13622 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 37 / Friday, February 23, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

(2) Would not affect intrastate 

aviation in Alaska, and 

(3) Would not have a significant 

economic impact, positive or negative, 

on a substantial number of small entities 

under the criteria of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act. 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation 

safety, Incorporation by reference, 

Safety. 

The Proposed Amendment 

Accordingly, under the authority 

delegated to me by the Administrator, 

the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 

39 as follows: 

PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS 

DIRECTIVES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 39 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. 

§ 39.13 [Amended] 

■ 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding 

the following new airworthiness 

directive: 

GA8 Airvan (Pty) Ltd: Docket No. FAA– 

2024–0234; Project Identifier MCAI– 

2023–01215–A. 

(a) Comments Due Date 

The FAA must receive comments on this 

airworthiness directive (AD) by April 8, 

2024. 

(b) Affected ADs 

None. 

(c) Applicability 

This AD applies to GA8 Airvan (Pty) Ltd 

Model GA8 airplanes, all serial numbers up 

to and including GA8–20–262; and Model 

GA8–TC320 airplanes, all serial numbers up 

to and including GA8–TC 320–20–261; 

certificated in any category. 

(d) Subject 

Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) 

Code 2497, Electrical Power System Wiring. 

(e) Unsafe Condition 

This AD was prompted by reports of 

insufficient electrical bonding of the solenoid 

(relay) box assembly. The FAA is issuing this 

AD to address possible missing mechanical 

connections. The unsafe condition, if not 

addressed, could result in degraded electrical 

equipment performance, errors, or 

intermittent failures of equipment connected 

to electrical Bus 1, Bus 2, associated 

electrical control and protective devices 

fitted within or attached to the solenoid box, 

which could lead to loss of equipment 

essential for safe flight. 

(f) Compliance 

Comply with this AD within the 

compliance times specified, unless already 

done. 

(g) Required Actions 

(1) Within 100 hours time-in-service (TIS) 

after the effective date of this AD, inspect for 

a mechanical connection between the relay 

box earth point to the ground power socket 

in accordance with Part A, steps 1. through 

4. of the Accomplishment Instructions in 

GippsAero Service Bulletin SB–GA8–2023– 

216, Issue 1, dated February 24, 2023 

(GippsAero SB–GA8–2023–216, Issue 1), 

except where step 4. specifies to proceed to 

the Documentation section to update the 

airplane logbook, that action is not 

specifically required by this AD. 

(2) If no mechanical connection between 

the relay box earth point to the ground power 

socket is found during the inspection 

required by paragraph (g)(1) of this AD, 

before further flight, install a mechanical 

connection in accordance with Part B, steps 

1. through 3. of the Accomplishment 

Instructions in GippsAero SB–GA8–2023– 

216, Issue 1. 

(h) Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs) 

The Manager, International Validation 

Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve 

AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the 

procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In 

accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your 

request to your principal inspector or local 

Flight Standards District Office, as 

appropriate. If sending information directly 

to the manager of the International Validation 

Branch, mail it to the address identified in 

paragraph (i)(2) of this AD or email to: 9- 

AVS-AIR-730-AMOC@faa.gov. If mailing 

information, also submit information by 

email. Before using any approved AMOC, 

notify your appropriate principal inspector, 

or lacking a principal inspector, the manager 

of the local Flight Standards District Office/ 

certificate holding district office. 

(i) Additional Information 

(1) Refer to Civil Aviation Safety Authority 

(CASA) Australia AD GA8/11, dated 

November 21, 2023, for related information. 

This CASA Australia AD may be found in the 

AD docket at regulations.gov under Docket 

No. FAA–2024–0234. 

(2) For more information about this AD, 

contact Doug Rudolph, Aviation Safety 

Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 

410, Westbury, NY 11590; phone: (816) 329– 

4059; email: doug.rudolph@faa.gov. 

(j) Material Incorporated by Reference 

(1) The Director of the Federal Register 

approved the incorporation by reference of 

the service information listed in this 

paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR 

part 51. 

(2) You must use this service information 

as applicable to do the actions required by 

this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise. 

(i) GippsAero Service Bulletin SB–GA8– 

2023–216, Issue 1, dated February 24, 2023. 

(ii) [Reserved] 

(3) For service information identified in 

this AD, contact GA8 Airvan (Pty) Ltd, PO 

Box 881, Morwell, Victoria 3840, Australia; 

phone: +61 (0)3 5172 1200; email: 

TECHPUBS@gippsaero.com.au; website: 

gippsaero.com.au. 

(4) You may view this service information 

at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, 

Operational Safety Branch, 901 Locust, 

Kansas City, MO 64106. For information on 

the availability of this material at the FAA, 

call (817) 222–5110. 

(5) You may view this material at the 

National Archives and Records 

Administration (NARA). For information on 

the availability of this material at NARA, 

visit www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ 

ibr-locations or email fr.inspection@nara.gov. 

Issued on February 16, 2024. 

Victor Wicklund, 

Deputy Director, Compliance & Airworthiness 

Division, Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2024–03720 Filed 2–22–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS 

AFFAIRS 

38 CFR Part 3 

RIN 2900–AR10 

Updating VA Adjudication Regulations 

for Disability or Death Benefit Claims 

Related to Exposure to Certain 

Herbicide Agents 

Correction 

In Proposed Rule Document 2024– 

02590, appearing on pages 9803–9813, 

in the issue of Monday, February 12, 

2024, make the following correction: 

On page 9803, in the second column, 

beginning on the thirty-third line, under 

the heading DATES:, the text reading 

‘‘[insert date 60 days after date of 

publication in the Federal Register]’’ 

should read ‘‘April 12, 2024’’. 

[FR Doc. C1–2024–02590 Filed 2–22–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 1505–01–D 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R10–OAR–2023–0600; FRL–11593– 

01–R10] 

Air Plan Approval; OR; Regional Haze 

Plan for the Second Implementation 

Period 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve 

the regional haze state implementation 

plan revision submitted by Oregon on 

April 29, 2022, as supplemented on 

November 22, 2023, as satisfying 

applicable requirements under the 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 37 / Friday, February 23, 2024 / Proposed Rules 13623 

1Clean Air Act section 169A. 

2Areas statutorily 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. 

Clean Air Act 162(a). There are 156 mandatory 

Class I areas. The list of areas to which the visibility 

protection program applies is set forth in 40 CFR 

part 81, subpart D. 

3Clean Air Act section 169A(a)(1). 

4Clean Air Act section 169A(a)(4). 

5 45 FR 80084, December 2, 1980. 

6 In addition to the generally applicable regional 

haze provisions at 40 CFR 51.308, the EPA also 

promulgated regulations specific to addressing 

regional haze visibility impairment in Class I areas 

on the Colorado Plateau at 40 CFR 51.309. The 

latter regulations are applicable only for specific 

jurisdictions’ regional haze plans submitted no later 

than December 17, 2007, and thus are not relevant 

here. 

Clean Air Act and the EPA’s Regional 

Haze Rule for the program’s second 

implementation period. The Oregon 

submission addressed the requirement 

that states must periodically revise their 

long-term strategies for making 

reasonable progress towards the 

national goal of preventing any future, 

and remedying any existing, 

anthropogenic impairment of visibility, 

including regional haze, in mandatory 

Class I Federal areas. The Oregon 

submission also addressed other 

applicable requirements for the second 

implementation period of the regional 

haze program. Upon final action, the 

Oregon submission will become part of 

the Oregon SIP. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before March 25, 2024. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R10– 

OAR–2023–0600 at https://

www.regulations.gov. For comments 

submitted at regulations.gov, follow the 

online instructions for submitting 

comments. Once submitted, comments 

cannot be edited or removed from 

regulations.gov. For either manner of 

submission, the EPA may publish any 

comment received to its public docket. 

Do not submit electronically any 

information you consider to be 

confidential business information or 

other information the disclosure of 

which is restricted by statute. 

Multimedia submissions (audio, video, 

etc.) must be accompanied by a written 

comment. The written comment is 

considered the official comment and 

should include discussion of all points 

you wish to make. The EPA will 

generally not consider comments or 

comment contents located outside of the 

primary submission (i.e., on the web, 

cloud, or other file sharing system). For 

additional submission methods, please 

contact the person identified in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

For the full EPA public comment policy, 

information about confidential business 

information or multimedia submissions, 

and general guidance on making 

effective comments, please visit https:// 

www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epadockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeff 

Hunt, EPA Region 10, 1200 Sixth 

Avenue, Suite 155, Seattle, WA 98101, 

at (206) 553–6357 or hunt.jeff@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, the use of 

‘‘we’’ and ‘‘our’’ means the EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Proposed Action 

II. Background and Requirements for 

Regional Haze Plans 

A. Regional Haze Background 

B. Roles of Agencies in Addressing 

Regional Haze 

III. Requirements for Regional Haze Plans for 

the Second Implementation Period 

A. Identification of Class I Areas 

B. Calculations of Baseline, Current, and 

Natural Visibility Conditions; Progress to 

Date; and the Uniform Rate of Progress 

C. Long-Term Strategy for Regional Haze 

D. Reasonable Progress Goals 

E. Monitoring Strategy and Other State 

Implementation Plan Requirements 

F. Requirements for Periodic Reports 

Describing Progress Towards the 

Reasonable Progress Goals 

G. Requirements for State and Federal 

Land Manager Coordination 

IV. The EPA’s Evaluation of the Oregon 

Regional Haze Submission for the 

Second Implementation Period 

A. Background on the Oregon First 

Implementation Period SIP Submission 

B. The Oregon Second Implementation 

Period SIP Submission and the EPA’s 

Evaluation 

C. Identification of Class I Areas 

D. Calculations of Baseline, Current, and 

Natural Visibility Conditions; Progress to 

Date; and the Uniform Rate of Progress 

E. Long-Term Strategy for Regional Haze 

a. The Oregon Long-Term Strategy 

b. The EPA’s Evaluation of the Oregon 

Long-Term Strategy 

c. Additional Long-Term Strategy 

Requirements 

F. Reasonable Progress Goals 

G. Monitoring Strategy and Other 

Implementation Plan Requirements 

H. Requirements for Periodic Reports 

Describing Progress Towards the 

Reasonable Progress Goals 

I. Requirements for State and Federal Land 

Manager Coordination 

V. Proposed Action 

VI. Incorporation by Reference 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Proposed Action 

On April 29, 2022 and November 22, 

2023, Oregon submitted a state 

implementation plan (SIP) revision and 

supplement to address regional haze for 

the second implementation period. 

Oregon made the submissions to satisfy 

the Clean Air Act regional haze program 

requirements pursuant to Clean Air Act 

sections 169A and 169B and the EPA’s 

implementing regulations in the Code of 

Federal Regulations (CFR) at 40 CFR 

51.308. The EPA is proposing to find 

that the Oregon submissions meet the 

applicable statutory and regulatory 

requirements and thus we are proposing 

to approve the submissions into the SIP. 

We are also proposing to approve, and 

incorporate by reference into the Oregon 

SIP at 40 CFR part 52, subpart MM, 

specific regulatory provisions and 

source-specific requirements included 

in the submissions. These provisions are 

detailed in section V. of this preamble. 

II. Background and Requirements for 

Regional Haze Plans 

A. Regional Haze Background 

In the 1977 Clean Air Act 

Amendments, Congress created a 

program 1 to protect visibility in the 

nation’s mandatory class I Federal areas, 

which include certain national parks 

and wilderness areas.2 Congress 

established as a national goal the 

‘‘prevention of any future, and the 

remedying of any existing, impairment 

of visibility in mandatory class I Federal 

areas which impairment results from 

manmade air pollution.’’ 3 Congress 

further directed the EPA to promulgate 

regulations to assure reasonable 

progress toward meeting this national 

goal.4 On December 2, 1980, the EPA 

promulgated regulations to address 

visibility impairment in mandatory 

class I Federal areas (hereinafter referred 

to as ‘‘Class I areas’’) that is ‘‘reasonably 

attributable’’ to a single source or small 

group of sources.5 These regulations, 

codified at 40 CFR 51.300 through 

51.307, represented the first phase of the 

EPA’s efforts to address visibility 

impairment. In 1990, Congress added 

section 169B to the Clean Air Act to 

further address visibility impairment, 

specifically, impairment from regional 

haze. The EPA subsequently 

promulgated the Regional Haze Rule on 

July 1, 1999 (64 FR 35714), codified at 

40 CFR 51.308.6 These regional haze 

regulations are a central component of 

the EPA’s comprehensive visibility 

protection program for Class I areas. 

Regional haze is visibility impairment 

that is produced by a multitude of 

anthropogenic sources and activities 

which are located across a broad 

geographic area and that emit pollutants 

that impair visibility. Visibility 

impairing pollutants include fine and 

coarse particulate matter (PM) (e.g., 

sulfates, nitrates, organic carbon, 

elemental carbon, and soil dust) and 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
13624 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 37 / Friday, February 23, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

7There are several ways to measure the amount 

of visibility impairment, i.e., haze. One such 

measurement is the deciview, which is the 

principal metric used by the Regional Haze Rule. 

Under many circumstances, a change in one 

deciview will be perceived by the human eye to be 

the same on both clear and hazy days. The deciview 

is unitless. It is proportional to the logarithm of the 

atmospheric extinction of light, which is the 

perceived dimming of light due to its being 

scattered and absorbed as it passes through the 

atmosphere. Atmospheric light extinction (bext) is a 

metric used to for expressing visibility and is 

measured in inverse megameters (Mm¥1). The 

EPA’s Guidance on Regional Haze State 

Implementation Plans for the Second 

Implementation Period (‘‘2019 Guidance’’) offers 

the flexibility for the use of light extinction in 

certain cases. Light extinction can be simpler to use 

in calculations than deciviews, since it is not a 

logarithmic function. See, e.g., 2019 Guidance at 16, 

19, https://www.epa.gov/visibility/guidanceregional-haze-state-implementation-plans-secondimplementation-period. The EPA Office of Air 

Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle 

Park (August 20, 2019). The formula for the 

deciview is 10 ln (bext)/10 Mm¥1). 40 CFR 51.301. 

8Clean Air Act section 169A(b)(2). See also 40 

CFR 51.308(b), (f) (establishing submission dates for 

iterative regional haze SIP revisions (64 FR 35714, 

35768, July 1, 1999). The Regional Haze Rule 

expresses the statutory requirement for states to 

submit plans addressing out-of-state Class I areas by 

providing that states must address visibility 

impairment ‘‘in each mandatory Class I Federal area 

located outside the State that may be affected by 

emissions from within the State.’’ 40 CFR 51.308(d), 

(f). 

9Clean Air Act section 169A(b)(2)(B). 

10Clean Air Act section 169A(b)(2)(A); 40 CFR 

51.308(d), (e). 

11 40 CFR 51.308(b). 

12 64 FR 35714, 35768, July 1, 1999. 13 64 FR 35714, 35721, July 1, 1999. In addition 

to each of the fifty states, the EPA also concluded 

that the Virgin Islands and District of Columbia 

must also submit regional haze SIPs because they 

either contain a Class I area or contain sources 

whose emissions are reasonably anticipated to 

contribute regional haze in a Class I area. See 40 

CFR 51.300(b), (d)(3). 14Clean Air Act section 169A(g)(1); 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(1). 

15 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(i)(B), (d)(2). The EPA 

established the uniform rate of progress framework 

in the 1999 Regional Haze Rule to provide ‘‘an 

equitable analytical approach’’ to assessing the rate 

of visibility improvement at Class I areas across the 

country. The start point for the uniform rate of 

progress analysis is 2004 and the endpoint was 

calculated based on the amount of visibility 

improvement that was anticipated to result from 

implementation of existing Clean Air Act programs 

over the period from the mid-1990s to 

approximately 2005. Assuming this rate of progress 

would continue into the future, the EPA determined 

that natural visibility conditions would be reached 

in 60 years, or 2064 (60 years from the baseline 

starting point of 2004). However, the EPA did not 

establish 2064 as the year by which the national 

goal must be reached. 64 FR 35714, 35731–32, July 

1, 1999. That is, the uniform rate of progress and 

the 2064 date are not enforceable targets, but are 

rather tools that ‘‘allow for analytical comparisons 

between the rate of progress that would be achieved 

by the state’s chosen set of control measures and the 

[uniform rate of progress] URP.’’ (82 FR 3078, 3084, 

January 10, 2017). 

16 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3). 

17 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(i), (ii). 

18 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v). 

19 40 CFR 51.308(d)(4). 

20See 40 CFR 51.308(g), and (h). 

21The EPA’s regulations define ‘‘Federal Land 

Manager’’ as ‘‘the Secretary of the department with 

authority over the Federal Class I area (or the 

Secretary’s designee) or, with respect to RooseveltCampobello International Park, the Chairman of the 

Roosevelt-Campobello International Park 

Commission.’’ 40 CFR 51.301. 

their precursors (e.g., sulfur dioxide 

(SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOX), and, in 

some cases, volatile organic compounds 

(VOC) and ammonia (NH3)). Fine 

particle precursors react in the 

atmosphere to form fine particulate 

matter (PM2.5), which impairs visibility 

by scattering and absorbing light. 

Visibility impairment reduces the 

perception of clarity and color, as well 

as visible distance.7

To address regional haze visibility 

impairment, the 1999 Regional Haze 

Rule established an iterative planning 

process that requires both states in 

which Class I areas are located and 

states ‘‘the emissions from which may 

reasonably be anticipated to cause or 

contribute to any impairment of 

visibility’’ in a Class I area to 

periodically submit SIP revisions to 

address such impairment.8 Under the 

Clean Air Act, each SIP submission 

must contain ‘‘a long-term (ten to fifteen 

years) strategy for making reasonable 

progress toward meeting the national 

goal.’’ 9 The initial round of SIP 

submissions also had to address the 

statutory requirement that certain older, 

larger sources of visibility impairing 

pollutants install and operate the best 

available retrofit technology (BART).10

States’ first regional haze SIPs were due 

by December 17, 2007,11 with 

subsequent SIP submissions containing 

updated long-term strategies originally 

due July 31, 2018, and every ten years 

thereafter.12 The EPA established in the 

1999 Regional Haze Rule that all states 

either have Class I areas within their 

borders or ‘‘contain sources whose 

emissions are reasonably anticipated to 

contribute to regional haze in a Class I 

area’’; therefore, all states must submit 

regional haze SIPs.13

Much of the focus in the first 

implementation period of the regional 

haze program, which ran from 2007 

through 2018, was on satisfying states’ 

BART obligations. First implementation 

period SIPs were additionally required 

to contain long-term strategies for 

making reasonable progress toward the 

national visibility goal, of which BART 

is one component. The core required 

elements for the first implementation 

period SIPs (other than BART) are laid 

out in 40 CFR 51.308(d). Those 

provisions required that states 

containing Class I areas establish 

reasonable progress goals that are 

measured in deciviews and reflect the 

anticipated visibility conditions at the 

end of the implementation period 

including from implementation of 

states’ long-term strategies. The first 

planning period reasonable progress 

goals were required to provide for an 

improvement in visibility for the most 

impaired days over the period of the 

implementation plan and ensure no 

degradation in visibility for the least 

impaired days over the same period. In 

establishing the reasonable progress 

goals for any Class I area in a state, the 

state was required to consider four 

statutory factors: the costs of 

compliance, the time necessary for 

compliance, the energy and non-air 

quality environmental impacts of 

compliance, and the remaining useful 

life of any potentially affected sources.14

States were also required to calculate 

baseline (using the five year period of 

2000–2004) and natural visibility 

conditions (i.e., visibility conditions 

without anthropogenic visibility 

impairment) for each Class I area, and 

to calculate the linear rate of progress 

needed to attain natural visibility 

conditions, assuming a starting point of 

baseline visibility conditions in 2004 

and ending with natural conditions in 

2064. This linear interpolation is known 

as the ‘‘uniform rate of progress’’ and is 

used as a tracking metric to help states 

assess the amount of progress they are 

making towards the national visibility 

goal over time in each Class I area.15

The 1999 Regional Haze Rule also 

provided that states’ long-term strategies 

must include the ‘‘enforceable 

emissions limitations, compliance, 

schedules, and other measures as 

necessary to achieve the reasonable 

progress goals.’’ 16 In establishing their 

long-term strategies, states are required 

to consult with other states that also 

contribute to visibility impairment in a 

given Class I area and include all 

measures necessary to obtain their 

shares of the emission reductions 

needed to meet the reasonable progress 

goals.17 The 1999 Regional Haze Rule 

also contains seven additional factors 

states must consider in formulating their 

long-term strategies,18 as well as 

provisions governing monitoring and 

other implementation plan 

requirements.19 Finally, the 1999 

Regional Haze Rule required states to 

submit periodic progress reports—SIP 

revisions due every five years that 

contain information on states’ 

implementation of their regional haze 

plans and an assessment of whether 

anything additional is needed to make 

reasonable progress 20—and to consult 

with the Federal Land Manager(s) 21

responsible for each Class I area 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 37 / Friday, February 23, 2024 / Proposed Rules 13625 

22 Guidance on Regional Haze State 

Implementation Plans for the Second 

Implementation Period. https://www.epa.gov/ 

visibility/guidance-regional-haze-stateimplementation-plans-second-implementationperiod. The EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards, Research Triangle Park (August 20, 

2019). 

23Clarifications Regarding Regional Haze State 

Implementation Plans for the Second 

Implementation Period. https://www.epa.gov/ 

system/files/documents/2021-07/clarificationsregarding-regional-haze-state-implementationplans-for-the-second-implementation-period.pdf. 

The EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards, Research Triangle Park (July 8, 2021). 24Technical Guidance on Tracking Visibility 

Progress for the Second Implementation Period of 

the Regional Haze Program. https://www.epa.gov/ 

visibility/technical-guidance-tracking-visibilityprogress-second-implementation-period-regional. 

The EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards, Research Triangle Park. (December 20, 

2018). 

25Recommendation for the Use of Patched and 

Substituted Data and Clarification of Data 

Completeness for Tracking Visibility Progress for 

the Second Implementation Period of the Regional 

Haze Program. https://www.epa.gov/visibility/ 

memo-and-technical-addendum-ambient-datausage-and-completeness-regional-haze-program. 

The EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards, Research Triangle Park (June 3, 2020). 

26See generally 2021 Clarifications Memo. 

27See, e.g., H.R. Rep No. 95–294 at 205 (‘‘In 

determining how to best remedy the growing 

visibility problem in these areas of great scenic 

importance, the committee realizes that as a matter 

of equity, the national ambient air quality standards 

cannot be revised to adequately protect visibility in 

all areas of the country.’’), (‘‘the mandatory class I 

increments of [the PSD program] do not adequately 

protect visibility in class I areas’’). 

28Regional planning organizations are sometimes 

also referred to as ‘‘multi-jurisdictional 

organizations’’. For the purposes of this document, 

the terms regional planning organizations and 

multi-jurisdictional organizations are synonymous. 

29The WRAP website may be found at https://

www.wrapair2.org. 

according to the requirements in Clean 

Air Act 169A(d) and 40 CFR 51.308(i). 

On January 10, 2017, the EPA 

promulgated revisions to the Regional 

Haze Rule that apply for the second and 

subsequent implementation periods (82 

FR 3078). The 2017 rulemaking made 

several changes to the requirements for 

regional haze SIPs to clarify States’ 

obligations and streamline certain 

regional haze requirements. The 

revisions to the regional haze program 

for the second and subsequent 

implementation periods focused on the 

requirement that States’ SIPs contain 

long-term strategies for making 

reasonable progress towards the 

national visibility goal. The reasonable 

progress requirements as revised in the 

2017 rulemaking (referred to here as the 

2017 Regional Haze Rule Revisions) are 

codified at 40 CFR 51.308(f). Among 

other changes, the 2017 Regional Haze 

Rule Revisions adjusted the deadline for 

States to submit their second 

implementation period SIPs from July 

31, 2018, to July 31, 2021, clarified the 

order of analysis and the relationship 

between reasonable progress goals and 

the long-term strategy, and focused on 

making visibility improvements on the 

days with the most anthropogenic 

visibility impairment, as opposed to the 

days with the most visibility 

impairment overall. The EPA also 

revised requirements of the visibility 

protection program related to periodic 

progress reports and Federal Land 

Manager consultation. The specific 

requirements applicable to second 

implementation period regional haze 

SIP submissions are addressed in detail 

in the following paragraphs. 

The EPA provided guidance to the 

states for their second implementation 

period SIP submissions in the preamble 

to the 2017 Regional Haze Rule 

Revisions as well as in subsequent, 

stand-alone guidance documents. In 

August 2019, the EPA issued ‘‘Guidance 

on Regional Haze State Implementation 

Plans for the Second Implementation 

Period’’ (‘‘2019 Guidance’’).22 On July 8, 

2021, the EPA issued a memorandum 

containing ‘‘Clarifications Regarding 

Regional Haze State Implementation 

Plans for the Second Implementation 

Period’’ (‘‘2021 Clarifications Memo’’).23

Additionally, the EPA further clarified 

the recommended procedures for 

processing ambient visibility data and 

optionally adjusting the uniform rate of 

progress to account for international 

anthropogenic and prescribed fire 

impacts in two technical guidance 

documents: the December 2018 

‘‘Technical Guidance on Tracking 

Visibility Progress for the Second 

Implementation Period of the Regional 

Haze Program’’ (‘‘2018 Visibility 

Tracking Guidance’’),24 and the June 

2020 ‘‘Recommendation for the Use of 

Patched and Substituted Data and 

Clarification of Data Completeness for 

Tracking Visibility Progress for the 

Second Implementation Period of the 

Regional Haze Program’’ and associated 

Technical Addendum (‘‘2020 Data 

Completeness Memo’’).25

As previously explained in the 2021 

Clarifications Memo, the EPA intends 

for the second implementation period of 

the regional haze program to secure 

meaningful reductions in visibility 

impairing pollutants that build on the 

significant progress states have achieved 

to date. The EPA also recognizes that 

analyses regarding reasonable progress 

are state-specific and that, based on 

states’ and sources’ individual 

circumstances, what constitutes 

reasonable reductions in visibility 

impairing pollutants will vary from 

state-to-state. While there exist many 

opportunities for states to leverage both 

ongoing and upcoming emission 

reductions under other Clean Air Act 

programs, the EPA expects states to 

undertake rigorous reasonable progress 

analyses that identify further 

opportunities to advance the national 

visibility goal consistent with the 

statutory and regulatory requirements.26

This is consistent with Congress’s 

determination that a visibility 

protection program is needed in 

addition to the Clean Air Act’s National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards and 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

programs, as further emission 

reductions may be necessary to 

adequately protect visibility in Class I 

areas throughout the country.27

B. Roles of Agencies in Addressing 

Regional Haze 

Because the air pollutants and 

pollution affecting visibility in Class I 

areas can be transported over long 

distances, successful implementation of 

the regional haze program requires longterm, regional coordination among 

multiple jurisdictions and agencies that 

have responsibility for Class I areas and 

the emissions that impact visibility in 

those areas. In order to address regional 

haze, states need to develop strategies in 

coordination with one another, 

considering the effect of emissions from 

one jurisdiction on the air quality in 

another. Five regional planning 

organizations,28 which include 

representation from state and tribal 

governments, the EPA, and Federal 

Land Managers, were developed in the 

lead-up to the first implementation 

period to address regional haze. 

Regional planning organizations 

evaluate technical information to better 

understand how emissions from State 

and Tribal lands impact Class I areas 

across the country, pursue the 

development of regional strategies to 

reduce emissions of particulate matter 

and other pollutants leading to regional 

haze, and help states meet the 

consultation requirements of the 

Regional Haze Rule. 

Western Regional Air Partnership 

The Western Regional Air Partnership 

(WRAP) 29 is one of the five regional 

planning organizations and functions as 

a voluntary partnership of state, Tribal, 

Federal, and local air agencies whose 

purpose is to understand current and 

evolving regional air quality issues in 

the West. There are 15 member states in 

the WRAP, including Oregon, in 

addition to 28 tribes and 30 local air 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
13626 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 37 / Friday, February 23, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

30The WRAP membership list may be found at 

https://www.wrapair2.org/membership.aspx. 31Technical information may be found at https:// 

www.wrapair2.org/RHPWG.aspx. 

32Clean Air Act section 169A(b)(2)(B). 33The EPA explained in the 2017 Regional Haze 

Rule Revisions that we were adopting new 

regulatory language in 40 CFR 51.308(f) that, unlike 

the structure in 51.308(d), ‘‘tracked the actual 

planning sequence.’’ (82 FR 3091, January 10, 

2017). 

34 40 CFR 51.308(f), (f)(2). 

35 40 CFR 51.308(f)(1). 

36The five ‘‘additional factors’’ for consideration 

in § 51.308(f)(2)(iv) are distinct from the four factors 

listed in CAA section 169A(g)(1) and 40 CFR 

51.308(f)(2)(i) that states must consider and apply 

to sources in determining reasonable progress. 

37 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2) and (3). 

38 40 CFR 51.308(i). 

39See Clean Air Act section 169(b)(2); Clean Air 

Act section 110(a). 

40Clean Air Act section 110(c)(1). 

41 64 FR 35714, 35720–35722, July 1, 1999. 

agency members.30 WRAP Federal 

partners are the EPA, National Parks 

Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Forest Service, and Bureau of Land 

Management. The WRAP membership 

formed a workgroup to develop a 

planning framework for state regional 

haze second planning period SIPs. 

Based on emissions and monitoring data 

supplied by its membership, the WRAP 

produced a technical system to support 

regional modeling of visibility impacts 

at Class I areas across the west.31 The 

WRAP Technical Support System 

consolidated air quality monitoring 

data, meteorological and receptor 

modeling data analyses, emissions 

inventories and projections, and gridded 

air quality/visibility regional modeling 

results. The WRAP Technical Support 

System is accessible by member states 

and allows for the creation of maps, 

figures, and tables to export and use in 

state plan development, and maintains 

the original source data for verification 

and further analysis. 

III. Requirements for Regional Haze 

Plans for the Second Implementation 

Period 

Under the Clean Air Act and the 

EPA’s regulations, all 50 states, the 

District of Columbia, and the United 

States (U.S.) Virgin Islands are required 

to submit regional haze SIPs satisfying 

the applicable requirements for the 

second implementation period of the 

regional haze program by July 31, 2021. 

Each state’s SIP must contain a longterm strategy for making reasonable 

progress toward meeting the national 

goal of remedying any existing and 

preventing any future anthropogenic 

visibility impairment in Class I areas.32

To this end, 40 CFR 51.308(f) lays out 

the process by which states determine 

what constitutes their long-term 

strategies, with the order of the 

requirements in § 51.308(f)(1) through 

(3) generally mirroring the order of the 

steps in the reasonable progress 

analysis 33 and (f)(4) through (6) 

containing additional, related 

requirements. Broadly speaking, a state 

first must identify the Class I areas 

within the state and determine the Class 

I areas outside the state in which 

visibility may be affected by emissions 

from the state. These are the Class I 

areas that must be addressed in the 

state’s long-term strategy.34 For each 

Class I area within its borders, a state 

must then calculate the baseline, 

current, and natural visibility 

conditions for that area, as well as the 

visibility improvement made to date 

and the uniform rate of progress.35 Each 

state having a Class I area and/or 

emissions that may affect visibility in a 

Class I area must then develop a longterm strategy that includes the 

enforceable emission limitations, 

compliance schedules, and other 

measures that are necessary to make 

reasonable progress in such areas. A 

reasonable progress determination is 

based on applying the four factors in 

CAA section 169A(g)(1) to sources of 

visibility-impairing pollutants that the 

state has selected to assess for controls 

for the second implementation period. 

Additionally, as further explained 

below, the RHR at 40 CFR 

51.308(f)(2)(iv) separately provides five 

‘‘additional factors’’ 36 that states must 

consider in developing their long-term 

strategies. See 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2). A 

state evaluates potential emission 

reduction measures for those selected 

sources and determines which are 

necessary to make reasonable progress. 

Those measures are then incorporated 

into the state’s long-term strategy. After 

a state has developed its long-term 

strategy, it then establishes reasonable 

progress goals for each Class I area 

within its borders by modeling the 

visibility impacts of all reasonable 

progress controls at the end of the 

second implementation period, i.e., in 

2028, as well as the impacts of other 

requirements of the Clean Air Act. The 

reasonable progress goals include 

reasonable progress controls not only for 

sources in the state in which the Class 

I area is located, but also for sources in 

other states that contribute to visibility 

impairment in that area. The reasonable 

progress goals are then compared to the 

baseline visibility conditions and the 

uniform rate of progress to ensure that 

progress is being made towards the 

statutory goal of preventing any future 

and remedying any existing 

anthropogenic visibility impairment in 

Class I areas.37

In addition to satisfying the 

requirements at 40 CFR 51.308(f) related 

to reasonable progress, the regional haze 

SIP revisions for the second 

implementation period must address the 

requirements in 40 CFR 51.308(g)(1) 

through (5) pertaining to periodic 

reports describing progress towards the 

reasonable progress goals, 40 CFR 

51.308(f)(5), as well as requirements for 

Federal Land Manager consultation that 

apply to all visibility protection SIPs 

and SIP revisions.38

A state must submit its regional haze 

SIP and subsequent SIP revisions to the 

EPA according to the requirements 

applicable to all SIP revisions under the 

Clean Air Act and the EPA’s 

regulations.39 Upon EPA approval, a SIP 

is enforceable by the EPA and the public 

under the Clean Air Act. If the EPA 

finds that a state fails to make a required 

SIP revision, or if the EPA finds that a 

state’s SIP is incomplete or if 

disapproves the SIP, the EPA must 

promulgate a Federal implementation 

plan (FIP) that satisfies the applicable 

requirements.40

A. Identification of Class I Areas 

The first step in developing a regional 

haze SIP is for a state to determine 

which Class I areas, in addition to those 

within its borders, ‘‘may be affected’’ by 

emissions from within the state. In the 

1999 Regional Haze Rule, the EPA 

determined that all states contribute to 

visibility impairment in at least one 

Class I area and explained that the 

statute and regulations lay out an 

‘‘extremely low triggering threshold’’ for 

determining ‘‘whether States should be 

required to engage in air quality 

planning and analysis as a prerequisite 

to determining the need for control of 

emissions from sources within their 

State.’’ 41

A state must determine which Class I 

areas must be addressed by its SIP by 

evaluating the total emissions of 

visibility impairing pollutants from all 

sources within the state. While the 

Regional Haze Rule does not require this 

evaluation to be conducted in any 

particular manner, the EPA’s 2019 

Guidance provides recommendations 

for how such an assessment might be 

accomplished, including by, where 

appropriate, using the determinations 

previously made for the first 

implementation period. 2019 Guidance 

at 8–9. In addition, the determination of 

which Class I areas may be affected by 

a state’s emissions is subject to the 

requirement in 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iii) 

to ‘‘document the technical basis, 

including modeling, monitoring, cost, 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 37 / Friday, February 23, 2024 / Proposed Rules 13627 

42The 2018 Visibility Tracking Guidance 

references and relies on parts of the 2003 Tracking 

Guidance: ‘‘Guidance for Tracking Progress Under 

the Regional Haze Rule,’’ which can be found at 

https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2021-03/ 

documents/tracking.pdf. 

43 82 FR 3078, 3103–05, January 10, 2017. 

44 40 CFR 51.301. This document also refers to the 

20% clearest and 20% most anthropogenically 

impaired days as the ‘‘clearest’’ and ‘‘most 

impaired’’ or ‘‘most anthropogenically impaired’’ 

days, respectively. 

45 40 CFR 51.308(f)(1)(i), (iii). 

46The Regional Haze Rule at 40 CFR 

51.308(f)(1)(ii) contains an error related to the 

requirement for calculating two sets of natural 

conditions values. The rule says ‘‘most impaired 

days or the clearest days’’ where it should say 

‘‘most impaired days and clearest days.’’ This is an 

error that was intended to be corrected in the 2017 

Regional Haze Rule Revisions but did not get 

corrected in the final rule language. This is 

supported by the preamble text at 82 FR 3098, 

January 0, 2017: ‘‘In the final version of 40 CFR 

51.308(f)(1)(ii), an occurrence of ‘‘or’’ has been 

corrected to ‘‘and’’ to indicate that natural visibility 

conditions for both the most impaired days and the 

clearest days must be based on available monitoring 

information.’’ 

47 40 CFR 51.308(f)(1)(ii). 

48Being on or below the uniform rate of progress 

is not a ‘‘safe harbor’’; i.e., achieving the uniform 

rate of progress does not mean that a Class I area 

is making ‘‘reasonable progress’’ and does not 

relieve a state from using the four statutory factors 

to determine what level of control is needed to 

achieve such progress. See, e.g., 82 FR 3078, 3093, 

January 10, 2017. 

49 82 FR 3078, 3107, January 10, 2017, footnote 

116. 

50 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2). 

51 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i). 

52See 2019 Guidance at 43; 2021 Clarifications 

Memo at 8–10. 

53 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2). 

engineering, and emissions information, 

on which the State is relying to 

determine the emission reduction 

measures that are necessary to make 

reasonable progress in each mandatory 

Class I Federal area it affects.’’ 

B. Calculations of Baseline, Current, 

and Natural Visibility Conditions; 

Progress to Date; and the Uniform Rate 

of Progress 

As part of assessing whether a SIP 

submission for the second 

implementation period is providing for 

reasonable progress towards the 

national visibility goal, the Regional 

Haze Rule contains requirements in 40 

CFR 51.308(f)(1) related to tracking 

visibility improvement over time. The 

requirements of this section apply only 

to states having Class I areas within 

their borders; the required calculations 

must be made for each such Class I area. 

The EPA’s 2018 Visibility Tracking 

Guidance 42 provides recommendations 

to assist states in satisfying their 

obligations under 40 CFR 51.308(f)(1); 

specifically, in developing information 

on baseline, current, and natural 

visibility conditions, and in making 

optional adjustments to the uniform rate 

of progress to account for the impacts of 

international anthropogenic emissions 

and prescribed fires.43

The Regional Haze Rule requires 

tracking of visibility conditions on two 

sets of days: the clearest and the most 

impaired days. Visibility conditions for 

both sets of days are expressed as the 

average deciview index for the relevant 

five-year period (the period representing 

baseline or current visibility 

conditions). The Regional Haze Rule 

provides that the relevant sets of days 

for visibility tracking purposes are the 

20% clearest (the 20% of monitored 

days in a calendar year with the lowest 

values of the deciview index) and 20% 

most impaired days (the 20% of 

monitored days in a calendar year with 

the highest amounts of anthropogenic 

visibility impairment).44 A state must 

calculate visibility conditions for both 

the 20% clearest and 20% most 

impaired days for the baseline period of 

2000–2004 and the most recent five-year 

period for which visibility monitoring 

data are available (representing current 

visibility conditions).45 States must also 

calculate natural visibility conditions 

for the clearest and most impaired 

days,46 by estimating the conditions that 

would exist on those two sets of days 

absent anthropogenic visibility 

impairment.47 Using all these data, 

states must then calculate, for each 

Class I area, the amount of progress 

made since the baseline period (2000– 

2004) and how much improvement is 

left to achieve in order to reach natural 

visibility conditions. 

Using the data for the set of most 

impaired days only, states must plot a 

line between visibility conditions in the 

baseline period and natural visibility 

conditions for each Class I area to 

determine the uniform rate of progress— 

the amount of visibility improvement, 

measured in deciviews, that would need 

to be achieved during each 

implementation period in order to 

achieve natural visibility conditions by 

the end of 2064. The uniform rate of 

progress is used in later steps of the 

reasonable progress analysis for 

informational purposes and to provide a 

non-enforceable benchmark against 

which to assess a Class I area’s rate of 

visibility improvement.48 Additionally, 

in the 2017 Regional Haze Rule 

Revisions, the EPA provided states the 

option of proposing to adjust the 

endpoint of the uniform rate of progress 

to account for impacts of anthropogenic 

sources outside the U.S. and/or impacts 

of certain types of wildland prescribed 

fires. These adjustments, which must be 

approved by the EPA, are intended to 

avoid any perception that states should 

compensate for impacts from 

international anthropogenic sources and 

to give states the flexibility to determine 

that limiting the use of wildlandprescribed fire is not necessary for 

reasonable progress.49

The EPA’s 2018 Visibility Tracking 

Guidance can be used to help satisfy the 

40 CFR 51.308(f)(1) requirements, 

including in developing information on 

baseline, current, and natural visibility 

conditions, and in making optional 

adjustments to the uniform rate of 

progress. In addition, the 2020 Data 

Completeness Memo provides 

recommendations on the data 

completeness language referenced in 40 

CFR 51.308(f)(1)(i) and provides 

updated natural conditions estimates for 

each Class I area. 

C. Long-Term Strategy for Regional 

Haze 

The core component of a regional 

haze SIP submission is a long-term 

strategy that addresses regional haze in 

each Class I area within a state’s borders 

and each Class I area that may be 

affected by emissions from the state. 

The long-term strategy ‘‘must include 

the enforceable emissions limitations, 

compliance schedules, and other 

measures that are necessary to make 

reasonable progress, as determined 

pursuant to (f)(2)(i) through (iv).’’ 50 The 

amount of progress that is ‘‘reasonable 

progress’’ is based on applying the four 

statutory factors in Clean Air Act 

section 169A(g)(1) in an evaluation of 

potential control options for sources of 

visibility impairing pollutants, which is 

referred to as a ‘‘four-factor’’ analysis. 

The outcome of that analysis is the 

emission reduction measures that a 

particular source or group of sources 

needs to implement in order to make 

reasonable progress towards the 

national visibility goal.51 Emission 

reduction measures that are necessary to 

make reasonable progress may be either 

new, additional control measures for a 

source, or they may be the existing 

emission reduction measures that a 

source is already implementing.52 Such 

measures must be represented by 

‘‘enforceable emissions limitations, 

compliance schedules, and other 

measures’’ (i.e., any additional 

compliance tools) in a state’s long-term 

strategy in its SIP.53

Section 51.308(f)(2)(i) provides the 

requirements for the four-factor 

analysis. The first step of this analysis 

entails selecting the sources to be 

evaluated for emission reduction 

measures; to this end, states should 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
13628 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 37 / Friday, February 23, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

54 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i). 

55See 2019 Guidance at 12, 2021 Clarifications 

Memo at 4. 

56 2021 Clarifications Memo at 4. 

57 2019 Guidance at 9. 

58 2021 Clarifications Memo at 3. 

59 Id. at 4. Similarly, in responding to comments 

on the 2017 Regional Haze Rule Revisions EPA 

explained that ‘‘[a] state should not fail to address 

its many relatively low-impact sources merely 

because it only has such sources and another state 

has even more low-impact sources and/or some 

high impact sources.’’ Responses to Comments on 

Protection of Visibility: Amendments to 

Requirements for State Plans; Proposed Rule. 81 FR 

26942, 26987–26988, May 4, 2016. 

60The Clean Air Act provides that, ‘‘[i]n 

determining reasonable progress there shall be 

taken into consideration’’ the four statutory factors. 

Clean Air Act section 169A(g)(1). However, in 

addition to four-factor analyses for selected sources, 

groups of sources, or source categories, a state may 

also consider additional emission reduction 

measures for inclusion in its long-term strategy, e.g., 

from other newly adopted, on-the-books, or on-theway rules and measures for sources not selected for 

four-factor analysis for the second planning period. 

61Clean Air Act section 169A(g)(1). 

62 82 FR 3078, 3091, January 10, 2017. 

63 ‘‘Each source’’ or ‘‘particular source’’ is used 

here as shorthand. While a source-specific analysis 

is one way of applying the four factors, neither the 

statute nor the Regional Haze Rule requires states 

to evaluate individual sources. Rather, states have 

‘‘the flexibility to conduct four-factor analyses for 

specific sources, groups of sources or even entire 

source categories, depending on state policy 

preferences and the specific circumstances of each 

state.’’ 82 FR 3078, 3088, January 10, 2017. 

However, not all approaches to grouping sources for 

four-factor analysis are necessarily reasonable; the 

reasonableness of grouping sources in any 

particular instance will depend on the 

circumstances and the manner in which grouping 

is conducted. If it is feasible to establish and 

enforce different requirements for sources or 

subgroups of sources, and if relevant factors can be 

quantified for those sources or subgroups, then 

states should make a separate reasonable progress 

determination for each source or subgroup. 2021 

Clarifications Memo at 7–8. 

64 82 FR 3078, 3088, January 10, 2017. 

65 2019 Guidance at 29. 

66 2021 Clarifications Memo at 7. 

67 Ibid. 

68See 2021 Clarifications Memo at 5, 10. 

consider ‘‘major and minor stationary 

sources or groups of sources, mobile 

sources, and area sources’’ of visibility 

impairing pollutants for potential fourfactor control analysis.54 A threshold 

question at this step is which visibility 

impairing pollutants will be analyzed. 

As the EPA previously explained, 

consistent with the first implementation 

period, the EPA generally expects that 

each state will analyze at least SO2 and 

NOX in selecting sources and 

determining control measures.55 A state 

that chooses not to consider at least 

these two pollutants should 

demonstrate why such consideration 

would be unreasonable.56

While states have the option to 

analyze all sources, the 2019 Guidance 

explains that ‘‘an analysis of control 

measures is not required for every 

source in each implementation period,’’ 

and that ‘‘[s]electing a set of sources for 

analysis of control measures in each 

implementation period is . . . 

consistent with the Regional Haze Rule, 

which sets up an iterative planning 

process and anticipates that a state may 

not need to analyze control measures for 

all its sources in a given SIP 

revision.’’ 57 However, given that source 

selection is the basis of all subsequent 

control determinations, a reasonable 

source selection process ‘‘should be 

designed and conducted to ensure that 

source selection results in a set of 

pollutants and sources the evaluation of 

which has the potential to meaningfully 

reduce their contributions to visibility 

impairment.’’ 58

The EPA explained in the 2021 

Clarifications Memo that each state has 

an obligation to submit a long-term 

strategy that addresses the regional haze 

visibility impairment that results from 

emissions from within that state. Thus, 

source selection should focus on the instate contribution to visibility 

impairment and be designed to capture 

a meaningful portion of the state’s total 

contribution to visibility impairment in 

Class I areas. A state should not decline 

to select its largest in-state sources on 

the basis that there are even larger outof-state contributors.59

Thus, while states have discretion to 

choose any source selection 

methodology that is reasonable, 

whatever choices they make should be 

reasonably explained. To this end, 40 

CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i) requires that a state’s 

SIP submission include ‘‘a description 

of the criteria it used to determine 

which sources or groups of sources it 

evaluated.’’ The technical basis for 

source selection, which may include 

methods for quantifying potential 

visibility impacts such as emissions 

divided by distance metrics, trajectory 

analyses, residence time analyses, and/ 

or photochemical modeling, must also 

be appropriately documented, as 

required by 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iii). 

Once a state has selected the set of 

sources, the next step is to determine 

the emissions reduction measures for 

those sources that are necessary to make 

reasonable progress for the second 

implementation period.60 This is 

accomplished by considering the four 

factors—‘‘the costs of compliance, the 

time necessary for compliance, and the 

energy and nonair quality 

environmental impacts of compliance, 

and the remaining useful life of any 

existing source subject to such 

requirements.’’ 61 The EPA has 

explained that the four-factor analysis is 

an assessment of potential emission 

reduction measures (i.e., control 

options) for sources; ‘‘use of the terms 

‘compliance’ and ‘subject to such 

requirements’ in section 169A(g)(1) 

strongly indicates that Congress 

intended the relevant determination to 

be the requirements with which sources 

would have to comply in order to satisfy 

the [Clean Air Act’s] reasonable progress 

mandate.’’ 62 Thus, for each source it has 

selected for four-factor analysis,63 a state 

must consider a ‘‘meaningful set’’ of 

technically feasible control options for 

reducing emissions of visibility 

impairing pollutants.64 The 2019 

Guidance provides that ‘‘[a] state must 

reasonably pick and justify the measures 

that it will consider, recognizing that 

there is no statutory or regulatory 

requirement to consider all technically 

feasible measures or any particular 

measures. A range of technically 

feasible measures available to reduce 

emissions would be one way to justify 

a reasonable set.’’ 65

The EPA’s 2021 Clarifications Memo 

provides further guidance on what 

constitutes a reasonable set of control 

options for consideration: ‘‘A reasonable 

four-factor analysis will consider the 

full range of potentially reasonable 

options for reducing emissions.’’ 66 In 

addition to add-on controls and other 

retrofits (i.e., new emission reduction 

measures for sources), the EPA 

explained that states should generally 

analyze efficiency improvements for 

sources’ existing measures as control 

options in their four-factor analyses, as 

in many cases such improvements are 

reasonable given that they typically 

involve only additional operation and 

maintenance costs. Additionally, the 

2021 Clarifications Memo provides that 

states that have assumed a higher 

emission rate than a source has 

achieved or could potentially achieve 

using its existing measures should also 

consider lower emission rates as 

potential control options. That is, a state 

should consider a source’s recent actual 

and projected emission rates to 

determine if it could reasonably attain 

lower emission rates with its existing 

measures. If so, the state should analyze 

the lower emission rate as a control 

option for reducing emissions.67 The 

EPA’s recommendations to analyze 

potential efficiency improvements and 

achievable lower emission rates apply to 

both sources that have been selected for 

four-factor analysis and those that have 

forgone a four-factor analysis on the 

basis of existing ‘‘effective controls.’’ 68

After identifying a reasonable set of 

potential control options for the sources 

it has selected, a state then collects 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 37 / Friday, February 23, 2024 / Proposed Rules 13629 

69See, e.g., Responses to Comments on Protection 

of Visibility: Amendments to Requirements for 

State Plans; Proposed Rule (81 FR 26942, May 4, 

2016), Docket Number EPA–HQ–OAR–2015–0531, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency at 186; 2019 

Guidance at 36–37. 

70See 2019 Guidance at 30–36. 

71 2021 Clarifications Memo at 12–13, 14–15. 

72 2021 Clarifications Memo at 13. 

73States may choose to, but are not required to, 

include measures in their long-term strategies 

beyond just the emission reduction measures that 

are necessary for reasonable progress. See 2021 

Clarifications Memo at 16. For example, states with 

smoke management programs may choose to submit 

their smoke management plans to the EPA for 

inclusion in their SIPs but are not required to do 

so. See, e.g., 82 FR 3078, 3108–3109, January 10, 

2017 (requirement to consider smoke management 

practices and smoke management programs under 

40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iv) does not require states to 

adopt such practices or programs into their SIPs, 

although they may elect to do so). 

74See Clean Air Act section 169A(a)(1). See also 

2021 Clarifications Memo at 8. 

75See 2021 Clarifications Memo at 8–10. 

76See Arizona ex rel. Darwin v. U.S. EPA, 815 

F.3d 519, 531 (9th Cir. 2016); Nebraska v. U.S. EPA, 

812 F.3d 662, 668 (8th Cir. 2016); North Dakota v. 

EPA, 730 F.3d 750, 761 (8th Cir. 2013); Oklahoma 

v. EPA, 723 F.3d 1201, 1206, 1208–10 (10th Cir. 

2013); cf. also National Parks Conservation 

Association v. EPA, 803 F.3d 151, 165 (3d Cir. 

2015); Alaska Department of Environmental 

Conservation v. EPA, 540 U.S. 461, 485, 490 (2004). 

77The five ‘‘additional factors’’ for consideration 

in 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iv) are distinct from the four 

factors listed in Clean Air Act section 169A(g)(1) 

and 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i) that states must consider 

and apply to sources in determining reasonable 

progress. 

information on the four factors with 

regard to each option identified. The 

EPA has also explained that, in addition 

to the four statutory factors, states have 

flexibility under the Clean Air Act and 

Regional Haze Rule to reasonably 

consider visibility benefits as an 

additional factor alongside the four 

statutory factors.69 The 2019 Guidance 

provides recommendations for the types 

of information that can be used to 

characterize the four factors (with or 

without visibility), as well as ways in 

which states might reasonably consider 

and balance that information to 

determine which of the potential control 

options is necessary to make reasonable 

progress.70 The 2021 Clarifications 

Memo contains further guidance on how 

states can reasonably consider modeled 

visibility impacts or benefits in the 

context of a four-factor analysis.71

Specifically, the EPA explained that 

while visibility can reasonably be used 

when comparing and choosing between 

multiple reasonable control options, it 

should not be used to summarily reject 

controls that are reasonable given the 

four statutory factors.72 Ultimately, 

while states have discretion to 

reasonably weigh the factors and to 

determine what level of control is 

needed, § 51.308(f)(2)(i) provides that a 

state ‘‘must include in its 

implementation plan a description of 

. . . how the four factors were taken 

into consideration in selecting the 

measure for inclusion in its long-term 

strategy.’’ 

As explained above, 40 CFR 

51.308(f)(2)(i) requires states to 

determine the emission reduction 

measures for sources that are necessary 

to make reasonable progress by 

considering the four factors. Pursuant to 

40 CFR 51.308(f)(2), measures that are 

necessary to make reasonable progress 

towards the national visibility goal must 

be included in a state’s long-term 

strategy and in its SIP.73 If the outcome 

of a four-factor analysis is a new, 

additional emission reduction measure 

for a source, that new measure is 

necessary to make reasonable progress 

towards remedying existing 

anthropogenic visibility impairment and 

must be included in the SIP. If the 

outcome of a four-factor analysis is that 

no new measures are reasonable for a 

source, continued implementation of 

the source’s existing measures is 

generally necessary to prevent future 

emission increases and thus to make 

reasonable progress towards the second 

part of the national visibility goal: 

preventing future anthropogenic 

visibility impairment.74 That is, when 

the result of a four-factor analysis is that 

no new measures are necessary to make 

reasonable progress, the source’s 

existing measures are generally 

necessary to make reasonable progress 

and must be included in the SIP. 

However, there may be circumstances in 

which a state can demonstrate that a 

source’s existing measures are not 

necessary to make reasonable progress. 

Specifically, if a state can demonstrate 

that a source will continue to 

implement its existing measures and 

will not increase its emission rate, it 

may not be necessary to have those 

measures in the long-term strategy in 

order to prevent future emission 

increases and future visibility 

impairment. The EPA’s 2021 

Clarifications Memo provides further 

explanation and guidance on how states 

may demonstrate that a source’s existing 

measures are not necessary to make 

reasonable progress.75 If the state can 

make such a demonstration, it need not 

include a source’s existing measures in 

the long-term strategy or its SIP. 

As with source selection, the 

characterization of information on each 

of the factors is also subject to the 

documentation requirement in 40 CFR 

51.308(f)(2)(iii). The reasonable progress 

analysis, including source selection, 

information gathering, characterization 

of the four statutory factors (and 

potentially visibility), balancing of the 

four factors, and selection of the 

emission reduction measures that 

represent reasonable progress, is a 

technically complex exercise, but also a 

flexible one that provides states with 

bounded discretion to design and 

implement approaches appropriate to 

their circumstances. Given this 

flexibility, 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iii) plays 

an important function in requiring a 

state to document the technical basis for 

its decision making so that the public 

and the EPA can comprehend and 

evaluate the information and analysis 

the state relied upon to determine what 

emission reduction measures must be in 

place to make reasonable progress. The 

technical documentation must include 

the modeling, monitoring, cost, 

engineering, and emissions information 

on which the state relied to determine 

the measures necessary to make 

reasonable progress. This 

documentation requirement can be met 

through the provision of and reliance on 

technical analyses developed through a 

regional planning process, so long as 

that process and its output has been 

approved by all state participants. In 

addition to the explicit regulatory 

requirement to document the technical 

basis of their reasonable progress 

determinations, states are also subject to 

the general principle that those 

determinations must be reasonably 

moored to the statute.76 That is, a state’s 

decisions about the emission reduction 

measures that are necessary to make 

reasonable progress must be consistent 

with the statutory goal of remedying 

existing and preventing future visibility 

impairment. 

The four statutory factors (and 

potentially visibility) are used to 

determine what emission reduction 

measures for selected sources must be 

included in a state’s long-term strategy 

for making reasonable progress. 

Additionally, the Regional Haze Rule at 

40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iv) separately 

provides five ‘‘additional factors’’ 77 that 

states must consider in developing their 

long-term strategies: (1) emission 

reductions due to ongoing air pollution 

control programs, including measures to 

address reasonably attributable visibility 

impairment; (2) measures to reduce the 

impacts of construction activities; (3) 

source retirement and replacement 

schedules; (4) basic smoke management 

practices for prescribed fire used for 

agricultural and wildland vegetation 

management purposes and smoke 

management programs; and (5) the 

anticipated net effect on visibility due to 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
13630 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 37 / Friday, February 23, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

78See 2019 Guidance at 21. 

79 2021 Clarifications Memo at 13. In particular, 

the EPA explained in the 2021 Clarifications Memo 

that states should not rely on the considerations in 

40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iv)(A) and (E) to summarily 

assert that the state has already made sufficient 

progress and therefore does not need to achieve any 

additional emission reductions. 2021 Clarifications 

Memo at 13. 

80 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(ii)(A). 

81 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(ii)(B). 82 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(ii)(C). 83See id.; 2019 Guidance at 53. 84 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(ii)(C). 85 82 FR 3078, 3091, January 10, 2017. 86See 40 CFR 51.308(f)(3)(iii) and (iv). 87 40 CFR 51.308(f)(3)(i). 88Reasonable progress goals are intended to 

reflect the projected impacts of the measures all 

contributing states include in their long-term 

strategies. However, due to the timing of analyses 

and of control determinations by other states, other 

on-going emissions changes, a particular state’s 

reasonable progress goals may not reflect all control 

measures and emissions reductions that are 

expected to occur by the end of the implementation 

period. The 2019 Guidance provides 

recommendations for addressing the timing of 

reasonable progress goal calculations when states 

are developing their long-term strategies on 

disparate schedules, as well as for adjusting 

reasonable progress goals using a post-modeling 

approach. 2019 Guidance at 47–48. 

89 2021 Clarifications Memo at 6. 

90 2019 Guidance at 46. 

91 40 CFR 51.308(f)(1)(i), 82 FR 2078, 3097–98, 

January 10, 2017. 

projected changes in point, area, and 

mobile source emissions over the period 

addressed by the long-term strategy. The 

2019 Guidance provides that a state may 

satisfy this requirement by considering 

these additional factors in the process of 

selecting sources for four-factor 

analysis, when performing that analysis, 

or both, and that not every one of the 

additional factors needs to be 

considered at the same stage of the 

process.78 The EPA provided further 

guidance on the five additional factors 

in the 2021 Clarifications Memo, 

explaining that a state should generally 

not reject cost-effective and otherwise 

reasonable controls merely because 

there have been emission reductions 

since the first planning period owing to 

other ongoing air pollution control 

programs or merely because visibility is 

otherwise projected to improve at Class 

I areas. Additionally, states generally 

should not rely on these additional 

factors to summarily assert that the state 

has already made sufficient progress 

and, therefore, no sources need to be 

selected or no new controls are needed 

regardless of the outcome of four-factor 

analyses.79

Because the air pollution that causes 

regional haze crosses state boundaries, 

40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(ii) requires a state to 

consult with other states that also have 

emissions that are reasonably 

anticipated to contribute to visibility 

impairment in a given Class I area. 

Consultation allows for each state that 

impacts visibility in an area to share 

whatever technical information, 

analyses, and control determinations 

may be necessary to develop 

coordinated emission management 

strategies. This coordination may be 

managed through inter- and intraregional planning organization 

consultation and the development of 

regional emissions strategies; additional 

consultations between states outside of 

regional planning organization 

processes may also occur. If a state, 

pursuant to consultation, agrees that 

certain measures (e.g., a certain 

emission limitation) are necessary to 

make reasonable progress at a Class I 

area, it must include those measures in 

its SIP.80 Additionally, the Regional 

Haze Rule requires that states that 

contribute to visibility impairment at 

the same Class I area consider the 

emission reduction measures the other 

contributing states have identified as 

being necessary to make reasonable 

progress for their own sources.81 If a 

state has been asked to consider or 

adopt certain emission reduction 

measures, but ultimately determines 

those measures are not necessary to 

make reasonable progress, that state 

must document in its SIP the actions 

taken to resolve the disagreement.82 The 

EPA will consider the technical 

information and explanations presented 

by the submitting state and the state 

with which it disagrees when 

considering whether to approve the 

state’s SIP.83 Under all circumstances, a 

state must document in its SIP 

submission all substantive consultations 

with other contributing states.84

D. Reasonable Progress Goals 

Reasonable progress goals ‘‘measure 

the progress that is projected to be 

achieved by the control measures states 

have determined are necessary to make 

reasonable progress based on a fourfactor analysis.’’ 85 Their primary 

purpose is to assist the public and the 

EPA in assessing the reasonableness of 

states’ long-term strategies for making 

reasonable progress towards the 

national visibility goal.86 States in 

which Class I areas are located must 

establish two reasonable progress goals, 

both in deciviews—one representing 

visibility conditions on the clearest days 

and one representing visibility on the 

most anthropogenically impaired days— 

for each area within their borders.87 The 

two reasonable progress goals are 

intended to reflect the projected 

impacts, on the two sets of days, of the 

emission reduction measures the state 

with the Class I area, as well as all other 

contributing states, have included in 

their long-term strategies for the second 

implementation period.88 The 

reasonable progress goals also account 

for the projected impacts of 

implementing other Clean Air Act 

requirements, including non-SIP based 

requirements. Because reasonable 

progress goals are the modeled result of 

the measures in states’ long-term 

strategies (as well as other measures 

required under the Clean Air Act), they 

cannot be determined before states have 

conducted their four-factor analyses and 

determined the control measures that 

are necessary to make reasonable 

progress.89

For the second implementation 

period, the reasonable progress goals are 

set for 2028. Reasonable progress goals 

are not enforceable targets, 40 CFR 

51.308(f)(3)(iii); rather, they ‘‘provide a 

way for the states to check the projected 

outcome of the [long-term strategy] 

against the goals for visibility 

improvement.’’ 90 While states are not 

legally obligated to achieve the visibility 

conditions described in their reasonable 

progress goals, 40 CFR 51.308(f)(3)(i) 

requires that ‘‘[t]he long-term strategy 

and the reasonable progress goals must 

provide for an improvement in visibility 

for the most impaired days since the 

baseline period and ensure no 

degradation in visibility for the clearest 

days since the baseline period.’’ Thus, 

states are required to have emission 

reduction measures in their long-term 

strategies that are projected to achieve 

visibility conditions on the most 

impaired days that are better than the 

baseline period and shows no 

degradation on the clearest days 

compared to the clearest days from the 

baseline period. The baseline period for 

the purpose of this comparison is the 

baseline visibility condition—the 

annual average visibility condition for 

the period 2000–2004.91

So that reasonable progress goals may 

also serve as a metric for assessing the 

amount of progress a state is making 

towards the national visibility goal, the 

Regional Haze Rule requires states with 

Class I areas to compare the 2028 

reasonable progress goal for the most 

impaired days to the corresponding 

point on the uniform rate of progress 

line (representing visibility conditions 

in 2028 if visibility were to improve at 

a linear rate from conditions in the 

baseline period of 2000–2004 to natural 

visibility conditions in 2064). If the 

most impaired days reasonable progress 

goal in 2028 is above the uniform rate 

of progress (i.e., if visibility conditions 

are improving more slowly than the rate 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 37 / Friday, February 23, 2024 / Proposed Rules 13631 

92 40 CFR 51.308(f)(3)(ii). 

93 2019 Guidance at 50–51. 

94 82 FR 3078, 3093, 3099–3100, January 10, 

2017; 2019 Guidance at 22; 2021 Clarifications 

Memo at 15–16. 

95 40 CFR 51.308(f)(6), (f)(6)(i), (f)(6)(iv). 

96 40 CFR 51.308(f)(6)(ii), (iii). 

97See ‘‘Step 8: Additional requirements for 

regional haze SIPs’’ in 2019 Regional Haze 

Guidance at 55. 

98 40 CFR 51.308(f)(6)(vi). 

99See ‘‘Step 8: Additional requirements for 

regional haze SIPs’’ in 2019 Regional Haze 

Guidance at 55. 100The EPA’s visibility protection regulations 

define ‘‘reasonably attributable visibility 

impairment’’ as ‘‘visibility impairment that is 

caused by the emission of air pollutants from one, 

or a small number of sources.’’ 40 CFR 51.301. 

101 81 FR 26942, 26950, May 4, 2016; 82 FR 3078, 

3119, January 10, 2017. 

102 40 CFR 51.308(g)(1) and (2). 

described by the uniform rate of 

progress), each state that contributes to 

visibility impairment in the Class I area 

must demonstrate, based on the fourfactor analysis required under 40 CFR 

51.308(f)(2)(i), that no additional 

emission reduction measures would be 

reasonable to include in its long-term 

strategy.92 To this end, 40 CFR 

51.308(f)(3)(ii) requires that each state 

contributing to visibility impairment in 

a Class I area that is projected to 

improve more slowly than the uniform 

rate of progress provide ‘‘a robust 

demonstration, including documenting 

the criteria used to determine which 

sources or groups [of] sources were 

evaluated and how the four factors 

required by paragraph (f)(2)(i) were 

taken into consideration in selecting the 

measures for inclusion in its long-term 

strategy.’’ The 2019 Guidance provides 

suggestions about how such a ‘‘robust 

demonstration’’ might be conducted.93

The 2017 Regional Haze Rule, 2019 

Guidance, and 2021 Clarifications 

Memo also explain that projecting a 

reasonable progress goal that is on or 

below the uniform rate of progress based 

on only on-the-books and/or on-the-way 

control measures (i.e., control measures 

already required or anticipated before 

the four-factor analysis is conducted) is 

not a ‘‘safe harbor’’ from the Clean Air 

Act’s and Regional Haze Rule’s 

requirement that all states must conduct 

a four-factor analysis to determine what 

emission reduction measures constitute 

reasonable progress. The uniform rate of 

progress is a planning metric used to 

gauge the amount of progress made thus 

far and the amount left before reaching 

natural visibility conditions. However, 

the uniform rate of progress is not based 

on consideration of the four statutory 

factors and therefore cannot answer the 

question of whether the amount of 

progress being made in any particular 

implementation period is ‘‘reasonable 

progress.’’ 94

E. Monitoring Strategy and Other State 

Implementation Plan Requirements 

Section 51.308(f)(6) requires states to 

have certain strategies and elements in 

place for assessing and reporting on 

visibility. Individual requirements 

under this section apply either to states 

with Class I areas within their borders, 

states with no Class I areas but that are 

reasonably anticipated to cause or 

contribute to visibility impairment in 

any Class I area, or both. A state with 

Class I areas within its borders must 

submit with its SIP revision a 

monitoring strategy for measuring, 

characterizing, and reporting regional 

haze visibility impairment that is 

representative of all Class I areas within 

the state. SIP revisions for such states 

must also provide for the establishment 

of any additional monitoring sites or 

equipment needed to assess visibility 

conditions in Class I areas, as well as 

reporting of all visibility monitoring 

data to the EPA at least annually. 

Compliance with the monitoring 

strategy requirement may be met 

through a state’s participation in the 

Interagency Monitoring of Protected 

Visual Environments (IMPROVE) 

monitoring network, which is used to 

measure visibility impairment caused 

by air pollution at the 156 Class I areas 

covered by the visibility program.95 The 

IMPROVE monitoring data is used to 

determine the 20% most 

anthropogenically impaired and 20% 

clearest sets of days every year at each 

Class I area and tracks visibility 

impairment over time. 

All states’ SIPs must provide for 

procedures by which monitoring data 

and other information are used to 

determine the contribution of emissions 

from within the state to regional haze 

visibility impairment in affected Class I 

areas.96 Section 51.308(f)(6)(v) further 

requires that all states’ SIPs provide for 

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 the most recent year for which data 

are available and estimates of future 

projected emissions. States must also 

include commitments to update their 

inventories periodically. The 

inventories themselves do not need to 

be included as elements in the SIP and 

are not subject to EPA review as part of 

the EPA’s evaluation of a SIP revision.97

All states’ SIPs must also provide for 

any other elements, including reporting, 

recordkeeping, and other measures, that 

are necessary for states to assess and 

report on visibility.98 Per the 2019 

Guidance, a state may note in its 

regional haze SIP that its compliance 

with the Air Emissions Reporting Rule 

in 40 CFR part 51, subpart A satisfies 

the requirement to provide for an 

emissions inventory for the most recent 

year for which data are available. To 

satisfy the requirement to provide 

estimates of future projected emissions, 

a state may explain in its SIP how 

projected emissions were developed for 

use in establishing reasonable progress 

goals for its own and nearby Class I 

areas.99

Separate from the requirements 

related to monitoring for regional haze 

purposes under 40 CFR 51.308(f)(6), the 

Regional Haze Rule also contains a 

requirement at 40 CFR 51.308(f)(4) 

related to any additional monitoring 

that may be needed to address visibility 

impairment in Class I areas from a 

single source or a small group of 

sources. This is called ‘‘reasonably 

attributable visibility impairment.’’ 100

Under this provision, if the EPA or the 

Federal Land Manager of an affected 

Class I area has advised a state that 

additional monitoring is needed to 

assess reasonably attributable visibility 

impairment, the state must include in 

its SIP revision for the second 

implementation period an appropriate 

strategy for evaluating such impairment. 

F. Requirements for Periodic Reports 

Describing Progress Towards the 

Reasonable Progress Goals 

Section 51.308(f)(5) requires a state’s 

regional haze SIP revision to address the 

requirements of paragraphs 40 CFR 

51.308(g)(1) through (5) so that the plan 

revision due in 2021 will serve also as 

a progress report addressing the period 

since submission of the progress report 

for the first implementation period. The 

regional haze progress report 

requirement is designed to inform the 

public and the EPA about a state’s 

implementation of its existing long-term 

strategy and whether such 

implementation is in fact resulting in 

the expected visibility improvement.101

To this end, every state’s SIP revision 

for the second implementation period is 

required to describe the status of 

implementation of all measures 

included in the state’s long-term 

strategy, including BART and 

reasonable progress emission reduction 

measures from the first implementation 

period, and the resulting emissions 

reductions.102

A core component of the progress 

report requirements is an assessment of 

changes in visibility conditions on the 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
13632 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 37 / Friday, February 23, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

103 40 CFR 51.308(g)(3)(ii)(B). 

104 40 CFR 51.308(g)(3)(iii)(B), (f)(5). 

105See 40 CFR 51.308(g)(4), (f)(5). 

106 40 CFR 51.308(i)(2). 

107 Ibid. 

108 40 CFR 51.308(i)(3). 

109 40 CFR 51.308(i)(4). 

110The requirements for regional haze SIPs for 

the first implementation period are contained in 

Clean Air Act section 169A(b)(2)(B) and 40 CFR 

51.308(d) and (e). See also 40 CFR 51.308(b). 

111For details, please see the progress report in 

the docket for the EPA’s approval action on May 17, 

2018 (83 FR 22853) at https://www.regulations.gov 

under docket number EPA–R10–OAR–2017–0482. 112See Section III.B. Summary of Visibility 

Conditions of the proposed rule. 83 FR 11927, 

11930, March 19, 2018. 113Clean Air Act sections 169A and 40 CFR 

51.308(f). 114Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, August 27, 

2021, included in the docket for this action. 115Staff report for the Oregon Environmental 

Quality Commission Meeting February. 3–4, 2022, 

included in the docket for this action. 

116Staff report for the Oregon Environmental 

Quality Commission Meeting February. 3–4, 2022, 

Summary of Public Comments and DEQ Responses. 

117Staff report for the Oregon Environmental 

Quality Commission Meeting November 17, 2023, at 

page 15–16. 

118Staff report for the Oregon Environmental 

Quality Commission Meeting November 17, 2023, at 

page 16. 

clearest and most impaired days. For 

second implementation period progress 

reports, 40 CFR 51.308(g)(3) requires 

states with Class I areas within their 

borders to first determine current 

visibility conditions for each area on the 

most impaired and clearest days, 40 

CFR 51.308(g)(3)(i)(B), and then to 

calculate the difference between those 

current conditions and baseline (2000– 

2004) visibility conditions in order to 

assess progress made to date.103 States 

must also assess the changes in 

visibility impairment for the most 

impaired and clearest days since they 

submitted their first implementation 

period progress reports.104 Since 

different states submitted their first 

implementation period progress reports 

at different times, the starting point for 

this assessment will vary state by state. 

Similarly, states must provide 

analyses tracking the change in 

emissions of pollutants contributing to 

visibility impairment from all sources 

and activities within the state over the 

period since they submitted their first 

implementation period progress 

reports.105 Changes in emissions should 

be identified by the type of source or 

activity. Section 51.308(g)(5) also 

addresses changes in emissions since 

the period addressed by the previous 

progress report and requires states’ SIP 

revisions to include an assessment of 

any significant changes in 

anthropogenic emissions within or 

outside the state. This assessment must 

include an explanation of whether these 

changes in emissions were anticipated 

and whether they have limited or 

impeded progress in reducing emissions 

and improving visibility relative to what 

the state projected based on its longterm strategy for the first 

implementation period. 

G. Requirements for State and Federal 

Land Manager Coordination 

Clean Air Act section 169A(d) 

requires that before a state holds a 

public hearing on a proposed regional 

haze SIP revision, it must consult with 

the appropriate Federal Land Manager 

or Federal Land Managers; pursuant to 

that consultation, the state must include 

a summary of the Federal Land 

Managers’ conclusions and 

recommendations in the notice to the 

public. Consistent with this statutory 

requirement, the Regional Haze Rule 

also requires that states ‘‘provide the 

[Federal Land Manager] with an 

opportunity for consultation, in person 

and at a point early enough in the 

State’s policy analyses of its long-term 

strategy emission reduction obligation 

so that information and 

recommendations provided by the 

[Federal Land Manager] can 

meaningfully inform the State’s 

decisions on the long-term strategy.’’ 106

Consultation that occurs 120 days prior 

to any public hearing or public 

comment opportunity will be deemed 

‘‘early enough,’’ but the Regional Haze 

Rule provides that in any event the 

opportunity for consultation must be 

provided at least 60 days before a public 

hearing or comment opportunity. This 

consultation must include the 

opportunity for the Federal Land 

Managers to discuss their assessment of 

visibility impairment in any Class I area 

and their recommendations on the 

development and implementation of 

strategies to address such 

impairment.107 In order for the EPA to 

evaluate whether Federal Land Manager 

consultation meeting the requirements 

of the Regional Haze Rule has occurred, 

the SIP submission should include 

documentation of the timing and 

content of such consultation. The SIP 

revision submitted to the EPA must also 

describe how the state addressed any 

comments provided by the Federal Land 

Managers.108 Finally, a SIP revision 

must provide procedures for continuing 

consultation between the state and 

Federal Land Managers 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.109

IV. The EPA’s Evaluation of the Oregon 

Regional Haze Submission for the 

Second Implementation Period 

A. Background on the Oregon First 

Implementation Period SIP Submission 

Oregon submitted its regional haze 

SIP for the first implementation period 

(2008 through 2018) on December 9, 

2010, as supplemented on February 01, 

2011. The Clean Air Act required that 

the initial round of regional haze plans 

include, among other things, a long-term 

strategy for making reasonable progress 

and best available retrofit technology 

requirements for certain older stationary 

sources, where applicable.110 The EPA 

approved Oregon’s first implementation 

period SIP submission in two actions 

published July 5, 2011 (76 FR 38997) 

and August 22, 2012 (77 FR 50611). 

Subsequently, on July 18, 2017, Oregon 

submitted a five-year progress report 

and the EPA approved the progress 

report on May 17, 2018 (83 FR 

22853).111 In our action, we concluded 

that Oregon made adequate progress in 

improving visibility as a result of 

actions identified in the regional haze 

SIP. Specifically, based on 2010 through 

2014 data, Oregon Class I areas attained 

the 2018 reasonable progress goals for 

improved visibility, except for one 

IMPROVE monitor highly impacted by 

wildfire.112

B. The Oregon Second Implementation 

Period SIP Submission and the EPA’s 

Evaluation 

On April 29, 2022, and November 22, 

2023, Oregon submitted revisions to the 

SIP to address its regional haze 

obligations for the second 

implementation period (2018 through 

2028).113 The submissions may be found 

in the docket for this action. Oregon 

made its April 29, 2022 submission 

available for public comment on August 

27, 2021 through November 1, 2021 114

and held a public hearing on October 

27, 2021.115 The state received and 

responded to public comments and 

included the comments and comment 

responses in the SIP submission.116

Oregon made its November 22, 2023 

submission available for public 

comment September 15, 2023 through 

October 21, 2023 and held a public 

hearing on October 16, 2023.117 The 

State received and responded to public 

comments and included the comments 

and comment responses in the SIP 

submission.118

The following sections of this 

preamble describe the Oregon SIP 

submission, including air quality 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 37 / Friday, February 23, 2024 / Proposed Rules 13633 

119Section 169A of the Clean Air Act was 

established in 1977 to protect visibility in all 

wilderness areas over 5,000 acres and all national 

parks over 6,000 acres. 156 such areas were 

designated throughout the U.S. 

modeling conducted, source selection, 

four-factor analyses to determine what 

emission reduction measures constitute 

reasonable progress for the long-term 

strategy, assessment of progress made 

since the first implementation period in 

reducing emissions of visibility 

impairing pollutants, and the visibility 

improvement progress at Class I areas in 

Oregon and other states impacted by 

Oregon sources. This preamble also 

contains the EPA’s evaluation of the 

Oregon SIP submission against the 

requirements of the Clean Air Act and 

Regional Haze Rule for the second 

implementation period of the regional 

haze program. 

C. Identification of Class I Areas 

Section 169A(b)(2) of the Clean Air 

Act requires each state in which any 

Class I area is located or ‘‘the emissions 

from which may reasonably be 

anticipated to cause or contribute to any 

impairment of visibility’’ in a Class I 

area to have a plan for making 

reasonable progress toward the national 

visibility goal. The Regional Haze Rule 

implements this statutory requirement 

at 40 CFR 51.308(f), which provides that 

each state’s plan ‘‘must address regional 

haze in each mandatory Class I Federal 

area located within the State and in 

each mandatory Class I Federal area 

located outside the State that may be 

affected by emissions from within the 

State,’’ and (f)(2), which requires each 

state’s plan to include a long-term 

strategy that addresses regional haze in 

such Class I areas. 

Oregon Class I Areas 

Oregon has 12 designated Class I 

areas, including Crater Lake National 

Park, managed by the National Parks 

Service, and 11 wilderness areas, 

managed by the U.S. Forest Service, or 

in the case of Hells Canyon Wilderness 

Area, managed jointly by the U.S. Forest 

Service and the Bureau of Land 

Management.119

Mt. Hood Wilderness Area 

The Mt. Hood Wilderness Area 

consists of 47,160 acres on the slopes of 

Mt. Hood in the northern Oregon 

Cascades. Wilderness elevations range 

from 3,426 meters (m) (11,237 feet (ft.)) 

on the summit of Mt. Hood down to 

almost 600 m (2,000 ft.) at the western 

boundary. It is almost adjacent to the 

Portland, Oregon metropolitan area; the 

westernmost boundary is about 20 

kilometers (km) east of the Portland, 

Oregon suburb of Sandy and 40 km from 

the heavily populated metropolitan 

center, elevation 100 m (300 ft.). 

Visitation to the Mt. Hood Wilderness 

Area is approximately 50,000 visitors a 

year, primarily between May and 

October. Most visitors come from the 

Portland/Vancouver area that has a 

population of approximately 2 million. 

Mt. Jefferson Wilderness Area 

The Mt. Jefferson Wilderness Area 

consists of 107,008 acres on the crest of 

the Cascade Range in central Oregon. Its 

southern boundary is a few km north of 

the northern boundary of the Mt. 

Washington Wilderness and it extends 

40 to 50 km north along the Cascade 

crest. West of the crest, it consists 

primarily of the eastern side of the 

North Santiam River headwaters basin 

that connects to the Willamette Valley 

source region near Salem, Oregon, 100 

km (60 miles (mi)) to the west. East of 

the crest it occupies the western slopes 

of the Metolius River drainage that 

connects eastern slopes with Deschutes 

River in eastern Oregon. The highest 

elevation is 3,200 m (10,497 ft.) at the 

summit of Mt. Jefferson in the northern 

part of the Wilderness. The lowest 

Wilderness elevations are near 1,000 m 

(3,000 ft.) along the western boundary in 

the North Santiam headwaters basin and 

along the eastern boundary in the 

Metolius River basin. 

Mt. Washington Wilderness Area 

The Mt. Washington Wilderness Area 

consists of 52,516 acres on the crest of 

the Cascade Range in central Oregon. 

Like the Three Sisters Wilderness that it 

borders to the south, it includes 

headwaters tributaries of the McKenzie 

River that flow west into the Willamette 

Valley near Eugene and connect the 

Wilderness with that source region. On 

the east side, eastern slopes of the 

Cascades descend to the Deschutes 

River near Bend. The highest 

Wilderness elevation is 2,376 m (7,794 

ft.) at the summit of Mt. Washington. 

The lowest elevations are near 900 m 

(3,000 ft.) in the upper headwaters basin 

of the McKenzie River. 

Three Sisters Wilderness Area 

The Three Sisters Wilderness Area 

consists of 285,202 acres abreast the 

crest of the Cascade Range in central 

Oregon. It includes headwaters 

tributaries of the McKenzie River that 

flow west into the Willamette Valley 

near Eugene and connect the Wilderness 

with that source region. On the east 

side, streams flow east to the Deschutes 

River near Bend. The highest crest 

elevation is 3,158 m (10,358 ft.) at the 

summit of the South Sister. The lowest 

elevations are near 600 m (2,000 ft.) 

where the South Fork of the McKenzie 

River exits the Wilderness on the west 

boundary. This is about 500 m (1,600 ft.) 

above the Willamette Valley at Eugene 

70 km (40 mi) west. 

Diamond Peak Wilderness Area 

The 52,337 acre Diamond Peak 

Wilderness Area straddles the Cascade 

Range 50 km (30 mi) north of Crater 

Lake National Park. The highest crest 

elevation in the Wilderness is 2,666 m 

(8,744 ft.) at Diamond Peak, which is 

also the highest summit in this region of 

the Cascade Range. The lowest 

elevations are near 1,450 m (5,000 ft.) 

where streams exit the Wilderness on 

the west side. On the east side, the 

Wilderness is bordered by mountain 

lakes with elevations from 1,459 m to 

1,693 m (4,786 to 5,553 ft.). The area 

includes headwaters of the Middle Fork 

of the Willamette River that flows to the 

Willamette Valley near Eugene, 

elevation 100 m (300 ft.) and 90 km (60 

mi) distant. Wilderness elevations are 

thus some 1,400 m (4,600 ft.) above the 

Willamette Valley floor. East of the 

Cascade crest, streams flow to the 

Deschutes River in eastern Oregon. 

Crater Lake National Park 

Crater Lake National Park is the only 

national park in Oregon. The park was 

established on May 22, 1902, and now 

consists of 183,315 acres. It is located in 

southwestern Oregon on the crest of the 

Cascade Mountain range, 100 miles east 

of the Pacific Ocean. The crater’s rim 

elevations range from about 900 to 1,873 

ft. above lake level. The highest park 

elevation is 8,929 ft. at the peak of Mt. 

Scott, in the eastern park area. The 

National Park includes headwaters of 

the Rogue River that flows southwest 

towards the Medford/Grants Pass area, 

and Sun Creek/Wood River that flows 

southeast to the Klamath Falls area. 

Mountain Lakes Wilderness Area 

The Mountain Lakes Wilderness Area, 

encompassing 23,071 acres, is a 

relatively small Class I area in southern 

Oregon, 50 km (30 mi) south of Crater 

Lake National Park. It consists of several 

peaks with a highest elevation of 2,502 

m (8,208 ft.) at the crest of Aspen Butte. 

The lowest elevations are near 1,500 m 

(5,000 ft.). Primary drainages are Varney 

Creek and Moss Creek that flow into the 

Upper Klamath Lake, 3 km northeast of 

the Wilderness boundary. 

Gearhart Mountain Wilderness Area 

The Gearhart Mountain Wilderness 

Area consists of 22,809 acres on the 

flanks of Gearhart Mountain in south 

central Oregon, primarily the northern 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
13634 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 37 / Friday, February 23, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

120 IMPROVE website at http://

vista.cira.colostate.edu/Improve. 

121PSELs are used to protect ambient air quality 

standards, prevent significant deterioration of air 

quality, and to ensure protection of visibility. 

Establishing such a limit is a mandatory step in the 

Oregon permitting process. A PSEL is designed to 

be set at the actual baseline emissions from a source 

plus approved emissions increases and minus 

required emissions reductions. This design is 

intended to maintain a more realistic emissions 

inventory. Oregon uses a fixed baseline year of 1977 

or 1978 (or a prior year if more representative of 

normal operation) and factors in all approved 

emissions increases and required emissions 

decreases since baseline, to set the allowable 

emissions in the PSEL. Increases and decreases 

since the baseline year do not affect the baseline, 

but are included in the difference between baseline 

and allowable emissions. Oregon’s PSEL program is 

used, in part, to implement NSR permitting. For 

major NSR, if a PSEL is calculated at a level greater 

than an established significant emission rate (SER) 

over the baseline actual emission rate, an evaluation 

of the air quality impact and major NSR permitting 

are required. If not, the PSEL is set without further 

review (a construction permit may also be 

required). For minor NSR (State NSR), a similar 

calculation is conducted. If the difference is greater 

than the SER, an air quality analysis is required to 

evaluate whether ambient air quality standards and 

increments are protected. The air quality analysis 

results may require the source to reduce the airshed 

impact and/or comply with a tighter emission limit. 

See 82 FR 14654, March 22, 2017, p. 14661. 

Oregon’s PSEL requirements are codified at OAR 

340, Division 222. These requirements are approved 

into the Oregon SIP at 40 CFR 52.1970(c). Oregon 

imposes the PSEL requirements via its major and 

minor new source review permitting programs at 

OAR 340, Divisions 216 and 224. Thus, PSELs are 

applicable requirements included in Title V 

operating permits for major stationary sources in 

Oregon. 

slope and eastern drainages of Gearhart 

Mountain, the dominant topographic 

feature. Elevations range from near 

5,900 ft. at the North Fork of the 

Sprague River in the northern 

Wilderness to 8,364 ft. at the summit of 

Gearhart Mountain. 

Kalmiopsis Wilderness Area 

The Kalmiopsis Wilderness Area 

consists of 179,700 acres and is located 

in the Klamath Mountains of 

southwestern Oregon, part of the coastal 

temperate rainforest zone that lies 

between the Pacific Ocean and the east 

side of the coast ranges in northwestern 

U.S. and Canada. Its western boundary 

is 20 to 25 km (12 to 15 mi) from the 

coast. Its easternmost extent is about 40 

km (25 mi) from the coast. Elevations 

range from about 300 m (900 ft.) on the 

western boundary where the Chetco 

River exits the Wilderness towards the 

Pacific Ocean 25 to 30 miles further 

west, to 1,554 m (5,098 ft.) on Pearsoll 

Peak on the eastern Wilderness 

boundary. The terrain in the Wilderness 

is steep canyons and long broad ridges. 

The Wilderness is mostly west of the 

general crest of the coast range, thus 

exposed to precipitation caused by 

lifting of eastward moving maritime air, 

primarily during the winter. 

Precipitation ranges from 150 to 350 cm 

(60 to 140 inches (in)) annually, 

depending on elevation. 

Strawberry Mountain Wilderness Area 

The Strawberry Mountain Wilderness 

Area consists of 69,350 acres in eastern 

Oregon, just east of John Day. The 

Wilderness comprises most of the 

Strawberry Mountain Range. The terrain 

is rugged, with elevations ranging from 

1,220 m (4,000 ft.) to 2,755 m (9,038 ft.) 

at the summit of Strawberry Mountain. 

The Wilderness borders the upper John 

Day River valley to the north. 

Eagle Cap Wilderness Area 

The Eagle Cap Wilderness Area 

consists of 360,275 acres in northeastern 

Oregon. The terrain is characterized by 

bare peaks and ridges and U-shaped 

glaciated valleys. Elevations range from 

5,000 ft. in lower valleys to near 10,000 

ft. at the highest mountain summits. The 

Lostine and Minam Rivers flow north 

from the center of the Wilderness 

towards Pendleton and the Columbia, 

130 km northwest. 

Hells Canyon Wilderness Area 

The Hells Canyon Wilderness Area 

consists of 214,944 acres and is located 

on the Oregon-Idaho border. The Snake 

River divides the wilderness, with 

131,133 acres in Oregon, and 83,811 

acres in Idaho. The Snake River canyon 

is the deepest river gorge in North 

America. The higher terrain is located 

on the Oregon side. Popular Oregon-side 

viewpoints are McGraw, Hat Point, and 

Somers Point. 

Oregon Visibility Monitoring Network 

Haze species in Oregon are measured 

and analyzed via the Interagency 

Monitoring of Protected Visual 

Environments (IMPROVE) network.120

Table 1 of this preamble lists the 

IMPROVE stations representing 

visibility at Oregon Class I areas. Due to 

the remote nature of some of the Class 

I areas, several areas share a common 

IMPROVE station. 

TABLE 1—OREGON IMPROVE STATIONS AND CLASS I AREAS

Monitor ID Class I area Sponsor Years operated 

MOHO ................ Mt. Hood Wilderness ........................................................................... U.S. Forest Service ...................... 2000–present. 

THSI ................... Mt. Jefferson Wilderness .....................................................................

Mt. Washington Wilderness .................................................................

Three Sisters Wilderness .....................................................................

U.S. Forest Service ...................... 1993–present. 

CRLA .................. Crater Lake National Park ...................................................................

Diamond Peak Wilderness ..................................................................

Mountain Lakes Wilderness .................................................................

Gearhart Mountain Wilderness ............................................................

National Parks Service ................. 1988–present. 

KALM .................. Kalmiopsis Wilderness ......................................................................... U.S. Forest Service ...................... 2000–present. 

STAR .................. Strawberry Mountain Wilderness .........................................................

Eagle Cap Wilderness .........................................................................

U.S. Forest Service ...................... 2000–present. 

HECA ................. Hells Canyon Wilderness Area ............................................................ U.S. Forest Service ...................... 2000–present. 

Identification of Class I Areas in Other 

States 

The Oregon Department of 

Environmental Quality (ODEQ) used a 

Q/d screening approach in developing a 

list of sources for potential four-factor 

analysis, as discussed in more detail in 

section IV.E.a of this preamble. Q/d is 

equal to the emissions (Q) in tons per 

year of visibility-impairing pollutants 

(NOX, SO2, and particulate matter less 

than 10 microns in diameter (PM10)) 

divided by the distance to a Class I area 

(d) in kilometers. The resulting ratio is 

commonly used as a metric to assess a 

source’s potential visibility impacts on 

a particular Class I area. Importantly, 

ODEQ used permitted emissions limits, 

called Plant Site Emissions Limits 

(PSELs),121 for a facility in 2017 to 

calculate Q. 

ODEQ determined that this approach 

based on permitted emissions or 

potential to emit was more rigorous and 

environmentally protective than relying 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 37 / Friday, February 23, 2024 / Proposed Rules 13635 

122While PGE Boardman’s emissions in 2017 

would have screened the facility into four-factor 

analysis based on the facility PSELs, and actual 

emissions, this facility closed operations in 2020. 

The closure of this facility, the last coal-fired power 

plant in Oregon, was a product of the first round 

of Regional Haze planning. 

123Please see the EPA’s evaluation of 40 CFR 

51.308(f)(3)(ii)(B) for Mount Rainier National Park 

under section IV.F of this preamble. 

124April 29, 2022, Oregon SIP submission, 

Chapters 3.1. Q/d screening process and 3.3. Impact 

of facilities in other states on Oregon Class I areas. 

125 40 CFR 51.308(f)(1)(vi)(B). 

126April 29, 2022 Oregon SIP submission. Tables 

2–6 and 2–7. 

127ODEQ used data drawn from ‘‘Availability of 

Modeling Data and Associated Technical Support 

Document for the EPA’s Updated 2028 Visibility 

Air Quality Modeling’’ (EPA 2019) with corrected 

data as applicable from the June 2020 EPA Memo, 

‘‘Technical addendum including updated visibility 

data through 2018 for the memo titled 

‘Recommendation for the Use of Patched and 

Substituted Data and Clarification of Data 

Completeness for Tracking Visibility Progress for 

the Second Implementation Period of the Regional 

Haze Program.’’ 

on actual 2017 emissions which could 

increase in the future. Using this 

approach, ODEQ identified Oregon 

facilities with a Q/d ≥ 5 based on PSELs 

as having potential visibility impacts on 

other states shown in table 2 of this 

preamble.122 Based on the Q/d 

calculation, two facilities, PGE Beaver/ 

Port Westward I and Georgia PacificWauna Mill potentially impact visibility 

in Mount Rainier National Park, 

Washington with Q/d values slightly 

higher than the most impacted Oregon 

Class I area, Mount Hood Wilderness.123

All other facilities have higher potential 

Q/d impacts on Oregon Class I areas 

than the respective out-of-state Class I 

areas.124 Descriptions of the controls 

imposed at the facilities listed in table 

2 are contained in section IV.E.b. of this 

preamble. 

TABLE 2—IMPACT OF OREGON FACILITIES ON OTHER STATES’ CLASS I AREAS

Facility name Closest non-Oregon Class I area Actual 

Q/d Q/d PSEL Nearest Oregon Class I area Actual Q/d Q/d PSEL 

A Division of Cascades Holding US 

Inc.

Mount Adams Wilderness, WA ......... 2.69 56.77 Mount Hood Wilderness ................... 3.02 63.72 

Ash Grove Cement Company ............ Sawtooth Wilderness, ID .................. 5.31 11.01 Eagle Cap Wilderness ...................... 18.54 38.47 

Beaver Plant/Port Westward I Plant .. Mount Rainier NP, WA ..................... 3.75 40.15 Mount Hood Wilderness ................... 3.24 34.60 

Biomass One, L.P .............................. Marble Mountain Wilderness, CA ..... 3.06 6.33 Mountain Lakes Wilderness .............. 4.77 9.86 

Boise Cascade-Medford .................... Marble Mountain Wilderness, CA ..... 3.25 5.45 Mountain Lakes Wilderness .............. 4.19 7.02 

Collins Products, L.L.C ...................... Lava Beds/Schonchin Wilderness, 

CA.

2.43 5.48 Mountain Lakes Wilderness .............. 4.78 10.82 

EVRAZ Inc. NA .................................. Mount Adams Wilderness, WA ......... 2.44 8.14 Mount Hood Wilderness ................... 3.57 11.92 

Georgia Pacific-Wauna Mill ............... Mount Rainier NP, WA ..................... 17.94 31.48 Mount Hood Wilderness ................... 16.18 28.38 

Georgia-Pacific-Toledo ...................... Mount Adams Wilderness, WA ......... 4.64 12.04 Three Sisters Wilderness .................. 7.83 20.33 

Halsey Pulp Mill ................................. Mount Adams Wilderness, WA ......... 3.11 8.32 Three Sisters Wilderness .................. 8.86 23.69 

Klamath Cogeneration Project ........... Lava Beds/Schonchin Wilderness, 

CA.

3.66 8.69 Mountain Lakes Wilderness .............. 6.91 16.40 

Oregon City Compressor Station ....... Mount Adams Wilderness, WA ......... 1.49 5.53 Mount Hood Wilderness ................... 3.64 13.49 

Owens-Brockway Glass Container 

Inc.

Mount Adams Wilderness, WA ......... 6.13 11.85 Mount Hood Wilderness ................... 10.86 21.00 

Roseburg Forest Products—Dillard ... Redwood NP, CA .............................. 10.39 16.70 Kalmiopsis Wilderness ...................... 19.07 30.67 

Willamette Falls Paper Company ...... Mount Adams Wilderness, WA ......... 1.75 12.23 Mount Hood Wilderness ................... 3.79 26.46 

D. Calculations of Baseline, Current, 

and Natural Visibility Conditions; 

Progress to Date; and the Uniform Rate 

of Progress 

Section 51.308(f)(1) requires states to 

determine the following for ‘‘each 

mandatory Class I Federal area located 

within the State:’’ baseline visibility 

conditions for the most impaired and 

clearest days, natural visibility 

conditions for the most impaired and 

clearest days, progress to date for the 

most impaired and clearest days, the 

differences between current visibility 

conditions and natural visibility 

conditions, and the uniform rate of 

progress. This section also provides the 

option for states to propose adjustments 

to the uniform rate of progress line for 

a Class I area to account for visibility 

impacts from anthropogenic sources 

outside the U.S. and/or the impacts 

from wildland prescribed fires that were 

conducted for certain, specified 

objectives.125

Tracking Visibility in Oregon 

Oregon’s SIP submission addresses 

baseline, current and natural visibility 

conditions for each of these IMPROVE 

stations as required by the 2017 

Regional Haze Rule and the EPA’s 

technical guidance on tracking visibility 

progress. ODEQ reviewed visibility data 

from 2000 through 2018 and determined 

that current visibility at all Class I areas 

for both the clearest and most impaired 

days has improved since the baseline 

period. In addition, all areas have met 

the uniform rate of progress (URP) for 

2018.126 Additionally, many Class I 

areas such as the Mt. Hood, Strawberry 

Mountain, Eagle Cap, and Hells Canyon 

wilderness areas are already meeting the 

2028 URP for the Most Impaired Days 

(MID) based on current 2014–2018 

monitoring data. Oregon did not choose 

to adjust its URP for international 

anthropogenic impacts or to account for 

the impacts of wildland prescribed fires 

resulting in a more stringent, 

environmentally protective URP 

glidepath as discussed in section IV.F. 

of this preamble. 

TABLE 3—HAZE INDICES (DECIVIEWS) FOR OREGON IMPROVE STATIONS 127

Monitor ID Class I area Baseline 

2000–2004 2018 URP 

Current 

conditions 

2014–2018 

2028 URP Natural 

2064 

Most Impaired Days 

MOHO ........................... Mt. Hood Wilderness Area ................................... 12.10 10.81 ...................... 9.27 9.90 ........................ 6.59 

THSI .............................. Mt. Jefferson, Mt. Washington, and Three Sisters Wilderness Areas.12.80 11.52 ...................... 11.28 10.60 ...................... 7.30 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
13636 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 37 / Friday, February 23, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

128Clean Air Act section 169A(b)(2)(B). 

129 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i). 

130 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2). 

131 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iv). 

132 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iii). 

133April 29, 2022 Oregon SIP submission, 

Chapter 2.5.1 Estimated future projected emissions. 134 40 CFR 51.308(f)(3)(iii). 

TABLE 3—HAZE INDICES (DECIVIEWS) FOR OREGON IMPROVE STATIONS 127—Continued 

Monitor ID Class I area Baseline 

2000–2004 2018 URP 

Current 

conditions 

2014–2018 

2028 URP Natural 

2064 

CRLA ............................ Crater Lake National Park; Diamond Peak, 

Mountain Lakes, and Gearhart Mountain Wilderness Areas.

9.36 8.38 ........................ 7.98 7.70 ........................ 5.16 

KALM ............................ Kalmiopsis Wilderness Area ................................ 13.34 12.04 ...................... 11.97 11.13 ...................... 7.78 

STAR ............................ Strawberry Mountain and Eagle Cap Wilderness 

Areas.

14.53 12.68 ...................... 11.19 11.35 ...................... 6.58 

HECA ............................ Hells Canyon Wilderness Area ............................ 16.51 14.19 ...................... 12.33 12.53 ...................... 6.57 

Clearest Days 

MOHO ........................... Mt. Hood Wilderness Area ................................... 2.17 Not applicable ........ 1.39 Not applicable ........ 0.88 

THSI .............................. Mt. Jefferson, Mt. Washington, and Three Sisters Wilderness Areas.3.04 NA .......................... 2.61 NA .......................... 1.86 

CRLA ............................ Crater Lake National Park; Diamond Peak, 

Mountain Lakes, and Gearhart Mountain Wilderness Areas.

1.69 NA .......................... 1.05 NA .......................... 0.10 

KALM ............................ Kalmiopsis Wilderness Area ................................ 6.27 NA .......................... 5.90 NA .......................... 3.70 

STAR ............................ Strawberry Mountain and Eagle Cap Wilderness 

Areas.

4.49 NA .......................... 2.79 NA .......................... 1.48 

HECA ............................ Hells Canyon Wilderness Area ............................ 5.52 NA .......................... 4.00 NA .......................... 2.52 

The EPA is proposing to find that 

Oregon has submitted a regional haze 

plan that meets the requirements of 40 

CFR 51.308(f)(1) related to the 

calculations of baseline, current, and 

natural visibility conditions; progress to 

date; and the uniform rate of progress 

for the second implementation period. 

E. Long-Term Strategy for Regional Haze 

a. The Oregon Long-Term Strategy 

Each state having a Class I area within 

its borders or emissions that may affect 

visibility in a Class I area must develop 

a long-term strategy for making 

reasonable progress towards the 

national visibility goal.128 As explained 

in the background discussion in section 

II. of this preamble, reasonable progress 

is achieved when all states contributing 

to visibility impairment in a Class I area 

are implementing the measures 

determined—through application of the 

four statutory factors to sources of 

visibility impairing pollutants—to be 

necessary to make reasonable 

progress.129 Each state’s long-term 

strategy must include the enforceable 

emission limitations, compliance 

schedules, and other measures that are 

necessary to make reasonable 

progress.130 All new (i.e., additional) 

measures that are the outcome of fourfactor analyses are necessary to make 

reasonable progress and must be in the 

long-term strategy. If the outcome of a 

four-factor analysis and other measures 

necessary to make reasonable progress is 

that no new measures are reasonable for 

a source, that source’s existing measures 

are necessary to make reasonable 

progress, unless the state can 

demonstrate that the source will 

continue to implement those measures 

and will not increase its emission rate. 

Existing measures that are necessary to 

make reasonable progress must also be 

in the long-term strategy. In developing 

its long-term strategies, a state must also 

consider five additional factors.131 As 

part of its reasonable progress 

determinations, the state must describe 

the criteria used to determine which 

sources or group of sources were 

evaluated (i.e., subjected to four-factor 

analysis) for the second implementation 

period and how the four factors were 

taken into consideration in selecting the 

emission reduction measures for 

inclusion in the long-term strategy.132

The following paragraphs summarize 

how the Oregon submissions addressed 

the requirements of 40 CFR 

51.308(f)(2)(i). The EPA’s evaluation of 

the Oregon submission is contained in 

section IV.E.b. of this preamble. The 

Oregon submission includes analysis 

and modeling conducted by the State, 

the EPA and the WRAP, a narrative 

description of the State’s long-term 

strategy, and enforceable emissions 

limitations embodied in State 

administrative orders and permits.133

States may rely on technical 

information developed by the regional 

planning organizations of which they 

are members to select sources for fourfactor analysis and to conduct that 

analysis, as well as to satisfy the 

documentation requirements under 40 

CFR 51.308(f). Where a regional 

planning organization has performed 

source selection and/or four-factor 

analyses (or considered the five 

additional factors in 40 CFR 

51.308(f)(2)(iv)) for its member states, 

those states may rely on the regional 

planning organization’s analyses for the 

purpose of satisfying the requirements 

of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i) so long as the 

states have a reasonable basis to do so 

and all state participants in the regional 

planning organization process have 

approved the technical analyses.134

States may also satisfy the requirement 

of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(ii) to engage in 

interstate consultation with other states 

that have emissions that are reasonably 

anticipated to contribute to visibility 

impairment in a given Class I area under 

the auspices of intra- and inter-regional 

planning organization engagement. 

The WRAP is the regional planning 

organization to which Oregon belongs. 

The WRAP coordinated technical 

services, modeling, data management, 

and consulting during the second 

planning period. The WRAP developed 

technical tools, emission inventories, 

and air quality modeling with input and 

involvement from states in the region. 

Oregon has participated actively in the 

WRAP and used WRAP technical 

products to help develop the Oregon 

submissions. 

In the submissions, Oregon conducted 

technical analyses to identify sources 

and source categories with the largest 

potential to contribute to visibility 

impairment at Class I areas in Oregon 

and other states. Based on the 

composition of regional haze forming 

pollutants at the IMPROVE stations, 

ODEQ determined that the majority of 

U.S. anthropogenic contribution to 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 37 / Friday, February 23, 2024 / Proposed Rules 13637 

135April 29, 2022 Oregon SIP submission, 

Chapter 2.4 Pollutant Components of Visibility 

Impairment. 

136April 29, 2022 Oregon SIP submission, 

Chapter 2.3 Emissions Inventory Analysis. 

137 International Marine Organization. 2020. A 

Breath of Fresh Air. https://wwwcdn.imo.org/ 

localresources/en/MediaCentre/HotTopics/ 

Documents/Sulphur%202020%20infographic

%202%20page.pdf. 

138April 29, 2022 Oregon SIP submission, 

Chapter 2.4 Pollutant Components of Visibility 

Impairment. 

139Save for certain exceptions, PSELs are 

included in all Air Contaminant Discharge Permits 

(ACDP) and Title V Operating Permits issued to 

sources in Oregon. See OAR 340–222–0020. This 

program is approved into the Oregon SIP. 40 CFR 

52.1970(c). Oregon establishes PSELs for multiple 

pollutants, including SO2, NOX, PM10, and PM2.5. 

Id. Sources are required to monitor pollutant 

emissions and comply with the PSELs. 340–222– 

0080. PSELs serve as a basis for, among other 

things, assuring compliance with ambient air 

quality standards and Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration increments. OAR 340–222–0020. 

ODEQ sets PSELs based on a variety of factors; in 

general, PSELs are set at levels above the projected 

actual or actual emissions of the source. OAR 340– 

222–0041; 0042. 

regional haze in Oregon Class I areas is 

ammonium nitrate. This varies 

seasonally and by monitor.135

Statewide, NOX emissions are primarily 

from mobile sources, at about 80% of 

the inventory, with another 13% of the 

inventory coming from fuel combustion 

from area and stationary sources.136 At 

some monitors, such as the IMPROVE 

stations in the Cascades (THIS and 

CRLA) and Kalmiopsis (KALM), 

ammonium sulfate is a proportionally 

larger contributor to regional haze 

formation. ODEQ determined the 

ammonium sulfate contribution is 

primarily from international 

anthropogenic sources and is projected 

to decrease by 77% due to new 

standards for international marine 

shipping fuels which became effective 

in 2020.137 Specifically, in 2010, the 

International Marine Organization 

(IMO) established emission standards 

for vessels operating in designated 

waters off the coast of North America. 

MARPOL Annex VI is codified at 33 

U.S.C. 1901 et seq. Pursuant to 33 U.S.C. 

1907, it is unlawful to act in violation 

of the MARPOL Protocol. The North 

American Emissions Control Area (ECA) 

covers most coastal areas of the United 

States. Vessels operating in the area 

must burn low sulfur marine fuel, 1,000 

ppm sulfur content (0.10% sulfur by 

weight). In addition, as of January 1, 

2020, the IMO limited sulfur in fuel for 

ships operating outside designated 

ECAs to 5,000 ppm sulfur content 

(0.50% sulfur by weight). This limit 

represents a substantial reduction from 

the prior IMO limit of 35,000 ppm 

sulfur content (3.5% sulfur by weight). 

Fuel sulfur limits are codified at 40 CFR 

part 1043. See 84 FR 69335, 69336 

(December 18, 2019). The levels of 

organic mass and elemental carbon, 

likely from wildfire, prescribed burning, 

and anthropogenic and biogenic sources 

of volatile organic compounds vary at 

all Oregon IMPROVE stations from 2000 

to 2018 but show no significant 

trend.138

In addition to selecting and evaluating 

stationary sources for four-factor 

analysis, Oregon also used EPA 

emissions inventory data from 2017 to 

review emissions from mobile sources 

such as nonroad vehicles (e.g., 

construction, agriculture, lawn and 

garden, recreational equipment) and 

onroad vehicles (e.g. commercial trucks, 

passenger cars and trucks), as well as 

agriculture, fugitive dust, marine 

shipping, oil and gas, prescribed fires, 

and railroads. The submissions address 

these sectors and their potential to 

contribute to visibility impairment in 

Chapter 2.3. Emissions Inventory 

Analysis and Chapter 4 Long-term 

Strategy. 

With respect to analyzing stationary 

sources, Oregon used a Q/d 

methodology to select sources for 

evaluation under the four statutory 

factors. This methodology does not take 

into consideration topography, transport 

direction/pathway and dispersion, and 

photochemical processes. However, it is 

an adequate tool for source selection 

and is consistent with the EPA 

guidance. Specifically, Oregon’s 

submission determined ‘‘Q/d’’ where 

‘‘Q’’ is a source’s emissions and ‘‘d’’ is 

the distance from the source to the 

nearest Class I area. Oregon identified 

permitted point sources by their Q/d 

values, calculated using the sum of all 

emissions of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen 

oxides and particulate matter less than 

10 microns in diameter (as measured in 

tons per year), divided by the distance 

to a Class I area (measured in kilometers 

from the facility to the nearest boundary 

of the Class I area) for all Class I areas 

within 400 km of the source. Rather 

than using actual emissions to screen 

facilities in, Oregon was more 

conservative and used permitted 

emissions, called Plant Site Emissions 

Limits (PSELs) to effectively screen in 

more sources than would otherwise 

have been identified.139

As discussed in more detail in section 

IV.E.b of this preamble, Oregon selected 

32 sources for review using the Q/d 

screening methodology. Of these 32 

sources, several incorporated 

enforceable emissions limits into their 

permits or in agreed orders resulting in 

PSELs below the screening threshold, 

and several had recently imposed 

controls already in place, with the 

remaining 23 sources conducting fourfactor analyses. ODEQ reviewed the 

four-factor analyses submitted by the 

sources and found that 6 of the sources 

that additional controls were above the 

$10,000 cost per ton reduction threshold 

established by ODEQ. For the remaining 

17 sources, ODEQ determined that 

additional controls might be cost 

effective and initiated a second round of 

review evaluating 43 emissions units 

and a total of 62 control devices. During 

this second round of review, an 

additional 4 sources incorporated 

facility-wide enforceable emissions 

limits effectively lowering PSELs below 

the screening threshold, and ODEQ 

negotiated permit modifications or 

agreed orders to install control devices 

or other emissions reductions at the 

remaining 13 facilities described in 

more detail in section IV.E.b. of this 

preamble. 

After reviewing the submissions, the 

EPA proposes to determine that 

Oregon’s long-term strategy includes the 

enforceable emissions limitations, 

compliance schedules, and other 

measures necessary to make reasonable 

progress. By extension, the EPA 

proposes to determine that Oregon’s 

selection of sources for evaluation under 

the four statutory factors was reasonable 

and consistent with the requirements of 

the RHR and proposes to determine that 

Oregon determined the controls 

necessary for reasonable progress based 

on a reasonable consideration of the 

four factors, as described in the 

evaluation below. 

b. The EPA’s Evaluation of the Oregon 

Long-Term Strategy 

The EPA is proposing to find that 

Oregon has satisfied the requirements of 

40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i) related to 

evaluating sources and determining the 

emission reduction measures that are 

necessary to make reasonable progress 

by considering the four statutory factors. 

The EPA is proposing to find that 

Oregon has satisfied the four-factor 

analysis requirement through its 

evaluation and actions documented in 

the Oregon regional haze plan for the 

second planning period. Section 

51.308(f)(2)(i) requires states to evaluate 

and determine the emission reduction 

measures that are necessary to make 

reasonable progress by considering the 

four statutory factors to sources in a 

control analysis. As laid out in further 

detail in the following paragraphs of 

this preamble, the EPA is proposing to 

find that the Oregon submission, as 

supplemented, satisfies the requirement 

of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i). The emission 

reduction measures that are necessary to 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
13638 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 37 / Friday, February 23, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

140 016_4.1.2 SOS.Notice.FilingReceipt.pdf 

included in the docket for this action. 

141 018_4.2.2 SOS.Filing.Receipt.DEQ_14– 

2021.pdf included in the docket for this action. 

142 004_3.1 RHSIP2021.Rules_.doc included in 

the docket for this action. 

143April 29, 2022 Oregon SIP submission, 

Chapter 2.1.1 Status of implementation of control 

measures included in the original regional haze SIP. 

144See 200_boardman closure_25–0016–TV–01_

AR_2020, 201_boardman closure_25–0016–TV–01_

AR_2021, 202_boardman closure_AIRS_AFS Search 

_US EPA, 203_2022 PSD permit_boardman carty_

25–0016–ST–02_PM_2022_3. 

make reasonable progress must be 

included in the long-term strategy, i.e., 

in the Oregon SIP. 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2). 

Division 223 Regional Haze Rules 

On May 28, 2021, Oregon opened 

public comment on revisions to the 

Division 223 Regional Haze rules to 

update the provisions for the second 

regional haze planning period.140 The 

Oregon Environmental Quality 

Commission adopted the revisions to 

the Division 223 Regional Haze rules at 

its July 22–23, 2021 meeting, and the 

rules became effective July 23, 2021.141

A detailed redline/strikeout of the rule 

revisions is included in the docket for 

this action.142 The revisions removed 

outdated BART provisions from the first 

planning period, including sourcespecific requirements in Oregon 

Administrative Rules (OAR) 340–223– 

0040 for the Amalgamated Sugar 

Company which ceased operation on 

December 9, 2010, and closed 

permanently in September 2016.143 The 

revisions also repealed outdated BART 

provisions in OAR 340–223–0030 

through 340–223–0080 for the Portland 

General Electric (PGE) coal-fired power 

plant in Boardman which ceased 

operation on October 15, 2020, pursuant 

to the requirements of the regional haze 

plan for the first implementation period. 

Documentation of the closure of the 

coal-fired power plant is included in the 

docket for this action.144

In addition to removing outdated 

provisions, Oregon added new rule 

provisions to implement the regional 

haze program for the second 

implementation period. OAR 340–223– 

0100 Screening Methodology for 

Sources for Round II of Regional Haze 

established the screening methodology 

for stationary sources in the regional 

haze second planning period. Pursuant 

to this rulemaking sources were 

required to undergo review if the 

source’s Q/d was greater than 5, where 

Q equals the sum of the source’s PSELs 

for NOX, SO2, and PM10. 

OAR 340–223–0110 Options for 

Compliance with Round II of Regional 

Haze imposed the obligation on 

screened sources to conduct four-factor 

analyses and established the process for 

imposition of controls determined by 

ODEQ to be cost effective based on 

those four-factor analyses, using a costeffectiveness threshold of $10,000 or 

less per ton of reductions for any single 

or combination of regional haze 

pollutants. Specifically, OAR 340–223– 

0110(1) requires each source screened 

into review to submit a four-factor 

analysis and install controls determined 

by ODEQ to be cost effective following 

ODEQ’s adjustment and review of the 

four-factor analysis. OAR 340–223– 

0110(2) allows alternative compliance 

options under an agreed order with 

ODEQ (stipulated agreement and final 

order or SAFO) as summarized below: 

• Accept federally enforceable 

reductions of combined plant site 

emission limits of regional haze 

pollutants to bring the source’s Q/d 

below 5.00. A source may take a PSEL 

reduction below the generic PSEL to 

achieve an overall PSEL of regional haze 

pollutants below a Q/d of 5.00. A 

source’s Q/d will be considered to be 

brought below 5.00 when Q/d is below 

5.00 using the calculation in OAR 340– 

223–0100(2), except that the Q factor 

shall be calculated by adding the plant 

site emission limits for regional haze 

pollutants as stated in the stipulated 

agreement and final order; 

• Install controls identified by the 

source in a four-factor analysis as costeffective for that source for reducing 

regional haze pollutants. ODEQ must 

agree that the controls identified will 

result in the greatest cost-effective 

emissions reduction at the identified 

emissions unit and ODEQ must 

establish a timeline for installation of 

those controls that is the fastest 

practicable timeline for installation of 

the identified controls and that is no 

later than July 31, 2026; 

• Install controls or reduce emissions 

for regional haze pollutants that ODEQ 

determines, in its sole discretion, 

provide equivalent emissions reductions 

to controls that would be identified as 

cost effective for that source following 

the adjustment and review of a fourfactor analysis. ODEQ must establish a 

timeline for installation of those 

controls that is the fastest practicable 

timeline for installation of the identified 

controls and that is no later than July 

31, 2026; 

• Maintain controls that the source 

has already installed to control regional 

haze pollutants or maintain reduced 

emissions of regional haze pollutants 

that ODEQ determines, in its sole 

discretion, have provided and will 

continue to provide equivalent 

emissions reductions to controls that 

would be identified as cost effective for 

that source following adjustment and 

review of a four-factor analysis; or 

• Replace an emissions unit with a 

new emissions unit that meets the 

emission limits and requirements of the 

most recent applicable standard in place 

at the time of the permitting of the new 

emissions unit. ODEQ must establish a 

timeline for installation of the new 

emissions unit that is the fastest 

practicable timeline for installation of 

the new emissions unit and that is no 

later than July 31, 2031. 

OAR 340–223–0120 Four Factor 

Analysis established the requirements 

sources must follow in conducting the 

four-factor analyses consistent with the 

Clean Air Act four statutory factors and 

provides ODEQ with authority to 

request additional information or adjust 

the four-factor analyses for consistency. 

Lastly, OAR 340–223–0130 Final Orders 

Ordering Compliance with Round II of 

Regional Haze provides ODEQ 

unilateral order authority to address 

those sources that do not enter into a 

stipulated agreement and final order 

(SAFO) under OAR 340–223–0110(2). 

OAR 340–223–0130 also outlines the 

contested case hearing process for 

sources that challenge the unilateral 

orders issued by ODEQ. 

We have reviewed the revisions to the 

Division 223 Regional Haze Rules and 

we are proposing to determine that they 

provide Oregon with adequate authority 

to implement the regional haze program 

and are consistent with CAA 

requirements and the EPA’s Regional 

Haze Rule. ODEQ submitted the revised 

Division 223 Regional Haze Rules for 

incorporation by reference into the SIP 

at 40 CFR 52.1970(c) EPA approved 

regulations and statutes and requested 

that the EPA remove from the SIP the 

outdated source-specific BART 

provisions for the Amalgamated Sugar 

Company and the PGE coal-fired power 

plant in Boardman, which closed 

pursuant to the regional haze plan for 

the first implementation period. We are 

proposing to approve this request and 

incorporate by reference the submitted 

revised rules. 

Stationary Source Screening 

Pursuant to OAR 340–223–0100 

Screening Methodology for Sources for 

Round II of Regional Haze, ODEQ 

identified 32 facilities for analysis using 

the four factors. As described in the 

previous paragraphs, the PGE coal-fired 

power plant in Boardman ceased 

operation on October 15, 2020, and 

ODEQ removed the facility from the 

initial list of 32 facilities. The remaining 

operations onsite are known as Carty 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 37 / Friday, February 23, 2024 / Proposed Rules 13639 

145The Carty Generating Station is a 450 

megawatt (MW), combined-cycle natural gas-fueled 

electric generating power plant, and includes a notyet-constructed 50 MW solar PV electric power 

generating unit (Carty Solar Farm) on 315 acres 

(0.49 sq. miles). See https://www.oregon.gov/ 

energy/facilities-safety/facilities/pages/cgs.aspx. 

146 2019 Guidance at 17. 

147April 29, 2022 Oregon SIP submission, 

Chapter 3.4. Four Factor Analysis. 

148April 29, 2022 Oregon SIP submission, 

Chapter 6.6. Public Comments and Responses, at 

page 147. 

149April 29, 2022 Oregon SIP submission, 

Chapter 3.7 Facility-specific findings and results. 150ODEQ reviewed Kingsford Manufacturing 

Company which originally screened into analysis 

with a Q/d = 8.39 based on actual emissions as 

reported to the 2017 National Emissions Inventory 

(NEI) because a 2017 PSEL was not available at that 

time. However, in a letter dated May 22, 2020, 

ODEQ acknowledged a 2019 permit modification 

that had already lowered PSELs for NOX, SO2, and 

PM10 to a Q/d = 4.02.150 As part of the November 

22, 2023 supplement, ODEQ submitted revised 

permit conditions for the Kingsford Manufacturing 

Company that limit the combined PSELs and 

unassigned emissions to 304 tons per year yielding 

a Q/d = 4.98. 

151Alternatively, under Order 01–0038, the 

facility, up until July 2026, could opt to commit to 

replace units EU1 and EU2 with new technology by 

July 31, 2031, that would reduce Round 2 regional 

haze pollutants. The technology would have to 

meet the emission limits and requirements of the 

most recent New Source Performance Standard in 

place at the time of the permittee submitting a 

permit application for the project. PSELs for Round 

2 regional haze pollutants for the replacement shall 

be no more than 201 tons/year. 

Generating Station with an expected 

maximum Q/d of slightly over 1.00.145

Limits To Align PSELs to the Screening 

Threshold 

As previously noted, ODEQ took a 

more inclusive approach of using 

permitted emissions limits, PSELs, to 

screen facilities for source selection. 

This yielded a much larger pool of 

facilities in the initial screening rather 

than using projected actuals as 

suggested by the 2019 Guidance.146

OAR 340–223–0110(2)(b)(A) allows 

ODEQ to enter into an agreement with 

a source to ‘‘accept federally enforceable 

reductions of combined plant site 

emission limits of round II regional haze 

pollutants to bring the source’s Q/d 

below 5.00.’’ As noted in ODEQ’s April 

29, 2021, SIP submission, ‘‘if a facility’s 

actual emissions were below the 

screening threshold and potential 

emissions above the screening 

threshold, ODEQ provided the source an 

opportunity to either reduce pollutantspecific PSELs or take a limit on 

combined NOX, SO2, and PM10 PSELs 

such that Q/d would be less than 

5.00.’’ 147 If a source chose the option to 

reduce PSELs, OAR 340–223– 

0110(2)(b)(A) exempted the source from 

further control analysis. Importantly, 

OAR 340–223–0110(2)(b)(A) allows 

sources to reduce PSELs as a 

compliance option at any point in the 

process from initial screening through 

final agreements.148 To make the limits 

Federally enforceable and permanent, 

ODEQ submitted the SAFOs and/or 

permit conditions listed in table 7 for 

incorporation into the SIP in 40 CFR 

52.1970(d) EPA approved state sourcespecific requirements. 

The EPA proposes to determine that 

Oregon’s source selection was 

reasonable and consistent with the 

requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i). 

ODEQ included a thorough description 

of its source selection methodology. 

ODEQ selected 23 sources for analysis 

under the four factors. Considering 

these sources’ PSELs and recent actual 

emissions, ODEQ’s source selection 

methodology targeted the sources with 

the highest potential to impair visibility 

at mandatory Class 1 areas. Conversely, 

those sources ODEQ screened out have 

comparatively limited potential impacts 

on visibility, specifically, all facilities 

that accepted emission limits to screen 

out of analysis would have been 

screened out of analysis using a Q/d <5 

of actual emissions. Thus, the EPA 

proposes to determine that Oregon’s 

application of OAR 340–223– 

0110(2)(b)(A) is a reasonable means of 

preventing future emissions growth for 

facilities with relatively low Q/d values 

based on actual current emissions. 

TABLE 4—FACILITIES SCREENED IN USING Q/d 149

Facility 2017 Actual 

Q/d 

2017 PSEL 

Q/d Outcome 

PGE Boardman ............................................................... 38.24 116.21 No four-factor analysis (FFA). Facility shut down coalfired operations in 2020. 

Ash Grove Cement Company ........................................ 18.54 38.47 No FFA. ODEQ determined 2013 consent decree with 

the EPA represented existing effective controls. 

Klamath Energy LLC ...................................................... 6.91 16.40 No FFA. ODEQ determined that newly installed controls yield a Q/d <5.00. 

Kingsford Manufacturing Company 150 ........................... 8.38 NA No FFA—lowered PSEL to Q/d <5.00. 

Cascades Tissue Group: A Division of Cascades Holding US Inc.3.02 63.72 No FFA—lowered PSEL to Q/d <5.00. 

Timber Products Co. Limited Partnership ...................... 1.63 6.07 No FFA—lowered PSEL to Q/d <5.00. 

PGE Beaver Plant/Port Westward I Plant ...................... 3.24 34.60 No FFA—lowered PSEL to Q/d <5.00. 

Roseburg Forest Products—Riddle Plywood ................. 2.10 5.29 No FFA—lowered PSEL to Q/d <5.00. 

Roseburg Forest Products—Medford MDF .................... 2.91 8.84 No FFA—lowered PSEL to Q/d <5.00. 

Boise Cascade Wood Products, LLC—Medford ............ 4.19 7.02 Conducted FFA—then lowered PSEL to Q/d <5.00. 

Gas Transmission Northwest LLC—Compressor Station 12.2.33 14.13 Conducted FFA—then lowered PSEL to Q/d <5.00. 

JELD–WEN ..................................................................... 2.13 6.30 Conducted FFA—then lowered PSEL to Q/d <5.00. 

Northwest Pipeline LLC—Baker Compressor Station 151 4.02 14.81 Conducted FFA—then lowered PSEL to Q/d <5.00. 

Pacific Wood Laminates, Inc .......................................... 8.29 12.50 Conducted FFA—ODEQ determined no controls 

<$10K. 

Swanson Group Mfg. LLC .............................................. 4.16 6.39 Conducted FFA—ODEQ determined no controls 

<$10K. 

Ochoco Lumber Company .............................................. 4.60 14.19 Conducted FFA—ODEQ determined no controls 

<$10K. 

Columbia Forest Products, Inc ....................................... 4.10 7.75 Conducted FFA—ODEQ determined no controls 

<$10K. 

Collins Products, L.L.C ................................................... 4.78 10.82 Conducted FFA—ODEQ determined no controls 

<$10K. 

Woodgrain Millwork LLC—Particleboard ........................ 13.32 18.41 Conducted FFA—ODEQ determined no controls 

<$10K 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
13640 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 37 / Friday, February 23, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

152 2019 Guidance at 22; 2021 Clarifications 

Memo at 9. 153 100_haze-AshGroveCement-Durkee.pdf. 

154April 29, 2022 Oregon SIP submission, 

Chapter 3.7.2 Ash Grove Cement Co, Durkee (01– 

0029). 

155 100a_ashgrove-cd.pdf included in the docket 

for this action. 

TABLE 4—FACILITIES SCREENED IN USING Q/d 149—Continued 

Facility 2017 Actual 

Q/d 

2017 PSEL 

Q/d Outcome 

Gilchrist Forest Products ................................................ 8.42 15.74 Conducted FFA—source determined controls cost effective. Modified permit to incorporate controls. 

Owens-Brockway Glass Container Inc ........................... 10.86 21.00 Conducted FFA—agreed order to impose additional 

controls. 

Boise Cascade Wood Products, LLC—Elgin Complex .. 10.08 15.04 Conducted FFA—agreed order to impose additional 

controls. 

Georgia Pacific—Wauna Mill .......................................... 16.18 28.38 Conducted FFA—agreed order to impose additional

controls. 

Cascade Pacific Pulp, LLC—Halsey Pulp Mill ............... 8.86 23.69 Conducted FFA—agreed order to impose additional 

controls. 

Gas Transmission Northwest LLC—Compressor Station 13.2.34 19.68 Conducted FFA—agreed order to impose additional 

controls. 

International Paper—Springfield ..................................... 16.51 67.24 Conducted FFA—agreed order to impose additional

controls. 

Georgia-Pacific—Toledo LLC ......................................... 7.83 20.33 Conducted FFA—agreed order to impose additional 

controls. 

Northwest Pipeline LLC—Oregon City Compressor Station.3.64 13.49 Conducted FFA—agreed order to impose additional 

controls. 

EVRAZ Inc. NA ............................................................... 3.57 11.92 Conducted FFA—agreed order to impose additional 

controls. 

Biomass One, L.P ........................................................... 4.77 9.86 Conducted FFA—agreed order to impose additional 

controls. 

Roseburg Forest Products—Dillard ................................ 19.07 30.67 Conducted FFA—agreed order to impose additional 

controls. 

Willamette Falls Paper Company ................................... 3.79 26.46 Conducted FFA—agreed order to impose additional 

controls. 

Sources That Already Have Effective 

Emission Control Technology in Place 

In certain circumstances, states may 

properly determine that a particular 

facility already has effective emission 

control technology in place.152 A state 

that does not select a source or sources 

for this reason should explain why the 

decision is consistent with the 

requirement to make reasonable 

progress. ODEQ determined that 2 

facilities of the originally screened 32 

met this criterion, Klamath Energy LLC 

and Ash Grove Cement. 

In a May 28, 2020, letter from ODEQ 

to Klamath Energy, ODEQ 

acknowledged plans by the facility to 

install ultra low-NOX burners on the 

facility’s combined cycle combustion 

turbines (emissions units CT1 and CT2). 

These planned upgrades are in addition 

to Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) 

control technology already in place at 

the CT1 and CT2 units and other 

associated units, CT3 through CT6. 

ODEQ estimated that the planned 

upgrades would reduce the facility 

combined PM10, SO2, and NOX PSELs to 

122 tons per year, yielding a Q/d less 

than 5.00. Importantly, the 2020 permit 

modification did not include revised 

PSELs, but relied on installation of 

planned controls by January 1, 2022, as 

required under condition 3.a. of the 

permit modification. Therefore, as part 

of the November 22, 2023 supplement to 

the regional haze plan, ODEQ submitted 

relevant portions of the December 8, 

2020, permit modification detailing 

installation and operation of the ultra 

low-NOX combustors, as well as 

relevant conditions from the June 12 

2017, permit to include the existing 

pollution control devices for the 

remaining emissions units for 

incorporation by reference into the SIP. 

In reviewing the planned controls for 

these units, as well as the existing 

controls for other units at the facility, 

we are proposing to determine the 

facility has effective emission control 

technology in place, and those controls 

and associated emissions limits are 

included in the SIP. 

As discussed in Oregon’s May 18, 

2020, letter included in the docket for 

this action, the Ash Grove Cement, 

Durkee plant recently underwent a 

control analysis and ODEQ determined 

that no additional controls required 

through the regional haze second 

implementation period were likely to be 

effective or reasonable.153 To reach this 

determination, ODEQ reviewed 

information the facility sent regarding 

particulate matter emissions which are 

controlled by a recently installed 

baghouse system in accordance with the 

2018 Portland Cement National 

Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 

Pollutants (NESHAP) revisions, the 

facility’s Air Contaminant Discharge 

Permit (ACDP) from 2017 (Permit No. 

01–0029–CS–01), and the 2017 

administrative amendment to the permit 

(Permit No. 01–0029–TV–01).154 In 

addition, ODEQ considered the 

enforcement actions that the EPA took 

on Portland Cement companies in 

conjunction with the State of Oregon 

and the resulting consent decrees to 

further control emissions.155 With 

respect to the plant in Durkee, the 

consent decree required installation and 

continuous operation of selective 

noncatalytic reduction (SNCR) at Kiln 1, 

a 30-day rolling average emission limit 

of 2 pounds NOX per ton of clinker, and 

a 3-hour average emission limit of 0.4 

pounds SO2 per ton of clinker. Based on 

the controls from the 2018 NESHAP and 

the consent decree requirements, ODEQ 

determined that the facility has effective 

emission control technology in place. 

We are proposing to concur with that 

determination for this planning period. 

ODEQ submitted the October 16, 2020, 

Title V permit for Ash Grove Cement for 

the incorporation of relevant permit 

conditions in the SIP for the existing 

controls and emissions limits related to 

regional haze. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 37 / Friday, February 23, 2024 / Proposed Rules 13641 

156Permit conditions: 56. Monitoring 

Requirement, 56a.Emission Calculation, Table 6 

(Emission Factors) for Boilers 1 and 2 for PM10, SO2, 

NOX, 59–61. General Monitoring Requirements, 62– 

65. General Recordkeeping Requirements, 66–70 

Boiler NESHAP Recordkeeping Requirements, and 

71–75 General Reporting Requirements. 

157Permit conditions: 186–189: PSEL monitoring 

for PM10, NOX and SO2, 192: recordkeeping 

requirements, and 198: PSEL compliance reporting. 

Facilities With Additional Controls 

Under OAR 340–223–0110(1) all 

sources subject to the requirements of 

the regional haze second 

implementation period, as determined 

in OAR 340–223–0100 Screening 

Methodology for Sources for Round II of 

Regional Haze, were required to submit 

a four-factor analysis consistent with the 

provisions of OAR 340–223–0120 Four 

Factor Analysis. Specifically, sources 

were required to conduct four-factor 

analyses for all ‘‘round II regional haze 

pollutants’’ defined by Oregon as SO2, 

NOX, and PM10. Under 340–223–0120, 

ODEQ may adjust information in the 

four-factor analyses for consistency or 

adjust the four-factor analyses based on 

other information ODEQ determines to 

be accurate, adequate, and sufficient. 

ODEQ reviewed the four-factor analyses 

from the facilities and adjusted for 

consistency with basic factors such as 

interest rates, equipment lifetime, and 

using potential to emit (PSEL) levels 

instead of actual emissions in 

determining potential cost-effective 

controls. 

The four-factor analyses submitted to 

ODEQ pursuant to 340–223–0120, with 

the exception of Owens-Brockway and 

Gilchrist Forest Products, indicated that 

additional NOX, PM10, and SO2 controls 

were either technologically infeasible or 

not cost effective. Nevertheless, Oregon 

reviewed these analyses and determined 

that in some cases controls may be 

feasible and cost effective. Accordingly, 

in letters dated January 21, 2021, ODEQ 

notified facilities based on the 

information provided in the four-factor 

analyses submitted by the sources that 

additional controls may be reasonable at 

the cost effective $10,000 per ton 

reduction threshold. ODEQ provided 

preliminary determinations of the 

control measures that may be reasonable 

based on rough cost control analyses. 

Importantly, these preliminary 

determinations did not factor in sitespecific feasibility or other sourcespecific considerations. Therefore, the 

January 21, 2021, letters invited the 

affected facilities to discuss ODEQ’s 

preliminary determination and provide 

additional information as the basis for 

alternative compliance through a SAFO 

between the parties under OAR 340– 

223–0110(2). These SAFOs and permit 

conditions imposed the new controls, 

emission limits, and/or emission 

monitoring at 13 facilities discussed 

below. 

Boise Cascade Wood Products, LLC— 

Elgin Complex—Order 31–0006 and 

Associated Permit Conditions 156

• Establishing a PSEL for SO2

effective July 31, 2022. 

• Installation of a Continuous 

Emission Monitoring System (CEMS) on 

Boiler 1 and Boiler 2 to measure NOX

emissions by September 31, 2022. 

• Installation of combustion 

improvement project or projects 

designed to achieve emissions 

reductions of NOX from Boiler 1 and 

Boiler 2 by 15% by July 31, 2023. 

Biomass One, L.P.—Order 15–0159 

• Installation of CEMS on the north 

and south boilers by July 31, 2022. 

• NOX optimization plan within 180 

days after installation of the NOX CEMS. 

• If Permittee is able to finalize a new 

power purchase agreement (PPA), 

Permittee shall notify ODEQ in writing 

within 14 calendar days. Or, if no new 

PPA is signed, Permittee shall cease 

operation by January 1, 2027, and 

request cancellation of their Title V 

operating permit. 

• If a new PPA is signed, then no later 

than 180 days after notifying ODEQ of 

the new PPA, the Permittee shall submit 

a complete application for installation 

of NOX reduction technology that 

includes SCR on the North Boiler and 

South Boiler or demonstrates SCR is 

technically infeasible or presents other 

unacceptable energy or non-air quality 

impact. If SCR is technically infeasible 

or presents such other unacceptable 

impacts, the Permittee will propose the 

best available, technically feasible, and 

achievable NOX reduction option for 

ODEQ’s review and approval. ODEQ 

will notify Permittee and provide 

Permittee with a reasonable opportunity 

to comment before approving a NOX

reduction option in response to 

Permittee’s application. 

EVRAZ Inc.—Order 26–1865 

• By December 31, 2024, install low 

NOX burners on the pre-heat portions of 

EU–10 Reheat Furnace with a designed 

NOX emission factor of 170 pounds per 

million cubic feet of natural gas. 

• During 2025, the permittee shall 

conduct source testing to verify the NOX

emission factor for the EU–10 reheat 

furnace. After consultation with the 

permittee, ODEQ will calculate the new 

potential to emit (PTE) from EU–10 

reheat furnace using the new NOX

emission factor and adjust the 

permittee’s NOX PSEL in its permit to 

account for the revised PTE, either 

pursuant to OAR 340–218– 

0200(1)(a)(A), as applicable, or upon 

permit renewal. 

Georgia-Pacific—Toledo LLC—Order 

21–0005 

• By July 31, 2026, the permittee shall 

complete a NOX reduction project that 

includes the installation of low NOX

burners, flue gas recirculation, and 

CEMS on the three boilers, EU–11, EU– 

13, and EU–18 in order to achieve an 

emissions rate no greater than 0.09 lb/ 

MMBtu on a seven day rolling basis. 

• Or, the permittee shall complete 

replacement of EU–11, EU–13, and EU– 

18 with new technology no later than 

July 3l, 2031. PSELs for the replacement 

shall be 889 tons per year of NOX, 437 

tons per year of SO2, and 311 tons per 

year of PM10, or the PSELs of the 

replaced units, whichever is lower. 

Under this option, the permittee shall 

not operate EU–11, EU–13, and EU–18 

after July 31, 2031. 

Georgia Pacific—Wauna Mill—Order 

No. 04–0004, Amendment No. 04–004– 

A1 

• NOX PSEL reductions phased from 

2022 to 2026. 

• By December 31, 2024, the 

permittee shall replace the existing 

Yankee burner with a low NOX burner 

achieving less than or equal to 0.03 

pounds per million British thermal unit 

(lb/MMBtu). 

• For Paper Machine 6: TAD1 Burner 

and TAD2 Burner, and Paper Machine 

7: TAD1 Burner and TAD 2 Burner, the 

permittee shall have a NOX emissions 

rate no greater than 0.06 lb/MMBtu for 

each emissions point and shall use this 

emission rate for calculating compliance 

with PSELs. 

• By July 31, 2026, the permittee shall 

install low NOX burners, flue gas 

recirculation, and CEMS on the power 

boiler to achieve an emissions rate no 

greater than 0.09 lb/MMBtu on a seven 

day rolling basis. 

International Paper Company— 

Springfield Mill—Order 208850 and 

Associated Permit Conditions 157

• Effective July 31, 2022, the 

permittee’s combined assigned PSELs 

for the power boiler, package boiler, 

lime kilns and recovery furnace shall be 

237 tons per year for SO2, 962 tons per 

year for NOX, and 177 tons per year for 

PM10, as a 12-month rolling average. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
13642 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 37 / Friday, February 23, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

158Page 4. 

159 75 FR 12651, March 8, 2011, at page 12660. 

160Permit conditions: 33. Monitor and Record: for 

PM10, SO2, and NOX, 34. General Testing 

Requirement, 35. EU4 Emission Factor Verification 

Testing Requirements: for PM10, NOX, SO2, 36–38. 

General Monitoring and Recordkeeping 

Requirements, 39–42. General Recordkeeping 

Requirements, 43–46. General Reporting 

Requirements, and 47–48. Semi-annual and Annual 

Reports. 

161Permit conditions: 40a–40g. Monitoring 

Requirement: for PM10, NOX, SO2, 41. Visible 

Emission Monitoring Procedure, 42. Source Testing 

and Emission Factor Verification Procedure: for 

PM10, NOX, SO2, 43–45. General Monitoring 

Requirements, 46–49. General Recordkeeping 

Requirements, 50–53. General Reporting 

Requirements, and 54–56. Semi-annual and Annual 

Reports. 

162Permit conditions: 24–26. General Monitoring 

Requirements, 32–35. General Recordkeeping 

Requirements, 37–40. General Reporting 

Requirements, and 41–44. Semi-Annual and 

Annual Reports. 

• On the effective date of the SAFO, 

the permittee agrees to a fuel restriction 

to use natural gas for the power boiler 

and package boiler, except that it may 

operate on ultra-low sulfur diesel for no 

more than 48 hours per year and when 

needed for natural gas curtailments. 

• On the effective date of the SAFO, 

the permittee agrees to a fuel restriction 

to use natural gas and black liquor 

solids for the recovery furnace, except 

that it may operate on ultra-low sulfur 

diesel for no more than 48 hours per 

year and when needed for natural gas 

curtailments. 

• On the effective date of the SAFO, 

the permittee agrees to a fuel restriction 

to use natural gas, product turpentine, 

and product methanol for the lime kilns, 

except that it may operate the lime kilns 

on ultra-low sulfur diesel for no more 

than 48 hours per year and when 

needed for natural gas curtailments. 

• By December 31, 2022, the 

permittee shall install CEMS and 

measure the emissions of NOX from the 

power boiler. 

• On and after January 31, 2025, 

International Paper shall meet the 

following emission limit: a 0.25 lb NOX/ 

MMBtu on a 7-day rolling average from 

the power boiler. 

• On and after December 31, 2025, 

the assigned PSEL for the power boiler 

is: 179 tons per year for NOX, as a 12- 

month rolling average. 

In Oregon’s November 22, 2023 

supplement to the regional haze SIP,158

ODEQ provided technical background 

information to demonstrate that the 

newly imposed conditions under Order 

208850 at International Paper Company 

Springfield Mill for the second regional 

haze planning period provide more 

stringent emissions control than the 

prior emission limits and methods cited 

by the EPA in our determination that 

this source was not subject-to-BART in 

the first regional haze planning 

period.159

Owens-Brockway—Order 26–1876 and 

Associated Permit Conditions 160

• Permanent shutdown of Furnace A. 

• PSEL limit for combined PM10 + 

NOX + SO2 = 274.95 tons per year which 

results in a Q/d = 4.99, consistent with 

OAR 340–223–0110(2)(b)(A). 

Willamette Falls Paper Company— 

Order 03–2145 and Associated Permit 

Conditions 161

• Effective August 1, 2022, the 

permittee’s PSELs shall be 20 tons per 

year for PM10, 240 tons per year for 

NOX, and 5 tons per year for SO2. 

• On the effective date of the SAFO, 

the permittee agrees to a restriction that 

the only fuel the permittee may combust 

in Boiler 1, Boiler 2 and Boiler 3 is 

natural gas, except for ultra-low sulfur 

diesel for no more than 48 hours per 

year. 

Gas Transmission Northwest 

Compressor Station 13—OAH CASE 

NO. 2021–ABC–4835 DEQ CASE NO. 

AQ/RH–HQ–2021–140 and Associated 

Permit Conditions 162

• By July 31, 2026, install and 

maintain SCR and an associated 

monitoring system on both Turbines 

13C and 13D. 

• Alternatively, by no later than July 

31, 2031, replace Turbines 13C and 13D 

with new technology that meets the 

most recent permitting standards and 

requirements for new emission units 

(including but not limited to New 

Source Performance Standards) in place 

at the time of the respondent submitting 

a permit application for the project. 

Gilchrist Forest Products—Permit 18– 

0005–TV–01, Addendum No. 1 

• Installation of an electrostatic 

precipitator on boilers B–1 and B–2. 

• A PM10 PSEL reduction from 172 

tpy to 77 tpy. 

Northwest Pipeline LLC—Oregon City 

Compressor Station—Order 03–2729, 

Amendment 03–2729–A1 

• Under the SAFO, the permittee 

agrees to replace two reciprocating 

internal combustion engines to meet the 

emission limits and requirements of the 

most recent New Source Performance 

Standard. No later than July 1, 2026, 

ODEQ and the permittee will meet to 

discuss what permitting needs are 

necessary for the replacement, with 

replacement complete no later than July 

31, 2031. 

Cascade Pacific Pulp, LLC—Halsey Pulp 

Mill—Order 22–3501–A2 

• By June 30, 2024, the permittee 

shall eliminate the use of #6 fuel oil. 

• No later than July 31, 2031, replace 

power boiler #2 with a new emissions 

unit that will achieve a limit of 0.036 lbs 

NOX/MMBtu as a 30-day rolling 

average. 

• Upon replacement of power boiler 

#2, limit emissions from power boiler #1 

to no more than 27 tons of NOX per 

year. 

Roseburg Forest Products, Dillard— 

Order 10–0025 

• By July 31, 2022, the permittee shall 

install CEMS to measure the emissions 

of NOX from Boiler 1, Boiler 2 and 

Boiler 6. 

• From January 31, 2023, until June 

30, 2025, the permittee shall meet the 

following emission limits: 0.30 lb NOX/ 

MMBtu on a 7-day rolling average at 

Boiler 1; 0.30 lb NOX/MMBtu on a 7-day 

rolling average at Boiler 2; 0.28 lb NOX/ 

MMBtu on a 7-day rolling average at 

Boiler 6; Or average of emissions from 

boiler 1, boiler 2, and boiler 6 of 0.28 

lb NOX/MMBtu (7-day rolling average). 

• By January 31, 2024, the permittee 

shall notify ODEQ whether the 

permittee will comply with the 

emission limits below using boiler 

optimization or through installation of 

SNCR. If permittee determines SNCR is 

necessary to meet emission limits, 

SNCR shall be installed, permitted, and 

operational by June 30, 2025. 

• On and after June 30, 2025, the 

permittee shall meet the following 

emission limits: 0.27 lb NOX/MMBtu on 

a 7-day rolling average at Boiler 1; 0.26 

lb NOX/MMBtu on a 7-day rolling 

average at Boiler 2; 0.26 lb NOX/MMBtu 

on a 7-day rolling average at Boiler 6; or 

average of emissions from Boiler 1, 

Boiler 2, and Boiler 6 of 0.25 lb NOX/ 

MMBtu (7-day rolling average). 

The EPA notes that each of the 

controls and emission limits discussed 

above limit emissions of one or more of 

the ‘‘round II regional haze pollutants.’’ 

In most cases, Oregon determined that 

NOX was the dominant visibilityimpairing pollutant from the sources 

and thus imposed additional NOX

controls or submitted the enforceable 

emission limitations for existing NOX

controls. For some emission units 

within the stationary sources discussed 

in the previous paragraphs, Oregon did 

not adopt additional pollutant-specific 

controls, primarily for PM10 and SO2. 

Based on a review of the four-factor 

analyses, Oregon determined that these 

emission units either already employ 

existing effective controls or, by virtue 

of design, have insignificant emissions. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 37 / Friday, February 23, 2024 / Proposed Rules 13643 

163See, e.g., 115_18-0013Collins4FA.pdf at 3–4; 

104_haze_BoiseCasecade-ElginFFA.pdf at 2–14; 

107_haze-BoiseCascade-Medford-FFA.pdf; 110_

haze-CascadePacificPulp-HalseyMill-FFA.pdf at 2– 

8, 3–5, 4–6–4–11, 3; 117_18- 

0014ColumbiaForestProducts4FA.pdf at 11. 

164See 104_haze_BoiseCasecade-ElginFFA.pdf at 

2–15; 107_haze-BoiseCascade-Medford-FFA.pdf at 

2–4. 

165The facility-submitted four-factor analyses and 

ODEQ response letters are included in the docket 

for this action. 

In particular, Oregon determined that 

PM10 emissions for most of the relevant 

emission units have been and continue 

to be controlled by multiclones, 

electrostatic precipitators, baghouses, or 

other feasible technology that 

consistently achieves >90% control 

efficiency for PM10. As a general matter, 

the four-factor analyses indicated that 

PM10 controls have been in place for 

many years to meet Federal NESHAP, 

NSPS, or Oregon SIP requirements and 

that these controls must remain in place 

to meet these continuing standards for 

the duration of the second planning 

period.163 Accordingly, Oregon 

determined that these existing effective 

controls were not necessary for 

reasonable progress for the second 

planning period. 

In other cases, Oregon determined 

that the nature and mode of operation 

of particular sources yielded 

insignificant emissions. For example, at 

the Boise Cascade Wood Products, 

LLC’s Elgin and Medford Mills the 

sulfur content of wood derived fuel is 

low, and the majority of the sulfur 

content is combined with the ash 

products of combustion.164 Thus, 

Oregon either did not select these 

emission units for four-factor analysis 

for a given pollutant or determined that 

the existing emission limits for a given 

pollutant were not necessary for 

reasonable progress. Therefore, Oregon 

focused primarily on NOX and SO2, 

with PM10 analysis and limits when 

warranted. Accordingly, to the extent 

that Oregon did not submit the 

enforceable emission limitations for 

PM10 or other pollutant controls for 

certain emission units within a given 

source selected for four-factor analysis 

the EPA proposes to determine that 

Oregon’s selection of emission units to 

review under the four factors is 

consistent with the Regional Haze Rule 

and that the existing effective controls 

are not necessary for reasonable 

progress. 

Facilities for Which No Controls Were 

Cost-Effective 

ODEQ reviewed the four-factor 

analyses from the facilities and adjusted 

for consistency with basic factors such 

as using current prime rate (3.25%), 30- 

year lifetime, and calculation of cost 

effective controls using PSEL emissions 

limits rather than actual emissions. 

After initial review, ODEQ ruled out 

control devices for which the cost of 

control was greater than $10,000 per ton 

or provided an emissions reduction 

(using emissions at PSEL) of less than 

20 tons per year. In letters sent August 

and September 2020, ODEQ notified 6 

facilities with the determination that the 

agency did not find any controls 

deemed cost effective at the $10,000/ton 

threshold.165 These facilities were 

Pacific Wood Laminates, Inc., Swanson 

Group Mfg. L.L.C., Ochoco Lumber 

Company, Columbia Forest Products, 

Inc., Collins Products, L.L.C., and 

Woodgrain Millwork L.L.C.— 

Particleboard. In order to ensure no 

future impairment to visibility from 

these facilities, ODEQ submitted Title V 

permits for these facilities to incorporate 

into the SIP permitting conditions for 

these existing controls relevant to the 

regional haze program. The EPA 

reviewed these four-factor analyses, and 

we propose to find that ODEQ’s 

determinations for these sources are 

reasonable and consistent with 40 CFR 

51.308(f)(2)(i) and (iii). 

The EPA’s Proposed Approval Oregon’s 

Long-Term Strategy for Stationary 

Sources 

The EPA reviewed ODEQ’s four-factor 

analyses, determinations of controls 

necessary for reasonable progress, and 

submitted SAFOs and permit 

conditions. Based on this review, the 

EPA proposes to determine that 

Oregon’s long-term strategy meets the 

requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i) 

through (iii). Oregon submitted 

numerous four-factor analyses and 

demonstrated that its determination of 

controls necessary for reasonable 

progress were an outgrowth of its 

consideration of the four statutory 

factors. Notably, Oregon’s $10,000 cost 

per ton threshold is one of, if not the 

highest, cost thresholds established by 

any state specifically for evaluating 

controls for the regional haze program. 

Ultimately, Oregon imposed new, 

substantive controls at 13 facilities 

(covering over 36 emissions units) and 

established emissions limits at an 

additional 10 facilities with low actual 

emissions to ensure that future 

emissions do not rise above the 

screening threshold. 

The EPA acknowledges that the final 

control measures imposed by the SAFOs 

and permits described in the preceding 

paragraphs in some cases differ from 

Oregon’s preliminary control 

determinations contained in ODEQ’s 

January 21, 2021, letters. We reviewed 

the four-factor analyses and Chapter 3.7 

of Oregon’s regional haze SIP, FacilitySpecific Findings and Results, which 

contain a brief overview of the sitespecific and feasibility concerns ODEQ 

considered in making final 

determinations, along with additional 

supporting information contained in the 

November 22, 2023, supplement. 

Based on this review, the changes 

from preliminary to final control 

determinations appear reasonable and 

consistent with the Regional Haze Rule. 

Importantly, Oregon’s iterative process 

to identify and adopt technically 

feasible, cost-effective controls 

reinforces that the State considered the 

four statutory factors to determine the 

controls necessary for reasonable 

progress. 

Considering ODEQ’s conservative 

screening methodology to use permitted 

emissions limits, the high $10,000 cost 

per ton reduction threshold Oregon 

used in reviewing the four-factor 

analyses submitted by the sources, the 

conservative methodology of evaluating 

controls using permitted emissions 

limits, the number of new emissions 

controls imposed specifically under the 

regional haze program, and the 

significant emissions reductions 

achieved through the SAFOs described 

in the previous paragraphs, we are 

proposing to determine that Oregon 

satisfied the requirement to determine 

the emission reduction measures that 

are necessary to make reasonable 

progress by considering the costs of 

compliance, the time necessary for 

compliance, the energy and non-air 

quality environmental impacts of 

compliance, and the remaining useful 

life of any potentially affected 

anthropogenic source of visibility 

impairment. 

c. Additional Long-Term Strategy 

Requirements 

The consultation requirements of 40 

CFR 51.308(f)(2)(ii) provide that states 

must consult with other states that are 

reasonably anticipated to contribute to 

visibility impairment in a Class I area to 

develop coordinated emission 

management strategies containing the 

emission reductions measures that are 

necessary to make reasonable progress. 

Section 51.308(f)(2)(ii)(A) and (B) 

require states to consider the emission 

reduction measures identified by other 

states as necessary for reasonable 

progress and to include agreed upon 

measures in their SIPs, respectively. 

Section 51.308(f)(2)(ii)(C) speaks to 

what happens if states cannot agree on 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
13644 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 37 / Friday, February 23, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

166April 29, 2022 Oregon SIP submission, 

Chapter 6.2. Consultations with States. 

167April 29, 2022 Oregon SIP submission, 

Chapter 3.3 Impact of facilities in other states on 

Oregon Class 1 areas. 

168April 29, 2022, Oregon SIP submission, 

Chapter 5.1 Reasonable progress goals for Class I 

areas. 

169April 29, 2022 Oregon SIP submission, 

Chapter 4.5 Measures to Mitigate Impacts of 

Construction Activities and Mobile Source 

Strategies. 

170 Ibid. 

171 86 FR 27976, May 25, 2021. 

172 82 FR 47122, October 11, 2017. 

173OAR Division 262—Heat Smart Program for 

Residential Woodstoves and Other Solid Fuel 

Heating Devices. 

what measures are necessary to make 

reasonable progress. 

Oregon participated in and provided 

documentation of the WRAP intra- and 

inter-regional planning organization 

consultation processes in the 

submission.166 Oregon also had direct 

consultations with California, Idaho, 

Nevada, and Washington for sources 

where a Q/d analysis showed potential 

impacts on Oregon Class I areas or 

where Oregon sources may impact other 

states, as discussed in section IV.C of 

this preamble. The Oregon SIP 

submissions contain the list of out-ofstate facilities potentially impacting 

Oregon Class I areas and a summary of 

the four-factor analysis process and the 

potential controls pursued by Idaho, 

Nevada, and Washington at the time of 

the consultation.167 During the state-tostate consultation and WRAP process, 

no other states identified measures for 

Oregon to consider. Therefore, we are 

proposing to determine that the Oregon 

regional haze plan satisfies 40 CFR 

51.308(f)(2)(ii)(A) and (B). Oregon also 

satisfies 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(ii)(C) by 

having participated in the WRAP’s 

consultation process and direct 

consultation with California, Idaho, 

Nevada, and Washington. No 

disagreements were raised by other 

states with respect to Oregon’s planning 

efforts. We propose to determine that 

Oregon has satisfied the consultation 

requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(ii). 

The documentation requirement of 40 

CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iii) provides that states 

may meet their obligations to document 

the technical bases on which they are 

relying to determine the emission 

reduction measures that are necessary to 

make reasonable progress through a 

regional planning organization, as long 

as the process has been ‘‘approved by all 

State participants.’’ As explained above, 

Oregon chose to rely on WRAP 

technical information, modeling, and 

analysis to support development of its 

long-term strategy, as well as the State’s 

own analyses. The WRAP technical 

analyses on which Oregon relied are 

listed in the State’s SIP submissions and 

include source contribution 

assessments, information on each of the 

four factors and visibility modeling 

information for selected sources, and 

evaluations of emission reduction 

strategies based on the anticipated 

control measures.168 Oregon also 

provided supplemental information to 

demonstrate the technical bases and 

emission information on which it relied 

to determine the emission reductions 

measures that are necessary to make 

reasonable progress. Based on the 

documentation provided by the State, 

we propose to find that Oregon has 

satisfied the requirements of 40 CFR 

51.308(f)(2)(iii). 

Section 51.308(f)(2)(iii) also requires 

that the emissions information 

considered to determine the measures 

that are necessary to make reasonable 

progress include information on 

emissions for the most recent year for 

which the state has submitted triennial 

emissions data to the EPA (or a more 

recent year), with a 12-month 

exemption period for newly submitted 

data. Oregon’s SIP submission included 

2017 NEI emission data for regional 

haze forming pollutants. Based on 

Oregon’s consideration and analysis of 

emissions data in their SIP submissions, 

the EPA proposes to find that Oregon 

has satisfied the emissions information 

requirement in 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iii). 

We also propose to find that Oregon 

reasonably considered the five 

additional factors in 40 CFR 

51.308(f)(2)(iv) in developing its longterm strategy. Pursuant to 40 

CFR51.308(f)(2)(iv)(A), Oregon detailed 

the existing and ongoing State and 

Federal emission control programs that 

contribute to emission reductions 

through 2028. The Oregon regional haze 

SIP highlights the State’s aggressive 

programs for mobile sources, including 

Oregon’s adoption of California rules for 

medium- and heavy-duty on-road 

vehicles, Low Emission Vehicle and 

ZEV standards for passenger vehicles, 

and a state clean fuels program.169 Many 

of these same measures, as well as other 

measures for the nonroad mobile source 

category, also mitigate the impacts of 

construction activities as required by 40 

CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iv)(B).170

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iv)(C), 

source retirements and replacement 

schedules are addressed in Chapter 4.4 

Necessary Emission Reduction 

Measures, On-going Air Pollution 

Control Programs and Source 

Retirement/Replacement of Oregon’s 

April 29, 2022, submission. The primary 

source retirement considered in 

developing the 2028 emission 

projections was permanent closure of 

the coal-fired power plant in Boardman, 

as required under the regional haze plan 

for the first implementation period. 

In considering smoke management as 

required in 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iv)(D), 

Oregon explained, in Chapter 4.6 Smoke 

Management Practices and Programs 

and Area Source Strategies that it 

addresses smoke management through 

its SIP-approved smoke management 

plan 171 and open burning rules.172

Open burn rules limit all types of open 

burning within the State and require 

that, where open burning is allowed, it 

is conducted only after obtaining 

appropriate permits for burning in 

specific locations on approved dates. 

Oregon also has several existing 

measures that help improve visibility at 

Class I areas including SIP-approved 

residential woodstove restrictions.173

Oregon considered the anticipated net 

effect of projected changes in emissions 

as required by 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iv)(E) 

by discussing, in Chapter 2.5 Source 

Apportionment of Visibility Impairment 

and Weighted Emission Potential of its 

April 29, 2022, submission, the 

photochemical modeling for the 2018– 

2028 period it conducted in 

collaboration with the WRAP. 

Because Oregon has reasonably 

considered each of the five additional 

factors the EPA proposes to find that 

Oregon has satisfied the requirements of 

40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iv). 

F. Reasonable Progress Goals 

Section 51.308(f)(3) contains the 

requirements pertaining to reasonable 

progress goals for each Class I area. 

Because Oregon is host to Class I areas, 

it is subject to both 40 CFR 

51.308(f)(3)(i) and, potentially, to (ii). 

Section 51.308(f)(3)(i) requires a state in 

which a Class I area is located to 

establish reasonable progress goals—one 

each for the most impaired and clearest 

days—reflecting the visibility 

conditions that will be achieved at the 

end of the implementation period as a 

result of the emission limitations, 

compliance schedules and other 

measures required under paragraph 

(f)(2) to be in states’ long-term strategies, 

as well as implementation of other 

Clean Air Act requirements. The longterm strategies as reflected by the 

reasonable progress goals must provide 

for an improvement in visibility on the 

most impaired days relative to the 

baseline period and ensure no 

degradation on the clearest days relative 

to the baseline period. Section 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 37 / Friday, February 23, 2024 / Proposed Rules 13645 

174Availability of Modeling Data and Associated 

Technical Support Document for the EPA’s 

Updated 2028 Visibility Air Quality Modeling, 

September 2019. 

175Availability of Modeling Data and Associated 

Technical Support Document for the EPA’s 

Updated 2028 Visibility Air Quality Modeling, 

September 2019. 

176April 29, 2022 Oregon SIP submission, 

Chapter 2.1 Most Impaired Days. 

51.308(f)(3)(ii) applies in circumstances 

in which a Class I area’s reasonable 

progress goals for the most impaired 

days represents a slower rate of 

visibility improvement than the uniform 

rate of progress calculated under 40 CFR 

51.308(f)(1)(vi). Under 40 CFR 

51.308(f)(3)(ii)(A), if the state in which 

a Class I area is located establishes a 

reasonable progress goal for the most 

impaired days that provides for a slower 

rate of visibility improvement than the 

uniform rate of progress, the state must 

demonstrate that there are no additional 

emission reduction measures for 

anthropogenic sources or groups of 

sources in the state that would be 

reasonable to include in its long-term 

strategy. Section 51.308(f)(3)(ii)(B) 

requires that if a state contains sources 

that are reasonably anticipated to 

contribute to visibility impairment in a 

Class I area in another state, and the 

reasonable progress goal for the most 

impaired days in that Class I area is 

above the uniform rate of progress, the 

upwind state must provide the same 

demonstration. 

Chapters 2.1 Most Impaired Days and 

2.2 Clearest Days of Oregon’s regional 

haze SIP summarize baseline visibility 

conditions (i.e., visibility conditions 

during the baseline period) for the most 

impaired and clearest days, as well as 

information on natural visibility 

conditions and the calculated URP in 

2018 and 2028. Chapter 5.1 Reasonable 

progress goals for Class I Areas shows 

the 2028 RPGs for the most impaired 

days and clearest days. The 2028 RPG 

projections are based on WRAP 

modeling which represents regulations 

on the books as of 2020 plus stationary 

source controls recommended from 

ODEQ’s review of the four-factor 

analyses submittals. The modeled 2028 

RPGs for the most impaired days are 

presented in table 5 of this preamble, 

along with adjusted and unadjusted 

2028 URP glidepaths as calculated by 

the EPA.174

TABLE 5—REASONABLE PROGRESS GOALS FOR THE MOST IMPAIRED DAYS

Monitor 

ID Class I area 

Baseline 

2000–2004 

(dv) 

Current 

conditions 

2014–2018 

(dv) 

WRAP 

2028 

RPGs 

(dv) 

Unadjusted 

glidepath 

20% most 

impaired 

days 

(dv) 

EPA 2028 

default 

adjusted 

glidepath 

(dv) 

MOHO Mt. Hood Wilderness Area .............................................................. 12.10 9.27 8.50 9.90 10.71 

THSI .... Mt. Jefferson, Mt. Washington, and Three Sisters Wilderness 

Areas.

12.80 11.28 10.86 10.60 11.62 

CRLA ... Crater Lake National Park; Diamond Peak, Mountain Lakes, and 

Gearhart Mountain Wilderness Areas.

9.36 7.98 7.72 7.70 8.85 

KALM .. Kalmiopsis Wilderness Area ........................................................... 13.34 11.97 11.63 11.13 11.87 

STAR ... Strawberry Mountain and Eagle Cap Wilderness Areas ................ 14.53 11.19 10.47 11.35 12.69 

HECA .. Hells Canyon Wilderness Area ....................................................... 16.51 12.33 11.66 12.53 13.93 

The 2017 Regional Haze Rule 

included a provision that allows states 

to propose an adjustment to the 

glidepath to account for impacts from 

anthropogenic sources outside the U.S. 

if the adjustment has been developed 

through scientifically valid data and 

methods. The EPA’s visibility guidance 

states ‘‘to calculate the proposed 

adjustment(s), the State must add the 

estimated impact(s) to the natural 

visibility condition and compare the 

baseline visibility condition for the most 

impaired days to the resulting sum.’’ In 

2019, the EPA conducted modeling to 

assist states in the development of 

Regional Haze SIPs for the second 

implementation period. In particular, 

the modeling provided the EPA’s first 

comprehensive estimate of international 

anthropogenic emissions contributions 

to visibility impairment at Class I 

areas.175 ODEQ chose not to adjust the 

glidepath to account for impacts from 

anthropogenic sources outside the U.S. 

As noted in Chapter 2.3 Emissions 

Inventory Analysis of Oregon’s regional 

haze SIP submission, the 2017 SO2

inventory is dominated by PGE 

Boardman’s coal-fired power plant in 

Morrow County. With the closing of the 

plant in October 2020, statewide SO2

emissions declined by 62%. ODEQ 

further concludes that at some monitors, 

ammonium sulfate is a large contributor 

to regional haze formation, but that 

contribution seems to be dominated by 

international anthropogenic sources and 

is projected to decrease by 77% as new 

standards for international marine 

shipping fuels take effect in 2020.176

Therefore, even though Oregon declined 

to adjust the glidepath for international 

anthropogenic sources, such as marine 

shipping, we believe this is information 

relevant to our review. In particular, all 

IMPROVE stations for Class I areas in 

Oregon have modeled 2028 RPGs below 

the 2028 URP glidepath as adjusted for 

international anthropogenic 

contribution for the most impaired days. 

For the most impaired days, the 2028 

RPGs also represent an improvement 

relative to both baseline visibility 

conditions and current visibility 

conditions. Similarly, for the clearest 

days, the 2028 RPGs also represent an 

improvement relative to both baseline 

visibility conditions and current 

visibility conditions, as shown in table 

6 of this preamble. 

TABLE 6—REASONABLE PROGRESS GOALS FOR THE CLEAREST DAYS

Monitor 

ID Class I area 

Baseline 

2000–2004 

(dv) 

Current 

conditions 

2014–2018 

(dv) 

WRAP 2028 

RPGs 

(dv) 

MOHO Mt. Hood Wilderness Area ..................................................................................................... 2.17 1.39 1.29 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
13646 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 37 / Friday, February 23, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

177 International Marine Organization. 2020. A 

Breath of Fresh Air. https://wwwcdn.imo.org/local

resources/en/MediaCentre/HotTopics/Documents/ 

Sulphur%202020%20infographic%202%20page.

pdf. 

TABLE 6—REASONABLE PROGRESS GOALS FOR THE CLEAREST DAYS—Continued 

Monitor 

ID Class I area 

Baseline 

2000–2004 

(dv) 

Current 

conditions 

2014–2018 

(dv) 

WRAP 2028 

RPGs 

(dv) 

THSI .... Mt. Jefferson, Mt. Washington, and Three Sisters Wilderness Areas .................................. 3.04 2.61 2.53 

CRLA ... Crater Lake National Park; Diamond Peak, Mountain Lakes, and Gearhart Mountain Wilderness Areas.1.69 1.05 0.98 

KALM .. Kalmiopsis Wilderness Area .................................................................................................. 6.27 5.90 5.84 

STAR ... Strawberry Mountain and Eagle Cap Wilderness Areas ....................................................... 2.17 1.39 1.29 

HECA .. Hells Canyon Wilderness Area .............................................................................................. 5.52 4.00 3.79 

As noted in the RHR at 40 CFR 

51.308(f)(3)(iii), the reasonable progress 

goals are not directly enforceable, but 

will be considered by the Administrator 

in evaluating the adequacy of the 

measures in the implementation plan in 

providing for reasonable progress 

towards achieving natural visibility 

conditions at specific Class I areas. 

Regardless of whether we use an 

adjusted or unadjusted URP glidepath to 

evaluate Oregon’s 2028 RPGs for the 

most impaired days, the regulatory 

purpose of the RPGs has been fulfilled 

because visibility conditions for all 

IMPROVE stations have improved since 

the baseline period. 

That said, because Oregon did not 

adjust the glidepath and because the 

2028 RPGs for several Class I areas are 

above the unadjusted glidepath, the 

demonstration requirement under 40 

CFR 51.308(f)(3)(ii)(A) is triggered. 

Oregon addressed this obligation in 

Chapter 5.2 Glidepath policy choice 

stating, ‘‘DEQ’s policy decision to 

represent URP as an unadjusted 

glidepath has some effect on whether 

2028 visibility projections fall slightly 

below or slightly above the glidepath 

(primarily at the central and southern 

Oregon IMPROVE sites), but DEQ did 

not base regulatory stationary source 

control decisions on the URP. DEQ 

based control decisions on the factors 

described in section 3 of this plan, 

including analyses based on the four 

statutory factors. As discussed in 

section III.D. of this preamble, visibility 

projections below the glidepath do not 

provide ‘safe harbor’ for sources. 

The EPA acknowledges Oregon’s 

position. The IMPROVE monitoring 

stations in the Cascades (THSI and 

CRLA) and Kalmiopsis (KALM) that are 

projected to have 2028 RPGs at or above 

the unadjusted glidepath are the same 

IMPROVE monitoring stations that 

Oregon demonstrated are highly 

impacted by international marine 

shipping as described in section IV.E.a. 

of this preamble. These emissions are 

projected to decrease by 77% due to 

new standards for international marine 

shipping fuels which became effective 

in 2020.177 Also as described in section 

IV.E.a. of this preamble, statewide NOX

emissions are primarily from mobile 

sources, at about 80% of the inventory. 

The Oregon regional haze SIP highlights 

the State’s aggressive programs for 

mobile sources, including Oregon’s 

adoption of California rules for mediumand heavy-duty on-road vehicles, Low 

Emission Vehicle and ZEV standards for 

passenger vehicles, and the State’s clean 

fuels program, representing one of the 

most stringent mobile source programs 

allowed under the Federal Clean Air 

Act. 

Section 51.308(f)(3)(ii)(A) requires 

that the state provide an assessment of 

the number of years it would take to 

attain natural visibility conditions if 

visibility improvement were to continue 

at the rate of progress selected by the 

state as reasonable for the 

implementation period. Because these 

two source categories described in the 

prior paragraphs, mobile source 

standards and international marine 

shipping, are generally outside the 

control of the State, ODEQ did not 

directly address this requirement. 

However, the State made clear in 

Chapter 5.2 Glidepath policy choice that 

Oregon fully intends to achieve natural 

conditions consistent with the 

unadjusted URP glidepath. Thus, 

Oregon’s regional haze SIP clearly 

indicates that the State’s assessment of 

the number of years it would take to 

achieve natural visibility conditions 

remains unchanged from that predicted 

by the URP glidepath at THIS and 

CRLA. In support of this argument, 

ODEQ highlighted the new standards for 

international marine shipping fuels that 

will dramatically reduce regional haze 

precursors, as discussed above. We are 

proposing to determine that this is a 

reasonable assumption because the State 

RPGs in question are only marginally 

above the unadjusted 2028 URP 

glidepath and generally well below the 

2028 adjusted URP glidepath calculated 

by the EPA to account for contribution 

outside the State’s control, such as 

international marine shipping. See 

Table 5 of this preamble. 

Given the dominance of these two 

emissions source categories on the 

overall inventory, it is highly unlikely 

that differences in the stationary source 

controls selected by Oregon would 

significantly impact the projected RPG 

modeling for these IMPROVE 

monitoring stations. Nevertheless, as 

described in section IV.E.b. of this 

preamble, considering ODEQ’s 

conservative screening methodology to 

use permitted emissions limits, the high 

$10,000 cost per ton reduction threshold 

Oregon used in reviewing the four-factor 

analyses submitted by the sources, the 

conservative methodology of evaluating 

controls using permitted emissions 

limits, the number of new emissions 

controls imposed specifically under the 

regional haze program, and the 

significant emissions reductions 

achieved, we are proposing to determine 

that there are no additional emission 

reduction measures for anthropogenic 

sources or groups of sources in the State 

that may reasonably be anticipated to 

contribute to visibility impairment in 

the Class I area that would be reasonable 

to include in the long-term strategy and 

that Oregon has met the robust 

demonstration requirement under 40 

CFR 51.308(f)(3)(ii)(A). 

Under 40 CFR 51.308(f)(3)(ii)(B), a 

state that contains sources that are 

reasonably anticipated to contribute to 

visibility impairment in a Class I area in 

another state for which a demonstration 

by the other state is required under 40 

CFR 51.308(f)(3)(ii)(B) must demonstrate 

that there are no additional emission 

reduction measures that would be 

reasonable to include in its long-term 

strategy. Oregon’s SIP revision included 

the modeled WRAP 2028 visibility 

projections for Redwood National Park 

and Lava Beds National Monument in 

California, both of which have WRAPVerDate Sep<11>2014 16:53 Feb 22, 2024 Jkt 262001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23FEP1.SGM 23FEP1

ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 37 / Friday, February 23, 2024 / Proposed Rules 13647 

178Although Nevada was included in Oregon’s 

state to state consultation, Oregon’s Q/d analysis 

showed greater potential impacts on California, 

Idaho, and Washington Class I areas. Therefore, 

Oregon’s RPG analysis focused on those impacted 

Class I areas. See April 29, 2022, Oregon SIP 

submission, Table 3 3. Oregon facilities with 

potential visibility impacts on other states. 

179April 29, 2022 Oregon SIP submission, 

Chapter 5.2 Glidepath policy choice. 

180http://views.cira.colostate.edu/tssv2/. 

181April 29, 2022 Oregon SIP submission, 

Chapter 2.5 Source Apportionment of Visibility 

Impairment and Weighted Emission Potential. 

calculated 2028 RPGs slightly above the 

unadjusted 2028 URP glidepath. All 

other potentially affected Class I areas in 

Idaho (Hells Canyon Wilderness Area— 

HECA), and Washington (Mount Rainier 

National Park—MORA and Mount 

Adam Wilderness Area/Goat Rocks 

Wilderness Area—WHPA) had 2028 

RPGs below the unadjusted 2028 URP 

glidepath.178 Oregon addressed these 

two California Class I areas with RPGs 

above the unadjusted glidepath using 

the same rationale as the demonstration 

for 40 CFR 51.308(f)(3)(ii)(A).179

In reviewing Oregon’s regional haze 

SIP submissions, we note that Oregon 

identified one facility, Roseburg Forest 

Products—Dillard, as potentially 

impacting Redwood National Park with 

a Q/d of 10.39 based on 2017 actual 

emissions. Oregon’s regional haze SIP 

submissions include a four-factor 

analysis for the facility and enforceable 

controls to reduce NOX emissions. 

Specifically, under the SAFO, the 

facility was provided the option to meet 

emissions limits by optimizing the 

operation of the boilers. However, 

should the facility not meet these 

emissions limits, SNCR must be 

installed, permitted, and made 

operational by June 30, 2025. With 

respect to Lava Beds National 

Monument in California, ODEQ 

determined that two facilities in Oregon 

potentially impact this Class I area. 

These facilities are Klamath 

Cogeneration Project and Collins 

Products, L.L.C. Klamath Cogeneration 

Project had a PSEL Q/d=8.69 and an 

actual Q/d=3.66, potential impact on 

this Class I area. Collins Products, L.L.C. 

had a PSEL Q/d=5.48 and an actual Q/ 

d=2.43, potential impact on this Class I 

area. As previously discussed regarding 

adequate existing measures, Klamath 

Cogeneration Project is already well 

controlled with existing SCR on all six 

combustion turbine units, as well as the 

recent addition of ultra-low NOX

burners on two of the units. Lastly, 

Oregon included a four-factor analysis 

for Collins Products, L.L.C. in its 

regional haze SIP. Based on this 

analysis, Oregon determined that 

existing controls were necessary for 

reasonable progress and that additional 

controls were not cost effective. 

Therefore, Oregon submitted permit 18– 

0013–TV–01 to ensure these controls are 

Federally enforceable and permanent. 

While the EPA did not independently 

conduct our own four-factor analyses on 

these sources, we are proposing to 

determine, based on Oregon’s 

application of a high cost-effectiveness 

threshold and the small Q/d based on 

actual emissions for two of the sources, 

that Oregon has satisfied the obligation 

under 40 CFR 51.308(f)(3)(ii)(B). We 

also note that Oregon conducted stateto-state consultation with California, 

Idaho, Nevada, Washington, and the 

WRAP states generally, and no 

disagreements under 40 CFR 

51.308(f)(2)(ii)(C) were identified by 

California or any other state. The EPA 

proposes to determine that Oregon has 

satisfied the applicable requirements of 

40 CFR 51.308(f)(3) relating to RPGs. 

G. Monitoring Strategy and Other 

Implementation Plan Requirements 

Section 51.308(f)(6) specifies that 

each comprehensive revision of a state’s 

regional haze SIP must contain or 

provide for certain elements, including 

monitoring strategies, emissions 

inventories, and any reporting, 

recordkeeping and other measures 

needed to assess and report on 

visibility. A main requirement of this 

section is for states with Class I areas to 

submit monitoring strategies for 

measuring, characterizing, and reporting 

on visibility impairment. Compliance 

with this requirement may be met 

through participation in the Interagency 

Monitoring of Protected Visual 

Environments (IMPROVE) network. 

Chapter 1.5.2 Monitoring strategy of 

Oregon’s SIP submission states, ‘‘Oregon 

will continue to participate in the 

IMPROVE monitoring network to 

measure, characterize and report aerosol 

monitoring data for long-term 

reasonable progress tracking. DEQ 

commits a portion of Oregon’s PM2.5

EPA funding to support the IMPROVE 

network. DEQ deems the IMPROVE 

network representative of conditions in 

all of Oregon’s Class 1 areas and would 

rely on the IMPROVE Steering 

Committee to advise states if conditions 

changed such that additional monitors 

were necessary.’’ 

Section 51.308(f)(6)(i) requires SIPs to 

provide for the establishment of any 

additional monitoring sites or 

equipment needed to assess whether 

reasonable progress goals to address 

regional haze for all mandatory Class I 

Federal areas within the state are being 

achieved. Regional haze data for Oregon 

Class I areas are collected by the 

IMPROVE monitoring stations shown in 

table 1 of this preamble. The monitoring 

stations are primarily operated by the 

U.S. Forest Service, except for the 

CRLA1 IMPROVE monitoring station 

which is operated and maintained by 

the National Parks Service. As noted in 

ODEQ’s monitoring strategy chapter, 

Oregon would rely on the IMPROVE 

Steering Committee to advise if 

conditions changed such that additional 

monitors were necessary. 

Section 51.308(f)(6)(ii) requires SIPs 

to provide for procedures by which 

monitoring data and other information 

are used in determining the contribution 

of emissions from within the state to 

regional haze visibility impairment at 

mandatory Class I Federal areas both 

within and outside the state. Oregon 

relied on the WRAP source 

apportionment modeling and the 

weighted emission potential (WEP) 

analysis to help discern the degree to 

which different sectors affect visibility 

in each Class I area. The source 

apportionment and WEP analysis are 

based on data from WRAP’s Technical 

Support System website 180 for the 

Round 2 regional haze analysis.181 We 

note that § 51.308(f)(6)(iii) does not 

apply to Oregon, because it has Class I 

areas. 

Section 51.308(f)(6)(iv) requires the 

SIP to provide for the reporting of all 

visibility monitoring data to the 

Administrator at least annually for each 

Class I area in the state. As noted in the 

prior paragraphs, the IMPROVE 

monitoring stations in Oregon are 

operated and maintained by the U.S. 

Forest Service and the National Park 

Service. The monitoring strategy for 

Oregon relies upon the continued 

availability of the IMPROVE network. 

Oregon supports the continued 

operation of the IMPROVE network by 

committing a portion of Oregon’s PM2.5

EPA funding to support the IMPROVE 

network. 

Section 51.308(f)(6)(v) requires SIPs to 

provide for a statewide inventory of 

emissions of pollutants that are 

reasonably anticipated to cause or 

contribute to visibility impairment, 

including emissions for the most recent 

year for which data are available and 

estimates of future projected emissions. 

It also requires a commitment to update 

the inventory periodically. Oregon 

provides for emissions inventories and 

estimates for future projected emissions 

by participating in the WRAP regional 

planning organization (RPO) and 

complying with the EPA’s Air 

Emissions Reporting Rule (AERR). In 40 

CFR part 51, subpart A, the AERR 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
13648 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 37 / Friday, February 23, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

182April 29, 2022 Oregon SIP submission, 

Chapter 5.1 Reasonable progress goals for Class I 

Areas. 

183April 29, 2022 Oregon SIP submission, 

Chapters 2.1. Most Impaired Days and 2.2. Clearest 

Days. 

184April 29, 2022 Oregon SIP submission, 

Chapter 5 Uniform Rate of Progress. 

185Oregon RH Emission Trends.xlsx. 

186https://www.epa.gov/air-emissionsinventories/air-pollutant-emissions-trends-data. 

requires states to submit updated 

emissions inventories for criteria 

pollutants to the EPA’s Emissions 

Inventory System (EIS) every three 

years. The emission inventory data is 

used to develop the NEI, which 

provides for, among other things, a 

triennial state-wide inventory of 

pollutants that are reasonably 

anticipated to cause or contribute to 

visibility impairment. 

Chapter 2.3. Emissions Inventory 

Analysis of Oregon’s submissions 

include tables of NEI data. The source 

categories of the emissions inventories 

included are: (1) point sources; (2) 

nonpoint sources; (3) non-road mobile 

sources; and (4) on-road mobile sources. 

Oregon included NEI emissions 

inventories based on 2017, the most 

recent year for which data are available. 

Oregon observed that statewide NOX

emissions are primarily from mobile 

sources, at about 80% of the inventory, 

with another 13% of the inventory 

coming from fuel combustion. The 2017 

SO2 inventory is largely overwhelmed 

by PGE Boardman’s coal-fired power 

plant in Morrow County. With the 

closing of the coal-fired operations in 

October 2020, those SO2 emissions have 

been eliminated, and the remainder of 

the emissions in the inventory come 

from fuel combustion and prescribed 

fires. For particulate matter, major 

source sectors include prescribed fire 

and agriculture, comprising 77% of the 

anthropogenic inventory. 

Section 51.308(f)(6)(v) also requires 

states to include estimates of future 

projected emissions and include a 

commitment to update the inventory 

periodically. Oregon relied on the 

WRAP 2028 emissions projections for 

WRAP states. WRAP completed two 

2028 projected emissions modeling 

cases—a 2028 base case that considers 

only on-the-books controls and a 2028 

control case that considers 

implementation of the controls based on 

ODEQ’s review of four-factor analyses 

submitted by the screened in sources.182

The EPA proposes to find that Oregon 

has met the requirements of 40 CFR 

51.308(f)(6) as described in the prior 

paragraphs, including through its 

continued participation in the 

IMPROVE network and the WRAP RPO 

and its on-going compliance with the 

AERR, and that no further elements are 

necessary at this time for Oregon to 

assess and report on visibility pursuant 

to 40 CFR 51.308(f)(6)(vi). 

H. Requirements for Periodic Reports 

Describing Progress Towards the 

Reasonable Progress Goals 

Section 51.308(f)(5) requires that 

periodic comprehensive revisions of 

states’ regional haze plans also address 

the progress report requirements of 40 

CFR 51.308(g)(1) through (5). The 

purpose of these requirements is to 

evaluate progress towards the applicable 

reasonable progress goals for each Class 

I area within the state and each Class I 

area outside the state that may be 

affected by emissions from within that 

state. Sections 51.308(g)(1) and (2) apply 

to all states and require a description of 

the status of implementation of all 

measures included in a state’s first 

implementation period regional haze 

plan and a summary of the emission 

reductions achieved through 

implementation of those measures. 

Section 51.308(g)(3) applies only to 

states with Class I areas within their 

borders and requires such states to 

assess current visibility conditions, 

changes in visibility relative to baseline 

(2000–2004) visibility conditions, and 

changes in visibility conditions relative 

to the period addressed in the first 

implementation period progress report. 

Section 51.308(g)(4) applies to all states 

and requires an analysis tracking 

changes in emissions of pollutants 

contributing to visibility impairment 

from all sources and sectors since the 

period addressed by the first 

implementation period progress report. 

This provision further specifies the year 

or years through which the analysis 

must extend depending on the type of 

source and the platform through which 

its emission information is reported. 

Finally, 40 CFR 51.308(g)(5), which also 

applies to all states, requires an 

assessment of any significant changes in 

anthropogenic emissions within or 

outside the state have occurred since the 

period addressed by the first 

implementation period progress report, 

including whether such changes were 

anticipated and whether they have 

limited or impeded expected progress 

towards reducing emissions and 

improving visibility. 

Oregon’s submission describes the 

status of measures of the long-term 

strategy from the first implementation 

period. The most significant was the 

amendment of the PGE Boardman Title 

V permit to include conditions requiring 

BART control installation and to 

permanently cease burning coal in the 

main boiler by December 31, 2020. In 

Oregon’s 2017 5-year progress report, 

ODEQ reported that in 2011, PGE 

Boardman installed low NOX burners 

with a modified over-fire air system and 

in 2014, BART SO2 controls, consisting 

of a dry sorbent injection (DSI) system. 

PGE Boardman was meeting BART NOX

and SO2 emission limitations. A second 

BART SO2 emission limit was required 

in 2018 and the coal-fired facility closed 

permanently by December 2020. 

Chapter 2.1.2 Emission Reductions 

Achieved by SIP Measures of Oregon’s 

SIP submissions show the most recent 

2017 NEI data for sources subject to 

control in the first implementation 

period. Notably, SO2 emissions declined 

dramatically with the 2020 closure of 

the PGE Boardman coal-fired power 

plant. The EPA proposes to find that 

Oregon has met the requirements of 40 

CFR 51.308(g)(1) and (2) because its SIP 

submissions describe the measures 

included in the long-term strategy from 

the first implementation period, as well 

as the status of their implementation 

and the emission reductions achieved 

through such implementation. 

Oregon’s SIP submissions included 

summaries of the visibility conditions 

and the trend of the 5-year averages 

through 2018 at Class I area in the 

State.183 As shown in table 2 of this 

preamble, the SIP submissions included 

the 5-year baseline (2000–2004) 

visibility conditions for the clearest and 

most impaired days. The SIP 

submissions also included the current 5- 

year status (2014–2018) for the clearest 

and most impaired days. The SIP 

submissions also illustrated in Figures 

5.3 to 5.8 the visibility metrics levels at 

Oregon Class I areas, including the 5- 

year rolling average for the clearest and 

most impaired days.184 The EPA 

therefore proposes to find that Oregon 

has satisfied the requirements of 40 CFR 

51.308(g)(3). 

Pursuant to § 51.308(g)(4), as part of 

the November 22, 2023 supplement to 

the submission,185 Oregon provided a 

summary of emissions of NOX, SO2, 

PM10, PM2.5, VOCs, and NH3 from all 

sources and activities, including from 

point, nonpoint, non-road mobile, and 

on-road mobile sources, for the time 

period from 2002 to 2021 (the most 

recent air pollutant emissions trends 

data available in the NEI at the time).186

Oregon also included a detailed analysis 

of SO2, NOX, PM10 emissions for 2017 

in the April 29, 2022 submission. 

The reductions achieved by Oregon 

emission control measures are seen in 

the emissions inventory. Based on 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 37 / Friday, February 23, 2024 / Proposed Rules 13649 

187April 29, 2022 Oregon SIP submission, 

Chapter 2.3. Emissions Inventory Analysis. 

188Oregon RH Emission Trends.xlsx. 

189See ‘‘019_5.1.1 GovDelivery.BulletinDetail

Report.8.27.21’’ included in the docket for this 

action. 

Oregon’s SIP submissions, and the 

supplemental information in the 

‘‘Oregon RH Emission Trends’’ 

spreadsheet included in the docket for 

this action, NOX emissions have 

continuously declined in Oregon from 

2002 through 2021, especially in the 

point, nonroad, and onroad mobile 

sectors. NOX emissions are expected to 

continue to decrease as fleet turnover 

occurs and older more polluting 

vehicles and equipment are replaced by 

newer, cleaner ones. During that period, 

onroad sources contributed almost half 

of the emissions at 46%, followed by 

nonroad sources contributing 29%, and 

NEI point and nonpoint sources 

contributing 14%. Emissions of SO2

have shown a significant decline in 

Oregon over the period 2002 to 2021, 

particularly in the point, and onroad 

and nonroad mobile sectors. NEI point 

and nonpoint emissions have declined 

85%. Onroad SO2 mobile source 

emissions have declined 96% and 

nonroad sources have declined 97%. 

These reductions are due in part to 

closure of the PGE Boardman coal-fired 

power plant, as well as low sulfur fuel 

regulations. PM10 emissions steadily 

decreased in the point, nonpoint, 

onroad, and nonroad categories for the 

period from 2002 to 2021. NEI point and 

nonpoint PM10 emissions declined 62%. 

Onroad mobile source emissions 

declined 29% and nonroad sources 

declined 68% for PM10. PM2.5 emissions 

declined 49% for the period from 2002 

to 2021. Onroad mobile source 

emissions declined 63% and nonroad 

sources declined 68% for PM2.5 due to 

Federal engine standards. VOC 

emissions declined 65% for the period 

2002 to 2021 in part due to Federal new 

engine standards for onroad and 

nonroad vehicles and equipment, the 

State low emission vehicle programs, 

and SIP-approved area source rules. 

Ammonia (NH3) emissions declined 

34% for the period 2002 to 2021, with 

onroad mobile source emissions 

declining 30% due to Federal engine 

standards. 

The EPA is proposing to find that the 

requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(g)(4) are 

satisfied by providing emissions 

information for NOX, SO2, PM10, PM2.5, 

VOCs, and NH3 broken down by type of 

source. The emissions data in the SIP 

submission 187 and the supplemental 

trend information 188 support the 

assessment that anthropogenic hazecausing pollutant emissions in Oregon 

have decreased during the reporting 

period and that changes in emissions 

have not limited or impeded progress in 

reducing pollutant emissions and 

improving visibility. The EPA is 

proposing to find that the requirements 

of 40 CFR 51.308(g)(5) are met. 

I. Requirements for State and Federal 

Land Manager Coordination 

Section 169A(d) of the Clean Air Act 

requires states to consult with Federal 

Land Managers (FLMs) before holding 

the public hearing on a proposed 

regional haze SIP, and to include a 

summary of the Federal Land Managers’ 

conclusions and recommendations in 

the notice to the public. In addition, 40 

CFR 51.308(i)(2)’s Federal Land 

Manager consultation provision requires 

a state to provide FLMs with an 

opportunity for consultation that is 

early enough in the state’s policy 

analyses of its emission reduction 

obligation so that information and 

recommendations provided by the FLMs 

can meaningfully inform the state’s 

decisions on its long-term strategy. If the 

consultation has taken place at least 120 

days before a public hearing or public 

comment period, the opportunity for 

consultation will be deemed early 

enough, Regardless, the opportunity for 

consultation must be provided at least 

sixty days before a public hearing or 

public comment period at the state 

level. Section 51.308(i)(2) also provides 

two substantive topics on which FLMs 

must be provided an opportunity to 

discuss with states: assessment of 

visibility impairment in any Class I area 

and recommendations on the 

development and implementation of 

strategies to address visibility 

impairment. Section 51.308(i)(3) 

requires states, in developing their 

implementation plans, to include a 

description of how they addressed FLM 

comments. 

Chapter 6.3.2 Consultations with 

Federal Land Managers of ODEQ’s April 

29, 2022, submission discusses Oregon’s 

consultation and coordination with the 

FLMs. The FLMs and ODEQ are 

partners in the WRAP, and as partners, 

engaged early in inter-state coordination 

calls and WRAP technical support 

system development calls. ODEQ 

provided a draft of the regional haze 

plan to the U.S. Forest Service and 

National Park Service on May 5, 2021. 

Additionally, ODEQ met with the 

National Park Service on January 9, 

2020, September 25, 2020, February 19, 

2021, May 27, 2021, June 30, 2021, and 

July 15, 2021, to discuss progress and 

provide updates on the regional haze 

plan. On July 23, 2021, ODEQ made all 

requested files available to National 

Parks Service on a Google drive, 

including an updated summary 

spreadsheet of ODEQ’s findings and 

tentative agreements with facilities 

about control installation or emission 

reduction. ODEQ also met with the U.S. 

Forest Service on August 21, 2020, 

February 24, 2021, and May 27, 2021. 

ODEQ received U.S. Forest Service 

written comments on June 23, 2021. 

ODEQ received comments from the 

National Park service in several 

communications between April 2 and 

July 15, 2021. ODEQ summarized the 

dates and topics of the National Park 

Service comments received in table 6– 

1 of the April 29, 2022, submission. 

Chapter 6.3.4 Federal Land Manager 

Comments and DEQ Responses contains 

the FLM consultation comments and 

ODEQ responses, which were provided 

to the public as part of the comment 

period on the draft SIP. We have 

determined that Oregon provided 

adequate opportunity for FLM 

consultation, consistent with 40 CFR 

51.308(i)(3). 

On August 27, 2021, Oregon provided 

public notice on the draft SIP 

submission and held a public hearing 

on October 27, 2021. ODEQ notified the 

public, interested parties, the Federal 

Land Managers, air quality contacts 

from other states and regions, and the 

EPA.189 ODEQ accepted written public 

comment on the proposed rulemaking 

until 4 p.m. on November 1, 2021, after 

granting a 30-day extension from the 

original end date for public comment. 

Similarly, as part of the November 22, 

2023, supplement to the regional haze 

SIP, ODEQ provided the FLMs a 60-day 

consultation opportunity and included 

responses to the FLM’s comments in the 

draft SIP supplement that went out for 

public comment on September 15, 2023. 

For the reasons stated in the prior 

paragraphs, the EPA proposes to find 

that Oregon has satisfied the 

requirements under 40 CFR 51.308(i) to 

consult with the Federal Land Managers 

on its regional haze SIP for the second 

implementation period. 

V. Proposed Action 

The EPA is proposing to approve the 

Oregon SIP revision submitted on April 

29, 2022, as supplemented on November 

22, 2023, as satisfying the regional haze 

requirements for the second 

implementation period contained in 40 

CFR 51.308(f). 

The EPA is proposing to approve and 

incorporate by reference in 40 CFR 

52.1970(c), Table 2—EPA Approved 

Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR) the 

following updates to Division 223 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
13650 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 37 / Friday, February 23, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

Regional Haze Rules, state effective July 

26, 2021: 

• 340–223–0010 Purpose, for 

maintaining reasonable progress and 

other requirements associated with 

Oregon’s implementation of the Federal 

Regional Haze Rule; 

• 340–223–0020 Definitions, 

updating this section to account for 

revised program requirements between 

the first regional haze implementation 

period and the second implementation 

period; 

• 340–223–0100 Screening 

Methodology for Sources for Round II of 

Regional Haze, establishing the criteria 

for selecting sources for review under 

the regional haze program; 

• 340–223–0110 Options for 

Compliance with Round II of Regional 

Haze, establishing requirements for 

sources and compliance options under 

the regional haze program; 

• 340–223–0120 Four Factor 

Analysis, establishing the requirements 

for assessing potential controls for 

reasonable progress under the regional 

haze program; and 

• 340–223–0130 Final Orders 

Ordering Compliance with Round II of 

Regional Haze, establishing ODEQ’s 

unilateral order authority and 

procedures for contested case hearings 

under the regional haze program. 

We are proposing to remove from 

incorporation by reference in 40 CFR 

52.1970(c), Table 2—EPA Approved 

Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR) the 

outdated provisions from the first 

regional haze implementation period 

contained in sections 340–223–0030, 

340–223–0040, 340–223–0050, 340– 

223–0060, 340–223–0070, and 340–223– 

0080, state-effective December 10, 2010, 

because the site-specific requirements 

contained in those revoked sections are 

no longer relevant. Specifically, the 

Portland General Electric (PGE) coalfired power plant in Boardman ceased 

operation on October 15, 2020, pursuant 

to the requirements of the regional haze 

plan for the first implementation period 

as described in section IV.E. of this 

preamble. 

In addition to the regulatory 

provisions, the EPA is proposing to 

approve and incorporate by reference in 

40 CFR 52.1970(d), EPA Approved 

Oregon Source-Specific Requirements 

the source-specific requirements in table 

7 of this preamble as part of Oregon’s 

long-term strategy for regional haze. 

TABLE 7—REGIONAL HAZE LONG-TERM STRATEGY SOURCE-SPECIFIC PROVISIONS

Name of source Permit or order number 

State 

effective 

date 

Explanations 

Ash Grove Cement Company ............................... Permit No. 01–0029–TV–01 ................................ 10/16/2020 Permit conditions (3), (9) through (11), (14), (16) 

through (28), (42), (45) through (76), (84) 

through (97), (99), (100), and (102) only. 

Biomass One, L.P ................................................. Order No ..............................................................

15–0159 ...............................................................

8/9/2021 

Boise Cascade Wood Products, LLC—Elgin 

Complex.

Order No. 31–0006 ............................................. 8/12/2021 

Boise Cascade Wood Products, LLC—Elgin 

Complex.

Permit No. 31–0006–TV–01 ................................ 12/5/2016 Permit condition (56), (59) through (75), (77), 

and (78) only. 

Boise Cascade Wood Products, LLC—Medford .. Order No. 15–0004 ............................................. 8/9/2021 

Boise Cascade Wood Products, LLC—Medford .. Permit No. 15–0004–TV–01 ................................ 2/20/2020 Permit conditions (71), (72), and (74) through 

(88) only. 

Cascade Pacific Pulp, LLC—Halsey Pulp Mill ..... Order No. 22–3501–A2 ....................................... 8/25/2023 

Cascades Tissue Group: A Division of Cascades 

Holding US Inc.

Order No. 05–1849 ............................................. 8/18/2021 

Cascades Tissue Group: A Division of Cascades 

Holding US Inc.

Permit No. 05–1849–TV–01 ................................ 04/6/2018 Permit conditions (24), (25), (27), and (29) 

through (43) only. 

Collins Products, L.L.C ......................................... Permit No. 18–0013–TV–01 ................................ 1/26/2015 Permit conditions (3), (14) through (16), (19) 

through (24), (34) through (42), (63) through 

(75), and (77) only. 

Columbia Forest Products, Inc ............................. Permit No. 18–0014–TV–01 ................................ 9/26/2017 Permit conditions (3), (8) through (20), (22), 

(23), (34) through (52), (58) through (66), 

(67—introductory paragraph), (67.a), (67.b.iii) 

through (67.b.v), and (68) through (70). 

EVRAZ Inc ............................................................ Order No. 26–1865 ............................................. 8/9/2021 

Gas Transmission Northwest LLC—Compressor 

Station 12.

Order No. 09–0084 ............................................. 8/9/2021 

Gas Transmission Northwest LLC—Compressor 

Station 12.

Permit No. 09–0084–TV–01 ................................ 8/10/2017 Permit conditions (32) through (34) and (37) 

through (50) only. 

Gas Transmission Northwest LLC—Compressor 

Station 13.

Order No. 03–2729–A1 ....................................... 6/1/2022 OAH CASE NO. 2021–ABC–04835; 

DEQ CASE NO. AQ/RH–HQ–2021–140 

Gas Transmission Northwest LLC—Compressor 

Station 13.

Permit No. 18–0096–TV–01 ................................ 7/11/2018 Permit conditions (24) through (26), (32) through 

(35), and (37) through (44) only. 

Georgia-Pacific—Toledo LLC ............................... Order No. 21–0005, Amendment No. 21–005– 

A1.

12/5/2022 

Georgia Pacific—Wauna Mill ................................ Order No. 04–0004, Amendment No. 04–004– 

A1.

12/5/2022 

Gilchrist Forest Products ...................................... Permit No. 18–0005–TV–01 ................................ 7/25/2023 Permit conditions (4), (5), (9), (10), (12) through 

(19), (41) through (43), (45) through (59), and 

(61) only. 

International Paper—Springfield ........................... Order No. 208850 ............................................... 8/9/2021 

International Paper—Springfield ........................... Permit No. 208850 .............................................. 10/4/2016 Permit conditions (186) through (189), (192), 

and (198) only. 

JELD–WEN ........................................................... Permit No. 18–0006–TV–01 ................................ 12/01/2021 Permit conditions (55) through (77) and (80) 

through (87) only. 

JELD–WEN ........................................................... Permit No. 18–0006–TV–01, Addendum No. 1 .. 8/11/2022 Permit conditions 53 and 53b only. 

Kingsford Manufacturing Company ...................... Permit No. 204402, addendum No. 2 ................. 11/15/2021 Permit conditions (71) through (73) and (75) 

through (91) only. 

Klamath Energy LLC—Klamath Cogeneration ..... Permit No. 18–0003–TV–01 ................................ 6/12/2017 Permit conditions (10) through (16), (18), (24) 

through (28), (32) through (37), (39) through 

(49), (51), (52), and (54), and (56) only. 

Klamath Energy LLC—Klamath Cogeneration ..... Permit No. 18–0003–TV–01, Addendum No. 1 .. 12/8/2020 Permit conditions (3.a), (3.b), (61.l), and 

(66.b.xii). 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 37 / Friday, February 23, 2024 / Proposed Rules 13651 

TABLE 7—REGIONAL HAZE LONG-TERM STRATEGY SOURCE-SPECIFIC PROVISIONS—Continued 

Name of source Permit or order number 

State 

effective 

date 

Explanations 

Northwest Pipeline LLC—Baker Compressor Station.Order No. 01–0038, amendment 01–0038–A1 ... 2/1/2022 

Northwest Pipeline LLC—Baker Compressor Station.Permit No. 01–0038–TV–01 ................................ 1/12/2017 Permit conditions (27) through (30) and (32) 

through (43) only. 

Northwest Pipeline LLC—Oregon City Compressor Station.Order No. 03–2729, amendment 03–2729–A1 ... 2/1/2022 

Northwest Pipeline LLC—Oregon City Compressor Station.Permit No. 03–2729–TV–01 ................................ 2/19/2013 Permit conditions (7), (19), (25) through (27), 

(38), (41), (45), and (50) through (65). 

Ochoco Lumber Company .................................... Permit No. 12–0032–ST–01 ................................ 6/25/2019 Permit conditions (1.1) through (1.3), (1.6), (2.1) 

through (2.5), (4.1) through (4.4), and (5.1) 

through (6.2). 

Owens-Brockway Glass Container Inc ................. Order No. 26–1876 ............................................. 8/9/2021 

Owens-Brockway Glass Container Inc ................. Permit No. 26–1876–TV–01 ................................ 12/10/2019 Permit conditions (33) through (48) only. 

Pacific Wood Laminates, Inc ................................ Permit No. 08–0003–TV–01 ................................ 12/30/2019 Permit conditions (3), (9), (10), (12) through 

(19), (26) through (41), (56) through (71), and 

(73) only. 

PGE Beaver Plant/Port Westward I Plant ............ Order No. 05–2606 ............................................. 8/10/2021 

PGE Beaver Plant/Port Westward I Plant ............ Permit No. 05–2520 ............................................ 01/21/2009 Permit conditions (62) through (66), (68) through 

(78), (79.a), (80) through (83), (85), (87), 

(88.a), (89.d), (89.f), and (89.i) only. 

Roseburg Forest Products—Dillard ...................... Order No. 10–0025 ............................................. 8/9/2021 

Roseburg Forest Products—Medford MDF .......... Permit No. 15–0073–TV–01 ................................ 08/18/2022 Permit conditions (44) through (46), (48) through 

(61), (63), and (64) only. 

Roseburg Forest Products—Riddle Plywood ....... Permit No. 10–0078–TV–01 ................................ 07/31/2019 Permit conditions (65), (66), (68) through (81) 

only. 

Swanson Group Mfg. LLC .................................... Permit No. 10–0045–TV–01 ................................ 06/12/2017 Permit conditions (4), (10) through (24), (25—introductory paragraph), (25.a) through (25.c), 

(27) through (40), (50) through (64), and (66) 

only. 

Timber Products Co. Limited Partnership ............ Permit No. 15–0025–TV–01 ................................ 6/23/2022 Permit conditions (70) through (72) and (74) 

through (90) only. 

Willamette Falls Paper Company ......................... Order No. 03–2145 ............................................. 8/9/2021 

Willamette Falls Paper Company ......................... Permit No. 03–2145–TV–01 ................................ 2/24/2016 Permit conditions (40) through (55) only. 

Woodgrain Millwork LLC—Particleboard .............. Permit No. 31–0002–TV–01 ................................ 5/24/2021 Permit conditions (3), (12) through (21), (22—introductory paragraph), (22.a), (22.e), (22.f), 

(23), (25) though (28), (30) through (35), (37), 

(39) through (41), (43), (44), (46), (48), (49), 

(51) through (72), (80) through (94), and (96) 

only. 

VI. Incorporation by Reference 

In this document, the EPA is 

proposing to include regulatory text in 

an EPA final rule that includes 

incorporation by reference. In 

accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 

51.5, the EPA is proposing to 

incorporate by reference the regulatory 

and source-specific provisions 

described in section V. of this preamble. 

The EPA has made, and will continue 

to make, these materials generally 

available through https://

www.regulations.gov and at the EPA 

Region 10 Office (please contact the 

person identified in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section of this 

preamble for more information). 

The EPA is also proposing to remove 

from incorporation by reference the 

regulatory provisions described in 

section V. of this preamble. 

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 Clean Air Act and 

applicable Federal regulations. 42 

U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, 

in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA’s 

role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this 

action merely proposes to approve 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 Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993) and 14094 (88 FR 

21879, April 11, 2023); 

• 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 subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) 

because it approves a state program; 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); and 

• 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. 

In addition, this proposed action, 

pertaining to the Oregon regional haze 

SIP submissions for the second planning 

period, would not be approved to apply 

on any Indian reservation land or in any 

other area where the EPA or an Indian 

Tribe has demonstrated that a Tribe has 

jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian 

country, the rulemaking would not have 

Tribal implications and would not 

impose substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt Tribal law as 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
13652 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 37 / Friday, February 23, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000). 

Consistent with EPA policy, the EPA 

provided a consultation opportunity to 

Tribes located in Oregon, in letters 

dated May 4, 2022, included in the 

docket for this action. 

Executive Order 12898 (Federal 

Actions to Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629, 

February 16, 1994) directs Federal 

agencies to identify and address 

‘‘disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects’’ 

of their actions on minority populations 

and low-income populations to the 

greatest extent practicable and 

permitted by law. The EPA defines 

environmental justice (EJ) as ‘‘the fair 

treatment and meaningful involvement 

of all people regardless of race, color, 

national origin, or income with respect 

to the development, implementation, 

and enforcement of environmental laws, 

regulations, and policies.’’ The EPA 

further defines the term fair treatment to 

mean that ‘‘no group of people should 

bear a disproportionate burden of 

environmental harms and risks, 

including those resulting from the 

negative environmental consequences of 

industrial, governmental, and 

commercial operations or programs and 

policies.’’ The Oregon Department of 

Environmental Quality did evaluate 

environmental justice considerations as 

part of its SIP submittal; the CAA and 

applicable implementing regulations 

neither prohibit nor require such an 

evaluation. The EPA did not perform an 

EJ analysis and did not consider EJ in 

this action. Consideration of EJ is not 

required as part of this action, and there 

is no information in the record 

inconsistent with the stated goal of 

Executive Order 12898 of achieving 

environmental justice for people of 

color, low-income populations, and 

Indigenous peoples. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur 

oxides, Volatile organic compounds. 

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

Dated: February 14, 2024. 

Casey Sixkiller, 

Regional Administrator, Region 10. 

[FR Doc. 2024–03529 Filed 2–22–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

Administration for Children and 

Families 

45 CFR Part 1355 

RIN 0970–AC98 

Adoption and Foster Care Analysis 

and Reporting System 

AGENCY: Children’s Bureau (CB), 

Administration on Children, Youth and 

Families (ACYF), Administration for 

Children and Families (ACF), U.S. 

Department of Health and Human 

Services (HHS). 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: ACF proposes to amend the 

Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and 

Reporting System (AFCARS) regulations 

that require title IV–E agencies to collect 

and report data to ACF on children who 

enter out-of-home care, their providers, 

and children who have a title IV–E 

adoption or guardianship assistance 

agreement to collect additional data 

related to Indian children. 

DATES: In order to be considered, we 

must receive written comments on or 

before April 23, 2024. 

ADDRESSES: ACF encourages the public 

to submit comments electronically to 

ensure they are received in a timely 

manner. Please be sure to include 

identifying information on 

correspondence. To download an 

electronic version of the proposed rule, 

please go to https://

www.regulations.gov/. You may submit 

comments, identified by docket number 

and/or RIN number, by any of the 

following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

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

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Email: CBComments@acf.hhs.gov. 

Include docket number and/or RIN 

number in subject line of the message. 

Instructions: All submissions received 

must include the agency name and 

docket number or Regulatory 

Information Number (RIN) for this 

rulemaking. All comments received will 

be posted without change to 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided. 

Docket: Go to the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal at https://

www.regulations.gov for access to the 

rulemaking docket, including any 

background documents and the plainlanguage summary of the proposed rule 

of not more than 100 words in length 

required by the Providing 

Accountability Through Transparency 

Act of 2023. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joe 

Bock, The Children’s Bureau, (202) 205– 

8618. Telecommunications Relay users 

may dial 711 first. Email inquiries to 

cbcomments@acf.hhs.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Statutory Authority To Issue NPRM 

II. Background on AFCARS and Proposed 

Rule Development 

III. Implementation Timeframe 

IV. Public Participation 

V. Section-by-Section Discussion of 

Regulatory Provisions 

VI. Regulatory Impact Analysis 

VII. Tribal Consultation Statement 

I. Statutory Authority To Issue NPRM 

This NPRM is published under the 

authority granted to the Secretary of 

Health and Human Services (HHS) by 

section 1102 of the Social Security Act 

(the Act), 42 U.S.C. 1302. Section 1102 

of the Act authorizes HHS to publish 

regulations, not inconsistent with the 

Act, as may be necessary for the 

efficient administration of the functions 

for which HHS is responsible under the 

Act. Section 479 of the Act (42 U.S.C. 

679) mandates HHS regulate a data 

collection system for national adoption 

and foster care data. Section 474(f) of 

the Act (42 U.S.C. 674(f)) requires HHS 

to impose penalties for non-compliant 

AFCARS data. 

II. Background on AFCARS and 

Proposed Rule Development 

Statute 

AFCARS is authorized by section 479 

of the Act (42 U.S.C. 679), which 

mandates that HHS regulate a data 

collection system for national adoption 

and foster care data. The regulation at 

45 CFR 1356.60(d) and the statute at 42 

U.S.C. 674(a)(3) detail cost-sharing 

requirements for the Federal and nonFederal share of data collection system 

initiation, implementation, and 

operation. A title IV–E agency may 

claim Federal Financial Participation 

(FFP) at the rate of 50 percent for costs 

of a data collection system specified by 

section 479 of the Act (42 U.S.C. 679). 

AFCARS data is used for a variety of 

requirements, including but not limited 

to, providing national statistics on the 

child welfare population, budgeting, 

providing reports to Congress, and 

monitoring compliance with the title 

IV–B and IV–E requirements. Title IV– 

E agencies must submit data files on a 

semi-annual basis to ACF. AFCARS 

regulations were first published in 1993 

and states began submitting data in 

fiscal year (FY) 1995. AFCARS is 

regulated at 45 CFR 1355.41-.47. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1