[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 33 (Friday, February 16, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 7002-7007]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-03269]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R10-OAR-2016-0749; FRL-9974-59--Region 10]


Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans; Alaska; 
Regional Haze Progress Report

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to 
approve a revision to the Alaska Regional Haze State Implementation 
Plan (SIP), submitted by the State of Alaska on March 10, 2016. Alaska 
submitted its Regional Haze Progress Report (``progress report'' or 
``report'') and a negative declaration stating that further revision of 
the existing regional haze SIP is not needed at this time. Alaska 
submitted both the progress report and the negative declaration in the 
form of implementation plan revisions as required by federal 
regulations. The progress report addresses the federal Regional Haze 
Rule (RHR) requirements under the Clean Air Act (CAA) to submit a 
report describing progress in achieving reasonable progress goals 
(RPGs) established for regional haze and a determination of the 
adequacy of the state's existing plan addressing regional haze. We are 
also proposing to approve minor updates to the Enhanced Smoke 
Management Plan, Long-Term Strategy, and Commitment to Future 308 Plan 
Revision sections of the regional haze SIP, submitted concurrently with 
the progress report.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 19, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R10-
OAR-2016-0749 at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot 
be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any 
comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any 
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) 
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a 
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment 
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA 
will generally not consider comments or comment contents located 
outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other 
file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA 
public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, 
and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeff Hunt, Air Planning Unit, Office 
of Air and Waste (OAW-150), Environmental Protection Agency--Region 10, 
1200 Sixth Ave., Seattle, WA 98101; telephone number: (206) 553-0256, 
email address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,'' 
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, it is intended to refer to the EPA.

I. Background

    Alaska submitted its initial regional haze SIP to the EPA on March 
29, 2011, for the first regional haze planning period ending in 2018, 
which the EPA approved on February 14, 2013.\1\ Five years after 
submittal of the initial regional haze plan, states are required to 
submit progress reports that evaluate progress towards the RPGs for 
each mandatory Class I Federal area \2\ (Class I area) within the state 
and in each Class I area outside the state which may be affected by 
emissions from within the state. 40 CFR 51.308(g). States are also 
required to submit, at the same time as the progress report, a 
determination of the adequacy of the state's existing regional haze 
plan. 40 CFR 51.308(h). On March 10, 2016, the Alaska Department of 
Environmental Conservation (ADEC) submitted as a SIP revision a report 
on the progress made in the first implementation period towards the 
RPGs for Class I areas. EPA is proposing to approve Alaska's progress 
report on the basis that it satisfies the requirements of 40 CFR 
51.308. We also propose to find that Alaska's progress report 
demonstrates that the state's long-term strategy and emission control 
measures in the existing regional haze SIP are sufficient to enable 
Alaska to meet all established RPGs for 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See 78 FR 10546.
    \2\ 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)). 
Listed at 40 CFR part 81 subpart D.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Context for Understanding Alaska's Progress Report

    To facilitate a better understanding of Alaska's progress report as 
well as the EPA's evaluation of it, this section provides background on 
the regional haze program in Alaska.

A. Framework for Measuring Progress

    The EPA has established a metric for determining visibility 
conditions at Class I areas referred to as the ``deciview index,'' 
which is measured in deciviews, as defined in 40 CFR 51.301. The 
deciview index is calculated using monitoring data collected from the 
Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE) 
network monitors. Alaska has four Class I areas within its borders: 
Denali National Park and Preserve, Tuxedni National Wildlife Refuge, 
Simeonof Wilderness Area, and the Bering Sea Wilderness Area. In 
developing its initial regional haze SIP, Alaska determined, and the 
EPA in its approval agreed, that due to lack of proximity to other 
states, visibility in Alaska's Class I areas is not affected by 
emission

[[Page 7003]]

sources in other states. Likewise, Alaska determined, and the EPA 
agreed, that emission sources in Alaska do not affect visibility in 
Class I areas in other states. Therefore, Alaska's progress report does 
not address visibility impacts from sources in other states or the 
visibility impact of Alaska sources on Class I areas in other states.
    Under the RHR, a state's initial regional haze SIP must establish 
two RPGs for each of its Class I areas: One for the 20 percent least 
impaired days and one for the 20 percent most impaired days. The RPGs 
must provide for an improvement in visibility on the 20 percent most 
impaired days and ensure no degradation in visibility on the 20 percent 
least impaired days, as compared to visibility conditions during the 
baseline period. In establishing the RPGs, a state must consider the 
uniform rate of visibility improvement from the baseline to natural 
conditions in 2064 and the emission reductions measures needed to 
achieve it. Alaska set the RPGs for the Denali, Tuxedni, and Simeonof 
Class I areas. In setting the RPGs for these three Class I areas, 
Alaska used atmospheric air quality modeling based on projected 
emission reductions from control strategies in Alaska's regional haze 
SIP, as well as emission reductions expected to result from other 
federal, state and local air quality programs.
    Alaska's fourth Class I area, the Bering Sea Wilderness Area, is 
extremely remote, with no IMPROVE monitoring site. Therefore, no RPG 
was established for this area in Alaska's regional haze SIP, and 
Alaska's progress report does not address visibility progress in this 
area.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ As explained in the EPA's proposed rule to approve Alaska's 
RH SIP on February 24, 2012, the Bering Sea Wilderness Area is 350 
miles southwest of Nome, Alaska and dominated by a harsh 
environment. There is no electricity in the Wilderness Area and the 
nearest major stationary sources are located hundreds of miles away. 
Accordingly, establishing and maintaining an IMPROVE monitoring site 
in the area is unnecessary and impractical. 77 FR 11022, 11028.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Data Sources for Alaska's Progress Report

    Alaska relied on the Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP) 
technical data and analyses in a report titled ``Western Regional Air 
Partnership Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Summary Report'' 
(WRAP Report), dated June 28, 2013, included as an appendix in the 
progress report. The WRAP Report analyzes monitoring data collected in 
Alaska during the 2005-2009 period, and relies on emission data 
reported to the EPA's National Emissions Inventory (NEI) for 2008. 
Alaska then supplemented the information in the WRAP report with more 
current 2009-2013 visibility data for its Class I areas as part of the 
progress report adopted by the state in 2015.

III. The EPA's Evaluation of Alaska's Progress Report

    This section describes the contents of Alaska's progress report and 
the EPA's evaluation of the report, as well as the EPA's evaluation of 
the determination of adequacy required by 40 CFR 51.308(h) and the 
requirement for state and Federal Land Manager coordination in 40 CFR 
51.308(i).

A. Status of Implementation of All Measures Included in the Regional 
Haze SIP

    In its progress report, Alaska provides a description of the 
control measures in the state's regional haze SIP that the state relied 
on to implement the regional haze program. According to the progress 
report, Alaska relied in its regional haze SIP upon, among other 
things, Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) controls, its 
Prevention of Significant Deterioration/New Source Review permitting 
program, and its smoke management programs for agricultural and 
forestry burning to achieve the reasonable progress goals it 
established for its Class I areas. Alaska included a description of 
these programs in the progress report, which are summarized below.
1. BART-Level Controls
    Alaska's regional haze SIP imposed BART-level controls on one 
source, the Golden Valley Electric Association's (GVEA) Healy Power 
Plant, Unit 1. The Healy Power Plant consists of two power generating 
units. Unit 1 is a nominal 25 megawatt (MW) coal-fired electric 
generating unit. The EPA approved the state's BART determination for 
this unit when we approved the Alaska regional haze SIP. Alaska 
determined that BART for Unit 1 included installation of Selective Non 
Catalytic Reduction (SNCR) to reduce nitrogen oxide (NOX) 
emissions. Accordingly, GVEA installed SNCR on Unit 1 in August of 
2016. Unit 2, also referred to as the Healy Clean Coal Project, is a 
nominal 50 MW coal-fired electric generating unit not subject to 
BART.\4\ At the time of Alaska's regional haze SIP submittal, Unit 2 
had not operated since test runs were completed in the late 1990's. 
GVEA started burning coal at Unit 2 in August 2015; however, Unit 2 
ceased operation due to operational problems in March 2016 and then 
again a few days after a startup attempt in November 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 78 FR 10546, February 14, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On November 19, 2012, the United States and GVEA entered into a 
consent decree that specifies conditions on Unit 1 and Unit 2 at the 
Healy Power Plant, separate from the BART-level controls required by 
Alaska's regional haze SIP.\5\ In particular, by December 31, 2022, 
GVEA must elect to either permanently retire Unit 1 by December 31, 
2024, or install Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) on that unit to 
further reduce NOX emissions and begin operation of SCR by 
no later than December 31, 2024. In addition, the November 19, 2012, 
decree required GVEA to install SCR on Unit 2 by the later of September 
30, 2015, or 24 months after it first fires coal, and to comply with 
specified emission limits. On August 8, 2017, the United States and 
GVEA filed amendments to the Consent Decree that require GVEA to 
install SCR on Unit 2 no later than 120 unit operating days after 
restart.\6\ In its progress report, Alaska provided an assessment of, 
among other things, the emissions limits that will be achieved through 
installation of SCR on Unit 2 once it becomes operational.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ United States v. Golden Valley Electric Association, Inc. 
and Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority, Civ. No. 
4:12-cv-00025-RRB (D. Alaska).
    \6\ United States v. Golden Valley Electric Association, Inc., 
Civ. No. 4:12-cv-00025-RRB (D. Alaska).
    \7\ Appendix III.K10-38, Comment Section C2.d.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Major New Source Review (NSR)/Prevention of Significant 
Deterioration (PSD)
    Alaska's progress report states that a key regulatory program for 
addressing visibility impairment from new or modified industrial 
stationary sources is the state's Major New Source Review (NSR)/
Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) rule. According to 
Alaska, this rule protects visibility in Class I areas from impacts 
from new or modified major stationary sources. Alaska's regulations (18 
AAC 50 Article 3) and the Alaska SIP require visibility impact 
assessments and mitigation of emissions from new and modified major 
stationary sources through protection of air quality related values 
(AQRVs). AQRVs are scenic and environmentally related values that may 
be adversely affected by a change in air quality, including visibility, 
odor, noise, vegetation, and soils. These visibility requirements were 
approved by the EPA into the Alaska SIP in 1983.
3. Smoke Management
    In its regional haze SIP, Alaska predicted that implementation of 
more

[[Page 7004]]

effective smoke management techniques in its Enhanced Smoke Management 
Plan (ESMP) would mitigate impacts of planned prescribed burning on 
visibility in its Class I areas. ADEC developed and implemented an 
ESMP, and included this ESMP as part of the long-term strategy approved 
as part of the initial 2011 regional haze SIP. According to the 
progress report, Alaska continues to implement the ESMP to reduce the 
impact of prescribed burns on air quality. The progress report contains 
an assessment of the emissions reduced as a result of prescribed fires. 
Alaska concludes in the progress report that prescribed fires have 
reduced the emissions from the area burned to close to half of what 
they would have been if they had burned during a wildfire.
    Additionally, On June 3, 2015, the Alaska Wildfire Coordinating 
Group approved a routine 5-year update to the Alaska ESMP, which ADEC 
submitted as a SIP revision along with the progress report. The 2015 
revisions to the ESMP were generally minor in nature, such as updating 
the summary text to note the EPA's approval of the initial regional 
haze SIP and availability of additional electronic tools for submitting 
controlled burn applications developed since the original ESMP. The 
most substantive change to the ESMP was an update of Chapter 6.2 
``Public Notification and Exposure Reduction'' to reflect changes to 
Alaska's air quality episode and advisory regulations, which the EPA 
approved in a separate action on September 8, 2017 (82 FR 42457).
    Alaska also submitted a minor update to the long-term strategy, 
with two sentences edited to reflect adoption of the revised ESMP in 
2015. The EPA is proposing to approve this set of minor revisions to 
the SIP.

B. Summary of Visibility Conditions

    In addition to the evaluation of control measures, Alaska 
documented in the progress report the differences between the 
visibility conditions during the baseline period (2000-2004), the first 
progress period (2005-2009), and the most current five year averaging 
period (2009-2013) available at the time Alaska adopted the progress 
report in 2015. As part of our review, the EPA supplemented this 
information with current 2012-2016 data, as shown in Table 1.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See ``visibility data trends'' included in the docket.

                               Table 1--Alaska Class I Area Visibility Conditions on the 20% Most and Least Impaired Days
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                          First progress     Progress       Most recent        2018
                                                          Baseline (2002-  period (2005-   report update    data (2012-     Reasonable        Natural
                      Class I area                        2004) (dv) \9\    2009) (dv)      (2009-2013)     2016) (dv)     progress goal    conditions
                                                                                               (dv)                            (dv)            (dv)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
20% Most Impaired Days:
    Denali Headquarters.................................             9.9            10.6            10.2             9.2             9.3             7.3
    Trapper Creek (Denali)..............................            11.6            11.9            10.7            10.0            10.9             8.4
    Tuxedni.............................................            14.1            13.5            12.2          * 12.4            13.4            11.3
    Simeonof............................................            18.6            18.5            17.7            17.0            17.9            15.6
20% Least Impaired Days:
    Denali Headquarters.................................             2.4             2.4             2.5             2.3             2.4            1.77
    Trapper Creek (Denali)..............................             3.5             3.9             3.8             3.4             3.5            2.71
    Tuxedni.............................................             4.0             4.1             3.9           * 3.8             4.0            3.15
    Simeonof............................................             7.6             8.0             7.9             7.5             7.6            5.28
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* 2015-16 data not available, see discussion below.

    Alaska's concluded that for the 20% most impaired days, five-year 
average visibility remained about the same at the Simeonof and Tuxedni 
sites for the first progress period (2005-2009) compared to baseline 
conditions, but improved for the 2009-2013 averaging period. At the 
Denali Headquarters site, the visibility decreased during the first 
progress period compared to the baseline period, but showed an 
improvement in visibility for the 2009-2013 period. This improvement 
continued in the 2012-2016 period with the Denali Headquarters site now 
meeting the 2018 RPG. The Trapper Creek site showed a small visibility 
decrease during the first progress period compared to baseline 
conditions, but a visibility improvement during the 2009-2013 and 2012-
2016 periods. Overall, visibility conditions for Denali Headquarters, 
Trapper Creek, Simeonof, and Tuxedni are all meeting 2018 RPGs for the 
20% most impaired days based on 2012-2016 data. Regarding the 
visibility conditions on the 20% least impaired days, the WRAP 
performed a statistical trends analysis for the period 2002-2009, with 
only the 2005-2009 Trapper Creek monitoring data showing a 
statistically significant increase from the baseline.\10\ The most 
current 2012-2016 data shows all monitors meeting the 2018 RPGs for the 
20% least impaired days.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ For several Alaska Class I area sites, monitoring began in 
late 2001; therefore, only three complete years of monitoring data, 
2002-2004, define their baselines. See page III.K.4-2 of the 2011 
regional haze SIP.
    \10\ Using an 85% confidence interval. Please see the WRAP 
supporting documentation included as Appendix D of the progress 
report for a full site by site analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regarding visibility monitoring, Alaska intends to continue relying 
on the IMPROVE network sites that represent the state's Class I areas 
for complying with the monitoring requirement in the RHR. As described 
in the progress report, the Tuxedni monitor discontinued operation in 
December 2014, when the property owner and site operator notified the 
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service that he would no longer be able to 
service the site. The progress report also noted efforts by the U.S. 
National Park Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to establish a 
new site across the Cook Inlet, which they succeeded in doing roughly 3 
miles south of the community of Ninilchik.\11\ EPA finds that Alaska 
has adequately reviewed its visibility monitoring strategy, and 
proposes to determine that the strategy meets the regulatory 
requirements and that no modifications to the monitoring strategy are 
needed at this time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See 2016 Air Quality Monitoring Plan, included in the 
docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Summary of Emissions Reductions

    Alaska's progress report summarizes the emissions reductions 
attributable to anthropogenic sources and attributable to managing 
wildfire emissions. Regarding anthropogenic sources, the progress 
report summarizes reductions

[[Page 7005]]

in sulfur dioxide (SO2), NOX, and 
PM2.5 emissions from implementation of the measures 
discussed above, as well as other emission reduction programs. 
Statewide anthropogenic NOX and SO2 emissions 
showed a downward trend between 2008 and 2013. These reductions, 
according to the progress report, are primarily attributable to (1) 
replacement of electric generating units, and (2) federal motor vehicle 
requirements.
    Regarding the replacement of electric generating units, Alaska 
concludes that some of the reductions in NOX and 
SO2 point source emissions during the 2009-2013 period and 
beyond resulted from electricity generation sources installing cleaner 
generation units. Over the last several years, power plant owners and 
operators in south central Alaska have brought new generation 
facilities online and are reducing their use of older, more polluting 
equipment; typically, these older units have become reserves. 
Specifically, Alaska described three recent, significant changes made 
to the electricity generation sector in south central Alaska:
     Anchorage Municipal Light and Power's George Sullivan 
Plant Two's unit 1, a gas turbine generator rated for 480 million 
British thermal units (BTU)/hour, was put into limited operation as a 
reserve unit, resulting in reduced emissions from this unit.
     Chugach Electric Association's Beluga plant's units 3 and 
5, both rated for 940 million BTU/hour, were put on reserve status, 
resulting in reduced emissions from these units.
     In 2014, Alaska Electricity and Energy Cooperative's 
Nikiski plant added a steamer unit to improve efficiency, reducing 
overall fuel requirements within the grid and thus reducing emissions 
from this plant.
    Overall, Alaska concluded that NOX emissions show a 
downward trend for the 2009-2013 period, from 43,896 to 41,930 tons per 
year. Similarly, the SO2 annual emissions generally 
decreased with the exception of 2009, when emissions were noticeably 
higher. Alaska concluded that the SO2 increase during 2009 
was primarily driven by operational changes at the North Pole Power 
Plant. The quantity of fuel combusted at this one power plant dropped 
by almost half from 2009 to 2010. Alaska also determined that over the 
same period, statewide PM10 emissions increased from 1,002 
to 1,115 tons per year.
    In addition, the progress report includes a discussion of control 
measures to attain and maintain the particulate matter national ambient 
air quality standards, such as wood smoke reduction programs for Eagle 
River, the Mendenhall Valley, and the Fairbanks North Star Borough. 
Current control measures in Fairbanks include an opacity limit and 
mandatory curtailment program for solid-fuel fired heating devices, 
emission standards for new wood-fired heating devices installed in the 
area, a requirement to burn only dry wood in wood heaters, a woodstove 
changeout program, a prohibition on open burning, and public education, 
among other requirements. Alaska noted in its progress report that 
these control measures could potentially reduce overall area source 
emissions inventories in the future.
    In addition to reductions of emissions from anthropogenic sources, 
the progress report describes emissions reductions attributable to 
wildfire management. Specifically, the report states that in recent 
years, prescribed fires have reduced the emissions from the area burned 
by close to half of what they would have been if they had burned during 
a wildfire. According to the progress report, over the period of 2007 
to 2013, hundreds of tons of PM2.5 emissions were averted by 
using prescribed burning to prevent wildfires.
    The progress report also contains an analysis tracking the change 
in statewide emissions between 2002 and 2008. The 2002 inventory was 
used in the development of the original Alaska regional haze SIP. At 
the time Alaska prepared the progress report, the 2008 inventory was 
the most recent year that complete emission inventories were available 
for the state. Alaska notes that the differences between the 2002 and 
2008 inventories for some source categories do not accurately reflect a 
change in emissions, as a number of methodology changes and 
enhancements have occurred between the developments of the individual 
inventories, as described in more detail below. Summaries from the 
progress report are included in Tables 2 and 3. A more detailed 
description of each inventory is provided in section 3.2.1 of Appendix 
A to the progress report.

                                             Table 2--Sulfur Dioxide, Nitrogen Oxides, and Ammonia Emissions
                                                                       [Tons/year]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        SO2                             NOX                           Ammonia
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               2002            2008            2002            2008            2002            2008
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point...................................................           6,813           5,039          74,471          68,564             580             178
Area....................................................           1,872           3,365          14,742          19,404               0             356
On-Road Mobile..........................................             324             490           7,077          15,696             307             230
Off-Road Mobile.........................................              49             395           4,111           3,387               8               7
Aviation................................................             335             (*)           3,265             (*)               6             (*)
Commercial Marine.......................................           4,979           5,180          11,258          24,370               5              11
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total Anthropogenic.................................        * 14,037        * 14,469       * 111,659       * 131,421           * 900           * 782
Fire....................................................          34,304           4,482         125,110          16,344          26,233           3,417
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Total...........................................        * 48,341        * 18,951       * 236,769       * 147,765        * 27,133         * 4,199
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Sums and differences do not include aviation emissions, as 2008 inventory totals were not available from this source for comparison purposes.


[[Page 7006]]


                                        Table 3--Volatile Organic Compound, Fine Soil, and Coarse Mass Emissions
                                                                       [Tons/year]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        VOC                          Fine soil                      Coarse mass
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               2002            2008            2002            2008            2002            2008
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point...................................................           5,697           4,582           1,237             563           4,696           2,392
Area....................................................         128,271          10,890          30,636           2,289          76,349             121
On-Road Mobile..........................................           7,173           6,740             158           1,194              46             164
Off-Road Mobile.........................................           7,585          19,094             392             670              24              46
Aviation................................................           1,566             (*)             667             (*)              20             (*)
Commercial Marine.......................................             356             609             643           1,114              32              64
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total Anthropogenic.................................       * 149,082        * 41,915        * 33,066         * 5,830        * 81,147         * 2,787
Fire....................................................         274,436          35,761         478,057          63,330          79,346          10,495
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Total...........................................       * 423,518        * 77,676       * 511,123        * 69,160       * 160,493        * 13,282
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Sums and differences do not include aviation emissions, as 2008 inventory totals were not available from this source for comparison purposes.

    Regarding emissions inventories, Alaska made the following 
observations:
     Fire emission inventory estimates decreased. Note that 
these differences are not necessarily reflective of changes in 
monitored data, as the five-year baseline period is represented by a 
2000-2004 average of fire emissions developed by the WRAP, and the 
five-year progress period is represented by fires that occurred in 
2008.
     Point source inventories showed decreases for all species.
     Area source inventories showed increases in SO2 
and NOX, but large decreases in volatile organic compounds 
(VOCs), fine soil, and coarse mass.
     On-road mobile source inventory comparisons showed 
increases in SO2, NOX, fine soil, and coarse 
mass, but a decrease in VOCs. Off-road mobile source inventories showed 
decreases in NOX, but increases in VOCs. (See section 6.1.2 
of Appendix C.)
     Commercial marine sources showed large increases in 
NOX inventories, and only small changes in other parameters. 
Alaska attributed this increase, at least in part, to different 
emission inventory methodologies.
    Alaska also notes that during high fire years, emissions from 
wildland fires can make up a significant portion of the state's overall 
emissions for some pollutants. Further, wildfire activity varies 
greatly from year to year, and unlike other emission sources, the 
locations vary from year to year. Alaska also notes that one 
contributing source of anthropogenic emissions not included in the 
emissions inventory is international anthropogenic emissions. According 
to the progress report, Alaska receives a significant amount of 
globally transported pollution, particularly from Asia and Russia. 
Continued industrial growth in these areas is likely to increase 
emissions of pollutants that contribute to regional haze in Alaska, 
although the extent of this contribution to haze in Alaska has not been 
determined due to lack of accurate international emission inventories.

D. Determination of Adequacy (40 CFR 51.308(h))

    In accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(h)(1), ``If the state determines 
[at the time the five-year progress report is submitted] that the 
existing implementation plan requires no further substantive revision 
at this time in order to achieve established goals for visibility 
improvement and emissions reductions, the state must provide to the 
Administrator a negative declaration that further revision of the 
existing implementation plan is not needed at this time.'' Within the 
progress report, the State of Alaska provided a negative declaration 
stating that further revision of the existing implementation plan is 
not needed. The basis for the state's negative declaration is the 
finding that visibility on the 20% most impaired days has improved, and 
2018 RPGs attained, at all Alaska IMPROVE monitors, except for the 
Denali Headquarters monitor, which shows a slight decrease in 
visibility for the current period compared to the baseline due to smoke 
from wildfires in Alaska in 2009.
    Accordingly, the EPA proposes to find that Alaska adequately 
addressed the requirements in 40 CFR 51.308(h) in its determination 
that the existing Alaska regional haze SIP requires no substantive 
revisions at this time to achieve the established RPGs for Alaska Class 
I areas. We note in particular that, based on the visibility conditions 
for the most recent five-year period (2012-2016), Alaska is meeting 
2018 RPGs at all Alaska IMPROVE monitors.

E. Consultation With Federal Land Managers (40 CFR 51.308(i))

    In accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(i), the state must provide the 
Federal Land Managers (FLMs) with an opportunity for consultation, in 
person and at least 60 days prior to holding any public hearings on an 
implementation plan (or plan revision). The state must also include a 
description of how it addressed any comments provided by the FLMs. The 
State of Alaska provided an opportunity for FLM consultation at least 
60 days prior to holding any public hearing on a draft progress report. 
This progress report was submitted to the FLMs on April 27, 2015, for 
review and comment. Comments were received from the FLMs on June 30, 
2015. The FLM comments and state responses are presented in the 
progress report. In accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(i)(4), Alaska's 
progress report reaffirms the state' commitment to the regional haze 
SIP procedures for continuing consultation between the State of Alaska 
and FLMs on, among other things, the implementation of Alaska's 
regional haze SIP.
    The EPA proposes to find that Alaska has addressed the requirements 
in 40 CFR 51.308(i) to provide the FLMs with an opportunity for 
consultation in person and at least 60 days prior to a public hearing 
on the progress report, included a description of how it addressed any 
comments from the FLMs, and provided a commitment for continuing 
consultation between the state and the FLMs. FLM comments and ADEC 
responses are provided in section E of the progress report.

IV. Additional Revision to the Regional Haze SIP To Reflect Adoption of 
Progress Report

    Concurrent with the progress report, Alaska submitted an update to 
the

[[Page 7007]]

``Commitment to Future 308 Plan Revisions'' chapter of the regional 
haze SIP. The revision notes the adoption and submission of the 
progress report. The EPA is proposing to approve this revision to the 
regional haze SIP.

V. The EPA's Proposed Action

    The EPA is proposing to approve the Alaska Regional Haze Progress 
Report submitted to the EPA on March 10, 2016, as meeting the 
applicable requirements of the CAA and RHR, as set forth in 40 CFR 
51.308(g). The EPA proposes to find that the existing regional haze SIP 
is adequate to meet the state's visibility goals and requires no 
substantive revision at this time, as set forth in 40 CFR 51.308(h). We 
propose to find that Alaska fulfilled the requirements in 40 CFR 
51.308(i) regarding state coordination with FLMs. Lastly, we propose to 
approve updates to the Enhanced Smoke Management Plan, Long-Term 
Strategy, and Commitment to Future 308 Plan Revision sections of the 
regional haze SIP, submitted concurrently with the Alaska Regional Haze 
Progress Report.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP 
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable 
Federal regulations.\12\ Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's 
role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria 
of the CAA. Accordingly, this proposed action merely approves state law 
as meeting Federal requirements, and does not impose additional 
requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this 
proposed action:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to 
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 
2011);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 
2017) regulatory action because actions such as SIP approvals are 
exempted under Executive Order 12866;
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based 
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the 
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 
note) because this rulemaking does not involve technical standards; and
     Does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority 
to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or 
environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible 
methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this proposed action does not apply on any Indian 
reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe 
has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of 
Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications as specified 
by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

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.

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

    Dated: February 7, 2018.
Chris Hladick,
Regional Administrator, Region 10.
[FR Doc. 2018-03269 Filed 2-15-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P