clean Air Act 
(CAA) sections169A and 169B and federal regional haze regulations. The 
SIP implements a regional haze program in the State of Alaska for the 
first regional haze planning period, through July 31, 2018. This 
submittal addresses the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) and 
EPA's rules that require states to prevent any future and remedy any 
existing manmade impairment of visibility in mandatory Class I areas 
caused by emissions of air pollutants from numerous sources located 
over a wide geographic area (also referred to as the ``regional haze 
program''). In this action, EPA is approving all provisions of Alaska's 
Regional Haze SIP submission, including the requirements for the 
calculation of baseline and natural visibility conditions, statewide 
inventory of visibility-impairing pollutants, best available retrofit 
technology (BART), Reasonable Progress Goals (RPGs), and Long-Term 
Strategy (LTS). Additionally, EPA is approving the Alaska Department of 
Environmental Conservation Best Available Retrofit Technology 
regulations, and amendments to Alaska's Area Wide Pollution Control 
Program for Regional Haze.

DATES: This final rule is effective March 18, 2013.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID 
No. EPA-R10-OAR-2011-0367. All documents in the docket are listed on 
the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some 
information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business 
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted 
by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is 
not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard 
copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either 
electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the State 
and Tribal Air Programs Unit, Office of Air Waste and Toxics, EPA 
Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101. EPA requests that if 
at all possible, you contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT section to view the hard copy of the docket. You 
may view the hard copy of the docket Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. 
to 4:00 p.m., excluding Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Keith Rose, EPA Region 10, Suite 900, 
Office of Air, Waste and Toxics, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101, 
(206) 553-1949.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Definitions

    For the purpose of this document, we are giving meaning to certain 
words or initials as follows:
    (i) The words or initials Act, CAA, or Clean Air Act mean or refer 
to the Clean Air Act, unless the context indicates otherwise.
    (ii) The words EPA, we, us or our mean or refer to the United 
States Environmental Protection Agency.
    (iii) The initials SIP mean or refer to State Implementation Plan.
    (iv) The words Alaska and State mean the State of Alaska.

Table of Contents

I. Background Information
II. Response to Comments
III. Final Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Orders Review

I. Background Information

    In the CAA Amendments of 1977, Congress established a program to 
protect and improve visibility in the national parks and wilderness 
areas. See CAA section 169A. Congress amended the visibility provisions 
in the CAA in 1990 to focus attention on the problem of regional haze. 
See CAA section 169B. EPA promulgated regulations in 1999 to implement 
sections 169A and 169B of the Act. These regulations require states to 
develop and implement plans to ensure reasonable progress toward 
improving visibility in mandatory Class I Federal areas \1\ (Class I 
areas). 64 FR 35714 (July 1, 1999); see also 70 FR 39104 (July 6, 2005) 
and 71 FR 60612 (October 13, 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Areas designated as mandatory Class I Federal areas consist 
of national parks exceeding 6000 acres, wilderness areas and 
national memorial parks exceeding 5000 acres, and all international 
parks that were in existence on August 7, 1977. 42 U.S.C. 7472(a). 
In accordance with section 169A of the Clean Air Act, EPA, in 
consultation with the Department of Interior, promulgated a list of 
156 areas where visibility is identified as an important value. 44 
FR 69122 (November 30, 1979). The extent of a mandatory Class I area 
includes subsequent changes in boundaries, such as park expansions. 
42 U.S.C. 7472(a). Although states and tribes may designate as Class 
I additional areas which they consider to have visibility as an 
important value, the requirements of the visibility program set 
forth in section 169A of the Clean Air Act apply only to ``mandatory 
Class I Federal areas.'' Each mandatory Class I Federal area is the 
responsibility of a ``Federal Land Manager.'' 42 U.S.C. 7602(i). 
When we use the term ``Class I area'' in this action, we mean a 
``mandatory Class I Federal area.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On February 24, 2012, EPA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 
(NPR) for the State of Alaska. See 77 FR 11022. In the NPR, EPA 
proposed approval of the Alaska SIP submittal that addresses regional 
haze for the planning period 2008 through 2018. The Regional Haze Plan 
was submitted to EPA on April 4, 2011. Specifically, EPA proposed to 
approve all provisions of Alaska's April 4, 2011 Regional Haze SIP 
submission. In this action, EPA is approving all provisions of Alaska's 
Regional Haze SIP submission, including the requirements for the 
calculation of baseline and natural visibility conditions, statewide 
inventory of visibility-impairing pollutants, best available retrofit 
technology (BART), Reasonable Progress Goals (RPGs), Long-Term Strategy 
(LTS), ADEC's BART regulations in 18 AAC 50.260, and the amendments to 
18 AAC 50.030 which adopts by reference Volume II, Section III. F. Open 
Burning; Volume II, Section III. K. Area Wide Pollution Control Program 
for Regional Haze; and Volume II, Appendices to Volume II.

[[Page 10547]]

    A detailed explanation of the requirements for regional haze SIPs 
as well as EPA's analysis of Alaska's SIP submittal was provided in the 
NPR and will not be repeated in detail here.
    Most of the comments received on the NPR addressed the Healy coal-
fired power plant (Healy Power Plant) located in Healy, Alaska just 
five miles from Denali National Park. The Healy Power Plant consists of 
2 power generating units. Unit 1 is subject to BART as a nominal 25 
megawatt (MW) coal-fired electric generating unit that was initially 
constructed in 1967. Unit 2, also referred to as the Healy Clean Coal 
Project (HCCP), is a nominal 50 MW coal-fired electric generating unit, 
was constructed in 1997, is not subject to BART, and has not operated 
since 1999. Golden Valley Electric Association, Inc. (GVEA) owns and 
operates Unit 1. GVEA and the Alaska Industrial Development and Export 
Authority (AIDEA) currently own Unit 2. GVEA and AIDEA intend to 
reactivate and/or restart Unit 2.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Unit 2 previously went through Prevention of Significant 
Deterioration (PSD) review and received an Air Quality Control 
Permit issued in 1993 and amended in 1994. On February 3, 2011, ADEC 
issued Final Air Quality Control Permit No. AQ0173TVPO2 to GVEA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Subsequent to the publication of the NPR, the United States entered 
into negotiations with GVEA and the AIDEA regarding their future work 
plans and intent to operate Unit 2 at the Healy Power Plant. These 
negotiations resulted in the United States, on behalf of EPA, filing a 
civil complaint for injunctive relief concurrently with a consent 
decree in the United States District Court for the District of 
Alaska.\3\ The consent decree recognizes that GVEA and AIDEA intend to 
reactivate and/or restart Unit 2 and that, as alleged in the complaint 
accompanying the consent decree, the United States believes that GVEA's 
and AIDEA's project at Unit 2 at the Healy Power Plant would result in 
the operation of a new source or, in the alternative, a major 
modification of an existing source without obtaining the necessary 
permits under the Act and without the installation and operation of the 
state-of-the-art controls necessary under the Act to reduce air 
pollutants, particularly oxides of nitrogen (NOx) emissions from Unit 
2. While not admitting liability, GVEA and AIDEA agreed to comply with 
specified pollution control requirements and emissions limits for Unit 
1 and Unit 2 at the Healy Power Plant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ United States v. Golden Valley Electric Association, Inc. 
and Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority, Civ. No. 
4:12-cv-00025-RRB (D. Alaska). The United States filed an Unopposed 
Motion to Enter the Consent Decree on November 14, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The consent decree requires GVEA to install Selective Non-Catalytic 
Reduction (SNCR) on Unit 1 on or before September 30, 2015 or 18 months 
after Unit 2 first fires coal, whichever is later. Additionally, by 
December 31, 2022, GVEA must elect to either permanently retire Unit 1 
by December 23, 2024 or install Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR). If 
GVEA elects to operate Unit 1 after December 31, 2024 it must 
continuously operate the SCR and comply with specified emission limits. 
The consent decree also requires GVEA and AIDEA to install SCR on Unit 
2 on or before September 30, 2015 or 24 months after it first fires 
coal and to comply with specified emission limits.
    The consent decree also acknowledges that EPA is currently 
reviewing the Regional Haze SIP submittal from Alaska and that EPA may 
consider the enforceable conditions in the consent decree when it takes 
final action on that SIP submission. Additionally the consent decree 
provides that nothing in the consent decree relieves GVEA or AIDEA of 
their obligation to comply with all applicable state or federal, state 
and local laws and regulations, specifically including the BART 
requirements in the Alaska SIP or emission limits or deadlines for the 
installation of pollution controls set forth in the regulations.

II. Response to Comments

    EPA received a number of comments on the proposed action to approve 
the Alaska Regional Haze SIP submittal. These comments were received 
from the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC), Sierra 
Club, the National Park Service, Denali Citizens' Council, National 
Parks and Conservation Association (NPCA), and Golden Valley Electric 
Association (GVEA) and a number of individual commenters or members of 
organizations. The individual comments included many identical or 
nearly identical comment letters that were part of a public comment 
campaign sponsored by Sierra Club, NPCA and CREDO. Additionally, on 
June 29, 2012, Earth Justice submitted a letter to EPA on behalf of the 
NPCA commenting on a number of Regional Haze SIPs, including Alaska, 
that were pending review before the agency. Even though the letter was 
submitted after the close of the comment period for this action, we 
have taken these comments into account and are responding to those 
comments relevant to this action in this notice.
    The EPA's responses to the comments are grouped into three 
categories: (1) Comments on BART for Healy Unit 1; (2) Comments on 
Reasonable Progress and Healy Unit 2; and (3) General Comments.

A. Comments Related to BART for Healy Unit I

    As noted above, the majority of the comments received related to 
the Healy Power Plant. Numerous comments were received regarding the 
selection of Selective Non-Catalytic Reduction (SNCR) rather than 
Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) as BART for Healy Unit 1. Many of 
the comments focused on the cost of controls, cost effectiveness 
calculations, and the lack of an enforceable shut down date for the 
unit.
    After reviewing the public comments, we performed additional 
analyses of the cost effectiveness associated with the various 
NOX control technologies considered by ADEC in determining 
BART for Unit 1 at the Healy Power Plant. While evaluating the public 
comments received on the proposed approval of the Alaska Regional Haze 
SIP submission, we considered the enforceable conditions in the consent 
decree and the resulting controls, limits and emission reductions. We 
also considered our additional technical and cost effectiveness 
analyses. The specific comments and responses are described below.
    Comment: A number of commenters asserted that BART should be SCR 
for Healy Unit I. More specifically, a comment concluded that BART for 
Healy Unit 1 should require the installation and operation of SCR at a 
0.035 lb/mmBtu emission limit and stated that SCR technology is the 
industry standard for NOX removal. Other commenters asserted 
that SCR could achieve a limit between 0.05 and 0.07 lbs/mmBtu. In the 
commenters' view, the State's analysis overestimated the SCR costs and 
underestimated its benefits. One comment pointed to EPA's finding in 
other determinations that BART for NOX is 0.05 lbs/mmBtu. 
For the San Juan coal-fired generating station in New Mexico, EPA 
imposed a 0.05 lbs/mmBtu BART limit, and the final permit for the 
Desert Rock coal-fired generating plant imposed a limit of 0.035 lbs/
mmBtu.
    Response: EPA agrees that a more stringent emission rate is 
achievable with SCR than with SNCR. A BART determination is based on 
consideration of multiple factors. As explained in the NPR, the State 
found that SCR is not cost effective at this facility for an 8 year 
equipment lifetime. Although EPA does

[[Page 10548]]

not agree with the State's use of an 8 year equipment life, we are 
approving the BART limit for NOX of 0.20 lbs/mmBtu based on 
the installation of SNCR. After considering the comments received, EPA 
calculated the cost of SCR using a 30 year lifetime for the controls in 
addition to the 20 year lifetime cost calculation that EPA had 
undertaken prior to the proposed action. Based on the vendor's quote 
for SCR and having eliminated costs that were not consistent with EPA's 
Control Cost Manual, EPA found that the cost effectiveness of SCR at 
Healy Unit 1 is about $5,900/ton for a 20 year equipment lifetime, and 
about $5,300/ton for a 30 year lifetime. See ``Revisions to Healy Unit 
1 Cost Effectiveness Calculations'', memo from Zach Hedgpeth to Keith 
Rose, October 15, 2012. Based on modeled results of visibility impacts 
at different emission rates, the State also found that the incremental 
visibility improvement at Denali National Park associated with an 
emission rate of 0.07 lbs/mmBtu (achievable with SCR) versus the 
improvement expected with an emission rate of 0.19 lb/mmBtu (achievable 
with SNCR) to be relatively small (about 0.17 dv).
    In this case, as explained in more detail in the proposal, ADEC 
selected the BART NOX emission limit for Healy Unit 1 based 
on their consideration of the BART five-step review process, 
information provided in GVEA's BART analyses, the Enviroplan GVEA Healy 
BART Report, and a decision by ADEC to grant GVEA's request to allow 
for some operational variability in the NOX emission rate 
for Healy Unit 1. 77 FR 11034, February 24, 2012. The Regional Haze 
rule grants States the authority to make the initial determination of 
what constitutes BART. EPA reviews that determination to ensure that 
the appropriate factors were considered and that the determination by 
the State is a reasonable one.
    BART is a source by source determination based on consideration, 
among other things, of the cost of controls at the source and the 
visibility improvement expected to result from the installation of 
controls at the source. In other words, each BART determination is made 
based on a site-specific, fact-specific evaluation of the particular 
BART source. Here, to name but one difference between Healy and the San 
Juan Generating Station as an example, the BART unit at Healy is only 
rated at 25 MW, whereas the four units at the San Juan facility are 
rated at a total of 1,800 MW. The size of the unit can affect both the 
cost effectiveness of controls as well as the associated air quality or 
visibility impacts. As a result, the conclusion that SCR is BART for 
one facility is not determinative in another BART determination. The 
decision as to appropriate controls for the Desert Rock facility to 
meet the requirements of another CAA program, the prevention of 
significant deterioration or PSD program, is of even less relevance to 
the determination of BART for Healy Unit 2.
    EPA also notes that pursuant to the consent decree described above, 
no later than December 31, 2022, GVEA must decide whether it will 
continue to operate Unit 1 past December 31, 2024 (the date upon which 
ADEC based its cost effectiveness calculations) or whether it will 
permanently retire the Unit by December 31, 2024. If GVEA elects to 
continue operation after December 31, 2024, it must install SCR control 
technology (or alternate control technology approved by EPA).
    Taking all this into consideration, EPA is approving the State's 
NOX BART determination for Healy Unit 1 as meeting the 
requirements of the CAA.
    Comment: A number of comments state that the SIP fails to 
adequately address the shutdown date required as part of the BART 
determination for Healy Unit 1. The commenter references the BART 
guidelines statements that ``if a shutdown date affects the BART 
determination, this date should be assured by a federally or state 
enforceable restriction preventing further operation.'' The commenters 
assert that this requirement is not addressed in the SIP submittal and 
that the SIP should make clear that a shutdown date of 2024 is a 
requirement for Unit 1.
    Response: As noted in the proposal, the BART Guidelines explain 
that the source's remaining useful life may be considered as an element 
of the cost analysis in a BART determination for a particular source 
and, as the comment points out, where the retirement date affects the 
BART determination, the date should be enforceable. BART Guidelines 
IV.D.4.k. 70 FR 39169, July 6, 2005. In our proposed rulemaking, we 
recognized that the 2024 shutdown date relied on in the State's cost 
effectiveness calculation is not enforceable. Because of this, EPA 
conducted additional analyses of the cost effectiveness of the 
particular control technologies under consideration for Healy Unit 1 
based on the estimated useful lifetime for the controls. 77 FR 11034, 
February 24, 2012. For that analysis we used lifetimes of 20 years for 
NOX control technologies, and 15 years for SO2 
and PM control technologies. Based on additional information received 
during the public comment period, we subsequently evaluated the cost 
effectiveness of the NOX control technologies for Healy Unit 
1 based on a 8, 15, 20 and 30 year lifetime. This analysis calculated 
the cost effectiveness of SNCR, SCR, Rotating Over Fire Air (ROFA), 
ROFA with Rotamix, and optimization of the low NOX burners 
with a modified over-fire air system. Thus, EPA's revised cost analysis 
specifically examined the cost effectiveness of SCR over both 20 and 30 
year lifetimes. The revised cost analysis calculates SCR costs of about 
$5,900/ton of NOX reduced for a 20 year equipment lifetime, 
and $5,300/ton of NOX reduced for a 30 year equipment 
lifetime. After reviewing new information submitted from the 
commenters, and adjusting the assumptions in our cost effectiveness 
calculations, EPA continues to find that it was reasonable for the 
State to conclude that the additional cost for SCR over SNCR, even when 
based on 20 year or 30 year lifetimes, is not justified.
    Our analysis confirmed that the reduced period for the remaining 
useful life used by the State in its BART analysis did not change the 
level of control that would reasonably be required as BART at this 
facility. As explained above, based on consideration of all the BART 
factors, including cost effectiveness, the remaining life, and 
visibility improvement estimated to result with emission limits 
associated with the different controls, the State's decision to reject 
SCR is not unreasonable.
    Comment: EPA failed to conduct an adequate review of Alaska's cost 
projections for SCR technology on Healy Unit 1. EPA relied on Alaska's 
submission of a single vendor's quote (Fuel Tech) for the cost of SCR. 
The cost of an SCR can vary significantly depending on the vendor and 
its specifications, and EPA did not even review the details in this 
vendor's estimate. Both the Fuel Tech report and the GVEA report use 
cost assumptions that are contrary to the Cost Control Manual. EPA 
cannot reject SCR on cost effectiveness grounds without more sufficient 
factual support.
    Response: EPA disagrees with the comment regarding Fuel Tech's cost 
quotes. It is appropriate for our cost analysis to rely, at least in 
part, on the vendor's quote which is based on site specific information 
and specifications. In conducting our analysis described above, we 
reduced the vendor's cost estimates for a number of components, 
including annual operating and maintenance (O&M) costs, NOX 
emission rates for SCR, expected equipment lifetime, and costs for a 
new

[[Page 10549]]

induced draft fan, consistent with the EPA Control Cost Manual 
methodology.
    Comment: One commenter asserted that the NOX control 
options evaluated for Healy Unit 1 could be implemented sooner that the 
five years assumed by Alaska, in which case a 2024 shut down date may 
affect the cost effectiveness of feasible emission control technologies 
considered for Healy Unit 1.
    Response: EPA recognizes that the time it takes to implement 
controls and the length of time the controls may operate affect the 
cost effectiveness calculation and thus the ultimate BART 
determination. EPA acknowledges that SNCR installations may typically 
require 8 to 12 months, however, the amount of time necessary for 
installation at a particular facility may vary significantly depending 
on the site specific circumstances, such as weather conditions, and the 
frequency and duration of maintenance periods for a particular power 
plant. Additionally, as noted above, the shut down date does not affect 
the BART determination here and thus the State's estimate of the time 
it may take to install SNCR does not significantly affect the cost 
effectiveness calculations of that technology.
    Comment: A commenter asserts that EPA's proposal does not require 
meaningful emission reductions from this outdated coal plant. Further 
the comment states that limits proposed for SO2 and 
NOX at Healy do not represent the ``degree of reduction 
achievable through the application of the best system of continuous 
emission reduction'' and that EPA must impose lower BART emission 
limits for SO2 and NOX at Healy Unit 1 that are 
consistent with modern pollution control technology.
    Response: The State's BART determination found that 0.20 lbs/mmBtu 
is the appropriate NOX limit based on continued use of the 
current low NOX burners (LNB) and over fired air (OFA) 
systems, and the new installation of SNCR. This limit represents a 
reduction of 29% from baseline emissions of NOX from Healy 
1. The BART limit for SO2 is 0.30 lb/mmBtu based on the 
current Dry Sorbent Injection (DSI) system. As explained above, based 
on comments received on the proposed rulemaking, EPA reevaluated the 
cost effectiveness of SCR on Healy Unit 1 based on 20 and 30 year 
lifetimes, and evaluated the cost effectiveness of SNCR, ROFA, ROFA 
with Rotamix, and optimization of the low NOX burners with 
overfire air system for 30 year lifetimes. Though some of the more 
stringent control technologies for NOX (such as ROFA with 
Rotamix) and for SO2 (such as DSI optimization), are 
reasonable in terms of cost effectiveness, the incremental visibility 
improvement achievable with these technologies, over the BART limits 
determined by ADEC for Healy Unit 1, are relatively small. For example, 
ROFA with Rotamix is estimated to result in just 0.166 dv more 
visibility improvement than that which is expected to result from SNCR, 
and DSI optimization may possibly improve visibility by just 0.25 dv. 
The incremental visibility improvement at Denali National Park for SCR 
over SNCR is only about 0.17 dv. EPA agrees with the State that the 
additional cost of SCR over SNCR is not justified at this facility by 
the relatively small incremental improvement in visibility.
    Comment: A commenter asserts that even though a NOX 
emissions limit of 0.19 lb/mmBtu is far too high to be BART for Healy 
Unit 1, EPA did not provide adequate justification for using a 0.20 lb/
mmBtu emissions limit instead of 0.19 lb/mmBtu. The commenter states 
that Alaska found that SNCR could achieve a 0.19 lb/mmBtu emission 
limit at Healy, but then allowed a 5% higher emission rate for 
``operating variability'' and that EPA accepted this determination 
without further analysis. There is no data showing that this need for 
variability necessarily exists, and furthermore, neither Alaska nor EPA 
conducted a visibility analysis based on the 0.20 lb/mmBtu emission 
limit.
    Response: In the proposal, EPA explained that the State's basis for 
setting the NOX limit at 0.20 lb/mmBtu rather than 0.19 lb/
mmBtu was GVEA's analysis of 5 years of 30 day rolling average 
NOX and SO2 emissions from Unit 1. Based on this 
data, the State determined that the small increase would appropriately 
allow for operational flexibility. 77 FR 11034, February 24, 2012. EPA 
found that a 5% increase in NOX emissions over the 0.19 lb/
mmBtu achievable with SNCR, to allow for operational variability of 
Healy Unit 1, is reasonable and EPA has decided that the State's 
determination to set the NOX limit at 0.20 lb/mmBtu is 
approvable.
    Comment: The comment states that ROFA would achieve a 0.66 dv 
incremental visibility improvement over the improvement associated with 
SNCR at Healy 1. EPA cannot dismiss a cost-effective improvement 
greater than the improvement it proposes to accept. Also, EPA 
improperly rejected ROFA with Rotamix as BART based on an unclear 
relationship between NOX and CO, CO2 and PM 
emissions.
    Response: EPA disagrees with the comment regarding the incremental 
visibility improvement between SNCR and ROFA. The SIP submittal 
indicates that the incremental visibility improvement expected to 
result from ROFA compared to SNCR would only be 0.049 dv, and ROFA with 
Rotamix compared to SNCR to be just 0.116 dv. See Table 8-1 of Appendix 
III.K.6 of the SIP submittal. EPA regards the small incremental 
visibility improvements from ROFA or ROFA with Rotamix as insufficient 
to justify the increased cost of either technology, regardless of the 
risk of additional collateral pollutant (CO, CO2, and PM) 
emission increases.
    Comment: GVEA agrees with Alaska and EPA that the BART process 
results in an emissions limit for NOX based on the limit 
that can be achieved with SNCR, and that SCR would not be cost 
effective.
    Response: As explained above, the State's conclusion regarding the 
BART limit for Healy Unit 1 is reasonable. In this action EPA is 
approving Alaska's determination that the NOX BART emission 
limit for Healy Unit 1 is 0.20 lb/mmBtu.
    Comment: EPA proposed that the current sulfur dioxide emissions 
limit of 0.30 lb/mmBtu is BART. EPA erroneously rejected optimization 
of the DSI system, which could achieve a 0.18 lb/mmBtu emission limit. 
This lower emissions limit would result in significant reduction in 
sulfur dioxide emissions and greatly improve visibility at Denali. EPA 
found that DSI optimization is cost-effective; however, it rejected 
this more stringent limit based on its concerns about a ``brown plume'' 
effect. The commenter further asserts there is no demonstration that 
the rapid conversion to NO2 nearer the source will make any 
difference to the visibility in Denali. It is improper for EPA to 
dismiss this control possibility based on anecdotal evidence, which is 
not even linked to plant-specific characteristics present at Healy. The 
comment suggests that a short term pilot study be made part of the SIP 
to test the relationship between mercury emissions and sorbent 
injection rates.
    Response: For the reasons explained in the SIP submittal and 
summarized in the proposal, after considering all the BART factors, the 
State's BART analysis for SO2 at Healy Unit 1 found that the 
current DSI control technology with a limit of 0.30 lb/mmBtu is BART 
for SO2. The State's analysis found that increased sorbent 
injection, at a cost of $3578/ton of SO2 removed would 
result in a potential visibility improvement of 0.25 dv but could also 
cause a visibility impairing brown plume which would interfere with 
rather than improve visibility in the nearby Denali National Park. EPA 
does not consider this

[[Page 10550]]

amount of potential improvement in visibility achievable by optimizing 
the existing DSI system when coupled with the potential for brown plume 
to provide sufficient basis to disapprove the State's SO2 
BART determination for Healy Unit 1.
    The State retains the ability to consider requiring a pilot study 
in the future. The results of such a study, along with available 
information to better evaluate the potential for brown plume, could be 
used to further evaluate optimizing DSI as potential control technology 
when the State evaluates reasonable progress in the next planning 
period for regional haze. The other SO2 control options 
analyzed, a spray dryer and wet limestone flue gas desulfurization, 
were considered not cost effective. See 77 FR 11034, February 24, 2012. 
Given these considerations, EPA has decided that the State's 
SO2 BART determination for Healy Unit 1 is reasonable.
    Comment: One commenter suggested that the effectiveness of a Lime 
Spray Dryer (LSD) was underestimated and recommended that EPA require 
GVEA to evaluate the LSD SO2 treatment technology with plume 
reheat to see if the efficiency of the existing DSI system can be 
increased.
    Response: EPA does not believe this further analysis is required. 
Plume reheat would require additional fuel combustion. This would 
increase CO2 emissions and add to the costs of a wet scrubbing control 
system.

B. Comments Related to the State's Reasonable Progress Demonstration 
and Healy Unit 2

    A number of comments were received regarding the State's analysis 
of future sources that may impact visibility in Denali National Park. 
The commenters were particularly concerned with the emissions 
associated with Healy Unit 2 and contend its emissions should have been 
included in the State's reasonable progress and long term strategy 
analysis and determinations.
    Comment: Commenters claim that, in general, the SIP does little to 
address additional emissions that are reasonably foreseeable. A number 
of industrial developments are currently moving forward in the Denali 
region, and are not even mentioned in Alaska's SIP. At a minimum, the 
SIP should address how it will deal with future emissions and 
construction activities occurring prior to the SIP's next review phase 
that would affect Denali's Class I Airshed. The commenters state that 
it is not prudent to delay this planning to the future.
    Response: Contrary to the comments, the State in its SIP did 
account for future growth in emissions from industrial sources through 
2018 by considering and evaluating population growth factors. The State 
used population projections compiled by the Alaska Department of Labor 
and Workforce Development (DOLWD) at five-year intervals through 2030 
by individual borough and census areas to grow 2002 baseline activity 
to 2018 for most of the source categories. In addition, emission 
factors specific to calendar year 2018 were also developed for 
stationary point sources affected by regulatory control programs and 
technology improvements. The SIP submittal does not consider emissions 
from specific industrial projects that are planned for the future, or 
permitted point sources that are not currently operating but which may 
be in operation in 2018. Emissions from any such point sources will be 
considered and evaluated in future updates to the Alaska Regional Haze 
plan as they come into operation. A full description of the emission 
sources included in the 2018 projected inventory can be found in 
section III.K.5 of the SIP submittal.
    Comment: Multiple commenters claim that the failure to account for 
emissions from Healy Unit 2 results in an inaccurate conclusion that 
the State is on the ``glide path'' to achieving its reasonable progress 
goals. Alaska failed to include Healy Unit 2 in its reasonable progress 
analysis, a facility which is projected to come on line in the near 
term, and that because Unit 2 is in the same footprint as Healy Unit 1 
its emissions may prevent reasonable progress at Denali. The commenters 
assert that EPA must issue adequate emission limits for Healy Unit 2 to 
ensure reasonable progress not be thwarted by anticipated haze causing 
emissions.
    Response: EPA recognizes that the Alaska Regional Haze SIP 
submittal does not address future emissions from Healy Unit 2 and that 
if, or when, it begins operating its emissions could influence Alaska's 
ability to achieve their reasonable progress goals. As explained above, 
Healy Unit 2, was originally permitted in 1994, operated briefly for 
testing in the late 1990's and has not operated at all since December 
1999. It is a 50 MW non-BART unit. Unit 2 was not operating during the 
baseline period and its emissions were not included in the State's 
baseline emissions inventory. Recently, as further explained in the 
proposal, ADEC issued a renewed Title 5 permit to GVEA allowing future 
operation at Unit 2. However its future emissions have not been modeled 
and its potential visibility impact have not been determined at this 
time. 77 FR 11036, February 24, 2012. The Unit is still not operating. 
In the proposal, EPA indicated that it would consider additional 
relevant information it receives during public comment period regarding 
the emissions or visibility impact of this source as it relates to 
Alaska's reasonable progress goals. We did not receive additional 
specific information regarding Healy Unit 2 emissions or its future 
visibility impacts. The potential emissions for Healy Unit 2 have not 
been modeled therefore we cannot accurately assess the Unit's potential 
future visibility impacts.
    In its SIP submittal, should Unit 2 be restarted, Alaska has 
committed to reassess the need for further control on the source during 
the five-year review to determine whether additional emission 
reductions would improve visibility in Class I areas in the next 
planning period. Thus, more specifically, in order to determine the 
affect of any such emissions from Healy Unit 2 on the glide path, the 
State will need to assess its emissions in future reasonable progress 
evaluations conducted pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(g).
    Additionally, EPA notes that the U.S. v. GVEA and AIDEA consent 
decree acknowledges that the anticipated operation of Unit 2 could be 
viewed as the operation of a new source and imposes additional 
enforceable requirements on Unit 2 that go beyond the Regional Haze SIP 
requirements. As described more fully above, pursuant to the consent 
decree, GVEA is subject to SCR installation requirements, strict 
NOX emission limits and associated monitoring recordkeeping 
and reporting requirements. Additionally, the consent decree 
establishes declining NOX emission limitations for both Unit 
1 and Unit 2. Its emissions will be well controlled. It is unlikely 
that even if the State were to include the future emissions from Healy 
Unit 2 in its reasonable progress analysis that controls beyond those 
required under the consent decree would be necessary under the 
reasonable progress provisions in the regional haze rule.
    In consideration of a number of factors including the current non-
operational status of Healy Unit 2, the uncertainty of its future 
emissions, the State's commitment to assess its emissions during the 5-
year review and the enforceable terms and conditions in the U.S. v. 
GVEA and AIDEA consent decree, EPA approves Alaska's treatment of Healy 
Unit 2 in its reasonable progress determination as proposed.

[[Page 10551]]

    Comment: GVEA agrees with Alaska and EPA that the exact amount of 
impact from any operation of Healy Unit 2 cannot be determined at this 
time and that it is not reasonable to require additional controls on 
Healy Unit 2. However, GVEA does not agree with the State's assumption 
that it will necessarily have to ``consider'' Healy Unit 2 in its 
reasonable progress evaluation.
    Response: As explained above, Alaska has committed to assess 
emissions from Healy Unit 2 in the reasonable progress evaluation in 
its 5-year assessment and in its 2018 Regional Haze SIP submittal. 
Given the location of Healy Unit 2, EPA believes that Alaska's 
commitment is not only appropriate but is necessary to ensure 
reasonable progress. EPA is approving Alaska's treatment of Healy Unit 
2 in its reasonable progress determination as proposed.
    Comment: Alaska's LTS fails to satisfy obligations under the 
Regional Haze Rule toward achieving natural visibility conditions at 
Denali. The Clean Air Act requires states to submit implementation 
plans that ``contain such emission limits, schedules of compliance and 
other measures as may be necessary to make reasonable progress toward 
meeting the national goal'' of achieving natural visibility conditions 
at all Class I Areas.
    Response: In developing a LTS, the Regional Haze Rule requires that 
states address six topics: (1) Ongoing Air Pollution Control Programs, 
(2) Measures to Mitigate Impacts of Construction Activities, (3) 
Emission Limitations and Schedules for Compliance, (4) Source 
Retirement and Replacement Schedules, (5) Smoke Management Techniques 
for Agricultural and Forestry Burning, and (6) Enforceability of 
Emission Limitations and Control Measures. In its proposed rulemaking, 
EPA found that the Alaska Regional Haze SIP submittal adequately 
addressed all six topics, and proposed to find that the LTS as a whole 
provided sufficient measures to ensure that Alaska will meet its 
emission reduction obligations.
    According to ADEC's reasonable progress analysis, there is no 
statistically significant difference between the visibility improvement 
predicted by the Weighted Emission Potential (WEP) analysis for 2018 
and the 2018 visibility target needed to achieve the uniform rate of 
progress (URP) to meet natural visibility conditions by 2064 for each 
Alaska Class I area. ADEC reached this conclusion by showing that the 
WEP results for 2018 fall within the 95 percent confidence limits of 
the 2018 visibility goal for each Class I area. See Section 9.E of the 
SIP submission. EPA believes that the reasonable progress goals 
established by Alaska for its Class I areas are reasonable. EPA finds 
that controls identified in the submittal, including the elements 
identified in the LTS portion of the Alaska Regional Haze SIP, along 
with additional controls on Healy Unit 2 required as a result of the 
consent decree, will provide reasonable progress towards attaining the 
goal of achieving natural visibility conditions in Alaska's Class I 
areas by 2064.

C. General Comments Regarding Visibility and Air Quality in Alaska

    EPA also received a number of general comments on a range of topics 
including the purpose of the Clean Air Act, the need to protect the 
visibility in Denali National Park, the impact of pollution on public 
health, the importance of visibility to tourism in Alaska, motoring 
techniques and coal combustion and other generalized concerns or 
comments.
    Comment: EPA received numerous comments asking EPA to ensure clean 
air in Denali National Park, Fairbanks, Anchorage, and throughout the 
region, and asking EPA to strengthen Alaska's regional haze plan.
    Response: EPA's final action in this rulemaking to approve Alaska's 
Regional Haze SIP will result in cleaner air in Denali National Park 
and throughout the region by placing stricter emission limits on 
sources that contribute to regional haze. The objective of the regional 
haze program is to improve and protect visibility in national parks and 
wilderness areas through successive 10-year regional haze plans 
developed by the states. The Alaska Regional Haze plan, as approved in 
this action, establishes emission limits, through BART. For instance, 
Healy Unit 1 will have new NOx emission limits that are expected to 
result in a significant improvement in visibility in Denali National 
Park. The combined effect of all of the elements in the State's long 
term strategy that were described in the NPR, including the emission 
limits established for Healy, will result in improved visibility in 
Denali National Park, and cleaner air throughout the region.
    Comment: EPA received numerous comments on the health effects, 
primarily asthma, that are associated with air pollution, and urged EPA 
to place tighter controls on sources of air pollution in Alaska.
    Response: We appreciate the commenters' concerns regarding the 
potential adverse health effects of air pollution. We agree that the 
same emissions that cause visibility impairment can also cause 
respiratory problems, such as decreased lung function, aggravated 
asthma, and bronchitis. Although our action addresses visibility 
impairment, we note that there is the potential for improvements in 
human health through reductions in regional concentrations of 
visibility impairing pollutants.
    Comment: We received a few comments saying that the purpose of the 
Clean Air Act is to protect our nation's air quality, especially at 
special places like Denali, the only national park in Alaska classified 
as a Class 1 area. These comments urged EPA not to allow air quality to 
degrade in the Denali National Park Class I area. We also received 
comments urging EPA to preserve the views at Denali National Park, and 
to ensure that tourism to pristine areas in Alaska is not adversely 
impacted by regional haze. Additional comments were submitted stating 
that Healy Units 1 and 2 are less than five miles from Denali, and are 
not being required to reduce emission enough to significantly decrease 
their visibility impacts on the park. These comments stated that modern 
and effective controls should be required to stem the haze pollution 
from Healy Unit 1 and Unit 2.
    Response: EPA agrees that it is important to reduce the visibility 
and health impacts from man-made pollution at the Federal Class I 
Areas, such as Denali National Park. EPA's approval of Alaska's 
Regional Haze SIP will result in significant reductions in emissions 
and improvement in visibility in the State. This represents only the 
first step towards meeting the national goal of natural conditions in 
federal Class I Areas. The State's actions being approved in this 
rulemaking are the first in a series of actions that will be taken over 
the next several decades to improve visibility in Alaska Class I areas.
    EPA also recognizes the role that protecting visibility in national 
parks and wilderness areas in Alaska has to tourism throughout the 
state. Reducing regional haze will help ensure that views in these 
parks and wilderness areas are preserved, and will continue to support 
tourism. We also appreciate the concern regarding Healy's proximity to 
Denali National Park. With approval of the State's BART determination 
for Healy, and as a result of the enforceable terms and conditions in 
the U.S. v. GVEA and AIDEA consent decree, the facility will be subject 
to modern and effective pollution control requirements and its 
emissions will be reduced. Additionally, the State will continue to

[[Page 10552]]

assess its control strategies and visibility goals in future regional 
haze reviews. Additional more detailed responses to comments regarding 
controls on the Healy Power Plant are addressed above.
    Comment: We received a comment regarding the Denali IMPROVE 
monitoring site. The commenter stated that while it appears that the 
Alaska Regional Haze SIP submittal equally considers data from both the 
Denali Headquarters and Trapper Creek monitoring sites, it does not 
explicitly state that this is the case. The SIP submittal describes the 
Denali Headquarters IMPROVE site as now a ``protocol site'' but does 
not define the difference between a protocol and primary site, or 
whether data from a primary site would be given preference over a 
protocol site. Monitoring pollutants affecting visibility in Denali 
should not only consider pollutant information south of the Alaska 
Range, but pollutants from nearby major sources such as the Healy Power 
Plant, and sources in the Fairbanks area and both sites should be given 
equal consideration in the future.
    Response: According to the information on the national IMPROVE Web 
site (http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/improve/Overview/IMPROVENetworkExp.htm), the Denali Headquarters site was designated as 
the ``IMPROVE'' site, and the Trapper Creek site was designated as a 
``protocol'' site when the IMPROVE network was expanded in 2002. EPA 
agrees with these designations, and also agrees that data from both the 
Denali Headquarters site and the Trapper Creek site should be used by 
Alaska to determine future progress toward visibility improvement goals 
in Denali National Park.
    Comment: One commenter recommended that a more refined, receptor-
by-receptor modeling analysis be conducted throughout Denali National 
Park to determine if visibility improvements greater than those 
predicted by GVEA for the Healy Unit 1 would be found.
    Response: GVEA used the CALPUFF model to estimate the visibility 
impacts of Healy Unit 1 on Denali National Park. Alaska found that the 
CALPUFF modeling methods and related model input options used by GVEA 
were consistent with the WRAP CALPUFF modeling protocol and related 
BART guidance. The receptors used in the CALPUFF modeling were placed 
at uniform receptor spacing along the boundary and in the interior of 
Denali National Park, and were based on the National Park Service 
database for Class I area modeling receptors, found at: (http://www2.nature.nps.gov/air/maps/Receptors/index.cfm).
    EPA believes that the modeling approach taken to determine 
visibility impacts from Healy Unit 1 is consistent with the BART 
modeling guidance and does not believe that including additional 
receptors in the CALPUFF modeling runs would have identified any 
greater visibility improvements for any given emission limits than 
those identified in the GVEA modeling results.
    Comment: GVEA commented regarding the contributions from wildfires 
and out of State sources and supported the finding that natural 
wildfires inside Alaska are the primary contributors to regional haze 
at Denali National Park. GVEA also submits that the sources outside and 
upwind of Alaska are significant contributors to visibility impairment, 
and if visibility is not improving as planned, the monitoring data 
should be evaluated to quantify not only the impacts from natural 
wildfires, but from the out-of-state, upwind air pollution as well.
    Response: The Alaska Regional Haze SIP submittal identifies organic 
carbon emissions from natural wildfires as the primary contributor to 
visibility impairment on the 20% worst days in Denali National Park. 
More specifically, the WEP analysis used by Alaska found that 
approximately 97% of the fine particulates causing visibility 
impairment on the 20% worst days in Denali National Park were composed 
of organic carbon from natural fires. Alaska will also review 
monitoring data prior to the five-year SIP update to determine progress 
towards the 2018 visibility goals in each Class I area. Alaska may 
decide at that time if additional source controls are necessary to 
achieve the 2018 goals. In addition, Alaska will undertake a 
comprehensive review of control strategies and visibility goals every 
10 years. These subsequent reviews will evaluate whether this 
assessment of the dominance of fire continues to be the case.
    Comment: EPA received numerous comments that emissions from coal 
combustion have impacts on visibility, human health, salmon, and 
climate change through emissions of carbon dioxide. The comments urged 
EPA to hold Alaska coal combustion sources, particularly utilities, to 
the highest emission standards with the most modern pollution control 
technology.
    Response: The primary emission control action pertaining to coal-
fired power plants taken in this final action is to establish BART 
emission limits on Healy Unit 1. The emission reductions achieved 
through BART for Healy Unit 1 will result in a decrease of nitrogen 
oxides emissions from 0.28 lb/mmBtu to 0.20 lb/mmBtu. Additionally it 
is noteworthy that, additional reductions in NOx, SO2 and PM 
emissions will be achieved through the emission limits on Healy Unit 1 
and Unit 2 set forth in the US v. GVEA and AIDEA consent decree 
discussed above.
    Comment: A comment contends that it is unclear whether this SIP 
fully reviews and addresses all options for control of anthropogenic 
pollutants that impair visibility in Denali's Class I airshed. For 
example, while the SIP references coal combustion as a source of 
Organic Matter Carbon (OMC) and Elemental Carbon (EC), it attributes 
all OMC and EC in the Denali region to wildfires. Considering that OMC 
and EC are present year-round, it's unclear why the state has avoided 
mention of OMC and EC's relationship to the Healy Power Plant and 
combustion related to power generation and home heating in and near the 
Denali Borough. This SIP should acknowledge the presence of OMC and EC 
from anthropogenic sources in and near the Denali Borough (and within 
the state), and should consider methods to control OMC and EC 
pollutants related to anthropogenic sources.
    Response: As explained in the SIP submittal Chapter III.K.4 of the 
SIP, the major sources of OMC in Alaska are wildland fires (forest, 
wetland, and tundra) and biogenic aerosols produced by natural 
vegetation, and that wildfires in Alaska occur mostly during the May-
August fire season. The SIP submittal also states that in Alaska, 
severe wildfires create a significant amount of EC, and that there is 
significant amount of elemental carbon aerosols reaching the state from 
Asia and Europe. Chapter III.K.4 of the SIP submittal also explains 
that wildfire-related OMC is the largest contributor of fine 
particulates on the 20% worst days at the Denali IMPROVE sites, 
particularly during the spring and summer months. Table III.K.7-1 of 
the SIP summarizes the Weighted Emission Potential (WEP) analysis 
results from the top three boroughs for each pollutant on the 20% worst 
days in Denali. This table shows that approximately 97% of the fine 
particulates (which includes particulates composed of OMC and EC) on 
the 20% worst visibility days at Denali National Park are due to 
natural fires in the Yukon Koyukuk, Southeast Fairbanks, and the 
Fairbanks North Star boroughs. The WEP analysis used by Alaska was 
developed by the WRAP as a screening tool for states to decide which 
source regions have the potential

[[Page 10553]]

to contribute to haze formation at specific Class I areas. This method 
does not account for chemistry and removal processes in the atmosphere. 
Instead, the WEP analysis relies on an integration of gridded emissions 
data, meteorological back trajectory residence time data, a one-over-
distance factor to approximate deposition and dispersion, and a 
normalization of the final results. The gridded emission data used by 
Alaska was consolidated into the following sources categories: 
Commercial marine vessels, natural fires, non-road mobile, on-road 
mobile, point, and stationary area sources. Therefore, the WEP analysis 
identified the OMC and EC contribution from the above man-made source 
categories, but was not able to determine the contribution of any 
single point source, such as the Healy Power Plant, or a subcategory of 
an area source, such as home heating sources. So while the SIP 
submission does not specifically identify the contribution of coal-
combustion sources to visibility impairment in Denali National Park, it 
does demonstrate that wildfires are the major source of 
PM2.5 in the State, that wildfires have the greatest 
potential to impact visibility in Denali, and that wildfires are the 
major source of OMC on the worst visibility days in Denali National 
Park. Alaska may choose to use a more sophisticated chemical-speciation 
tracer analysis, such as the PM Source Apportionment Technology (PSAT) 
analysis developed by the WRAP (see the WRAP TSD, Chapter 6A), in the 
future to determine the contributions from specific point sources or 
subcategories of sources.
    Comment: There were a few comments on topics not related to the 
proposal. These included comments regarding the regulation of mining 
activities in Alaska and mercury monitoring in Alaska.
    Response: These comments may be important topics for discussion but 
they are not related to the proposed action.
    Comment: We also received a comment urging the use of alternative 
forms of energy, such as reducing emissions from motor vehicles by 
shifting to alcohol fuels.
    Response: The State has the option of pursuing cleaner forms of 
alternative energy to reduce emissions that cause regional haze in its 
Class I areas. Alaska decided not to implement the use of renewable 
energy in this Regional Haze SIP but may chose to do so in future SIPs.
    Comment: ADEC commented that it appreciates EPA's thorough review 
of the Regional Haze SIP submittal and supports EPA's action to approve 
the plan and encouraged EPA to finalize its approval of the Alaska 
Regional Haze SIP as meeting the requirements of the Clean Air Act, 
Sections 169A and 169B, and the federal Regulations at 40 CFR 51.308.
    Response: EPA appreciates this comment supporting our proposed 
action.

III. Final Action

    EPA is approving the Alaska Regional Haze plan, submitted on April 
4, 2011, as meeting the requirements set forth in sections 169A and 
169B of the Act and in 40 CFR 51.308 regarding Regional Haze. In this 
action, EPA is approving all provisions of Alaska's Regional Haze SIP 
submission, including the requirements for the calculation of baseline 
and natural visibility conditions, statewide inventory of visibility-
impairing pollutants, best available retrofit technology (BART), 
Reasonable Progress Goals (RPGs), and Long-Term Strategy (LTS). 
Additionally, EPA is approving the Alaska Department of Environmental 
Conservation Best Available Retrofit Technology regulations at 18 AAC 
50.260, and amendments to 18 AAC 50.030 which adopts by reference 
Volume II, Section III.F. Open Burning; and Volume II, Section III.K. 
Area Wide Pollution Control Program for Regional Haze.

IV. Statutory and Executive Orders Review

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this 
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and therefore is not 
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this 
reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, 
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy 
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action 
merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes 
no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. 
Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities 
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because 
this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does 
not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by 
state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4).
    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as 
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), 
because the rule neither imposes substantial direct compliance costs on 
tribal governments, nor preempts tribal law. Therefore, the 
requirements of section 5(b) and 5(c) of the Executive Order do not 
apply to this rule. Consistent with EPA policy, EPA nonetheless 
provided a consultation opportunity to Tribes in Alaska located near 
the affected Class I areas in letters dated December 30, 2011. EPA 
received no requests for consultation in response to these letters.
    This action also does not have Federalism implications because it 
does not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the 
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the 
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of 
government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 
10, 1999). This action merely approves a state rule implementing a 
Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the 
distribution of power and responsibilities established in the CAA. This 
rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 ``Protection of 
Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997), because it approves a state rule implementing a 
Federal standard.
    In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state 
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. In this 
context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State 
to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to 
disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be 
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP 
submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise 
satisfies the provisions of the CAA. Thus, the requirements of section 
12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 
(15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule does not impose an 
information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork 
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. section 801 et seq., as 
added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 
1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency 
promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy 
of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller 
General of the United States. EPA will submit a report

[[Page 10554]]

containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, 
the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the 
United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. 
A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in 
the Federal Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 
5 U.S.C. section 804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review 
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for 
the appropriate circuit by April 15, 2013. Filing a petition for 
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect 
the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does 
it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be 
filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. 
This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its 
requirements. (See section 307(b)(2))

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by 
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate 
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, 
Visibility, and Volatile organic compounds.

     Dated: November 15, 2012.
Dennis J. McLerran,
Regional Administrator, Region 10.
    Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is 
amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for Part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart C--Alaska

0
2. Section 52.70 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(41) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  52.70  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (41) On April 4, 2011, the Alaska Department of Environmental 
Conservation submitted a SIP revision to meet the regional haze 
requirements of Clean Air Act sections 169A and 169B, and Federal 
Regulations 40 CFR 51.308, to implement a regional haze program in the 
State of Alaska for the first planning period through July 31, 2018.
    (i) Incorporation by reference.
    (A) The following revised section of the Alaska Administrative 
Rules: Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, 18 AAC 50.260, 
``Guidelines for Best Available Retrofit Technology under the Regional 
Haze Rule'', state effective date December 30, 2007.
    (ii) Additional material.
    (A) The following section of ADEC's air quality control 
regulations: 18 AAC 50.030 State Air Quality Control Plan; state 
effective date February 11, 2011; Volume II, Section III. F. Open 
Burning; and Volume II, Section III. K. Area Wide Pollution Control 
Program for Regional Haze.

0
3. Section 52.73 is amended by adding paragraph (g) to read as follows:


Sec.  52.73  Approval of plans.

* * * * *
    (g) Visibility protection. (1) EPA approves the Regional Haze SIP 
revision submitted by the Alaska Department of Environmental 
Conservation on April 4, 2011, as meeting the requirements of Clean Air 
Act sections 169A and 169B, and Federal Regulations 40 CFR 51.308 to 
implement a regional haze program in the State of Alaska for the first 
planning period through July 31, 2018.
    (2) [Reserved]

[FR Doc. 2013-03329 Filed 2-13-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P