30454 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 100 / Wednesday, May 23, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 

60604, (312) 886–6143, 

alvarez.gilberto@epa.gov. 

Dated: May 11, 2012. 

Susan Hedman, 

Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

[FR Doc. 2012–12509 Filed 5–22–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R10–OAR–2012–0344, FRL–9676–1] 

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 

portions of a State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) revision submitted by the State of 

Oregon on December 10, 2010 and 

supplemented on February 1, 2011, as 

meeting the requirements of Clean Air 

Act (CAA or the Act) section 169A and 

B and Federal Regulations in 40 CFR 

51.308. In a previous action on July 5, 

2011, EPA approved portions of the 

December 10, 2010, SIP submittal as 

meeting the requirements for interstate 

transport for visibility of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(II) and certain requirements 

of the regional haze program including 

the requirements for best available 

retrofit technology (BART). 76 FR 

38997. The action in this Federal 

Register notice addresses the remaining 

requirements of the CAA and EPA’s 

rules that require states to prevent any 

future and remedy any existing 

anthropogenic impairment of visibility 

in mandatory Class I areas caused by 

emissions of air pollutants from 

numerous sources located over a wide 

geographic area (also referred to as the 

‘‘regional haze program’’). In this action, 

EPA proposes to approve the remaining 

regional haze SIP elements for which 

EPA previously took no action in the 

July 5, 2011 notice. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received at the address below on or 

before June 22, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R10– 

OAR–2012–0344 by one of the following 

methods: 

• www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Email: R10- 

Public_Comments@epa.gov. 

• Mail: Keith Rose, EPA Region 10, 

Suite 900, Office of Air, Waste and 

Toxics, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, WA 

98101. 

• Hand Delivery: 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–2012– 

0344. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at 

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 www.regulations.gov 

or email. The 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 email 

comment directly to EPA, without going 

through www.regulations.gov, your 

email 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. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the 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 

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 a hard copy of the 

docket. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

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 

II. Requirements for the 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 

E. Determination of Reasonable Progress 

Goals 

F. Long Term Strategy 

G. Coordinating Regional Haze and 

Reasonably Attributable Visibility 

Impairment 

H. Monitoring Strategy and Other 

Implementation Plan Requirements 

III. EPA’s Analysis of the Oregon Regional 

Haze SIP 

A. Affected Class I Areas 

B. Baseline and Natural Conditions 

C. Oregon Emissions Inventory 

D. Sources of Visibility Impairment in 

Oregon Class I Areas 

E. Best Available Retrofit Technology 

F. Reasonable Progress Goals 

1. Determination of Reasonable Progress 

Goals 

2. Demonstration of Reasonable Progress 

3. EPA’s Determination Whether the SIP 

Meets 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1) 

G. Long Term Strategy 

1. Ongoing Air Pollution Control Programs 

a. Prevention of Significant Deterioration/ 

New Source Review Rules 

b. Reasonably Attributable Visibility 

Impairment BART 

c. Oregon’s Phase I Visibility Protection 

Program 

d. Implementation of State and Federal 

Mobile Source Regulations 

e. On-Going Implementation of Programs to 

meet PM10 NAAQS 

2. Measures to Mitigate the Impacts of 

Construction Activities 

3. Emission Limitations and Schedules of 

Compliance 

4. Source Retirement and Replacement 

Schedules 

5. Smoke Management Techniques for 

Agricultural and Forestry Burning 

6. Enforceability of Emission Limitations 

and Control Measures 

H. Monitoring Strategy and Other 

Implementation Plan Requirements 

I. Consultation With States and Federal 

Land Managers 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 100 / Wednesday, May 23, 2012 / Proposed Rules 30455 

1Areas designated as mandatory Class I Federal 

areas consist of national parks exceeding 6,000 

acres, wilderness areas and national memorial parks 

exceeding 5,000 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.’’ 

2Albuquerque/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). 

J. Periodic SIP Revisions and Five-Year 

Progress Reports 

IV. What action is EPA proposing? 

V. Oregon Notice Provision 

VI. Scope of Action 

VII. 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 169A. Congress amended 

the visibility provisions in the CAA in 

1990 to focus attention on the problem 

of regional haze. See CAA section 169B. 

EPA promulgated regulations in 1999 to 

implement sections 169A and 169B of 

the Act. These regulations require states 

to develop and implement plans to 

ensure reasonable progress toward 

improving visibility in mandatory Class 

I Federal areas 1 (Class I areas). 64 FR 

35714 (July 1, 1999); see also 70 FR 

39104 (July 6, 2005) and 71 FR 60612 

(October 13, 2006). 

On behalf of the State of Oregon, the 

Oregon Department of Environmental 

Quality (ODEQ) submitted its Regional 

Haze State Implementation Plan 

(Regional Haze SIP submission or SIP 

submittal) to EPA on December 10, 2010 

and supplemented on February 1, 2011. 

In a previous action EPA approved 

certain provisions in Oregon’s Regional 

Haze SIP submission. 76 FR 38997. This 

previous action approved the provisions 

BART (40 CFR 51.308(e), calculation of 

baseline and natural conditions (40 CFR 

51.308(d)(2)), and state wide emission 

inventory of pollutants that are 

reasonably anticipated to cause or 

contribute to visibility impairment in 

any mandatory Class I area. EPA also 

approved Oregon Administrative Rules 

OAR 340–223–0010 through 340–223– 

0080 (Regional Haze Rules). In that 

same action, EPA also approved 

portions of the SIP submittal as meeting 

the requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) with respect to the 

visibility prong for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone and 1997 PM2.5 National Ambient 

Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). 

In this action, EPA is proposing to 

approve the remaining provisions of 

Oregon’s Regional Haze SIP submission 

including the portions that address the 

regional haze requirements for 

establishing Reasonable Progress Goals 

(RPGs) and the Long Term Strategy 

(LTS). 

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. 

These sources and activities may emit 

fine particles (PM2.5) (e.g., sulfates, 

nitrates, organic carbon, elemental 

carbon, and soil dust), and their 

precursors (e.g., sulfur dioxide (SO2), 

nitrogen oxides (NOX), and in some 

cases, ammonia (NH3) and volatile 

organic compounds (VOC)). 

Atmospheric fine particulate reduces 

clarity, color, and visual range of visual 

scenes. Visibility reducing fine 

particulate is primarily composed of 

sulfate, nitrate, organic carbon 

compounds, elemental carbon, and soil 

dust, and impairs 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. See 64 

FR at 35715. 

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. 

The 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 manmade air pollution. Id. 

Visibility impairment also varies day-today 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’’ (RAVI). 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 regional haze rule or 

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.2 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 longterm 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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

30456 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 100 / Wednesday, May 23, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

3See http://www.epa.gov/air/visibility/ 

regional.html for description of the regional 

planning organizations. 

4The WRAP Web site can be found at http:// 

www.wrapair.org. 

5The preamble to the RHR provides additional 

details about the deciview. 64 FR 35714, 35725 

(July 1, 1999). 

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, even across 

international boundaries, EPA has 

encouraged the States and Tribes to 

address visibility impairment from a 

regional perspective. Five regional 

planning organizations 3 (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),4 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, 

Oregon, Montana, New Mexico, North 

Dakota, Idaho, 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. 

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. 

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 

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.5

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., manmade 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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 100 / Wednesday, May 23, 2012 / Proposed Rules 30457 

6The set of ‘‘major stationary sources’’ potentially 

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

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. 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 6 built 

between 1962 and 1977, to procure, 

install, and operate the ‘‘Best Available 

Retrofit Technology’’ (BART) 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. The 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. See 

CAA section 169A(g)(4); 40 CFR 

51.308(e)(1)(iv). 

EPA previously approved Oregon’s 

BART determination for the sources 

subject to BART in its jurisdiction. See 

76 FR 38997. Please refer to that action 

for details of the BART requirements 

and EPA’s rationale for approval of the 

BART provisions in the Oregon 

Regional Haze SIP submission. 

E. Determination of Reasonable Progress 

Goals 

The vehicle for ensuring continuing 

progress towards achieving the natural 

visibility goal is the submission of a 

series of regional haze SIPs from the 

states that establish two reasonable 

progress goals (RPGs) (i.e., two distinct 

goals, one for the ‘‘best’’ and one for the 

‘‘worst’’ days) for every Class I area for 

each (approximately) 10-year 

implementation period. The RHR does 

not mandate specific milestones or rates 

of progress, but instead calls for states 

to establish goals that provide for 

‘‘reasonable progress’’ toward achieving 

natural (i.e., ‘‘background’’) visibility 

conditions. In setting RPGs, states must 

provide for an improvement in visibility 

for the most impaired days over the 

(approximately) 10-year period of the 

SIP, and ensure no degradation in 

visibility for the least impaired days 

over the same period. 

States have significant discretion in 

establishing RPGs, but are required to 

consider the following factors 

established in section 169A of the CAA 

and in EPA’s RHR at 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(1)(i)(A): (1) The costs of 

compliance; (2) the time necessary for 

compliance; (3) the energy and non-air 

quality environmental impacts of 

compliance; and (4) the remaining 

useful life of any potentially affected 

sources. States must demonstrate in 

their SIPs how these factors are 

considered when selecting the RPGs for 

the best and worst days for each 

applicable Class I area. States have 

considerable flexibility in how they take 

these factors into consideration, as 

noted in EPA’s Guidance for Setting 

Reasonable Progress Goals under the 

Regional Haze Program, July 1, 2007, 

Memorandum from William L. Wehrum, 

Acting Assistant Administrator for Air 

and Radiation, to EPA Regional 

Administrators, EPA Regions 1–10 

(pp.4–2, 5–1) (‘‘EPA’s Reasonable 

Progress Guidance’’). In setting the 

RPGs, states must also consider the rate 

of progress needed to reach natural 

visibility conditions by 2064 (referred to 

as the ‘‘uniform rate of progress’’ (URP) 

or the ‘‘glidepath’’) and the emission 

reduction measures needed to achieve 

that rate of progress over the 10-year 

period of the SIP. Uniform progress 

towards achievement of natural 

conditions by the year 2064 represents 

a rate of progress which states are to use 

for analytical comparison to the amount 

of progress they expect to achieve. In 

setting RPGs, each state with one or 

more Class I areas (‘‘Class I state’’) must 

also consult with potentially 

‘‘contributing states,’’ i.e., other nearby 

states with emission sources that may be 

affecting visibility impairment at the 

state’s Class I areas. See 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(1)(iv). 

F. Long Term Strategy 

Consistent with the requirement in 

section 169A(b) of the CAA that states 

include in their regional haze SIP a 10 

to 15 year strategy for making 

reasonable progress, 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(3) of the RHR requires that 

states include an LTS in their regional 

haze SIPs. The LTS is the compilation 

of all control measures a state will use 

during the implementation period of the 

specific SIP submittal to meet 

applicable RPGs. The LTS must include 

‘‘enforceable emissions limitations, 

compliance schedules, and other 

measures as necessary to achieve the 

reasonable progress goals’’ for all Class 

I areas within, or affected by emissions 

from, the state. See 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3). 

When a state’s emissions are 

reasonably anticipated to cause or 

contribute to visibility impairment in a 

Class I area located in another state, the 

RHR requires the impacted state to 

coordinate with the contributing states 

in order to develop coordinated 

emissions management strategies. See 

40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(i). In such cases, 

the contributing state must demonstrate 

that it has included, in its SIP, all 

measures necessary to obtain its share of 

the emissions reductions needed to 

meet the RPGs for the Class I area. The 

RPOs have provided forums for 

significant interstate consultation, but 

additional consultations between states 

may be required to sufficiently address 

interstate visibility issues. This is 

especially true where two states belong 

to different RPOs. 

States should consider all types of 

anthropogenic sources of visibility 

impairment in developing their LTS, 

including stationary, minor, mobile, and 

area sources. At a minimum, states must 

describe how each of the following 

seven factors listed below are taken into 

account in developing their LTS: (1) 

Emissions reductions due to ongoing air 

pollution control programs, including 

measures to address RAVI; (2) measures 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

30458 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 100 / Wednesday, May 23, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

7EPA 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 document ‘‘WRAP 

Technical Support Document’’ or WRAP TSD. 

to mitigate the impacts of construction 

activities; (3) emissions limitations and 

schedules for compliance to achieve the 

RPG; (4) source retirement and 

replacement schedules; (5) smoke 

management techniques for agricultural 

and forestry management purposes 

including plans as currently exist 

within the state for these purposes; (6) 

enforceability of emissions limitations 

and control measures; and (7) the 

anticipated net effect on visibility due to 

projected changes in point, area, and 

mobile source emissions over the period 

addressed by the LTS. See 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(3)(v). 

G. Coordinating Regional Haze and 

Reasonably Attributable Visibility 

Impairment 

As part of the RHR, EPA revised 40 

CFR 51.306(c) regarding the LTS for 

RAVI to require that the RAVI plan must 

provide for a periodic review and SIP 

revision not less frequently than every 

three years until the date of submission 

of the state’s first plan addressing 

regional haze visibility impairment, 

which was due December 17, 2007, in 

accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(b) and 

(c). On or before this date, the state must 

revise its plan to provide for review and 

revision of a coordinated LTS for 

addressing RAVI and regional haze, and 

the state must submit the first such 

coordinated LTS with its first regional 

haze SIP. Future coordinated LTS’s, and 

periodic progress reports evaluating 

progress towards RPGs, must be 

submitted consistent with the schedule 

for SIP submissions and periodic 

progress reports set forth in 40 CFR 

51.308(f) and 51.308(g), respectively. 

The periodic review of a state’s LTS 

must report on both regional haze and 

RAVI impairment and must be 

submitted to EPA as a SIP revision. 

H. Monitoring Strategy and Other 

Implementation Plan Requirements 

Section 51.308(d)(4) of the RHR 

includes the requirement for a 

monitoring strategy for measuring, 

characterizing, and reporting of regional 

haze visibility impairment that is 

representative of all mandatory Class I 

Federal areas within the state. The 

strategy must be coordinated with the 

monitoring strategy required in section 

51.305 for RAVI. Compliance with this 

requirement may be met through 

‘‘participation’’ in the IMPROVE 

network, i.e., review and use of 

monitoring data from the network. The 

monitoring strategy is due with the first 

regional haze SIP, and it must be 

reviewed every five years. The 

monitoring strategy must also provide 

for additional monitoring sites if the 

IMPROVE network is not sufficient to 

determine whether RPGs will be met. 

The SIP must also provide for the 

following: 

• Procedures for using monitoring 

data and other information in a state 

with mandatory Class I areas to 

determine the contribution of emissions 

from within the state to regional haze 

visibility impairment at Class I areas 

both within and outside the state; 

• Procedures for using monitoring 

data and other information in a state 

with no mandatory Class I areas to 

determine the contribution of emissions 

from within the state to regional haze 

visibility impairment at Class I areas in 

other states; 

• Reporting of all visibility 

monitoring data to the Administrator at 

least annually for each Class I area in 

the state, and where possible, in 

electronic format; 

• Developing a statewide inventory of 

emissions of pollutants that are 

reasonably anticipated to cause or 

contribute to visibility impairment in 

any Class I area. The inventory must 

include emissions for a baseline year, 

emissions for the most recent year for 

which data are available, and estimates 

of future projected emissions. A state 

must also make a commitment to update 

the inventory periodically; and 

• Other elements, including 

reporting, recordkeeping, and other 

measures necessary to assess and report 

on visibility. 

The RHR requires control strategies to 

cover an initial implementation period 

extending to the year 2018, with a 

comprehensive reassessment and 

revision of those strategies, as 

appropriate, every 10 years thereafter. 

Periodic SIP revisions must meet the 

core requirements of section 51.308(d) 

with the exception of BART. The 

requirement to evaluate sources for 

BART applies only to the first regional 

haze SIP. Facilities subject to BART 

must continue to comply with the BART 

provisions of section 51.308(e), as noted 

above. Periodic SIP revisions will assure 

that the statutory requirement of 

reasonable progress will continue to be 

met. Each state also is required to 

submit a report to EPA every five years 

that evaluates progress toward achieving 

the RPG for each Class I area within the 

state and outside the state if affected by 

emissions from within the state. 40 CFR 

51.308(g). The first progress report is 

due five years from submittal of the 

initial regional haze SIP revision. At the 

same time a 5-year progress report is 

submitted, a state must determine the 

adequacy of its existing SIP to achieve 

the established goals for visibility 

improvement. See 40 CFR 51.308(h). 

III. EPA’s Analysis of Oregon Regional 

Haze SIP 

A. Affected Class I Areas 

There are twelve mandatory Class I 

areas, or portions of such areas, within 

Oregon: Mt. Hood Wilderness, Mt. 

Jefferson Wilderness, Mt. Washington 

Wilderness, Three Sisters Wilderness, 

Diamond Peak Wilderness, Crater Lake 

National Park, Mountain Lakes 

Wilderness, Gearhart Mountain 

Wilderness, Kalmiopsis Wilderness, 

Strawberry Mountain Wilderness, and 

Eagle Cap Wilderness, are all within 

Oregon State borders. Hells Canyon 

Wilderness Area is a shared Class I area 

with Idaho. See 40 CFR 81.410. Oregon 

is responsible for developing reasonable 

progress goals for the Class I areas in 

Oregon and, through agreement with 

Idaho, is also responsible for developing 

the reasonable progress goals for the 

Hells Canyon Class I area. Oregon 

reviewed interstate transport of haze 

pollutants with neighboring states, 

focusing on source apportionment 

information to identify visibility 

impacts in Oregon and neighboring state 

Class I areas. Oregon consulted with 

Washington, Idaho, California and 

Nevada. See the Oregon Regional Haze 

SIP submittal, chapter 13, section 13.2; 

see, also the WRAP Technical Support 

Document, February 28, 2011 7 (WRAP 

TSD) supporting this action and 76 FR 

38997. 

The Oregon SIP submittal addresses 

the eleven Class I areas that are 

completely within the State border, the 

Class I area with shared jurisdiction 

with Oregon and Idaho, and the 

visibility impacts of Oregon sources on 

Class I areas in neighboring states. 

B. Baseline and Natural Conditions 

EPA previously evaluated and 

approved Oregon’s determination of 

baseline and natural conditions for all 

eleven Class I areas in Oregon. See 76 

FR 12651 (March 8, 2011) and 76 FR 

38997 (July 5, 2011) (proposed and final 

rule respectively). The discussion of 

baseline and natural conditions in those 

Federal Register notices is relevant 

when evaluating the State’s Reasonable 

Progress Goals which we are proposing 

to approve today. Thus, the discussion 

below summarizes EPA’s previous 

explanation of the baseline and natural 

conditions in Oregon’s Class I areas. 

Oregon established baseline and 

natural visibility conditions as well as 

the URP to achieve natural visibility 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 100 / Wednesday, May 23, 2012 / Proposed Rules 30459 

conditions in 2064 for all eleven of the 

Class I areas wholly within its borders. 

The SIP submittal also included these 

conditions for Hells Canyon Wilderness 

Area, as determined by WRAP and 

established by Oregon and Idaho. 

Baseline visibility was calculated 

from monitoring data collected by 

IMPROVE monitors for the mostimpaired (20% worst) days and the 

least-impaired (20% best) days. Oregon 

used the WRAP derived natural 

visibility conditions. In general, WRAP 

based their natural condition estimates 

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 

WRAP TSD section 2.E. 

Because individual monitors are used 

to represent visibility conditions for 

groups of Class I areas in Oregon, not 

every Class I area in Oregon has an 

IMPROVE monitor. Specifically, the 

Oregon Class I areas are segregated into 

six groups. These groups, and Class I 

areas they contain, 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. 

Visibility conditions on the 20% 

worst days during the 2000–04 baseline 

period for each group of Class I areas 

were determined to be: 

• 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 conditions on the 20% best 

days during the 2000–04 baseline period 

for each group of Class I areas were 

determined to be: 

• 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 were determined to be: 

• 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. 

C. Oregon Emission Inventory 

EPA previously evaluated and 

approved Oregon’s emissions inventory 

of pollutants that impact the twelve 

Class I areas in Oregon, as well as the 

impacts of emissions from Oregon 

BART-eligible sources on nearby Class I 

in other states. See 76 FR 12651 and 76 

FR 38997. Below is a summary of 

emission inventories of the most 

significant visibility impairing 

pollutants in Oregon, which are SO2, 

NOX, and organic carbon. These 

pollutants, and their visibility impacts, 

were explained in more detail in the 

notices for the previous rulemaking. 

Point sources in Oregon account for 

39% of total state-wide 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% 

to Oregon statewide SO2 emissions. Onroad mobile and off-road mobile sources 

contribute a combined total of 21% of 

the Oregon SO2 emissions. On-road 

mobile sources account for 43% of the 

total NOX statewide emissions in 

Oregon, and off-road mobile sources 

account for 21% of the NOX. Natural fire 

accounts for 11% of the NOX, and point 

sources account for 10% of the NOX

emissions. 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 (prescribed fire, agricultural field 

burning, and outdoor residential 

burning) accounts for 9% of the 

statewide organic carbon emissions. 

D. Sources of Visibility Impairment in 

Oregon Class I Areas 

Oregon used a two step process to 

identify the contribution of each source 

or source category to existing visibility 

impairment. First, ambient pollutant 

concentrations by species (sulfate, 

nitrate, organic carbon, fine particulate, 

etc) were determined from the 

IMPROVE sampler representing each 

Class I area. These concentrations were 

then used to determine the extinction 

coefficient for each pollutant species 

according to the updated IMPROVE 

algorithm. Extinction was then 

converted to deciview values, the 

required visibility metric identified in 

the RHR. Second, appropriate modeling 

tools were used to determine which 

source categories contributed to the 

ambient concentrations of each 

pollutant species in each Class I area. 

Thus, impairment was distributed by 

source category. 

The WRAP and Western States 

selected the Comprehensive Air Quality 

Model with Extensions (CAMx) in 

conjunction with PM Source 

Apportionment Technology (PSAT) first 

to determine source contribution to 

ambient sulfate and nitrate 

concentrations and then to decide 

which geographic source regions 

contribute to haze at specific Class I 

areas. The second modeling tool used by 

WRAP was the Weighted Emissions 

Potential (WEP) model, which was used 

primarily as a screening tool to 

determine the contribution of ambient 

organic carbon, elemental carbon, PM2.5, 

and coarse PM concentrations to 

visibility impairment in Oregon Class I 

areas. Description of these tools, their 

use and evaluation of them are 

described in more detail in section 6 of 

the WRAP TSD. Below is a summary of 

the source categories that contribute to 

the SO2, NOX, and organic carbon, 

which cause the most significant 

visibility impairment in Class I areas in 

Oregon. 

The results of the PSAT and WEP 

modeling show that sources of visibility 

impairment in the Oregon Class I area 

vary significantly by location. The PSAT 

results show that the 20% worst days 

during 2000–2004 in 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 and 

Oregon, and marine shipping in the 

Pacific offshore region. Most of the 

sulfate impacting the 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. The most significant sources 

of sulfate to the only coastal Oregon 

Class I area (Kalmiopsis Wilderness 

Area) are natural fires in Oregon, and 

marine shipping in the Pacific Ocean. 

For the 20% worst days in Eastern 

Oregon Class I areas, the contribution of 

sulfates from each geographical area is 

relatively low, with the largest 

contribution being from point sources 

from Canada, Washington, and Oregon. 

See Oregon Regional Haze SIP submittal 

Figures 9.2.1–1 through Figures 9.2.1–6. 

The PSAT results for nitrate show that 

a majority of the nitrate impacting the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

30460 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 100 / Wednesday, May 23, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

North and Central Cascades Class I areas 

is from mobile sources in Oregon and 

Washington. For the 20% worst days in 

Southern Cascades, the most significant 

sources of nitrate are mobile sources in 

California, Oregon and Washington. A 

majority of the nitrate impacting the 

Kalmiopsis Wilderness Area is from 

mobile sources in Oregon and from 

marine shipping in the Pacific Ocean. 

The visibility on the 20% worst days in 

the Eastern Oregon Class I areas is 

significantly impacted by a combination 

of point, area, and mobile NOX sources 

in Idaho, Oregon and Washington. See 

Oregon Regional Haze SIP submittal 

Figures 9.2.2–1 through Figures 9.2.2–6. 

Based on the WEP model results, the 

organic carbon in the North Cascades 

area 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. For the 20% worst 

visibility days in the Central Cascades 

areas, 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 

Southern Cascades area, approximately 

90% of the organic carbon contribution 

came from natural fires in 2002. For the 

20% worst visibility days in the 

Kalmiopsis Wilderness area, almost all 

of the organic carbon for the 2002 base 

year came from natural fire. For the 20% 

worst visibility days in the Eastern 

Oregon Class I areas, most of the organic 

carbon contribution came from a 

combination of natural fires and 

anthropogenic fires in Idaho and 

Oregon. 

In its previous final rulemaking EPA 

found that Oregon had appropriately 

identified the primary pollutants 

impacting its Class I areas, and that the 

SIP contains an appropriate analysis of 

the impact these pollutants have on 

visibility in the Class I areas in Oregon. 

See 76 FR 38997. 

E. Best Available Retrofit Technology 

EPA previously reviewed and 

approved Oregon’s BART 

determinations for all sources subject to 

BART in Oregon. See 76 FR 38997. As 

explained in the Federal Register notice 

approving the State’s determinations, 

BART was determined for one source, 

the PGE Boardman Electric Generating 

Unit (EGU), and Federally Enforceable 

Permit Limits (FEPLs) were established 

for four BART-eligible sources to reduce 

visibility impacts at any Class I area 

below the 0.5 dv subject to BARTsubject threshold. These four sources 

are: 

• PGE Beaver EGU 

• Georgia Pacific Wauna Mill 

• International Paper, Springfield 

• Amalgamated Sugar Plant, Nyssa 

In summary, the emission limits 

established through FEPLs for the above 

four sources were achieved through the 

following methods. 

1. PGE Beaver EGU: To achieve the 

emission limits established in the Title 

V permit, the facility is using ultra-low 

sulfur diesel fuel (with no more than 

0.0015% sulfur) in its oil-fired BART 

eligible units. The source must also use 

only ‘‘pipe line quality’’ natural gas in 

the gas-fueled PWEU1 unit. 

2. Georgia Pacific Wauna Mill: To 

achieve the emission limits established 

in the Title V 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. 

3. International Paper, Springfield: To 

achieve the emission limits established 

in its Title V 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. 

4. Amalgamated Sugar Plant, Nyssa: 

This plant is currently shutdown and 

has no identified date to resume 

operations. In the event this source 

resumes operation in the future, ODEQ 

will require that this facility be subject 

to a FEPL in its Title V permit, or 

conduct a BART analysis and install 

BART prior to resuming operation. 

The PGE EGU near Boardman, Oregon 

is a coal-fired power plant capable of 

producing about 617 MW of electricity 

constructed between 1962 and 1977, 

and based on 2005 actual emissions 

data, emitted about 12,000 tons of SO2, 

8,300 tons of NOX, and 880 tons of 

particulate matter (PM) that year. ODEQ 

determined BART for this source to be 

0.23 lbs/mmBtu for NOX based on a new 

low-NOX burner/modified overfire air 

system, 0.40 lbs/mmBtu for SO2 based 

on initial operational efficiency of a new 

Direct Sorbent Injection System, and 

0.40 lb/mmBtu for PM, based on the 

current PM emission limit for the 

existing electrostatic precipitation 

system. The BART rule for this facility 

requires that the Foster Wheeler boiler 

at the facility permanently cease 

burning coal by no later than December 

31, 2020. OAR 340–223–0030(1)(e). 

F. Reasonable Progress Goals 

1. Determination of Reasonable Progress 

Goals 

The RHR requires States to show 

‘‘reasonable progress’’ toward natural 

visibility conditions over the time 

period of the SIP, with 2018 as the first 

milestone year. The RHR at 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(1) also requires that the State 

establish a goal, expressed in deciviews 

(dv), for each Class I area within the 

State that provides for reasonable 

progress towards achieving natural 

visibility conditions by 2064. As such 

the State must establish an RPG for each 

Class I area that provides for visibility 

improvement for the most-impaired 

(20% worst) days and ensures no 

degradation in visibility for the leastimpaired (20% best) days in 2018. 

RPGs are estimates of the progress to 

be achieved by 2018 through 

implementation of the LTS which 

includes anticipated emission 

reductions from all State and Federal 

regulatory requirements implemented 

between the baseline and 2018, 

including, but not limited to, BART and 

any additional controls for non-BART 

sources or emission activities including 

any Federal requirements that reduce 

visibility impairing pollutants. As 

explained above, the rate needed to 

achieve natural conditions by 2064 is 

referred to as the uniform rate of 

progress or URP. 

If the State establishes a reasonable 

progress goal that provides for a slower 

rate of improvement than the rate that 

would be needed to attain natural 

conditions by 2064, the State must 

demonstrate based on the factors in 

51.308(d)(1)(i)(A), that the rate of 

progress for the implementation plan to 

attain natural conditions by 2064 is not 

reasonable; and the progress goal 

adopted by the State is reasonable. The 

State must provide an assessment of the 

number of years it would take to attain 

natural conditions if visibility continues 

at the rate of progress selected by the 

State. 40 CFR 51.308(d)(B)(ii). 

The primary tool relied upon by 

Oregon for determining regional haze 

improvements by 2018 and for 

establishing the RPGs, was the CMAQ 

modeling conducted by WRAP. The 

CMAQ model was used to estimate 2018 

visibility conditions in Oregon, based 

on application of the regional haze 

strategies included in this plan. WRAP 

developed CMAQ modeling inputs, 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 100 / Wednesday, May 23, 2012 / Proposed Rules 30461 

including annual meteorology and 

emissions inventories for: (1) A 2002 

actual emissions base case, (2) a 

planning case to represent the 2000–04 

regional haze baseline period using 

averages for key emissions categories, 

and (3) a projected 2018 case to 

determine improvements achievable by 

2018. EPA approves the use of the 

CMAQ model to determine future 

visibility conditions in Oregon Class I 

areas. A more detailed description of the 

CMAQ modeling performed by WRAP 

can be found in the WRAP TSD for this 

action. 

To determine the 2018 RPGs for its 

Class I areas, ODEQ followed the eleven 

steps described below: 

1. Compare baseline conditions to 

natural conditions. For each Class I area, 

ODEQ identified baseline (2000–2004) 

visibility and natural conditions in 

2064, for the 20% worst and best days. 

2. Identify the Uniform Rate of 

Progress for achieving natural 

conditions on the 20% worst days. For 

each Class I area, ODEQ calculated the 

URP glide path from baseline to 2064, 

including the 2018 planning milestone, 

for the 20% worst days. 

3. Identify contributing pollutant 

species. For each Class I area, ODEQ 

identified the pollutant species that are 

contributing to visibility impairment on 

during the 2000–2004 baseline 20% 

worst and 20% best days. 

4. Identify major emission sources 

within the State. Using the WRAP 

Emission Inventory for 2002 and 2018, 

ODEQ identified statewide emissions by 

source category and pollutant, and 

identified projected emission trends 

from current (2002) to the 2018 

planning milestone. 

5. Identify the larger emission sources 

contributing to visibility impairment. 

For each Class I area, ODEQ identified 

the relative contribution of 

anthropogenic and non-anthropogenic 

sources in Oregon and neighboring 

states to the 20% worst and best days, 

using monitoring data, and source 

apportionment and modeling results. 

6. Document the emission reductions 

from BART. ODEQ described the results 

of the BART process, and identified the 

emission reductions that will be 

achieved from BART and from FEPLs 

taken by sources so that they are no 

longer subject to BART. 

7. Identify projected visibility change 

in 2018 from ‘‘on-the-books’’ controls 

and BART. For each Class I area, ODEQ 

determined the visibility improvement 

expected in 2018 from on-the-books 

controls and BART, using the WRAP 

CMAQ modeling results, for the 20% 

worst and best days. 

8. Identify sources or source 

categories that are major contributors 

and apply the four- factor analysis. As 

a result of the analysis under step 5 

above, for each Class I area, ODEQ 

determined key pollutant species and 

source categories that could have the 

greatest impact on visibility in Oregon 

Class I areas, and analyzed these sources 

using the four-factor analysis. 

9. Describe the results of the fourfactor analysis. ODEQ conducted a fourfactor analysis on the major Oregon 

source emission categories using the 

following factors: Cost of compliance, 

time necessary for compliance, energy 

and non-air quality environmental 

impacts of compliance, and remaining 

useful life of any potentially affected 

sources. 

10. Set the RPGs based on the above 

steps. ODEQ set the RPGs for each Class 

I area in deciviews, based on expected 

improvements by 2018 for the 20% 

worst and 20% best days, due to on-thebooks controls, BART, and the results of 

the four-factor analysis on major source 

categories. 

11. Compare RPG to the 2018 URP 

milestone and provide an affirmative 

demonstration that reasonable progress 

is being made. For each Class I area, 

ODEQ compared the RPG developed in 

step 10 to the 2018 URP milestone and 

provided an affirmative demonstration 

that reasonable progress is being made. 

After considering each of the factors 

described above, Oregon established 

RPGs for each of its mandatory Class I 

areas. The visibility projections were 

based on estimates of emissions 

reductions from all existing and known 

controls resulting from Federal and state 

CAA programs as of December 2010. 

Oregon’s RPGs for its 12 Class I areas are 

shown in Table 1 below. 

TABLE 1—2018 RPGS FOR CLASS I AREAS IN OREGON

Region Oregon class I area 

20% Worst days Years from 

baseline to 

attain 

natural 

conditions at 

reasonable 

progress 

20% Best days 

Baseline 

condition 

(dv) 

2018 Uniform 

rate of 

progress (dv) 

2018 

Reasonable 

progress 

goal (dv) 

Baseline 

condition (dv) 

2018 

reasonable 

progress 

goal (dv) 

Northern Cascades Mt. Hood Wilderness Area .................... 14.9 13.4 13.8 87 2.2 2.0 

Central Cascades .. Mt. Jefferson, Mt. Washington, and 

Three Sisters Wilderness Areas.

15.3 13.8 14.3 93 3.0 2.9 

Southern Cascades Diamond Peak, Mountain Lakes, and 

Gearhart Mountain Wilderness Areas 

and Crater Lake National Park.

13.7 12.3 13.4 287 1.8 1.5 

Coast Range ......... Kalmiopsis Wilderness Area ................. 15.5 14.1 15.1 216 6.3 6.1 

Eastern Oregon ..... Strawberry Mountain and Eagle Cap 

Wilderness Areas.

18.6 16.3 17.5 125 4.5 4.1 

Eastern Oregon/ 

Western Idaho.

Hells Canyon Wilderness Area ............. 18.6 16.2 16.6 74 5.5 4.7 

SIP submission Table 11.4.2–2 as supplemented by May 7, 2012 letter from ODEQ. 

2. Demonstration of Reasonable Progress 

Oregon recognized that based on the 

results of the CMAQ modeling, none of 

the Class I areas in Oregon are expected 

to achieve the URP for 2018. 

Nevertheless, Oregon concludes that the 

goals it established for each of the Class 

I areas for the first planning cycle are 

reasonable, and no additional controls 

are reasonable at this time. Oregon 

believes that these RPGs are justified 

and ‘‘reasonable’’ based on the 

following considerations: (1) Findings of 

the four-factor analysis which evaluated 

controls on major source categories that 

impact visibility in Class I areas in 

Oregon, (2) substantial future emission 

reductions from the PGE Boardman 

EGU, initially due to BART emission 

limits in place by 2014, and then further 

reductions in emissions from this 

facility when it ceases to burn coal by 

the end of 2020, (3) evidence that 

emissions from natural sources 

(primarily wildfires) significantly 

impact visibility in the Class I areas and 

adversely affect Oregon’s ability to reach 

the 2018 URP goal, (4) evidence that 

offshore marine shipping emissions 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

30462 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 100 / Wednesday, May 23, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

significantly impact visibility in the 

Class I areas and adversely affect 

Oregon’s ability to meet the 2018 URP 

goal in these Class I areas, and (5) 

ODEQ’s demonstration that it will 

achieve significant reductions of SO2

and NOX emissions from anthropogenic 

sources in Oregon, primarily due to 

major reductions in mobile source 

emissions of SO2 and NOX by 2018. See 

Oregon Regional Haze SIP submission 

section 11.4.1 for additional detail. 

These five factors, and how they were 

considered, are summarized in the 

following paragraphs. 

Findings of the Four-Factor Analysis: 

ODEQ based its analysis on the WRAP 

four-factor analysis for Oregon, and 

focused on the largest anthropogenic 

point and areas sources that have the 

greatest projected amounts of SOX and 

NOX emissions in each source category 

in 2018. Based on the emissions 

inventory, ODEQ identified the 

following source categories as being the 

largest SOX and NOX emitters: External 

Combustion Boilers; Stationary Source 

Fuel Combustion; Industrial Processes; 

Internal Combustion Engines; 

Agricultural Orchard Heaters; and 

Waste Disposal, Treatment, and 

Recovery. The annual SO2 and NOX

emissions from each of these categories 

are shown in Table 2. 

TABLE 2—OREGON’S LARGEST SOURCE CATEGORIES

Pollutant Type Source category Extent of 

contribution 

SO2 ........................................... Point ......................................... External Combustion Boilers ......................................... 858 tons/year. 

Point ......................................... Industrial Processes ....................................................... 377 tons/year. 

Area .......................................... Stationary Source Fuel Combustion .............................. 5,699 tons/year. 

Area .......................................... Misc. (Agriculture Orchard Heaters) .............................. 2,243 tons/year.

NOX ........................................... Point ......................................... External Combustion Boilers ......................................... 4,995 tons/year. 

Point ......................................... Industrial Processes ....................................................... 3,639 tons/year. 

Point ......................................... Internal Combustion Engines ......................................... 3,688 tons/year. 

Area .......................................... Stationary Source Fuel Combustion .............................. 13,454 tons/year. 

Area .......................................... Waste Disposal, Treatment, and Recovery ................... 2,881 tons/year. 

ODEQ’s four-factor analysis for each 

source category is summarized below: 

a. External Boilers: This source 

category consists of point sources with 

emissions totaling 858 tons per year 

(tpy) of SO2 and 4,995 of NOX. 

Technically feasible NOX emission 

control technologies for external boilers 

included Overfire Air, Selective NonCatalytic Reduction and Selective 

Catalytic Reduction. See section 11.3.3.1 

of the SIP submittal for additional detail 

regarding the State’s analysis of this 

source category. 

b. Industrial Processes: This source 

category consists of SO2 and NOX point 

sources, with emissions totaling 377 tpy 

of SO2 and 3,639 tpy of NOX In this 

category, ODEQ focused on cement 

manufacturing, which is the only 

sizable subcategory in this category, 

with about 57% of the NOX in the 

Industrial Processes category. See 

section 11.3.3.1, Industrial Processes 

table and section 11.3.3.3 of the SIP 

submittal for additional detail regarding 

the State’s analysis of this source 

category. 

c. Stationary Source Fuel Combustion: 

This source category consists of area 

sources, with emissions totaling 5,699 

tpy of SO2 and 13,354 tpy of NOX The 

largest subcategory in this category is 

residential wood and natural gas 

combustion (6,642 tpy of NOX, 

combined). These represent the 

woodstoves and home heating devices 

found throughout Oregon. ODEQ’s 

residential wood heating rules in OAR 

340, Division 262, require that only 

certified woodstoves can be sold in the 

state. As a result of these current 

federally enforceable state requirements 

and programs for residential wood 

heating, ODEQ did not conduct a fourfactor analysis for this subcategory. 

ODEQ also found that the low emissions 

generated by natural gas home heating 

devices did not warrant further analysis. 

The remaining sizeable subcategories 

were industrial and commercial/ 

institutional combustion, involving 

mostly natural gas and distillate oil. 

ODEQ believes that emissions from 

these subcategories come from smaller 

generators and engines. The control 

options available for stationary sources 

burning natural gas are very limited, 

since this fuel already produces very 

low emissions, and there are no costeffective post-combustion controls for 

this category of sources. As a result of 

its review of this source category, ODEQ 

did not believe a detailed four-factor 

analysis was appropriate, and that such 

a review would not identify any cost 

effective controls. See section 11.3.3.2 of 

the SIP submittal for additional detail 

regarding the State’s analysis of this 

source category. 

d. Waste Disposal, Treatment, and 

Recovery: This source category consists 

of NOX area sources with emissions 

totaling 2,881 tpy. ODEQ found that the 

largest source within this category is 

residential open burning, which like 

agricultural and forestry burning is not 

suitable for applying the four-factor 

analysis because there are no feasible 

emission control technologies for these 

types of sources. However, as discussed 

below, ODEQ intends to conduct an 

evaluation of residential open burning 

to determine the extent of the 

contribution to visibility impairment, 

and the need for emission reductions, as 

part of the LTS of this plan (See chapter 

12, section 12.6.3 of the SIP submittal). 

e. Agricultural Orchard Heaters: This 

source category consists of SO2 area 

sources with emissions totaling 2,243 

tpy. ODEQ found that a four-factor 

analysis was not appropriate for this 

category of sources for the following 

reasons: (1) ODEQ’s confidence in the 

emissions estimates from orchard 

heaters is very low, (2) these heaters are 

used only intermittently, to prevent 

frost damage for selected crops in 

diverse regions of the state, and the 

probability that the intermittent use and 

spatial distribution of this source is a 

sizeable contributor to Class I area 

impairment is extremely low, and (3) 

few cost effective control options are 

available for this type of source. See 

section 11.3.3.5 of the SIP submittal for 

additional detail regarding the State’s 

analysis of this source category. 

f. Internal Combustion Engines: This 

source category consists of NOX point 

sources with emissions totaling 3,688 

tpy. This source category consists of two 

types of engines: (1) Natural gas fired 

reciprocating internal combustion 

engines, and (2) natural gas fired 

turbines that are compressors, 

combustors, or power turbines. 

Emissions from internal combustion 

engines vary from engine to engine, 

model to model, and mode of operation. 

ODEQ found that there was no currently 

available information on this source 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 100 / Wednesday, May 23, 2012 / Proposed Rules 30463 

category that would allow a four-factor 

analysis. Given the relatively low 

emissions represented by this source 

category, and the unknown level of 

contribution to visibility impairment, 

ODEQ decided not to conduct any 

further analysis on this source category. 

See section 11.3.3.6 of the SIP submittal 

for additional detail regarding the 

State’s analysis of this source category. 

As the purpose of the reasonable 

progress analysis is to evaluate the 

potential of controlling certain sources 

or source categories to address visibility 

from manmade sources, the four-factor 

analysis conducted by Oregon 

addressed only anthropogenic sources 

on the assumption that the focus should 

be on sources that could be controlled. 

Thus, in its evaluation of potential 

sources or source categories for 

reasonable progress, the state primarily 

evaluated controls on point sources. 

Oregon determined that the key 

pollutants contributing to visibility 

impairment from sources in Oregon are 

SO2, NOX, and organic carbon. The State 

determined that the major source of 

organic carbon was natural fire, and 

after reviewing the WRAP modeling 

results, Oregon found that PM emissions 

from point sources only contribute a 

minimal amount to the visibility 

impairment in the Oregon Class I areas. 

Therefore, for this initial planning 

period, Oregon focused on SO2 and NOX

controls for point source emissions. 

Based on its evaluation, Oregon 

concluded that little gain would be 

achieved from further reduction in SO2

and NOX from point sources in Oregon, 

and therefore concluded it is not 

reasonable to require controls for these 

source categories at this time. See 

Chapter 11.3 of the Oregon SIP 

submittal. 

Substantial emission reductions From 

the PGE Boardman EGU: ODEQ projects 

that there will be a total SO2 and NOX

emission reduction of 9,944 tpy from 

the PGE Boardman facility when BART 

emission controls are fully implemented 

by July 2014. These reductions will 

result in an additional visibility 

improvement of 2.4 dv in the Mt. Hood 

Class I area, and an additional 

cumulative visibility improvement of 

16.2 dv in all 14 Class I areas impacted 

by this source. By 2018, there will be an 

additional reduction of 2,400 tpy of SO2

when the reasonable progress controls 

(Direct Sorbent Injection-phase 2) are 

implemented, resulting in an additional 

2.3 dv of cumulative improvement. By 

the end of 2020, when Boardman 

permanently ceases to burn coal, there 

will be an additional combined SO2 and 

NOX reduction of 12,877 tpy, resulting 

in an additional 13.0 dv cumulative 

improvement in all 14 Class I areas. See 

appendix D–7 of the Oregon Regional 

Haze SIP submittal. 

Significant contribution to visibility 

impairment from natural sources: The 

emission data in Chapter 8 of the SIP 

submittal demonstrate that there are 

major contributions of Organic Carbon 

(OC), Elemental Carbon (EC), PM2.5, and 

coarse particulate matter (coarse PM) 

from wildfires and windblown dust to 

the total state inventory for these 

species. In 2002, OC from wildfires 

constituted 69% of the total state’s OC 

emission inventory, and EC from 

wildfires constituted 61% of the state’s 

EC emission inventory. Also in 2002, 

windblown dust constituted 26% of the 

Oregon’s total PM2.5 inventory, and 

constituted 61% of the coarse PM 

inventory. Based on CMAQ modeling 

results shown in Chapter 9 of the SIP 

submittal, OC and PM2.5 from wildfires, 

and PM2.5 and coarse PM from 

windblown dust, had significant to 

substantial impacts on visibility in 

Oregon Class I areas on the 20% worst 

days in 2002. The contribution of 

natural fires to visibility impairment 

from OC in Oregon Class I areas ranges 

from about 15% at the Mt. Hood Class 

I area to about 95% at the Kalmiopsis 

Class I area. Windblown dust and 

wildfires combined contribute from 

about 10% to 90% of the PM2.5

measured ambient air concentrations in 

the Oregon Class I areas, and 

windblown dust and wildfires 

combined contribute from about 30% to 

95% of the coarse PM measured in 

Oregon Class I areas. Since the 

emissions from these natural sources are 

uncontrollable, and are projected to 

remain at 2002 baseline levels through 

2018, emissions from these sources will 

continue to have major visibility 

impacts on Oregon Class I areas, prevent 

visibility improvement from achieving 

the URP, and increase the percent 

contribution to visibility impairment 

from uncontrolled sources as 

concentrations of pollutants from 

controlled sources decrease. 

Evidence that offshore marine 

shipping emissions affect ability to meet 

the 2018 URP goal: ODEQ found that 

marine vessel emissions (primarily SO2

and NOX) are a significant contributor to 

haze in Oregon Class I areas, and 

significantly affect Oregon’s ability to 

meet its 2018 URP milestones. The 

PSAT and WEP results in the Oregon 

SIP submittal Chapter 9 show that 

offshore marine emissions are a 

significant contributor to visibility 

impairment in the Kalmiopsis Class I 

area and the seven Oregon Class I areas 

in the Cascade Mountains. Marine 

vessel emissions are included in the 

‘‘Pacific offshore’’ portion of the pie 

charts shown in Figures 9.2.1–1 through 

9.2.1–5 of the SIP submittal. According 

to the emission inventory in Chapter 8 

of the Oregon SIP submittal, marine 

vessel emissions constitute 56% of the 

total SO2 and 31% of the total NOX

inventory for the State of Oregon for 

2002. As discussed further in the long 

term strategy portion of the submittal, 

Oregon has only limited ability to 

regulate offshore marine emissions and 

the Pacific offshore marine vessel 

emissions are currently beyond 

Oregon’s regulatory authority. 

ODEQ’s determination that it will 

achieve significant reductions of SO2

and NOX emissions by 2018: Oregon 

explained that it will achieve significant 

reduction of SO2 and NOX emissions 

from anthropogenic sources in Oregon 

by 2018, primarily due to existing 

Federal rules that control SO2 and NOX

emissions from mobile sources. See 

section 11.4.3 of the SIP submittal. 

Based on the WEP analyses of SO2 and 

NOX emissions in 2018, SO2 emissions 

from sources upwind of the Class I areas 

in Oregon are projected to decrease by 

33% to 46%, and upwind emissions of 

NOX are projected to decrease by 28% 

to 48% on the 20% worst days 

compared to the 2002 baseline. These 

results are shown in Tables 11.4.2–2 

and 11.4.2–3 of the SIP submittal. As a 

result of this reduction in SO2 and NOX

emissions, the CMAQ regional visibility 

modeling results project a 4% to 18% 

improvement in visibility in Oregon 

Class I areas due to reductions in SO2

emissions, and projects a 27% to 58% 

improvement in visibility in the Oregon 

Class I areas from reductions in NO2

emissions. See section 11.4.2 of the SIP 

submittal. 

3. EPA’s Determination Whether the SIP 

Meets 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1) 

In a previous action, EPA approved 

Oregon’s determination of baseline and 

natural visibility conditions in each 

Class I area in Oregon. See 76 FR 38997. 

The linear progress from baseline 

visibility to natural visibility in 2064 

defines the URP. The ‘2018 URP’ is the 

rate of progress to be achieved by 2018 

in order to stay on track to achieve 

natural conditions by 2064. In reviewing 

the Oregon SIP submittal, EPA 

independently evaluated whether there 

are reasonable control measures 

available for sources located within 

Oregon’s regulatory jurisdiction that 

would achieve further progress toward 

achieving the 2018 URP. 

We began this evaluation using a 

screening methodology called ‘‘Q/d’’ to 

determine which stationary (point) 

sources would be candidates for 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

30464 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 100 / Wednesday, May 23, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

controls under reasonable progress. The 

value Q/d is the ratio of the 

mathematical sum of actual SO2, NOX

and PM emissions in tpy, denoted as 

‘‘Q’’, divided by the distance (in 

kilometers, denoted as ‘‘d’’) of the point 

source to the nearest Class I area. A high 

Q/d would indicate the likelihood of the 

source causing or contributing to 

impairment in that Class I area. 

To determine the Q/d value that 

would provide assurance that a source 

would, or would not, cause or 

contribute to impairment in any Class I 

area, we considered the modeled 

visibility impacts from the CALPUFF 

modeling used to determine the BARTeligible sources subject to BART in EPA 

Region 10 and the distance of the source 

to the nearest Class I area. There were 

19 BART-eligible sources used in this 

analysis. See memorandum to the files 

from Keith Rose, EPA Region 10, dated 

March 21, 2012, for this analysis. All 

sources with a Q/d ratio of less than 

26.1 had visibility impacts of less than 

0.5 dv. The resultant average of the 

range is about 0.3 dv, which is more 

conservative than the 0.5 dv that was 

used in determining which sources 

would be subject-to-BART under the 

federal BART regulations. Since the 

threshold is more conservative than the 

subject-to-BART threshold, we believe 

that a Q/d value of 20 is reasonable for 

determining which point sources the 

State should consider for the reasonable 

progress analysis. 

Next, EPA determined the Q/d ratio at 

all non-BART point sources in Oregon 

based on information in the EPA 

National Emission Inventory database 

for emissions for point sources in 2005. 

Based on the 2005 EPA National 

Emission Inventory Database, six of the 

largest non-BART point sources and 

their Q/d values are: Roseburg Forest 

Products (16.9 Q/d), Co-Gen Co. LLC 

(15.5 Q/d), Gas Transmission Northwest 

Corporation (14.0 Q/d), Weyerhaeuser 

Company, Albany (13.1 Q/d), Boise 

Cascade Corporation, La Grande 

(12.7 Q/d), and Boise Cascade 

Corporation, Elgin (11.5 Q/d). Since all 

of these sources have Q/d values below 

20, EPA believes that their impacts on 

nearby Class I areas are expected to be 

less than 0.5 dv. Thus, EPA agrees with 

Oregon’s conclusion that additional 

controls of non-BART point sources for 

reasonable progress purposes are not 

reasonable in the first planning period, 

because even though there are cost 

effective controls identified, visibility 

improvement is anticipated to be 

relatively small. 

EPA also considered control measures 

for anthropogenic fire (prescribed forest 

fire and agricultural fire). Oregon 

already operates a robust enhanced 

smoke management program for 

prescribed forest fire and agricultural 

burning (see description of Oregon’s 

smoke management and agricultural 

burning programs in section G.5 below). 

There are no other source categories of 

smoke that appear to emit visibility 

impairing pollutants sufficient to 

warrant consideration for additional 

control at this time. 

In regard to the impact of offshore 

marine shipping emissions, ODEQ did 

not consider potential improvements in 

visibility its Class I areas due to 

amendments adopted by the 

International Maritime Organization 

(IMO) in October 2008. See http:// 

www.imo.org/blast/ 

mainframe.asp?topic_id=233. These 

amendments, known as the Annex VI 

amendments specify: (1) New fuel 

quality requirements for commercial 

marine vessels beginning from July 

2010, (2) Tier II and III NOX emission 

standards for new commercial marine 

engines, and (3) Tier I NOX

requirements for existing pre-2000 

commercial marine engines. The Annex 

VI amendments designate waters within 

200 miles of the North American coast 

as an emission control area, including 

waters offshore of Oregon. Even though 

the effects of IMO Annex VI 

amendments were not evaluated in the 

Oregon SIP submittal, EPA believes that 

visibility impacts from marine vessel 

emissions will decrease by 2018 when 

the requirements of the Annex VI 

amendments are fully implemented. 

Because these reductions were not 

included in the CMAQ or WEP analyses 

conducted by WRAP for Oregon, the 

specific visibility improvements cannot 

be quantified at this time, but they will 

likely result in further visibility 

improvements in the Oregon Class I 

areas located near the coast and in the 

Cascade Mountains. 

As explained in the EPA’s RGP 

Guidance, the 2018 URP estimate is not 

a presumptive target and the State’s 

RPGs may be lesser, greater or 

equivalent to the glide path. The glide 

path to 2064 represents a rate of 

progress which states must use for 

analytical comparison to the amount of 

progress they expect to achieve. EPA 

believes the RPGs established by Oregon 

for the Class I areas in Oregon, although 

not achieving the URP, are reasonable 

when considering that significant 

visibility improvement is expected from 

BART controls for Boardman and other 

point sources, additional controls on 

other point sources and other source 

categories would not result in 

significant visibility improvement, and 

the significant visibility impacts due to 

uncontrollable natural fire and 

significant impacts from off shore 

marine emissions. Consequently, we 

propose to find that the State has 

demonstrated that its 2018 RPGs are 

reasonable and consistent with 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(1) and 51.308(d)(1)(ii). 

G. Long Term Strategy 

The Long Term Strategy (LTS) 

required by 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3) is a 

compilation of all existing and 

anticipated new air pollution control 

measures. The LTS must include 

‘‘enforceable emission limitations, 

compliance schedules, and other 

measures as necessary to achieve the 

reasonable progress goals’’ for all Class 

I areas within or affected by emissions 

from the State. 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3). In 

developing its LTS, Oregon considered 

all the factors required for developing a 

LTS identified in the RHR. These factors 

included: (1) Ongoing Air Pollution 

Control Programs, (2) Measures to 

Mitigate Impacts of Construction 

Activities, (3) Emission Limitations and 

Schedules for Compliance, (4) Source 

Retirement and Replacement Schedules, 

(5) Smoke Management Techniques for 

Agricultural and Forestry Burning, and 

(6) Enforceability of Emission 

Limitations and Control Measures. A 

summary of how Oregon is addressing 

each of these factors in its LTS is 

provided below. 

1. Ongoing Air Pollution Control 

Programs 

a. Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration/New Source Review Rules 

In Oregon, a primary regulatory tool 

for addressing visibility impairment 

from industrial sources is the 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

(PSD) New Source Review rules. The 

SIP approved Oregon PSD rules protect 

visibility in Class I areas from new 

industrial sources, and major changes to 

existing sources, by requiring a visibility 

impact assessment (OAR 340, Division 

225). Specifically, OAR 340–225–0070 

describes the process for conducting a 

visibility impact assessment and review 

by ODEQ, as well as the process for 

conducting modeling to determine 

visibility impacts, which is used to 

determine if a source causes a 

significant impairment in any Class I 

area. Any new major source or major 

modifications within a distance of 300 

km of a Class I area that are found 

through modeling to cause significant 

visibility impairment will not be issued 

an air quality permit by Oregon unless 

the impact is mitigated. The level of 

significance is defined as an increase in 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 100 / Wednesday, May 23, 2012 / Proposed Rules 30465 

visibility impairment above natural 

background of 5%. 

b. Reasonably Attributable Visibility 

Impairment BART 

Oregon has adopted the RAVI BART 

requirements as part of the Oregon 

Visibility Protection Plan. RAVI 

specifies that if the Federal Land 

Manager certifies that visibility 

impairment exists in a federal Class I 

area, Oregon would be required to 

analyze BART controls and identify 

BART for any contributing source. 

c. Oregon’s Phase I Visibility Protection 

Program 

In 1986, Oregon adopted EPA’s Phase 

I Visibility rule into Oregon Visibility 

Protection Plan (OAR 340–200–0040). 

This rule addresses visibility 

impairment that is ‘‘reasonably 

attributable’’ to one or small group of 

sources, in relatively close proximity to 

a Class I area. The Oregon Visibility 

Protection Plan contains short and longterm strategies to address reasonably 

attributable impairment, including PSD 

new source review rules along with 

seasonal protection of visibility during 

the summer months from prescribed 

forestry burning and agricultural field 

burning. Air quality monitoring showed 

that during the summer months in the 

northern and central Cascades, visibility 

was frequently impaired by smoke or 

‘‘plume blight’’ from Willamette Valley 

agricultural open field burning and 

forest prescribed burning. Monitoring 

also demonstrated that there was 

summer visibility impairment in the 

Eagle Cap Wilderness area caused by 

Union County agricultural open field 

burning, and that field burning in 

Jefferson County was contributing to 

summer visibility impairment in the 

central Oregon Cascade Class I areas. As 

a result, ODEQ adopted specific 

visibility control strategies for these 

areas into the original plan. These 

included smoke management 

requirements to avoid Class I visibility 

impacts from Willamette Valley, 

Jefferson County and Union County 

open field burning, and from forest 

prescribed burning in parts of Western 

Oregon. The Jefferson and Union 

County smoke management programs 

adopted provisions to avoid any burning 

upwind of nearby Class I areas. The 

Oregon Department of Forestry Smoke 

Management Program was revised to 

shift prescribed burning in Western 

Oregon from the summer to the spring 

and fall, as part of an effort to eliminate 

burning during the summer. Oregon also 

explained that it made additional 

revisions and improvements to the 

Visibility Protection Plan in 2002 as part 

of the Oregon Visibility Protection Plan 

Reasonable Progress Report, March 5, 

2002. See SIP Submittal section 12.5.5.1 

for additional discussion of the Oregon 

Phase I Visibility Protection Program. 

d. Implementation of State and Federal 

Mobile Source regulations 

Mobile source annual emissions show 

a major decrease in NOX and SO2 in 

Oregon from 2002 to 2018, due to 

numerous ‘‘on the books’’ federal 

mobile source regulations for on-road 

mobile sources as well as non-road 

mobile sources and equipment. These 

rules are expected to reduce SO2

emissions as well as NOX and PM 

emissions. In 2005, Oregon adopted 

California’s emissions standards for 

light and medium duty vehicles as the 

Oregon Low Emission Vehicle Program. 

This program took effect beginning with 

2009 model year vehicles. Although the 

primary purpose was to reduce 

greenhouse gas emissions, these rules 

will also decrease NOX and PM 

emissions from light and medium duty 

vehicles. In 2007, the Oregon 

Legislature authorized a clean diesel 

program that included funding for a 

grant/loan program to retrofit existing 

diesel engines with exhaust controls, 

repowering non-road diesel engines 

with biodiesel, and scrapping older 

engines. ODEQ projects that with 

normal turnover bringing new, cleaner 

engines into the fleet, there will be a 

60% reduction in diesel PM2.5 emissions 

by 2018. 

e. On-Going Implementation of 

Programs To Meet PM10 NAAQS 

In Oregon there are six communities 

that are PM10 maintenance areas and 

two communities that are 

nonattainment areas under the PM10

NAAQS. All of these communities are 

located within 20 to 50 miles of one or 

more Class I area, and have the potential 

to impact visibility in these Class I 

areas. As a result of being designated as 

PM10 nonattainment areas, these 

communities have made significant 

reductions in PM10 emissions in the last 

10 years by adopting control strategies 

to reduce PM10 emissions from sources 

such as residential woodstoves and 

outdoor burning. For example, ODEQ’s 

federally enforceable wood-heating 

rules (OAR 340, Division 262) require 

woodstove curtailment programs in 

each of these communities, and specify 

that only certified woodstoves be sold in 

the state. Oregon’s wood-heating rules 

have been very effective in reducing 

PM10 levels during the heating months 

in these communities. 

2. Measures To Mitigate the Impacts of 

Construction Activities 

Oregon’s rules addressing impacts 

from construction activities are 

primarily found in the OAR 340, 

Division 208. OAR 340–208–0210 

addresses ‘‘fugitive emissions’’ from a 

variety of sources, and would be the 

most applicable regulation to 

construction activities. This regulation 

requires ‘‘reasonable precautions’’ be 

taken to prevent particulate matter from 

becoming airborne from activities such 

as construction projects. Actions that 

can be taken to control particulate 

emissions include the use of water or 

chemicals to control dust from 

demolition, construction operations, 

unpaved roads at construction sites, and 

material stockpiles, and containment of 

sandblasting operations. 

3. Emission Limitations and Schedules 

of Compliance 

Emission limits and compliance 

schedules for stationary sources are 

specified under Oregon and federal 

regulations in accordance with the CAA. 

Additionally as discussed above, the 

emission limits and schedules of 

compliance for those sources with 

BART limits, and sources taking FEPLs, 

are described in Chapter 10 of the SIP 

submittal and in our previous action 

approving these limits and schedules. 

4. Source Retirement and Replacement 

Schedules 

Oregon’s LTS contains an evaluation 

of non-BART sources, as described 

below. This evaluation will include a 

review of all existing industrial sources 

to identify scheduled shutdowns, 

retirements in upcoming years, or 

replacement schedules, such as planned 

installation of new control equipment to 

meet other regulations or routine 

equipment replacement or 

modernization. 

5. Smoke Management Techniques for 

Agricultural and Forestry Burning 

Smoke from agricultural and forestry 

burning are major contributors to 

visibility impairment in Oregon Class I 

areas. Organic and elemental carbon 

particulates are the dominant pollutant 

species contributing to haze in Oregon 

Class I areas on the 20% worst days. 

Much of these particulates are from 

wildfires, which fluctuates significantly 

from year to year, but there is also a 

significant contribution from controlled 

agricultural and forestry burning. Of the 

controlled burning, prescribed forestry 

burning represents the largest source, at 

approximately 58% of the total burning 

in the state, and agricultural burning 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

30466 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 100 / Wednesday, May 23, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

(including open field burning) is 

approximately 11%. 

In Oregon, prescribed forest burning 

and agricultural burning is regulated 

under the Oregon Smoke Management 

Plan. On November 2, 2007, the Oregon 

Department of Forestry (ODF) adopted 

revisions to this plan which included 

new visibility protection provisions that 

incorporated references to the Oregon 

Regional Haze Plan and the Enhanced 

Smoke Management Program (ESMP) 

criteria in the RHR section 309. 

Oregon’s current smoke management 

programs, operated by Oregon 

Department of Agriculture (ODA) and 

ODF, includes the following ESMP 

elements: (1) Taking actions to 

minimize smoke emissions, (2) burning 

only during appropriate weather 

conditions in order to avoid smoke 

impacts in urban areas, (3) encourages 

using alternatives to fire, and includes 

a comprehensive reference manual of 

alternatives to prescribed fire, (4) a 

requirement that burning permits must 

be obtained prior to burning, and (5) a 

burn authorization process that involves 

the issuance of smoke management 

forecasts and burning instructions. 

Agricultural burning in the Willamette 

Valley is further controlled under a 

smoke management program operated 

by ODA. Field burning in Jefferson and 

Union counties is controlled through 

smoke management programs 

established by county ordinance and 

operated at that level. These county 

programs have requirements to avoid 

burning upwind of nearby Class I areas 

when smoke would impair visibility. 

6. Enforceability of Emission 

Limitations and Control Measures 

Oregon has ensured that all emission 

limitations and control measures used 

to meet reasonable progress goals are 

enforceable, and pursuant to OAR 340– 

200–0040, are included in the State of 

Oregon Clean Air Act Implementation 

Plan. ODEQ has adopted the Oregon 

Regional Haze Plan, including the 

Oregon BART rules, into the SIP 

submittal, which ensures that all 

elements in the plan are enforceable. 

In addition to six factors discussed 

above, Oregon indicated a number of 

additional measures it intends to take in 

the future as part of its long term 

strategy. As described in additional 

detail in the SIP submittal section 12.6, 

the State intends to: (1) Further evaluate 

controls for Non-BART Sources, (2) 

evaluate prescribed burning 

contribution to haze and possible 

controls, (3) evaluate the contribution 

from general outdoor open burning, and 

(4) evaluate the contribution from 

rangeland burning. EPA acknowledges 

these additional measures and analysis 

that Oregon is planning to conduct, but 

is not necessary to take these specific 

activities into account at this time in 

evaluating whether the enforceable 

measures contained in the State’s LTS 

satisfy the RHR requirement. 

EPA is proposing to find that Oregon 

adequately addressed the RHR 

requirements in developing its LTS. The 

LTS provides sufficient documentation 

to ensure that Oregon will meet its 

emission reduction obligations for all 

Class I areas it affects in the first 

planning period. Oregon relied on 

monitoring, emission inventories and 

modeling information from the WRAP 

as the technical basis for its LTS. 

Coordination and consultation occurred 

with other states through the WRAP, in 

which all western states participated in 

developing the technical analysis upon 

which their SIPs are based. Oregon’s 

analysis included all anthropogenic 

sources of visibility impairment 

including major and minor stationary 

sources, mobile sources, and area 

sources. The anticipated net effect on 

visibility over the first planning period 

due to changes in point, area, and 

mobile source emissions is an 

improvement in visibility in all Class I 

areas in Oregon on the worst 20% days, 

and no degradation of visibility on the 

20% best days. 

H. Monitoring Strategy and Other 

Implementation Plan Requirements 

The primary monitoring network for 

regional haze in Oregon is the IMPROVE 

network. There are currently IMPROVE 

sites in the Mt. Hood Wilderness area, 

Three Sister Wilderness area, Crater 

Lake National Park, Kalmiopsis 

Wilderness area, Strawberry Mountain 

Wilderness area, and Hells Canyon 

Wilderness area. IMPROVE monitoring 

data from 2000–2004 serves as the 

baseline for the regional haze program, 

and is relied upon in the Oregon 

Regional Haze submittal. Oregon 

commits to rely on the IMPROVE 

network for complying with the regional 

haze monitoring requirement in EPA’s 

RHR for the current and future regional 

haze implementation periods. See 

section 4.4 of the SIP submittal. Data 

produced by the IMPROVE monitoring 

network will be used for preparing the 

five-year progress reports and the 10- 

year SIP revisions, each of which relies 

on analysis of the preceding five years 

of data. 

I. Consultation With States and Federal 

Land Managers 

Through the WRAP, member states 

and Tribes worked extensively with the 

FLMs from the U.S. Departments of the 

Interior and Agriculture to develop 

technical analyses that support the 

regional haze SIPs for the WRAP states. 

The proposed Regional Haze plan for 

Oregon was provided to the FLM for 

comment on November 11, 2008, the 

start of a 60-day comment period. See 

section 13.1 of the SIP submittal. 

Oregon also consulted with the States of 

Washington, Idaho, Nevada, and 

California. 

Oregon commits to continued 

consultation with the FLMs and the 

other states as part of the continued 

implementation of the plan and for 

future progress reports and revisions. 

This continuing consultation process 

will provide the opportunity for ongoing opportunities to address a host of 

items including, for example, the 

implementation of emission control 

programs, changes to the monitoring 

strategy or monitoring locations, status 

of state actions to meet commitments for 

future assessments or rulemaking, and 

work on the five-year reviews and tenyear revisions. Additionally, Oregon 

consulted with the tribes during 

development of their plan through the 

WRAP activities and direct outreach to 

the tribes. 

J. Periodic SIP Revisions and Five-Year 

Progress Reports 

Section 51.308(f) of the RHR requires 

that the regional haze plans be revised 

and submitted to EPA by July 31, 2018 

and every 10 years thereafter. 40 CFR 

51.308(g) requires the state to submit a 

progress report to EPA every five years 

evaluating progress towards the 

reasonable progress goals for each Class 

I area in the State and each Class I area 

located outside the State which may be 

affected by emissions from within the 

State. Oregon has committed to evaluate 

and reassess its Regional Haze plan and 

to provide a Regional Haze SIP revision 

by July 31, 2018 for the next 10 year 

planning cycle. See section 13.5 of the 

SIP submittal. Oregon has also 

committed to submitting the five-year 

review and report on the Regional Haze 

plan. See section 13.1 of the SIP 

submittal. 

IV. What action is EPA proposing? 

On June 21, 2011, EPA approved 

portions of the Oregon Regional Haze 

Plan submitted December 10, 2010, as 

supplemented on February 1, 2011, 

including the Oregon’s emission 

inventory, determination of baseline 

and natural conditions and the BART 

controls and emission limits. Today, for 

the reasons explained above, EPA is 

proposing to approve the remaining 

parts of the Oregon Regional Haze 

submittal as meeting the requirements 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 100 / Wednesday, May 23, 2012 / Proposed Rules 30467 

set forth in section 169A and 169B of 

the Act and in 40 CFR 51.300–308 

regarding regional haze. 

V. 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. 

VI. Scope of Action 

Oregon has not demonstrated 

authority to implement and enforce the 

Oregon Administrative rules within 

‘‘Indian Country’’ as defined in 18 

U.S.C. 1151. ‘‘Indian country’’ is 

defined under 18 U.S.C. 1151 as: (1) All 

land within the limits of any Indian 

reservation under the jurisdiction of the 

United States Government, 

notwithstanding the issuance of any 

patent, and including rights-of-way 

running through the reservation, (2) all 

dependent Indian communities within 

the borders of the United States, 

whether within the original or 

subsequently acquired territory thereof, 

and whether within or without the 

limits of a State, and (3) all Indian 

allotments, the Indian titles to which 

have not been extinguished, including 

rights-of-way running through the same. 

Under this definition, EPA treats as 

reservations trust lands validly set aside 

for the use of a Tribe even if the trust 

lands have not been formally designated 

as a reservation. Therefore, this SIP 

approval does not extend to ‘‘Indian 

Country’’ in Oregon. See CAA sections 

110(a)(2)(A) (SIP shall include 

enforceable emission limits), 

110(a)(2)(E)(i) (State must have adequate 

authority under State law to carry out 

SIP), and 172(c)(6) (nonattainment SIPs 

shall include enforceable emission 

limits). 

VII. 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 rule neither imposes 

substantial direct compliance costs on 

tribal governments, nor preempts tribal 

law. Therefore, the requirements of 

sections 5(b) and 5(c) of the Executive 

Order do not apply to this rule. 

Consistent with EPA policy, EPA 

nonetheless provided a consultation 

opportunity to Tribes in Idaho, Oregon 

and Washington in letters dated January 

14, 2011. EPA received one request for 

consultation, and we have followed-up 

with that Tribe. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Air pollution control, Environmental 

protection, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Visibility, 

and Volatile organic compounds. 

Dated: May 14, 2012. 

Michelle L. Pirzadeh, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 10. 

[FR Doc. 2012–12490 Filed 5–22–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R10–OAR–2012–0078, FRL–9675–5] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; State of 

Washington; Regional Haze State 

Implementation Plan 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

the Best Available Retrofit Technology 

(BART) determination for the TransAlta 

Centralia Generation LLC coal-fired 

power plant in Centralia, Washington 

(TransAlta). The Washington State 

Department of Ecology (Ecology) 

submitted its Regional Haze State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) on December 

22, 2010 to meet the requirements of 40 

CFR 50.308. On December 29, 2011 

Ecology submitted an update to the SIP 

submittal containing a revised and 

updated BART determination for 

TransAlta. EPA plans to act on the 

remaining Regional Haze SIP elements 

for Washington in the near future. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received at the address below on or 

before June 22, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R10– 

OAR–2012–0078 by one of the following 

methods: 

• www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Email: R10- 

Public_Comments@epa.gov. 

• Mail: Steve Body, EPA Region 10, 

Suite 900, Office of Air, Waste and 

Toxics, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, WA 

98101. 

• Hand Delivery: EPA Region 10, 

1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, Seattle, 

WA 98101. Attention: Steve Body, 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS