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

12652 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 8, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

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 

CAA, 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 CAA 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.’’ 

2See 64 FR at 35715. 3 Id. 

4Albuquerque/Bernalillo County in New Mexico 

must also submit a regional haze SIP to completely 

satisfy the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D) of 

the CAA for the entire State of New Mexico under 

the New Mexico Air Quality Control Act (section 

74–2–4). 

5See http://www.epa.gov/air/visibility/ 

regional.html for description of the regional 

planning organizations. 

6The WRAP Web site can be found at http:// 

www.wrapair.org. 

I areas). 64 FR 35714 (July 1, 1999); see 

also 70 FR 39104 (July 6, 2005) and 71 

FR 60612 (October 13, 2006). 

In this action, EPA is proposing to 

approve certain provisions of Oregon’s 

Regional Haze SIP submission 

addressing the requirements for best 

available retrofit technology (BART), the 

calculation of baseline and natural 

visibility conditions, and the statewide 

inventory of visibility-impairing 

pollutants. EPA is also proposing to 

approve the provisions of Oregon’s SIP 

submittal addressing BART as meeting 

Oregon’s obligations under section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) of the CAA for 

visibility. EPA is not taking action today 

on those provisions of the Regional 

Haze SIP submittal related to reasonable 

progress goals and the long term 

strategy. 

A. Definition of Regional Haze 

Regional haze is impairment of visual 

range or colorization caused by 

emission of air pollution produced by 

numerous sources and activities, located 

across a broad regional area. The 

sources include but are not limited to, 

major and minor stationary sources, 

mobile sources, and area sources 

including non-anthropogenic sources. 

Visibility impairment is primarily 

caused by fine particulate matter (PM2.5) 

or secondary aerosol formed in the 

atmosphere from precursor gasses (e.g., 

sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and in 

some cases, ammonia and volatile 

organic compounds). Atmospheric fine 

particulate reduces clarity, color, and 

visual range of visual scenes. Visibilityreducing fine particulates are primarily 

composed of sulfate, nitrate, organic 

carbon compounds, elemental carbon, 

and soil dust, and impair visibility by 

scattering and absorbing light. Fine 

particulate can also cause serious health 

effects and mortality in humans, and 

contributes to environmental effects 

such as acid deposition and 

eutrophication.2

Data from the existing visibility 

monitoring network, the ‘‘Interagency 

Monitoring of Protected Visual 

Environments’’ (IMPROVE) monitoring 

network, show that visibility 

impairment caused by air pollution 

occurs virtually all the time at most 

national parks and wilderness areas. 

Average visual range in many Class I 

areas in the Western United States is 

100–150 kilometers, or about one-half to 

two-thirds the visual range that would 

exist without anthropogenic air 

pollution.3 Visibility impairment also 

varies day-to-day and by season 

depending on variation in meteorology 

and emission rates. 

B. Regional Haze Rules and Regulations 

In section 169A of the 1977 CAA 

Amendments, Congress created a 

program for protecting visibility in the 

nation’s national parks and wilderness 

areas. This section of the CAA 

establishes as a national goal the 

‘‘prevention of any future, and the 

remedying of any existing, impairment 

of visibility in Class I areas which 

impairment results from manmade air 

pollution.’’ CAA section 169A(a)(1). On 

December 2, 1980, EPA promulgated 

regulations to address visibility 

impairment in Class I areas that is 

‘‘reasonably attributable’’ to a single 

source or small group of sources, i.e., 

‘‘reasonably attributable visibility 

impairment’’. See 45 FR 80084. These 

regulations represented the first phase 

in addressing visibility impairment. 

EPA deferred action on regional haze 

that emanates from a variety of sources 

until monitoring, modeling, and 

scientific knowledge about the 

relationships between pollutants and 

visibility impairment were improved. 

Congress added section 169B to the 

CAA in 1990 to address regional haze 

issues. EPA promulgated a rule to 

address regional haze on July 1, 1999 

(64 FR 35713) (the RHR). The RHR 

revised the existing visibility 

regulations to integrate into the 

regulation provisions addressing 

regional haze impairment and 

established a comprehensive visibility 

protection program for Class I areas. The 

requirements for regional haze, found at 

40 CFR 51.308 and 51.309, are included 

in EPA’s visibility protection 

regulations at 40 CFR 51.300–309. Some 

of the main elements of the regional 

haze requirements are summarized in 

section III of this rulemaking. The 

requirement to submit a regional haze 

SIP applies to all 50 States, the District 

of Columbia and the Virgin Islands.4 40 

CFR 51.308(b) requires States to submit 

the first implementation plan 

addressing regional haze visibility 

impairment no later than December 17, 

2007. 

C. Roles of Agencies in Addressing 

Regional Haze 

Successful implementation of the 

Regional Haze Program will require 

long-term regional coordination among 

States, Tribal governments, and various 

Federal agencies. As noted above, 

pollution affecting the air quality in 

Class I areas can be transported over 

long distances, even hundreds of 

kilometers. Therefore, to effectively 

address the problem of visibility 

impairment in Class I areas, States need 

to develop strategies in coordination 

with one another, taking into account 

the effect of emissions from one 

jurisdiction on the air quality in 

another. 

Because the pollutants that lead to 

regional haze impairment can originate 

from across State lines, EPA has 

encouraged the States and Tribes to 

address visibility impairment from a 

regional perspective. Five regional 

planning organizations 5 (RPOs) were 

created nationally to address regional 

haze and related issues. One of the main 

objectives of the RPOs is to develop and 

analyze data and conduct pollutant 

transport modeling to assist the States or 

Tribes in developing their regional haze 

plans. 

The Western Regional Air Partnership 

(WRAP),6 one of the five RPOs 

nationally, is a voluntary partnership of 

State, Tribal, Federal, and local air 

agencies dealing with air quality in the 

West. WRAP member States include: 

Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, 

Idaho, Montana, New Mexico, North 

Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, 

Washington, and Wyoming. WRAP 

Tribal members include Campo Band of 

Kumeyaay Indians, Confederated Salish 

and Kootenai Tribes, Cortina Indian 

Rancheria, Hopi Tribe, Hualapai Nation 

of the Grand Canyon, Native Village of 

Shungnak, Nez Perce Tribe, Northern 

Cheyenne Tribe, Pueblo of Acoma, 

Pueblo of San Felipe, and ShoshoneBannock Tribes of Fort Hall. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 8, 2011 / Proposed Rules 12653 

7Wildearth Guardians v. Jackson, Case No. 4:09– 

CV–02453–CW (N.D. Calif) (as modified by Jan 14, 

2011 Order Granting Motion to Modify Consent 

Decree). 

D. Interstate Transport for Visibility 

On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated 

new NAAQS for 8-hour ozone and for 

PM2.5. 62 FR 38652. Section 110(a)(1) of 

the CAA requires States to submit a plan 

to address certain requirements for a 

new or revised NAAQS within three 

years after promulgation of such 

standards, or within such shorter time 

as EPA may prescribe. Section 110(a)(2) 

of the CAA lists the elements that such 

new plan submissions must address, as 

applicable, including section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i), which pertains to the 

interstate transport of certain emissions. 

On April 25, 2005, EPA published a 

‘‘Finding of Failure to Submit SIPs for 

Interstate Transport for the 8-hour 

Ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS.’’ 70 FR 

21147. This included a finding that 

Oregon and other States had failed to 

submit SIPs to address interstate 

transport of emissions affecting 

visibility and started a 2-year clock for 

the promulgation of Federal 

Implementation Plans (FIPs) by EPA, 

unless the States made submissions to 

meet the requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) and EPA approves such 

submissions. Id. 

On August 15, 2006, EPA issued 

guidance on this topic entitled 

‘‘Guidance for State Implementation 

Plan (SIP) Submissions to Meet Current 

Outstanding Obligations Under section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 8-Hour Ozone and 

PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards’’ (2006 Guidance). We 

developed the 2006 Guidance to make 

recommendations to States for making 

submissions to meet the requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 

8-hour ozone standards and the 1997 

PM2.5 standards. 

As identified in the 2006 Guidance, 

the ‘‘good neighbor’’ provisions in 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) of the CAA 

require each State to have a SIP that 

prohibits emissions that adversely affect 

other States in ways contemplated in 

the statute. Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) 

contains four distinct requirements 

related to the impacts of interstate 

transport. The SIP must prevent sources 

in the State from emitting pollutants in 

amounts which will: (1) Contribute 

significantly to nonattainment of the 

NAAQS in other States; (2) interfere 

with maintenance of the NAAQS in 

other States; (3) interfere with 

provisions to prevent significant 

deterioration of air quality in other 

States; or (4) interfere with efforts to 

protect visibility in other States. 

With respect to establishing that 

emissions from sources in the State 

would not interfere with measures in 

other States to protect visibility, the 

2006 Guidance recommended that 

States make a submission indicating 

that it was premature, at that time, to 

determine whether there would be any 

interference with measures in the 

applicable SIP for another State 

designed to ‘‘protect visibility’’ until the 

submission and approval of regional 

haze SIPs. Regional haze SIPs were 

required to be submitted by December 

17, 2007. See 74 FR 2392. At this later 

point in time, however, EPA believes it 

is now necessary to evaluate such 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) submissions from a State 

to ensure that the existing SIP, or the 

SIP as modified by the submission, 

contains adequate provisions to prevent 

interference with the visibility programs 

of other States, such as for consistency 

with the assumptions for controls relied 

upon by other States in establishing 

reasonable progress goals to address 

regional haze. 

The Regional Haze Program, as 

reflected in the RHR, recognizes the 

importance of addressing the long-range 

transport of pollutants for visibility and 

encourages States to work together to 

develop plans to address haze. The 

regulations explicitly require each State 

to address its ‘‘share’’ of the emission 

reductions needed to meet the 

reasonable progress goals for 

neighboring Class I areas. States, 

working together through a regional 

planning process, are required to 

address an agreed-upon share of their 

contribution to visibility impairment in 

the Class I areas of their neighbors. 40 

CFR 51.308(d)(3)(ii). Given these 

requirements, we anticipate that 

regional haze SIPs will contain 

measures that will achieve these 

emissions reductions, and that these 

measures will meet the requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i). 

As a result of the regional planning 

efforts in the West, all States in the 

WRAP region contributed information 

to a Technical Support System (TSS) 

which provides an analysis of the 

causes of haze, and the levels of 

contribution from all sources within 

each State to the visibility degradation 

of each Class I area. The WRAP States 

consulted in the development of 

reasonable progress goals, using the 

products of this technical consultation 

process to co-develop their reasonable 

progress goals for the Western Class I 

areas. The modeling done by the WRAP 

relied on assumptions regarding 

emissions over the relevant planning 

period and embedded in these 

assumptions were anticipated emissions 

reductions in each of the States in the 

WRAP, including reductions from 

BART and other measures to be adopted 

as part of the State’s long term strategy 

for addressing regional haze. The 

reasonable progress goals in the draft 

and final regional haze SIPs that have 

now been prepared by States in the 

West accordingly are based, in part, on 

the emissions reductions from nearby 

States that were agreed on through the 

WRAP process. 

Oregon submitted a Regional Haze SIP 

on July 16, 2009 to address the 

requirements of the RHR. On September 

11, 2009, EPA determined that this SIP 

submission was complete. Oregon 

submitted a revised Regional Haze SIP 

on December 20, 2010, replacing the 

July 2009 submission. On February 1, 

2011, Oregon provided EPA additional 

information to address the requirements 

of the RHR and the good neighbor 

provisions of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)) 

of the Act, regarding visibility for the 

1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and the 

1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA has reviewed 

the submittal and concluded at this time 

to propose to take action on only certain 

elements of Oregon’s Regional Haze SIP. 

EPA is required to take final action 

either to approve Oregon’s SIP 

submittal, or otherwise to take action to 

meet the requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) regarding visibility on 

or before June 21, 2011.7 EPA is 

proposing to find that certain elements 

of Oregon’s Regional Haze SIP submittal 

meet these requirements. In particular, 

as explained in section V of this action, 

EPA is proposing to find that the BART 

measures in Oregon’s Regional Haze SIP 

submittal, which EPA is proposing to 

approve in this action, will also mean 

that the Oregon SIP meets the 

requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) regarding visibility for 

the 1997 8-hour ozone and 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS. 

II. Requirements for Regional Haze 

SIPs 

A. The CAA and the Regional Haze Rule 

Regional haze SIPs must assure 

reasonable progress towards the 

national goal of achieving natural 

visibility conditions in Class I areas. 

Section 169A of the CAA and EPA’s 

implementing regulations require States 

to establish long-term strategies for 

making reasonable progress toward 

meeting this goal. Implementation plans 

must also give specific attention to 

certain stationary sources that were in 

existence on August 7, 1977, but were 

not in operation before August 7, 1962, 

and require these sources, where 

appropriate, to install BART controls for 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

12654 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 8, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

8The preamble to the RHR provides additional 

details about the deciview. 64 FR 35714, 35725 

(July 1,1999). 

9The set of ‘‘major stationary sources’’ potentially 

subject to BART is listed in CAA section 169A(g)(7). 

the purpose of eliminating or reducing 

visibility impairment. The specific 

regional haze SIP requirements are 

discussed in further detail below. 

B. Determination of Baseline, Natural, 

and Current Visibility Conditions 

The RHR establishes the deciview 

(dv) as the principal metric for 

measuring visibility. This visibility 

metric expresses uniform changes in 

haziness in terms of common 

increments across the entire range of 

visibility conditions, from pristine to 

extremely hazy conditions. Visibility is 

determined by measuring the visual 

range (or deciview), which is the 

greatest distance, in kilometers or miles, 

at which a dark object can be viewed 

against the sky. The deciview is a useful 

measure for tracking progress in 

improving visibility, because each 

deciview change is an equal incremental 

change in visibility perceived by the 

human eye. Most people can detect a 

change in visibility at one deciview.8

The deciview is used in expressing 

reasonable progress goals (which are 

interim visibility goals towards meeting 

the national visibility goal), defining 

baseline, current, and natural 

conditions, and tracking changes in 

visibility. The regional haze SIPs must 

contain measures that ensure 

‘‘reasonable progress’’ toward the 

national goal of preventing and 

remedying visibility impairment in 

Class I areas caused by manmade air 

pollution by reducing anthropogenic 

emissions that cause regional haze. The 

national goal is a return to natural 

conditions, i.e., anthropogenic sources 

of air pollution would no longer impair 

visibility in Class I areas. 

To track changes in visibility over 

time at each of the 156 Class I areas 

covered by the visibility program (40 

CFR 81.401–437), and as part of the 

process for determining reasonable 

progress, States must calculate the 

degree of existing visibility impairment 

at each Class I area at the time of each 

regional haze SIP submittal and 

periodically review progress every five 

years midway through each 10-year 

implementation period. To do this, the 

RHR requires States to determine the 

degree of impairment (in deciviews) for 

the average of the 20% least impaired 

(‘‘best’’) and 20% most impaired 

(‘‘worst’’) visibility days over a specified 

time period at each of their Class I areas. 

In addition, States must also develop an 

estimate of natural visibility conditions 

for the purpose of comparing progress 

toward the national goal. Natural 

visibility is determined by estimating 

the natural concentrations of pollutants 

that cause visibility impairment, and 

then calculating total light extinction 

based on those estimates. EPA has 

provided guidance to States regarding 

how to calculate baseline, natural and 

current visibility conditions in 

documents titled, EPA’s Guidance for 

Estimating Natural Visibility Conditions 

Under the Regional Haze Rule, 

September 2003, (EPA–454/B–03–005 

located at http:// 

www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/t1/memoranda/ 

rh_envcurhr_gd.pdf), (hereinafter 

referred to as ‘‘EPA’s 2003 Natural 

Visibility Guidance’’), and Guidance for 

Tracking Progress Under the Regional 

Haze Rule (EPA–454/B–03–004 

September 2003 located at http:// 

www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/t1/memoranda/ 

rh_tpurhr_gd.pdf), (hereinafter referred 

to as ‘‘EPA’s 2003 Tracking Progress 

Guidance’’). 

For the first regional haze SIPs that 

were due by December 17, 2007, 

‘‘baseline visibility conditions’’ were the 

starting points for assessing ‘‘current’’ 

visibility impairment. Baseline visibility 

conditions represent the degree of 

visibility impairment for the 20% least 

impaired days and 20% most impaired 

days for each calendar year from 2000 

to 2004. Using monitoring data for 2000 

through 2004, States are required to 

calculate the average degree of visibility 

impairment for each Class I area, based 

on the average of annual values over the 

five-year period. The comparison of 

initial baseline visibility conditions to 

natural visibility conditions indicates 

the amount of improvement necessary 

to attain natural visibility, while the 

future comparison of baseline 

conditions to the then-current 

conditions will indicate the amount of 

progress made. In general, the 2000– 

2004 baseline time period is considered 

the time from which improvement in 

visibility is measured. 

C. Consultation With States and Federal 

Land Managers 

The RHR requires that States consult 

with Federal Land Managers (FLMs) 

before adopting and submitting their 

SIPs. See 40 CFR 51.308(i). States must 

provide FLMs an opportunity for 

consultation, in person and at least 60 

days prior to holding any public hearing 

on the SIP. This consultation must 

include the opportunity for the FLMs to 

discuss their assessment of visibility 

impairment in any Class I area and to 

offer recommendations on the 

development of the reasonable progress 

goals and on the development and 

implementation of strategies to address 

visibility impairment. Further, a State 

must include in its SIP a description of 

how it addressed any comments 

provided by the FLMs. Finally, a SIP 

must provide procedures for continuing 

consultation between the State and 

FLMs regarding the State’s visibility 

protection program, including 

development and review of SIP 

revisions, five-year progress reports, and 

the implementation of other programs 

having the potential to contribute to 

impairment of visibility in Class I areas. 

D. Best Available Retrofit Technology 

Section 169A of the CAA directs 

States to evaluate the use of retrofit 

controls at certain larger, often 

uncontrolled, older stationary sources in 

order to address visibility impacts from 

these sources. Specifically, section 

169A(b)(2)(A) of the CAA requires 

States to revise their SIPs to contain 

such measures as may be necessary to 

make reasonable progress towards the 

natural visibility goal, including a 

requirement that certain categories of 

existing major stationary sources 9 built 

between 1962 and 1977 procure, install, 

and operate the ‘‘Best Available Retrofit 

Technology’’ as determined by the State. 

States are directed to conduct BART 

determinations for such sources that 

may be anticipated to cause or 

contribute to any visibility impairment 

in a Class I area. Rather than requiring 

source-specific BART controls, States 

also have the flexibility to adopt an 

emissions trading program or other 

alternative program as long as the 

alternative provides greater reasonable 

progress towards improving visibility 

than BART. 

On July 6, 2005, EPA published the 

Guidelines for BART Determinations 

Under the Regional Haze Rule at 

appendix Y to 40 CFR Part 51 

(hereinafter referred to as the ‘‘BART 

Guidelines’’) to assist States in 

determining which of their sources 

should be subject to the BART 

requirements and in determining 

appropriate emission limits for each 

applicable source. In making a BART 

applicability determination for a fossil 

fuel-fired electric generating plant with 

a total generating capacity in excess of 

750 megawatts, a State must use the 

approach set forth in the BART 

Guidelines. A State is encouraged, but 

not required, to follow the BART 

Guidelines in making BART 

determinations for other types of 

sources. 

States must address all visibilityimpairing pollutants emitted by a source 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 8, 2011 / Proposed Rules 12655 

10EPA evaluated the technical work products of 

the WRAP used by Oregon in support of this 

Regional Haze SIP submittal. The results of that 

evaluation are included in the WRAP Technical 

Support Document. 

in the BART determination process. The 

most significant visibility-impairing 

pollutants are sulfur dioxide, nitrogen 

oxides, and fine particulate matter. EPA 

has indicated that States should use 

their best judgment in determining 

whether volatile organic compounds or 

ammonia compounds impair visibility 

in Class I areas. 

Under the BART Guidelines, States 

may select an exemption threshold 

value for their BART modeling, below 

which a BART-eligible source would 

not be expected to cause or contribute 

to visibility impairment in any Class I 

area. The State must document this 

exemption threshold value in the SIP 

and must state the basis for its selection 

of that value. Any source with 

emissions that model above the 

threshold value would be subject to a 

BART determination review. The BART 

Guidelines acknowledge varying 

circumstances affecting different Class I 

areas. States should consider the 

number of emission sources affecting 

the Class I areas at issue and the 

magnitude of the individual sources’ 

impacts. Generally, an exemption 

threshold set by the State should not be 

higher than 0.5 deciview. 

In their SIPs, States must identify 

potential BART sources, described as 

‘‘BART-eligible sources’’ in the RHR, and 

document their BART control 

determination analyses. The term 

‘‘BART-eligible source’’ used in the 

BART Guidelines means the collection 

of individual emission units at a facility 

that together comprises the BARTeligible source. In making BART 

determinations, section 169A(g)(2) of 

the CAA requires that States consider 

the following factors: (1) The costs of 

compliance, (2) the energy and non-air 

quality environmental impacts of 

compliance, (3) any existing pollution 

control technology in use at the source, 

(4) the remaining useful life of the 

source, and (5) the degree of 

improvement in visibility which may 

reasonably be anticipated to result from 

the use of such technology. States are 

free to determine the weight and 

significance to be assigned to each 

factor. 

A regional haze SIP must include 

source-specific BART emission limits 

and compliance schedules for each 

source subject to BART. Once a State 

has made its BART determination, the 

BART controls must be installed and in 

operation as expeditiously as 

practicable, but no later than five years 

after the date EPA approves the regional 

haze SIP. CAA section 169(g)(4). 40 CFR 

51.308(e)(1)(iv). In addition to what is 

required by the RHR, general SIP 

requirements mandate that the SIP must 

also include all regulatory requirements 

related to monitoring, recordkeeping, 

and reporting for the BART controls on 

the source. States have the flexibility to 

choose the type of control measures 

they will use to meet the requirements 

of BART. 

III. EPA’s Analysis of Oregon’s 

Regional Haze SIP 

A. Affected Class I Areas 

There are 12 mandatory Class I areas, 

or portions of such areas within Oregon: 

Mt. Hood Wilderness Area, Mt. Jefferson 

Wilderness Area, Mt Washington 

Wilderness Area, Kalmiopsis 

Wilderness Area, Mountain Lakes 

Wilderness Area, Gearhart Mountain 

Wilderness Area, Crater Lake National 

Park, Diamond Peak Wilderness Area, 

Three Sisters Wilderness Area, 

Strawberry Mountain Wilderness Area, 

Eagle Cap Wilderness Area, and Hells 

Canyon Wilderness Area. Hells Canyon 

Wilderness Area is shared with the State 

of Idaho. See 40 CFR 81.425. Oregon is 

responsible for developing reasonable 

progress goals (RPGs) for these 12 Class 

I areas. Oregon Department of 

Environmental Quality (ODEQ) 

consulted with the appropriate State air 

quality agency in Washington, Idaho, 

California, and Nevada to determine 

Oregon’s contribution to haze in 

neighboring States’ Class I areas. See 

chapter 13, section 13.2 of the Oregon 

Regional Haze SIP submittal. See also 

the WRAP Technical Support 

Document, February 28, 2011 (WRAP 

TSD) supporting this action.10

B. Baseline and Natural Conditions and 

Uniform Rate of Progress 

Oregon, using data from the 

IMPROVE monitoring network and 

analyzed by WRAP, established baseline 

and natural visibility conditions as well 

as the uniform rate of progress (URP) to 

achieve natural visibility conditions by 

2064 for all Oregon Class I areas within 

its borders. 

Baseline visibility for the mostimpaired (20% worst) days and the 

least-impaired (20% best) days was 

calculated from monitoring data 

collected by IMPROVE monitors. Not 

every Class I area has an IMPROVE 

monitor, rather a monitor in a Class I 

area may represent the air quality and 

visibility conditions for more than a 

single Class I area. The Class I areas that 

are represented by a monitor in a nearby Class I area were determined by the 

States and the IMPROVE Steering 

Committee. This decision was based on 

the Class I areas in a group having the 

same general visibility conditions. 

IMPROVE monitors are located in six 

Oregon Class I areas and represent all 12 

Oregon Class I areas. Specifically, the 

Oregon Class I areas are segregated into 

six groups. These groups and Class I 

areas are: 

• North Cascades: Mt. Hood 

Wilderness Area. 

• Central Cascades: Mt. Jefferson, Mt. 

Washington, and Three Sisters 

Wilderness Areas. 

• Southern Cascades: Crater Lake 

National Park, Diamond Peak, Mountain 

Lakes, and Gearhart Wilderness Areas. 

• Coast Range: Kalmiopsis 

Wilderness Area. 

• Eastern Oregon: Strawberry 

Mountain and Eagle Cap Wilderness 

Areas. 

• Eastern Oregon/Western Idaho: 

Hells Canyon Wilderness Area. 

In general, WRAP based their 

estimates of natural conditions on EPA 

guidance, Guidance for Estimating 

Natural Visibility Conditions Under the 

Regional Haze Program (EPA–45/B–03– 

0005 September 2003) but incorporated 

refinements which EPA believes 

provides results more appropriate for 

western States than the general EPA 

default approach. See section 2.D and 

2.E of the WRAP TSD, supporting this 

action. 

Visibility on 20% worst days during 

the 2000–04 baseline period for each 

group of Oregon Class I areas is: 

• North Cascades—14.9 dv 

• Central Cascades—15.3 dv 

• Southern Cascades—13.7 dv 

• Coast Range—15.5 dv 

• Eastern Oregon—18.6 dv 

• Eastern Oregon/Western Idaho— 

18.6 dv 

Visibility on 20% best days during the 

2000–04 baseline period for each group 

of Oregon Class I areas is: 

• North Cascades—2.2 dv 

• Central Cascades—3.0 dv 

• Southern Cascades—1.7 dv 

• Coast Range—6.3 dv 

• Eastern Oregon—4.5 dv 

• Eastern Oregon/Western Idaho—5.5 

dv 

Natural visibility conditions on the 

20% worst days for each group of Class 

I areas are: 

• Northern Cascades—8.4 dv 

• Central Cascades—8.8 dv 

• Southern Cascades—7.6 dv 

• Coast Range—9.4 dv 

• Eastern Oregon—8.9 dv 

• Eastern Oregon/Western Idaho –8.3 

dv 

The 2018 Uniform Rate of Progress 

(URP) goal for the 20% worst days in 

each group of Class I areas is: 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

12656 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 8, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

• North Cascades—13.4 dv 

• Central Cascades—13.8 dv 

• Southern Cascades—12.3 dv 

• Coast Range—14.1 dv 

• Eastern Oregon –16.3 dv 

• Eastern Oregon/Western Idaho— 

16.2 dv 

Baseline visibility conditions, 2064 

natural conditions, and reductions 

needed to achieve the 2018 URP for the 

20% worst days for each group of 

Oregon Class I areas are identified in 

table 6–1 of chapter 6 of the Oregon 

Regional Haze Plan. 

Based on our evaluation of the State’s 

baseline and natural conditions 

analysis, EPA is proposing to find that 

Oregon has appropriately determined 

baseline visibility for the average 20% 

worst and 20% best days, and natural 

visibility conditions for the average 20% 

worst days in each Oregon Class I area. 

See sections 2.D and 2.E of the WRAP 

TSD supporting this action. 

C. Oregon Emissions Inventories 

There are three main categories of air 

pollution emission sources: point 

sources, area sources, and mobile 

sources. Point sources are larger 

stationary sources that emit air 

pollutants. Area sources are large 

numbers of small sources that are 

widely distributed across an area, such 

as residential heating units, re-entrained 

dust from unpaved roads or windblown 

dust from agricultural fields. Mobile 

sources are sources such as motor 

vehicles, locomotives and aircraft. 

EPA’s Regional Haze Rule requires a 

statewide emission inventory of 

pollutants that are reasonably 

anticipated to cause or contribute to 

visibility impairment in any mandatory 

Class I area. 40 CFR 51.308(d)(4)(v). The 

WRAP, with data supplied by the States, 

compiled emission inventories for all 

major source categories in Oregon and 

estimated the 2002 baseline year (based 

on an average of 2000–2004). Oregon 

also compiled an emission inventory for 

2018. Emission estimates for 2018 were 

generated from anticipated population 

growth, growth in industrial activity, 

and emission reductions from 

implementation of control measures, 

e.g., implementation of BART 

limitations and motor vehicle tailpipe 

emissions. 

Chapter 8 of the Oregon Regional 

Haze SIP submittal discusses how 

emission estimates were determined for 

statewide emission inventories by 

pollutant and source category. 

Appendix A of the Oregon Regional 

Haze Plan identifies the Oregon 

emission inventory by county. Detailed 

estimates of the emissions used in the 

modeling conducted by the WRAP for 

Oregon can be found at the WRAP Web 

site: http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/TSS/ 

Results/Emissions.aspx. 

The Oregon Regional Haze SIP 

submittal identifies total emissions for 

all visibility-impairing pollutants 

including sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen 

oxides (NOX), volatile organic 

compounds (VOC), organic carbon (OC), 

elemental carbon (EC), other fine 

particulate (PM2.5), coarse particulate 

matter (PM coarse), and ammonia (NH3). 

These emission estimates were 

partitioned into nine emission source 

categories: Point source, area source, onroad mobile, off-road mobile, 

anthropogenic fire (prescribed fire and 

agricultural field burning), natural fire, 

road dust, and fugitive dust. See chapter 

8.1 of the Oregon Regional Haze SIP 

submittal for additional detail on how 

the statewide emission inventory was 

developed, and for tables showing the 

emissions inventory for each pollutant 

by source category. The methods that 

WRAP used to develop these emission 

inventories are described in more detail 

in the WRAP TSD. As explained in the 

WRAP TSD, emissions were calculated 

using best available data and approved 

EPA methods. See WRAP TSD section 3. 

Point sources in Oregon account for 

39% (18,493 tons/year) of total Statewide SO2 emissions. The most 

significant point sources are coal-fired 

electrical generation units. Area sources 

(such as Pacific offshore shipping, wood 

combustion, and natural gas 

combustion) contribute about 21% 

(9,932 tons/year) to Oregon statewide 

SO2 emissions. On-road mobile and offroad mobile sources contribute a 

combined total of 21% (9,981 tons/year) 

of the Oregon SO2 emissions. In the 

Oregon Regional Haze SIP submittal, the 

State projected SO2 reductions of 57% 

in point sources, 15% in area sources, 

94% combined reduction in on-road 

and off-road mobile source emissions, 

and 17% in anthropogenic fire 

emissions by 2018 (see Chapter 8 of the 

Oregon Regional Haze Plan). 

Upon further review, EPA determined 

that the 57% reduction in point source 

emissions was partially based on 

WRAP’s assumption of an SO2 emission 

rate of 0.15 lb/mmBtu (presumptive 

limit for utility boilers identified in the 

BART Guidelines, see Section IV. E.4.) 

from the PGE Boardman coal fired 

power plant by 2018. The remaining 

SO2 point emission reductions in 

Oregon would be achieved through 

ongoing and new industrial control 

requirements, and projected source 

retirements and shutdowns. However, 

the BART determination for PGE 

Boardman based on a 2020 plant 

lifetime, which EPA proposes to 

approve in this rulemaking (see section 

III. E.4 below), achieves an SO2

emission limit of 0.30 lb/mmBtu by 

2018, or about 4,000 ton/year less SO2

reductions than assumed by WRAP. 

Thus, statewide point source emission 

reductions of SO2 are estimated by EPA 

to be 35% by 2018. However, if PGE 

Boardman ceases to burn coal by 2020, 

as it would under the proposed 

approved BART determination, there 

will be an estimated 76% reduction is 

SO2 from point sources by 2020 which 

will provide a substantial improvement 

at that time in visibility in all 14 Class 

I areas currently impacted by PGE 

Boardman. 

On-road mobile sources account for 

43% (111,646 tons/year) of the total 

NOX statewide emissions in Oregon. 

Off-road mobile sources account for 

21% (53,896 tons/year), natural fire 

accounts for 11% (27,397 tons/year), 

and point sources account for 10% 

(26,160 tons/year) of the statewide NOX

emissions. The State expects on-road 

and off-road mobile source emissions to 

decline by 62% and 40%, respectively, 

by 2018, due to Federally mandated 

emission standards for mobile sources. 

The State also projects NOX emissions 

from point sources will decrease by 5% 

(or 1,213 tons/year). After evaluating the 

assumptions on which this 5% 

reduction was based, it appears that the 

5% reduction does not include 

presumptive NOX emission reductions 

from the PGE Boardman facility by 

2018. The presumptive NOX emission 

limit for utility boilers, like PGE 

Boardman boiler, is 0.23 lb/mmBtu. 

EPA BART Guidelines (Section IV 

(E)(5)). The current NOX emission limit 

for the PGE Boardman is 0.43 lb/ 

mmBtu, which results in emissions of 

about 10,300 tons/year (based on 2007 

actual emissions). The BART 

determination for PGE Boardman based 

on it ceasing to burn coal by 2020, 

which EPA proposes to approve in this 

rulemaking (see section III. E.4 below), 

achieves a NOX emission limit of 0.23 

lb/mmBtu, or annual emissions of about 

5,500 tons/year (a 47% reduction) by 

2013. Thus, in EPA’s estimation, there 

will be about a 23% reduction in NOX

emissions from all Oregon point sources 

by 2018. The State expects emissions 

from natural fire to remain unchanged 

by 2018. The net effect of these 

projected emissions results in a 37% 

overall reduction in NOX emissions in 

Oregon by 2018. 

Most of the organic carbon emissions 

in Oregon are from natural fire, which 

fluctuate greatly from year to year. For 

2002, about 68% of statewide organic 

carbon emissions in Oregon were due to 

natural fire. Anthropogenic fire 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 8, 2011 / Proposed Rules 12657 

(prescribed fire, agricultural field 

burning, and outdoor residential 

burning) accounts for 9% of the 

statewide organic carbon emissions. A 

variety of other area sources contribute 

a total of 19% of the statewide organic 

carbon, with residential wood 

combustion being a significant 

component. The State expects area 

source emissions to increase slightly 

(7%) by 2018, due mostly to population 

increases. The State projects the most 

significant reductions in organic carbon 

by 2018 will be from point sources 

(80%) due to anticipated emission 

controls, off-road mobile (36%) due to 

implementation of the Federal mobile 

source regulations, and anthropogenic 

fire (28%) due to stricter Oregon rules 

controlling prescribed burning, 

agricultural burning, and residential 

burning. However, because natural fire 

emissions are expected to remain 

unchanged, total organic carbon 

emissions are estimated to decline by 

only 3% by 2018. 

Elemental carbon is associated with 

incomplete combustion. Like organic 

carbon, the primary source of elemental 

carbon in Oregon is natural fire (61%), 

area sources (such as wood combustion) 

(15%), and off-road mobile sources 

(12%). The State projects an increase of 

elemental carbon area source emissions 

by 6% due to population growth. 

Oregon estimates a decrease of 

combined on-road and off-road mobile 

source elemental carbon by about 65% 

by 2018. This reduction in mobile 

source emissions results from new 

Federal mobile source emission 

regulations. However, because 

elemental carbon emissions are 

dominated by natural fire, which are 

expected to remain unchanged, the State 

projects only an 11% reduction in State 

wide elemental carbon emissions by 

2018. 

Other fine particulates, particles with 

an aerodynamic diameter of less than 

2.5 micrometers (PM2.5), are emitted 

directly from a variety of area sources. 

Area sources are responsible for 34% of 

all directly-emitted PM2.5 emissions in 

Oregon. Wind-blown dust from 

agriculture, mining, construction, and 

roads contribute about 25% to the total 

statewide PM2.5 emissions. The State 

projects a 12% increase in area source 

emissions due to population and 

economic growth, and wind-blown dust 

emissions to remain unchanged by 

2018, resulting in a statewide 2% 

reduction in total PM2.5 by 2018. 

Coarse particulate matter (PM coarse) 

is particulate matter within the size 

range of 2.5–10 micrometers. PM coarse 

emission sources include windblown 

dust, rock crushing and processing, 

material transfer, and open pit mining. 

Windblown dust is the dominant source 

of PM coarse emissions in Oregon at 

104,274 tons/year (60%). Statewide PM 

coarse emissions are estimated to 

increase by 17% in 2018, primarily 

because emissions from fugitive dust 

sources (construction, paved roads, and 

unpaved roads) are expected to increase 

106% due to population growth, and 

windblown dust will remain 

unchanged. 

Volatile organic compound (VOC) 

emissions are dominated by biogenic 

emissions from forests and vegetation, 

which account for about 70% of 

statewide Oregon VOC emissions. In 

Oregon, agricultural crops and urban 

vegetation are also significant sources. 

Other sources of VOCs are mobile 

sources at 8%, and area sources 

(industrial and commercial facilities, 

and residential solvent use) at 15%. 

Oregon projects that statewide area 

source emissions will increase by 36% 

by 2018, primarily due to population 

growth. As a result, the State estimates 

that total Oregon VOC emissions will 

increase by 2% by 2018. 

Ammonia (NH3) does not directly 

impair visibility but can be a precursor 

to the formation of particulate in the 

atmosphere through chemical reaction 

with SO2 and NOX to form ‘‘secondary 

aerosol’’ sulfate and nitrate. About 80% 

of the NH3 emissions in Oregon come 

from agricultural-related activities, 

primarily livestock operations and farm 

fertilizer applications. Since the NH3

emissions from these agricultural 

sources are expected to remain 

unchanged by 2018, and mobile source 

emissions of NH3 are projected to 

increase by 45% (1,463 tons/year) by 

2018, Oregon projects that there will be 

a total 2% increase of NH3 emissions by 

2018. 

D. Sources of Visibility Impairment in 

Oregon Class I Areas 

Each pollutant species has its own 

visibility impairing property; 1 μg/m3 of 

sulfate at high humidity, for example, is 

more effective in scattering light than 1 

μg/m3 of organic carbon and therefore 

impairs visibility more than organic 

carbon. Following the approach 

recommended by the WRAP, and as 

explained more fully below, Oregon 

used a two step process to identify the 

contribution of each source or source 

category to existing visibility 

impairment. First, ambient pollutant 

concentration by species (such as 

sulfate, nitrate, organic carbon, and 

elemental carbon) was determined from 

the IMPROVE data collected for each 

group of Class I areas. These 

concentrations were then converted into 

deciview values to distribute existing 

impairment among the measured 

pollutant species. The deciview value 

for each pollutant species was 

calculated by using the ‘‘revised 

IMPROVE equation’’ (See Section 2.C of 

the WRAP TSD) to calculate extinction 

from each pollutant species 

concentration. Extinction, in inverse 

megameters, was then converted to 

deciview using the equation defining 

deciview. Second, the Comprehensive 

Air Quality Model with Extensions 

(CAMx) and PM Source Apportionment 

Technology (PSAT) models were used 

to determine which sources and source 

categories contributed to the ambient 

concentration of each pollutant species. 

Thus, impairment was distributed by 

source and source category. 

After considering the available 

models, the WRAP and Western States 

selected two source apportionment 

analysis tools. The first source 

apportionment tool was the 

Comprehensive Air Quality Model with 

Extensions (CAMx) in conjunction with 

PM Source Apportionment Technology 

(PSAT). This model uses emission 

source characterization, meteorology 

and atmospheric chemistry for aerosol 

formation to predict pollutant 

concentrations in the Class I area. The 

predicted results are compared to 

measured concentrations to assess 

accuracy of model output. CAMx PSAT 

modeling was used to determine source 

contribution to ambient sulfate and 

nitrate concentrations. The WRAP used 

state-of-the-science source 

apportionment tools within a widely 

used photochemical model. EPA has 

reviewed the PSAT analysis and 

considers the modeling, methodology, 

and analysis acceptable. See section 6.A 

of the WRAP TSD. 

The second tool was the Weighted 

Emissions Potential (WEP) model, used 

primarily as a screening tool to decide 

which geographic source regions have 

the potential to contribute to haze at 

specific Class I areas. WEP does not 

account for atmospheric chemistry 

(secondary aerosol formation) or 

removal processes, and thus is used for 

estimating inert particulate 

concentrations. The model uses back 

trajectory wind flow calculations and 

resident time of an air parcel to 

determine source and source category 

and location for ambient organic carbon, 

elemental carbon, PM2.5, and coarse PM 

concentrations. These modeling tools 

were the state-of-the-science and EPA 

has determined that these tools were 

appropriately used by WRAP for 

regional haze planning. Description of 

these tools and our evaluation of them 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

12658 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 8, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

are described in more detail in section 

6 of the WRAP TSD. 

Section 9.2.1 of the Oregon SIP 

submittal explains that sources in areas 

outside of the modeling domain (i.e., 

portions of northern Canada, southern 

Mexico, Pacific offshore, and global 

sources) contribute between 40% to 

60% of the sulfate that impairs visibility 

in all of Oregon’s Class I areas on the 

20% worst days. SO2 sources within the 

WRAP region contribute about 33% of 

sulfate that impairs visibility in Oregon 

Class I areas. Of the SO2 contribution 

from WRAP States, about 50% of the 

SO2 comes from point, area, and mobile 

sources in Oregon. 

The PSAT results also show that 

between 15 to 33% of the nitrate 

impairing visibility in all of Oregon’s 

Class I areas comes from sources outside 

of the modeling domain, with the 

remainder from sources within the 

WRAP region. 

North and Central Cascades Class I 

Areas 

The PSAT results for sulfate show 

that for the 20% worst days during 

2000–2004 the North and Central 

Cascades Class I areas are mostly 

impacted by sulfate from a combination 

of SO2 point, area and mobile sources in 

Washington, Oregon, and marine 

shipping in the Pacific offshore region 

(see Oregon Regional Haze SIP submittal 

Figures 9.2.1–1 through Figures 9.2.1– 

6). The mobile source contribution to 

sulfate pollution is expected to decline 

significantly by 2018 due to the 

implementation of the Federal low 

sulfur diesel fuel rule, which went into 

effect in 2006 for on-road mobile 

sources, and took effect for non-road 

mobile sources in 2010. 

The PSAT results for nitrate show that 

a majority of the nitrate impacting the 

North and Central Cascades Class I areas 

is from mobile sources in Oregon and 

Washington (see Oregon Regional Haze 

SIP submittal Figures 9.2.2–1 through 

Figures 9.2.2–6). PSAT results predict 

about a 50% reduction in nitrate 

concentrations in these area by 2018 

due to a 50% reduction in NOX

emissions from Oregon and Washington 

mobile sources. 

Based on the WEP model results, the 

organic carbon in the North Cascades on 

the 20% worst visibility days comes 

mostly from area sources and natural 

fires in Oregon, with a small 

contribution from areas sources in 

Washington. On the 20% worst 

visibility days at North Cascades, most 

of the primary PM2.5 contributions come 

from area and fugitive dust sources in 

Oregon, and to a lesser extent area and 

point sources in Washington. 

For the 20% worst visibility days in 

the Central Cascades, most of the 

organic carbon comes from a 

combination of area source emissions 

and natural and anthropogenic fire in 

Oregon. For the 20% worst visibility 

days in the Central Cascades, the OC 

comes primarily from Oregon area 

sources. For the 20% worst visibility 

days in the Central Cascades, most of 

the PM2.5 comes from area sources in 

Oregon. 

Southern Cascades Class I Areas 

For the 20% worst days in the three 

Class I areas in the Southern Cascades, 

overall visibility impairment due to 

sulfate are lower compared to the 

Northern and Central Cascade Class I 

areas. Most of the sulfate impacting 

these Southern Cascade Class I areas is 

from point sources in Oregon, 

Washington, California, and Canada. 

Pacific offshore shipping is also a 

substantial contributor of sulfate to this 

area. 

For the 20% worst days in Southern 

Cascades, the most significant sources of 

nitrate are mobile sources in Oregon and 

Washington. The impact from these 

sources is expected to decrease by about 

50% by 2018 due to Federal mobile 

source emission control measures. 

For the 20% worst visibility days in 

the Southern Cascades, approximately 

90% of the organic carbon contribution 

came from natural fires in 2002. 

Emissions from natural fires are 

expected to be unchanged by 2018. 

Coast Range Class I Area 

The only Class I area in the Coast 

Range group is the Kalmiopsis 

Wilderness Area. The most significant 

sources of sulfate to the Kalmiopsis 

Wilderness Area are natural fires in 

Oregon, and marine shipping in the 

Pacific Ocean. Both of these sources are 

expected to be unchanged by 2018. 

A majority of the nitrate impacting the 

Kalmiopsis Wilderness Area is from 

mobile sources in Oregon and from 

marine shipping in the Pacific Ocean. 

Smaller contributions come from 

Washington and California mobile 

sources. Mobile source contributions to 

this area are expected to decrease by 

about 50% by 2018. 

For the 20% worst visibility days in 

the Kalmiopsis Wilderness, almost all of 

organic carbon for the 2002 base year 

came from natural fire. For the 20% 

worst visibility days in the Kalmiopsis, 

the PM2.5 contributions were mostly 

from natural fire in Oregon. 

For the 20% worst days in the 

Kalmiopsis Wilderness Area, the 

contribution from point sources is 

relatively small. For the 20% of worst 

days in the Kalmiopsis Wilderness Area, 

the vast majority of nitrate comes from 

Oregon mobile sources, with smaller 

contributions from Washington and 

California mobile sources. There is also 

a substantial nitrate contribution from 

Pacific offshore shipping, due primarily 

to the close proximity of the Kalmiopsis 

Wilderness Area to the Pacific Ocean. 

Eastern Oregon Class I Areas 

For the 20% worst days in Strawberry 

Mountain Wilderness and Eagle Cap 

Wilderness Areas, the contribution of 

sulfates from each geographical area is 

relatively low (less than 0.12 

micrograms per cubic meter), with the 

largest contribution being from point 

sources from Canada, Washington, and 

Oregon. However, the visibility on the 

20% worst days in this area is 

significantly impacted (greater than 0.20 

micrograms per cubic meter) by a 

combination of point, area, and mobile 

NOX sources in Oregon, Washington, 

and Idaho. 

For the 20% worst visibility days in 

the Strawberry Mountain Wilderness 

and Eagle Cap Wilderness Areas, about 

80% of the organic carbon contribution 

came from a combination of natural fires 

and anthropogenic sources in Oregon. 

For the 20% worst visibility days there 

is also a dominant PM2.5 contribution 

from windblown dust, and some 

fugitive and road dust area and fire 

sources in Oregon. The contribution of 

this mixture of source from Washington 

is about half of the Oregon level. 

Eastern Oregon/Western Idaho Class I 

Area 

For the 20% worst days in the Hells 

Canyon Wilderness Area, the 

contribution of sulfates from each 

geographical area is relatively low (less 

than 0.06 micrograms per cubic meter), 

with the largest contribution being from 

point sources from Canada, Idaho, and 

Oregon. However, the visibility on the 

20% worst days in this area is 

significantly impacted (greater than 0.35 

micrograms per cubic meter) by a 

combination of mobile and area NOX

sources in Idaho, and to a lesser degree, 

point and mobile sources in Oregon. 

For the 20% worst visibility days in 

the Hells Canyon Wilderness Area, the 

majority of the organic carbon 

contribution comes from a combination 

of Oregon natural and anthropogenic 

fire sources and to a lesser extent from 

anthropogenic and natural fire sources 

in Oregon. For the 20% worst visibility 

days in the Hells Canyon Wilderness 

Area, most of the contribution of PM2.5

comes from a combination of 

windblown, fugitive and road dust 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 8, 2011 / Proposed Rules 12659 

sources in Idaho and to a lesser degree, 

the same mix of sources in Oregon. 

EPA is proposing to find that Oregon 

has appropriately identified the primary 

pollutants impacting its Class I areas. 

EPA is also proposing to find that the 

SIP contains an appropriate analysis of 

the impact of these pollutants in nearby 

Class I areas. 

E. Best Available Retrofit Technology 

(BART) 

1. BART-Eligible Sources in Oregon 

The first step of a BART evaluation is 

to identify all the BART-eligible sources 

within the State’s boundaries. Table 

10.2–1 in the Oregon Regional Haze SIP 

submittal presents the list of ten BARTeligible sources located in Oregon. 

These sources are: Amalgamated Sugar 

(Nyssa), Portland Gas and Electric (PGE) 

power plant (Boardman), Boise Paper 

Solutions (St. Helens), Georgia Pacific 

Wauna pulp mill (Clatskanie), PGE 

Beaver power plant (Clatskanie), 

Georgia Pacific pulp mill (Toledo), Pope 

and Talbot pulp mills (Halsey), SP 

Newsprint (Newberg), International 

Paper pulp mill (Springfield), and 

Kingsford charcoal production 

(Springfield). 

2. BART-Subject Sources in Oregon 

The second step of a BART evaluation 

is to identify those BART-eligible 

sources that may reasonably be 

anticipated to cause or contribute to any 

impairment of visibility at any Class I 

area and are, therefore, subject to BART. 

As explained above, EPA has issued 

guidelines that provide States with 

guidance for addressing the BART 

requirements. 40 CFR Part 51 Appendix 

Y—Guidelines for BART determinations 

under the regional Haze Rule (BART 

Guidelines); see also 70 FR 39104 (July 

6, 2005). The BART Guidelines describe 

how States may consider exempting 

some BART-eligible sources from 

further BART review based on 

dispersion modeling showing that the 

source contributes to impairment below 

a certain threshold amount. Oregon 

conducted dispersion modeling for the 

BART-eligible sources to determine the 

visibility impacts of these sources on 

Class I areas. 

The BART Guidelines require States 

to set a contribution threshold to assess 

whether the impact of a single source is 

sufficient to cause or contribute to 

visibility impairment at a Class I area. 

Generally, States may not establish a 

contribution threshold that exceeds 0.5 

dv impact. 70 FR at 39161. Oregon 

established a contribution threshold of 

0.5 dv through negotiated rulemaking 

with industry, FLMs, and the public. In 

its SIP submittal, Oregon notes that the 

0.5 dv threshold is also consistent with 

the threshold used by all other States in 

the WRAP. Any source with an impact 

of greater than 0.5 dv in any Class I area, 

including Class I areas in other States, 

would be subject to a BART analysis 

and BART emission limitations. 

Oregon established a contribution 

threshold of 0.5 dv based on the 

following reasons; (1) it equates to the 

5% extinction threshold for new sources 

under the PSD New Source Review 

rules, (2) it is consistent with the 

threshold selected by other States in the 

West, (3) it represents the limit of 

perceptible change, and (4) there was no 

clear rationale or justification for 

selecting a lower level. EPA finds that 

these reasons alone do not provide 

sufficient basis for concluding that such 

a threshold is appropriate for Oregon. 

Nevertheless, based on the additional 

information described below, EPA 

proposes to approve the list of subjectto-BART sources in this SIP submittal. 

In the BART Guidelines, EPA 

recommended that States ‘‘consider the 

number of BART sources affecting the 

Class I areas at issue and the magnitude 

of the individual sources’ impacts. In 

general, a larger number of BART 

sources causing impacts in a Class I area 

may warrant a lower contribution 

threshold.’’ 70 FR 39104, 39161 July 6, 

2005. In developing its regional haze 

SIP, Oregon modeled the individual 

impacts of ten BART-eligible sources on 

Class I areas within a 300 km radius. 

(See Table 10–3.2–1 of the SIP 

submittal.) EPA’s review of modeled 

impacts of the BART-eligible sources in 

Oregon finds there is only one group of 

Oregon BART-eligible sources, that 

collectively impact visibility at the same 

Class I area (Mt. Hood Wilderness Area), 

with a total impact greater that 1.0 dv 

(level defined as ‘causing’ visibility 

impairment). This group of sources 

consists of the Georgia Pacific Wauna 

pulp mill and PGE Beaver power plant 

in Clatskanie and Boise Paper Solutions 

in St. Helens. Two of these facilities, 

Georgia Pacific Wauna and PGE Beaver, 

have taken Federally Enforceable Permit 

Limits to limit their visibility impacts to 

0.344 dv and to 0.357 dv, respectively 

at the Mt. Hood Wilderness Area. The 

remaining facility, Boise Paper 

Solutions, has a maximum of 0.367 dv 

impact at the Mt. Hood Wilderness 

Area. Since the combined contribution 

of these three sources will now be 1.068 

dv, which is only slightly above the 

threshold of ‘causing’ visibility 

impairment, EPA is proposing to 

approve the 0.5 dv contribution 

threshold adopted by Oregon in its 

Regional Haze Plan. 

To determine those sources subject-toBART, Oregon used the CALPUFF 

dispersion model. The dispersion 

modeling was conducted in accord with 

the BART Modeling Protocol7. This 

Protocol was jointly developed by the 

States of Idaho, Washington, Oregon 

and EPA and has undergone public 

review. The Protocol was used by all 

three States in determining which 

BART-eligible sources are subject to 

BART. See appendix D.4 of the SIP 

submission for details of the modeling 

protocol, its application and results. 

The following BART-eligible sources, 

based on CALPUFF modeling of 2003– 

2005 emissions, demonstrate impacts 

greater than 0.5 dv in one or more Class 

I areas, and were identified as subject to 

BART: 

1. PGE Beaver Power Plant, Clatskanie 

2. Georgia Pacific, Wauna Facility, 

Clatskanie 

3. International Paper (formally 

Weyerhaeuser), Springfield 

4. Amalgamated Sugar, Nyssa 

5. PGE Boardman Power Plant, 

Boardman 

3. Federally Enforceable Permit Limits 

on Oregon Sources Otherwise Subjectto-BART 

The following sources elected to be 

regulated by a Federally enforceable 

permit limit to reduce visibility impacts 

below the 0.5 dv impact threshold and 

thus are not subject-to-BART: 

a. PGE Beaver Power Plant 

PGE Beaver Power Plant is a 558 

megawatt fossil fuel-fired, electricalgenerating plant located in Clatskanie, 

Oregon. Visibility modeling for this 

facility shows an impact on three Class 

I areas over the 0.5 dv, with the highest 

impact of 0.68 dv at Olympic National 

Park in Washington. Condition 340– 

224–0070 of the Title V permit (#05– 

2520) for this facility, modified by the 

Oregon Department of Environmental 

Quality (ODEQ) on January 21, 2009, 

and included in the SIP submittal, 

establishes emission limits and the 

control technology to achieve these 

limits, so that the impact of emissions 

from this facility remain below a 0.5 dv 

at Olympic National Park and all other 

Class I areas. 

To achieve the emission limits 

established in the Title V permit, the 

facility must use ultra-low sulfur diesel 

(ULSD) fuel (with no more than 

0.0015% sulfur) in its oil-fired BART 

eligible units. The source must use only 

‘‘pipe line quality’’ natural gas in the gasfueled PWEU1 unit. 

Compliance with emission limits will 

be determined by a combination of 

continuous emission monitors and other 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

12660 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 8, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

record keeping and reporting 

requirements. Based on the fuel use 

restrictions established in the permit, 

the predicted maximum impact for this 

facility, based on visibility modeling, 

will be 0.414 dv at Mt. Rainier National 

Park (the most impacted Class I area) 

(See section 10.3.2, table 10.3.2–1, and 

Oregon’s supplemental submittal, 

February 1, 2011). EPA proposes to find 

that in light of the Federally enforceable 

permit limit, this source is not subjectto-BART. 

b. Georgia Pacific Wauna Mill 

The Georgia Pacific Wauna Mill is a 

pulp and paper manufacturing plant 

located in Clatskanie, Oregon. Modeling 

conducted for this facility shows an 

impact at Olympic National Park of 0.57 

dv. This facility elected to be regulated 

by an FEPL to limit its emission so that 

visibility impacts in any Class I area 

remain below 0.5 dv. The section titled 

‘‘Emission Unit Specific Limits— 

Regional Haze Requirements’’ of Title V 

permit (#208850) for this facility, 

modified by ODEQ on December 2, 

2010, and included in the SIP submittal, 

identifies emission limits and the 

methods for achieving these limits, so 

that emissions from this facility will not 

cause impairment above 0.5 dv. 

To achieve the emission limits 

established by the permit, the mill has 

reduced its SO2 emissions by (1) 

permanently reducing use of fuel oil in 

the Power Boiler, (2) discontinuing the 

use of fuel oil in the Lime Kiln until the 

Non-Condensable Gas Incinerator 

(NCGI) unit is shut down, and (3) 

limiting pulp production rate to 1,030 

tons per day until the NCGI unit is shut 

down, at which time production rate 

will be limited to 1,350 tons per day. 

Compliance with emission limits will be 

determined by visible emission 

monitoring and source testing. 

The maximum predicted impact for 

this facility will be 0.45 dv at Olympic 

National Park (See section 10.3.2, table 

10.3.2–1, and Oregon’s supplemental 

submittal, February 1, 2011). EPA 

proposes to find that in light of the 

FEPL, this source is not subject-toBART. 

c. International Paper 

International Paper is a 

containerboard plant located in 

Springfield, Oregon. Modeling 

conducted for this facility shows an 

impact in nine Class I areas over the 0.5 

dv. The highest impact of 1.45 dv occurs 

at the Three Sisters Wilderness Area. 

Condition 210 of Title V permit 

(#208850) for this facility, modified by 

Lane Regional Air Protection Agency on 

April 7, 2009, and included in the SIP 

submittal, identifies emission limits and 

the methods for achieving these limits, 

so that the impact of emissions from this 

facility remain below a 0.5 dv impact. 

To achieve the emission limits 

established by the permit, the plant has 

reduced its emissions of SO2, NOX, and 

PM by accepting limits on fuel usage 

and operation, and meeting a combined 

SO2 and NOX daily emission limit based 

on a plant fuel use specific formula. The 

permit requires this facility to include 

the package boiler (EU–150B) emissions 

when demonstrating compliance with 

condition 210 of the permit until the 

source submits a notice of completion of 

No. 4 recovery boiler mud and steam 

drum replacement. Compliance with 

emission limits will be determined by 

testing the sulfur concentrations in the 

natural gas and fuel oil used by this 

facility at specified frequencies, and 

using the appropriate emission factors 

for these fuels to calculate estimate 

daily SO2 and NOX emissions. With the 

Federally enforceable permit limit, the 

maximum predicted impact for this 

facility will be 0.44 dv at Three Sisters 

Wilderness Area (See section 10.3.2, 

table 10.3.2–1, and Oregon’s 

supplemental submittal, February 1, 

2011). 

EPA proposes to find that in light of 

the Federally enforceable permit limit 

this source is not subject-to-BART. 

d. Amalgamated Sugar Plant 

Amalgamated Sugar Plant is a sugar 

beet processing plant located in Nyssa, 

in eastern Oregon, near the Idaho 

border. This plant is currently 

shutdown and has no identified date to 

resume operations. However, since its 

air quality permit is still valid, BART 

modeling was conducted for the plant 

and an impact of 0.514 dv was 

identified at the Eagle Cap Wilderness 

Area. In the event this source resumes 

operation in the future, Oregon 

Department of Environmental Quality 

(ODEQ) will require that this facility be 

subject to a Federally enforceable permit 

limit in its Title V permit, or conduct a 

BART analysis and install BART prior 

to resuming operation. The Federally 

enforceable permit limit will consist of 

an emission limit on the Foster-Wheeler 

boiler at this facility, which will ensure 

visibility impact remains under the 0.5 

dv threshold. See OAR 340–223–0040. 

EPA proposes to find that in light of 

these provisions, this source is not 

currently subject- to-BART. 

4. BART for PGE Boardman 

The PGE power plant near Boardman, 

Oregon, (PGE Boardman) is a 584 MW 

coal-fired electric utility and is BARTeligible because it is was constructed 

between 1962 and 1977, is a fossil-fuel 

fired steam electric generating plant of 

more than 250 million British thermal 

units (mm/Btu) per hour heat input, and 

has potential emissions greater than 250 

tons per year of sulfur dioxide (SO2), 

nitrogen oxides (NOX), and particulate 

matter (PM). PGE Boardman 

commenced construction in 1975 and 

began operation in 1980. The PGE 

Boardman boiler is a Foster Wheeler dry 

bottom, opposing-wall fired design, 

controlled with first generation low 

NOX burners and overfire air. An 

electrostatic participator currently 

controls PM emissions. 

In July 2009, ODEQ conducted a 

BART analysis and determined that 

BART for PGE Boardman, was a 

combination of new low-NOX burners/ 

modified overfire air (NLNB/MOFA) for 

NOX and Semi-Dry Flue Gas 

Desulfurization (SDFGD) for SO2, with a 

pulse jet fabric filter for PM. ODEQ also 

determined that Selective Catalytic 

Reduction (SCR) would increase control 

efficiency for NOX emissions and was 

reasonable to assure further reasonable 

progress. Based on the assumption that 

the facility would operate for at least 30 

years (until 2040), this BART analysis 

determined these controls would be cost 

effective. Oregon included this BART 

determination in the Regional Haze Plan 

it submitted to EPA in July 2009. See 

Oregon Regional Haze Plan dated July 

16, 2009, and OAR 340–223–0010 

through OAR 340–223–0050, dated June 

30, 2009. On September 11, 2009, EPA 

informed ODEQ that this SIP 

submission was complete, 

In a letter from PGE to ODEQ dated 

October 22, 2010, PGE requested that 

ODEQ reopen the Regional Haze BART 

rulemaking to consider an alternative 

BART approach for PGE Boardman. 

This alternative approach would allow 

PGE Boardman to commit to cease 

burning coal by December 31, 2020, and 

in the interim operate with less 

expensive control technology. This 

alternative shortens the expected useful 

life of the coal-burning Foster Wheeler 

boiler by 20 years compared to the life 

expectancy relied on in the original 

BART determination. This alternative 

would also allow the boiler to be 

restarted using an alternative fuel at a 

future date. (A re-start of the boiler with 

an alternate fuel source would then 

require PGE to comply with all relevant 

requirements, including as applicable 

the requirement to apply for a 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

(PSD) construction permit which will 

require an analysis and permitted 

emission limits that represent Best 

Available Control Technology (BACT) 

before construction could commence.) 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 8, 2011 / Proposed Rules 12661 

Based on PGE’s request, ODEQ 

performed an additional BART analysis 

for PGE Boardman assuming a shorter 

life expectancy. ODEQ evaluated 

visibility improvements in Class I areas 

of all technically feasible emission 

control technologies and determined the 

cost effectiveness of each technology 

assuming operation until 2020. See 

BART Guidelines Section IV. D. 4.(k) 

(explaining how to take into account the 

project’s remaining useful life when 

calculating control costs). 

ODEQ’s BART analysis for all 

technically feasible control technologies 

for the Foster-Wheeler boiler is 

described in Appendices D–6 and D–7 

of the revised Oregon Regional Haze SIP 

submitted December 2010. ODEQ 

determined that the technically feasible 

controls for NOX were the following: 

new low-NOX burners with modified 

overfire air (NLNB/MOFA); selective 

non-catalytic reduction (SNCR) with 

NLNB/MOFA; and selective catalytic 

reduction (SCR). ODEQ determined that 

the technically feasible controls for SO2

for were the following: reduced-sulfur 

coal restriction (RSCR); Direct Sorbent 

Injection (DSI); semi-dry flue gas 

desulfurization (SDFGD); and wet flue 

gas desulfurization (WFGD). The 

technically feasible controls evaluated 

for PM emission control were the 

following: pulsed jet fabric filter (PJFF) 

and electrostatic precipitation (ESP). An 

ESP is already installed and operating at 

PGE Boardman. 

After identifying all technically 

feasible technologies to control the 

various pollutants ODEQ determined 

the emission limits achievable by each 

technology. The following results (for 

NOX, SO2 and PM) are shown in the 

Control Effectiveness table in Appendix 

D–7 of the SIP submittal. The emission 

limits for NOX would be: 

• NLNB/MOFA—0.23 lb/mmBtu 

• SNCR—0.19 lb/mmBtu 

• SCR—0.07 lb/mmBtu 

The emission limits for SO2 would be: 

• RSCR—0.6 lb/mmBtu 

• DSI—0.4 lb/mmBtu 

• SDFGD—0.12 lb/mmBtu 

• WFGD—0.09 lb/mmBtu 

The emission limits for PM would be: 

• PJFF—0.012 lb/mmBtu 

• ESP—0.017 lb/mmBtu 

ODEQ next evaluated the cost 

effectiveness, the energy impacts, and 

non-air quality environmental impacts 

of each technically feasible control. The 

cost effectiveness of NOX control 

alternatives were: 

• NLNB/MOFA—$1,263/ton 

• NLNB/MOFA/SNCR—$1,816/ton 

• NLNB/MOFA/SCR—$8,337/ton 

The cost effectiveness of SO2 control 

alternatives were: 

• DSI–1 (referred to as the initial 

phase of DSI operation)—$2,458/ton 

• SDFGD—$5,535/ton (including the 

cost of installing a PJFF) 

• WFGD—$7,631/ton 

Included in the cost effectiveness 

values presented above are the direct 

energy and non-air costs. The direct 

energy impacts for each control 

technology were based on the auxiliary 

power consumption of the control 

technology and the additional draft 

system power consumption necessary to 

overcome the control technology 

resistance in the flue gas flow path. 

Indirect energy impacts, such as the 

energy to produce raw materials used 

for the control technology were not 

included in the cost estimates. 

ODEQ identified and considered the 

following potential non-air quality 

concerns for each technology: NLNB/ 

MOFA—increased carbon monoxide air 

emissions and boiler tube slagging; 

SNCR—ammonia option has potential 

safety issues, urea option produces CO2,

ammonia slip, and ammonia bisulfate 

formation (air preheater fouling); SCR— 

ammonia handling safety, SO2 to SO3

conversion and air preheater corrosion, 

ammonium bisulfate formation (air 

preheater fouling), soot blowing to 

manage ash deposition in the catalyst, 

reliability of catalyst in high 

temperature application, and ammonia 

slip; DSI—potential interference with 

mercury control system, creation of 

hazardous waste, requirement for 

increased maintenance of the ducts and 

ESP, and increase in particulate 

emissions; SDFGD—fugitive emissions 

from raw material and byproduct 

handling; WFGD—fugitive emissions 

from raw material and byproduct 

handling, persistent water plume from 

stack, material corrosion, dewatering, 

and addition of PJFF for mercury 

control. ODEQ concluded that in spite 

of the potential concerns identified, 

each of these control technologies are 

proven in use at other coal-fired boilers 

and that these concerns could be 

adequately addressed with a welldesigned system. The only exception is 

SNCR in combination with DSI, which 

may result in additional PM emissions 

due to ammonia slip. ODEQ then 

determined the visibility improvements 

that could be achieved over current 

conditions with each combination of 

technically feasible emission control 

technologies in the Mt. Hood 

Wilderness Area, the Class I area most 

impacted by PGE Boardman. (See the 

Control Effectiveness table in Appendix 

D–7 of the SIP submittal.) The visibility 

improvements were: 

• NLNB/MOFA—1.44 dv 

• NLNB/MOFA/SNCR—1.62 dv 

• NLNB/MOFA/SCR—2.17 dv 

• RSCR—0.43 dv 

• DSI–1—0.84 dv 

• SDFGD—1.24 dv 

• WFGD—1.19 dv 

• PJFF—<0.1 dv 

As explained in the 2010 revised 

BART analysis, and after full public 

notice and comment, ODEQ determined 

BART emission limits appropriate for 

the PGE Boardman facility based on it 

ceasing to burn coal by December 31, 

2020. The specific emission limits and 

associated control technologies are 

explained below. 

Specifically ODEQ determined that 

BART for NOX is 0.23 lbs/mmBtu based 

on NLNB/MOFA. ODEQ found that the 

technology is cost effective and provides 

significant visibility improvement (≤1.0 

dv in Mt. Hood wilderness area), as well 

as significant improvement in 11 other 

Class I areas. Although the technology 

option of NLNB/MOFA plus selective 

non-catalytic reduction (SNCR) was cost 

effective ($1,816/ton), ODEQ rejected 

this technology option because adding 

SNCR only provided an additional 0.18 

dv of visibility improvement over 

NLNB/MOFA at the Mt. Hood 

Wilderness Area, and because of 

concerns about excess ammonia 

emissions (commonly referred to as 

ammonia slip) which may result in 

increased rates of secondary particulate 

matter in the form of ammonium sulfate. 

As shown in the Control Effectiveness 

table in Appendix D–7, the NOX

emission reduction attributed to SNCR 

was only 17% better than that achieved 

with NLNB/MOFA alone. 

ODEQ determined BART for SO2 is 

0.40 lbs/mmBtu based on initial 

operational efficiency of DSI (DSI–1). 

This determination was made because 

DSI–1 is cost effective at $3,370/ton, 

will provide significant visibility 

improvement (> 0.5dv) in the Mt. Hood 

Wilderness Area, and provide 

significant improvement in 11 other 

Class I areas. The cost effectiveness 

value that ODEQ calculated for SDFGD 

was $5,535/ton. The incremental cost 

effectiveness of SDFGD compared to 

DSI–1 is about $7,200/ton. ODEQ stated 

that SDFGD is not considered to be 

BART because it is not cost effective 

when considering a useful life 

expectancy of 2020. 

ODEQ determined BART for PM is 

0.40 lb/mmBtu, which is the current PM 

emission limit for PGE Boardman with 

the existing ESP system. ODEQ’s 

analysis concluded that the alternative 

PM control technology, PJFF, would 

only reduce PM emissions by 122 ton/ 

year compared to 2007 actual PM 

emissions, and would not be cost 

effective at $186,102/ton (see 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

12662 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 8, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

Addendum to DEQ BART Report for the 

Boardman Power Plant, dated November 

11, 2010). 

ODEQ also determined that further 

operational refinements to the DSI 

system or the use of improved sorbent 

(called DSI–2) could be achieved by 

2018, resulting in further reductions in 

SO2 emissions at that time. Therefore, 

ODEQ identified a goal of 0.30 lbs/ 

mmBtu for SO2 emissions to achieve 

further reasonable progress by July 1, 

2018. This goal would be achieved with 

operational refinements to the DSI 

system or the use of an improved 

sorbent that may be available in the 

future. 

EPA reviewed the BART 

determination for PGE Boardman and 

found that ODEQ appropriately 

followed the required steps for 

determining BART as described in the 

BART Guidelines Section IV. D. These 

steps are: (1) Identify all available 

retrofit control technologies; (2) 

eliminate technically infeasible options; 

(3) evaluate control effectiveness of 

remaining control technologies; (4) 

evaluate impacts and document results; 

and (5) evaluate visibility impacts. EPA 

proposes to find that the methods used 

by ODEQ for determining cost, cost 

effectiveness, energy and non air quality 

impacts, and visibility improvement of 

BART controls for the Foster Wheeler 

boiler at the PGE Boardman facility for 

a 2020 plant lifetime are consistent with 

the RHR and EPA guidance. ODEQ has 

also used an acceptable methodology for 

determining the impacts of remaining 

useful facility life on the cost and cost 

effectiveness of BART controls for the 

2020 plant lifetime. The emission limits, 

and schedules for meeting them, are 

identified in the Oregon Regional Haze 

Rules, OAR 340–223–0030. (State 

effective December 9, 2010). Therefore, 

EPA proposes to approve Oregon’s 

BART determination for PGE Boardman. 

IV. EPA’s Analysis of Oregon’s Regional 

Haze Rules 

Oregon included in its Regional Haze 

SIP submittal revisions to the Oregon 

Regional Haze Rules (OAR 340–223– 

0010 through 340–223–0080), adopted 

by the State on December 9, 2010. These 

rules, among other things, establish 

emission limits on certain sources that 

significantly contribute to visibility 

impairment in Oregon Class I areas. 

Additionally, these rules establish the 

BART emission limits analyzed and 

described in section II.D.4. above for the 

PGE Boardman facility. As explained in 

more detail below, the rules related to 

PGE Boardman establish a scenario 

whereby PGE would cease burning coal 

in the Boardman Foster Wheeler boiler 

no later than 2020 and perhaps as early 

as 2014. Additionally, pursuant to OAR 

340–223–0050, upon EPA’s approval of 

the rules, the provisions containing 

alternative BART emission limits based 

on the facility continuing to burn coal 

until at least 2040 would be repealed as 

a matter of law. See Oregon Regional 

Haze SIP Submittal Attachment 1.1 pgs 

5–6. http://www.deq.state.or.us/aq/ 

pge.htm (ODEQ Web page describing 

the new regulations for PGE Boardman). 

OAR 340–223–0010 

This rule explains that the purpose of 

OAR 340–223–0020 through 340 223– 

0080 is to establish requirements for 

certain sources emitting air pollutants 

that reduce visibility and contribute to 

regional haze in Class I areas for the 

purpose of implementing Best Available 

Retrofit Technology requirements and 

other requirements associated with the 

Federal Regional Haze Rules in 40 CFR 

51.308. 

OAR 340–223–0020 

This rule includes the following 

definitions, ‘‘BART-eligible source’’, 

‘‘Beat Available Retrofit Technology 

(BART)’’, ‘‘Deciview’’, and ‘‘Subject to 

BART’’. These definitions are consistent 

with their definitions in the Federal 

RHR. Two additional definitions, ‘‘Dry 

sorbent injection pollution control 

system’’ and ‘‘Ultra-low sulfur coal’’ are 

consistent with industry practices. 

OAR 340–223–0030 

This rule identifies BART emission 

limits, and other requirements pursuant 

to the Federal regional haze rule, and 

the schedule for meeting these limits for 

the Foster Wheeler boiler at the PGE 

Boardman facility. This rule also 

includes the requirement that the Foster 

Wheeler boiler facility permanently 

cease burning coal by no later than 

December 31, 2020. OAR 340–223– 

0030(1)(e). In this rule, the specific 

emission limits and schedule for these 

limits are: 

1. NOX—Between July 1, 2011 and 

December 31, 2020, NOX emissions 

must not exceed 0.23 lbs/mmBtu 

(pounds per million British thermal 

units) on a 30-day rolling average. 

However, if PGE demonstrates to ODEQ 

by December 31, 2011, that the 0.23 lbs/ 

mmBtu cannot be achieved with 

combustion controls, ODEQ may, by 

order, grant an extension to July 1, 2013. 

2. SO2—Between July 1, 2014 and 

June 30, 2018, SO2 emissions must not 

exceed 0.4 lbs/mmBtu and between July 

1, 2018 and December 31, 2020, SO2

emissions must not exceed 0.30 lb/ 

mmBtu. However, if PGE cannot achieve 

0.4 lbs/mmBtu by July 1, 2014, based on 

the reduction of SO2 emissions to the 

maximum extent feasible through the 

use of dry sorbent injection, the limits 

would be the lowest achievable with 

DSI, but no higher than 0.55 lbs/mmBtu 

by July 1, 2014. The SO2 emission limit 

is lowered to 0.30 lb/mmBtu by July 1, 

2018. This limit is more stringent than 

the 0.40 lb/mmBtu BART limit and was 

adopted to achieve further reasonable 

progress in Class I areas. ODEQ believes 

that this limit could be met by further 

refinements to the DSI system (called 

‘‘DSI–2’’), or DSI refinements in 

combination with ultra-low sulfur coal. 

3. PM—Between July 1, 2014 and 

December 31, 2020, PM emissions must 

not exceed 0.040lb/mmBtu heat input. 

OAR 340–223–0030 also explains that 

notwithstanding the definition of 

netting basis in OAR 340–200–0020, 

and the process for reducing plant site 

emission limits in OAR 340–222–0043, 

the netting basis and the plant site 

emission limitations (PSELs) for the 

Foster Wheeler boiler are reduced to 

zero upon the date on which the boiler 

permanently ceases burning coal. Prior 

to that date the netting basis and PSELs 

for the boiler apply only to physical 

changes or changes in the method of 

operation of the source for the purposes 

of complying with the emission limits 

applicable to the boiler. 

OAR 340–223–0040 

This rule explains that a BARTeligible source, which would be subjectto-BART based on visibility modeling, 

may accept a Federally enforceable 

permit limit to reduce the source’s 

emissions and prevent the source from 

being subject-to-BART. It also explains 

that any source that accepts a Federal 

enforceable permit limit and 

subsequently proposes to terminate this 

limit, such that an increase in emissions 

would make the source subject-toBART, must submit a BART analysis to 

ODEQ and install BART as determined 

by ODEQ prior to terminating the 

Federally enforceable permit limits. 

This rule also explains that the Foster 

Wheeler boiler at the Amalgamated 

Sugar Company in Nyssa, Oregon, is 

currently not operating, and that prior to 

resuming operation the owner or 

operator must either (1) submit a BART 

analysis and install BART as 

determined by ODEQ, or (2) obtain and 

comply with a Federally enforceable 

permit limit to ensure that the source’s 

emissions will not cause the source to 

be subject-to-BART. 

OAR 340–223–0050 

OAR 340–223–0050(1) provides that 

the owner and operator of the Foster 

Wheeler boiler at the PGE Boardman 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 8, 2011 / Proposed Rules 12663 

facility may elect to comply with OAR 

340–223–0060 and OAR 340–223–0070, 

or with OAR 340–223–0080, in lieu of 

OAR 340–223–0030. OAR 340–223– 

0060 and 0070 provide emission limits 

based on coal operation until 2040, and 

OAR 340–223–0080 provides emission 

limits based on PGE Boardman 

permanently ceasing to burn coal within 

five years of EPA’s approval of OAR 

chapter 340, division 223. Any of these 

alternatives are available only if the 

owner or operator provides written 

notification to the ODEQ Director by 

July 1, 2014 of which alternative it has 

chosen to comply with. Additionally, as 

provided in OAR 340–223–0050(4), if 

EPA approves a SIP revision 

incorporating OAR 340–223–0030 

(discussed above concerning BART 

requirements based on PGE 

permanently ceasing to burn coal in the 

Foster Wheeler boiler by December 31, 

2020) compliance with OAR 340–223– 

0060 and 0070 is no longer an 

alternative. Accordingly, EPA’s 

approval of OAR 340–223–0030, as 

proposed in this action, would 

eliminate the alternative BART 

requirements allowed under OAR 340– 

223–0060 and 340–223–0070. 

OAR 340–223–0060 and OAR 340–223– 

0070 

OAR 340–223–0060 identifies the 

SO2, NOX, and PM BART emission 

limits and the schedules for meeting 

these limits based upon coal operation 

of the Foster Wheeler boiler at the PGE 

Boardman facility until 2040. OAR 340– 

223–0070 identifies additional NOX

emission limits that must be met by July 

1, 2017 to achieve further reasonable 

progress for the PGE Boardman facility 

based on operation of the Foster 

Wheeler boiler until 2040. In this action, 

EPA is proposing to approve a SIP 

revision incorporating OAR 340–223– 

0030. Thus, if or when this proposal is 

finalized, as provided in OAR 340–223– 

0050 and explained above, OAR 340– 

223–0060 and –0070 would be repealed 

as a matter of law and compliance with 

them would no longer be an alternative. 

OAR 340–0080 

This rule, which is an alternative to 

OAR 340–223–0030, sets NOX emission 

limits and schedules for meeting these 

limits for the Foster Wheeler boiler at 

the PGE Boardman facility. As 

explained above, pursuant to OAR 340– 

223–0050(2), this alternative is based on 

the boiler permanently ceasing to burn 

coal no later than five years after EPA’s 

approval of the Oregon Regional Haze 

Plan that incorporates OAR chapter 340, 

division 223. As in described above for 

OAR–340–223–0030, this provision also 

describes the process for establishing 

the netting basis if this alternative is 

chosen. 

In summary, EPA is proposing to find 

that Oregon’s use of Federal enforceable 

permit limits to reduce emissions of 

four sources below the 0.5 dv visibility 

impact contribution threshold, is an 

acceptable means of exempting a source 

from being subject-to-BART. 

Additionally, based on the analysis 

described in section III.E. 4. above, EPA 

proposes to find that the rules relating 

to PGE Boardman are approvable. EPA 

proposes to approve OAR 340–223– 

0010 through 340–223–0080. 

V. EPA’s Analysis of Whether the 

Oregon Regional Haze SIP Submittal 

Meets Interstate Transport 

Requirements 

Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) of the Act 

requires SIP revisions to ‘‘contain 

‘‘adequate provisions * * * prohibiting 

* * * any source or other types of 

emission activity within the State from 

emitting any air pollutant in amounts 

which will * * * interfere with 

measures required to be included in the 

applicable implementation plan for any 

other State * * * to protect visibility.’’ 

EPA is proposing to find that the Oregon 

SIP submittal of December 2010, and the 

supplemental SIP submittal dated 

February 1, 2011, to address regional 

haze contain adequate provisions to 

meet these ‘‘good neighbor’’ provisions 

of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) with respect 

to visibility. 

As an initial matter, EPA notes that 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) does not 

explicitly specify how EPA should 

ascertain whether a State’s SIP contains 

adequate provisions to prevent 

emissions from sources in that State 

from interfering with measures required 

in another State to protect visibility. 

Thus, the statute is ambiguous on its 

face, and EPA must interpret that 

provision. 

Our 2006 Guidance recommended 

that a State could meet the visibility 

prong of the transport requirements for 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) by submission 

of the regional haze SIP, due in 

December 2007. EPA’s reasoning was 

that the development of the regional 

haze SIPs was intended to occur in a 

collaborative environment among the 

States, and that through this process 

States would coordinate on emissions 

controls to protect visibility on an 

interstate basis. In fact, in developing 

their respective reasonable progress 

goals, WRAP States consulted with each 

other through the WRAP’s work groups. 

As a result of this process, the common 

understanding was that each State 

would take action to achieve the 

emissions reductions relied upon by 

other States in their reasonable progress 

demonstrations under the RHR. This 

interpretation is consistent with the 

requirement in the regional haze rule 

that a State participating in a regional 

planning process must include ‘‘all 

measures needed to achieve its 

apportionment of emission reduction 

obligations agreed upon through that 

process.’’ 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(ii). 

We believe that with approval of the 

portions of the Oregon SIP that we are 

proposing to take action on today, 

Oregon’s SIP will also contain adequate 

provisions to prevent interstate 

transport that would interfere with the 

measures required in other States to 

protect visibility. Chapter 13 of the 

Oregon SIP submittal explains the 

consultation process followed by 

Oregon and its neighboring States to 

meet the requirements in the regional 

haze rule to address the interstate 

transport of visibility impairing 

pollutants, and the outcome of that 

process. Section 13.2.3 indicates that 

Oregon and neighboring States agreed 

that ‘‘no major contributions were 

identified that supported developing 

new interstate strategies, mitigation 

measures, or emissions reductions 

obligations,’’ and that each State could 

achieve its share of emission reductions 

through the implementation of BART 

and other existing measures in State 

regional haze plans. Additionally, when 

ODEQ subsequently revised its BART 

determination for PGE Boardman in 

2010, it specifically consulted with 

Idaho and Washington, the two States 

with Class I areas identified as impacted 

by the PGE Boardman plant. These 

States confirmed that they support the 

revisions and indicated that they did 

not anticipate the difference in 

emissions between the 2009 BART 

determination for Boardman and the 

2010 BART determination to have any 

material adverse effect on the State’s 

reasonable progress goals for 2018. See 

Oregon Supplemental SIP Submittal. 

Oregon also agreed that future 

consultation would address any new 

strategies or measures needed. The 

measures addressing BART in the 

Oregon SIP submittal accordingly would 

appear to be adequate to prevent 

emissions from sources in Oregon from 

interfering with the measures required 

to be in the regional haze SIPs of its 

neighbors. 

This conclusion is consistent with the 

analysis conducted by the WRAP, an 

analysis that provides an appropriate 

means for further evaluating whether 

emissions from sources in a State are 

interfering with the visibility programs 

of other States, as contemplated in 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

12664 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 8, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II). As described 

below, EPA’s evaluation shows that the 

BART measures of the Regional Haze 

SIP submittal, that we are proposing to 

approve today, are generally consistent 

with the emissions reductions 

assumptions of the WRAP modeling 

from Oregon sources. Accordingly, EPA 

is proposing to approve Oregon’s SIP as 

ensuring that emissions from Oregon do 

not interfere with the reasonable 

progress goals of other States. 

In developing their visibility 

projections using photochemical grid 

modeling, the WRAP States assumed a 

certain level of emissions from sources 

within Oregon. The visibility projection 

modeling was in turn used by the States 

to establish their own reasonable 

progress goals. We have reviewed the 

WRAP photochemical modeling 

emissions projections used in the 

demonstration of reasonable progress 

towards natural visibility conditions 

and compared them to the emissions 

limits that will result from the 

imposition of BART on sources in 

Oregon. We have concluded that with 

the emissions reductions achieved by 

these measures, the emissions from 

Oregon sources in the projected 

inventory for 2018 (which included 

both reductions and increases) will be 

approximately equal to that assumed in 

the WRAP analysis. 

As a result of the foregoing 

determination, EPA is proposing to find 

that the Oregon Regional Haze SIP 

submission contains the emission 

reductions needed to achieve Oregon’s 

share of emission reductions agreed 

upon through the regional planning 

process. As reflected in its Regional 

Haze SIP submittal, Oregon committed 

to achieve these emission reductions to 

address impacts on visibility on Class I 

areas in surrounding States. The 

portions of the Oregon Regional Haze 

SIP that we are proposing to approve 

ensure that emissions from Oregon will 

not interfere with the reasonable 

progress goals for neighboring States’ 

Class I areas. EPA is accordingly 

proposing to find that these emission 

reductions also meet the requirements 

of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) of the Act 

with respect to the visibility prong for 

the 1997 8-hour ozone and 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS. 

VI. What action is EPA proposing? 

EPA is proposing to approve portions 

of the Oregon Regional Haze plan, 

submitted on December 20, 2010, and as 

supplemented on February 1, 2011, as 

meeting the requirements set forth in 

section 169A of the Act and in 40 CFR 

51.308(e) regarding BART. EPA is also 

proposing to approve the Oregon 

submittal as meeting the requirements 

of 51.308(d)(2) and (4)(v) regarding the 

calculation of baseline and natural 

conditions for all 12 Class I areas in 

Oregon, and the statewide inventory of 

emissions of pollutants that are 

reasonably anticipated to cause or 

contribute to visibility impairment in 

any mandatory Class I Federal Area. In 

addition, EPA is proposing to find that 

the BART measures in the Oregon 

Regional Haze plan meet the 

requirements of section 110(a)(D)(ii)(II) 

of the CAA with respect to the 1997 8- 

hour ozone and 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Finally, EPA is proposing to approve 

OAR 340–223–0010 through 340–223– 

0080 [Regional Haze Rules]. 

VII. Oregon Notice Provision 

Oregon Revised Statute 468.126, 

prohibits ODEQ from imposing a 

penalty for violation of an air, water, or 

solid waste permit unless the source has 

been provided five days’ advanced 

written notice of the violation and has 

not come into compliance or submitted 

a compliance schedule within that fiveday period. By its terms, the statute does 

not apply to Oregon’s Title V program 

or to any program if application of the 

notice provision would disqualify the 

program from Federal delegation. 

Oregon has previously confirmed that, 

because application of the notice 

provision would preclude EPA approval 

of the Oregon SIP, no advance notice is 

required for violation of SIP 

requirements. 

EPA is taking no action on chapter 

340, division 200, section 0040, State of 

Oregon Clean Air Act Implementation 

Plan, because this section simply 

describes the State’s procedures for 

adopting its SIP and incorporates by 

reference all of the revisions adopted by 

the Environmental Quality Council for 

approval into the Oregon SIP (as a 

matter of State law). 

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the Clean Air Act, the 

Administrator is required to approve a 

SIP submission that complies with the 

provisions of the Act and applicable 

Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 

40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP 

submissions, EPA’s role is to approve 

State choices, provided that they meet 

the criteria of the Clean Air Act. 

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: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• 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 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; 

and 

• Does not provide 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 rule does not have 

Tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the State, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on Tribal governments or preempt 

Tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Intergovernmental 

relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Visibility, 

and Volatile organic compounds. 

Dated: February 28, 2011. 

Dennis McLerran, 

Regional Administrator, Region 10. 

[FR Doc. 2011–5198 Filed 3–7–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS