12648 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 8, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

21See SB SEF Proposing Release, supra note 12, 

at notes 82, 97, 127, 128, 134, 139, 141, 147, 172, 

208, 269 and 570 and accompanying text, and 76 

FR at 10979 and 10983–10986. See also Clearing 

Agency Proposing Release, supra note 15, at notes 

45 and 107 and accompanying text. 

Agency Proposing Release, it was 

mindful of its prior proposals under 

Regulation MC.21 However, the 

Commission recognizes that 

commenters who provided their views 

and suggestions on proposed Regulation 

MC did not have the benefit of 

considering the proposals in the SB SEF 

Proposing Release and the Clearing 

Agency Proposing Release, which also 

seek to address some potential conflicts 

of interest affecting these entities, when 

they submitted their comments. 

The Commission therefore is 

reopening the comment period to invite 

further comment on proposed 

Regulation MC, particularly in light of 

the additional proposals relating to 

mitigation of conflicts for security-based 

swap clearing agencies and SB SEFs that 

are contained in the Clearing Agency 

Proposing Release and SB SEF 

Proposing Release, respectively. 

II. Request for Comment 

Commenters are asked to consider the 

provisions designed to address conflicts 

of interest in the Regulation MC 

Proposing Release and in the Clearing 

Agency Proposing Release and the SB 

SEF Proposing Release, in the aggregate, 

when providing further comment on 

how the Commission should address 

potential conflicts of interest at securitybased swap clearing agencies and SB 

SEFS, respectively. Are some or all of 

the proposed requirements in the SB 

SEF Proposing Release and the Clearing 

Agency Proposing Release and the 

requirements in the Regulation MC 

Proposing Release mutually supportive? 

Why or why not? Should any of the 

proposed requirements discussed in the 

SB SEF Proposing Release, the Clearing 

Agency Proposing Release, or the 

Regulation MC Proposing Release 

relating to conflicts of interest be 

revised in light of the proposed 

requirements relating to conflicts of 

interests in the other releases? If so, 

which requirements should be revised 

and how? Are the proposed 

requirements discussed in the SB SEF 

Proposing Release, the Clearing Agency 

Proposing Release, or the Regulation MC 

Proposing Release relating to conflicts of 

interest, when considered together, 

sufficient to mitigate conflicts of interest 

for SB SEFs, SBS exchanges or securitybased swap clearing agencies, or should 

the Commission consider additional, or 

alternative, measures? Are any of the 

proposed requirements discussed in the 

SB SEF Proposing Release, the Clearing 

Agency Proposing Release, or the 

Regulation MC Proposing Release 

relating to conflicts of interest 

unnecessary in light of proposed 

requirements relating to conflicts of 

interest in the other releases? Why or 

why not? 

Comments may provide the 

Commission with further insights 

regarding what mechanisms, if any, may 

be necessary or appropriate to mitigate 

conflicts of interest and how the 

proposed requirements in the three 

proposals should be evaluated. 

Commenters should provide specific 

reasons and information to support their 

views and recommendations, including 

an analysis of why a recommendation 

would satisfy the statutory mandate 

contained in Section 765 of the DoddFrank Act regarding mitigation of 

conflicts of interest. The Commission 

asks that commenters, when possible, 

provide the Commission with empirical 

data to support their views. 

By the Commission. 

Dated: March 3, 2011. 

Elizabeth M. Murphy, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2011–5183 Filed 3–7–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8011–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Mine Safety and Health Administration 

30 CFR Parts 70, 71, 72, 75, and 90 

RIN 1219–AB64 

Lowering Miners’ Exposure to 

Respirable Coal Mine Dust, Including 

Continuous Personal Dust Monitors 

AGENCY: Mine Safety and Health 

Administration, Labor. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for 

comment. 

SUMMARY: The Mine Safety and Health 

Administration (MSHA) is requesting 

comments on the proposed rule 

published in the Federal Register on 

October 19, 2010, addressing Lowering 

Miners’ Exposure to Respirable Coal 

Mine Dust, Including Continuous 

Personal Dust Monitors. The proposed 

rule would improve health protections 

for coal miners by reducing their 

occupational exposure to respirable coal 

mine dust and lowering the risk that 

they will suffer material impairment of 

health or functional capacity over their 

working lives. 

DATES: All comments must be received 

or postmarked by midnight Eastern 

Daylight Saving Time on May 2, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Comments must be 

identified with ‘‘RIN 1219–AB64’’ and 

may be sent by any of the following 

methods: 

(1) Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: 

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

instructions for submitting comments. 

(2) Electronic mail: zzMSHAcomments@dol.gov. Include ‘‘RIN 1219– 

AB64’’ in the subject line of the message. 

(3) Facsimile: 202–693–9441. Include 

‘‘RIN 1219–AB64’’ in the subject line of 

the message. 

(4) Regular Mail: MSHA, Office of 

Standards, Regulations, and Variances, 

1100 Wilson Boulevard, Room 2350, 

Arlington, Virginia 22209–3939. 

(5) Hand Delivery or Courier: MSHA, 

Office of Standards, Regulations, and 

Variances, 1100 Wilson Boulevard, 

Room 2350, Arlington, Virginia. Sign in 

at the receptionist’s desk on the 21st 

floor. 

MSHA will post all comments on the 

Internet without change, including any 

personal information provided. 

Comments can be accessed 

electronically at http://www.msha.gov 

under the ‘‘Rules & Regs’’ link. 

Comments may also be reviewed in 

person at the Office of Standards, 

Regulations, and Variances, 1100 

Wilson Boulevard, Room 2350, 

Arlington, Virginia. Sign in at the 

receptionist’s desk on the 21st floor. 

MSHA will accept written comments 

and other appropriate information for 

the record from any interested party. All 

comments must be received or 

postmarked by midnight Eastern 

Daylight Saving Time on May 2, 2011. 

MSHA maintains a list that enables 

subscribers to receive e-mail notification 

when the Agency publishes rulemaking 

documents in the Federal Register. To 

subscribe, go to http://www.msha.gov/ 

subscriptions/subscribe.aspx. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

April E. Nelson, Acting Director, Office 

of Standards, Regulations, and 

Variances, MSHA, at 

nelson.april@dol.gov (e-mail); 202–693– 

9440 (voice); or 202–693–9441 

(facsimile). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Public Hearings 

On October 19, 2010 (75 FR 64412), 

MSHA published a proposed rule, 

Lowering Miners’ Exposure to 

Respirable Coal Mine Dust, Including 

Continuous Personal Dust Monitors. On 

February 15, 2011, MSHA concluded 

the last of seven public hearings on the 

proposed rule. Hearings were held on 

December 7, 2010, January 11, 13, and 

25, 2011, and February 8, 10, and 15, 

2011, in Beckley, West Virginia; 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 8, 2011 / Proposed Rules 12649 

Evansville, Indiana; Birmingham, 

Alabama; Salt Lake City, Utah; 

Washington, PA; Prestonsburg, 

Kentucky; and Arlington, VA. Verbatim 

transcripts of the hearings will be part 

of the rulemaking record. Transcripts 

will be available to the public on 

MSHA’s Web site at http:// 

www.msha.gov under the ‘‘Rules & Regs’’ 

link. 

II. Request for Comments 

The key provisions of the proposed 

rule would lower the existing 

concentration limits for respirable coal 

mine dust, provide for full-shift 

sampling, redefine the term ‘‘normal 

production shift,’’ provide for use of 

single shift compliance sampling under 

the mine operator and MSHA’s 

inspector sampling programs, establish 

sampling requirements for use of the 

Continuous Personal Dust Monitor 

(CPDM), and expand requirements for 

medical surveillance. The proposed rule 

is available on MSHA’s Web site at 

http://www.msha.gov/REGS/FEDREG/ 

PROPOSED/2010Prop/2010-25249.pdf. 

In developing the proposed rule, 

MSHA relied on the NIOSH Criteria 

Document (Criteria for a Recommended 

Standard: Occupational Exposure to 

Respirable Coal Mine Dust (September 

1995)), the Secretary of Labor’s 

Advisory Committee (Report of the 

Secretary of Labor’s Advisory 

Committee on the Elimination of 

Pneumoconiosis Among Coal Mine 

Workers (October 1996)), MSHA’S 

Quantitative Risk Assessment (QRA), 

studies in the Health Effects section of 

the proposed rule, and information and 

data included in the Preliminary 

Regulatory Economic Analysis (PREA) 

in support of the proposal. 

MSHA solicits comments on all 

aspects of the proposed rule and 

encourages the mining community to 

review the proposal, including the 

preamble to the proposed rule, the QRA, 

and the PREA. The QRA and the PREA 

are available on MSHA’s Web site at 

http://www.msha.gov/regsqra.asp and 

http://www.msha.gov/rea.htm, 

respectively. 

As MSHA has stated throughout the 

rulemaking, the Agency is interested in 

information on (1) requests for 

comments and information that were 

included in the preamble to the 

proposed rule, and (2) issues that 

developed from the proposed rule 

which were raised during the public 

hearings. The Agency requests that 

comments and any alternatives 

suggested be as specific as possible, and 

include any technological and economic 

feasibility data, detailed rationale and 

supporting documentation, and health 

benefits to coal miners. Specific and 

complete information submitted by 

commenters will enable MSHA to better 

evaluate the provisions of the proposed 

rule and produce a final rule that 

responds to the needs and concerns of 

the mining community. 

1. The proposed rule presents an 

integrated comprehensive approach for 

lowering miners’ exposure to respirable 

coal mine dust. The Agency is 

interested in alternatives to the proposal 

which would be effective in reducing 

miners’ respirable dust exposure and 

invites comments on any alternatives. 

2. MSHA solicits comments on the 

proposed respirable dust concentration 

limits. Please provide alternatives to the 

proposed limits to be considered in 

developing the final rule, including 

specific suggested limits and your 

rationale. 

3. The proposed rule bases the 

proposed respirable dust standards on 

an 8-hour work shift and a 40-hour 

workweek. In its 1995 Criteria 

Document on Occupational Exposure to 

Respirable Coal Mine Dust, the National 

Institute for Occupational Safety and 

Health (NIOSH) recommended lowering 

exposure to 1.0 mg/m3 for each miner 

for up to a 10-hour work shift during a 

40-hour workweek. MSHA solicits 

comments on the NIOSH 

recommendation. 

4. MSHA included the proposed 

phase-in periods for the proposed lower 

respirable dust standards to provide 

sufficient time for mine operators to 

implement or upgrade engineering or 

environmental controls. MSHA solicits 

comments on alternative timeframes 

and factors that the Agency should 

consider. Please include any 

information and detailed rationale. 

5. In the proposal, MSHA also plans 

to phase in the use of Continuous 

Personal Dust Monitors (CPDMs) to 

sample production areas of 

underground mines and Part 90 miners. 

MSHA solicits comments on the 

proposed phasing in of CPDMs, 

including time periods and any 

information with respect to their 

availability. If shorter or longer 

timeframes are recommended, please 

provide the rationale. 

6. MSHA has received a number of 

comments about the use of the CPDM. 

For operators who have used this 

device, MSHA is interested in receiving 

information related to its use. For 

example, MSHA is interested in 

information related to the durability of 

the unit, whether and how often the 

unit had to be repaired, type of repair, 

cost of repair, whether the repair was 

covered under warranty, how long the 

unit was unavailable, and any 

additional relevant information. 

7. MSHA understands that some work 

shifts are longer than 12 hours, and that 

dust sampling devices generally last for 

approximately 12 hours. MSHA solicits 

comments on appropriate timeframes to 

switch out sampling devices, Coal Mine 

Dust Personal Sampler Units 

(CMDPSUs, i.e., gravimetric samplers) 

or CPDMs, to ensure continued 

operation and uninterrupted protection 

for miners for the entire shift. 

8. The proposed single sample 

provision is based on improvements in 

sampling technology, MSHA 

experience, updated data, and 

comments and testimony from earlier 

notices and proposals that addressed the 

accuracy of single sample 

measurements. The Agency is 

particularly interested in comments on 

new information added to the record 

since October 2003 concerning MSHA’s 

Quantitative Risk Assessment, 

technological and economic feasibility, 

compliance costs, and benefits. 

9. MSHA is interested in commenters’ 

views on what actions should be taken 

by MSHA and the mine operator when 

a single shift respirable dust sample 

meets or exceeds the Excessive 

Concentration Value (ECV). In this 

situation, if operators use a CPDM, what 

alternative actions to those contained in 

the proposed rule would you suggest 

that MSHA and the operator take? 

MSHA is particularly interested in 

alternatives to those in the proposal and 

how such alternatives would be 

protective of miners. 

10. A commenter at a public hearing 

requested clarification on whether there 

would be more than one violation of the 

respirable dust limit if a single, full-shift 

sample exceeded the ECV during the 

same week that the weekly permissible 

accumulated exposure (WPAE) limit 

were exceeded. Under the proposed 

rule, it would be a violation for each 

occurrence that the ECV or WPAE is 

exceeded. MSHA is interested in 

comments and alternatives to the 

proposed rule. Comments should be 

specific, and include a detailed 

rationale and how any 

recommendations and alternatives 

would protect miners. 

11. The proposal includes a revised 

definition of normal production shift so 

that sampling is taken during shifts that 

reasonably represent typical production 

and normal mining conditions on the 

MMU. The Agency requests comments 

on whether the average of the most 

recent 30 production shifts specified in 

the proposed definition would be 

representative of dust levels to which 

miners are typically exposed. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

12650 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 8, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

12. The proposed sampling provisions 

address interim use of supplementary 

controls when all feasible engineering or 

environmental controls have been used 

but the mine operator is unable to 

maintain compliance with the dust 

standard. With MSHA approval, 

operators could use supplementary 

controls, such as rotation of miners, or 

alteration of mining or of production 

schedules, in conjunction with CPDMs 

to monitor miners’ exposures. MSHA 

solicits comments on this proposed 

approach and any suggested 

alternatives, as well as the types of 

supplementary controls that would be 

appropriate to use on a short-term basis. 

13. The proposed rule addresses (1) 

which occupations must be sampled 

using CPDMs, and (2) which work 

positions and areas could be sampled 

using either CPDMs or CMDPSUs. 

MSHA solicits comments on the 

proposed sampling occupations and 

locations. For example, please comment 

on whether there are other positions or 

areas where it may be appropriate to 

require the use of CPDMs. Also, 

comment on whether the proposed 

CPDM sampling of ODOs on the MMU 

is sufficient to address different mining 

techniques, potential overexposures, 

and ineffective use of approved dust 

controls. 

14. Some commenters have suggested 

that, for compliance purposes, 

respirable dust samples should be taken 

only on individual miners in 

underground coal mines. Under the 

existing rule, MSHA enforces an 

environmental standard, that is, the 

Agency samples the average 

concentration of respirable dust in the 

mine atmosphere. The proposed rule 

would continue the existing practice 

that samples be collected from 

designated high-risk occupations 

associated with respirable dust exposure 

and from designated areas associated 

with dust generation sources in 

underground mines. MSHA solicits 

comments on the sampling strategy in 

the proposed rule, any specific 

alternatives, supporting rationale, and 

how such alternatives would protect 

miners’ health. 

15. The proposed rule addresses the 

frequency of respirable dust sampling 

when using a CPDM. MSHA solicits 

comments on the proposed sampling 

frequencies and any suggested 

alternatives. For example, if sampling of 

DOs were less frequent than proposed, 

what alternative sampling frequency 

would be appropriate? Please address a 

sampling strategy in case of 

noncompliance with the respirable dust 

standard and provide rationale. Also, 

should CPDM sampling of ODOs be 

more or less frequent than 14 calendar 

days each quarter? Please be specific in 

suggesting alternatives and include 

supporting rationale. 

16. The proposal would require that 

persons certified in dust sampling or 

maintenance and calibration retake the 

applicable MSHA examination every 3 

years to maintain certification. Under 

the proposal, these certified persons 

would not have to retake the proposed 

MSHA course of instruction. MSHA 

solicits comments on this approach to 

certification; please include specific 

rationale for any suggested alternatives. 

17. In the proposal, MSHA would 

require that the CPDM daily sample and 

error data file information be submitted 

electronically to the Agency on a weekly 

basis. MSHA solicits comments on 

suggested alternative timeframes, 

particularly in light of the CPDM’s 

limited memory capacity of about 20 

shifts. 

18. The proposal contains 

requirements for posting information on 

sampling results and miners’ exposures 

on the mine bulletin board. MSHA 

solicits comments on the lengths of time 

proposed for posting data. If a standard 

format for reporting and posting data 

were developed, what should it 

include? 

19. The periodic medical surveillance 

provisions in the proposed rule would 

require operators to provide an initial 

examination to each miner who begins 

work at a coal mine for the first time 

and then at least one follow-up 

examination after the initial 

examination. MSHA solicits comments 

on the proposed requirements and time 

periods specified for these 

examinations. 

20. The proposed respirator training 

requirements are performance-based 

and the time required for respirator 

training would be in addition to that 

required under part 48. Under the 

proposal, mine operators could, 

however, integrate respirator training 

into their part 48 training schedules. 

The proposal would require that 

operators keep records of training for 2 

years. Please comment on the Agency’s 

proposed approach. 

21. The proposed rule specifies 

procedures and information to be 

included in CPDM plans to ensure 

miners are not exposed to respirable 

dust concentrations that exceed 

proposed standards. For example, the 

proposed plan would include preoperational examination, testing and 

set-up procedures to verify the 

operational readiness of the CPDM 

before each shift. It would also include 

procedures for scheduled maintenance, 

downloading and transmission of 

sampling information, and posting of 

reported results. Please comment on the 

proposed plan provisions and include 

supporting rationale. 

22. MSHA has received comments 

that some aspects of the proposed rule 

may not be feasible for particular 

mining applications. MSHA is 

interested in receiving comments on the 

specific mining methods that may be 

impacted and alternative technologies 

and controls that would protect miners. 

23. MSHA has received comments on 

proposed section 75.332(a)(1) 

concerning the use of ‘‘fishtail’’ 

ventilation to provide intake air to 

multiple MMUs. Commenters were 

concerned that, under the proposed 

rule, the practice of using fishtail 

ventilation with temporary ventilation 

controls would not be allowed. MSHA 

solicits comments on any specific 

impact of the proposed rule on current 

mining operations, any suggested 

alternatives, and how the alternatives 

would be protective of miners. 

24. The Agency has prepared a PREA, 

which contains supporting cost and 

benefit data for the proposed rule. 

MSHA has included a discussion of the 

costs and benefits in the preamble. 

MSHA requests comments on all 

estimates of costs and benefits presented 

in the preamble and the PREA, 

including compliance costs, net 

benefits, and approaches used and 

assumptions made in the PREA. The 

PREA is available on MSHA’s Web site 

at http://www.msha.gov/rea.htm. 

25. Commenters have discussed 

epidemiological studies and data on 

coal mine dust exposure presented in 

the preamble to the proposed rule. 

MSHA solicits comments regarding 

studies and data, and requests that 

commenters be as specific as possible. 

Please identify the studies and data 

commented upon, provide detailed 

rationales for the comments, and 

include any relevant information and 

data that will help MSHA evaluate the 

comments. 

26. MSHA has received comments 

that the proposed rule should not 

require mine operators to record 

corrective actions or excessive dust 

concentrations as section 75.363 

hazardous conditions. MSHA would 

like to clarify that the proposal would 

require that operators record both 

excessive dust concentrations and 

corrective actions in the same manner as 

conditions are recorded under section 

75.363. However, MSHA would not 

consider excessive dust concentrations 

or corrective actions to be hazardous 

conditions, since the proposed 

requirement is not a section 75.363 

required record. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 8, 2011 / Proposed Rules 12651 

1Areas designated as mandatory Class I Federal 

areas consist of national parks exceeding 6000 

acres, wilderness areas and national memorial parks 

Continued 

27. A commenter at the first public 

hearing suggested that the timeframe for 

miners’ review of the CPDM 

Performance Plan be expanded. For 

clarification, in developing the 

proposed rule, MSHA relied on the 

timeframe and process in the existing 

requirements for mine ventilation plans. 

In the proposal, MSHA did not intend 

to change the existing timeframe and 

process and stated that the proposed 

rule is consistent with ventilation plan 

requirements and would allow miners’ 

representatives the opportunity to 

meaningfully participate in the process. 

Dated: March 2, 2011. 

Joseph A. Main, 

Assistant Secretary of Labor for Mine Safety 

and Health. 

[FR Doc. 2011–5127 Filed 3–7–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–43–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R10–OAR–2011–0035, FRL–9276–6] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; State of 

Oregon; Regional Haze State 

Implementation Plan 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

a State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

revision, submitted by the State of 

Oregon on December 20, 2010, with 

supplemental information submitted 

February 1, 2011, as meeting the 

requirements of Clean Air Act (CAA) 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) as it applies to 

visibility for the 1997 8-hour ozone and 

1997 particulate matter (PM2.5) National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS). EPA is also proposing to 

approve a portion of the SIP submittal, 

as meeting certain requirements of the 

regional haze program, including the 

Federal regulations for best available 

retrofit technology (BART). 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received at the address below on or 

before April 7, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R10– 

OAR–2011–0035, by one of the 

following methods: 

• http://www.regulations.gov: Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• E-mail: Keith Rose at R10- 

Public_Comments@epa.gov. 

• Mail: Keith Rose, EPA Region 10, 

Office of Air, Waste and Toxics, AWT– 

107, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, 

Seattle, WA 98101. 

• Hand Delivery/Courier: EPA Region 

10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, 

Seattle, WA 98101. Attention: Keith 

Rose, Office of Air, Waste and Toxics, 

AWT–107. Such deliveries are only 

accepted during normal hours of 

operation, and special arrangements 

should be made for deliveries of boxed 

information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R10–OAR–2011– 

0035. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through http:// 

www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The 

http://www.regulations.gov Web site is 

an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an e-mail comment directly 

to EPA, without going through http:// 

www.regulations.gov, your e-mail 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. For additional information 

about EPA’s public docket visit the EPA 

Docket Center homepage at http:// 

www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the http:// 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available (e.g., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute). Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

will be publicly available only in hard 

copy form. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically at http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Office of Air, Waste and Toxics, EPA 

Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, 

WA 98101. EPA requests that if at all 

possible, you contact the individual 

listed below to view the hard copy of 

the docket. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Keith Rose at telephone number (206) 

553–1949, rose.keith@epa.gov or the 

above EPA, Region 10 address. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document whenever 

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean the 

EPA. Information is organized as 

follows: 

Table of Contents 

I. Background for EPA’s Proposed Action 

A. Definition of Regional Haze 

B. Regional Haze Rules and Regulations 

C. Roles of Agencies in Addressing 

Regional Haze 

D. Interstate Transport for Visibility 

II. Requirements for Regional Haze SIPs 

A. The CAA and the Regional Haze Rule 

B. Determination of Baseline, Natural, and 

Current Visibility Conditions 

C. Consultation With States and Federal 

Land Managers 

D. Best Available Retrofit Technology 

III. EPA’s Analysis of Oregon’s Regional Haze 

SIP 

A. Affected Class I Areas 

B. Baseline and Natural Conditions and 

Uniform Rate of Progress 

C. Oregon Emissions Inventories 

D. Sources of Visibility Impairment in 

Oregon Class I Areas 

E. Best Available Retrofit Technology 

(BART) 

IV. EPA’s Analysis of Oregon’s Regional Haze 

Rules 

V. EPA’s Analysis of Whether the Oregon 

Regional Haze SIP Submittal Meets 

Interstate Transport Requirements 

VI. What action is EPA proposing? 

VII. Oregon Notice Provision 

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background for EPA’s Proposed 

Action 

In the CAA Amendments of 1977, 

Congress established a program to 

protect and improve visibility in the 

national parks and wilderness areas. See 

CAA section 169(A). Congress amended 

the visibility provisions in the CAA in 

1990 to focus attention on the problem 

of regional haze. See CAA section 

169(B). 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 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS